United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
 EPA/540/SR-92/079
 September 1993
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Technology Demonstration
Summary

Resources Conservation
Company's Basic Extractive
Sludge Treatment  (B.E.ST.®);
Grand Calumet  River,
Gary,  Indiana
  An evaluation of Resources  Con-
servation Company's (RCC) Basic Ex-
tractive Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.®)*
pilot plant was conducted between July
1 and July 22, 1992, during a demon-
stration by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection  Agency (EPA), under the
Superfund Innovative Technology Eval-
uation (SITE) Program. The demonstra-
tion evaluation was conducted in Gary,
IN; the material treated was contami-
nated river bottom sediments collected
from two locations within the Grand
Calumet River (GCR). The organic con-
taminants of concern were PCBs and
PAHs. Figure 1 shows the general lo-
cations of the demonstration test area,
test sediment collection  points in the
GCR, and major, regional  features.
  This demonstration was part of a co-
operative effort. In addition to the EPA
SITE Program, other agencies involved
included EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO); the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), Chicago Dis-
trict; and EPA Region V. The GLNPO
Assessment and Remediation of Con-
taminated Sediments Program through
the COE, in cooperation with EPA Re-
  Mention of trade names and commercial products
  does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
  tion for use.
gion V, arranged for the developer's
services and the location where the
demonstration was conducted.
  GLNPO leads efforts to carry out the
provisions of Section 118 of the Clean
Water Act  (CWA).  Under Section
118(c)(3) of  the CWA, GLNPO is re-
sponsible for undertaking a 5-yr study
and demonstration program of meth-
ods for the assessment and remedia-
tion of contaminated sediments. One
of the areas of concern for priority con-
sideration is the GCR. The COE (Chi-
cago District) has authorization (Rivers
and Harbors Act of  1910) to maintain
harbor channels by periodic dredging.
This includes the federal channel at
Indiana Harbor downstream of the GCR.
However, EPA has designated the bot-
tom sediments at various locations as
moderately polluted, heavily polluted
or toxic. As a result, materials to be
dredged from the Indiana Harbor and
Canal are not suitable for open-water
disposal  in Lake Michigan. At the
present time, an environmentally ac-
ceptable disposal facility for dredged
materials from Indiana Harbor does not
exist. Consequently, dredging to main-
tain adequate navigation depths  has
                                           Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
not been conducted at this harbor since
1972.
  The B.E.S.T.® Process is a patented
solvent extraction system that uses tri-
ethylamlne at different temperatures to
separate organic contaminants from
sludges, soils, and sediments. The or-
gantcs are concentrated in an oil phase,
thereby reducing the volume of wastes
that require further treatment. Multiple
extractions are conducted  at predeter-
mined process conditions  and are fol-
lowed  by solvent recovery, oil polish-
ing, solids drying, and water stripping.
  the  use  of triethylamine as the  ex-
tracting agent distinguishes B.E.S.T.®
from other solvent extraction and soil
washing technologies. Triethylamine
has a property known as inverse misci-
bliity. At temperatures below 60°F, tri-
ethylamine  is miscible with water;
above  60°F, triethylamine  is only
slightly miscible with water. Therefore,
at temperatures below 60°F, solids can
be dewatered and organic contaminants
can be extracted simultaneously. This
process Is referred to as a  cold extrac-
tion. Following cold extractions, the ex-
traction  temperature is raised above
60°F, and any remaining organic con-
taminants are  removed. These warm
and hot extractions are usually con-
ducted at  temperatures  ranging  be-
tween  100°F and 170°F. The  organic
contaminants initially present  in  the
sludge or soil are concentrated in  the
oil  fraction; additional treatment (e.g.,
incineration) is required to destroy or
immobilize these contaminants.
  This Summary was developed by
EPA's  Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory,  Cincinnati, Ohio  to  an-
nounce key findings of a SITE Program
demonstration, which  is  fully docu-
mented  In two separate reports  (see
ordering Information at back).

Introduction
  The SITE Program was established in
1386 to promote the development  and
use of innovative technologies to remedi-
ate Superfund sites. One component of
the SITE Program is the Demonstration
Program, through which EPA evaluates
field or pilot-scale technologies that  can
be  scaled up for commercial  use.  The
main objective of the demonstration is to
develop  performance, engineering,  and
cost information for these technologies.
  This Technology  Demonstration Sum-
mary highlights the  results of an evalua-
tion of the effectiveness of the B.E.S.T.®
Process to remove PAHs, PCBs, and oil
and grease (O&G) from bottom sediments
collected from the GCR   in Gary, IN.
Figure 1. Regional location map.


