United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA 542-R-00-004
August 2000
www.epa.gov
clu-in.org
&EPA
Potential Applicability of Assembled
Chemical Weapons Assessment
Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams
and Contaminated Media
Technologies
-------
EPA 542-R-00-004
August 2000
POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY OF ASSEMBLED
CHEMICAL WEAPONS ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES
TO RCRA WASTE STREAMS AND CONTAMINATED MEDIA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Innovation Office with
support under EPA Contract Number 68-W-99-003. It is intended to raise the awareness of the technologies
included in the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program, and presents an overview of each
technology, including its applicability, performance, and other factors. Information about the technologies was
obtained from the technology providers. No testing or evaluation was conducted by EPA during preparation of this
document, and an independent assessment of this information was beyond EPA's scope. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. For more information about this
project, please contact: John Kingscott, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (MS 5102G), Washington, D.C., 20460; (703) 603-7189;
e-mail: kingscott.john@epa.gov.
This document may be obtained from EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/tio, or at clu-in.org. A limited number of hard
copies of this document are available free-of-charge by mail from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP), at the following address (please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery):
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198
Fax:(513)489-8695
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special acknowledgment is given to the ACWA program staff and the technology providers for their thoughtful
suggestions and support in preparing this report.
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an evaluation of the potential applicability of Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment (ACWA) technologies to RCRA waste streams and contaminated media found at RCRA and
Superfund sites. The information in this report is intended to provide site managers and other technology
users with a better understanding of the potential uses of ACWA technologies and to help technology
providers better understand the potential market for those and similar technologies. Under the ACWA
program, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has established a process for identifying and
demonstrating alternatives to incineration for the demilitarization of chemical weapons. The seven
ACWA technology providers and their technologies evaluated for this report are:
AEA Technology PLC' s SILVER II™ Technology
• AlliedSignal Inc.'s Immobilized Cell Bioreactor (ICB™) Technology (now known as
Honeywell's ICB™ Technology)
• Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc.'s Solvated Electron Technology (SET™)
• Eco Logic Inc.'s Gas Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR) Technology
• Foster Wheeler Development Corporation's Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)
Technology
• General Atomic's Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) Technology
• Startech Environmental Corporation's Plasma Waste Converter (PWC™) Technology
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) examined the status of these seven ACWA
technologies and their potential to treat RCRA waste streams and contaminated media typically found at
RCRA and Superfund sites, including those currently treated by incineration. EPA worked with DoD
staff and the technology providers to collect available information about the types of RCRA waste
streams and contaminated media that the ACWA technologies treated or could treat. Table ES-1
provides a summary of the ACWA technologies.
This report presents an overview of each technology, including its applicability, performance, and other
factors to be considered. Information about the technologies was obtained from the technology providers
and has not been verified independently by EPA. In addition, the report includes information about the
potential for the application of and market for the ACWA technologies to treat RCRA wastes that have
chemical structures similar to ACWA wastes.
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table ES-1. Summary of ACWA Technologies
Vendor and
Technology
AEA Technology
PLC's SILVER II™
AlliedSignal (now
Honeywell) Inc.'s
Immobilized Cell
Bioreactor™
Commodore
Advanced Sciences,
Inc.'s Solvated
Electron
Technology™
Eco Logic Inc.'s
Gas Phase Chemical
Reduction
Technology
Technology Type (all ex situ)
Electrochemical oxidation - uses
reactive silver that is created by
applying an electric current to a
solution of nitric acid and silver
nitrate
Biological degradation -
combines a high surface area
media with a support matrix in a
bioreactor
Chemical reduction - uses
solvated electron solutions that
consist of alkali or alkaline earth
metals such as sodium or
calcium dissolved in liquid
anhydrous ammonia
Chemical reduction - uses
hydrogen gas at elevated
temperatures
Developmental
Status
Pilot-scale
Field
demonstration
Full-scale;
commercial
treatment of PCB-
contaminated
wastes; has
nationwide permit
for treatment of
PCBs
Full-scale;
commercial
treatment of PCB-
contaminated
wastes
Contaminants
Treated (Matrix)
• Solvents (medical
diagnostic wastes)
• Chlorinated solvents
(groundwater)
• CFCs (pure wastes)
• ODD, DDE, DDT,
Dieldrin (soil,
wastes)
• Dioxins/furans (oil)
• Explosives (soil)
• PAHs (pure)
• PCBs (soil, oil,
surfaces)
• DDT (agricultural
wastes)
• Dioxins/furans
(sediments)
• Hexachlorobenzene
(chemical industry
wastes)
• PAHs (sediments)
• PCBs (soil, oil,
sediments,
groundwater,
concrete, electrical
equipment, process
wastes)
111
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table ES-1. Summary of ACWA Technologies (continued)
Vendor and
Technology
Foster Wheeler
Development
Corporation's
Supercritical Water
Oxidation
Technology
General Atomic 's
Supercritical Water
Oxidation
Technology
Startech
Environmental
Corporation's
Plasma Waste
Converter™
Technology Type (all ex situ)
Hydrothermal oxidation - treats
organic wastes at a combination
of temperature and pressure
higher than the critical point of
water, where the wastes become
highly soluble and functions as a
fuel
Hydrothermal oxidation - treats
organic wastes at a combination
of temperature and pressure
higher than the critical point of
water, where the wastes become
highly soluble and functions as a
fuel
Thermal plasma - uses plasma
gas which is discharged within a
chamber to produce very high
temperatures
Developmental
Status
Field
demonstration
Field
demonstration
Pilot-scale
Contaminants
Treated (Matrix)
• Chlorinated solvents
(wastes typically
found on naval
vessels)
• Chlorinated solvents
(soil, groundwater,
wastes typically
found on naval
vessels)
• Explosives (rocket
propellants)
• Chlorinated solvents
(industrial wastes)
• Explosives (soil,
waste streams)
• Heavy metals (soils,
medical wastes)
Key results for the ACWA technologies; potential applicability to RCRA waste streams and
contaminated media; cost; and potential market include the following.
ACWA Technologies
• The seven ACWA technologies are all operated ex situ and include chemical
oxidation, chemical reduction, biological degradation, or thermal processes.
SILVER II™ is an electrochemical oxidation process; ICB™ is a biological degradation
process; SET™ and GPCR are chemical reduction processes; the SCWO technologies
are hydrothermal oxidation processes; and PWC™ is a thermal plasma process.
• Two ACWA technologies currently are being used for full-scale, commercial
operations (Commodore's SET™ facility in the U.S. and Eco Logic's GPCR facility in
Kwinana, Australia) to treat PCB-contaminated wastes. The others are under
development and have been tested on a number of different waste types at either bench
or pilot and field-demonstration scales. Pilot- and demonstration-scale testing has been
conducted for PCBs in soil (SET™ and GPCR); pesticides in soil (SET™); chlorinated
solvents in groundwater (ICB™); PCBs in groundwater (GPCR); chlorinated solvents in
wastes (SET™, GPCR, and both SCWO technologies); explosives in wastes (SILVER
IV
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
II™ and GPCR, and General Atomies' SCWO); and PCBs in wastes (SET™ and General
Atomies' SCWO).
Potential Applicability to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Six of the ACWA technologies (AEA's SILVER II™; Commodore's SET™; Eco
Logic's GPCR; Foster Wheeler's SCWO; General Atomic's SCWO; and Startech's
PWC) have the capability to treat a wide range of organic compounds (similar to
incineration), while all seven technologies can treat other organic compounds with
chemical structures similar to ACWA chemicals.
While ACWA wastes are typically treated in a liquid phase, several of the ACWA
technologies have the capability to treat materials in solid, liquid, or gaseous phases.
SILVER II™ and PWC™ can treat solid and liquid materials directly, generally without
preprocessing, while the use of other technologies may require some preprocessing. For
the ICB™, materials must be in an aqueous phase. For SET™, materials must be
susceptible to penetration by liquid ammonia; some solids must be crushed or shredded;
and wet sludges may need to be dewatered before they are treated. For GPCR, materials
must be volatilized or atomized before they are treated. Solids are generally passed
through a thermal desorber prior to treatment in a GPCR. For SCWO, materials must be
in a liquid phase or converted to a liquid phase. All seven ACWA technologies can treat
aqueous wastes. ACWA technologies that can treat contaminated soil, sludge, or debris
include SILVER II™, SET™, GPCR, and PWC. These vendors provide modular
equipment that can be used for pre-or post-processing (before or after the primary
system).
The ACWA technologies have been tested on various process wastes, such as oil,
organic liquids, and hydraulic fluids, ion exchange resins, nuclear industry wastes, and
fuels; wastes from textile finishers, chemical manufacturers, wood treating facilities, and
beverage and food processors; shredded or crushed concrete and metals; solid surfaces
such as steel, wood, fiberglass, concrete, and rubber; electrical equipment; solid waste
such as paper, cloth, and plastic; and contaminated media, such as soil, sediment, and
groundwater.
A number of RCRA waste streams include constituents that have chemical structures
similar to ACWA wastes, including those that are ethers, esters, and nitrated compounds.
While the technology providers did not provide data on the treatment of specific RCRA
hazardous wastes, the analysis showed that all seven of the ACWA technologies have the
potential to treat RCRA wastes with chemical structures similar to those of the
ACWA wastes. In addition, as mentioned above, six of the ACWA technologies are
capable of treating a wide range of organic compounds and therefore have the potential
to treat a wide range of organic RCRA waste streams.
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
The types of constituents tested by various ACWA service providers include
chlorinated solvents, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), dioxins and furans, explosives, PCBs,
and pesticides in such matrices as oil, soil, sediment, groundwater, and sludge. For
example, SET™ has been demonstrated in pilot studies to treat organochlorine pesticides
(DDD, DDE, DDT, and dieldrin) in soil to below detection limits.
The values for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA program were all less
than the emission standard for dioxins and furans from incinerators, 0.20 ng/m3
TEQ (40 CFR 63.1203). All seven ACWA technologies generate off-gases, and the
ACWA program provided limited results on the concentrations of dioxins or furans in
the off-gases from the three treatment technologies included in 1999 demonstration
testing. The ACWA program data showed the following concentrations of dioxins and
furans in the off-gases, measured as toxicity equivalent quotient (TEQ, the international
method of relating the toxicity of various dioxin and furan congeners to the toxicity of
2,3,7,8-TCDD): the AlliedSignal ICB™ was 0.064 ng/m3 TEQ; the General Atomies'
SCWO ranged from 0.025-0.100 ng/m3 TEQ; and the Startech PWC™ was 0.100 ng/m3.
In addition, all seven ACWA technology providers stated that the technologies are
designed and operated so that they will not produce dioxins or dibenzofurans in the off-
gases, therefore claiming potential as alternatives to incineration.
Cost
Except for SET™, GPCR, and PWC™, the ACWA technologies are not available on a
commercial scale. In addition, except for projected full-scale costs for SET™ and
GPCR, the technology providers did not provide quantitative cost information for
use of their technologies. EPA requested that all ACWA technology providers identify
the cost for use of their technologies for treatment of RCRA wastes and contaminated
media, and some provided limited information about cost, including projected full-scale
costs. However, these costs were limited to select aspects of a given remediation (such
as costs for electricity) and are not presented here because of concerns about
comparability. The costs for remediation of contaminated sites using the ACWA
technologies would vary based on site-specific factors such as matrix characteristics and
the presence of debris.
One of the criteria for accepting technologies into the ACWA program was that their life
cycle costs would be approximately comparable to those for incineration. It is likely
that additional information will be made available in the future about the costs for use of
the ACWA technologies for treatment of RCRA wastes and contaminated media, after
additional testing is completed for the ACWA technologies. Further, the ACWA
technologies are at different scales of development, and it has been generally observed
that it is difficult to accurately predict costs for use of a technology at a full scale until it
is in common use.
VI
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Potential Market
The potential market for ACWA technologies includes wastes that currently are
treated by combustion and organic wastes that are treated by other technologies or
are disposed. Approximately 3.3 million tons per year of wastes in the U.S. are
managed by combustion, including wastes from the industrial organic chemicals,
pesticides and agricultural chemicals, organic fibers, medicinal chemicals, and botanical
products sectors. An evaluation of 16 RCRA wastes that have constituents with
chemical structures similar to the ACWA wastes showed that the majority (by mass) of
the RCRA wastes are managed by aqueous organic treatment or disposal (with or
without treatment). For example, approximately 44 million tons per year of F003 spent
solvent are managed by aqueous organic treatment and 23 million tons per year by
disposal. Aqueous organic treatment used for RCRA wastes includes processes such as
air/steam stripping, wet air oxidation, and chemical precipitation.
Other vendors provide processes that are similar to the ACWA technologies (in
terms of type of process, such as chemical oxidation and reduction, or thermal
processes). Along with the ACWA technologies, they may provide additional options
for treating organic wastes, including those treated by combustion. To identify such
vendors, EPA searched its EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies (EPA REACH IT) database, which includes information from 750 vendors
of site remediation technologies. A search of EPA REACH IT identified seven vendors
of similar technologies, including EnSolve Biosystems' Encell Bioreactor; Dames and
Moore's Bioinfiltration; High Voltage Environmental Applications' E-Beam; Delphi
Research's DETOXSM; G.E.M.'s chemical reaction process; En-Dyn's Low Temperature
Plasma; and MSE Technology Applications' electron torch. However, the EPA REACH
IT database likely does not include all vendors that may offer similar technologies
(especially for treatment of wastes, rather than media), and some vendors that offer
similar technologies were not identified in this evaluation.
vn
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES 2-1
2.1 AEA's SILVER II™ Technology 2-4
2.1.1 Technology Description 2-4
2.1.2 Available Performance and Cost Data 2-6
2.1.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing 2-7
2.2 AlliedSignal's Immobilized Cell Bioreactor™ (ICB™) Technology 2-7
2.2.1 Technology Description 2-7
2.2.2 Available Performance and Cost Data 2-7
2.2.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing 2-10
2.3 Commodore's Solvated Electron Technology 2-11
2.3.1 Technology Description 2-11
2.3.2 Available Performance and Cost Data 2-13
2.3.3 Results from ACWA Testing 2-17
2.4 Eco Logic's Gas Phase Chemical Reduction Technology 2-17
2.4.1 Technology Description 2-17
2.4.2 Available Performance and Cost Data 2-18
2.4.3 Results from the ACWA Testing Program 2-23
2.5 Foster Wheeler's Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology 2-23
2.5.1 Technology Description 2-23
2.5.2 Available Performance and Cost Data 2-25
2.5.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing 2-26
2.6 General Atomies' SCWO Technology 2-26
2.6.1 Technology Description 2-27
2.6.2 Available Performance and Cost Data 2-28
2.6.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing 2-30
2.7 Startech's Plasma Waste Converter Technology 2-30
2.7.1 Technology Description 2-31
2.7.2 Available Performance and Cost Data 2-32
2.7.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing 2-34
Vlll
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
3.0 POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES TO TREAT RCRA
WASTE STREAMS COMPARABLE TO ACWA WASTES 3-1
3.1 Applicability to Treating RCRA Wastes Currently Treated by Combustion 3-1
3.2 Applicability to Treating RCRA Appendix VIII Wastes with Chemical
Structures Similar to ACWA Chemicals 3-5
4.0 POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES TO TREAT
CONTAMINATED WASTES AND MEDIA 4-1
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX A
A-l Additional Background on the ACWA Program A-l
A-2 Summary of ACWA Technology Service Providers and Technologies Relevant to EPA Effort . A-3
A-3 Points of Contact at ACWA Technology Service Providers and their Team Members A-4
APPENDIX B
B-l Vendors Listed in EPA REACH IT as Providing Technologies Similar to ACWA
Technologies B-3
APPENDIX C
C-l Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Generated and Managed On Site
and Received from Off Site for Management C-2
C-2 Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes
Generated and Managed On Site and Received from Off Site for Management C-3
C-3 Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Generated and Managed On Site C-4
C-4 Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Received from Off Site for Management . . . C-5
C-5 Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes Generated and Managed On Site . C-6
C-6 Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes Received from Off Site for
Management C-7
C-7 RCRA BRS System Type Codes and Descriptions C-8
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
2-1 Summary of Available Performance and Cost Information
for the Seven ACWA Technologies 2-2
2.2-1 Concentrations in Groundwater Prior to Treatment 2-9
2.2-2 Summary of Constituent Concentrations in Southfield, Michigan Field
Demonstration 2-10
2.3-1 Advantages and Potential Limitations of Commodore's SET™ Process 2-12
2.3-2 Summary of Performance Data on the SET™ Process by Contaminant and Matrix Type -
Superfund and RCRA wastes 2-13
2.4-1 Summary of Full-Scale GPCR Operations 2-19
2.4-2 Summary of Pilot/Demonstration-Scale GPCR Operations 2-19
2.4-3 Summary of Laboratory-Scale Testing of GPCR 2-20
2.4-4 Summary of Average Operating Conditions During SITE Demonstration 2-21
2.4-5 Summary of Key Results from SITE Demonstration 2-21
2.4-6 Projected Costs for Three Scenarios Using GPCR Technology, Based on 1994 SITE
Demonstration 2-22
2.5-1 Summary of DARPA/ONR Testing for Foster Wheeler SCWO 2-26
2.6-1 Summary of DARPA/ONR Testing for General Atomies' SCWO 2-29
2.7-1 Emissions of Plasma Converted Gas from Processed Hazardous Medical Waste 2-33
2.7-2 Composition of Silicate Stone from Processing of Lead Contaminated Soil 2-34
3-1 Summary of Industrial Sectors Generating Combusted RCRA Wastes 3-3
3-2 Unit Cost for Use of Incineration 3-5
3-3 Commercial Incinerator Prices 3-5
3-4 Comparison of Types of ACWA Wastes and RCRA Wastes 3-6
3-5 Management Methods for Selected Wastes Generated and Managed On Site 3-9
4-1 Summary of the Prior Work Completed by ACWA Technology Service Providers for
Treatment of Contaminated Wastes and Media 4-2
4-2 Summary of Key Technical Factors for Use of the ACWA Technologies 4-3
FIGURES
2.1.1: Process Flow Diagram for AEA's SILVER II™ Technology 2-5
2.2.1: Process Flow Diagram for AlliedSignal's ICB™ Technology 2-8
2.2.2: Bioremediation System Used in Field Demonstration 2-9
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.5.2: Transpiring Wall Reactor Used in Foster Wheeler's SCWO Technology 2-25
2.6. : Process Flow Diagram for General Atomic's SCWO Technology 2-28
2.7. : Startech's PWC™ Technology 2-31
2.7.2: Startech's PWC™ Process Flow Diagram 2-32
3-1: RCRA Waste Quantities Managed by Combustion Systems (EPA, 1999) 3-2
3-2: Hazardous Waste Codes Used in this Analysis 3-7
Process Flow Diagram for Commodore's SET™ Process for Liquid Wastes 2-12
Process Flow Diagram for Eco Logic's GPCR Technology 2-18
Process Flow Diagram of Foster Wheeler's SCWO 2-24
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Background
The National Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997 established the Assembled Chemical
Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to identify and
demonstrate alternatives to incineration for the demilitarization of chemical weapons. As part of the
program, technology providers submitted proposals for demonstrating alternative technologies.
