United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/R-97/506
December 1999
&EPA
Geotech, Inc.
Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification
System
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION !
-------
-------
EPA/540/R-97/506
December 1999
Geotech, Inc.
Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program under Contract No. 68-C5-0037.
This document has been subjected to EPA's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet these mandates, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the EPA center for investigation of
technical and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the NRMRL research program is on methods for the prevention and control
of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor air
pollution. The goals of this research effort are to catalyze development and implementation of
innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information
needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information
transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the NRMRL strategic, long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by the EPA Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
111
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
A Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) technology demonstration was conducted in
February and March 1997 to evaluate the potential applicability and effectiveness of the Geotech
Development Corporation (Geotech) Cold Top ex-situ vitrification technology on chromium-
contaminated soils. The demonstration was conducted using the vitrification furnace at Geotech's pilot
plant in Niagara Falls, New York.
Chromium-contaminated soil from two state Superfund sites in the Jersey City, New Jersey area was
collected, crushed, sieved, dried, mixed with carbon and sand, and shipped to the Geotech pilot plant.
The SITE demonstration consisted of one vitrification test run on soil from each site. During each test,
solid and gas samples were collected from various locations in the Cold Top system and analyzed for
several chemical and physical parameters. In addition, process monitoring data were recorded. During
the demonstration, the Cold Top system treated about 10,000 pounds of soil contaminated with trivalent
and hexavalent chromium and other metals.
One primary and five secondary objectives were identified for the SITE demonstration. The primary
objective was to develop test data to evaluate whether waste and product streams from the Cold Top
vitrification system pilot plant were capable of meeting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definitions of a nonhazardous waste, based on the
stream's leachable chromium content. Secondary objectives were to determine the following: (1)
partitioning of chromium and hexavalent chromium from the contaminated soil into various waste and
product streams; (2) the ability of the vitrified product to meet New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) criteria for use as fill material (such as road construction aggregate); (3) the system's
ability to meet applicable compliance regulations for air emissions of dioxins, furans, trace metals,
particulates, and hydrogen chloride; (4) uncontrolled air emissions of the oxides of nitrogen, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and total hydrocarbons from the vitrification unit; and (5) projected operating
costs of the technology per ton of soil.
Observational demonstration results showed that the Cold Top system vitrified chromium-contaminated
soil from the two New Jersey sites, yielding a product meeting RCRA toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) standards. From soil excavated at one of the New Jersey sites, the system yielded a
potentially recyclable metallic product referred to as "ferrofurnace bottoms" that also met the RCRA
-------
TCLP chromium standard. Demonstration results also showed that the chromium content of the vitrified
products did not differ significantly from that of the untreated soils, but that the baghouse dusts were
higher in chromium content than the untreated soils. Hexavalent chromium concentrations in the
untreated soil were generally not detected (reduced at least two to three orders of magnitude) in the
vitrified product and ferrofurnace bottoms. The hexavalent chromium concentration in the baghouse dust
was about the same as that in the untreated soil.
Results of emissions modeling indicate that the concentration of metals in stack emissions depend on
soil characteristics, the APCS, and detection limits of various analytes. Analysis of operating costs
indicates that Cold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to that treated during the SITE
demonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal costs and potential
cred its for sale of the vitrified product.
The results of all sample analyses and quality assurance and quality control data from the SITE
demonstration were evaluated with respect to the project objectives specified by the quality assurance
project plan (QAPP). The conclusions of the demonstration are being reported as observational,
meaning that although the authors feel the conclusions are supported, some data are not statistically
valid at the levels specified in the original data quality objectives.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
NOTICE ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE SITE PROGRAM ................................................. 1
1 .2 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT .................... 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................. 3
1.4 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION ... ...................................... 4
1.5 KEY CONTACTS [[[ 5
2.0 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS ........................................ 7
2.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................... 7
2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment .......... 7
2.1 .2 Compliance with ARARs ................................... 9
2.1 .3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ...................... 9
2.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ..... 9
2.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness .................................. 10
2.1.6 Implementability ......................................... 10
2.1.7 Costs ................................................. 10
2.1.8 State Acceptance ........................................ 11
2. 1 .9 Community Acceptance ...................... ............. 1 1
2.2 TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE REGARDING ARARs ................... 11
2.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act ............................................ 12
2.2.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act .................... 15
2.2.3 Clean Air Act ...... ....................................... 17
2.2.4 Toxic Substances Control Act ............................... 18
2.2.5 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements ..... 18
2.3 OPERABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................. 18
2.4 APPLICABLE WASTES ............................................... 19
2.5 KEY FEATURES OF THE COLD TOP EX SITU VITRIFICATION SYSTEM .... 19
2.6 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT .............. 21
2.7 MATERIALS-HANDLING REQUIREMENTS ............................. 21
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 23
3.1 INTRODUCTION 23
3.2 ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS 25
3.3 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .................................25
3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs 26
3-3-2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 27
3.3.3 Capital Costs 28
3.3.4 Fixed Costs [ 28
3.3.5 Labor Costs 28
3.3.6 Materials Costs 28
3.3.7 Utilities Costs 29
3.3.8 Disposal Costs 29
3.3.9 Transportation Costs 29
3.3.10 Analytical Costs 30
3-3-11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs 30
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs 3 j
3.4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 31
3-4-1 Total Cost for a Typical Site under Three Scenarios 31
3.4.2 Cost Breakdown by Category . . 31
3-4.3 Cost Sensitivity to Electricity Rates 31
4.0 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS 35
4.1 DEMONSTRATION OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH 35
4.2 DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 39
4-2.1 Predemonstration Activities 40
4.2.2 Demonstration Activities 40
4.3 SAMPLING PROGRAM 41
4-3.1 Soil Dryer Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S4) 41
4-3.2 Carbon Additive (Sampling Location S5) 41
4.3.3 Sand Additive (Sampling Location S6) 42
4.3.4 Dried, Blended Soil Mixture (Sampling Location S7) 42
4-3-5 Vitrification Furnace Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S8) 42
4-3.6 Stack Gas (Sampling Location S13 and S9) 44
4.3.6.1 Sampling Location S13 - Vitrification Hood
Exhaust - APCS Inlet 44
4.3.6.2 Sampling Location S9A and B - APCS Outlet 44
via
-------
Section
CONTENTS (Continued)
4.3.7 Ferrofurnace Bottoms (Sampling Location S10) 49
4.3.8 Vitrified Product (Sampling Location SI 1) 49
4.3.9 Sand Added to Vitrification Furnace (Sampling Location SI4) 49
4.3.10 Mulcoa (Sampling Location S15) 50
4.3.11 Sample Mass Measurements 50
4.4 DEMONSTRATION RESULTS 51
4.4.1 RCRA TCLP Chromium Standard 51
4.4.2 Chromium 51
4.4.3 Hexavalent Chromium 54
4.4.4 NJDEP Soil Cleanup Standards 54
4.4.5 Stack Emissions 54
4.4.5.1 Field Test Changes 55
4.4.5.2 Results of Critical Parameters - Fluegas 56
4.4.5.3 Results of Non-Critical Parameters - Fluegas 56
4.4.5.4 Continuous Emissions Monitoring 67
4.4.5.5 Compliance with NYSDEC 71
4.4.6 Other Analyses 72
4.4.6.1 Chloride Analysis 72
4.4.6.2 Metallurgy of Ferrofurnace Bottoms 73
4.4.6.3 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure 73
4.4.7 Cost 74
4.4.8 Summary of Demonstration Results 75
4.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 76
4.5.1 Conformance with Quality Assurance Objectives 76
4.5.1.1 Method Blanks 76
4.5.1.2 Analytical Quality Control Categories 77
4.5.2 Stack Emissions Sampling 80
4.5.2.1 EPA Method Cr+6 80
4.5.2.2 EPA Method 23 81
4.5.2.3 EPA Method 29 82
5.0 TECHNOLOGY STATUS 83
REFERENCES 85
IX
-------
FIGURES
Page
1 Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System 20
2 Total Treatment Cost for a Typical Site 32
3 Cost Breakdown for Each Treatment Scenario 33
4 The Impact of Electricity Cost on Total Treatment Cost 34
5 Sampling Location S13 in Circular Duct after Vitrification Furnace 45
6 Traverse Point Layout for Sampling Locations S13 and S9A and S9B 46
7 Sampling Locations S9A and S9B in the APCS Outlet . . .".'.'. '. ~. . . ."'. '. .. . 7.\ 7..~. ."..'. .'. 48
8 CEM Data for Run 1 68
9 CEM Data for Run 2 69
TABLES
Table
1 Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the Cold Top Technology 8
2 Potential Federal ARARs for the Cold Top Ex Situ Vitrification System 13
3 Summary of Costs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification Process 24
4 Results of Chromium Analyses of Soils from Bench-Scale Study 36
5 Sampling Locations 43
6 Traverse Point Locations in Inches from Duct Wall 47
7 Contaminant Concentrations in Samples from Site 130 52
8 Contaminant Concentrations in Samples from Liberty State Park 53
9 New Jersey Soil Cleanup Standards 55
10 Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S13 57
11 Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S9A 58
12 Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Parameters 59
13 Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Concentrations at 7 Percent Oxygen 60
14 Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Mass Emission Rates 62
15 Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Average Fluegas Values 64
16 Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas Concentrations at 7 Percent
Oxygen 65
17 Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas Mass Emission Rates 66
18 CEM Sampling Matrix at Location S13 67
19 CEMs-Run 1 70
20 CEMs-Run 2 70
21 Chloride in Dried, Blended Soil Mixture 72
22 Metal Composition of Ferrofurnace Bottoms from Liberty State Park Soil 73
23 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Results 74
24 QA Data Objectives for Accuracy, Precision , and Completeness 78
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AGC Annual guideline concentration
APCS Air pollution control system
ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
b Blank contamination
B Estimated result is less than reporting limit
BIF Boilers and industrial furnace
C Co-eluting isomers/congeners
CAA Clean Air Act
°C Degree Celsius
CEM Continuous emissions monitor
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation!, and Liability Act
CERI Center for Environmental Research Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
Cr+6 Hexavalent chromium
cy Cubic yard
dscf Dry standard cubic foot
dscf/hr Dry standard cubic foot per hour
dscm Dry standard cubic meter
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
°F Degree Fahrenheit
ft/s Foot per second
Geotech Geotech Development Corporation
g/hr Gram per hour
HC1 Hydrogen chloride gas
ID Induced draft
ITER Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
kVA Kilovolt-amp
kWh Kilowatt hour
LDR Land disposal restriction
Ib Pound
/ug/dscm Microgram per dry standard cubic meter
jj,m Micrometer
MDL Method Detection Limit
mg/dscm Milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
mg/L Milligram per liter
MS Matrix spike
MSD Matrix spike duplicate
NA Not analyzed
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
XI
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
ND Not detected
ng/dscm Nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NUT New Jersey Institute of Technology
NOX Nitrogen oxides
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NR Not recorded
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
O2 Oxygen
ORD U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
OSHA Occupational Safely and Health Administration
OS WER U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
QAO Quality Assurance Objective
PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzofuran
%V Percent by volume
PGC Potential annual guideline concentration
PPE Personal protective equipment
ppm part per million
PSD Prevention of significant deterioration
Q Estimated maximum possible concentration
QA Quality assurance
QAPP Quality assurance project plan
QC Quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SD Standard Deviation
SGC Short-term guideline concentration
SIT Stevens Institute of Technology
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
Target analyte list
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TEQ 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents
THC Total hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
VISITT Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
XPS X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
xn
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared under the direction of Ms. Marta K. Richards, the EPA Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Project Manager at the National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) in Cincinnati, Ohio. This report was prepared by Mr. Robert Foster, Mr. Keith Foszcz,
Dr. Kenneth Partymiller, and Ms. Regina Bergner of Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Mr. Vince Alaimo of
Energy and Environmental Research, Inc. Contributors and reviewers for this report included Ms. Marta
K. Richards of NRMRL; Mr. Thomas Tate of Geotech, Inc.; Mr. William Librizzi, Mr. Gerald McKenna,
and Dr. Jay Meegoda of New Jersey Institute of Technology; and Mr. Scott Santora and Mr. Robert
Mueller of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
xni
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification technology
developed by Geotech Development Corporation (Geotech). The Cold Top technology was
demonstrated at the Geotech pilot-plant facility in Niagara Falls, New York, under the EPA Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program and in conjunction with the New Jersey Institute of
Technology (NJIT) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 1997.
The purpose of this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report is to present and summarize information
from the SITE demonstration of the Cold Top technology. The information is intended for remedial
managers, environmental consultants, and other potential users who may consider using the technology to
treat Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) hazardous wastes.
Section 1.0 presents an overview of the SITE program, describes the Cold Top technology, and lists key
contacts. Section 2.0 discusses information relevant to the technology's application, including an
assessment of the technology related to the nine feasibility study evaluation criteria, potential applicable
environmental regulations, and operability and limitations of the technology. Section 3.0 summarizes the
costs associated with implementing the technology. Section 4.0 presents the waste characteristics,
demonstration approach, demonstration procedures, and the results and conclusions of the demonstration.
Section 5.0 summarizes the technology status, and Section 6.0 includes a list of references. The
Appendices include several technical reports concerning the technology, prepared by NJIT. The first
report presents the findings of a bench-scale study of the technology and the second presents the results
of a study on the use of the vitrified product from the SITE demonstration as fill for road aggregate.
The remainder of this executive summary provides an overview of the Cold Top technology; its waste
applicability; demonstration objectives, approach, and conclusions; other case studies; and technology
applicability.
The Cold Top Technology
Geotech of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, has developed an ex-situ, submerged-electrode, resistance-
melting technology designed to convert contaminated soil into an essentially monolithic, vitrified mass.
According to Geotech, a development engineering firm holding four patents in the field of applied
electrical power, vitrification transforms the physical state of contaminated soil from assorted,
crystalline matrices into a glassy, amorphous solid comprised of interlaced polymeric chains that
typically consist of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms. Geotech claims that chromium can readily
substitute for silicon in these chains, thus rendering the chromium immobile to leaching by aqueous
solvents and, therefore, nontoxic.
ES-1
-------
For the past 15 years, Geotech has operated a pilot plant that has vitrified a wide variety of materials,
including granite, blast-furnace slag, fly ash, spent catalyst, and flue dust. Several production plants
based on the Geotech technology are now being used to produce mineral fiber and other commercial
products. The heart of the system is an electric resistance furnace capable of operating at melting
temperatures of up to 5,200 °F (2,870 °C). The furnace is cooled by water circulating within its hollow
jacket and is equipped with an off-gas treatment system, which may include a baghouse, cyclone, and wet
scrubbers, depending on waste characteristics.
Prior to treatment, the furnace is initially charged with a mixture of sand and alumina/silica clay.
Through electrical resistance heating, a molten pool forms; the voltage to the furnace is properly
adjusted; and, finally, contaminated soil is fed into the furnace by a screw conveyor. Geotech removes
the furnace plug from below the molten-product tap when the desired soil-melt temperature is achieved.
As the soil melts, additional soil is added to maintain a "cold top." During the demonstration test, the
outflow was poured into refractory-lined and insulated molds for slow cooling. Excess material was
discharged to a water sluice for immediate cooling and collection before off-site disposal.
Waste Applicability
According to Geotech, the Cold Top Vitrification process has been used to treat soils contaminated with
hazardous heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and chromium; asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials; and municipal solid waste combustor-ash residue. Waste material must be sized to pass
through a 3/8-inch screen. The Cold Top Vitrification process is most efficient when feed materials have
been dewatered to less than 5 percent water and organic chemical concentrations have been minimized.
Wastes similar to those treated during the demonstration may require the addition of sand to ensure that
the vitrification process produces a glass-like product. According to Geotech, in the molten state,
inorganic contaminants fuse with the sand to become an integral part of the fused material. The vitrified
product from the Cold Top process is designed to cool slowly to form a high-density, noncrystalline glass
with physical properties suitable for commercial use.
Geotech claims that the vitrified product has many uses, including shore erosion blocks, decorative tiles,
roadbed fill, and cement or blacktop aggregate, and that radioactive wastes can be treated with this
technology.
Demonstration Objectives and Approach
Key participants in the planning and execution of the Cold Top demonstration included the Geotech,
NJIT, NJDEP, and the EPA SITE Program. Additional support was provided by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Stevens Institute of Technology.
ES-2
-------
Demonstration tests were performed on soils from two sites, representing residue from two types of
chromite-ore-processing procedures. The sites were selected by NJDEP under an ongoing program to
clean up over 150 hexavalent-chromium-contaminated sites. Excavated soils from Liberty State Park and
NJDEP Site 130 were crushed, sieved, dried, and amended with carbon and sand at a facility in New
Jersey. "Supersacs" containing the pretreated material were then shipped to the Geotech facility in
Niagara Falls, NY, where separate demonstration "runs were conducted on February 1 and March 11,
1997. The SITE team collected samples of untreated soil, offgas generated during treatment, and
baghouse dust. Cooled castings were transported to NJIT, where samples were crushed and ground for
chemical analyses. Chemical analyses were performed in triplicate by NJIT and by SITE-contracted
laboratories.
Demonstration Conclusions
The primary objective of the SITE demonstration was to detennine if the waste and products produced by
the Cold Top Vitrification system meet the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definition
of a characteristic waste because of their chromium content. The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure was performed on both treated product and untreated waste to evaluate this objective.