Sample locations were chosen to obtain
two different sediment types, Sediment A
and Sediment  B. Sediment  A contained
high concentrations of metals and low con-
centrations of organic  compounds, rela-
tive to Sediment B. Sediment B, collected
upstream from Sediment A, contained high
concentrations of  organic contaminants
such as PAHs, PCBs and O&G.
  Prior to the demonstration testing, both
sediment types were prescreened to sepa-
rate oversize materials and were thor-
oughly homogenized (mixed). Separate
bench-scale treatability tests were then
conducted on each of the sediment types.
These tests were performed by RCC
to determine initial operating conditions,
such as the number of extraction  cycles,
to be used in the demonstration. A flow-
chart of the experimental design  used to
guide the  B.E.S.T.® evaluation is shown
as Figure 2.
  The demonstration  consisted  of two
separate tests, one for each sediment type.
Each test consisted of two phases. Phase
I involved determination  of  the optimum
process variables from the results of three
runs, and  Phase II consisted of two addi-
tional runs at the determined optimum con-
ditions.  Samples of the untreated sedi-
ments, product solids, product water, and
product oil were collected during each of
the five runs (Phases  I and II). These
samples were analyzed  for total PAHs,
PCBs.and  O&G. Product solids, product
water, and product oil were also anaylzed
for residual triethylamine solvent.
  Results  of the demonstration showed
that the process met (or exceeded) the
vendor's claims for organic contaminant
removal efficiency of £96% for treating
both of the test sediments. The analytical
results for Sediment A indicated that the
process removed greater than 98% of the
O&G, greater than 99% of the PCBs, and
96% of the PAHs. The residual solvent in
            River Sediment
       Characterization Sampling
             Collection of
          River Test Material
           Prescreening and
           Homogenization
           of Test Material
             Bench-Scale
           Treatability Tests
            Demonstration
                Tests
 Figure 2. Experimental design flow diagram.

-------
the product solids and product water gen-
erated from Sediment A was 45  mg/kg
and less than 2 mg/L, respectively. A final
oil  product was not generated for Sedi-
ment A because of a lack of oil (less than
1%) in  Sediment A feed. The  analytical
results for Sediment B indicated that the
process removed greater than 98% of the
O&G and greater than 99% of the PCBs
and PAHs.  The residual  solvent  in the
product solids, product water, and product
oil generated from  Sediment B was 103
mg/kg, less than 1 mg/L, and 733 mg/kg,
respectively.