Technology providers included companies or teams of companies including technology integrators and
technology vendors. In addition, proposals included one or more technologies. Six technology
providers, representing seven technologies used to treat chemical weapons, were selected for
participation in the ACWA program. Three technologies were selected for demonstration testing in 1999
and four technologies for demonstration testing in 2000. The ACWA technology providers and
technologies are (1) AEA Technology PLC (SILVER II™); (2) Parsons/AlliedSignal, now known as
Honeywell (AlliedSignal's Immobilized Cell Bioreactor™); (3) Teledyne-Commodore LLC
(Commodore's Solvated Electron Technology™); (4) Lockheed Martin - Eco Logic and Foster Wheeler
(Eco Logic's Gas Phase Chemical Reduction and Foster Wheeler's Supercritical Water Oxidation); (5)
General Atomics (Supercritical Water Oxidation); and (6) Burns and Roe (Startech's Plasma Waste
Converter™). Additional information about the ACWA program is provided in Appendix A-l.
Because the ACWA technologies have the potential to treat non-chemical weapons wastes, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has undertaken an effort to assess whether these technologies
could be used to treat wastes and contaminated media typically found at RCRA and Superfund sites,
including those currently treated by incineration. For example, much of the organic hazardous wastes at
these sites are being treated by incineration to meet the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
treatment standards.
In 1999, EPA worked with the ACWA program staff and the technology providers to collect available
and relevant information about the technologies and evaluated the potential applicability of ACWA
technologies to RCRA waste streams and contaminated media. This report presents the results of EPA's
evaluation of seven ACWA technologies. The report is intended to assist site managers and other
technology users in understanding the potential uses of ACWA technologies and to help technology
providers better understand the potential market for those technologies.
Information on technology performance and cost provided in this report was obtained from the ACWA
technology providers, and EPA did not perform an independent evaluation of this information.
Information in this report is not intended to revise or update EPA policy or guidance on how to treat
RCRA hazardous waste or clean up sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. In addition,
information presented in this report has no bearing on any of the activities being conducted by the DoD
or the Dialogue on ACWA about the demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions.
Organization of This Report
Section 2 of this report provides a summary of the ACWA technologies, including a description of the
process and a summary of the available performance and cost data. RCRA waste streams that are
potentially comparable to ACWA wastes are described in Section 3, to provide an indication of the types
of RCRA wastes that may potentially be treated by the ACWA technologies. Section 4 discusses the
1-1
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
potential for application of ACWA technologies to treat contaminated wastes and media, and includes a
summary of the prior work.
Appendix A includes additional background information about the ACWA program, and contact
information for the ACWA technology providers. Appendix B provides information about technology
providers other than those in the ACWA program that offer technologies similar to those in the ACWA
program (e.g., chemical oxidation and reduction technologies). These other providers may help
technology users to generalize about the supply of these types of technologies. Appendix C provides a
detailed summary of results from several queries of EPA's Biennial Reporting System for selected
RCRA wastes.
1-2
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES
The seven ACWA technologies that were evaluated for this report are:
• AEA's SILVER II™ Technology
• AlliedSignal's Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Technology (now known as Honeywell's
Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Technology)
• Commodore's Solvated Electron Technology
• Eco Logic's Gas Phase Chemical Reduction Technology
• Foster Wheeler's Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology
• General Atomic's Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology
• Startech's Plasma Waste Converter Technology
Exhibit 2-1 provides a summary of the available performance and cost data for these ACWA
technologies. The remainder of this section provides a summary of these technologies, including a
description of the process and a summary of the performance and cost data available for the technology,
including the results from the recent testing conducted under the ACWA program. The information
presented in this section is based on information obtained from the technology providers and has not
been independently verified by EPA.
2-1
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Exhibit 2-1. Summary of Available Performance and Cost Information for the
Seven ACWA Technologies*
ACWA
Technology
Provider
AEA
Allied Signal (now
known as
Honeywell)
Commodore
Eco Logic
Foster Wheeler
General Atomics
Technology
Used to Treat
Chemical
Weapons
SILVER II™
Biotreatment
Solvated
Electron
Technology
(SET™)
Gas Phase
Chemical
Reduction
(GPCR)
Supercritical
Water
Oxidation
(SCWO)
SCWO
Performance Data
Provided
Bench-scale testing of
two solvent-
containing mixtures
Field demonstration
of a combined
anaerobic-aerobic
system for treatment
of chlorinated solvent-
contaminated
groundwater
Multiple applications
-e.g., for U.S. Navy,
New York State
utility, Federal
Superfund site
Multiple applications
- e.g., for commercial
operations in
Australia and Canada,
SITE demonstration
Pilot-scale testing of
hazardous wastes for
the U.S. Navy
Multiple pilot-scale
demonstrations for
U.S. Navy, Air Force,
and Army
Cost Information
Provided
Amount of
electricity required
to destroy several
organic compounds
General
information on
cost-
competitiveness
Projected full-scale
costs, based on
scale up studies of
batch and
continuous units to
treat solid and
liquid wastes
Projected full-scale
costs from the
SITE
demonstration, and
factors that affect
project costs
None
None **
Technology
Included in 1999
ACWA
Demonstration
Testing (Demo I)
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
2-2
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Exhibit 2-1. Summary of Available Performance and Cost Information for the
Seven ACWA Technologies* (continued)
ACWA
Technology
Provider
Startech
Technology
Used to Treat
Chemical
Weapons
Plasma Waste
Converter™
Performance Data
Provided
Pilot and full-scale
testing of hazardous
and non-hazardous
wastes for commercial
and government
clients
Cost Information
Provided
None
Technology
Included in 1999
ACWA
Demonstration
Testing (Demo I)
Yes
* EPA requested from each technology provider information about the cost for use of their technology to treat RCRA waste
streams and contaminated media. The technology providers made available to EPA only limited information about the cost for
use of their technology. This information is being provided in this table and the remainder of Section 2 of this report because it
provides a limited indication of the costs of the ACWA technologies. EPA recognizes that these data are not complete nor are
they comparable between the technologies. For example, some vendors provided information such as amount of electricity
required. EPA notes that it is not appropriate at this time to perform a comprehensive cost comparison among these technologies
based on the information in this report. Further, as discussed later in this report, some of the ACWA technologies are still in the
process of being commercialized, and cost data for use of these techno logics at a full-scale are not yet available.
** Although cost data were not provided for this rqjort, General Atomics indicated that projected full-scale costs are available for
ACWA and Newport chemical agent demilitarization applications
2-3
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
2.1 AEA's SILVER II™ Technology
SILVER II™ is an electrochemical oxidation process, developed by AEA, based on the use of reactive
silver. The SILVER II™ process was initially developed to destroy organic wastes generated by the
nuclear industry in Great Britain. A 4 kW SILVER II™ demonstration plant, built in Dounreay,
Scotland, in Great Britain, has been used to test the destruction of a variety of waste materials.
An additional 4kW SILVER II™ plant was built at the UK Ministry of Defense chemical weapons base
at Porton Down, England. This plant was used to demonstrate the ability of the SILVER II process to
destroy the chemical warfare agents VX and mustard. The result of these trials, which were conducted in
1996, was that 18 kg of mustard and 15 kg of VX were destroyed to an efficiency level of > 99.9999%.
(Boylston, October 1999)
2.1.1 Technology Description
Figure 2.1.1 is a process flow diagram of AEA's SILVER II™ technology. As shown on this figure, the
technology consists of anolyte and catholyte vessels separated by an electrochemical cell. Organic
material is fed into the anolyte vessel where it is oxidized in a solution of nitric acid to which silver
nitrate has been added. When electric current is applied to the electrochemical cell, the silver is
converted to silver++ ("Silver 2"), which is an extremely active oxidizing agent. This action oxidizes the
organic feed to carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, water, mineral acids, and salts. Materials can be fed by
gravity or by pumping, and can be solid (such as PCB-laced wooden pallets) or liquid. Off gases from
the anolyte vessel are passed through a condenser, with condensed liquid returned to the anolyte vessel,
and off gases passed through a scrubber and potentially through an activated carbon filter before being
discharged to the atmosphere. The SILVER II™ process operates at relatively low temperature and
pressure (up to 90°C and nominally atmospheric pressure). By-products of the process include salts
(referred to on Figure 2.1.1 as miscellaneous inert solids), nitric acid, spent scrubbing solutions, and off
gases. AEA reports that there are low volumes of by-product streams (gaseous, liquid, and solid), and
that dioxins and dibenzofurans are not produced by the process.
2-4
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Figure 2.1.1: Process Flow Diagram for AEA's SILVER II™ Technology (AEA, Not Dated)
Sodium hydroxide
Pure Oxygen
/
N
Condenser
DC Power
Supply
1 1
J—
I
I
'&c>
LEGEND
Cathodic Circuit
Anolyte Circuit
2-5
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
2.1.2 Available Performance and Cost Data (Boylston, May 1999)
AEA reported that the SILVER II™ process has been used to destroy the following types of organic
compounds: general industrial wastes, such as organic ion exchange resins, chlorinated hydrocarbons,
hydrocarbons, mixed PCBs, and oils and hydraulic fluids; nuclear industry wastes; explosives; and fuels.
AEA provided available data on the use of SILVER II™ technology to treat hazardous constituents
frequently identified at RCRA and Superfund sites, such as chlorinated solvents. This included
information about bench-scale testing of two solvent-containing mixtures, conducted in 1992. The tested
materials were radioactive solvent mixtures, labeled or contaminated with C14 and H3, and were wastes
from the manufacture of medical diagnostic kits and other items. The purpose of the testing (referred to
as "proof of principle") was to determine if such solvents could be oxidized by SILVER II™ and that the
resulting radioactivity could be retained in the process. The solvent mixtures had the following
compositions:
Mix 1 (volume %) Mix 2 (volume %)
Methanol 18.3 Water 47.5
Ethanol 18.3 Methanol 47.5
Isopropanol 18.3 40/60 petroleum spirits 1.7
Toluene 5 Chloroform 1.7
Chlorobenzene 5 Carbon Tetrachloride 1.7
Dioxan 3.3
Tetrahydrofuran 3.3
Diethylether 3.3
Methylene Chloride 5
Chloroform 5
Cyclohexane 15
The bench-scale tests were conducted on a batch basis using 28 ml portions of the solvent mixtures over
a 12-hour period and were carried out at a 20°C anolyte temperature. The results from the bench-scale
tests showed that recovery of both C14 and H3 were approximately 98%. The results for the organic
constituents showed that not all the wastes were destroyed during the 12-hour test, based on an analysis
of total organic carbon in the anolyte. However, quantitative information about the specific organic
compounds that remained in the anolyte, and their concentrations, was not provided. The performance
results were attributed to the low bulk concentration and resulting slow oxidation kinetics. However,
AEA reported that their 12 years of development work have shown that when organics react with
SILVER II™, they are completely mineralized, and that no detectable quantities of organic feed material
remain.
Limited data were provided by AEA about the cost for using the SILVER II™ technology. AEA
indicated that a key factor affecting cost is electrochemical efficiency (affecting cost of electricity), and
provided the following information about the amount of electricity required to destroy several organic
compounds to carbon dioxide:
2-6
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Compound Amount of Electricity Required to Destroy Compound
kW-hrs/kg (to CO2)
Carbon tetrachloride 0 (strictly, CC14 -* CO2 is hydrolysis, not oxidation)
Dioxin 12.28
PCB (Aroclor 54) 9.85
Tetrachloroethene 1.61
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4
Trichloroethene 3.06
2.1.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing
SILVER II™ was one of the six technologies selected for evaluation under the ACWA program for the
investigation of potential non-incineration destruction of chemical weapons and their components.
Funding limitations resulted in three of the six technologies being demonstrated in FY99, with the
remaining four (including SILVER II™) being demonstrated in FYOO.
2.2 AlliedSignal's Immobilized Cell Bioreactor™ (ICB™) Technology
The AlliedSignal ICB™ is a biological technology for treatment of organic constituents in wastewater
and groundwater. (AlliedSignal is now known as Honeywell.)
2.2.1 Technology Description (AlliedSignal, 1996)
The ICB™ technology combines a patented high surface area media (foam) with a support matrix to
maximize the distribution of water and air throughout the bio reactor. In addition, reactor medium is
coated with activated carbon, which is deposited by a patented method that promotes regeneration.
Figure 2.2.1 is a process flow diagram of AlliedSignal's ICB™ technology. As shown on Figure 2.2.1,
the technology consists of a multi-chambered reactor vessel filled with patented media. Wastewater is
mixed with nutrients and the pH is adjusted prior to entering the reactor. Air is blown into the reactor
through air diffusers, and exhausted from the reactor near the point where treated water effluent is
discharged. Wastewater is pumped over and under baffles to promote biodegradation in the reactor
vessel. According to AlliedSignal, the ICB™ technology requires relatively little space, has relatively
lower O&M costs, and minimizes production of sludge.
2.2.2 Available Performance and Cost Data (AlliedSignal, Not Dated)
The ICB™ technology has been demonstrated on a wide range of process wastes, including wastes from
textile finishers, chemical manufacturers, wood treating facilities, and beverage/food processors. In
addition, the ICB™ technology has been used to remediate a site with groundwater contaminated by
chlorinated solvents.
AlliedSignal provided available data on the use of the ICB™ technology to treat hazardous constituents
frequently identified at RCRA and Superfund sites, such as chlorinated solvents, including information
about an AlliedSignal site in Southfield, Michigan, that had chlorinated solvent contamination in the
groundwater. This five-acre site had housed a mechanical engineering laboratory that used
trichloroethene (TCE) as a degreasing solvent. When the site buildings were demolished, the
2-7
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
groundwater was found to contain TCE, cis-l,2-dichloroethene (DCE), and vinyl chloride, at the
concentrations shown below in Table 2.2-1.
Figure 2.2.1: Process Flow Diagram for AlliedSignal's ICB™ Technology
(AlliedSignal, Not Dated)
Chamber filled
with patented
media
Wastewater
influent
1
•tt
>
L
Exhaust Air
£E3 £Er? £E3 £E3
XL
-^w^_^-N_
00000
h
1
o
J&
-Sf^~*^
t
*J
o o o o
h
1
o
_X^_x— S_,
t
*J
o o o o
\
1
o
•^~^f-**-.
t
^
o o o
Nutrients
pH system
Air Blower
Clean water
effluent
Air diffusers
2-8
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 2.2-1. Concentrations in Groundwater Prior to Treatment (AlliedSignal, Not Dated)
Parameter
TCE
cis-l,2-DCE
Vinyl chloride
pH
TOC
NH3-N
0-P04
Concentration
(mg/L, except for pH)
26
1.5
0.05
6.8-7.2
8-27
2.3-7.1
0 - 2.5
AlliedSignal performed a field demonstration of a combined anaerobic-aerobic bioremediation system,
including use of an ICB™, to remediate the groundwater at this site. Figure 2.2-2 shows the
bioremediation system used in this demonstration. As shown in Figure 2.2-2, AlliedSignal added
molasses to the groundwater just prior to re-injection into the aquifer, to promote the anaerobic
biodegradation of TCE to DCE and vinyl chloride. Groundwater was then extracted from the aquifer and
treated above-ground in a 50-gallon anaerobic bioreactor, to which additional molasses was added, to
further promote the anaerobic biodegradation of TCE to DCE and vinyl chloride. Effluent from the
anaerobic bioreactor was then fed to an aerobic ICB™, to which oxygen and phenol were added, to
promote the oxidation of DCE and vinyl chloride. Table 2.2-2 shows the concentrations of TCE, DCE,
and vinyl chloride in this treatment system.