Secondary objectives of the demonstration were as follows: 1) evaluate the partitioning of total
chromium from the waste feed into the various waste and product streams; 2) determine costs for treating
the type of waste treated during the demonstration; 3) determine if the vitrified product meets NJDEP
criteria for fill material, such as road construction aggregate, based on chromium, antimony, beryllium,
cadmium, nickel, and vanadium concentrations; 4) determine if process air emissions meet NYSDEC
compliance requirements and determine the uncontrolled air emissions of oxides of nitrogen, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride; and 5) determine if the high chlorine concentrations in
the untreated soils causes formation of dioxins and furans in the exhaust gases.
Due to a system shutdown during the first run and unanticipated changes made to the off-gas collection
and treatment system during the second test run, data from the two runs are not directly comparable.
Therefore, all demonstration data are presented as observational data. Observational data are data which
are analytically sound but that did not meet the predetermined data quality objective goals.
Demonstration findings included:
RCRA TCLP Chromium Standard
The Cold Top technology vitrified chromium-contaminated soil from two New Jersey sites, producing a
product meeting the RCRA TCLP total chromium standard at the 95 percent confidence level.
Vitrification of soil from one of the two sites also produced ferrofurnace bottoms, a potentially
ES-3
-------
recyclable metallic product, that also met the RCRA TCLP total chromium standard.
Chromium Partitioning
With the exception of the baghouse dust and the ferrofurnace bottoms sample, the total chromium
content of the vitrified product did not differ significantly from that of the untreated soil. The
concentrations of total chromium in the vitrification baghouse dust and ferrofurnace bottoms samples
were approximately two and five times greater, respectively, than those found in the untreated soil.
Hexavalent chromium was not detected in the ferrofurnace bottoms samples and was only detected in one
of six vitrified-product samples. The hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from one-half to
approximately the same in the vitrification baghouse dust as in the untreated soil. The baghouse dust was
presumed to be mainly fine-sized, untreated soil that was generated when soil was added to the
vitrification furnace and then carried through the air pollution control system (APCS).
Cost
Cold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to that treated during the SITE
demonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal costs and potential
credits for the vitrified product. The three scenarios evaluated included (1) use of the vitrified product as
aggregate, (2) backfilling of the vitrified product on site, and (3) landfilling of the vitrified product.
Costs for these three scenarios were $83, $98, and $213 per ton, respectively. Because of the uncertainty
of their formation, potential credits for ferrofurnace bottoms were not considered in this economic
analysis.
NJDEP Interim Cleanup Standards
Comparison of metal concentrations in the vitrified product to the NJDEP interim soil cleanup standards
indicated that the vitrified product met the interim standards for antimony, beryllium, cadmium,
vanadium, and hexavalent chromium, but did not for nickel and total chromium.
Stack Emissions
Although the Cold Top technology is not an incineration technology, the stack emissions from the
demonstration were compared to Subpart O incinerator regulations, and the results were mixed. The data
collected during the SITE demonstration were input into complex modeling calculations supplied by New
York State. The modeling required site- and waste-specific analyses to assess the impact'of the Cold Top
stack emissions. Results of the modeling were found to depend on the soil, the APCS, and the detection
limits of the various analytes. Results of emissions modeling indicate that the concentrations of metals in
ES-4
-------
stack emissions depend on the characteristics of the soil, the air pollution control system, and the
detection limits of the various analytes. Emissions of dioxins, parficulate, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride were all below the appropriate New York limitSj based
on appropriate measurement and calculation procedures.
Dioxin and Furan Formation
Exhaust gas concentrations of dioxins and furans were generally below the laboratory reporting limits.
The high concentrations of chloride in the site soils could not be correlated with dioxin and furan
formation.
Other Observations
Field observations and measurements made during the demonstration indicate that several operational
issues must be addressed during technology scale-up. First, a consistent and controlled feed system
needs to be developed that spreads the waste feed uniformly over the surface of the molten soil. This
feed system must also minimize dust generation. Second, an emission control system heeds to be
configured to control any particulate and gaseous emissions from the furnace and feed system.
Other Studies
A bench-scale study of the Cold Top technology was performed at NJIT. After completion of this
demonstration, NJIT studied the feasibility of using the vitrified product from the SITE demonstration as
road aggregate.
ES-5
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This section provides background information on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, discusses the purpose of this Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (ITER), and describes the Cold Top vitrification system developed by
Geotech Development Corporation (Geotech) of Niagara Falls, New York. Additional information about
the SITE program, the Geotech technology, and the demonstration can be obtained by contacting the key
individuals listed at the end of this section.
1.1 THE SITE PROGRAM
The SITE program was established by the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) in response to the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The SITE program's primary purpose is to promote the use of
alternative technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites. The various component programs under
SITE are designed to encourage the development, demonstration, and use of new or innovative treatment
and monitoring technologies. The program is designed to meet four primary objectives:
• Identify and remove obstacles to the development and commercial use of alternate
technologies
• Structure a development program that nurtures emerging technologies
• Demonstrate promising innovative technologies to establish reliable performance and
cost information for site characterization and cleanup decision-making
• Develop procedures and policies that encourage the selection of available alternative
treatment remedies at Superfund sites as well as other waste sites and commercial
facilities
Technologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration Program through annual solicitations. ORD staff
review the proposals to determine which technologies show the most promise for use at Superfund sites.
Technologies chosen must be at the pilot- or full-scale stage, must be innovative, and must have some
advantage over existing technologies. Mobile or transportable technologies are of particular interest.
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, cooperative agreements between EPA and the developer establish
-------
responsibilities for conducting the demonstrations and evaluating the technology. The developer is
responsible for demonstrating the technology at the selected site and is expected to pay any costs of
transporting, operating, and removing the equipment. EPA is responsible for project planning;
transporting the material to be treated to a fixed facility for off-site demonstrations; sampling and
analysis; quality assurance and quality control; preparing reports; disseminating information; and
transporting and disposing of treated waste materials.
For this Geotech technology demonstration, New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) has a contract
with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to evaluate the Geotech Cold Top
technology. EPA and NJIT have a formal agreement to cooperate in this evaluation. NJDEP is the lead
agency for the evaluation, and EPA is furnishing additional resources to enhance the overall results.
EPA's responsibilities for this demonstration are limited to the evaluation of the vitrification unit itself,
while NJDEP will have primary responsibility for evaluating necessary pre- and post-vitrification
treatment activities.
The results of the demonstration are published in two basic documents: the SITE Technology Capsule
and the ITER. The SITE Technology Capsule provides relevant information on the technology,
emphasizing key results of the SITE demonstration. Both documents are intended for use by remedial
managers who need a detailed evaluation of the technology for a specific site and waste.
1.2 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT
This ITER provides information on the Geotech technology and includes a comprehensive description of
the demonstration and its results. The ITER is intended for use by EPA remedial project managers, EPA
on-scene coordinators, contractors, and other decision makers who must implement specific remedial
actions. The ITER is designed to aid decision makers in further evaluating specific technologies for
consideration as an applicable option for a particular cleanup operation.
To encourage the general use of demonstrated technologies, the ITER provides information regarding the
applicability of each technology to specific sites and wastes. In particular, the report includes
information on (1) cost and site-specific characteristics and (2) the advantages, disadvantages, and
limitations of the technology.
-------
Each SITE demonstration evaluates a technology's performance in treating a specific material. Because
the characteristics of other materials may differ from the characteristics of the treated material, successful
field demonstration of a technology at one site does not necessarily ensure that it will be applicable at
other sites. Data from the field demonstration may require extrapolation for estimating the operating
ranges in which the technology will perform satisfactorily. Only limited conclusions can be drawn from
a single field demonstration.
1.3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
About 3 tons of contaminated soil were excavated from each of two chromium-contaminated sites. The
soil was screened to remove material larger than one inch in diameter and placed in drums for shipment
to a facility in Camden, New Jersey, where it was dried, crushed, sieved, and blended with several
additives. This soil pretreatment was performed because the developer claims that effective vitrification
by the Cold Top system requires soil that is dried to less than 5 percent moisture and sized to less than
0.375-inch diameter particle size. The addition of sand aids in the vitrification and improves the physical
strength and other properties of the vitrified product. The soils from the two sites were handled
separately. A continuous-loop or toroidal-flash dryer, operating at 300 to 450 °F (150 to 230 °C) inlet
temperature with approximately 175°F (80°C) outlet or exhaust temperature, was used to dry the soils.
A baghouse captured dust emitted by the drying process. During the drying operation, the soil was mixed
with (1) sand to increase the silica content and facilitate vitrification, (2) carbon to increase the electrical
conductivity of the mixture, and (3) dust from the baghouse. The resulting mixture was dry and well
blended; it was placed in one-half-filled 2,000-pound-capacity polypropylene bags, called "supersacs,"
and transported to Geotech in Niagara Falls, New York.
At the Geotech facility, soil from each of the sites was placed in the vitrification furnace, which produced
a vitrified product and, in one case, a by-product referred to as ferrofurnace bottoms. Off-gases from the
vitrification oven and dust from the vitrification baghouse were collected. The products and waste
streams of the vitrification process were sampled and analyzed as part of the demonstration. The vitrified
product was then subjected to various tests by NJIT to determine if it is suitable for use in concrete or
asphalt.
-------
1.4 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Geotech, the developer of the ex-situ, submerged-electrode, resistance-melting technology known as
"Cold Top," claims its technology converts contaminated soil particles into an essentially monolithic,
vitrified mass. According to Geotech, vitrification transforms the physical state of contaminated soil
from assorted crystalline matrices to a glassy, amorphous, solid state comprised of interlaced polymeric
chains. These chains typically consist of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms. Chromium is expected to
readily substitute for silicon in the chains. According to Geotech, the chromium would then be immobile
to leaching by aqueous solvents, and as a result, it would be biologically unavailable and nontoxic.
The main unit of the system is a 1,350-kilovolt-amps (kVA) electric resistance furnace capable of
operating at melting temperatures up to 5,200 °F (2,900 °C). Once the voltage is properly adjusted, the
furnace operates continuously. The furnace is initially charged with a mixture of sand and alumina-silica
clay. When subjected to electrical resistance heating, the mixture forms a molten pool; the voltage to the
furnace is then adjusted; and the contaminated soil is fed into the furnace by a screw conveyor. As the
soil melts, additional soil is added to maintain a "cold top." When the desired soil-melting temperature is
achieved, Geotech removes the furnace plug from below the molten-product tap. During the
demonstration, the outflow was poured into refractory-lined and insulated molds for slow cooling.
Material not collected in the molds for physical or chemical testing was discharged to a water sluice for
immediate cooling and collection before off-site disposal. Other configurations of a full-scale system
allow outflow to be converted to pellets and fibers. The furnace is equipped with an off-gas treatment
system (which can include a baghouse, cyclone, and wet scrubbers) to control emissions.
-------
1.5 KEY CONTACTS
Additional information on the Geotech technology and the SITE program can be obtained from the
following sources:
The Geotech Development Corporation
Dr. Thomas R. Tate
President
Geotech Development Corporation
1150 First Avenue, Suite 630
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
(610)337-8515
FAX: (610)768-5244
The SITE Program
Marta K. Richards
EPA SITE Project Manager
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513)569-7692
FAX: (513) 569-7676
Information on the SITE program is available through the following on-line information clearinghouses:
The Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) System is a
comprehensive, automated, information retrieval system that integrates data on
hazardous waste treatment technologies into a centralized source. The system operator
can be reached at 301-670-6294.
• The Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT)
database contains information on 154 technologies offered by 97 developers. The
hotline number is 800-245-4505.
• The OSWER CLU-In electronic bulletin board contains information on the status of
SITE technology demonstrations. The system operator can be reached at 301-585-8368.
• Other on-line Internet information sources.
Technical reports may be obtained by contacting the EPA Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI) at 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone
513-569-7562.
-------
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS
This section assesses the general applicability of the Geotech Cold Top system to remediate waste and
contaminated soils from Superfund sites. This assessment is based on results from the SITE Program
demonstration of the technology.
Demonstration tests were performed on soils from two sites contaminated with residues from two types
of chromite-ore processing: NJDEP Site 130 and the NJDEP-owned Liberty State Park site. The sites
were selected by NJDEP under an ongoing program to clean up more than 150 sites contaminated with
hexavalent chromium. Excavated soils were crushed, sieved, dried, and blended with carbon and sand at
a facility in Camden, New Jersey. Supersacs containing the pretreated material were then shipped to the
Geotech facility in Niagara Falls, New York, where separate demonstration runs were conducted.
2.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA
This section assesses the Geotech technology relative to nine evaluation criteria used to conduct detailed
analyses of remedial alternatives in feasibility studies performed under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Table 1 summarizes the
evaluation criteria as they relate to the performance of the technology.
2.1.1
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks
posed by each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
The Geotech technology provides both short- and long-term protection of human health and the
environment by eliminating exposure to hazardous inorganic constituents; the process fuses hazardous
constituents into a noncrystalline, glass-like product. Exposure to air emissions is minimized by
removing contaminants with an off-gas treatment system. Potential accidental releases could temporarily
affect air quality in the vicinity of the site. Site workers may be exposed to air emissions on a short-term
basis when preparing the waste feed , dumping the waste feed from the supersacs into the feed hopper,
and manually
-------
Table 1. Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the Geotech Technology
CRITERION
GEOTECH TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
1 Overall Protection of The Geotech technology fuses hazardous inorganic constituents into a noncrystalline,
Human Health and glass-like product. Air emissions are reduced by using an air pollution control system
the Environment (APCS).
Compliance with
Federal ARARs
Compliance with chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) depends on the treatment efficiency of the vitrification system and the chemical
constituents of the waste. Compliance with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs
must be determined on a site-specific basis. For most sites, the following environmental
regulations will be applicable to Cold Top operations: Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA); the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; and the Occupational
Safety and Health Act.
As the vitrified products met RCRA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
requirements, these fused wastes were considered to be permanently treated. Treatment
residuals from the APCS can be recycled through the system, and the vitrified product and
ferrofurnace bottoms may be recycled or may require proper off-site disposal.
Reduction of Toxicity, Vitrification reduces the mobility of the waste feed by fusing hazardous inorganic
Mobility, or Volume constituents into a high-density, noncrystalline, glass-like product. Toxicity is also reduced
Through Treatment by the chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium to less toxic species, such as trivaient
chromium.
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
5 Short-Term
Effectiveness
Short-term risks to workers, the community, and the environment are present during
waste-handling activities and from potential exposure to process air emissions. Adverse
impacts from both activities can be mitigated with proper personnel safety and
waste-handling procedures and air pollution system control.
The Cold Top system vitrifies a wide variety of materials. Geotech plans to establish a
full-scale fixed facility in the northern New Jersey area. Currently, Geotech does not
operate a transportable system, so only transportation of the waste feed needs to be
evaluated for this criterion.
Costs for treatment by the Cold Top technology depend on waste- and location-specific
factors such as the volume of material to be treated, physical properties of the material to be
treated, transportation costs, electricity costs, and economic value or cost to dispose of the
vitrified product and ferrofurnace bottoms. For the treatment scenarios evaluated in the
economic analysis contained in this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report, costs ranged
from $83 to $213 per ton.
8 State Acceptance State acceptance to the full-scale, fixed Cold Top facility is likely to be favorable.
6 Implementability
7 Cost
9 Community
Acceptance
The minimal short-term risks presented to the community along with the permanent fusing
of hazardous waste constituents in the waste, producing a usable product, should increase
the likelihood of community acceptance of this technology. Additionally, as treatment by
this technology takes place off site, acceptance by the community from where the waste is
removed should be favorable.
-------
removing the ferrofurnace bottoms after cool down.
2.1.2
Compliance with ARARs
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) of federal and state environmental statutes. General and specific
ARARs identified for the Geotech technology are presented in Section 2.2. Compliance with chemical-,
location-, and action-specific ARARs should be determined on a site-specific basis; however, location-
, and action-specific ARARs generally can be met. Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs depends
on the chemical constituents of the waste and the treatment efficiency of the vitrification system.
2.1.3
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time. Vitrification is a proven treatment technology for hazardous wastes
contaminated with inorganic constituents. Vitrification transforms the physical state of contaminated soil
from assorted crystalline matrices to a glassy, amorphous, solid state comprised of interlaced polymeric
chains. These chains typically consist of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms. Chromium is expected to
readily substitute for silicon in the chains. According to Geotech, the chromium would then be immobile
to leaching by aqueous solvents, and as a result, it would be biologically unavailable and nontoxic over
time.
2.1.4
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
This criterion refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment technology potentially employed in a
Superfund remediation. With vitrification, the toxicity of the waste feed is reduced by permanently
fusing hazardous inorganic constituents into a high-density, noncrystalline, glass-like product that may be
used as shore erosion block, decorative tile, roadbed fill, and cement or blacktop aggregate. The density
and volume of the vitrified product depends on the desired product. If high-density blocks are desired,
the volume would be decreased. When the Cold Top system is run the way that was planned for the
SITE demonstration, there would be no waste product planned for disposal as it would be completely
recyclable.
Results of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Synthetic Precipitation Leaching
Procedure (SPLP) tests indicated that the Cold Top process reduced leachable chromium concentrations
-------
in the hazardous waste feed to below the regulatory limit defined for a characteristic waste as defined by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Air emissions from the treatment process are controlled by an off-gas treatment system. The iron-rich
ferrofurnace bottoms may be recycled. Any treatment residual (such as or baghouse dust) can be
recycled through the system or shipped off site to a permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facility.