Process Description
  The B.E.S.T.® pilot-scale system is de-
signed to separate  organic contaminants
from soils, sludges, and sediments, thereby
reducing the volume of  hazardous waste
that must be treated. Triethylamine is used
as the extracting agent because it exhibits
several beneficial characteristics.  These
characteristics include:
  • A high vapor pressure (therefore the
    solvent can be  easily recovered from
    the extract of oil, water, and solvent
    through simple  steam stripping)
  • Formation of a low-boiling azeotrope
    with water (therefore the solvent can
    be recovered from the extract to very
    low residual levels, typically less than
    100 ppm)
  • A heat of vaporization one-seventh
    that of water (therefore,  solvent can
    be  recovered from the treated solids
    by simple heat with a very low energy
    input)
   •Alkalinity  (pH=10)  (therefore some
    heavy  metals can  be converted  to
    metal hydroxides, which  can precipi-
    tate and  exit the process  with the
    treated solids).
  The generalized B.E.S.T.® solvent ex-
traction process  is shown in  Figure  3.
Contaminated  materials are initially
screened to less than  1/2-in diameter
(1/8-in  for this demonstration). The
screened material is added to a refriger-
ated Premix Tank along with a predeter-
mined volume of 50% sodium hydroxide.
The Premix Tank is sealed,  purged with
nitrogen, and  then  filled with chilled  tri-
ethylamine solvent. The chilled  mixture is
agitated and allowed to settle. The result-
ing solution from this cold extraction con-
sists of a mixture of solyated oil,  water,
and solvent. The mixture is decanted from
the solids and centrifuged, and the sol-
vent and water are separated out of the
mixture by distillation.
  The cold  extractions  are repeated  as
additional feed is added to  the Premix
Tank to accumulate enough solids to per-
form-subsequent extraction cycles. Solids
with high moisture contents may require
more than one cold extraction. During this
 demonstration,  Sediment  A  (containing
 41% moisture) required  two cold  extrac-
 tions.
    Once  a sufficient volume of moisture-
 free solids is accumulated, it is transferred
 to  the  steam-jacketed  Extractor/Dryer.
 Warm triethylamine is then added to the
 solids. This  mixture  is heated, agitated,
 settled and decanted. The warm and hot
 extractions separate the organics  not re-
 moved during the initial  cold extractions.
 Three products are derived from the total
 process: product solids, product water, and
 concentrated oil containing the organic
 contaminants.
    The pilot plant used for this demonstra-
 tion is a self-contained  mobile unit that
 allows onsite testing to be performed at a
 pilot scale. It consists of two portable skids
 that are mounted on a low boy trailer (8 ft
 x 45 ft) on which the unit  is transported.
 The process skid (20 ft x  8 ft) has two
 levels and contains  the majority  of the
 B.E.S.T.® process equipment including the
 Premix Tank, the Extractor/Dryer, the Sol-
 vent  Evaporator, the Centrifuge, storage
 tanks, pumps, and  heat exchangers. The
 second smaller utility skid  (10 ft  x  8 ft)
 contains several utility systems to support
 the operation of the process skid,  includ-
 ing a refrigeration  unit used to cool the
 solvent.  Power requirements for the pilot
 plant are 480 volts, three-phase power at
 225 amps, which is accessed from a main
           Primary Extraction/1    Secondary Extraction/
               Dewaterlng            Solids Drying
            Soih*
                    Solvent Storage
           Filter
           Cake
         Sludge
Solvent Separation I  Solvent Recovery



                I
                                                                                                            Water Product
 Figure 3. Generalized diagram of the RCC B.E.S. T.® solvent extraction process.

                                                              3

-------
power source  (i.e., electrical drop) by an
electrical distribution  panel supplied  by
RCC. A support trailer accompanies the
pilot plant, transporting ancillary equipment
and providing a storage and working facil-
ity during testing.

Test Program
  The primary objective of this SITE dem-
onstration was to evaluate the effective-
ness of the B.E.S.T.® solvent extraction
technology on two test sediments having
different contaminants or contrasting con-
centration levels of the same contaminants.
Therefore, the sediments treated were col-
lected at two  different transect locations
along the east branch of the GCR (see
Figure 1). Sediments collected and homo-
genized from Transect 28 were designated
Sediment A, and sediments collected and
homogenized from Transect 6 were des-
ignated  Sediment  B. The  transect loca-
tions were  located approximately 2 miles
apart. The Sediment A (Transect 28) loca-
tion was located slightly downstream of
an oil-skimmed settling lagoon, which re-
ceives wastewater from primary bar plate
milts  and basic oxygen  process  (BOP)
shops. Sediment B (Transect 6) was lo-
cated slightly  downstream  from the dis-
charge of a coke plant. Sediment A con-
sisted of high  levels of  metals and low
levels of organic contaminants relative to
Sediment B. Sediment B was composed
of high levels of organic contaminants and
tower levels of metals.
   Prior to the demonstration, each of the
two sediment types was prescreened, thor-
oughly homogenized, and  subjected to
bench-scale treatability testing.  These
tests, which were conducted by RCC, pro-
vided initial operating conditions. Critical
measurements were  identified with the aid
of sediment characterization analyses. The
critical parameters selected for the dem-
onstration tests were:
   * PAHs and PCBs in all solid and liquid
    process streams
   • O&G in the feed material, treated sol-
    ids, and water phase (O&G was iden-
    tified as critical because oil is a pro-
    cess residual)
   * Triethylamine in the treated  solids,
    water phase, and oil phase
   « Moisture  In  the feed  material and
    treated solids
   • Toxteity Characteristic  Leachate Pro-
    cedure (TCLP) metals in the feed ma-
    terial and treated solids
   • Masses of feeds (including steam and
    caustic)
   • Masses of treated residuals (solids,
    oil, water, and recovered solvent)
   After the initial conditions and critical
 measurements were determined, the ac-
tual demonstration testing was initiated. A
pilot-scale unit was utilized to conduct the
testing, and was batch-loaded on average
with  approximately  170lbs of wet  sedi-
ment/batch (test run). Two demonstration
tests were  conducted, one for each  sedi-
ment type. Each demonstration test con-
sisted of two phases. Phase I involved the
determination  of  optimum  process  vari-
ables for each test sediment. These vari-
ables included number of extraction cycles,
mixing times, and extraction temperature.
Three sets of conditions,  determined by
RCC, were tested. Phase II consisted  of
two additional runs at optimum conditions
determined in Phase I. This resulted in a