Figure 2.2.2: Bioremediation System Used in Field Demonstration (AlliedSignal, Not Dated)
Granular
Activated
Carbon
Column
2-9
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 2.2-2. Summary of Constituent Concentrations in Southfield, Michigan Field Demonstration
(mg/L) (AlliedSignal, Not Dated)
Constituent
TCE
cis-l,2-DCE
Vinyl chloride
Influent to Anaerobic
Bioreactor
27.9
7.4
<0.1
Effluent from
Anaerobic Bioreactor
1.8
19.8
0.6
Effluent from
Aerobic ICB™
Bioreactor
0.2
0.4
<0.1
No information was provided about the cost for using the ICB™ technology at this site. However,
AlliedSignal reported that costs for the ICB™ technology are competitive with other technologies on a
life cycle basis.
In addition, AlliedSignal provided information about use of the ICB™ technology at several sites to treat
industrial wastewater, such as the following:
• Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp., Central Pennsylvania, a wood treating facility
• Henkel Corporation, Castanea, Pennsylvania, a dye-intermediate facility
2.2.3
Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing (Dialogue on ACWA, August 1999,
SRC, 1999)
As shown on Exhibit 1-1, AlliedSignal's ICB technology was selected for demonstration testing under
the ACWA program. The system that was tested under the ACWA program consisted of an ICB™ unit
followed by a catalytic oxidizer (catox) for treatment of off gases; catox was included because of the
specific concerns related to potential emissions of chemical weapons. According to AlliedSignal, catox
would not be required for all applications of the ICB™ technology.
The following data on the performance and cost of this technology were available from the ACWA
program. The ICB™ technology was found to be capable of demilitarizing mustard-filled assembled
chemical weapons but not nerve agent-filled weapons. It was found to be an "acceptably mature" process
for mustard. The ACWA program data showed a concentration of 0.064 ng/m3 for dioxin/furan in the
effluent from the catox unit (for processing of nerve agent HD). This was measured as toxicity
equivalent quotient (TEQ, the international method of relating the toxicity of various dioxin/furan
congeners to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD). This value for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA
program was less than the emission standard for incinerators, which is 0.20 ng/m3 TEQ (40 CFR
63.1203).
Capital costs for the technology were found to be approximately 5 - 10% less than the costs for the
"baseline" technology (incineration), depending on site-specific conditions. The ACWA Supplemental
Report to Congress (September 30, 1999) concluded that the capital cost for ICB™ technology was
approximately equal to that for incineration, given the uncertainties in the predicted values. O&M labor
requirements were found to be comparable to those for the baseline technology, however insufficient
2-10
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
information was available to complete a comparison of total O&M costs to those for the baseline
technology.
2.3 Commodore's Solvated Electron Technology
The Solvated Electron Technology (SET™) is a patented non-thermal process for the treatment of a wide
range of organics including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, explosives and propellants,
chemical warfare agents, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and chlorinated solvents. The technology can be
used to treat contaminants in a variety of matrices such as soils, sludges, sediments, oils, and shredded or
crushed concrete and metals. The SET™ process also is used to treat solid surfaces including steel,
wood, fiberglass, concrete, and rubber. The SET™ process is modular and can be used on a mobile or
fixed-plant basis. The process is operated at a pressure that is higher than ambient, but relatively less
than that used for the SCWO technologies. (German 1999, Financial News 1999, Commodore October
1998)
2.3.1 Technology Description
The SET™ process uses solvated electron solutions to reduce organic compounds to metals salts and the
parent (de-halogenated) molecule. Solvated electron solutions, which are strong reducing agents, are
formed by dissolving alkali or alkaline earth metals such as sodium or calcium in anhydrous liquid
ammonia. Example byproducts from treating PCB-contaminated waste include petroleum hydrocarbons,
sodium chloride, and sodium amide. (Commodore October 1998)
The SET™ process is part of Commodore's Solvated Electron System that is modular in nature and can
be used in varying configurations to treat different types of wastes. All configurations include the SET™
treatment module. Depending on the type of waste and/or client-specific needs, front-end modules (for
example, to remove water or extract specific contaminants prior to treatment), and back-end (post-
treatment) modules (for example, to recycle ammonia, treat metals, or adjust pH) are added. (Getman
1999)
Figure 2.3-1 presents a diagram of the SET™ process for liquid wastes (including extracts from solid
wastes). Solid sodium is warmed to a liquid state, then pumped to the solvator tank where it is dissolved
in liquid anhydrous ammonia, forming the solvated electron solution. The solution is then pumped to the
reactor vessel, where it is mixed with the waste and reacted to reduce the organics. After the reaction,
the solution is transferred to an ammonia/matrix separator tank. The treated material is removed and sent
to a storage vessel. The ammonia is transferred to another separator tank and heated to approximately
125°F to separate the ammonia vapor from water. The ammonia vapor is sent to a condenser and
returned to the process. Offgases from the process are treated using carbon adsorption or a wet scrubber
prior to discharge to the atmosphere or reused in the system. (Commodore October 1998, Getman 1999)
For solids, the material is first mixed with anhydrous liquid ammonia in a solids flow mixer reactor. The
ammonia washes the contaminant from the substrate. Solid or molten sodium metal is then added and
reacted with the organics. When the reaction is complete, the treated material is removed and sent to
storage. The ammonia is returned to the process. Wet sludges may require a water removal step prior to
treatment. (Commodore October 1998, Getman 1999)
Advantages and potential limitations identified by Commodore for this technology are summarized in
Table 2.3-1.
2-11
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Figure 2.3.1: Process Flow Diagram for Commodore's SET™ Process for Liquid Wastes (Modified
from Teledyne-Commodore, Not Dated)
Off gasses
Waste
Solvated Electron
Solution
Off-gas
Treatment
(carbon or scrubber)
Reactor
Vessel
Ammonia/Matrix
Separator
Recirculated to
System or
'Discharged to
Atmosphere
.Treated Material
Ammonia/Water
Separator
Ammonia
Condenser
Sodium
Water
Table 2.3-1. Advantages and Potential Limitations of Commodore's SET™ Process
(Commodore October 1998, Getman 1999)
Advantages
Potential Limitations
Applicable to a wide range of organics in a
wide range of matrices
Non-thermal process; effective as an
alternative to incineration for PCBs, pesticides,
chemical weapons and agents, and other
organics
Only raw materials required are anhydrous
ammonia and an alkali or alkaline earth metal
which are commodity chemicals
Reaction byproducts are metals salts and the
dehalogenated parent compound (no toxic
intermediates)
- Applicable only to matrices that can be
penetrated by liquid ammonia; some solids,
such as metal, concrete, and wood, must be
crushed or shredded prior to treatment
- Material with high water content (wet sludges)
are usually dewatered prior to treatment
2-12
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
2.3.2
Available Performance and Cost Data
The SET™ process has been tested (laboratory and pilot-scale/field demonstrations) on a wide range of
organic compounds in a variety of matrices (described above), and is currently being evaluated for full-
scale application at several sites. For example, at a naval facility in Hawaii, the SET™ process is being
evaluated for the remediation of 10,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil. On a full-scale basis,
Commodore received a nationwide permit from EPA to use SET™ to treat PCBs, as an alternative to
incineration. Commodore recently completed the construction of a commercial PCB processing plant (10
tons/day). In addition, Commodore has constructed a scaled-up version of a SET™ process unit, the
L1200, capable of processing 66 pounds/hour of waste. The unit is currently in operation at Redstone
Arsenal and is scheduled for commercial operation in the near future. (Getman 1999, Commodore
October 1998).
Table 2.3-2 presents data provided by Commodore on the results of tests of wastes that may be found at
Superfund and RCRA sites. Detailed performance data were also provided for studies of the SET™
process to treat PCBs at a New York utility and at the New Bedford Harbor (Sawyer Street) Superfund
site in Massachusetts. In addition, Commodore provided more detailed performance and cost data about
two pilot-scale studies of the SET™ process to treat PCBs and pesticides in various matrices, one at Port
Hueneme, California and one at Commodore's facility in Marengo, Ohio. While extensive data also
were provided for the treatment of chemical agents, these are not described for the purposes of mis
report.
Table 2.3-2. Summary of Performance Data on the SET™ Process by Contaminant and
Matrix Type - Superfund and RCRA Wastes (Getman 1999)
Contaminant/
Matrix
PCBs - Soil
PCBs - Surfaces
PCBs - Oil
Matrix Specifics
sand, clay
sand, silt, clay
sand, silt
sand, silt, clay
stainless steel
capacitor foil -
aluminum
Mylar
charcoal
ground com cobs
used motor oil
transformer oil
Scale/Location
Pilot/Harrisburg PA
Pilot/Los Alamos, NM
Pilot/NY
Pilot/Monroe, LA
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Pilot
Pilot
Results (mg/kg)
Pre-treat
777
77
1250
8.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
23,339
509,000
Post-treat
<1
<2
<2
<1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
<1
20*
%
Reduction/
DRE
NR
NR
NR
NR
99.999
99.4
99.4
99.98
99.7
NR
NR
2-13
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 2.3-2. Summary of Performance Data on the SET™ Process by Contaminant and Matrix
Type - Superfund and RCRA Wastes (Getman 1999) (continued)
Contaminant/
Matrix
Dioxins/Furans -
Oil
Pesticides - Soil
CFCs
PAHs- pure
Explosives - soil
Matrix Specifics
mineral oil
hexane
waste oil
soil
soil
Various CFCs,
HFCs, halons
Pure compounds
soil
Scale/Location
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot/McCormick and Baxter
site, Stockton, CA
Pilot/Barbers Point, ffl
Pilot/Dahlgren, VA
Pilot
Laboratory
Laboratory /soil from Los
Alamos
Results (mg/kg)
Pre-treat
5,000
100,000
dioxin -
418.5
furans - 14.1
DDD - 200
DDT- 180
DDE - 69
DDD -9
DDT- 1.6
Dieldrin - 1 5
NR
1.99-2.01
LTMX- 1,600
RDX - 3,580
DNB - 9.6
Post-treat
<0.5
0.5
dioxin - 0.0023
furans -0.00 13
DDD - < 0.02
DDT - < 0.02
DDE - < 0.02
DDD - < 0.02
DDT - < 0.02
Dieldrin - < 0.02
NR
ND-0.39
HMX-0.03
RDX - 0.03
DNB - 0.03
%
Reduction/
DRE
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
99.99
99.98-
99.999
99.9999
99.99999
99.99
* - Sodium feed was insufficient
NR - not reported
The more detailed performance information provided by Commodore on the SET™ process is
summarized below. Cost data provided by Commodore are based on studies of scaled-up versions of
batch and continuous units.
New York State Utility PCB Spill
Soil at a utility site in New York was contaminated with PCBs (1,200 mg/kg) as a result of a spill. Other
contaminants in the soil included small amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). and metals
(lead and mercury). Commodore performed a treatability study of the contaminated soil using SET™.
PCB concentrations in the treated soil were 1.4 mg/kg (a reduction of > 99.88%). Following pH
adjustment, the soil was returned to the site. Data on pre-treatment and post-treatment concentrations in
the soil are presented below. (Getman 1999)
2-14
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Contaminant
Arochlor 1260
Pyrene
Phenanthrene
Mercury
Lead
Pre-Treatment (mg/kg)
1200
1.8
1.4
0.21
433
Post-Treatment (mg/kg)
1.4
ND
ND
0.08
267
ND - not detected
New Bedford Harbor (Sawyer Street) Superfund Site
A demonstration-scale test of the SET™ process was performed at this Superfund site to treat PCB-
contaminated river sediments. The sediments were first washed with diisopropylamine (by the Ionics
RCC B.E.S.T. ™ process) to produce an oil concentrate containing PCBs at 32,800 mg/kg,
dioxins/furans at 47 mg/kg, and metals including lead at 73 mg/kg. The concentrate was treated using the
SET™ process. The treated concentrations were 1.3 mg/kg for PCBs and 0.012 mg/kg for
dioxins/furans. In addition, metals were removed during the transport of liquid ammonia from the reactor
vessel and recovered from the ammonia recycling unit for fixation and disposal. Data on pre-treatment
and post-treatment concentrations in the sediments are presented below. (German 1999)
Contaminant
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Arsenic
Pre-Treatment (mg/kg)
32,800
47
0.93
73
2.5
2.8
Post-Treatment (mg/kg)
1.3
0.012
0.02
0.20
0.20
0.10
Port Hueneme
Treatability tests of the SET™ process were conducted at Port Hueneme using the Commodore Mobile
Disposal Unit 2 (CMDU2). The CMDU2 is fully contained in a mobile trailer and is designed to treat
PCBs and pesticides. The process is operated under pressure (up to 200 psig) to maintain the ammonia
as a liquid and can treat solids and liquids (see process description above). The process was tested on
wastes, including PCB-contaminated oil, PCB-contaminated soil, PCB-contaminated activated charcoal.
PCB-contaminated water, and pesticide-contaminated soil. Samples were shipped to an off-site
laboratory for analysis. The results are summarized below. (Commodore October 1998)
Contaminant
PCB-Oil
PCB-Soil
Matrix Specifics
Waste oil spiked with PCB arochlor from a
transformer
PCB-contaminated soil from Port Hueneme - Site 22
Pre-treatment
(mg/kg)
160,000-410,000
777-931
Post-treatment
(mg/kg)
< 1
<4.55-<20*
2-15
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Contaminant
PCB-Activated
Charcoal
PCB-Water
Pesticide-Soil
Matrix Specifics
PCB-contaminated soil from Navy Public Works
Center, Guam
PCB-contaminated charcoal from a solvent recovery
operation
Water spiked with PCB arochlor from a transformer
Pesticide contaminated soil from NAS Dahlgren, VA
Pesticide contaminated soil from NAS Barber's
Point, Pearl Harbor
Pre-treatment
(mg/kg)
0.83
518
3,100
ODD - 3.9
DDE - 0.9
DDT -1.6
Dieldrin- 15
Chlordane- 1.6
ODD- 170-240
DDE - 50 - 69
DDT- 160- 180
Chlordane -52 -81
Post-treatment
(mg/kg)
11.4- 12.4**
< 1 - < 0.03
< 0.00053 -< 0.00061
ODD -< 0.02
DDE - < 0.02
DDT - < 0.02
Dieldrin - < 0.02
Chlordane - < 0.02
ODD -< 0.02
DDE - < 0.02
DDT - < 0.02
Chlordane - < 0.02
* - Interference problems increased method detection limits
** - Reactor vessel contained residual contamination from prior run; although initial field screen indicated soils contained more
than 50 mg/kg PCBs, laboratory tests showed the soil to contain little PCBs
Marengo Ohio Tests
According to Commodore, because of the issues encountered with the Port Hueneme tests on PCB-
contaminated soil (the interference and the low-level of PCBs in the sample, as well as no on-site
laboratory to allow fast-turnaround results for use in modifying system parameters), additional
treatability testing was performed at Commodore's facility in Marengo, Ohio. Soils from the same areas
as used for the Port Hueneme study (PCB-contaminated soil from Site 22 at Port Hueneme, and pesticide
contaminated soil from Barber's Point, Pearl Harbor) were used. The results are presented below.
(Commodore October 1998) The Marengo Ohio tests also were identified as a completed SITE
demonstration test.
Contaminant
PCB-Soil
Pesticide-Soil
Source
Port Hueneme
Barbers Point
Pretreatment
(mg/kg)
PCBs- 120- 183
ODD -263 -5 12
DDE -197 -362
DDT -920 -1,620
Dieldrin - ND
Chlordane -123 -156
Post-treatment
(mg/kg)
PCBs -0.43- 1.7
ODD -ND- 0.135
DDE- 0.172-5.55
DDT - ND - 0.072
Dieldrin - ND - 0.0002
Chlordane -0.15 -0.68
Cost Data - Projected Costs for Full-Scale Operation
Commodore provided the following information on projected full-scale costs of the SET™ process,
based on scale-up studies of batch and continuous units to treat solid and liquid wastes. (Commodore
October 1998)
2-16
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Total treatment cost per ton $400 - 800
Reagent (sodium) cost per pound $1.15 - 1.85
Sodium usage 4% - 8% (by weight)
Ammonia cost per ton $2-5
Capital/maintenance costs per ton $80 - 100
2.3.3 Results from ACWA Testing
As discussed in Exhibit 2-1, Teledyne-Commodore LLC was one of the technology service providers
included in the ACWA program. Teledyne-Commodore's system includes the SET™ process that is
offered for use by non-ACWA clients by Commodore. The SET™ process is used to demilitarize
chemical weapons containing chemical agents, and explosive compounds and fuses (energetics). The
chemical agent or energetic material is first removed from the munition, then destroyed using the SET™
process (described above) followed by chemical oxidation. Off gases from the chemical oxidation
systems are sent through carbon filters, then reused as supplemental fuel in the system. An ammonia
recovery system is used to capture and recycle all ammonia. Treated materials are stabilized and sent
off-site to a RCRA permitted landfill, along with spent carbon and other solids generated by the process.