2.1.5
Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion addresses the period of time needed to achieve lasting protection of human health and the
environment as well as any adverse impacts that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period before cleanup goals are achieved. During system operation, potential short-term
risks presented to workers, the community, and the environment may include exposures to hazardous
substances during waste-handling activities and exposures to air emissions. Adverse impacts during
waste-handling activities should be minimized by properly operating the Geotech technology, properly
handling waste streams, and properly using appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE). Adverse
impacts from the emissions are mitigated by using an off-gas treatment system.
2.1.6
Implementability
This criterion considers the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the availability
of materials and services needed to implement a particular option. Geotech operates a pilot plant in
Niagara Falls, New York, that vitrifies a wide variety of materials. Currently, Geotech does not operate a
transportable system; therefore, only the transportation of the waste feed needs to be evaluated for this
criterion.
2.1.7
Costs
This criterion addresses estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs as well as net present
worth costs. Costs for treatment by the Geotech technology will depend on site-specific factors such as
the volume of material to be treated, physical properties of the material, contaminant types and
concentrations, and site location. For the treatment scenarios evaluated in the economic analysis, costs
ranged from $83 to $213 per ton. Section 3 of this report provides a detailed discussion of costs for the
application of this technology.
10
-------
2.1.8
State Acceptance
This criterion addresses the technical or administrative issues and concerns the support agency may have
regarding the technology. EPA and NJIT, as a contractor to NJDEP, have a formal agreement to
cooperate on the evaluation of the Geotech Cold Top technology. NJDEP is the lead agency for the
evaluation, and EPA is furnishing additional resources to enhance the overall results. EPA
responsibilities for this demonstration are limited to the evaluation of the vitrification unit itself; NJDEP
will have primary responsibility for evaluating necessary pre- and post-vitrification treatment activities.
Acceptance by other states must be evaluated on a site-specific basis, although state acceptance is
expected to be favorable.
2.1.9
Community Acceptance
This criterion addresses any issues or concerns the public may have regarding the technology. Public
acceptance of this technology should be positive for two reasons: (1) the technology presents minimal
short-term risks to the community and (2) it permanently fuses hazardous constituents in the waste to
produce a material that may be used as shore erosion block, decorative tile, roadbed fill, and cement or
blacktop aggregate.
2.2 TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE REGARDING ARARs
This section discusses specific environmental regulations pertinent to the demonstration and operation of
the Geotech Cold Top system, including the transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes and
treatment residuals. CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires the consideration of ARARs; CERCLA
issues, although not true ARARs, are also considered.
Regulations that apply to a particular remediation activity depend on the type of remediation site and the
type of waste treated. State and local regulatory requirements, which may be more stringent, must also
be addressed by remedial managers. ARARs for the Geotech demonstration include the following:
(1) CERCLA, (2) RCRA, (3) Clean Air Act (CAA), (4) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and (5)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Table 2 summarizes these
regulations, which are discussed in greater detail below.
11
-------
2.2.1
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, provides for federal authority to respond to releases or potential
releases of any hazardous substance into the environment, as well as to releases of pollutants or
contaminants that may present an imminent or significant danger to public health and welfare or the
environment. Remedial alternatives that significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous materials and provide long-term protection are preferred. Selected remedies must also be cost-
effective and protective of human health and the environment.
*
Due to the large number and relatively small size of most of the New Jersey chromium-contaminated
sites in New Jersey, the Geotech Cold Top system may likely be constructed in a central location to treat
wastes from the various sites. In addition, for sites that contain large quantities of contaminated soil,
Geotech is considering constructing a transportable unit for on-site operation. Disposal of residual
wastes generated during on-site application might require off-site disposal or treatment. All on-site
actions must meet all substantive state and federal ARARs. Substantive requirements pertain directly to
actions or conditions in the environment (for example, air emission standards). Off-site actions must
comply with legally applicable substantive and administrative requirements; administrative requirements,
such as permitting, facilitate the implementation of substantive requirements.
On-site remedial actions must comply with all federal ARARs as well as more stringent state ARARs.
ARARs are determined on a site-by-site basis and may be waived under six conditions: (1) the action is
an interim measure, and the ARAR will be met at completion; (2) compliance with the ARAR would
pose a greater risk to health and the environment than noncompliance; (3) it is technically impracticable
to meet the ARAR; (4) the standard of performance of an ARAR can be met by an equivalent method;
(5) a state ARAR has not been consistently applied elsewhere; and (6) fund balancing, where ARAR
compliance would entail such cost in relation to the added degree of protection or reduction of risk
afforded by that ARAR that remedial action at other sites would be jeopardized. These waiver options
apply only to Superfund actions taken on site, and justification for the waiver must be clearly
demonstrated. Off-site remediations are not eligible for ARAR waivers, and all substantive and
administrative applicable requirements must be met.
12
-------
Table 2. Potential Federal ARARs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification System
Process Activity
ARAR
Description
Basis
Requirements
Waste feed
characterization
RCRA 40 CFR Part 267 or
state equivalent
Identify and characterize the
waste to be treated
A RCRA requirement must be met
before managing and handling the
waste.
Chemical and physical analyses must be
performed.
Transportation
for off-site
treatment
RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 or
state equivalent
Mandate manifest requirements,
packaging, and labeling prior to
transporting
The waste may need to be manifested
and managed as a hazardous waste.
An identification number must be obtained
from EPA.
RCRA 40 CFR Part 261 or
state equivalent
Set transportation standards
The waste may need permits for
transportation as a hazardous waste.
A transporter licensed by EPA must be used
to transport the hazardous waste.
Storage prior to
processing
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 or
state equivalent
Apply standards for the storage of
hazardous waste
Prior to treatment, the hazardous
waste may require on-site storage hi a
waste pile, tank, or container.
The material should be placed in a waste pile
on plastic and covered with additional plastic
that is secured to minimize fugitive air
emissions, volatilization, and water
infiltration. Tanks or containers must be
well maintained; the container storage area,
if used, must be constructed to control
run-on and run-off. The time between
storage and treatment should be minimized.
Waste
processing -
smelting,
melting, and
refining furnace
RCRA 40 CFR Parts 264,
265, 266 (Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces [BIF]
Rule in Subpart H), and 270
Apply standards for the melting of
hazardous waste at permitted and
interim status facilities
Processing of hazardous waste must
be conducted hi a manner that meets
the RCRA operating and monitoring
requirements.
Equipment must be operated and maintained
daily. Air emissions must be characterized
by continuous emissions monitoring (CEM).
Equipment must be decontaminated when
operations are complete.
Storage after
processing
RCRA 40 CFR part 264 or
state equivalent
Apply standards for the storage of
hazardous waste: requirements for
storage of hazardous waste hi
tanks and containers will apply
If vitrified product and byproducts are
derived from the treatment of a
RCRA-listed waste, requirements for
storage of hazardous waste hi tanks
and containers will apply.
The vitrified product must be stored hi tanks
or containers that are well maintained;
container storage area, if used, must be
constructed to control run-on and run-off.
-------
Table 2. Potential Federal ARARs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification System
Process Activity
ARAR
Description
Basis
Requirements
On- or off-site
disposal
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 or
state equivalent
Apply standards for landfilling
hazardous waste
Byproducts may need to be managed
as a hazardous waste if they are
derived from treatment of hazardous
waste.
Wastes must be disposed of at a
RCRA-permitted hazardous waste facility,
or approval must be obtained from EPA to
dispose of wastes on site.
RCRA 40 CFR Part 268 or
state equivalent
Apply standards that restrict the
placement of certain hazardous
wastes in or on the ground
The hazardous waste may be subject
to federal land disposal restrictions
(LDR).
Wastes must be characterized to determine if
LDRs apply; treated wastes must be tested
and results compared to standard.
Transportation
for off-site
disposal
RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 or
state equivalent
Apply manifest requirements and
packaging and labeling
requirements prior to transporting
Byproducts may need to be
manifested and managed as a
hazardous waste if they are derived
from treatment of hazardous waste.
An identification number must be obtained
from EPA.
RCRA 40 CFR Part 263 or
state equivalent
Apply transportation standards
Byproducts may need to be
transported as a hazardous waste if
they are derived from treatment of
hazardous waste.
A transporter licensed by EPA must be used
to transport the hazardous waste according to
EPA regulations.
Hue Gas
Emissions
CAA or equivalent
State Implementation Plan
Control air emissions that may
impact attainment of ambient air
quality standards
The Geotech technology system can
incorporate an off-gas treatment
system to treat emissions. Treated air
is emitted to the atmosphere.
Treatment of contaminated air must
adequately remove contaminants so that air
quality is not impacted.
Worker Safety
OSHA 29 CFR Parts 1900
through 1926; or state
OSHA requirements
Apply worker health and safety
standards
CERCLA remedial actions and
RCRA corrective actions must follow
requirements for the health and safety
of on-site workers.
Workers must have completed and
maintained OSHA training and medical
monitoring; use of appropriate PPE is
required.
-------
2.2.2
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Disposal Amendments of 1984, regulates
the management and disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes. EPA and certain
RCRA-authorized states [listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 272] implement
and enforce RCRA and state regulations.
RCRA regulations may vary according to the specific use of the Geotech system. For example,,
the Cold Top process may also be used with pretreatment process units to remove extensive
organic contamination before vitrification. In such cases, pertinent RCRA regulations would
need to be determined for each specific application.
The presence of RCRA-defined hazardous waste determines whether RCRA regulations apply to
the Geotech technology. If hazardous wastes are treated or generated during the operation of the
technology, all RCRA requirements must be addressed regarding the management and disposal
of hazardous wastes. RCRA regulations define hazardous wastes and regulate their transport and
treatment, storage, and disposal. Wastes defined as hazardous under RCRA include
characteristic and listed wastes. Criteria for identifying characteristic hazardous wastes are
included in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C. Listed wastes generated from nonspecific and specific
industrial sources, off-specification products, spill cleanups, and other industrial sources are
itemized in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D.
If hazardous wastes are treated by the Geotech system, the owner or operator of the treatment or
disposal facility must obtain an EPA identification number and a RCRA permit from EPA or the
RCRA-authorized state. RCRA requirements for permits are specified in 40 CFR Part 270.
The Geotech Cold Top system is classified as a smelting, melting, and refining furnace by the
boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) rule (as defined in 40 CFR Part 260.10). If the treatment
waste feed has a high organic content, the Geotech system may burn or process wastes as a BIF;
in such cases, the BIF rule outlined in 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H may become an ARAR.
15
-------
Treatment residuals generated during the operation of the system, such as baghouse dust, must be
stored and disposed of properly. If the treatment waste feed is a listed waste, treatment residuals
must be considered listed wastes (unless RCRA delisting requirements are met). If the treatment
residuals are not listed wastes, they should be tested to determine if they are RCRA characteristic
hazardous wastes. If the residuals are not hazardous and do not contain free liquids, they can be
disposed of on site or at a nonhazardous waste landfill. If the treatment residuals are hazardous,
the following RCRA standards apply:
Standards and requirements for generators of hazardous waste, including hazardous
treatment residuals, are outlined in 40 CFR Part 262. These requirements include
obtaining an EPA identification number, meeting waste-accumulation standards, labeling
wastes, and keeping appropriate records. Part 262 allows generators to store wastes up to
90 days without a permit and without having interim status as a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility. If treatment residuals are stored on site for 90 days or more, 40 CFR
Part 265 requirements apply.
Any on- or off-site facility designated for permanent disposal of hazardous treatment
residuals must be in compliance with RCRA. Disposal facilities must fulfill permitting,
storage, maintenance, and closure requirements provided in 40 CFR Parts 264 through
270. In addition, any state RCRA requirements must be fulfilled. If treatment residuals
are disposed of off site, 40 CFR Part 263 transportation standards apply.
The waste feed mixture used during the Geotech demonstration included chromium-
contaminated soil from two types of chromite-ore processing sites. Soils classified as hazardous
waste are subject to land disposal restrictions (LDR) under both RCRA and CERCLA.
Applicable RCRA requirements may include (1) a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest if the
treated soils are transported, (2) restrictions on placing soils in land disposal units, (3) time limits
on accumulating treated soils, and (4) permits for storing treated soils.
Requirements for corrective action at RCRA-regulated facilities are provided in 40 CFR Part
264, Subpart F (promulgated) and Subpart S (proposed). These subparts also apply to
remediation at Superfund sites. Subparts F and S include requirements for initiating and
conducting RCRA corrective actions, remediating groundwater, and ensuring that corrective
actions comply with other environmental regulations. Subpart S also details conditions under
16
-------
which particular RCRA requirements may be waived for temporary treatment units operating at
corrective action sites. Thus, RCRA mandates requirements similar to CERCLA, and as
proposed, may allow units such as the Geotech treatment system to operate with partial waivers
of permits.
2.2.3
Clean Air Act
The CAA and its 1990 amendments establish (1) primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards for the protection of public health and (2) emission limitations on certain hazardous air
pollutants.
CAA permitting requirements are administered by each state as part of State Implementation
Plans developed to bring each state into compliance with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). Ambient air quality standards for specific pollutants apply to the operation
of the Geotech system, because the technology ultimately results in an emission from a point
source to the ambient air. Allowable emission limits for the operation of a Geotech system will
be established on a case-by-case basis depending on the type of waste treated and whether or not
the site is in a NAAQS attainment area. Allowable emission limits may be set for specific
hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, or other pollutants. If the site is
in an attainment area, the allowable emission limits may still be curtailed by the increments
available under prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations. Typically, an air
pollution control system (APCS) similar to the type used during the SITE demonstration will be
required to control the discharge of emissions to the ambient air.
ARARs pertaining to the CAA must be determined on a site-by-site basis. In attainment (or
unclassified) areas, remedial activities involving the Geotech technology may be subject to PSD
requirements in Part C of the CAA. The PSD requirements will apply when remedial activities
involve a major source or modification as defined in 40 CFR Section 52.21; remedial activities
subject to review must apply the best available control technologies and demonstrate that the
17
-------
activity will not adversely affect ambient air quality.
2.2.4
Toxic Substances Control Act
Although the waste material treated during the SITE demonstration of the Cold Top technology
did not contain asbestos, successful treatment of asbestos-contaminated materials is a claim of
the technology. Asbestos regulations are described in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
and 40 CFR Part 763. If the system is used to treat asbestos-contaminated material, the
remediation will require TSCA authorization that defines operational and disposal constraints. If
the asbestos-contaminated material contains RCRA wastes, RCRA compliance is also required.
2.2.5
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions must be performed in accordance with OSHA
requirements detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926, especially Part 1910.120, which provides for
the health and safety of workers at hazardous waste sites. On-site construction activities at Superfund or
RCRA corrective actions sites must be performed in accordance with Part 1926 of OSHA, which
provides safety and health regulations for construction sites. State OSHA requirements, which may be
significantly stricter than federal standards, must also be met.
All technicians operating the Geotech treatment system are required to have completed an OSHA training
course and must be familiar with all OSHA requirements relevant to hazardous waste sites. For most
sites, minimum PPE for technicians will include gloves, hard hats, steel-toe boots, and coveralls.
Depending on contaminant types and concentrations, additional PPE may be required.
2.3 OPERABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY
A schematic of the Cold Top system is shown in Figure 1. The system is controlled by an operator
working at a control panel. The operator can control the power supplied to each of the vitrification
electrodes. The amount of power supplied to the electrodes determines the rate at which contaminated
soil is vitrified and also the rate at which untreated soil must be added to the furnace. Prior to startup, the
18
-------
furnace is lined with sand to insulate its bottom and walls. A clay material, Mulcoa, is added on top of the
sand. The energy required to melt Mulcoa is well characterized by Geotech and they use this information
to determine the initial setting of the furnace. Contaminated soil is placed on top of the Mulcoa and, once
the Mulcoa begins to melt and the power to the electrodes is properly determined, the soil begins to melt
also. By visualizing the vitrified effluent from the reactor, the operator can tell when the Mulcoa has been
completely melted and discharged. At this point, the discharge rate of the vitrified soil is closely
monitored using a ladle, and power to the electrodes is adjusted, as necessary, to maintain the desired flow
rate. This flow rate is maintained throughout the test run. A skilled operator is required to monitor and
run the system.
2.4 APPLICABLE WASTES
Geotech has operated a pilot plant that has vitrified a wide variety of materials, including granite, blast
furnace slag, fly ash, spent catalyst, and flue dust. In addition, the Cold Top vitrification process has been
used to treat soils contaminated with hazardous heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and chromium;
asbestos and asbestos-containing materials; and municipal-solid-waste-incinerator-ash residue. Waste
material must be sized to pass through a 0.375-inch mesh screen.
The Cold Top vitrification process is most efficient when (1) feed materials have been dewatered to less
than 5 percent water and (2) organic chemical concentrations have been minimized. The demonstration
wastes required the addition of carbon and sand to ensure that the vitrification process produced a durable
glass-like product.
2.5 KEY FEATURES OF THE GEOTECH COLD TOP SYSTEM
The system is a 1,350-kVA electric resistance furnace capable of operating at melting temperatures of up
to 5,200 °F (2,870 °C). The furnace is cooled by water circulating within its hollow jacket and is
equipped with an off-gas treatment system, which may include a baghouse, cyclone, and wet scrubbers,
depending on waste characteristics. Once the operating temperature is attained, contaminated soil is
continuously fed to the furnace by a screw conveyor, while vitrified product is tapped from the middle of
the furnace.