Table 1. Extraction Sequence Used for Sediment A
total of three runs at optimum conditions
for  each sediment type. Tables 1 and 2
present the actual sequence of extraction
cycles conducted during the demonstra-
tion for Sediments A and B, respectively.
  Samples were  collected and analyzed
for each process stream specified in Table
3. PAHs, PCBs,  and O&G  were critical
analyses for all media except vent gas.
These contaminants were known to be in
both sediment types and were the primary
constituents targeted  for removal using
the B.E.S.T.® Process. Triethylamine was
targeted for analysis in the product streams
and vent gas emissions because of its
                          Extraction Temperature (°F)
Phase I "
Extraction
Cycle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Run 1
cold (62)
warm (1 06)
warm (95)
warm (95)
warm (103)
hot (170)
-
Run 2
cold (50)
cold (40)
cold (38)
warm (98)
warm (125)
hot (160)
hot (160)
Run 3
cold (S3)
cotd (45)
warm (1DO)
hot (155)
fiot (166)
hot (166)
hot (166)
Phase II "
Run 4
cold (48)
cold (42)
warm (1 1 0)
hot (155)
hot (1(5$)
hot (164)
hot (164)
Run 8
cold (S2)
cold (46)
warm (97)
hot (152)
hot (167)
hot (160)
hot (160)
  Shaded columns indicate the three optimum runs.
 Table 2. Extraction Sequence Used for Sediment B '
                          Extraction Temperature (°F)
Phase I '
Extraction
Cycle
1A1
1A2
1A3
1B1
1B2
1B3
2
3
4
5
6
7
Run 1
cold (49)
cold (47)
(NC)C
cold (41)
cold (53)
cold (52)
hot (145)
hot (152)
hot (161)
hot (148)
hot (157)
hot (143)
Run 2
oold (28)
cold (42)
sold (38)
cold (39)
cold (47)
cold (36)
hot (152)
hot (157)
hot (ISO)
hot (152)
hof (1B1)

Run3
cold (32)
cold (40)
cold (40)
cold (29)
cold (38)
cold (46)
hot (151)
hot (150)
hot (152)
hot (151)
hot (146)
hot (150)
Phase II "
Run 4
cold (28)
cold (48)
«*>Jd (39)
cold (61)
cold (53)
cold (4$)
hot (147)
hot (156)
hot (170)
hot (155)
hot (1S8)

Rust 5
cold (51)
cold (41)
oold (m\
cold (39)
cold (45)
cold (44}
hot (146)
'hot (160)
hot (153)
h6t (154)
hot(1S2)

   Because of the high moisture content of Sediment B,
   both sediment and solvent were fed to the Premix
   Tank. The portions of each were limited so that the
   temperature rise of tha solvent/water phase was at
   an acceptable limit.
 b  Shaded columns indicate the three optimum runs.
   NC= Not conducted

-------
Table 3.  Summary of Analyses Conducted for the RCC B.E.S. T* SITE Demonstration


Parameter
Untreated
Sediment
(Raw
Feed)
Treated
Sediment
(Product
Solids)
Water
Phase
(Product
Water)
Decant
Water
(from Raw
Feed)
Oil
Phase
(Product
Oil)

Intermediate
Solvent/Oil
Mixture
Solvent
Feed and
Recycled
Solvent


Vent
Gas
    Critical
PAHs"
PCBs
Oil and Grease
Moisture*
Triethylamine
TCLP Metals'
A
A
A
A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A

A
A
A



A
A

A
A

A
A




A
A






'

A

Non-Critical
Total Suspended Solids
Proximate/Ultimate
Total Metals"
Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Volatile Solids
Total Cyanide
Reactive Cyanide
Reactive Sulfide
Particle Size
Total Phosphorus
pH
Total Disolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon/Total
Inorganic Carbon
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Conductivity