(Teledyne-Commodore, undated).
Funding limitations resulted in three of the six ACWA technologies being demonstrated in FY99, with
the remaining four (including the SET™ process) being demonstrated in FYOO.
2.4 Eco Logic's Gas Phase Chemical Reduction Technology
The patented Eco Logic Gas Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR) technology uses hydrogen gas at
temperatures of 850 to 900 ° C to reduce organics including chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to
hydrogen chloride and methane. The absence of free oxygen in the reactor minimizes dioxin formation
and water acts as a hydrogen donor and heat transfer agent to enhance the reaction. The technology is
suitable for treating organics in a variety of matrices, including soil, sediment, sludges, high strength oils,
watery wastes (contaminated water), and bulk solids. Eco Logic has two portable demonstration units
and one stationary facility (in Australia). (Eco Logic 1999, EPA 1994, Woodland, 1999)
2.4.1 Technology Description
Figure 2.4.1 is a general process flow diagram for a GPCR application. The GPCR reactor is the main
component of the system. Other components are added to the system, including various waste
preparation and feed mechanisms and offgas treatment, depending on the type of waste treated. For
example, a Thermal Reduction Batch Processor (TRBP) is used to volatilize contaminants from solid
materials or to volatilize contaminated liquids prior to injection into the GPCR reactor. Liquid wastes
also may be injected directly into the GPCR reactor through atomizing nozzles (contaminated liquid is
preheated in a Liquid Waste Preheater System (LWPS) prior to being injected into the reactor). System
outputs include clean water, treated solids, and product gas. All outputs are stored and analyzed for
regulatory compliance prior to off-site disposal or reuse. (Eco Logic 1999, EPA 1994, Woodland, 1999)
2-17
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Figure 2.4.1: Process Flow Diagram for Eco Logic's GPCR Technology (Eco Logic, 1999)
Contaminated.
Liquids
Contaminated^
Solids
I
I
Clean Solids
Gas-Phase
Chemical
Reduction
(GPCR)
Reactor
Hydrogen
• Steam
Decant Sludge
Water
Steam (from the steam heater) and hydrogen (bottled or from a hydrogen generation system) are added to
the waste in the reactor, where they form a gas mixture. The gas mixture is heated by 18 vertical radiant
tube heaters in the reactor to a temperature of 850 to 900 °C. The products of the reaction, which takes
less than one second to complete, include hydrochloric acid (HC1) and methane from the reduction of
chlorinated organics, and lighter hydrocarbons such as methane and ethene from the reduction of
straight-chained and aromatic hydrocarbons. Gas from the reactor is sent to a Gas Scrubbing System
where the gas is quenched, then passed through a scrubber to remove HC1, particulates, and water. The
gas exiting the scrubber contains excess hydrogen, lighter hydrocarbon reduction products such as
methane, and a small amount of water vapor. A portion of the gas (hydrogen-rich) is reheated to 500 ° C
and recirculated back into the reactor. The remainder of the gas from the scrubber is sent to product gas
compression and storage where it serves as a supplementary fuel in the process or is compressed and
stored for later use in other parts of the process. The principal waste stream is the scaibber residuals
which include decant water (which is recycled into the process) and scrubber particulate (which is stored
and analyzed and men retreated or shipped off-site for disposal.) (Eco Logic 1999, EPA 1994,
Woodland, 1999)
2.4.2
Available Performance and Cost Data
The GPCR technology has been tested at laboratory and demonstration scales on a wide variety of
organic wastes and marticies. Eco Logic has portable demonstration systems in Japan and at Eco Logic's
Rockwood, Ontario facility. The process was evaluated by EPA's SITE program at a demonstration
conducted at Bay City's Middleground Landfill. On a commercial basis, Eco Logic currently operates
one commercial full-scale stationary system in Australia, and completed a full-scale demonstration of the
system at a General Motors facility in St. Catharines, Ontario.
Eco Logic provided available data on the use of GPCR technology to treat hazardous constituents
frequently identified at RCRA and Superfund sites, for full-scale treatment (Table 2.4-1), pilot/
demonstration-scale testing (Table 2.4-2) and laboratory-scale testing (Table 2.4-3) including the SITE
2-18
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
demonstration. More detailed data were also provided in the Applications Analysis Report from the
SITE Program demonstration. These results are summarized below. In addition, Eco Logic provided
data on the destruction of chemical warfare agents; however, these data are not included for the purposes
of this report.
Table 2.4-1. Summary of Full-Scale GPCR Operations (Eco Logic 1999, Woodland, 1999)
Location
Type of Waste
Summary of Operations/Results
Kwinana, Western
Australia (routine
operations)
Pesticides (DDT)
PCB-contaminated wastes
Began operating in May 1995, initially treating DDT
residuals owned by the Department of Agriculture of
Western Australia. In November 1995, began processing
PCB-contaminated wastes for government and industrial
clients. Currently processing wastes for a variety of clients.
Results: ORE of > 99.9999% based on regulatory testing
during DDT and PCB treatment.
Kwinana, Western
Australia
(hexachlorinated
waste
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) wastes
The testing involved three trial runs on a total of eight tonnes
of HCB waste. Results indicated a 98% reduction in the
mass input to the TRBP. In excess of 99.9999% of the HCB
and chlorobenzene present in the waste were volatilized in
the TRBP and swept to the reactor for destruction.
Destruction efficiency measurements indicated at least
99.9999% destruction of HCB and total chlorobenzene.
General Motors
St. Catherine. Ontario
PCB-contaminated material,
including concrete, soil, electrical
equipment, high-strength oil,
watery wastes, and miscellaneous
process wastes
In the fall of 1997, a full-scale demonstration was conducted
at this site to treat approximately 1,000 tons of PCB-
contaminated material.
Results: DREs of > 99.99999; routine testing confirmed
compliance with all regulatory and discharge
criteria.
Table 2.4-2. Summary of Pilot/Demonstration-Scale GPCR Operations (Eco Logic 1999)
Demonstration
Hamilton Harbour,
Ontario
Bay City Michigan (SITE
Program)
Warren County Landfill
Soil
Contaminants/
Matrix
PCB - Sediment
PCB-contaminated
water; high-strength
PCB oil; and PCB-
contaminated soil
PCB-contaminated soil
Results
First demonstration of the mobile SE5 unit in 1991 to treat harbour
sediment contaminated with PCBs at concentrations up to 300,000
mg/kg (dry weight).
Results: PCB ORE > 99.9999%
Demonstration of the SE5 unit under EPA's SITE Program. PCB
concentrations in untreated water/oil was 4,000 mg/kg.
Results: PCB in water/oil - ORE > 99.9999%
PCB in soil - DE 94% to 98%
See description below for more detail
Three tests runs were conducted on PCB-contaminated soil from the
landfill.
Results: PCBs in treated soils were ND with a ORE > 99.99999
2-19
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 2.4-3. Summary of Laboratory-Scale Testing of GPCR (Eco Logic 1999, EPA 1999)
Testing Type
Research and
Development
Commercial Ghent
Treatability Studies
Contaminated Harbor
Sediment
Contaminants/Matrix
PCB-contaminated soil and
sediment
PCB - Capacitors
PCB - Canadian Electric
Capacitors
Hexachlorinated Waste
Dioxiiis/Furans - Great Lakes
Harbour Sediment
Eight sediment samples
contaminated with PCBs,
PAHs and other compounds;
two samples spiked with
trichlorobenzene (Hamilton
Harbour, Sheboygan Harbour,
Thunder Bay Harbour);
Results
Pre-Treatment
(mg/kg)
7.3-1,200
360,000
75,000 - 76,000
Hexachlorobenzene
(66%)
Hexachlorobutane
(17%)
Hexachloroethane
(2%)
Dioxins/furans - 2
PAHs -0.80
Trichlorobenzene -
1,000
PCBs - 5 - 7
PAHs
Chlorophenols
Post-Treatment
(mg/kg)
ND - 0.00097
0.00008 - 0.0033
0.003-0.037
Not Applicable
Dioxins/furans - ND
PAHS - 0.0058
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
ORE
(%)
Stack Gas Not
Analyzed
Stack Gas Not
Analyzed
Stack Gas Not
Analyzed
99.9999
Stack Gas Not
Analyzed
99.9999,
100.0000
99.99-99.999
99.99
99.999 - 100
2-20
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
The following is additional performance data from the SITE Program demonstration.
SITE PROGRAM DEMONSTRATION (EPA 1994)
A SITE demonstration of the Eco Logic GPCR process was conducted in October and December 1992 at
the Bay City Middleground Landfill in Michigan. Objectives of the demonstration included
demonstrating at least 99.9999% ORE for PCBs, at least 99.99% destruction efficiency for PCE, ensure
than no dioxins or furans were formed, evaluate air emissions, and perform an overall evaluation of the
process. PCB-contaminated oil, water, and soil from the landfill were used forme demonstration. The
first part of the demonstration involved a series of shakedown tests to establish optimum operating
parameters. Data were collected on the composition of the principal process streams, reactor grit,
scrubber residuals, reformed gas, and boiler stack emissions. Following system optimization, two tests
were run - the first on 2.9 tons of wastewater contaminated with PCBs at 3,757 mg/kg and PCE at 3,209
mg/kg; the second on 0.2 tons of waste oil contaminated with PCBs at 254,000 mg/kg (25%) and PCE at
6,203 mg/kg. The key operating parameters (Table 2.4-4) and the results of the evaluation (Table 2.4-5)
are summarized below.
Table 2.4-4. Summary of Average Operating Conditions During SITE Demonstration (EPA 1994)
Equipment
Reactor
Scrubber
Recirculating fan
Vaporizer
Parameter
Temperature (°C) - 892 to 933
Pressure (in. water) -1.8
Residence time (sec) - 6.1 to 8
Inlet temperature (°C) - 527 to 546
Outlet temperature (°C)- 32 to 33
Water pH- 8. 78 to 9. 32
Differential pressure (in. water) - 7.8 to 1 1.6
Flow rate (cfm) -110
Gas pressure (in. water) - 6.5
Temperature (°C)- 148. 3 to 149
Pressure (psi) - 5 1 .4 to 5 1 . 8
Table 2.4-5. Summary of Key Results from SITE Demonstration (EPA 1994)
Parameter
PCBDRE
PCEDE
Dioxin/furans
HC1 emissions
PIC emissions
Other air emissions
Scrubber residuals
Summary Results
99.9999 - 99.99999%
99.99%
No net formation
0.659 - 0.807 mg/dscm; 109. 1-197.8 mg/lir; 99.98% removal; met MNDR permit conditions
Benzene - 73 - 1 1 3 ug/dscm - exceeded MDNR permit conditions
Except for benzene, met MDNR permit conditions
Met TSCA level for PCBs (3 ppb)
2-21
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
According to Eco Logic, the costs associated with treatment of various waste types is dependent on a
number of factors including contaminants, waste matrix, site configuration, schedule, and scale of
system. Eco Logic has stated that now that the technology is at a commercial scale, the costs for the
technology are better known than they were at the time of the SITE demonstration in 1994. The specific
cost for treatment is calculated on a site-by-site basis, considering these factors, and includes the
execution of a non-disclosure statement. Therefore, Eco Logic was not able to provide specific full-scale
costs for the technology.
Information developed by EPA in 1994 on projected costs for full-scale operation of the technology are
presented below. In addition, a total cost and a unit cost were provided. A range of costs was calculated
based on 60%, 80%, and 90% utilization factors to address unforseen job conditions. Because of the
limited data, the cost estimates presented may range in accuracy from +50% to -30%. These costs are
presented in Table 2.4-6.
Table 2.4-6. Projected Costs for Three Scenarios Using GPCR Technology, Based on 1994 SITE
Demonstration (EPA 1994)
Item
Actual throughput
Site preparation
Capital equipment
Start-up/mobilization
Labor
Supplies
Utilities
Residuals
Maintenance
Demobilization
Total costs
Cost per ton at actual
throughput
Cost per ton at targeted
throughput
Costs ($)
60% Utilization
(250 Days)
500 tons
127,400
50,400
109,950
564,000
110,000
10,500
2,500
4,000
20,000
998,750
2,000
670
70% Utilization
(214 Days)
500 tons
127,400
44,700
104,150
498,000
106,000
10,500
2,500
3,500
20,000
916,750
1,850
620
80% Utilization
(188 Days)
500 tons
127,400
37,800
98,350
431,000
103,000
10,500
2,500
3,000
20,000
833,550
1,670
550
2-22
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
The largest cost component was operational labor (more than 50%), followed by site preparation (15%),
supplies (12%), and start-up/mobilization (12%). According to EPA, considering the effect of labor costs
on the price and the relative constancy in scale-up of the other categories, there is a potential to reduce
unit cost for commercial scale-up by increasing equipment capacity. Larger capacity would decrease
process time and therefore decrease labor costs.
In addition, no analytical cost were included in these estimates, as they would be dependant on local
regulatory requirements and/or client specifications. EPA notes that analytical requirements could
significantly affect costs.
2.4.3 Results from the ACWA Testing Program
Funding limitations resulted in three of the six ACWA technologies being demonstrated in FY99, with
the remaining four (including GPCR) being demonstrated in FYOO.
2.5 Foster Wheeler's Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology
The Foster Wheeler Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO), also known as hydrothermal oxidation,
treats aqueous organic wastes at elevated temperature and pressure [above the critical point of water
(374°C and 22.1 Mpa)]. Organic wastes become highly soluble at conditions above the critical point of
water, and the aqueous wastes functions as a fuel in an oxidation reaction. The process has been used in
several demonstration testing programs, but has not yet been implemented at the full-scale (see
discussion about Pine Bluff under Section 2.5.2). The Foster Wheeler SCWO differs from the General
Atomics SCWO technology (discussed in Section 2.6). The Foster Wheeler technology uses a
transpiring wall reactor design that is intended to protect the liner of the pressure vessel from salt
deposition and corrosion and provide a thermal and corrosion barrier for the pressure vessel; the General
Atomics technology uses a solid wall reactor design.
2.5.1 Technology Description (Foster Wheeler, Not Dated)
Figure 2.5.1 is a process flow diagram of Foster Wheeler's SCWO technology, as tested recently for the
U.S. Navy. As shown on Figure 2.5.1, hazardous material is mixed with water and fuel, and then
pressurized and partially heated prior to feeding to the reactor. The hazardous material and fuel are
oxidized in the reactor in the presence of air, raising reactant temperature and leading to more efficient
oxidation. Depending on the feed material, sodium carbonate may be added to the hazardous material
feed to neutralize acids. Effluent from the reactor is quenched with water to dissolve salts and to reduce
effluent temperature. After quenching, the pressure of the effluent is reduced and the effluent (treated
material) is discharged. A gas/liquid separator may be used to separate the effluent in some applications.
Reaction by-products from a SCWO process depend on the components of the waste. Organic materials
produce carbon dioxide and water; nitrogen compounds principally produce nitrogen and a relatively
smaller amount of nitrogen oxides; halogens produce their corresponding halogen acids; phosphorus
produces phosphoric acid; and sulfur produces sulfuric acid. These acids are neutralized in the reactor or
immediately downstream, producing inorganic salts.
2-23
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Figure 2.5.1: Process Flow Diagram of Foster Wheeler's SCWO Process (Ahluwalia, 1999)
i
JATER ( 1"|
WATER
PUMP
SODIUM
CARBONATE
DRUM MIXER
SODIUM
"5™ SODIUM
PUMP CARBONATE
Important waste characteristics for use of a SCWO process include the heating value; major component
chemical composition; and other waste properties such as fluid specific gravity, fluid viscosity, percent
solids, and solids size distribution. Wastes that have a heating value below a certain level will require
external heating or mixing with a higher heating value fuel or waste, while wastes with a higher heating
value will require dilution. The major component chemical composition is required to estimate oxygen
requirements, which impacts the design of the gaseous effluent system. Large suspended solids in the
feed may be removed by filtration methods prior to the SCWO unit. Wastes with organic solids will
likely require size reduction pretreatment steps such as shredding, cutting, or grinding.
Potential limitations for use of a SCWO process include concerns about corrosion and plugging of
reactors. Knowledge of the halogen, sulfur, and phosphorus content of the waste, as well as the chemical
form of these elements, is important because of their potential to contribute to excessive corrosion in
process equipment or lines.