19
-------
PRETREATED
CONTAMINATED
SOIL
TO AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL SYSTEM
REMOVABLE HOOD
ELECTRODE
(TYPICAL)
SAND
MOLTEN PRODUCT TAP
MOLD CONTAINING
VITRIFIED PRODUCT
1,350kVA
3 PHASE
POWER SUPPLY
TO GROUND
COOLING WATER
RECIRCULATON
Jl
Figure 1. Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System
-------
2.6 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT
For the past 15 years, Geotech's pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New York, has vitrified a wide variety of
materials. A Geotech system may be constructed and centrally located for the more than 150 chromium-
contaminated sites in New Jersey. Although Geotech does not currently operate a transportable system, it
is considering constructing a transportable unit for sites that contain large quantities of contaminated soil.
Several production plants based on the Geotech technology are now being used to produce mineral fiber
and other commercial products. These plants could be converted to the treatment of hazardous wastes.
2.7 MATERIALS-HANDLING REQUIREMENTS
Waste feed must be sized to pass through a 0.375-inch mesh screen. The Cold Top vitrification process is
most efficient when (1) feed materials have been dewatered to less than 5 percent water and (2) organic
chemical concentrations have been minimized. Waste feed may require the addition of carbon (to increase
the electrical conductivity of the mixture) and silica (to increase the silica content and facilitate
vitrification). Demonstration waste feed pretreatment consisted of reducing the particle size, drying, and
blending with 0.2 percent carbon and 25 percent sand by weight. Following pretreatment, the waste feed
was placed in supersacs for transport to the Cold Top furnace. The waste feed was then emptied from the
supersacs into a feed hopper where it was metered into the furnace by screw conveyor.
When the desired soil melt temperature is achieved, Geotech removes the furnace plug from below the
molten-product tap. During the demonstration, the outflow to be used for chemical and durability testing
was poured into refractory-lined and insulated molds for slow cooling. Excess material was discharged to
a water sluice for immediate cooling and collection for off-site disposal.
2.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY
The Geotech Cold Top system has several limitations. At the present time, waste material must be
transported for treatment at the Geotech facility in Niagara Falls, New York, although other Cold Top
facilities may be constructed in the future. Geotech is also considering constructing a transportable unit.
21
-------
At the conclusion of a waste-feed run, ferrofurnace bottoms may be present in the furnace. This material
must be analyzed prior to recycling or off-site disposal. The material may have significant value for
recycling, therefore its formation as a by-product may be a benefit. Other limitations of the process, such
as waste feed organic chemical content, dryness, and particle size, are discussed above.
22
-------
SECTION 3
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
This economic analysis presents cost estimates for using the Cold Top ex-situ vitrification system to treat
contaminated soil. Cost data were compiled during the SITE demonstration at the Geotech test facility in
Niagara Falls, New York, and from information obtained from Geotech. Costs have been placed in 12
categories applicable to typical cleanup activities at Superfund and RCRA sites (Evans 1990). Costs
were estimated using data in R.S. Means Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book (1996) and R.S.
Means Building Construction Cost Data: 55th Edition (1997). Estimated costs are considered to be
order-of-magnitude estimates with an expected accuracy within 50 percent above and 30 percent below
the actual costs.
This section describes three scenarios selected for economic analysis (Section 3.1), summarizes the
major issues involved and assumptions made in performing the analysis (Section 3.2), discusses costs
associated with using the Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification process to treat contaminated soil (Section 3.3),
and presents conclusions of the economic analysis (Section 3.4).
3.1
INTRODUCTION
There are more than 150 chromium-contaminated sites in the northern New Jersey area. The amount of
contaminated soil at most of the sites ranges from 100 to 500 cubic yards (cy); two or three of the sites
have more than 1 million cy. The number and close proximity of these many sites presents a large
market potential in the area for a treatment system such as the Cold Top process. This economic analysis
presents costs based on treating contaminated soil at a newly constructed, fixed vitrification facility
located in or near Jersey City, New Jersey. As costs for a transportable vitrification system may vary
and the cost-effectiveness of such a system would depend on each site's size, the economics of a
transportable system are not addressed in this analysis.
Table 3 presents estimated costs per ton for soil treatment under three disposal scenarios. Under scenario
1, treated material is sold as road aggregate and clean backfill is used at the excavated site. This is the
most economic scenario, and NJIT is conducting a concurrent investigation of the efficacy of this
scenario. Under scenario 2, treated material is suitable for use as backfill at the excavated site, thus
saving
23
-------
Table 3. Summary of Costs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification Process
Cost Categories
Site Preparation
-Excavation
-Waste preparation
Permitting and regulatory
requirements
Capital costs
Fixed costs
Labor
Materials
Utilities
Disposal
Transportation
-Excavated material
Analytical costs
Equipment repair and
replacement
Site demobilization
Total cost per ton
Sell Treated Material
as Aggregate and Use
Clean Backfill
($/ton)
$5.72
5.00
2.02
8.03
6.79
11.75
9.67
23.28
(12.50)
10.00
7.11
5.50
1.11
$83
Backfill Treated
Material
($/ton)
$ 5.72
5.00
2.02
8.03
6.79
11.75
1.67
23.28
0.00
10.00
10 00
7.11
5.50
1.11
$98
Landfill Treated
Material and Use
Clean Backfill
($/ton)
$5.72
5.00
2.02
8.03
6.79
11.75
9.67
23.28
107.00
10.00
10 00
7.11
5.50
1.11
$213
24
-------
costs associated with obtaining and using clean backfill material and off-site disposal of treated material.
Under scenario 3, treated material is landfilled at a nonhazardous solid waste disposal facility, and clean
backfill is used at the excavated site; this is obviously the most costly scenario.
3.2 ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS
This section summarizes major issues and assumptions regarding site-specific factors, equipment, and
operating parameters used in this economic analysis of the Cold Top vitrification process. Key
assumptions are summarized as follows:
The primary contaminant of concern is chromium, at concentrations up to
100,000 mg/kg.
Contaminated soil has a moisture content of about 15 percent, and less than 5 percent of
the material will be retained on a 1-inch screen.
The typical site contains 450 tons (or 300 cy) of contaminated soil and is located about
20 miles from the vitrification facility.
Geotech will construct and operate the vitrification facility at one of the contaminated
sites near Jersey City, New Jersey.
The proposed vitrification facility will process 300 tons per day (200 cy/day), or
approximately 109,000 tons per year, of contaminated soil, including pretreatment as
needed (such as crushing, drying, and mixing with additives).
3.3 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The cost analysis was prepared by breaking down the overall cost into the following 12 categories, some
of which do not have costs associated with them for this particular technology:
Site preparation costs
Permitting and regulatory costs
Capital costs
25
-------
• Fixed costs
• Labor costs
• Materials costs
• Utilities
• Disposal costs
• Transport costs
• Analytical costs
• Facility modification, repair, and replacement costs
• Site demobilization costs
The 12 cost factors and any related assumptions for the Cold Top process are examined below. As
shown in Table 3, costs for many of the categories are the same for each scenario.
3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs
Typical site preparation costs associated with setting up a waste treatment system at a hazardous waste
site include site design, planning and management, legal searches, access rights, and construction work.
Since the Cold Top facility in this analysis is a stationary unit, requiring waste to be brought to the
facility for treatment, these costs are not incurred on a site-specific basis, and they are included within
the capital cost category.
For this analysis, site preparation costs are associated with excavating contaminated soil. Mobilization
costs for excavation, including clearing light brush, installing temporary fencing, establishing working
zones, and mobilizing equipment to the site, are estimated to be $1,000 for the small sites considered in
this analysis. Excavation costs of $5.25 per cy are based on using a two-person crew with a backhoe or
26
-------
front-end loader for one 8-hour day, or approximately $1,575 to excavate the typical 300-cy (450-ton)
site. This cost includes equipment, fuel, and labor costs. Therefore, the total site preparation cost for the
typical site is approximately $2,575. For each of the three scenarios the site preparation cost is $8.58 per
cy or $5.72 per ton.
Waste preparation is assumed to be required before treatment in the Cold Top system. Geotech expects
to provide waste pretreatment services at its fixed facility and would include any costs associated with
this activity in its contract price. However, for this analysis, it is assumed that this waste preparation will
be a separate operation that may be conducted at the contaminated site. Furthermore, it is assumed that
contaminated material will require screening, magnetic separation, and drying. Approximately
50 percent of the material will require crushing. Finally, silica will be added to the material, up to
25 percent by volume, and the material will be blended. Based on the SITE demonstration and published
costs for these individual operations, the estimated cost for waste preparation is $5.00 per ton.
3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs will vary depending on whether treatment is performed on a Superfund or
a RCRA corrective action site and the fate of the treated waste. Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended
by SARA, requires that remedial actions be consistent with ARARs of environmental laws, ordinances,
regulations, and statutes. ARARs include federal standards, as well as more stringent standards
promulgated under state or local jurisdictions. ARARs must be determined on a site-specific basis. For
this analysis, the cost for permits associated with construction activities at the site are estimated to be
$500or$1.67percy($l.ll per ton).
For most pollution control facilities, the cost of keeping up with applicable regulations and permits is
substantial. However, in this economic analysis, sincethe Cold Top facility will not use contact cooling
water and air emissions are expected to be low, the permitting cost for the facility are estimated to be
about $100,000 per year, which includes professional services and regulatory fees. Based on the
projected facility throughput of 109,000 tons per year, the permitting and regulatory cost is estimated to
be $0.92 per ton for all cases. The total cost for this category is, therefore, $2.02 per ton.
27
-------
3.3.3 Capital Costs
Capital costs are based on information provided by Geotech. Specifically, Geotech provided this
information as annual costs of $400,000 for depreciation and $475,000 for debt service on capital
expenditures. Based on 109,000 tons per year, the estimated capital cost is $8.03 per ton.
3.3.4 Fixed Costs
Fixed costs for the Cold Top system include other annual expenses not directly related to waste
treatment. Geotech has estimated the annual costs for these to be $110,000 for building utilities;
$155,000 for insurance; $200,000 for general maintenance; and $275,000 for general administration.
Based on 109,000 tons per year, the estimated fixed costs are $6.79 per ton.
These costs do not include any profit. To establish a price for treatment, Geotech will add such profit as
a fixed cost per ton, based on market conditions. As a result, actual fixed costs may be significantly
higher per ton.
3.3.5 Labor Costs
For 24-hour per day operation, Geotech expects to employ a 21 full-time personnel. Based on
observations during the SITE demonstration, a five-person crew during each shift should be adequate to
safely operate the system. The crew would consist of a field engineer (approximately $25 per hour), an
equipment operator ($20 per hour), and three laborers ($15 per hour each). Four crews plus one overall
supervising engineer ($1,300 per week) would complete the 21-person operating staff. Adding 50
percent for fringe benefits, including worker training, the total annual labor costs for the vitrification
facility are estimated to be $853,840. Based on 109,000 tons per year, the estimated labor costs are
$11.75 per ton.
3.3.6 Materials Costs
Materials costs are associated with site cleanup and treatment. The costs associated with this treatment
28
-------
include carbon and silica addition during pretreatment, kaolin clay and glass frit addition during startup,
and electrode replacement. Pretreatment and startup material costs are generally minimal; electrode
replacement costs are addressed in Section 3.3.11.
For the three scenarios, the primary materials costs are associated with site backfilling, including labor,
backfill material, spreading, and compaction. For the first and third scenarios, clean backfill will be used
at the excavation. The estimated cost for supplying, spreading, and compacting clean borrow and
backfill material will be $14.50 per cy or $9.67 per ton of soil treated. For the second, it is assumed that
treated material will be replaced as backfill at the individual sites excavated. The estimated cost for
spreading and compacting this material is $2.50 per cy or $.1.67 per ton.
3.3.7 Utilities Costs
Electricity is the primary utility required for the Cold Top process. Only minimal drinking and service
water is required for the system. Based on the SITE demonstration and other information provided by
Geotech, the technology uses about 776 kilowatt-hours (kWhr) per ton of soil treated. Geotech expects
to obtain a highly competitive rate of 3 cents per kWhr for its facility; however, this rate could be as high
as 6 or 7 cents per kWhr (see Section 3.4.3). Therefore, the utility cost for the system could range from
$23.28 to $54.32 per ton of soil treated.
3.3.8 Disposal Costs
Disposal costs represent the most significant difference among the three scenarios. In scenario 1, treated
material is assumed to have a salable value as road aggregate. Standard costs for sand and stone
aggregate are approximately $12.50 per ton, which will be assumed as a credit for this scenario. In
scenario 2, treated material will be used as backfill at the site excavations; therefore, disposal costs are
assumed to be zero. In scenario 3, disposal costs for landfilling the treated material would be $107 per
ton, assuming a nonhazardous solid bulk waste.
3.3.9 Transportation Costs
Transportation costs will be incurred to transport soil from the contaminated sites to the vitrification
facility. This analysis assumes an average distance of 20 miles from the site to (40 miles round trip),
29
-------
with 300 cy of soil removed from the typical site. Based on these assumptions, it will take five 20-cy
dump trucks four trips to remove the excavated soil. Transportation costs are estimated to be $15.00 per
cy ($10.00 per ton) for each of the three scenarios.
The same assumptions are used to estimate costs to (1) transport the treated material back to the site for
backfilling in scenario 2 and (2) transport this material to a landfill in scenario 3. Again, these costs are
estimated to be $15.00 per cy ($10.00 per ton). Transportation costs for scenario 1 are assumed to be
bom by the purchaser.
3.3.10 Analytical Costs
Analytical costs are associated with confirmation of site excavation activities and evaluation of treatment
effectiveness. While site-specific requirements may vary considerably, this analysis assumes that a total
of 20 confirmation samples will be analyzed for metals at a cost of $100 per sample. Therefore, the cost
for site confirmatory samples is $6.67 per cy or $4.44 per ton.
At a minimum, three samples of treated material should be collected for each site and analyzed for total
metals and TCLP metals. These analyses will cost about $400 per sample. For the typical site, total
analytical costs to evaluate treatment effectiveness will be $1,200, or $4.00 per cy ($2.67 per ton).
Therefore, total analytical costs for the technology are $10.67 per cy or $7.11 per ton.
3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs
This cost category covers the general maintenance for the facility and the period replacement of
electrodes and orifices for the vitrification units. Because the scope of the SITE demonstration limits the
technology evaluation to a short time frame, costs under this category are based on information supplied
by Geotech. For this analysis, costs are estimated based on a typical treatment campaign of 90 days, at
which time the system would be shut down for 1 day to replace equipment, as needed. Geotech has
estimated the annual repair and maintenance cost to be $400,000 for electrode and orifice replacement
and $200,000 for general maintenance and ancillary equipment replacement. Therefore, the total cost to
treat 109,000 tons of contaminated soil is $600,000, or $5.50 per ton of treated soil.
30
-------
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs
Site demobilization and restoration are limited to the removal of equipment from the site. The cost for
excavation demobilization at the typical site is estimated to be $500, Requirements regarding the
backfilling, grading, and recompaction of the material in the excavation are included in Section 3.3.6.
Therefore, demobilization costs are $ 1.67 per cy or $ 1.11 per ton.
3.4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
This section summarizes the costs for the Cold Top system for the three scenarios and the 12 cost
categories. This section also presents an analysis of the impact of electricity rates on the technology's
cost.
3.4.1 Total Cost for a Typical Site under Three Scenarios
The distinguishing factor in identifying the three treatment scenarios are based on the options for
handling the contaminated soil after treatment: (1) reuse it as construction material, (2) return it to the
excavated area, or (3) dispose of it at a landfill. Figure 2 compares the total costs for the three scenarios.
3.4.2 Cost Breakdown by Category
Costs for each of the twelve cost categories are summarized in Table 3 and shown in Figure 3 as costs per
ton of soil treated, which range from $83 to $213 per ton of contaminated soil.
3.4.3 Cost Sensitivity to Electricity Rates
Electricity accounts for as much as 26 percent of the total technology treatment costs. Geotech expects
to negotiate a preferred rate of $0.03 per kWhr during development of the New Jersey facility. However,
electricity rates vary considerably based on location and market conditions. Figure 4 depicts the impact
of electricity rates on total cost per ton for each of the three scenarios.
31
-------
to
o
o
o
100
80
40
20
0
$37,400
Scenario 1
$44,100
Scenario 2
$95,800
Scenario 3
Figure 2. Total Treatment Cost for Typical Site
-------
Sell Treated Material as Aggregate and Use Clean Backfill
Figure 3a. Cost Breakdown for Scenario No. 1
Backfill Treated Material
$25 1
Figure 3b. Cost Breakdown for Scenario No. 2
Landfill Treated Material and Use Clean Backfill
Actual Value for Disposal is $107
$25 f
$20 -
$15
$10 \
$5
$0
N
Figure 3c. Cost Breakdown for Scenario No. 3
Figure 3. Cost Breakdown for Scenarios No. 1, 2, and 3
33
Total Cost
$83/ton
Total Cost
$98/ton
Total Cost
$213/ton
-------
O
V
0.
250.00
200.00
150.00 - -
50.00 -
0.00
0.02
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Utility Cost
0.03
0.04 0.05
Electricity Cost ($ per kw hr)
0.06
0.07
Figure 4. Impact of Electricity Cost on Total Treatment Cost
-------
SECTION 4
TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
In 1994, the Stevens Institute of Technology (SIT), one of 2 universities involved in this project,
conducted a bench-scale study to determine the performance of the Cold Top vitrification process based
on the teachability of chromium and the concentration of hexavalent chromium in the glass product.