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

'



A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A




A

A
A
A
A

"

A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A





-

A




A



























-
A





























    Special Studies
Biodegradation I
A

1



  Specific PAH compounds analyzed for are presented in table 4.
  Moisture was critical for all samples except for the oil phase.
           TCLP metals include Aii, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Se, and Ag.
           Total metals include Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Hg, Ni, Se, Tl, Va, and Zn.
potential  as a process  residual. Moisture
content and TCLP were considered criti-
cal because of the original characteristics
of the sediments (high moisture and met-
als contents).
   Six main process streams were sampled
and analyzed for each of the two tests.
These process streams included untreated
sediments (raw feed), product solids, prod-
uct water, product oil or oil/solvent mix,
recycled  solvent, and vent emissions. De-
cant water collected from buckets holding
the feed  material from one of  the Sedi-
ment B batches was also sampled. Each
lot of product triethylamine was sampled
prior to use.
Results
  The following data summary is derived
from this SITE demonstration:
   • Contaminant reductions of  96% or
    greater for total  PAHs and greater
    than 99%  for total  PCBs  were
    achieved  from  treatment  of  bottom
    sediments collected from Transect 28
    (Sediment A) of the GCR. Contami-
    nant reductions of greater than 99%
    for total PAHs and greater than 99%
    for  total PCBs were achieved from
    treatment of bottom sediments  col-
    lected  from Transect 6 (Sediment B)
    of the  GCR.  Table 4 provides the
 percent removals for individual  PAH
 compounds from test sediments,  as
 determined from averaging the three
 optimum runs.  Table 5 presents the
 PCB removal efficiencies from test
 sediments for each test run and  as
 total and optimum run averages.
• O&G removal efficiencies in excess
 of 98% were  achieved in the treated
 solids generated from both sediment
 types, as shown in Table 6.
> Mass balances calculated for all ma-
 terials  entering and exiting the pro-
 cess indicated that very good mass
 balance closures were achieved from

-------
Tablo 4. PAH Removal Efficiencies
Sediment A
Treated %
PAHAnalyte Feed* Solids" Removal"
Acenaphlhena 68 1.3 98.1
Acenaphthylene <16 <0.8 —
Anthracene 22 1.3 94.1
Benzo(a)anthracene 25 0.52 97.9
Benzo(a)pyrene 24 0.34 98.6
Benzo(b)ftuoranthene 23 0.36 98.4
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 17 0.22 98.7
Benzo(ghi)perylene 15 0.20 98.6
Chrysene 25 0.52 97.9
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene <18 <0.76 —
Fluoranthene 76 1.4 98.2
Fluorene 51 1.9 96.3
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 15 0.18 98.8
2-Methy!naphtha!ene 25 3.7 85.2
Naphthalene <18 5.1 —
Phenanthrene 92 3.6 96.1
Pyrene 67 1.0 98.5
Total PAHs 548 22 96.0
Sediment B

Feed"
12800
210
2370
1050
810
857
533
457
937
140
4280
7290
547
6410
18700
10800
2810
70920
Treated
Solidsa
42
6.6
16
4.7
4.6
4.1
3.6
2.3
4.7
<2.9
16
35
2.2
83
230
41
12
510
%
Removal1"
99.7
96.9
99.3
99.6
99.4
99.5
99.3
99.5
99.5
>97.9
99.6
99.5
99.6
98.7
98.8
99.6
99.6
99.3
• Concentrations reported In mg/kg (dry weight basis) and are the average of the three optimum runs for each
sedmoni. (Sediment A - Runs 3, 4,and 5; Sediment B = Runs 2, 4, and 5.)
* Percent Removals - Feed Concentration - Treated Solids Concentration
_ 	 y inn


                              Feed Concentration
 Tablo 5.  PCB Removal Efficiencies
    treatment of both test sediments.  Clo-
    sures of 99.3% and  99.6% were ob-
    tained for  Sediments A and  B, re-
    spectively.
   • The  products generated using the
    B.E.S.T.®  Process were consistent
    with  RCC's claims with  regard to re-
    sidual triethylamine  concentrations.
    Average triethylamine concentrations
    of 103 mg/kg, less than 1 mg/L, and
    733  mg/kg for solid, water, and  oil
    product, respectively, were generated
    during the  treatment of  Sediment B
    (Transect 6).  Solid  and water prod-
    ucts  generated from  the treatment of
    Sediment A achieved average residual
    triethylamine concentrations of 45 mg/
    kg and  less than 2 mg/L,  respec-
    tively. Product oil was not generated
    from treatment of Sediment A because
    Sediment A originally contained very
    little  oil (less than 1%).  A summary
    of RCC's claims, and  actual  triethy-
    lamine  concentrations  in the  treated
    solids, product water, and product oil
    are presented in Table 7.