Figure 2.5.2 shows a schematic of the transpiring wall reactor used by Foster Wheeler. The reactor uses
transpiring wall platelet technology developed by GenCorp Aerojet. The transpiring wall is based on the
use of platelet devices, which provides an intricate circuitry that meters and repeatedly divides a flow
2-24
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
stream into thousands of small injection pores, and that forms a protective boundary layer to inhibit salt
deposition and corrosion. Platelet devices are made by diffusion bonding a stack of thin
plates (or ''platelets''), each of which is etched with flow control passages. Platelets differ from porous
liners by providing for precise flow controls. Platelets may be manufactured from a variety of materials,
including Inconel (alloys of nickel and chromium) and platinum.
Figure 2.5.2: Transpiring Wall Reactor Used in Foster Wheeler's SCWO Technology
(Foster Wheeler, Not Dated)
Fuel
Transpiration Watei
Platelet Liner
Transpiration Water
Cooling Water
Injector
Transpiration Water
\ Heating and
I Mixing Zone
; f-/~Q Pressure Housing
\ Cooling Zone
2.5.2
Available Performance and Cost Data (Foster Wheeler, August 1999)
Foster Wheeler has performed testing of its SCWO technology on excess hazardous materials typically
found aboard naval vessels for the Office of Naval Research. In addition, the U.S. DOE has discussed
testing of the SCWO technology for mixed hazardous wastes, including organic liquid waste of aromatic
hydrocarbons and mercury; nonchlorinated solvent waste with RCRA hazardous metals and radionuclide
surrogates; solid waste of paper, cloth, and plastic; and highly chlorinated cutting oil.
Foster Wheeler provided available data from recent testing performed for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) on excess hazardous
materials (EHM) typically found aboard Navy vessels. Three types of EHM were tested in this effort.
Table 2.5-1 summarizes the composition of the EHM, the operating conditions for each test, and the
results, as shown under effluent concentrations. The goals identified for the tests were to achieve Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) concentrations in the effluent of less than 10 ppm. As shown on the table, these
goals were achieved for all three types of feed materials.
2-25
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 2.5-1. Summary of DARPA/ONR Testing for Foster Wheeler SCWO
(Foster Wheeler, August 1999)
Parameter
Hours
Mass Waste Feed (Ibs)
Pressure (psig)
Temperature, average
reactor (°F)
Air Flow Rate (Ib/hr)
Waste Throughput
(Ib/hr)
Effluent O2 (%)
Effluent CO (ppm)
Effluent TOC (ppm)
EHM1: 1%
Polychlorotrifluoro-
ethene/99% kerosene,
by weight
25.8
2,475
3,425
1,250
1,350
80
3-4
1 -20
1.4
EHM 2: 10% 1,1,1-
trichloroethane/90%
kerosene, by weight
30
3,554
3,500
1,260
1,600
102
2-4
0-2
1.4
EHM 3: Photo
Simulant Solution *
16
3,000
3,475
1,230
1,300- 1,700
72 - 207
2-4
50-120
2
* Photo Simulant Solution, by weight:
85.4% water
10.7% ammonium sulfite
1.9% sodium sulfite
1.0% potassium sulfite
0.4% acetic acid
0.5%pentanol
Foster Wheeler is also in the process of testing their SCWO system for the U.S. Army for destruction of
pyrotechnic smoke-producing mixtures, most of which contain organic dyes, however data are not yet
available from the results of that testing. At Pine Bluff Aresenal, Foster Wheeler is testing a full-scale
unit for destruction of these smokes and dyes. According to Foster Wheeler, after testing, the unit will be
used by the arsenal to destroy their inventory of smokes and dyes. (Ahluwalia, November, 1999)
2.5.3
Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing
Funding limitations resulted in three of the six ACWA technologies being demonstrated in FY99, with
the remaining four (including Foster Wheeler's SCWO technology) being demonstrated in FYOO.
2.6 General Atomies' SCWO Technology
The General Atomies' SCWO technology, also known as hydrothennal oxidation, treats organic wastes
at elevated temperature and pressure [above the critical point of water (374°C and 22.1 Mpa)]. Organic
wastes become highly soluble at conditions above the critical point of water, and the aqueous wastes
2-26
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
functions as a fuel in an oxidation reaction. The process has been used in several demonstration testing
programs, including those for destruction of neat and hydrolyzed chemical agents, shipboard wastes,
solid propellants, biomass and human wastes, mixed wastes, and industrial wastewaters, but has not yet
been used at the full-scale. General Atomics is currently designing a full-scale system for the Newport
Chemical Agent Disposal Facility at Newport, Indiana, with construction slated to begin in early 2000.
This system is anticipated to consist of three reactors (2 on-line, 1 spare), each of which will be 15 ft long
and 10-inch diameter, and lined with platinum for this application, the secondary treatment of caustic-
hydrolyzed VX. The General Atomics SCWO technology differs from the Foster Wheeler SCWO
technology (discussed in Section 2.5). The General Atomics technology uses a solid wall reactor design
with a corrosion-resistant liner to protect the pressure vessel wall from salt deposition and corrosion; the
Foster Wheeler technology uses a transpiring wall reactor design.
The General Atomies' SCWO technology is covered by 10 U.S. patents, including those for organic
gasification, processing methods for the oxidation of organics in supercritical water, a method and
apparatus for solids separation in a wet oxidation process, SCWO with overhead effluent quenching, and
use of zirconium oxide ceramics for surfaces exposed to high temperature water oxidation environments.
2.6.1 Technology Description (General Atomics, Not Dated)
Figure 2.6.1 is a process flow diagram of General Atomies' SCWO technology, as tested recently for the
ACWA program. As shown on Figure 2.6.1, the General Atomies' system consists of a reactor and
separate subsystems for feed, preheat, cooldown, and effluent treatment. Organic waste solution (shown
as hydrolysate) is pumped through preheaters (if required) and then mixed with auxiliary fuel and high
pressure air. The mixture is fed to a reactor where organic materials are converted to carbon dioxide,
water, and inorganic salts or acids. Reactor effluent is cooled using heat exchangers and sent to the
effluent treatment system. In the effluent treatment system, gases are separated from liquids and further
treated, depending on project requirements, with a charcoal filter. Liquids are discharged to an effluent
collection tank.
Reaction by-products from a SCWO process depend on the components of the waste. Organic materials
produce carbon dioxide and water; nitrogen compounds principally produce nitrogen, and a relatively
smaller amount of nitrous oxides; halogens produce their corresponding halogen acids or salts;
phosphorus produces phosphoric acid or phosphate salts; and sulfur produces sulfuric acid or sulfate
salts.
Potential limitations for use of a SCWO process include concerns about corrosion and plugging of
reactors. Knowledge of the halogen, sulfur, and phosphorus content of the waste, as well as the chemical
form of these elements, is important because of their potential to contribute to excessive corrosion in
process equipment or lines. General Atomics indicated that pretreatment steps may be necessary to feed
these compounds. Deposition of salts and pyrolytic chars may result in plugging problems or added
cleaning requirements. Salt deposition may be a concern if salts are present in the feed or if acids in the
feed are neutralized. General Atomics uses its patented engineering designs, including selection of
materials, to help overcome the corrosion and plugging concerns that can occur with a SCWO process.
2-27
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Figure 2.6.1: Process Flow Diagram for General Atomic's SCWO Technology (General Atomics,
August 1999)
Pressure rDl pH (7\ Conductivity /V\ Gas Sample
Measurement ^ Measurement \SJ Measurement \SJ Collection
2.6.2
Available Performance and Cost Data (General Atomics, October 1997)
General Atomics indicated that the following types of wastes have been treated in their SCWO systems:
organic chemicals, inorganic substances, and complex feeds. These have included the following
common Superfund and RCRA waste site constituents: carbon tetrachloride, chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins, chlorobenzene, DDT, hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls, tetrachloroethene, tributyl
phosphate, trichloroethene, and trifluoroacetic acid.
General Atomics provided available data from recent testing performed for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) on excess hazardous
materials (EHM) typically found aboard Navy vessels. Fourteen types of EHMs were tested in this
effort. Table 2.6-1 summarizes the composition of the EHMs, the operating conditions (system
parameters) for each test, and the results. The goals identified for the testing program were to process
100 Ib/hr of EHM (1,000 Ib/day), produce nontoxic effluents that meet all regulatory requirements, have
a compact unit size, have very high reliability with minimal maintenance, and be fully automated with a
simple operator interface. No specific goals for Organic Carbon concentrations in the effluent were
identified, however there was a target of 99.99% DRE. As shown on the table, these goals were achieved
for all types of feed materials.
2-28
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 2.6-1. Summary of DARPA/ONR Testing for General Atomies' SCWO (General Atomics, November 1999)
System Parameters
Results
Steady-State Time (hr)
Waste Feed Rate (Ib/hr)
Reactor Temperature (C)
Reactor Pressure (psig)
Cooling Water (gpm)
Reactor Residence Time (s)
Airflow Rate (Ib/hr)
Feed Water Flow Rate (Ib/hr)
Quench Water Flow Rate (Ib/hr)
Kerosene-Startup (Ib)
Kerosene-Steady State (Ib/hr)
Kerosene —Shutdown (Ib)
Startup Time (hr)
Shutdown Time (hr)
Fully Automated Operation
Waste Carbon ORE (%)
Organic Carbon DRE(%)
HTO effluent TOC (ppm)
Mineral Acids Produced (%)
CO (ppm)
Phenols (ppm)
Chromium (ppm)
Volume Reduction (%)
rluorochlorocarbon
30
102
638
3250
95
10
1690
721
2240
11
0
8
1.03
1
Yes
>99.998
>99.998
<0.52
0.6
<2
<0.03
O.003
100
Chlorinated Solvent
30
107
638
3430
91
11
1660
703
2290
9
0
—
0.95
0.95
Yes
>99.998
>99.998
<0.5
8.2
<2
<0.03
<0.003
-100
Glycol / Antioxidant
30
191
648
3430
91
11
1650
644
2360
8
0
—
0.73
—
Yes
>99.997
>99.997
<0.53
0
< 2
<0.2
<0.001
100
Motor Oil
30
101
648
3430
84
10
1670
744
2020
8
0
—
0.6
—
Yes
>99.998
>99.998
<0.5
0
2
<0.2
<0.001
~1004
S
a
£
2
O
30
136
648
3430
96
15
1650
70
1710
15
41
5
1.03
—
Yes
>97
>99.997
<0.5
0
<2
<0.2
<0.002
-1004
Black Water
30
135
648
3430
96
15
1650
70
2460
14
45
—
1.03
0.68
Yes
>99
>99.996
<0.5
0
<2
<0.2
<0.001
-1004
o
Cfl
!
1
27
136
648
3430
95
13
1690
322
2780
6
0
—
0.43
—
Yes
>99.997
>99.997
<0.5
0
<~ 2
<0.2
0.007
52
Lube Oil
30
102
657
3430
93
11
1710
622
3020
11
0
6
1.25
—
Yes
>99.997
>99.997
<0.5
5.5
<; 2
<0.1
0.003
-100"
Photographic Solution
30
105
658
3430
91
15
1650
70
2430
15
40
10
1
—
Yes
>99.7
>99.994
<0.5
7.7
<2
<0.1
0.004
-100"
Hydraulic Fluid
30
107
658
3430
91
11
1710
569
3120
13
21
20
-
—
Yes1
>99.997
>99.997
<0.5
29
<2
<0.1
0.005
100
Category II (Org.)
12
106
658
3430
96
10
1720
685
2120
7
0
8
0.6
—
Yes
>99.998
>99.998
<0.5
4.9
<0.2
<0.1
0.003
-100
Category II (Aq.)
15
118
658
3430
96
15
1650
70
3090
14
35
6
1.02
0.18
Yes
>99.97
>99.995
<0.5
0.04
0.2
<0.2
0.003
-100
Category III (Org)
15
103
658
3430
93
11
1660
548
3000
9
0
5
0.85
0.97
Yes
>99.997
>99.997
<0.5
7.2
<2
<0.2
<0.003
-1004
'S
1
3
!>
&
u
15
103
658
3430
96
15
1650
70
3290
20
40
9
1.08
0.77
Yes
>99.97
>99.995
<0.5
0
<2
<0.2
<0.003
-1004
The system was operated with single-button control for all steps except one feed ramping step. There was not time for a pretest with this class of feed, so this ramp step was completed manually.
The ramp went smoothly and the control logic will easily be modified to accommodate this class of feed automatically.
City water was used (without filtration to remove organic carbon) for the first test only. The quench fluid mixes with the reactor effluent without exposure to the high temperatures of the reactor, and
city water contains 2.6 ppm of organic carbon. The reactor effluent/quench combined TOC was 1.3 ppm. If this value is adjusted for the TOC entering with the quench water, the reactor effluent
TOC was <0.5 ppm.
The quench fluid contains 2.6 ppm of organic carbon. The reactor effluent/quench combined TOC was 2.7 ppm. If this value is adjusted for the TOC entering with the quench water, the reactor
effluent TOC was <0.5 ppm.
The amount of solids in the effluent were too small for an accurate measurement.
2-29
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Performance data also are available for use of General Atomies' SCWO systems for the treatment of
solid propellants, biomass and human wastes, mixed wastes, and industrial wastewater. For example,
under contract to the Air Force Armstrong Laboratory at Tyndall AFB, General Atomics constructed a
pilot plant for the destruction of solid rocket propellants. This plant was operated at a test site in Utah
and demonstrated greater than 99.99% removal of TOC.
2.6.3 Results from ACWA Demonstration Testing (Dialogue on ACWA, August 1999,
SRC, 1999)
As shown on Exhibit 1-1, General Atomies' SCWO technology was selected for demonstration testing in
1999 under the ACWA program. The system that was tested under the ACWA program consisted of the
process shown in Figure 2.6-1.
The following data on the performance and cost of this technology were available from the ACWA
program. The General Atomies' SCWO technology was found to destroy constituents in agent and
energetic hydrolysate to levels that were generally below detection limits, and to have demonstrated a
level of maturity feasible for full-scale implementation, with some reservation about the maturity of the
SCWO process. The ACWA program data showed a concentration that ranged from 0.025 - 0.100 ng/m3
for dioxin/furan in the off-gases from the SCWO. This was measured as toxicity equivalent quotient
(TEQ, the international method of relating the toxicity of various dioxin/furan congeners to the toxicity
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD). This value for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA program was less than the
emission standard for incinerators, which is 0.20 ng/m3 TEQ (40 CFR 63.1203).
Capital costs for the technology were found to be approximately 5 - 10% less than the costs for the
"baseline" demilitarization technology (incineration), depending on site-specific conditions. The ACWA
Supplemental Report to Congress (September 30, 1999) concluded that the capital cost for SCWO
technology was approximately equal to that for incineration, given the uncertainties in the predicted
values. O&M labor requirements were found to be comparable to those for the baseline technology;
however insufficient information was available to complete a comparison of total O&M costs to those for
the baseline technology.
2.7 Startech's Plasma Waste Converter Technology
Startech's Plasma Waste Converter (PWC™) technology is an electrically-driven machine that produces
an intense field of radiant energy to treat solid, liquid, and gaseous organic and inorganic compounds or
materials. Plasma is discharged within a chamber in a continuous arc to produce temperatures of 30,000
°F and higher, operating at normal atmospheric pressure.
Recently, Startech announced that it had signed a contract for the sale of a 10-ton per day commercial
Plasma Waste Converter system to process chemical industry hazardous waste in Taiwan. In addition,
Startech reported that it has sold a PWC™ system to a company in South Africa.
2-30
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
2.7.1
Technology Description (Startech, March 2000)
Figure 2.7.1 illustrates Startech's PWC™ technology. As shown on Figure 2.7.1, the technology consists
of a plasma torch inside a vessel containing mixed bulk gases. Plasma feed gas (air, argon, carbon
dioxide, or nitrogen) is fed in and product gas removed at the top of the vessel, and chemical agent (or
other contaminated media) and steam are fed through the side. Inorganic portions of feed materials
typically remain in the PWC™ as scrap metal and non-leachable silicate glass. The vessel is cylindrical
and refractory-lined. Argon (later replaced with carbon dioxide and then nitrogen) was used as the feed
gas in the ACWA PWC™ demonstration at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Figure 2.7.1: Startech's PWC™ Technology
(Startech, March 2000)
Plasma feed gas
(Ar, CO2, or N2)
= 1,100°C product gas
(to pollutant abatement
system)
Air infiltration
Chemical
agent and
steam
Figure 2.7.2 is a process flow diagram of Startech's PWC™ system, as recently tested for the ACWA
program. As shown on Figure 2.7.2, the Startech system consists of a feed system, plasma torch,
PWC™, Plasma Converted Gas™ (PCG™) gas polisher, HEPA filter blower and plasma torch cooling
system. A feed stream of solids, liquids, and/or gases is remotely introduced into the refractory-lined
steel vessel. A water-cooled plasma torch, positioned above the incoming feed stream, generates the
plasma field from plant air traveling past the torch head. The high temperature plasma gas in the oxygen-
deprived vessel creates an environment for the conversion of waste materials to PCG™ (composed
primarily of H2 and CO, with low concentrations of CO2 and N2), metals, and non-leachable silicate glass.