The study included the collection and subsequent analysis of soils from nine chromium-contaminated
sites in northern New Jersey (see Table 4 and Meegoda 1995). The soils were analyzed for total
chromium, hexavalent chromium, and pH; the soils also underwent TCLP analyses for chromium. The
concentrations of hexavalent chromium in the soils ranged from less than 5.8 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg) to 4,800 mg/kg. The pH of the soils varied from 8.1 to 11.4, with three sites having a pH
above 10. The results of the evaluation indicated that concentrations of chromium in the TCLP
leachate of the vitrified samples were generally less than 1.1 milligram per liter (mg/L), which is below
the regulatory threshold concentration of 5 mg/L that would define the vitrified product as a hazardous
waste.
Contaminated soils from Liberty State Park and Site 130, both New Jersey Superfund sites, were
selected for the Cold Top demonstration based on site access and the concentrations of chromium in
untreated soils. The two sites are located in Hudson County in northern New Jersey. Table 4
summarizes the results of chromium analyses conducted before and after the SIT bench-scale treatment
of soil from these two sites. Contaminated soils from the sites were treated at the Geotech vitrification
pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New York.
4.1 DEMONSTRATION OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
The general objective of the Cold Top SITE demonstration was to develop data needed to allow an
unbiased, quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of this technology. To ensure the
attainment of data that would allow such an evaluation, specific, performance-based objectives were
developed. This technology demonstration had both primary and secondary SITE program objectives.
Primary objectives (P) are considered critical for the technology evaluation. Secondary objectives (S)
provide additional information that is useful but not critical. To obtain the data required to meet the
35
-------
specified demonstration objectives, samples were collected and process measurements were made at the
locations described in Section 4.3. The primary objective of this demonstration was as follows:
Table 4. Results of Chromium Analyses of Soils from Bench-Scale Study
(Stevens Institute of Technology Data)
Site
Site 130
Liberty State Park
Untreated Soil
TCLP
Chromium
(mg/L)
48.6
32.4
Hexavalent
Chromium
(mg/kg)
4,800
1,240
Total
Chromium
(mg/kg)
5,294
1,544
Treated Soil
TCLP
Chromium
(mg/L)
0.0254
0.0934
Hexavalent
Chromium
(mg/kg)
<5.2
<5.2
Total
Chromium
(mg/kg)
48.4/15.2'
40.8/111.2'
Note:
The two results are obtained from duplicate analyses.
P-l Determine if the waste and product streams from the vitrification unit meet the RCRA
definitions of a characteristic waste due to their chromium content; this determination
should be made based on a 95 percent confidence level. For comparison, the chromium
concentrations in the untreated soils was determined.
For wastes from each site, the demonstration evaluated the TCLP concentrations of chromium in the
dried, blended soil mixture; the process residuals; and the vitrified product from the treatment process.
This evaluation determined if the untreated soil, the process waste streams, and the vitrified product met
the regulatory definition of a hazardous waste, specifically whether they exhibited the toxicity
characteristic for chromium. To achieve this objective, the dried, crushed, blended, (but untreated) soil
mixture; process residuals (including vitrification baghouse dust and ferrofurnace bottoms); and the
vitrified product were subjected to TCLP testing, and the extracts were analyzed to determine total
chromium concentrations. Chromium concentrations of 5.0 mg/L or less in the TCLP extracts would
indicate that the residuals would not be defined as hazardous wastes due to the presence of chromium.
Samples of untreated soil from each site were composited during soil collection; and one sample from
each site was analyzed to determine the approximate chromium levels in the TCLP extract. The data
show that chromium concentrations in the TCLP extract, of the contaminated site soils exceeded the
RCRA hazardous waste criteria of 5.0 mg/L by factors of six to ten.
36
-------
There were problems attaining these objectives. The problems are discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.
Another purpose of the SITE demonstration was to accomplish the following five secondary objectives:
S-l Determine the partitioning of total and hexavalent chromium from the dried waste into
various waste and product streams.
Mass balances were to be performed around the vitrification process for both total and hexavalent
chromium to determine the relative partitioning of chromium into baghouse dust, stack emissions,
ferrofurnace bottoms, and vitrified product. The total chromium mass balance was attempted by
analyzing the following seven streams using the rigorous hydrofluoric acid digestion method: (1) the
sand (silicon) and carbon additives; (2) the baghouse dust from the drying process; (3) the dried,
crushed, and sieved, untreated soil blended with baghouse dust from the drying process and the sand
and carbon additives; (4) the vitrification baghouse dust; (5) stack emissions (filter and impinger
solution); (6) ferrofurnace bottoms; and (7) vitrified product. The weight of each material was to be
determined, and the weights would then be multiplied by each material's respective concentration to
determine the total amount of chromium in each stream. The weights of the above numbers (3) and
(7) were not accurately determined due to weighing error and an inadequate supply of molds for the
vitrification product.
The mass balance for hexavalent chromium was to be accomplished by sampling and analyzing for
hexavalent chromium in the same seven streams. The analytical results for hexavalent chromium were
to be compared to the results for total chromium to determine if hexavalent chromium is converted to
other oxidation states of chromium.
S-2 Evaluate the operating costs of the Geotech technology per ton of soil
This objective was achieved by estimating the total costs of utilities, labor, maintenance, supplies, and
other necessary equipment or activities to treat a soil similar to those used in the demonstration (Evans
1991). Once these costs were estimated, the cost per ton for treatment for a typical chromium-
contaminated site was estimated for several treatment scenarios with different quantities of
contaminated soil.
37
-------
S-3 Determine whether the vitrified product from the treatment process met NJDEP criteria
as fill material, such as for use as road construction aggregate. This involved sampling
and subsequent analysis of the vitrified product for (1) total chromium and the target
analyte list (TAL) minor metals using EPA-approved methods and (2) hexavalent
chromium using a proposed EPA method.
As a matter of policy, the State of New Jersey has employed soil cleanup standards for the TAL minor
metals (antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium) and for chromium and hexavalent
chromium. New Jersey applies these standards to materials that will be placed on the land, such as the
vitrified product. When applied to the vitrified product, the present cleanup standards specify that it
contain less than 500 parts per million (ppm) of chromium when analyzed by appropriate EPA
methods. To determine if the vitrified product contains less than 500 ppm chromium, a sample of the
product was ground to pass through a 200-mesh sieve (75 micrometers [0.0029 inch]), digested, and
analyzed for chromium by appropriate EPA SW-846 methods. To determine the applicability of the
technology to soil containing other TAL minor metals, the digested vitrified product was analyzed for
antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium using EPA SW-846 methodology. The State of
New Jersey also recommends that the treated vitrified product contain less than 10 ppm of hexavalent
chromium when analyzed using a modified version of proposed SW-846 Method 7196A.
NJDEP cleanup criteria are established for both residential and non-residential direct contact scenarios
for five TAL minor metals. According to NJDEP, the appropriate are criteria are 14 and 340 ppm for
antimony, 1 and 1 ppm for beryllium, 1 and 100 ppm for cadmium, 250 and 2400 ppm for nickel, and
370 and 7100 ppm for vanadium for the residential and non-residential direct contact scenarios,
respectively.
S-4 Determine the final air emissions of dioxins, furans, trace metals, particulate, and
hydrogen chloride to determine adherence to compliance requirements.
With one exception, exhaust gas sampling was performed downstream of the APCS during both of the
demonstration test runs to fulfil this objective. During the second test run, the dioxin and furan sample
was only collected before the APCS as data from the first test run showed that the dioxin and furan data
did not differ before and after the APCS. Stack gas samples were collected and analyzed for dioxins
and furans, trace metals, particulate and hydrogen chloride by EPA test methods. Data to meet this
38
-------
objective were considered to be observational.
S-5 Determine the uncontrolled air emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) from the vitrification unit.
Continual on-line analyses of the flue gases, using continuous emissions monitors (CEMs), was
conducted upstream of the system baghouse to determine the emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, and carbon monoxide from the vitrification furnace. During the second demonstration test
run, total hydrocarbon emissions were also monitored, Data to meet this objective were considered to
be observational.
4.2 DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES
During the demonstration, two tests were performed, one for each of the two chromium-contaminated
sites (Liberty State Park and Site 130). To evaluate the developer's claims, the test matrix was
designed to yield the following types of data for each of the tests:
*
*
*
*
Emissions
Chromium leachability
Chromium partitioning
Operating cost estimate per ton of soil
The primary objective of the SITE demonstration was to determine if waste and products produced by
the Cold Top technology meet the RCRA definition of a characteristic waste because of their chromium
content. The TCLP was performed on both treated product and untreated soil to meet this objective.
Data were also obtained from other waste components, including sand and carbon additives and
baghouse dust, and oven preparatory components, including sand and Mulcoa, to assess treatment
efficiency of the technology and to obtain process information.
This section summarizes activities performed before and during the demonstration, procedures required
to evaluate the Cold Top process, and discusses the types of samples and measurements collected during
39
-------
the demonstration. The section also describes sampling locations, sampling frequency, collection
procedures, decontamination, sample designation and tracking, and deviations from the demonstration
QAPP.
4.2.1 Predemonstration Activities
About 3 tons of contaminated soil were excavated from each of thq two chromium-contaminated sites.
After screening to pass through a 1- to 1.5-inch sieve, the soil was placed in drums for initial shipment to
Chem Pro Inc., the crushing-drying-and-blending facility. At this facility, the soils from the two sites
were handled separately. Geotech claimed that the soil feed must be sized to a powder to be effectively
vitrified. Additionally, for the drying furnace feed to operate without clogging, the soil had to be ground
to approximately 0.375 inch. After removal of the soil from the drums and grinding, the soil was
screened through a 0.375-inch sieve. In addition, Geotech claimed that the vitrification furnace could not
handle the large mass of steam that would be produced during treatment of the soil, which was estimated
to be about 20 percent water. Therefore, the crushed-and-sieved soil was dried to less than 5-percent
moisture. A continuous-loop or toroidal-flash dryer, operating at 300 to 450 °F (150 to 230 °C) inlet
temperature with approximately 175°F (80°C) outlet or exhaust temperature, was used to dry the soils.
A baghouse captured the dust emitted by this drying process. After drying, the soil was mixed with sand
(to increase the silica content and facilitate vitrification), carbon (to facilitate reduction of metals in the
mixture), and the dust from the soil-dryer baghouse. The mixing provided a dried, well-blended mixture.
The dried, blended soil mixture was placed in polypropylene bags (called "supersacs") and transported to
the Geotech facility in Niagara Falls, New York.
4.2.2 Demonstration Activities
The soil collected from NJDEP Site 130 and Liberty State Park was prepared as discussed in Section
4.2.1 and shipped to the Geotech pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New York. Two separate test runs were
planned, each using the soil from one of the two New Jersey chromium sites. Geotech determined the
operating conditions for their system based on their vitrification experience and the flow characteristics
of the molten Mulcoa and contaminated soil.
40
-------
The furnace was prepared for each test run by lining it with sand and Mulcoa and then adding
contaminated soil. The furnace was turned on and when it was at the proper temperature, as determined
by the characteristics of molten Mulcoa, first molten Mulcoa and then molten soil were tapped and allowed
to flow into either a water-cooled sluice or into carbon-lined molds for slow cooling and testing. Each of
the two test runs was planned to last for 10 hours. After all the Mulcoa was vitrified and discharged,
molten soil samples for analysis were collected at the beginning, middle, and end of each test run. Stack
gas sample collection was to begin one hour after vitrified soil started to flow from the furnace.
4.3
SAMPLING PROGRAM
This section describes procedures for collecting representative samples at each of the 11 EPA SITE
sampling locations. These locations include sampling points for dryer baghouse dust; carbon additive;
sand additive; dried, blended soil mixture; vitrification furnace baghouse dust; stack emissions;
ferrofurnace bottoms; vitrified product; sand added to the vitrification furnace; and Mulcoa. These are
presented in Table 5.
4.3.1 Soil Dryer Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S4)
Soil was collected from two New Jersey chromium sites, placed in drums, and shipped to Chem Pro Inc.,
in Camden, New Jersey, for crushing, sieving, drying, and blending. The drying apparatus included a
baghouse to collect any particulate dust. The baghouse dust was then blended back into the dried soil.
Using a plastic scoop, one sample of the baghouse dust was collected for each of the soils being treated.
These two samples were analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium.
4.3.2 Carbon Additive (Sampling Location S5)
Carbon powder was used as an additive to the vitrification process to promote reduction of metals in the
vitrification furnace. The carbon was added to the process during blending of the dried soil. The carbon
produced by burning methane gas was certified by the producer as pure carbon; nevertheless, one bag of
carbon was opened and sampled, using a plastic scoop. This sample was analyzed for chromium and
hexavalent chromium.
41
-------
4.3.3 Sand Additive (Sampling Location S6)
Sand (silica) powder was used as an additive to the vitrification process to promote vitrification in the
furnace. The sand was added to the process during blending of the dried soil. The sand was certified by the
producer as pure silicon dioxide; nevertheless, several bags were opened and sampled, using a plastic scoop.
This composited sample was analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium.
4.3.4 Dried, Blended Soil Mixture (Sampling Location S7)
The soil was crushed, sieved, dried, and blended with carbon and sand additives and the dust collected in
the soil-dryer baghouse was then placed in supersacs for transport to the Geotech facility. Four composite
soil samples were collected from the Site 130 dried, blended soil mixture, and three composite soil
samples were collected from the Liberty State Park dried, blended soil mixture. Each composite soil
sample was composited from 10 or 15 grab samples from two or three supersacs, respectively. After each
supersac was filled, five grab samples were collected by taking five cores over the entire depth of each
supersac (one core in each corner and a fifth core in the center) using a grain thief; the grab samples were
then placed in a 2-gallon Ziploc™ bag. Two or three supersacs were sampled and composited in the
Ziploc™ bag, thoroughly mixed, and placed into appropriate sample containers, resulting in a single
composite sample. This procedure was repeated for all of the supersacs for both of the soil types.
Samples were analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium. Samples also were extracted by the
TCLP, and the extract was analyzed for chromium.
4.3.5 Vitrification Furnace Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S8)
The vitrification furnace included a baghouse to collect particulate dust from the vitrification furnace. At
the end of each vitrification test run, the baghouse was shaken down, and all dust was removed. A plastic
scoop was used to collect three samples of the dust. These samples were analyzed for chromium and
hexavalent chromium. For each soil, three samples also were extracted using the TCLP, and the extract
was analyzed for chromium.
42
-------
Table 5. Sampling Locations
Matrix
Soil dryer baghouse
dust
Carbon additive
Sand additive
Dried, blended soil
mixture
Vitrification furnace
baghouse dust
Stack emissions
Ferrofurnace bottoms
Vitrified product
Sand added to
vitrification furnace
Mulcoa
Sampling
Location
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9andS13
S10
Sll
S14
S15
Method of
Collection
Grab sample
Grab sample
Composite sample
Composite sample
Grab sample
Composite and
grab samples
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
Grab sample
Purpose
Determine partitioning of chromium and
Cr+6.
Assess whether additive contains
chromium or Cr+6.
Assess whether additive contains
chromium or Cr+6.
Determine partitioning of chromium and
Cr+6, and RCRA characteristic for
chromium.
Determine partitioning of chromium and
Cr+6, and RCRA characteristic for
chromium.
Determine partitioning of chromium and
Cr+6; the final air emissions of dioxins,
furans, and trace metals; particulate and
HC1; and uncontrolled air emissions of
O2, CO2, NOX, SO2, CO, and THC.
Determine partitioning of chromium and
Cr*6 and RCRA characteristic for
chromium:
Determine partitioning of chromium and
Cr+6 and RCRA characteristic for
chromium.
Assess whether additive contains
chromium or Cr+6.
Assess whether additive contains
chromium or Cr+6.
Notes:
CO
CO2
Cr+6
NOX
02
SO2
THC
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Hexavalent chromium
Nitrogen oxides
Oxygen
Sulfur dioxide
Total hydrocarbons
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
43
-------
4.3.6 Stack Gas (Sampling Locations S13 and S9)
Stack gas sampling occurred at two locations in the APCS; the first location was at the baghouse inlet
(Sampling Location SI3), and the other location was at the baghouse outlet (Sampling Location S9).
Furthermore, sampling was conducted at two places at Sampling Location S9: upstream (Sampling Location
S9A) and downstream (Sampling Location S9B) of the induced draft (ID) fan. These sampling locations are
discussed below.
4.3.6.1 Sampling Location S13 - Vitrification Hood Exhaust - APCS Inlet
The vitrification unit exhaust was modified to provide a sampling location meeting the minimum
requirements of EPA Method 1. A circular duct, with a diameter of 15 inches, was inserted horizontally
between the vitrification hood and the APCS. Three sampling locations were placed on this length of duct
so that upstream and downstream disturbances could be minimized. A schematic of the circular duct
showing the sampling locations is presented in Figure 5. Sampling ports were located on the bottom and the
side of the duct. Sampling was conducted using a 2 by 6 sampling matrix (12 sampling points in each
sampling axis) at all locations. The stack-emissions traverse layout, determined following EPA procedures,
is shown in Figure 6 and the locations presented in Table 6.
4.3.6.2 Sampling Location S9A and B - APCS Outlet
Sampling was performed at the APCS outlet before and after the ID fan for Run 1 and before the ID fan for
Run 2. The Method 23 sampling train at the APCS outlet was eliminated for dioxins and furans during Run
2 because the results from Run 1 were nearly identical, as expected, for both locations. Sampling was
conducted at both locations using a 2 by 6 sampling matrix. More information regarding traverse points is
presented in Table 6.