Costs
  Operating and equipment capital cost
estimates were developed for the proposed
full-scale B.E.S.T.® system.  The cost es-
timates were based  on  information pro-
vided  by the  vendor and on  several
assumptions.These  assumptions were
based on the experiences of this demon-
stration and a previous full-scale test con-
ducted at a site in Georgia. Certain cost
factors which were  not included in the
treatment cost  estimate were assumed to
be the responsibility of  the  site  owner/
operator. Costs associated  with  system
mobilization, site preparation, startup, and
Parameter
Sediment A
Total PCBs - Feed (mg/kg - dry weight)
Total PCBs - Treated Solids (mg/kg - dry weight)
Percent Removal (%)
Sediment B
Total PCBs - Feed (mg/kg - dry weight)
Total PCBs - Treated Solids (mg/kg - dry weight)
Percent Removal (%)
R1
7.33
<0.07
>99
364
1.5
99.6
Test Runs
R2 R3 R4a
6.41
0.20
96.9
316
2.1
99.3
8.01
0.05
99.4
495
1.2
99.8
11.8
0.04
99.7
462
1.8
99.6
R5b
16.4
0.04
99.8
497
1.4
99.7
Avgc Standard Deviation0
10.0/12.1
0.08/0.04
99.2/99.7
427/425
1.6/1.8
99.6/99.6
4.1/4.2
0.07/0.006
—
82/96
0.35/0.35
— -
 * Concentrations reported for Run 4 are the average of three field replicate measurements.
 b Concentrations reported for Run 5 are the average of samples analyzed in triplicate.
 0 Two values are given; the first pertains to all five runs and the second pertains to the three optimum runs (Sediment A=Runs 3,4, and 5 and Sediment B=Runs 2,4, and 5).

-------
Table 6. Oil and Grease Removal Efficiencies
 Parameter
                                                       R1
                                                                    Test Runs
                                                               R2      R3
                                      R4a   R5b      Avgc   Standard Deviation0
  Sediment A
  Total Oil & Grease - Feed (mg/kg - dry weight)           9400    7800    7400    6600
  Total Oil & Grease - Treated Solids (mg/kg - dry weight)   195     169     203  '.   66
  Percent Removal (%)                                 97.9    97.8     97.3    99.0
                                                                                        6700   7580/6900

                                                                                         65     140/111

                                                                                        99.0   98.2/98.4
                                                                                                             1030/436

                                                                                                               69/79
  Sediment B                                                                                     103.000/      41,600
  Total Oil & Grease - Feed(mg/kg - dry weight)           66,400 116,000 67,300 167,000 99,100   127,000      35,300

  Total Oil & Grease - Treated Solids (mg/kg - dry weight)  1800    1330    1490    1230    1810   1530/1460     266/310
  Percent Removal (%)                                 97.3    98.9    97.8    99.3    98.2   98.5/98.9        —

"  Concentrations reported for Run 4 are the average of three field replicate measurements.
b  Concentrations reported for Run 5 are the average of samples analyzed in triplicate.
0  Two values are given; the first pertains to all five runs and the second pertains to the average of the three optimum runs. (Sediment A = Runs 3,4, and 5 and Sediment B
   = Runs 2,4, and 5.)