If the waste feed composition has insufficient quantities of oxygen, steam is introduced to achieve the
2-31
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
proper stoichiometric balance. When sufficient quantities of glass and metals have accumulated in the
PWC™, the vessel can remotely tilt to allow the molten materials to pour out through an access door and
into a charge car. The system operates under a slight negative pressure (-2" to -0.5" of H2O, gage) to
evacuate the PCG™ from the PWC™ to the gas polisher.
The Gas Polisher System consists of several process units in series that process the PCG™ to produce
clean-burning synthesis fuel for beneficial reuse. The first two process units are venturi scrubbers.
These units cool (quench) the gases as well as remove suspended particulate from the raw PCG™. The
next process unit is the Gas Polisher Tower. The polishing chamber is an updraft, counterflow vertical
tower filled with polymeric packing to provide adequate surface area for mass transfer. This stage
removes acid gases from the PCG™. Water used by the Venturis and tower are collected in the Gas
Polisher Water Reservoir and recirculated continuously by a centrifugal pump. Caustic is automatically
added to the reservoir to maintain a pH range of 7 to 8.5. A HEPA filter is located after the gas polisher
for final removal of particulate.
The final mechanical component is the Induced Draft Fan (ID Fan). This unit creates the draw that pulls
the PCG™ through the treatment train and maintains the negative pressure in the PWC™ vessel. The ID
Fan incorporates a motor with a variable frequency drive (VFD) to regulate fan RPM and upstream
pressure. Clean, high BTU value PCG™ exiting the blower is ducted to the point of use or disposal.
Figure 2.7.2: Startech's PWC™ Process Flow Diagram (Startech, March 2000)
STEAM\
IF RESD/ *
WASTE\ ..
IN /*]
\ 1
AUTOMAT ICINFEED
V —
ELECTRICPOWER 1 1
. 1 POWER
/PLANT AIR SUPPLY
p~\PLAS MA MEDIUM
innnHEAT —
U U UJEXCHANGER
X MAKEUP IUJTIUW)
-J [ P \* — UJULANI
M"^ WATER
« $
1 — x pnei 1 1 1 PCG „„ .
f PLASMA } H II II ri^l
WASTE N f
(PWQ I 1 1 F|LTER
PCG
J~~| PaiSHER ^
KSTANDARDINDUSTRIAL
ELECTRICALSERVICE
POS /^ PCG "\ USEAS:
'7~P *•( PL AS MA CONVERT ED GAS\J D „ \ PLANT HEAT
^J \ TEMPCRARYSTCRAGE /1PO3/ ELEQRiaTY
\_SYNTHESISGAS J/ FEEDSTOCK
L MAKEUP WATER
MaTENSaiDS _| IMCDT 5n mcN
QUENCHER & HANDIER ~l INERT SCLIDV
2.7.2
Available Performance and Cost Data (Startech, March 2000)
The PWC™ has been tested at a scale of 100-200 pounds per hour on infectious medical waste,
explosives in waste streams, solvent contaminated industrial process wastes, K045 spent carbon, lead
contaminated soils and other waste streams. Full-scale plasma technology also is currently being used to
vitrify ash from municipal solid waste combustors in Japan. The process produces synthesis fuel gas
(PCG™), non-leachable silicate glass, scrap metal and gas polisher blowdown. Blowdown from the wet-
scrubbing units of the gas polisher can be evaporated and the solids reintroduced into the PWC™ for
2-32
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
vitrification. Data from an analysis of PCG™ from the processing of hazardous and infectious medical
waste, when the gas was used as a fuel, are provided in Table 2.7-1. This table shows that emissions of
dioxins, furans, cadmium, lead, mercury, HC1, NO2, SO2, CO, and particulates are all lower than the
identified standards. Data from an analysis of silicate stone from the processing of lead contaminated
soil is provided in Table 2.7-2. This table shows that the concentration of lead in a TCLP extract was
reduced from 310 mg/L in the soil to less than 0.75 mg/L in the silicate stone (product of PWC process).
Table 2.7-1. Emissions of Plasma Converted Gas from Processed Hazardous Medical Waste
(Startech, March 2000)
Parameter
PCDD TEQ (dioxin)
PCDF TEQ (furan)
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
HC1
NO2
Particulate
SO2
CO
Emissions8 Plasma
Waste Converter
0.0000000024
0.0000000090
0.0000415980
0.02254
0.0000398660
0.65404
0.41730
1.8737
0.0188083
None Detected
MOE REG 346" Air
Quality Standards
0.00045
0.00045
5.0
10.0
1.5
100.0
500.0
No Standard Required
830.0
6,000.0
EPA Regulated Medical
Waste Standards
0.0006
0.0006
40.0
70.0
550.0
15.0
250.0
34,000.0
55.0
40.0
a Maximum ground level concentrations
b Max. permitted ground level concentrations
MOE Ontario Ministry' of the Environment
PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF Fob/chlorinated dibenzofurans
HC1 Hydrogen Chloride
NO, Nitrogen Oxide
SO, Sulfur Dioxide
TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient
2-33
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 2.7-2. Composition of Silicate Stone from Processing of Lead Contaminated Soil (Startech,
March 2000)
Parameter
Date
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Total Solids
Total C
Soil TCLP
1/12/96
99.9999% and energetics to
>99.999%, however actual agent testing was not performed. Leakage of air into the PWC™ during the
demonstration caused an excess of oxygen over the desired level, which caused the PCG™ to be
composed primarily of carbon dioxide and water, rather than carbon monoxide and hydrogen, as had
been planned. The effects from this and other operational concerns are discussed in the ACWA program
Supplemental Report to Congress (September 30, 1999). hi response, Startech claimed that the full
capabilities and maturity of the PWC™ were not identified in the ACWA program. According to
Startech, subsequent upgrades of the ACWA PWC™ system have led to reliable, full-scale commercial
operations of that system.
The ACWA program data showed a concentration of 0.100 ng/m3 for dioxin/furan in the off-gases (for
dunnage and HD hydrolysate processing). This was measured as toxicity equivalent quotient (TEQ, the
2-34
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
international method of relating the toxicity of various dioxin/furan congeners to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD). This value for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA program was less than the emission
standard for incinerators, which is 0.20 ng/m3 TEQ (40 CFR 63.1203).
Capital costs for implementation of the technology for chemical demilitarization were found to be
approximately equal to or 5% greater than the costs for the "baseline" technology (incineration),
depending on site-specific conditions. The ACWA Supplemental Report to Congress concluded that the
capital cost for PWC™ technology was approximately equal to that for incineration, given the
uncertainties in the predicted values. O&M labor requirements were found to be 15 to 20% higher than
those for the baseline technology, however insufficient information was available to complete a
comparison of total O&M costs to those for the baseline technology.
2-35
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
3.0 POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES TO TREAT RCRA
WASTE STREAMS COMPARABLE TO ACWA WASTES
EPA evaluated the potential applicability of the seven ACWA technologies to treat RCRA wastes by
identifying the ACWA technologies that are capable of treating RCRA wastes currently being treated by
combustion and the ACWA technologies that are capable of treating organic wastes that have chemical
structures similar to the ACWA wastes that were tested. The methodology and results from these
analyses are presented below.
3.1 Applicability to Treating RCRA Wastes Currently Treated by Combustion
Six of the seven ACWA technologies — AEA's SILVER II™, Commodore's SET™ process, Eco
Logic's GPCR, Foster Wheeler's SCWO, General Atomies' SCWO, and Startech's PWC™ — involve
chemical oxidation, chemical reduction, and thermal processes that the providers indicate are capable of
destroying a wide range of organics, including those currently treated by combustion. Because none of
the ACWA technology firms provided data on treatment of specific RCRA-listed hazardous wastes, EPA
evaluated the potential applicability of these technologies by examining the types and quantities of
wastes that are treated by combustion technologies (combustion includes incineration in commercial and
on-site/captive units, and in commercial kilns).
Available information on the types and quantities of RCRA wastes treated by combustion was obtained
from EPA reports and from the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). As shown in Figure 3-1, from EPA's
report "Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste
Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule" (July 1999), the total quantity of waste managed in
combustion systems was 3,282,995 tons, based on data in the 1995 Biennial Reporting System (BRS).
Table 3-1 shows that nearly one-third of the waste that is combusted originates in the industrial organic
chemicals sector, and nearly one-eighth originates in the pesticides and agricultural chemicals sector,
based on 1995 BRS data.
The cost of using incineration to treat hazardous wastes has been identified by EPA and by a national
trade association representing commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities (the Environmental
Technology Council - ETC). For example, in an economic analysis of an air emissions rule for
hazardous waste combustors, EPA estimated the cost for treatment of wastes by incineration. Those
results show that the cost for incineration vary based on the type of waste treated, as shown on Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 shows that the costs for use of incineration varied from as low as $70 per ton treated for
relatively less contaminated wastes, to as high as $1,281 per ton for relatively highly contaminated
wastes.
The ETC provided the results from a survey of its member companies on the prices charged for
incineration of various types of wastes in the second half of calendar year 1999. The results from the
ETC survey, shown on Table 3-3, indicate that the price for commercial incineration of bulk pumpable
sludges ranged from $175 to $1,500 per ton, and for bulk contaminated soils from $375 to $1,000 per
ton. These are the only two types of waste for which ETC reported prices on a per ton basis. The prices
for incineration of these two types of wastes are roughly comparable to the range of costs reported by
EPA in the 1999 report cited above.
3-1
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Figure 3-1: RCRA Waste Quantities Managed by Combustion Systems (EPA, 1999)
WASTE QUANTITIES MANAGED BY COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
(Tons, 1995 Data)
Commercial
Incinerators 665,615
(20%)
Commercial Kilns
1,007,380(31%)
On-Site/Captive
Incinerators
1,610,000(49%)
Total Demand: 3,282,995
Source: U.S. EPA. 1995. Biennial Reporting System (BRS) as reported in RIAfor HWC MACT, July 1999
Notes:
1) The on-site/captive incinerator tons data was adjusted to account for a data entry error involving
the Dow facility in Plaquemine, L.A. While available 1995 BRS data indicate that the facility
combusted 2,099,059 tons of waste, the facility actually combusted 22,639 tons.
2) This analysis excludes wastes burned at mobile incinerators.
3-2
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 3-1. Summary of Industrial Sectors Generating Combusted RCRA Wastes (EPA, 1999)
INDUSTRIAL SECTORS GENERATING COMBUSTED WASTE, 1995
Industrial Organic Chemicals, N.E.C.
Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals,
N.E.C.
Business Services, N.E.C.
Organic Fibers, noncellulosic
Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical
Products
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Plastics Materials and Resins
Petroleum Refining
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, N.E.C.
Unknown
Nonclassicfiable Establishents
Services, N.E.C.
Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels
Cyclic Organic Crudes and
Intermediates, and Organic Dyes and
Pigments
SIC
Code
2869
2879
7389
2824
2833
2834
2821
2911
2819
NA
9999
8999
2851
2865
Corresponding
NAIC Codes
32511,325188,
325193.32512,
325199
32532
51224,51229,
541199,81299,
54137,54141,54142,
54134,54149,54189,
54193,54135,54199,
71141,561421,
561422.561439,
561431,561491,
56191, 56179.
561599,56192,
561591, 52232,
561499,56199
325222
325411
325412
325211
32411
325998,331311,
325131,325188
NA
NA
71151,51221,54169,
51223,541612,
514199,54162
32551
32511,325132.
325192
Quantity
(tons)
853,216
321,869
245,241
190,209
157,520
105,881
93,043
92,023
64,826
61,487
46,108
30,585
29,837
29,667
%of
Total
Quantity
31.82
12.00
9.15
7.09
5.87
3.95
3.47
3.43
2.42
2.29
1.72
1.14
1.11
1.11
3-3
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 3-1. Summary of Industrial Sectors Generating Combusted Wastes (continued)
INDUSTRIAL SECTORS GENERATING COMBUSTED WASTE, 1995
Air. Water, and Solid Waste
Management
Photographic Equipment and Supplies
Scrap and Waste Materials
Synthetic Rubber (Vulcanizable
Elastomers)
Special Warehousing and Storage.
N.E.C.
Primary Aluminum
Chemicals and Chemical Preparations.
N.E.C.
Sanitary Services, N.E.C.
Alkalies and Chlorine
Local and Suburban Transit
Chemicals and Allied Products, N.E.C.
All Other SIC Codes
Total
SIC
Code
9511
3861
5093
2822
4226
3334
2899
4959
2812
4111
5169
NA
Corresponding
NAIC Codes
92411
333315,325992
42193
325212
49312,49311,49319
331312
32551,311942.
325199,325998
48819,56291,56171,
562998
325181
485111,485112.
485113,485119,
485999
42269
NA
Quantity
(tons)
28,033
27,356
18,768
17,025
14,914
12,648
10,303
10,089
9,567
9,471
7,337
201,826
2,681,509
%of
Total
Quantity
1.05
1.02
0.70
0.63
0.56
0.47
0.38
0.38
0.36
0.35
0.27
7.53
100.00
Notes:
1 ) Refuse systems (SIC code 4953) were excluded from the analysis because they are likely to be fuel blenders; the
intent was to characterize the original sources of hazardous waste.
2) The data on tons was adjusted to account for a data entry error involving the Dow facility in Plaquemine, LA.
While the state-reported data used in the 1995 BRS indicate that the facility combusted 2,099,059 tons of waste, the
facility actually combusted 22,639 tons.
3) The total tons listed does not equal the total in Figure 3-1 because only the 1995 BRS Generation and Management
(GM) forms contained SIC codes, yet the GM forms do not capture data from small quantity generators. (The
information in Figure 3-1 was obtained from the 1 995 BRS Waste Received (WR) forms, which list the wastes
received from small and large quantity generators.) In addition, reporting errors on the part of generators and data
entry errors on the part of EPA affect the accuracy of the estimate of tons combusted.
NA - Not applicable
Source: 1995 BRS data, as reported in RIA for HWC MACT, July 1999
3-4
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 3-2. Unit Cost for Use of Incineration (EPA, 1999)
(price per ton in 1996 dollars)
Liquids
With
Suspended
Solids
$70
Highly
Contaminated
$301
Sludges
Less
Contaminated
$320
Highly
Contaminated
$630
Solids
Less
Contaminated
$683
Highly
Contaminated
$1,281
Table 3-3. Commercial Incinerator Prices, January 2000 * (ETC, 2000)
Type of Waste
Drummed Halogen Liquid Organics
Drummed Non-Halogen Liquid
Bulk Non-Halogen Liquid
Lab Packs
Drummed Pumpable Sludge
Bulk Pumpable Sludge
Bulk Contaminated Soils
Aerosols
Low
$100.00
$50.00
$0.25
$0.90
$100.00
$175.00
$375.00
$0.30
Average
$192.00
$124.00
$0.59
$2.42
$207.00
$651.00
$559.00
$0.47
High
$315.00
$300.00
$1.60
$10.00
$400.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$0.75
Unit**
Per drum
Per drum
Per gallon
Per pound
Per drum
Per ton
Per ton
Per pound
* Survey of Environmental Technology Council (ETC) member companies conducted on sales between July 1, 1999 and
December 31. 1999. Low and Lligh prices are the lowest and highest charged by any facility during the survey period. Average
is the average of the highest and lowest price reported by each facility, summed and divided by the number of facilities reporting.
The prices shown within a particular waste category (e.g., "Bulk Pumpable Sludges") may represent a wide range from low to
high for various reasons. For example, wastes from different generators (especially in the case of lab packs) and even from the
same generator, can differ based on BTU value, halogen content, compatibility with other waste, and other factors that affect
pricing. This survey reflects historical prices for treatment services, and should not be construed as price quotations.
Transportation costs are not included.
** Prices may be converted to a common per ton basis using the following approximate conversion factors: (a) 4 drums/ton; (b)
240 gals/ton; or (c) 2,000 pounds/ton
3.2 Applicability to Treating RCRA Appendix VIII Wastes with Chemical Structures Similar
to ACWA Chemicals
All seven ACWA technology providers indicated that their technologies can treat organic wastes that
have chemical structures similar to the ACWA wastes, but none of these firms provided data on
treatment of specific listed RCRA hazardous wastes. Therefore, the RCRA wastes that include
constituents with chemical structures similar to ACWA wastes were identified, along with the types of
3-5
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
ACWA wastes that were tested in calendar year 1999 (Demo I). In this evaluation, EPA first identified
the type of chemical structure for the ACWA compounds, such as ether, ester, or nitrated aromatic.
Then, EPA reviewed the chemicals in RCRA Appendix VIII and waste codes for D, F, K, P, and U listed
wastes, and identified those wastes with constituents that have similar chemical structures or structural
elements, and likely similar treatability.
The results from this comparison, shown in Table 3-4, indicate which RCRA waste codes contain
constituents that fall into each of the ACWA waste categories, and which types of ACWA wastes from
those categories were tested. For example, Table 3-4 shows that there are 18 specific RCRA waste codes
that contain ethers, and that these waste codes share structural similarity with HD (distilled mustard), one
of the ACWA wastes tested. This information could be used in conjunction with the results from the
ACWA testing program to help identify specific ACWA technologies that would potentially be
applicable to specific RCRA waste codes.