44
-------
t
TO 15
APCS INCHES
1
< 29 INCHES > C~) <
"*~~-~-^
«
<*
64 INCHES > ("} <
~~~-^ \
— -— r^--^ LJ\
^^ AIRFLOW
WINCHES *(_)<" 137 INCHES >
^^^^u
FROM
VITRIFICATION
EXHAUST
NOTE: NOT TO SCALE
SAMPLING PORTS
Figure 5. Sampling Locations S13 in Circular Duct after Vitrification Furnace
-------
SAMPLING
PORT
123456
7 8 9 10 11 12
SAMPLING
PORT
Figure 6. Traverse Point Layout for Sampling Locations S13 and S9
-------
S9A - Upstream of the ID Fan
Sampling was performed on the upstream side of the ID fan through two ports 90° to one another on an 18-
inch-diameter vertical duct exiting the APCS. Prior to the test program, a "honeycomb" flow straightener
was inserted between this sampling location and the ID fan to eliminate any swirl or cyclonic flow that may
be imparted on the flue gas by the ID fan. The nearest downstream disturbance was the bend before the ID
fan, which was 36 inches away (2 diameters), and the nearest upstream disturbance was the APCS, which
was 49 inches away (2.7 diameters). Figure 7 illustrates the layout of the location. Prior to testing, flow in
this duct was checked for cyclonic flow, and none was found to be present at greater than 20°.
S9B - Downstream of the ID Fan
Sampling was performed on the downstream side of the ID fan through two ports 90° to one another on a 15-
inch-diameter vertical duct exhausting to atmosphere. The nearest upstream disturbance was the ID fan,
which was 51 inches away (3.4 diameters), and the nearest downstream, disturbance was a bend in the duct,
which was 20 inches away (1.3 diameters). The location is shown in Figure 7. Prior to testing, the flow
was checked and no significant swirl was found to be present at greater than 20°.
Table 6. Traverse Point Location in Inches from Duct Wall
Traverse Points
1 and 12
2 and 11
3 and 10
4 and 9
5 and 8
6 and 7
Sampling Locations S13 and
S9B( 15-Inch Diameter)
0.31
1.0
1.77
2.66
3.75
5.34
Sampling Location S9A
(18-Inch Diameter)
0.38
1.21
2.12
3.19
4.5
6.4
47
-------
TO
ATMOSPHERE
S9B
20
INCHES
o
51
INCHES
<-15 INCHES->
ID
FAN
FROM
BAGHOUSE
FLOW
STRAIGHTENER
49
INCHES
-18 INCHES-
Q
36
INCHES
AIRFLOW
S9A
Figure 7. Sampling Locations S9A and S9B in the APCS Outlet
48
-------
4.3.7 Ferrofurnace Bottoms (Sampling Location S10)
During a test run, a dense vitrified product, referred to as ferrofumace bottoms, may collect in the bottom
of the vitrification furnace. These ferrofumace bottoms may separate from the vitrified product because
of greater density. No ferrofumace bottoms were produced during the Site 130 demonstration. About
200 pounds of ferrofumace bottoms were manually removed after the Liberty State Park demonstration.
A sample of ferrofumace bottoms was collected, sized to pass a 0.375-inch sieve, and mixed. The
sample was analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium. TCLP extraction, followed by chromium
analyses of the extracts, was also performed.
4.3.8 Vitrified Product (Sampling Location Sll)
During each test run, a vitrified product was produced and tapped from the middle of the vitrification
furnace. This vitrified product was placed into insulated molds, where it was allowed to cool slowly,
forming solid castings of vitrified product. To obtain representative samples, three complete castings,
one each from the beginning, middle, and end of each of the test-run pours, were labeled and transported
to NJIT by NJDEP personnel. Because the vitrified product may separate according to density, samples
from various locations in each of the castings for each test run were collected and ground to pass a
200-mesh sieve (75 micrometers [urn] [0.0029 in.]). The samples of ground material were shipped to the
analytical laboratory for chromium and hexavalent chromium analysis and TCLP extraction, followed by
chromium analyses of the extracts.
4.3.9 Sand Added to Vitrification Furnace (Sampling Location S14)
Sand was added to the vitrification furnace before system startup to protect the bottom of the furnace and
to help with the entrapment and separation of molten metals that might form from the high concentration
of iron in the treatment soil and the reducing conditions of the furnace. One sample of sand was
collected from a freshly opened bag using a plastic scoop. This sample was analyzed for chromium and
hexavalent chromium.
49
-------
4.3.10 Mulcoa (Sampling Location S15)
Mulcoa was added to the vitrification furnace before system startup to allow calibration of the heat input
to the furnace. Using a plastic scoop, one sample of Mulcoa was collected from a freshly opened bag
and analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium.
4.3.11 Sample Mass Measurements
The masses of waste and product streams were determined as follows:
Site
Site 130
Liberty State Park
Carbon
148 Ib
100 Ib
Sand
1,830 Ib
1,226 Ib
Dried
Blended Soil
Mixture
9,298 Ib
6,226 Ib
Vitrification
Baghouse Dust
4.5 Ib
20 Ib
Ferrofurnace
Bottoms
-
200 Ib
Vitrified
Product
NR
NR
Notes:
Ferrofurnace bottoms were not generated during vitrification of Site 130 soil.
Ib = Pounds
NR = Not recorded
The sand and Mulcoa were added to the vitrification furnace prior to placing the dried, blended soil
mixture in the furnace. The masses of the sand and Mulcoa were not measured and are not included in
the above table. Sand was added as thermal insulation to protect the furnace walls. According to
Geotech, little or no sand was removed from the furnace when the vitrified soil was tapped. Mulcoa was
added to allow the system operators to calibrate the energy input to the furnace. According to Geotech,
once the Mulcoa was vitrified, it was completely tapped from the furnace before demonstration testing
occurred.
There are some discrepancies in the weight of the dried, blended soil mixtures. Measurements
indicated that approximately 6,000 pounds of soil were collected at each site, yet when this soil was
crushed, dried, and amended with a very small amount of carbon and 25 percent sand, over 9,000 pounds
of material resulted for Site 130 but only 6,000 pounds for Liberty State Park. These masses were
50
-------
weighed as the dried, blended soil mixtures were readied for shipping to the vitrification facility as a part
of the SITE demonstration and are accurate. Clearly there is a discrepancy that the SITE program has not
been able to resolve. Possibilities include other material being mixed in with the Site 130 soil, extra sand
having been added, or other mistakes. For this reason, along with various operational changes to the
Cold Top system, we have concluded that calculation of an accurate mass balance is not possible.
4.4
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
This section summarizes sampling data collected during the SITE demonstration. Due to the lack of
certainty of the mass of the dried, blended soil mixture (see Section 4.3.11); changes to the furnace
APCS between the two test runs (see Section 4.4.5.0); and the unexpected system shutdown early in the
first test run (see Section 4.4.5.1), all demonstration data are considered to be observational data.
Observational data are data that are adequate to make rough comparisons of results but not adequate to
meet the high degree of confidence specified in the SITE demonstration project objectives.
4.4.1 RCRA TCLP Chromium Standard
The Cold Top technology vitrified chromium-contaminated soil from the two New Jersey sites,
producing a product meeting the RCRA TCLP chromium standard (see Tables 7 and 8). Vitrification of
soil from one of the two sites also produced ferrofurnace bottoms, a potentially recyclable metallic
product, that also met the RCRA TCLP chromium standard.
4.4.2 Chromium
With the exception of the vitrification-baghouse-dust and the ferrofurnace-bottoms samples, chromium
content of the vitrified product did not differ significantly from that of the untreated soil.
The concentrations of chromium in the vitrification-baghouse-dust and ferrofurnace-bottoms samples
were about two and five times greater, respectively, than those found in the untreated soils. These data
are summarized in Tables 7 and 8.
51
-------
Table 7. Contaminant Concentrations in Samples from Site 130
Contaminant
TCLP
Chromium 2
(mg/L)
Hexavalent
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Feed Soil
Analytical
Results
57
58
59
1800
1900
2000
5000
5100
5100
Mean / SD
58 / 1.1
1800 / 100
5100 / 100
Vitrification Baghouse
Dust
Analytical
Results
23
24
24
18003
1 1,000 3
Mean / SD
24/0.58
-
-
Ferrofurnace Bottoms '
Analytical
Results
-
-
-
Mean / SD
-
-
-
Vitrified Product
Analytical
Results
0.11
0.15
0.68
<0.36 4
<0.40 4
<0.41 4
5000
5700
5900
Mean / SD
0.31/0.32
-
5500/470
Notes:
1 Ferrofurnace bottoms were not produced from the vitrification of soil from Site 130.
2 The RCRA TCLP standard for chromium is 5.0 mg/L.
3 Only one analysis was performed.
4 No hexavalent chromium was detected.
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
mg/L Milligrams per liter
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SD Standard Deviation
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
-------
Table 8. Contaminant Concentrations in Samples From Liberty State Park
Contaminant
TCLP
Chromium '
(mg/L)
Hexavalent
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Feed Soil
Analytical
Results
26
30
32
760
950
980
6,300
7,100
7,300
Mean/ SD
29/3.1
900 / 120
6,900 / 530
Vitrification Baghouse Bust
Analytical
Results
11
11
12
360 2
1 6,000 2
Mean/ SD
11/0.58
-
-
Ferrofurnace Bottoms
Analytical
Results
1.6
2.2
3.4
<4.03
<4.03
<4.03
30,300
37,800
39,500
Mean/ SD
2.4 / 0.92
-
35,900 /
4900
Vitrified Product
Analytical
Results
0.33
0.68
2.1
<0.39 3
<0.41 3
1.8
10,000
10,000
11,100
Mean / SD
1.0/0.94
-
10,300/577
Notes:
1 The RCRA TCLP standard for chromium is 5.0 mg/L.
2 Only one analysis was performed.
3 No hexavalent chromium was detected.
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
mg/L Milligrams per liter
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SD Standard Deviation
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
-------
4.4.3 Hexavalent Chromium
Hexavalent chromium was not detected in the ferrofurnace-bottoms samples and was only detected in
one of six vitrified-product samples (see Tables 7 and 8).
Hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from one-half to about the same concentration in the
vitrificatton-baghouse dust as in the untreated soil. The baghouse dust was presumed to be mainly
fine-sized, untreated soil that was carried over from the dust caused by introducing the dried, blended soil
mixture into the vitrification furnace and carried through the APCS.
4.4.4 NJDEP Soil Cleanup Standards
Comparison of metal concentrations in the vitrified product to the NJDEP soil cleanup standards
indicated that the vitrified product met the non-residential soils standard for hexavalent chromium,
antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium, but not for chromium. For residential soils the
vitrified product met the NJDEP standard for hexavalent chromium, beryllium, and possibly cadmium,
but not for chromium, antimony, nickel, and vanadium. Table 9 presents the metal concentrations found
in the vitrified products from each site and the NJDEP soil cleanup standards for non-residential areas.
4.4.5 Stack Emissions
The test program consisted of two separate runs. Sampling for chromium and hexavalent chromium was
completed at Sampling Locations S9 and S13 during both runs. Method 23 was completed at Sampling
Locations S9A and S13 during Run 1 and at Sampling Location S13 for Run 2. Method 23 sampling was
not conducted during Run 2 at Sampling Location S9 because the dioxin and furan results from Run 1
were similar, as expected from their proximity. Method 29 sampling was completed at S9 during both
Runs 1 and 2. CEM measurements for oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and
sulfur dioxide were taken during Runs 1 and 2 at Sampling Location S13. Although not a planned
measurement, during Run 2 total hydrocarbon (THC) CEM measurements were also taken at Sampling
Location SI3.
54
-------
Table 9. New Jersey Soil Cleanup Standards
Chromium
Hexavalent
chromium
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Nickel
Vanadium
Vitrified Product (mg/kg)
Site 130
5500
<0.41
61
0.80
<2.2
420
380
Liberty State Park
10,000
<0.39tol.83
29
0.78
<2.1
1,600
440
New Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria1 (mg/kg)
Residential
5002
,io2
14
I4
1
250
370
Non-Residential
5002
102
340
I4
100
2,4005'6
7,100s
Notes:
ND
State of New Jersey Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:23E), Criteria for
Residential and Non-Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup and Impact to Ground-water, revised
July 11, 1996.
Currently under revision.
Values range from below detection limit (0.39 to 0.41 mg/kg) for five samples to 1.8 mg/kg for
one sample.
This health-based criteria is lower than analytical limits; the cleanup criteria is based on practical
quantitation level.
The level of the human health based criterion is such that evaluation for potential environmental
impacts on a site-by-site basis is recommended.
This criterion is based on the inhalation exposure pathway which yielded a more stringent
criterion than the incidental ingestion pathway.
Not defined.
4.4.5.1 Field Test Changes
Run 1
A process upset occurred midway through the Run 1 test, and only one of the two required traverses was
completed. Because of the incomplete test, the data throughout this report have been qualified as
observational due to this sampling deviation.
55
-------
Post-test calibrations were conducted on two probes with suspect pitot calibrations. A leak in the pitot
tubes that was missed during initial calibrations was found prior to sampling. On the sampling run sheet
for Method Cr+6 (hexavalent chromium) at Sampling Location S13, the pitot tube calibration was 0.876
and the post-test calibration value was 0.848. This latter value was used for all calculations. On the
sampling run sheet for Method Cr+6 at Sampling Location S9A, the pitot tube calibration was 0.880 and
the post-test calibration value was 0.823. This latter value was used for all calculations.
Run 2
Prior to the start of Run 2, a damper in the duct connecting the vitrification furnace hood to the APCS
was opened by the technology developer. The sampling team were not aware of this deviation, which
allowed much more dilution air to enter the APCS. All results from Run 2, while analytically sound,
were not obtained with the system operating under the same conditions as the Run 1 results. The Run 2
results should also be considered observational.
4.4.5.2 Results of Critical Parameters—Fluegas
Tables 10 and 11 present chromium and hexavalent chromium results at Sampling Locations S13 and
S9A.
4.4.5.3 Results of Non-Critical Parameters—Fluegas
Tables 12 through 17 present concentrations and emission rate results, as well as measurement
parameters, for non-critical parameters, including dioxins and furans, trace metals, particulate, and
hydrogen chloride gas (HC1) at Sampling Locations S13 and S9A.