Table 7. Triethylamine Concentrations -  Treated Solids, Product Water, and Oil Phases
  Parameter
                                                                  Test Runs"
                                           Claim    R1       R2       R3     R4"      R5
                                                                                                 Avgc   Standard Deviation0
Sediment A
Triethylamine in Treated Solids (mg/kg)
Triethylamine in Product Water (mg/L)
Triethylamine in Oil Phase
Sediment B
Triethylamine in Treated Solids (mg/kg)
Triethylamine in Product Water (mg/L)
Triethylamine in Product Oil (mg/kg)
<150
 <80
 NA



<150
 <80
<1000
                                                     61.7     93.1      27.8   28.0     79.6      58/45
                                                     <1       <1       <1     <1       2.2       <2/<2

                                                     —       —       ——       —       65.8d
                                                                                                              29.6/29.8
                                                       106
                                                                                               94/103
88.7      55     130     89.3

 1.0       <1     <1       <1

 —       —     —       —       733d
27.4/23.7
   NA
 *  Concentrations reported for each of the five test runs for each sediment are the average of laboratory triplicate analysis conducted on the sample.
 b  Concentrations reported for Run 4 are the average of three field replicate measurements, each of which are the average of laboratory triplicate analysis.
 c  Two values are given for treated solids and product water; the first pertains to all five runs and the second pertains to the three optimum runs (Sediment A = Runs 3,4,
   and 5; Sediment B » Runs 2,4, and 5).
 d  The % values reported for the Sediment A oil/solvent mixture and the Sediment B product oil are the averages of five aliquot (field replicate) measurements.
demobilization  were  also  excluded from
the treatment cost estimate.  The reason-
ing used in  making  these estimates,  or
omitting  a particular cost category, is dis-
cussed in the  Applications Analysis Re-
port.
  The pilot-scale unit used in this demon-
stration operated at an average feed rate
of 90lbs  of  contaminated sediment/day.
The full-scale commercial unit is projected
to be capable of  treating  186 tons/day
(TPD) of contaminated soil or sludge. The
cost estimates  are based on the remedia-
tion of contaminated soil, sludge or sedi-
                                         ment using the proposed full-scale  unit.
                                         The treatment  cost  is  estimated to be
                                         $112 /ton if the system  is on-line 60% of
                                         the time or $94/ton if the system is on-line
                                         80% of the time. Cost information is pre-
                                         sented  in the  Applications Analysis Re-
                                         port for this demonstration.

                                         Conclusions
                                            The  B.E.S.T.®  solvent  extraction  pro-
                                         cess is designed  to  treat sludges, soils,
                                         and sediments contaminated with organic
                                         compounds.  The system is capable of
                                         physically separating  organic contami-
                                                                                     nants, such as  PAHs,  PCBs,  and O&G
                                                                                     from  contaminated media  and con-
                                                                                     centrating the organics  for contaminant
                                                                                     volume reduction. The prototype full-scale
                                                                                     system is only applicable to sludges, but
                                                                                     the proposed full-scale system will be ap-
                                                                                     plicable to soils and sediments as well.
                                                                                       The effectiveness of treatment can be
                                                                                     illustrated from this demonstration and from
                                                                                     previous  case studies. This demonstra-
                                                                                     tion removed at a minimum 96% of the
                                                                                     PAHs, greater than 99% of the PCBs, and
                                                                                     greater than 98% of the O&G from the
                                                                                     contaminated sediments.
                                                                           •ttV.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: W93 - 550-067/80123

-------
  The EPA Project Manager, MarkMeckes, is with the Risk Reduction Engineer-
      Ing Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268 (see below)
  The complete report, entitled "Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program
      Demonstration; Resources Conservation Company Basic Extractive
      Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.®); Grand Calumet River; Gary, Indiana",
      consists of two volumes:
  "Volume /"(Order No. PB93-227122; Cost: $27.00, subject to change)
  'Volume II, Pt.1"( Order No. PB93-227130; Cost: $61.00, subject to change)
  "Volume II, Pt. 2" (Order No. PB93-227148; Cost: $119.00, subject to change)
  •Volume II, Pt 3" (Order No. PB93-2271S5; Cost: $36.50, subject to change)
  "Whole Set" (Order No. PB93-227114; Cost: $207.00, subject to change)
      will be available only from:
          National Technical Information Service
          5285 Port Royal Road
          Springfield,  VA 22161
          Telephone: 703-487-4650
  A related report, entitled "Resources Conservation Company, B.E.S.T.®
    Solvent Extraction Technology - Applications Analysis Report
    (EPA/540/AR-92/079) ts available as long as supplies last from:
          ORD Publications
          26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
          Cincinnati, OH 45268
          Telephone: (513) 569-7562
  Tha EPA Project Manager can be contacted at:
          Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Cincinnati, OH 25268
          (513) 569-7348
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
     BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/SR-92/079

-------