Table 3-4. Comparison of Types of ACWA Wastes and RCRA Wastes
ACWA Waste
Category
ester
ether
nitrated aliphatic
nitrated aromatic
inorganic salt
organophosphate
ester
element/other
RCRA Waste Codes
D016, F003, U017, U028, U038, U069, U088, U102, U118,
U162, U240
D016, D017, F005, K017, P016, U020, U024, U025, U027,
U035, U041, U042, U058, U085, U115, U150, U237, U240
F005,P081,U171
D030. D036, F004, K025, K083, Kill, P020, P041, P047, P048.
P077, U105. U106, U169, U170, U181. U234
PI 19, U144
D009, K038, K040, P039, P040, P041, P043, P044, P066, P067,
P071, P085, P089, P094, P097, P109, Pill, U058, U087
D008, D010, P056, U151
ACWA Wastes
Tested
dimethyl phtlialate,
triacetin
HD (distilled mustard)
Nitrocellulose,
nitroglycerin, RDX,
tetrazene
Lead styphnate.
2-nitrodiphenylamme,
tetryl, trinitrotoluene
Antimony trisulfide,
barium nitrate, lead
thiocyanate,
potasssium chlorate,
potassium nitrate
GB (sarin), VX
carbon, lead azide,
sulfur
3-6
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 3-4. Comparison of Types of ACWA Wastes and RCRA Wastes (continued)
ACWA Waste
Category
RCRA Waste Codes
ACWA Wastes
Tested
Notes:
1. ACWA waste testing has not yet been completed for all seven technology service providers, and not all ACWA
technologies have been identified as effective for treating all ACWA wastes.
2. The ACWA wastes include liquid and solid forms, and, for a given site, the corresponding RCRA waste streams may or
may not be present in a similar form.
3. The ACWA wastes that were considered in this analysis included the following: Composition A5, Composition B and B4,
Tetrytol, black powder, HD, VX, GB, RDX, TNT, tetryl, lead azide, lead styphnate, barium nitrate, potassium nitrate
(saltpeter), potassium chlorate, antimony sulfide, corundum (aluminum oxide), lead thiocyanate, carbon, sulfur, tetrazene,
nitrocellulose (guncotton), nitroglycerin, triacetin, dimethyl phthalate, lead stearate, and 2-nitrodiphenylamine. Composite
materials, such as Composition A5 and the fuze fillings (primer mixtures), were converted into individual chemicals. The
additional breakdowns are:
Composition A5 = RDX
Composition B and B4 = RDX + TNT
Tetrytol = tetryl + TNT
Black powder = potassium nitrate + carbon + sulfur
Specific ACWA chemicals were identified by chemical category for each of the ACWA chemicals (the bold item is the
category).
HD = ether (HD also is a chlorinated hydrocarbon; this analysis did not include address chlorinated hydrocarbons as a
separate chemical category)
VX, GB = organophosphate ester
RDX = l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine = nitrated triazine (some herbicides are non-nitrated triazines)
TNT = 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene = nitrated aromatic
tetryl = N-methyl-N,2,4,6-tetranitroaniline = nitrated aromatic
lead azide = azide salt
lead styphnate = lead trinitroresorcinate = nitrated aromatic salt
barium nitrate, potassium nitrate (saltpeter), potassium chlorate, antimony sulfide, corundum (aluminum oxide), and lead
thiocyanate = inorganic salts
carbon, sulfur = elements (combustible)
tetracene = tetrazene = tetrazolyl guanyltetrazene hydrate = sui generis
nitrocellulose (guncotton) = nitrated aliphatic
nitroglycerin = glyceryl trinitrate = nitrated aliphatic
triacetin = triglyceride (fatty ester)
dimethyl phthalate = ester
lead stearate = soap (fatty acid salt)
2-nitrodiphenylamine = nitrated aromatic
Methods Used to Manage Similar RCRA Wastes
To provide a general indication of the types of management methods
used for the RCRA wastes shown in Table 3-4 as having structural
elements similar to ACWA wastes, 16 RCRA wastes were selected
from those listed in Table 3-4 for a more detailed evaluation. Figure
3-2 lists the hazardous waste codes used in this evaluation. The 16
wastes were selected as wastes that are believed to be among the
Figure 3-2.
Hazardous Waste Codes Used in
this Analysis
D016 F003 K025 Kill
D017 F004 K038 P020
D030 F005 K040 P089
D036 KOI 7 K083 U240
3-7
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
wastes generated in the largest amounts (many "U" and "P" RCRA wastes are generated in relatively
lesser amounts and were not included in this evaluation).
This evaluation was based on data in the 1997 Biennial Reporting System (BRS). The BRS is EPA's
most comprehensive source of data on the generation and management of RCRA hazardous wastes, and
is updated once every two years (1997 is the most recent year for which data are available). This
evaluation consisted of wastes streams containing selected hazardous waste codes that were reported as
(1) generated and managed on site on the BRS Generation and Management (GM) form, and (2) received
from off site for management on the BRS Waste Received (WR) form. A summary of the background of
the BRS and the methodology used to analyze data in the BRS is shown in Appendix C.
As shown in Appendix C, waste streams were categorized into management methods using the BRS
management system type codes reported. The management categories used were:
Incineration (system type codes M041, M042, M043, M044, and M049);
• Energy recovery (system type codes M051, M052, M053, and M059);
Stabilization (system type codes Ml 11, Ml 12, and Ml 19);
Aqueous organic treatment (system type codes M081, M082, M083, M084, M085,
M089, M091, M092, M093, M094, and M099);
Disposal (system type codes M131, M132, M133, M134, M135, M136, andM137); and
Other (all other system type codes).
Results from BRS Queries
Table 3-5 presents a summary of the management methods identified for the selected RCRA hazardous
waste codes generated and managed on site. As shown on Table 3-5, the total quantity of these 16 wastes
managed ranges from 39,665 tons/year (for K040) to 115,057,200 tons/year (for F005), with the majority
of the wastes managed by aqueous organic treatment or disposal. The three spent solvent wastes (F003,
F004, F005) are the wastes (from the list of 16) that have the largest quantity managed.
The BRS contains data that allows a more detailed understanding of these waste quantities, and these
more detailed data are presented in Appendix C. Appendices C-l and C-2 presents a summary of the
management methods identified for the selected RCRA hazardous waste codes generated and managed
on site for solids and liquids, respectively. Appendices C-3 and C-4 presents the management of liquids
generated and managed on site and received from off site for management, respectively. Appendices C-5
and C-6 presents the management of solids generated and managed on site and received from off site for
management, respectively. Appendix C-7 provides a summary of the BRS system type codes and their
descriptions.
3-8
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 3-5. Management Methods for Selected Wastes Generated and Managed On Site * (EPA, 1997)
EPA
Hazardous
Waste Code
D016
D017
D030
D036
F003
F004
F005
K017
K025
K038
K040
K083
Kill
P020
P089
U240
Incineration
(tons)
25,959
9,839
59,328
66,697
717,550
239,400
611,813
3,840
8,496
200,986
4,338
11,655
7,915
7,486
5,710
25,751
Energy
Recovery
(tons)
336
336
174,345
188,255
570,032
222,418
454,619
61,762
56,697
124
366
145,227
902
232
262
7,653
Stabilization
(tons)
58,548
32,479
60,460
62,674
126,262
114,745
134,682
43,103
39,905
35,437
34,041
47,894
31,772
46,398
47,561
47,708
Aqueous
Organic
Treatment
(tons)
2,237
193
810,779
495,188
44,424,998
42,716,729
44,690,988
0
0
0
160
180
336,032
93,498
160
160
Disposal
(tons)
87,476
79,437
328,392
841,840
23,413,134
42,114,625
68,169,833
7,068
6,815
477
239
7,204
3,461,814
312
259
33,594
Other
(tons)
11,781
4,282
124,476
51,588
1,243,317
117,656
995,266
2,159
1,524
429
521
7,152
442,467
759
705
1,677
Total
Managed
(tons)
186,337
126,567
1,557,781
1,706,243
70,495,292
85,525,573
115,057,20C
117,932
113,438
237,453
39,665
219,312
4,280,902
148,685
54,658
116,542
* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams carrying more than one waste
code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a waste contains both 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
3-9
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
4.0 POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION OF ACWA TECHNOLOGIES TO TREAT
CONTAMINATED WASTES AND MEDIA
To evaluate the potential applicability of the seven ACWA technologies to treat contaminated wastes and
media, EPA used data supplied by the ACWA technology providers, including performance data and
information on the key factors that affect use of the ACWA technologies.
As shown in Table 4-1, the ACWA technologies have previously been tested on or used to treat
contaminated wastes and media. Waste matrices treated include process wastes, and contaminated soil,
groundwater, sludges, and sediments. Process wastes include items such as waste oils, paints, pure or
off-spec products, electrical equipment, concrete, and metals. Prior work has been completed on
contaminants such as chlorinated solvents, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), dioxins/furans, explosives,
PCBs, and pesticides, as well as on chemical weapons (chemical weapons are not described further in
this report).
The applications that are considered to have been completed at a full-scale include a commercial SET™
facility in the U.S.; a commercial processing GPCR unit in Kwinana, Western Australia, and a
demonstration GPCR unit at St. Catharines, in Ontario, Canada. The unit in Australia processes mainly
PCB-contaminated electrical equipment such as ballasts, capacitors, and oils, and has also processed
DDT residuals. The unit in Ontario processed PCB-, chlorobenzene-, and dioxin-contaminated soil,
electrical, concrete, and other solid wastes.
One of the applications discussed above has been completed at a federal Superfund site. A
demonstration-scale test of the SET™ process was used to treat PCB-contaminated sediments at the New
Bedford Harbor (Sawyer Street) Superfund site, in Massachusetts.
As discussed earlier in this report, there are technology providers other than those in the ACWA program
that offer technologies similar to those in the ACWA program (e.g., chemical oxidation and reduction
technologies). Appendix B to this report provides information about these additional service providers.
Key Factors
There are several key factors that are generally considered for use of the ACWA technologies for
treatment of contaminated wastes and media, including those concerning material handling and residuals
(e.g., air emissions), and cost. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the information provided by the
technology service providers relative to material handling and residuals factors.
Table 4-2 shows that the technologies can handle materials in solid, liquid, or gaseous phases. The
SILVER II™ and PWC™ processes can handle either solid or liquid phases directly, generally without
preprocessing, while the other technologies may require some preprocessing. For example, the SET™
process may require that solids be crushed or shredded prior to treatment, and that wet sludges be
dewatered; the GPCR process may require that materials be able to be volatilized or atomized prior to
injection, or converted to a liquid phase; and the ICB™ and SCWO processes may require that materials
be in a liquid or slurry phase prior to treatment.
4-1
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 4-1. Summary of the Prior Work Completed by ACWA Technology Service Providers for Treatment of Contaminated
Wastes and Media (as described in Section 2 of this report)
Media/
Contaminant
Chlorinated
solvents
Explosives
PCBs
Pesticides
Chlorinated
solvents
PCBs
Chlorinated
solvents
Explosives
PCBs
Pesticides
ACWA Technology Service Provider and Technology
AEA's
SILVER II™
AlliedSignaPs
ICB™
Commodore's
SET™
Eco Logic's
GPCR
Foster Wheeler
SCWO
General
Atomies' SCWO
Startech's
PWC™
Treatment of Contaminated Soil
T
B
P
P
P
B*
B*
Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater
P
P
T
T
p*
p*
Treatment of Process Wastes
B
P
B
P
p*
P
B
P
P
F
F
P
T
T
T
P
P
P
B
T
p*
T
T
T
T
p*
p*
T
T
KEY: F - Full-scale applications previously completed
P - Pilot/Demonstration-scale applications previously completed; no F applications
B - Bench/Laboratory-scale applications previously completed; no P or F applications
T - Reported as Theoretically applicable; no B, P, or F applications
* The vendor claims to have performed this demonstration, but no supporting data were provided
4-2
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table 4-2. Summary of Key Technical Factors for Use of the ACWA Technologies
ACWA Technology Provider
Material Handling Factors
Residuals Factor
AEA's SILVER II™
Materials can be fed by gravity or
by pumping, and can be solids
(such as wooden pallets) or liquids
Residuals include salts, nitric
acid, spent scrubbing
solutions, and off gases
AlliedSignal's ICB™
Materials must be in a liquid
phase, such as wastewater or
ground-water
Residuals consist of biomass
sludge and off gases; this
process generates relatively-
less sludge than similar
biotreatment processes
Commodore's SET
•TM
Materials must be able to be
penetrated by liquid ammonia;
some solids, such as metal,
concrete, and wood, must be
crushed or shredded prior to
treatment; materials with high
water content (wet sludges) may
need to be dewatered prior to
treatment
Residuals are metals salts, the
dehalogenated parent
compound (no toxic
intermediates), and off gases;
ammonia and other off gases
can be reused in the system
Eco Logic's GPCR
Materials must be able to be
volatilized or atomized prior to
injection into the GPCR; this
might include use of a desorber
for solid materials
Residuals include treated
solids and off gases such as
hydrogen chloride and
methane
Foster Wheeler SCWO
Materials must be in a liquid or
slurry phase, or converted to a
liquid or slurry phase, to be fed to
the SCWO
Residuals include treated
solids, including inorganic
salts, and off gases
General Atomies' SCWO
Materials must be in a liquid or
slurry phase, or converted to a
liquid or slurry phase, to be fed to
the SCWO
Residuals include treated
solids, including inorganic
salts, and off gases
Startech's PWC™
Materials can be fed by gravity or
mechanical action and can be
solids, liquids, and/or gases; in
general, no size reduction or other
preprocessing is necessary'
The PWC™ produces
synthesis fuel-gas, scrap
metal, non-leachable silicate
glass and spent gas scrubbing
solutions
4-3
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Treatment residuals include solids, liquids, and gaseous materials. All seven ACWA technologies
generate off-gases, and the ACWA program provided limited results on the concentrations of dioxins or
dibenzofurans in the off-gases from the three treatment technologies included in the 1999 demonstration
testing. These values for dioxins and furans measured in the ACWA program were all less than the
emission standard for incinerators. All seven technology providers stated that the technologies are
designed and operated so that they will not produce dioxins or dibenzofurans in the off-gases, therefore
claiming potential as alternatives to incineration.
EPA requested that all ACWA technology providers identify the cost for use of the ACWA technologies
for treatment of RCRA wastes and contaminated media, and some provided limited information about
cost. However, these costs were limited to select aspects of a given remediation (such as costs for
electricity) and are not presented because of concerns about comparability. The capital and operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs for remediation of contaminated sites using the ACWA technologies
would vary based on site-specific factors such as matrix characteristics and the presence of debris. One
of the criteria for accepting technologies into the ACWA program was that their life cycle costs would be
approximately comparable to those for incineration. It is likely that additional information will be made
available in the future about the costs for use of the ACWA technologies for treatment of RCRA wastes
and contaminated media, and after additional testing is completed for the ACWA technologies.
As discussed in Appendix A of this report, in an effort related to the ACWA program, the DoD is looking
at these same technologies for use in the nonstockpile chemical weapons program. In that program, the
DoD commissioned Mitretek to provide an independent evaluation of the relative costs for using the
ACWA technologies in the nonstockpile program. Mitretek performed this evaluation by reviewing
proprietary information from the proposals prepared by the ACWA vendors in response to the original
solicitation by the Army for the ACWA program, and from the ACWA demonstration study plans. The
results from Mitretek's evaluation are provided in their report "Assessment of ACWA Technologies and
Equipment for Treatment of Non-Stockpile Wastes and Chemical Material"; MTR 1999-32V1; May
1999.
While the information in the Mitretek report may provide a general indication of the relative costs for use
of the technologies for treatment of RCRA wastes and contaminated media, it is important to note that
their scope was to make recommendations concerning use of the hardware that had been procured under
the ACWA program. Because the U.S. government had already purchased this hardware, the costs
reflect only the subsequent operation of those specific units, and may not accurately reflect the costs of
similar units designed for processing other waste materials, such as RCRA waste streams or
contaminated media. In addition, subsequent to publication of the Mitretek report, the ACWA program
began demonstrating the four additional ACWA technologies; according to Mitretek, the government's
procurement of these additional technologies rendered invalid several of the costs used in their analysis.
4-4
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
5.0 REFERENCES
SILVER II™ Technology
SILVER II, The Safe Alternative for Destruction of the World's Chemical Weapons. AEA Technology
PLC. Company Literature. Not Dated.
SILVER II, A Total Solution for Chemical Weapons Destruction. AEA Technology and CH2MHill.
ACWA Brochure. Not Dated.
L. Davidson, Y. Quinn, and D.F. Steele, AEA Technology PLC, Dounreay, Scotland. "Ruthenium-
Mediated Electrochemical Destruction of Organic Wastes". Platinum Metals Review. 42(3). pp. 90-98.
1998.
AEA Technology's SILVER II™ Electrochemical Oxidation Organic Waste Remediation Process. AEA
Technology. Not Dated.