56
-------
Table 10. Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S13
Parameter
Cr*6 Concentration, uncorrected
Cr+6 Concentration @ 7% O2
Cr+6 Emission rate
Chromium concentration,
uncorrected
Chromium concentration @ 7%
02
Chromium emission rate
Moisture content
Isokinetic variation
Dry gas volume
Fluegas temperature
Velocity
Stack gas flow rate
Oxygen content
Carbon dioxide content
Unit
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
g/hr
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
g/hr
%
%
dscm
°F
ft/s
dscm/hr
%V
%V
Site 130
3.22
195
6.02
24.4
1,480
45.7
2.69
102'
1.05
137
17.7
1,870
20.7
0.64
Liberty State Park
0.503
77.7
2.17
7.43
1,150
32.0
1.35
97.4
3.80
81.5
36.0
4,310
20.8
0.34
Notes:
Cr+s
dscm/hr
g/hr
mg/dcsm
02
Based on an incomplete test run
Hexavalent chromium
Dry standard cubic meter per hour
Grams per hour
Milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Oxygen
Percent by volume
57
-------
Table 11. Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S9A
Parameter
Cr46 Concentration,
uncorrected
Cr*6 Concentration @ 7% O2
Cr** Emission rate
Chromium concentration,
uncorrected
Chromium concentration @
7% 02
Chromium emission rate
Moisture content
Isokinetic variation
Dry gas volume
Fluegas temperature
Velocity
Stack gas flow rate
Oxygen content
Carbon dioxide content
Unit
^g/dscm
yug/dscm
ywg/hr
^ig/dscm
/^g/dscm
Aig/hr
%
%
dscm
op
ft/s
dscm/hr
%V
%V
Site 130
0.321
20.3
729
2.59
164
5,900
2.86
104 2
1.41
102
14.1
2,270
20.7
0.61
Liberty State
Park
-0.322 '
-56.0 '
-1,410 '
13.7
2,380
60100
0.751
95.0
2.61
74.1
24.9
4,380
20.8
0.34
Notes:
1
2
Cr+s
dscm
ft/s
jug/dscm
%V
Negative numbers due to sample dilution
Based upon an incomplete test run
Hexavalent chromium
Dry standard cubic meter
Feet per second
Oxygen
Microgram per dry standard cubic meter
Microgram per hour
Percent by volume
58
-------
Table 12. Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Parameters
Parameter
Moisture content
Isokinetic variation
Dry gas volume
Fluegas temperature
Velocity
Stack gas flow rate
Oxygen content
Carbon dioxide content
Unit
%
%
dscm
°F
ft/s
dscm/hr
%V
%V
Sampling Location S13
Site 130
4.84
99.0 '
1.10
129
16.8
1,760
20.7
0.61
Liberty State
Park
1.31
96.5
2.60
82.7
38.9
4,650
20.8
0.34
Sampling
Location S9A
Site 130
4.21
104'
1.07
103
14.4
2,300
20.7
0.61
Notes:
Based on an incomplete test run
dscm Dry standard cubic meter
dscm/hr Dry standard cubic meter per hour
ft/s Feet per second
%V Percent by volume
59
-------
Table 13. Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Concentration at 7 Percent Oxygen
Parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
Total TCDF
Total PeCDF
Total HxCDF
Total HpCDF
Total TCDD
Total PeCDD
Total HxCDD
Total HpCDD
Minimum 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ (not including ND)
Maximum 2,3,7,8-
TCDD TEQ (including
ND)
Unit
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
ng/dscm
Sampling Location S13
Site 130
58
ND, 9.7
28
Q,31
Q,8.0
J, C, 64
Q,24
20
J,4.4
J,6.6
J, Q, 8.9
J, 14
76
J, 7.6
48
34
J, Q, 290
J, Q, 920
Q,470
Q, 250,
Q, 100
Q,57,
Q,47
Q,65
93
>39
<56
Liberty State
Park
Q,7.6
ND,4.6
J, C, 4.0
J,4.5
J, Q, 2.6
J, Q, 5.9
J, Q, 2.8
J, 3.6
ND,2.7
ND, 3.9
J, 2.1
J, 2.1
J, 8.8
ND,4.4
J, 10
J,7.9
b, 79
Q,78
J, Q, 48
J, Q, 28
J, 10
Q, 14
J, Q, 14
J, Q, 20
J, 21
>5.3
<13
Sampling
Location S9A
Site 130
J, 2.2
ND,2.6
J, 1.7
J, 1.8
ND,2.2
J, 1.9
J,Q, 1.1
J, 0.82
ND, 1.0
ND, 3.1
ND, 3.0
ND, 2.8
J,2.6
ND, 2.0
J, Q, 1.7
J, Q, 2.0
J, Q, 10
Q,38
J, Q, 13
J, Q, 7.4
J, 2.7
J, Q, 2.8
J.Q..1.3
J, 2.1
J,Q,3.1
>1.2
<6.8
60
-------
Table 13 (Continued). Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Concentration at 7 Percent Oxygen
Notes:
b Estimated result/result is less than reporting limit
C Co-eluting isomer
HpCDD Heptachloro dibenzodioxins
HpCDF Heptachloro dibenzofuranss
HxCDD Hexachloro dibenzodioxins
HxCDF Hexachloro dibenzofurans
J Detected at less than laboratory reporting limit, result is considered an estimate
ND Not detected, value reported is the detection limit
ng/dscm Nanogram per dry standard cubic meter
PeCDD Pentachloro dibenzodioxins
PeCDF Pentachloro dibenzofurans
OCDD Octachloro dibenzodioxins
OCDF Octachloro dibenzofurans
Q Estimated maximum possible concentration
TCDD Tetrachloro dibenzodioxins
TCDF Tetrachloro dibenzofurans
TEQ Toxicity equivalency factor
61
-------
Table 14. Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Mass Emission Rates
Parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDF
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-PhCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
Total TCDF
Total PeCDF
Total HxCDF
Total HpCDF
Total TCDD
Total PeCDD
Total HxCDD
Total HpCDD
Minimum 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ (not including ND)
Maximum 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TEQ (including ND)
Unit
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
A4g/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
Aig/hr
yug/hr
Aig/hr
Sampling Location S13
Site 130
1.6
ND, 0.27
0.79
Q, 0.85
Q, 0.22
Q,C,1.8
Q, 0.66
0.57
J,0.12
J, 0.18
J, Q, 0.25
J, 0.39
2.1
J, 0.21
1.3
0.95
J, Q, 8.0
J, Q, 26
Q, 13
Q,7.0
Q,2.9
Q, 1.6
Q, 1.3
Q.1.8
2.6
>1.1
<1.5
Liberty State
Park
Q, 0.22
ND, 0.14
J,C,0.12
J,0.13
J, Q, 0.08
J,Q,0.18
J, Q, 0.084
J,0.11
ND, 0.08
ND,0.12
J, 0.060
J, 0.070
J, 0.27
ND, 0.13
J,0.31
J, 0.24
b,2.4
Q,2.4
J,Q, 1.5
J, Q, 0.84
J, 0.30
Q, 0.42
J, Q, 0.42
J, Q, 0.61
J, 0.63
>0.16
<0.39
Sampling
Location S9A
Site 130
J, 0.079
ND, 0.093
J, 0.062
J, 0.067
ND, 0.080
J, 0.068
J, Q, 0.039
J, 0.030
ND, 0.037
ND, 0.11
ND, 0.11
ND, 0.10
J, 0.096
ND, 0.073
J, Q, 0.062
J, Q, 0.073
J, Q, 0.37
Q, 1.4
J, Q, 0.45
J, Q, 0.27
J, 0.098
J, Q, 0.10
J, Q, 0.047
J, 0.075
J,Q,0.11
>0.043
<0.25
62
-------
Table 14 (Continued). Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Mass Emission Rates
Notes:
b Estimated result/result is less than reporting limit
C Co-eluting isomer
HpCDD Heptachloro dibenzodioxins
HpCDF Heptachloro dibenzofiirans
HxCDD Hexachloro dibenzodioxins
HxCDF Hexachloro dibenzofiirans
J Detected at less than laboratory reporting limit, result is considered an estimate
/"g/hr micrograms per hour
ND Not detected, value reported is the detection limit
PeCDD Pentachloro dibenzodioxins
PeCDF Pentachloro dibenzofiirans
OCDD Octachloro dibenzodioxins
OCDF Octachloro dibenzofiirans
Q Estimated maximum possible concentration
TCDD Tetrachloro dibenzodioxins
TCDF Tetrachloro dibenzofiirans
TEQ Toxicity equivalency factor
63
-------
Table 15. Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Average Fluegas Values
Parameter
Moisture content
Isokinetic variation
Dry gas volume
Fluegas temperature
Velocity
Stack gas flow rate
Oxygen content
Carbon dioxide content
Unit
%
%
dscm
OF
ft/s
dscm/hr
%V
%V
Sampling
Location S9B
Site 130
3.41
107'
1.06
98.2
19.5
2,250
20.7
0.61
Sampling Location
S9A
Liberty State Park
1.21
96.7
1.43
72.6
25.8
4,530
20.8
0.34
Notes:
i
dscm
dscm/bx
ft/s
%V
Based on an incomplete test run
Dry standard cubic meter
Dry standard cubic meter per hour
Feet per second
Percent by volume
64
-------
Table 16. Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas
Concentrations at 7 Percent Oxygen
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
VIercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Units
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
Sampling Location
S9B
Site 130
2.46
<10.7
6.81
<0.179
<0.179
0.394
<1.79
1.11
15.0
1.80
O.314
1.11
<8.96
<0.358
<71.6
1.39
23.0
Sampling Location
S9A
Liberty State Park
1.86
<12.8
7.7
O.214
0.088B
0.421
<2.14
0.564
3.97
<0.64
<0.378
<1.71
<10.7
<0.428
<85.7
<2.14
2.97
Particulate
mg/dscm
1,130
425
Hydrogen
chloride gas
mg/dscm
<12.3
<5.72
Notes:
B Blank contamination
mg/dscm Milligram per dry standard cubic meter
< Not detected, value reported is detection limit
65
-------
Table 17. Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas Mass Emission Rates
Notes:
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
VIercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Units
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
mg/hr
Sampling
Location S9B
Site 130
87.6
<383
242
<6.38
<6.38
14.0
<63.8
39.6
533
64.0
<11.2
39.6
<319
<12.8
<2550
49.6
820
Sampling Location
S9A
Liberty State Park
48.6
<335
201
<5.59
2.29B
11.0
<55.9
14.7
104
<16.6
<9.87
<44.7
<279
<11.2
<2230
<55.9
77.5
Particulate
g/hr
40.2
11.1
Hydrogen
chloride gas
mg/hr
<438
149
B Blank contamination
g/hr Grams per hour
mg/hr Milligrams per hour
< Not detected, value reported is detection limit
66
-------
4.4.5.4 Continuous Emissions Monitoring
In order to determine the uncontrolled air emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, and THC from the vitrification unit, on-line CEMs were used. For both Run 1 and Run 2,
the CEMs were extracting uncontrolled exhaust gases at sampling location S13. The gases being analyzed
during Run 1 were carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide.
Additionally, THC was analyzed during Run 2 to determine if the high carbon monoxide that was
encountered during Run 1 was the result of incomplete combustion of any organic compounds in the soil.
Table 18 presents the CEM sampling matrix.
Table 18. CEM Sampling Matrix at Location S13
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Total hydrocarbons
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Runtime
Runl
X
X
X
X
X
15:16-16:02
Run 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
10:29-18:00
During Run 1 the CEMs were on-line only during the time that was spent pouring the molds from the
vitrification unit. During Run 2 the CEMs were on-line for the entire vitrification process. Figure 8a-c
and Figure 9a-c illustrate the results of Run 1 and Run 2 respectively. Table 19 shows the averages of the
flue gas concentrations for each gas for Run 1. Table 20 shows the average flue gas concentration for
each of the gases with the damper open and closed (see Section 4.4.5.1) during Run 2.
67
-------
Figure 8a. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide-RUN 1
Oxygen
Carbon Dioxide
140.00 •]
120.00 •
100.00
g 80.00 •
°- 60.00 •
40.00 :
20.00 •
0.00
\
lj
Figure 8b. Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur Dioxide-RUN 1
Process interupticyi
. (15:24) ;XX
•\ * x
'* \ ' \
\..-'' '"•>' "*N»_---"*v
^ ^V__ '""' " ~----
ri in *f) V}
-------
Figure 9a. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide-RUN 2
Time
Figure 9b. Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulfur Dioxide and THC -RUN 2
35 T
30 -
25 -
I20'
& ,5.
10 •
5 •
0 -
c
e
c
~ EER Offline for Analyzer Damperclosed
Calibrations \
\ \
X N
i i i t~ i i + 4fi!i IT >i*r . [ iti— r~r^r-
^•?:'St'l-?:?. "Ti'o — 'nfiTj'n'nTi'n'nr:
Time
^~^.
en
-------
Table 19. CEMs-Run 1
Contaminant
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Total hydrocarbons
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Entire Sampling Time
(15:16-16:02)
Average
5.51
29.6
282
—
20.7
0.49
Maximum
26.3
116
725
—
20.8
1.5
Minimum
2.69
1.70
95.4
—
20.3
0.21
During Mold Pour Only
(15:16-15:40)
Average
7.11
46.2
398
—
20.7
0.63
Maximum
26.3
116
725
~
20.8
1.5
Minimum
3.85
21.6
180
~
20.3
0.41
Table 20. CEMs-Run 2
Contaminant
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Total hydrocarbons
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Damper Open
(10:29-17:10)
Average
0.96
0.15
547
5.39
20.8
0.30
Maximum
4.67
0.49
2650
21.3
20.9
0.62
Minimum
0.00
0.00
142
2.01
20.4
0.14
Damper Closed
(17:11-18:00)
Average
2.32
0.49
1770
18.7
20.6
0.77
Maximum
3.81
0.49
8490
29.0
20.9
1.2
Minimum
1.19
0.33
469
10.4
20.3
0.19
The decrease in the flue gas concentrations of the contaminants that is evident from Run 1 to Run 2 was
caused by an open damper during the beginning of Run 2. This open damper allowed more dilution air to
enter upstream of sampling location S13, thereby reducing the concentration of the contaminants. At the
completion of the manual methods sampling this damper was closed as is noted on Figures 9a-c. When
70
-------
the damper was closed the concentration of each of the gases increased to values similar to Run 1 with the
notable exception of carbon monoxide which increased to approximately tenfold the carbon monoxide
concentration of Run 1.
4.4.5.5 Compliance with NYSDEC
Flue gas sampling was conducted at Sampling Location S9 to determine adherence to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) guidelines for air emissions. Trace metals,
chromium, and hexavalent chromium were sampled during Runs 1 and 2. Dioxins and furans were
sampled at location S9A during Run 1. Dioxin and furan results from Run 1 were much lower than
expected, therefore, the more conservative dioxin and furan results from S13 were used during Run 2.
Mass emission rates for each of the contaminants tested at Sampling Location S9 are shown in Tables 14
and 17.
New York State employs ambient air guidelines for air emissions based on annual, potential annual, and
short-term air quality impacts. The annual impact is based on the annual mass emission rate for a
compound. In this case, 12 hours was used to determine the annual emission rate for each of the runs.
The potential annual impact is calculated using the hourly mass emission rate for a compound and the
maximum hours of operation in 1 year or 8,760 hours. The short-term impact is based on the impact that
the mass emission rate of a compound has on the environment in 1 hour. These impacts are calculated
using the NYSDEC air guide (NYSDEC 1995).
All compounds were below the NYSDEC annual guideline concentration (AGC) for Runs 1 and 2;
however, several compounds apparently failed to meet the potential annual guideline concentration
(PGC). Because the results of arsenic analysis were below the detection limit of the laboratory analysis,
the actual detection limit was used to determine a conservative mass emission rate. Using this detection
limit, arsenic failed to meet the criteria for PGC for Runs 1 and 2. Hexavalent chromium and total
tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans failed to meet the PGC during Run 1. The PGC assumes that the
vitrification unit emits the same hourly mass emission rate as was tested for 8,760 hours per year. Permit
conditions restricting the hours per year of operation would be considered in a commercial setting. Using
the arsenic detection limit, short-term guideline concentration (SGC) results show that arsenic also failed
71
-------
to meet the SGC criteria for Runs 1 and 2. The conservative mass emission rate based upon the
laboratory detection limit, coupled with the low SGC for arsenic, would explain this failure to meet the
SGC.
4.4.6
Other Analyses
This section discusses the results of additional analyses that were performed on the untreated soil, the
vitrified product, or the ferrofurnace-bottoms product.
4.4.6.1 Chloride Analysis
Prior to the demonstration there was concern that chloride present in the untreated soil might, along with
the organic compounds present in the soil, lead to the formation of dioxins and furans. To assess whether
chloride was present in the untreated soil from Site 130 and Liberty State Park, soil samples from both of
these sites were collected and analyzed for chloride. The results are presented in Table 21. The chloride
concentrations found in the untreated soil from both sites did not correlate with the dioxins and furans
measured the offgas system during the demonstration.
Table 21. Chloride in Dried, Blended Soil Mixture
Site
Site 130
Liberty State
Park
Chloride (mg/kg)
Analytical
Results
35
67
93
34
42
85
Mean / SD
65/29
54/27
Note:
SD Standard Deviation
72
-------
4.4.6.2 Metallurgy of Ferrofurnace Bottoms
Ferrofurnace bottoms, a metallic product rich in iron, was formed during the vitrification of the Liberty
State Park soil. Samples of this material were sent to a laboratory for analyses. The results of the
analyses are presented in Table 22.
4.4.6.3 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
After completion of the demonstration an EPA reviewer requested that SW-846 Method 1312, the
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) be performed on the vitrified product as that would be
one result that regulators would want to have available. The test was performed and the results are
presented in Table 23. No metals were found at concentrations that would cause regulatory concern.
Table 22. Metal Composition of Ferrofurnace Bottoms from Liberty State Park Soil'
Hexavalent
chromium
Chromium
Arsenic
Iron
Molybdenum2
Nickel
Silicon
Sample #1 (%)
ND
3.03
0.03
53.8
30.1
0.29
0.03
Sample #2 (%)
ND
3.78
0.04
56.3
27.1
0.31
0.07
Sample #3 (%)
ND
3.95
NA
63.4
18.6
0.33
0.07
Notes:
ND
NA
All samples were digested in nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid and analyzed
by flame atomic absorption.
Molybdenum was a component of the electrodes used during the
demonstration.
Not detected
Not analyzed
73
-------
4.4.7
Cost
Cold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to the soils treated during the SITE
demonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal costs and potential
credits for the vitrified product. The three scenarios evaluated included (1) use of the vitrified product as
aggregate, (2) backfilling of the aggregate on site, and (3) landfilling of the aggregate. Costs for these
three scenarios were $83, $98, and $213 per ton, respectively. Because of the uncertainty of their
formation, potential credits for ferrofumace bottoms were not considered in this economic analysis.
Table 23. Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Results
SPLP Metal
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Site 130
(mg/L)
<0.050
<0.050
0.075
O.OOIO
O.0046
<0.0056
O.034
<0.025
<0.078
O.0032
<0.0076
Liberty State
Park
(mg/L)
<0.050
O.050
0.11
O.0010
O.0046
0.0 16J
O.034
<0.025 .
<0.078
<0.0032
O.0076
Note:
J = Estimated value, below practical quantisation limit.
74
-------
4.4.8
Summary of Demonstration Results
The following are the observational findings of the Cold Top SITE demonstration at the Geotech facility:
The Cold Top technology vitrified chromium-contaminated soil from two New Jersey sites,
producing a product that met the RCRA TCLP chromium standard. Vitrification of soil from
one of the two sites produced, in addition to the vitrified product, a potentially recyclable
metallic product meeting the RCRA TCLP chromium standard. Dust collected in the
baghouse of the APCS failed to met the RCRA TCLP chromium standard.
With the exception of the vitrification-baghouse-dust and ferrofurnace-bottoms samples, the
chromium content of the vitrified product did not differ significantly from that of the
untreated soil. The concentration of chromium in the vitrification-baghouse-dust and
ferrofurnace-bottoms sample were about two and five times, respectively, the concentrations
found in the untreated soil.
The hexavalent chromium concentrations in the vitrified-product and ferrofurnace-bottoms
samples were either not detected or present at a concentration of 500 times less than that
found in the untreated soil. The hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from one half to
approximately the same in the vitrification baghouse dust as in the untreated soil.
Cold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to the soils treated during the
SITE demonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal
costs and potential credits for the vitrified product.
Comparison of metal concentrations in the vitrified product to the NJDEP interim standards
revealed that antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, vanadium, and hexavalent chromium
met the non-residential soil standards while chromium did not.
Although the Cold Top technology has nothing to do with incineration, stack emissions from
the demonstration were compared to Subpart O incinerator regulations, and the results were
mixed.
Data collected during the SITE demonstration were entered into complex modeling
calculations for the NYSDEC air emission regulations. The modeling required that site- and
waste-specific analyses be performed to assess the environmental impact of Cold Top stack
emissions. Modeling results were found to be dependent on the soil, APCS configuration,
and detection limits of the various analytes.
• The chloride concentrations found in the untreated soil from both sites did not correlate with
the dioxins and furans measured the offgas system during the demonstration. The dioxin and
furan results were generally below the laboratory reporting limits.
• Analyses of the ferrofurnace bottoms produced from the Liberty State Park soil indicated that
the samples contained 53 to 64 percent iron, 3 to 4 percent chromium, and less than
0.4 percent nickel, as well as molybdenum from the furnace electrodes.
75
-------
4.5
One sample of vitrified material from each of the soils was extracted and analyzed by the
SPLP procedure for 11 metals. Low amounts of barium were found in both samples and a
very low amount of chromium (0.0056 mg/L) was found in the sample from Liberty State
Park.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
QC checks and procedures were an integral part of the Geotech SITE demonstration to ensure that QA
objectives were met. These checks and procedures focused on (1) the collection of representative samples
that were free of external contamination and (2) the analysis of comparable data. Two kinds of QC checks
and procedures were conducted during the demonstration: (1) checks controlling field activities, such as
sample collection and shipping, and (2) checks controlling laboratory activities, such as extraction and
analysis. A detailed discussion of the QA/QC program is provided in the Geotech Technology Evaluation
Report (TER) (EPA 1999).
Due to an unexpected system shutdown during Run 1, a change to the vitrification furnace APCS during
Run 2, and an unexplainable discrepancy in the mass of untreated soil for Run 1, all data and conclusions
from this demonstration are considered to be observational and do not meet the stringent levels of statistical
significance established for this project.
4.5.1 Conformance With Quality Assurance Objectives
The overall quality assurance goal for the Cold Top SITE Demonstration, was to produce
well-documented data of known quality, as indicated by the data's precision, accuracy, representativeness,
comparability, and completeness, and the target reporting limits for the analytical methods. Specific
Quality Assurance Objectives (QAOs) were established as benchmarks by which each criterion would be
evaluated. These QAOs were presented in the demonstration QAPP and are shown in Table 24. (EPA
1996). This section discusses the quality assurance data for the demonstration.
4.5.1.1
Method Blanks
Method blanks evaluate the representativeness of the data by checking for laboratory-induced
contamination. Method blanks were analyzed with each sample batch and consisted of an aliquot of reagent
76
-------
water carried through all preparation and analysis steps. Ideally, method blanks should not contain analytes
at concentrations above the method detection limit (MDL). Should the blank show contamination,
corrective actions vary, depending on the specific contaminant, its concentration, and whether the
contaminant is also detected in the sample. Chromium was detected in one of three method blank samples
at an estimated concentration of 3.9 mg/kg. Samples associated with this blank were the S4 (soil dryer
baghouse dust) and S7 (dried, blended soil mixture) samples collected on January 29, 1997.
TCLP chromium was detected in one method blank sample at an estimated concentration of 0.0062 mg/L.
The samples associated with this blank were the SI 1 (vitrified product) samples collected on February 10
and 11, 1997. Chromium was also detected in one TCLP blank at an estimated concentration of
0.0056 mg/L, the same concentration as the MDL; the S7 (dried, blended soil mixture) samples collected on
January 27, 1997, were associated with this blank. Barium was detected in only one SPLP blank at a
concentration of 0.085 mg/L; the SI 1 (vitrified product) samples were associated with this blank.
4.5.1.2
Analytical Quality Control Categories
This section discusses the types of analytical QC applied to the data collected during the demonstration.
These QC checks determined the data's accuracy, precision, representativeness, completeness, and
comparability.
4.5.1.2.1
Accuracy
Accuracy is a measure of the analytical system's achievement of the true value. Accuracy is determined by
calculating percent recovery from samples spiked with a known concentration of a selected compound or
analyte
All but three recoveries were within QC limits. One sample of dried, blended soil mixture and one sample
of vitrification furnace baghouse dust had MS and MSD percent recoveries of 0 for TCLP chromium due
to dilution of the extract. Another sample of dried, blended soil mixture had an MS percent recovery of
157.5 for TCLP chromium. Analytical results for these samples are considered to be acceptable without
qualification.
77
-------
Table 24
QA Objectives for Accuracy, Precision, and Completeness
Compound
Chromium
Cr*
Chromium
(TCLP)1
Chromium
Cr**
Chromium
Cr**
Chromium
(TCLP)1
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Nickel
Vanadium
Matrix
Solid
Solid
Solid
Stack
emissions
Stack
emissions
Vitrified
product
Vitrified
product
Vitrified
product
Vitrified
product
Vitrified
product
Vitrified
product
Vitrified
product
Vitrified
product
Analytical Method
SW-846 3052 and
6010A
SW-846 3060A and
7196A
SW-846 13 11.3010A,
and 6010A
EPA Method
Cr+6/3052/6010A
EPA Method Cr+6
SW-846 3052 and
6010A
NJIT/XPS2
SW-846 13 11,3010A,
and 6010A
SW-846 305 land
6010A
SW-846 305 land
6010A
SW-846 305 land
6010A
SW-846 305 land
6010A
SW-846 305 land
6010A
Accuracy
(% Rec)
75 to 125
70 to 130
75 to 125
75 to 125
70 to 130
75 to 125
-
75 to 125
75 to 125
75 to 125
75 to 125
75 to 125
75 to 125
Precision
(% RPD)
<25
<30
<25
<20
<25
<25
-
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
TRL
14 mg/kg
0.41mg/kg
0.56 mg/L
1 .2 ug/ dscm
1 6 ng/dscm
14 mg/kg
-
0.56 mg/L
60 mg/kg
20 mg/kg
60 mg/kg
50 mg/kg
30 mg/kg
Completeness
(%)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Notes:
i
2
Cr"
RPD
TCLP
TRL
%REC
ug;mg
ng;kg
L; dscm
A critical parameter
The New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) perfonned X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
(XPS).This analysis was not performed as part of the SITE demonstration.
Hexavalent chromium
Relative percent difference
Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
Target reporting limit
Percent recovery
microgram; milligram
nanogram; kilogram
liter; dry standard cubic feet
78
-------
4.5.1.2.2
Precision
Precision is a measure of the variability associated with the measurement system. Analytical precision is
estimated by analyzing samples in pairs, either the unspiked sample and its duplicate or the MS and MSD
samples. The degree of variability between a sample and its duplicate is expressed in terms of the relative
percent difference (RPD).
One RPD exceeded the 25 percent QC criteria. A sample of dried, blended soil mixture that had MS and
MSD percent recoveries of 97.5 and 157.5 had an RPD of 47.
4.5.1.2.3 Completeness
Completeness is an assessment of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared
to the amount of data expected to achieve a particular statistical level of confidence. The percent
completeness is calculated by the number of valid points divided by the planned number of measurements
and multiplying the result by 100. Completeness was greater than the quality assurance objective of 90
percent for each set of parameters.
4.5.1.2.4 Representativeness
For this demonstration, representativeness involved sample size, sample volume, sampling times, and
sampling locations. A sufficient number of samples were collected to analyze all of the parameters
required; therefore, the QC objective for representativeness was met.
4.5.1.2.5 Comparability
All parameters were measured using standard methods. Therefore, demonstration data are considered to be
comparable to any other performance data generated using standard methods.
79
-------
4.5.2 Stack Emissions Sampling
Two separate mobilizations were required to complete the two-run project program. Run 1 was not
completed because of a process upset; that is, only one of two traverses was completed at each of the
sampling locations. Run 2 was completed in full; however, the flow condition was different from Run 1
resulting from a damper on the vitrification hood being open.
4.5.2.1 EPA Method Cr+s
Fluegas concentrations of hexavalent chromium were determined using EPA Method Cr+6 (40CFR Part 266,
Appendix DC) at both Sampling Locations S13 and S9A.
i
•
During Run 1, a 0.1-normal potassium hydroxide absorbing solution was used in accordance with the
method. The concentration of sulfur dioxide during Run 1 was detected at levels approaching 50 ppm,
much higher than expected. The pH check that is conducted during the train recovery yielded a pH of 9.5
for both the inlet and outlet trains; therefore, the increase in the acidity of the fluegas did not decrease the
effectiveness of the absorbing solution. An increase in the normality of the absorbing solution was decided
upon for Run 2, because the concentration of sulfur dioxide was expected to be similar to that of Run 1.
Using the average value for the concentration of sulfur dioxide during the stack sampling of Run 1, it was
calculated that a 5-normal potassium hydroxide absorbing solution should be used. The sulfur dioxide did
not reach the expected concentration during Run 2 because a damper in the vitrification hood exhaust was
left open. The increase in normality of the potassium hydroxide solution causes interference in the
laboratory analysis and because of this, reagent blank values were greater in Run 2 than Run 1, resulting in
negative Cr+6 results.
High particulate loading was present at Sampling Location SI3, but because the sampling train does not
utilize a filter, this did not pose a problem during sampling.
Treatment of Blank Results
Reagent blanks for EPA Method Cr+6 were collected during both test runs. A field blank for Sampling
Locations S13 and S9A was also collected after Run 2. The following approach for the treatment of results
80
-------
was used:
• Reagent blank results that were above detection limits were subtracted from the run data, resulting
in negative values.
• Reagent blank results that were below detection limits were not used in the correction of the test
sample results (for example, results below detection limits were treated as zeros).
• No corrections were made in the test data for field blanks.
4.5.2.2 EPA Method 23
Fluegas concentrations of PCDDs/PCDFs were determined using EPA Method 23: Determination of
Polychlorinated-Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated-Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources (40CFR
Part 60; Appendix A 1994). During Run 1, sampling for PCDD/PCDF was conducted at both Sampling
Locations S13 and S9A. During Run 2, sampling for PCDD/PCDF was only conducted at Sampling
Location S13.
Treatment of Results Below Detection Limits
Target analytes were present at concentrations both above and below detection limits of Method 23. The
following procedures were used to sum the two sample train fractions:
• Both Values Detected. When positive values are detected for both sample fractions, the results for
the two fractions are summed. The data are not qualified.
• Both Values Below Detection Limit. When both reported values are below the detection limit, the
data are flagged as not detected (ND), and the sum of the detection limits for the analytes are used in
all of the calculations.
• Some Values are Detected, and Some are Nondetected. As an approximation of the true value, one-
half of the detection limits for the nondetected values, and the actual values for the detected values
are used to calculate reported values. In reporting the sums of mixed values, the data are not
qualified.
Treatment of Blank Results
Reagent blanks for EPA Method 23 were collected during both test runs and archived. A field blank for
Sampling Location S13 was collected after Run 2. No correction to the test data was made for field blanks
81
-------
or reagent blanks, because these results were below detection limits.
4.5.2.3 EPA Method 29
Fluegas concentrations of trace metals, hydrogen chloride gas, and particulate were determined using
modified EPA Method 29: Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources (40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A 1996) at Sampling Location S9. During Run 1, sampling was conducted at Sampling Location
S9B, and during Run 2, sampling was conducted at Sampling Location S9A.
Treatment of Results Below Detection Limits
Target analytes were present at concentrations both above and below detection limits of Method 29. The
I
following procedures were used to sum the two sample train fractions:
• All Values Detected. When positive values are detected for all fractions, the results for the fractions
are summed. The data are not qualified.
• All Values Below Detection Limit. When all reported data are below the detection limit, the data
are flagged as ND, and sum of the detection limit for the analytes are used in all of the calculations.
I i
• Some Values are Detected, and Some are Nondetected. As an approximation of the true value, one-
half of the detection limits for the nondetected values, and the actual values for the detected values
are used to calculate reported values. In reporting the sums of mixed values, the data are not
qualified.
Treatment of Blank Results
Reagent blanks for EPA Method 29 were collected during both test runs and archived. A field blank for
Sampling Location SI 3 was collected after Run 2. The following approach for treatment of results was
used:
The reagent blank results that were above detection limits were subtracted from the run data as per
Method 29. The reagent blank results that were below detection were not used in the correction of
the test sample results (i.e. results below detection limits were treated as zeros).
No correction was made in the run data for field blank results.
82
-------
SECTION 5
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
The center of the Geotech technology is a water-cooled, double-wall, steel furnace that uses submerged
electrode resistance melting. The furnace and associated equipment are capable of a range of melting
temperatures up to 5,200 °F. The technology can be used to vitrify chromium-contaminated soil,
municipal solid waste incinerator ash, fly ash, asbestos and asbestos-containing materials, ceramic
minerals, and a range of other materials, including soils contaminated with heavy metals such as lead and
cadmium. The vitrified product can be formed into granular non-porous solids of 3/8 inch or smaller or
glassy blocks of up to 300 pounds. These products have potential economic value as shore erosion block,
roadbed fill, aggregate for concrete or asphalt, or other uses where a high-density, solid material is
needed. The product can also be spun into mineral or ceramic fiber, which may have economic value as
insulation, wall board, industrial furnace linings, and ceramic fiber.
Geotech currently operates a 50-ton-per day Cold Top vitrification pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New
York. This facility was used for over 34 research and customer demonstrations, including the SITE
demonstration. Geotech says this plant is capable of melting any mineral or combination of minerals that
is present in a relatively dry condition. The molten stream can be collected in an inert, amorphous,
glass-like condition in either large blocks or grit-sized particles or, if the mineralogy is correct, the
molten stream can be introduced to a spinner, and fiber can be produced. Materials fused in this plant
range from high purity zirconia and magnesite, requiring fusion temperatures in excess of 5,000 °F, to
contaminated soils that melt at 1,800 °F.
Geotech has built or assisted with the construction or upgrading of five operating vitrification plants.
The first of these is the Sklo Union plant located in Teplice, Czechoslovakia. This plant was built in
1981 to produce alumina silica ceramic fibers from the vitrified material. The plant has also melted and
poured basic basalt and coal fly ash to produce mineral-fiber products. The plant mainly produces
ceramic fiber, as the commercial value of the ceramic fibers is nearly 20 times that of mineral fiber. The
production capacity of this plant ranges from 800 pounds per hour for ceramic fiber to 4,000 pounds per
hour for
fly-ash residue. Power consumption ranges from 0.78 kilowatt hour per pound (KWH/lb) for ceramic
fiber to 0.23 KWH/lb for fly-ash residue.
83
-------
Geotech has assisted with the design and construction of another ceramic fiber facility at Fibertek S.P.A.
in Atella, Italy, in 1985. The general configuration of this plant was very similar to the Czechoslovakian
I
plant. This plant was also designed with the capability of converting municipal solid waste and fly ash to
mineral-wool-grade fiber but, due to the economics, only ceramic fiber has been produced.
In 1983 Geotech supplied molten stream control, high-speed spinning, and fiber-collection equipment to
the LaFarge Refractaires facility in Lorete, France. The equipment was used to upgrade the
manufacturing efficiency and product quality of the facility.
In 1985 Geotech contracted with Nichias Corporation of Nagano, Japan, to upgrade their melting and
|
fiber-forming process. Geotech furnished a melting furnace, electrical controls, high-speed spinning
equipment, and fiber-collection equipment for a plant that produces ceramic fibers.
I
In 1992 Geotech installed mineral-fusion and fiber-formation equipment in a proprietary plant in Nagoya,
Japan. The plant is designed to vitrify a wide variety of solid mineral waste materials, including clam-
shell residue, sludge-ash residue, and coal-ash residue.
Geotech plans to build a commercial Cold Top vitrification facility near the northern New Jersey •
chromium sites. The facility will use electricity to vitrify solid waste including chromium-contaminated
wastes. The planned capacity of this facility is 300 tons per day. The facility will be able to receive,
prepare, and vitrify waste material, and dispose of the vitrified product from the chromium sites as well
as from municipal solid waste incinerators and other producers of hazardous and non-hazardous waste.
84
-------
REFERENCES
EPA, 1999. Geotech Development Corporation Cold top Ex-Situ Vitrification Technology: Technology
Evaluation Report.
Evans, G. 1990. Estimating Innovative Technology Costs for the SITE Program. Journal of Air and
Waste Management Association, 40:7, pgs 1047 - 1051.
Meegoda, J., W. Kamolpornwijit, D. Vaccari, A. Ezeldin, L. Walden, W. Ward, R. Mueller, and S.
Santora. 1996. Aggregates for Construction from Vitrified Chromium Contaminated Soils.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology, Voll.
pgs 405-415.
Meegoda, J., B. Librizzi, G. McKenna, W. Kamolporuwijit, D. Cohen, D. Vaccari, S. Ezeldin, L.
Walden, B. Noval, R. Mueller, and S. Santora. 1995. Remediation and Reuse of Chromium
Contaminated Soils Through Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification. Proceedings of the 27th
Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, pgs 733-742.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1995. Guidelines for the
Control of Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants.
R.S. Means Company, Inc. 1996. Means Site Cost Data, 15th Annual Edition. Construction Consultants
and Publishers, Kingston, MA.
R.S. Means Company, Inc. 1997. R.S. Means Building Construction Cost Data: 55th Edition.
Construction Consultants and Publishers, Kingston, MA.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Geotech
Development Corporation Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System Technology Demonstration in
Niagara falls, New York; New Jersey Chromium Sites.
85
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for
Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
It you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HEREd ;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penally for Private Use
S3QO
EPA/540/R-97/506
------- |