Introducing AEA Technology PLC. Company Literature. Not Dated.
Meeting Summary. Meeting of Bob Boylston, AEA Technologies, Richard Weisman and Mike Berman,
Tetra Tech EM Inc. March 12, 1999.
Facsimile from Bob Boylston, AEA Technology Engineering Services Inc., to Richard Weisman, Tetra
Tech. Information about Trial Testing of SILVER II. May 3, 1999.
E-mail from Bob Boylston, AEA Technologies, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Comments on
Draft Article. October 13, 1999.
ICB™ Technology
Letter from Brent DeFeo, AlliedSignal, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Biological Treatment
Technology. August 9, 1999.
AlliedSignal Chemicals. Sure Solutions, Partners in World Class Environmental Solutions,
Environmental Systems & Services. Company Literature. 1996.
ICB Biological Treatment System. Bright Solutions to Hot Issues. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company
Literature. Not Dated.
Case Study: Retrofit of Existing Wastewater Treatment System, Technology: ICB. AlliedSignal.
Company Literature. Not Dated.
"Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Remediates Groundwater Contaminated with TCE and Other Chlorinated
Solvents". Advanced Environmental Solutions. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company Literature. Not
Dated.
5-1
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
"Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Solves Space Problem and Handles Influent Fluctuations for High-BOD
Wastewater Treatment". Advanced Environmental Solutions. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company
Literature. Not Dated.
"The Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Effective Wastewater Treatment at a Fraction of the Cost". Advanced
Environmental Solutions. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company Literature. Not Dated.
"Immobilized Cell Bioreactor Unique Design Outstrips Other Wastewater-Treatment Systems".
Advanced Environmental Solutions. AlliedSignal Chemicals. Company Literature. Not Dated.
E-mail from Brent DeFeo, AlliedSignal, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. EPA Effort on
ACWA Technologies. October 22, 1999.
SET™ Technology
Solvated Electron Technology. Company Literature. Not Dated.
Teledyne-Commodore's Solvated Electron System, A Breakthrough Alternative Chemical Weapons
Destruction System. Company Literature. Not Dated.
Paul L. Miller, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Huntsville, AL. "Demonstration Test Results of the
Solvated Electron Technology". Not Dated.
Paul L. Miller, Engineering Fellow. "No. 3 - The Effects of Ultrahigh-Pressure Waterjet Impact on High
Explosives". August 1992.
J.K. Woosley, Ph.D. and the staff of Teledyne-Commodore. "Speciation of the Products of
SET™/Oxidation Treatment of Energetics". February 22, 1999.
"Commodore Receives Second Step Contract at Pearl Harbor; Completes S-10, 10-Ton Per Day, Mixed
Waste Processing Equipment". News Story.
http://financialnews.netscape.com/financialnews/News.tibco. August 12, 1999.
Dr. Gerry German, Commodore Solution Technologies, Inc. "Solvated Electron Chemistry, A Versatile
Alternative for Waste Detoxification". March 9, 1999.
White Paper, The Uniqueness of Solvated Electron Technology (SET) as an Alternative to Incineration.
Author Not Identified. Not Dated.
Rapid Commercialization Initiative Treatability Study Series at the Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Port Hueneme, California, September 13-27, 1996, and at the Commodore Engineering Applications
Facility, Marengo, Ohio, August 20, 1997. Performed by Commodore Environmental Services, Inc.,
Columbus, Ohio. October 6, 1998.
Fax from Gerry Getman, Commodore, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. EPA Effort on ACWA
Technologies; Comments on Write-up. Novembers, 1999.
5-2
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
GPCR Technology
Lockheed Martin Advanced Environmental Systems. Disposal of Assembled Chemical Weapons, A
Fresh Approach. Company Literature. Not Dated.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Applications Analysis
Report. "Eco Logic International Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction Process - The Reactor System.
EPA/540/AR-93/522. September 1994.
Letter from Sherri E. Woodland, ECO LOGIC, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Input for
Report on Potential Applicability of Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program Technologies
to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media. August 12, 1999.
ECO LOGIC web site, http://eco-logic-intl.com/indexbod.htm. April 15, 1999.
Fax from Sherri Woodland, Eco Logic, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. EPA Report;
Comments on Draft. November 16, 1999.
SCWO Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Engineering Bulletin; Supercritical Water Oxidation.
EPA/540/S-92/006. September 1992.
Foster Wheeler. DARPA/ONR Hydrothermal Oxidation Testing Summary. August 23, 1999.
Foster Wheeler Corp. Article about hydrothermal oxidation plant. Not Dated.
C.M. Barnes, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Mixed Waste Survey for the Supercritical Water
Oxidation Program. EGG-WTD-10984. November 1993.
Fax from Al Ahluwalia, Foster Wheeler, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. Foster Wheeler
SCWO; Comments on Draft Write-up. November 11, 1999.
General Atomics. Supercritical Water Oxidation. Marketing Handout. Not Dated.
General Atomics. General Atomies' ACWA Program Demonstration; Presentation to the Dialog Group.
August 1999.
General Atomics. Use of Supercritical Water Oxidation for the On-board Treatment of Naval Excess
Hazardous Materials. Presented at the U.S.-European Workshop on Thermal Treatment for Naval
Vessels. Brussels, Belgium, October 29-31, 1997.
E-mail from Dan Jensen, General Atomics, to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. GA Comments on
SCWO Evaluation. November 11, 1999.
5-3
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
PWC™ Technology
Startech Environmental Corp. Web site, http://www.startech.net/main.html. August 4, 1999.
Letter from William H. Zdeb, Startech, to John Kingscott, EPA. ACWA Technology Assessment
Report; Comments on Draft Report. March 27, 2000.
General ACWA Program
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program. Annual Report to Congress. December 1997.
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program. Annual Report to Congress. December 1998.
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program. Supplemental Report to Congress. September 30,
1999.
Dialogue on Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment. Results of Vendor Testing. Presented at
Dialogue Meeting, Washington, D.C. August 25-28, 1999.
Arthur Anderson LLP. Executive Summary; Schedule and Cost Risk Assessment of the Alternative
Technologies in the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment. Draft, August 11, 1999.
National Research Council. Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of
Assembled Chemical Weapons. National Academy Press. 1999.
George Bizzigotti, Mitretek Systems. Evaluation of ACWA Technologies for PM-NSCM. Briefing to
National Research Council, Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project. June 16, 1999.
Mitretek Systems. Assessment of ACWA Technologies and Equipment for Treatment of Non-Stockpile
Wastes and Chemical Material. MTR 1999-32V1. May 1999.
U.S. Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project; Non-Stockpile Waste Streams/Inventory
Monitoring. Briefing to National Research Council by John K. Gieseking, Project Officer, Non-
Stockpile Chemical Material Project. June 16, 1999.
Alternative Technologies and Approaches Project Overview. Briefing to National Research Council,
Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project. Dr. J. Richard Ward. June 1999.
Carl Eissner. ACWA Program and Demonstration Update. Briefing to National Research Council, Non-
Stockpile Chemical Material Project. June 16, 1999.
Joseph M. Cardito, Stone & Webster. Technology Monitoring and Evaluation, Non-Stockpile Program.
Briefing to National Research Council, Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project. June 16, 1999.
Engineering News Record. "Chemical Independence; Weapon Destruction Megaproject Lurches
Forward as Costs Climb". February 15, 1999.
5-4
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "National Analysis, The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous
Waste Report (Based on 1995 Data)". August 1997.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts
of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule". Economics, Methods, and Risk
Analysis Division, Office of Solid Waste. Final Draft, July 1999.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Assessment of the Potential Costs and Benefits of the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Industrial Process Wastes, as Proposed". Economics, Methods,
and Risk Analysis Division, Office of Solid Waste. May 25, 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies (EPA REACH IT) Database. October 1999.
Monica Heyl and Raymond McGuire. Analytical Chemistry Associated with the Destruction of
Chemical Weapons. Kluwer Academic Press. 1997.
Environmental Technology Council, . Updated 2/10/00.
5-5
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
APPENDIX A
Exhibit A-l. Additional Background on the ACWA Program
Under the ACWA program, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology submitted
Reports to Congress on the ACWA program in December 1997 and December 1998, and a Supplemental
Report to Congress in September 1999, on the results of their evaluation of ACWA technologies. A
Dialogue on ACWA, comprised of DoD staff from headquarters and the affected sites, EPA staff,
stakeholders from the affected communities, state regulators and tribal representatives, representatives of
national activist organizations, and other concerned entities, contributed to these efforts. These reports,
and other relevant information about the ACWA program, are available on the ACWA web site at
.
DoD selected the ACWA technologies to be tested under the ACWA program based on the following
criteria: process efficacy; process performance; effectiveness; waste by-products; sampling and analysis;
process maturity; process operability; process monitoring and control; applicability to chemical weapons;
safety; design or normal facility occupational impacts; facility accidents with worker impact; facility
accidents with public impact; effluent characteristics and impact on human health and the environment;
and completeness of effluent characterization.
The Reports to Congress prepared by DoD address the same technology providers and technologies as
are covered in this report, and focus primarily on the demonstration testing performed on ACWA wastes.
For example, the most recent Report to Congress (September 1999) discusses demonstration testing
preparations, operations, and results. It provides an overall evaluation and conclusions about the testing
conducted under Demo I, for technologies from Parsons/AlliedSignal, General Atomics, and Burns &
Roe. The ACWA technologies were tested in Demo I on chemical weapons agents (i.e., mustard and
nerve agent), as well as on energetic materials found in chemical weapons (tetrytol, Comp B, and double
base rocket propellant), and on selected secondary wastes, such as wood, fiberglass, Demilitarization
Protective Ensemble (DPE) suits, butyl rubber, and charcoal. Testing of the remaining four ACWA
technologies is planned for testing in 2000. The Report to Congress does not expand on these
technologies' potential applicability to RCRA waste streams or contaminated media.
Other key milestones for the ACWA program include the following.
• May 1, 1998 - Tasks orders were awarded to six technology service providers (AEA,
Teledyne-Commodore, Lockheed Martin, Parsons/AlliedSignal, General Atomics, and
Burns & Roe) to develop work plans for demonstrating alternatives
• July 29, 1998 - Three technology service providers were selected for demonstration
testing in 1999 (Demo I): Parsons/AlliedSignal, General Atomics, and Burns & Roe
• February 28, 2000 - Technology service providers were selected for demonstration
testing in 2000 (Demo II): AEA, Teledyne-Commodore, Eco Logic, and Foster Wheeler
• July - September, 2000 - Demo II testing to be conducted
• March, 2001 - Final Supplemental Repot to Congress planned to be completed
A-l
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
The National Research Council (NRC) has prepared a report, dated August 1999, on their review and
evaluation of alternative technologies for demilitarization of assembled chemical weapons, which is
available through their web site at .
DoD also has other programs that are related to the ACWA program, including the Alternative
Technologies (Alt Tech) program, and the nonstockpile program. These programs are also considering
the potential for use of the ACWA technologies for their program needs.
A-2
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Exhibit A-2. Summary of ACWA Technology Providers and Technologies Relevant to EPA Effort
ACWA Technology
Provider
AEA Technology PLC
Parsons/AlliedSignal
Teledyne-Commodore LLC
Lockheed Martin (Lockheed
Martin was a service
provider under consideration
in Demo I; for Demo II, Eco
Logic and Foster Wheeler
were contracted directly by
PMACWA)
General Atomics
Burns and Roe
Technology Provider or
Team Member with
Technology Relevant to
EPA Effort
AEA
AlliedSignal (now known as
Honeywell)
Commodore
Eco Logic
Foster Wheeler
General Atomics
Startech
Relevant Technologies
SILVER II™
Immobilized Cell
Bioreactor (ICB™)
Solvated Electron
Technology (SET™)
Gas Phase Chemical
Reduction (GPCR)
Supercritical Water
Oxidation (SCWO)
scwo
Plasma Waste Converter
(PWC™)
Additional Considerations
None
Parsons is a technology integrator for the
ACWA program; AlliedSignal is the team
member that was identified as providing
technology relevant to the EPA effort
Teledyne-Commodore LLC is a combination of
Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE) and
Commodore and was formed specifically to
market SET to the chemical weapons industry;
Commodore provides the SET technology for
industrial applications
Lockheed Martin is a technology integrator for
the ACWA program; Eco Logic and Foster
Wheeler are the two members of the Lockheed
Martin team that were identified as providing
technologies relevant to the EPA effort
None
Burns & Roe is a technology integrator for the
ACWA program; Startech is the team member
that was identified as providing technology
relevant to the EPA effort
A-3
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Exhibit A-3. Points of Contact at ACWA Technology Providers and Their Team Members
Company
Point of Contact
AEA Technology PLC
http://www.aeat.co.uk
Bob Boylston
AEA Technology Engineering Services Inc.
241 Curry Hollow Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15236-4696
Telephone: (412) 655-1200
Fax:(412)655-2928
E-mail: boylston@aeatech.com
AlliedSignal Inc.
http://www.alliedsignal.com/em/envsys.htin
Brent S. DeFeo
AlliedSignal Inc. Environmental Systems and Services
P.O. Box 1053
101 Columbia Road
Morristown, NJ 07962-1053
Telephone: (973) 455-5507
Fax: (973) 455-5722
E-mail: brent.defeo@alliedsignal.com
Bums and Roe
http://www.roe.com
Ralph N. Dechiaro
Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc.
800 Kinderkaniack Road
Oradell, NJ 07649
Telephone: (201)986-4056
Fax: (201) 986-4075
E-mail: rdechiaro@roe.com
Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc.
http ://www. commodore. com
Mack Jones
Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc.
2340 Menaul Boulevard NE, Suite 400
Albuquerque, NM 87107
Telephone: (505) 872-6803
Fax: (505) 872-6827
E-mail: mjones@commodore.coin
ELI Eco Logic Inc.
http://www.eco-logic-intl.com
Sherri E. Woodland, B.Sc.
Eco Logic
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, ON, Canada NOB 2KO
Telephone: (519) 856-9591 ext. 241
Fax:(519)856-9235
E-mail: WoodlaS@eco-logic-intl.com
Foster Wheeler
http: //www. fwc. com
Al Ahluwalia, P.E.
Foster Wheeler Development Corporation
John Blizard Research Center
12 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livingston, NJ 07039
Telephone: (973) 535-2346
Fax:(973)535-2242
E-mail: al_ahluwalia@fwc.com
A-4
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Exhibit A-3. Points of Contact at ACWA Technology Providers and Their Team Members
(continued)
Company
Point of Contact
General Atomics
http://www.gat.com
Dan Jensen. Ph.D.
General Atomics
3550 General Atomics Court
San Diego, CA 92121-1194
Telephone: (858) 455-4158
Fax:(858)455-4111
E-mail: dan.jensen@gat.com
Lockheed Martin Energy Technologies, Inc.
http://aes.extenial.lmco.com
Samuel A. Scheer
Lockheed Martin Energy Technologies, Inc.
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 410
Bethesda,MD20817
Telephone: (301) 897-7008
Fax: (301) 897-7019
E-mail: sam.a.scheer@lnico.com
Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc.
http://www.parsons.com
Martin N. Fabrick
Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group. Inc.
100 West Walnut Street
Pasadena, CA 91124
(626) 440-2079
Fax: (626) 440-6195
StarTech Environmental Corporation
http ://www. startech.net
Joseph F. Longo
Startech Environmental Corporation
15 Old Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897-2525
Telephone: (203) 762-2499
Fax: (203) 761-0839
E-mail: stannail@startech.net
Teledyne Commodore LLC
http ://www. tbe. com
Jan Roberts
Teledyne-Coniniodore LLC
300 Sparkman Drive
Huntsville, AL 35805
Telephone: (256) 726-3377
Fax: (256) 726-3330
E-mail: jan.roberts@tbe.com
A-5
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
APPENDIX B
Vendors in EPA REACH IT Providing Technologies Similar to Those From ACWA Vendors
EPA has an ongoing effort to update and maintain a database of characterization and remediation
technologies, known as EPA REACH IT (}. This database is used by site
owners, technology providers, and other environmental professionals to better understand the types of
technologies currently available and sites where technologies are being used.
Searches of the EPA REACH IT database were conducted in October 1999 to find vendors that offer
technologies similar to the ACWA technologies for the cleanup of common RCRA wastes, such as PCBs,
organic pesticides, solvents, and other contaminant groups. Exhibit B-l lists the vendors along with a
contact, the type of technology (trade name), the number of full scale units that are in design, in
construction, or completed, their claims about technology performance, as well as the specific
mechanisms that the technologies employ (if specified in the database). It is important to note that
information is reported in Exhibit B-l as provided by the technology vendors in EPA REACH IT, and
was not modified for this report. Some vendors were not included in the exhibit if they did not supply
information about the type of technology they provide. Information in Exhibit B-l focuses on the
following types of chemical or physical mechanisms that are similar to the ACWA technologies:
ACWA Technology Chemical or Physical Mechanism
SILVER II Electrochemical cell, oxidation reactions
Immobilized Cell Reactor Ex situ Bioreactor, fixed film technologies
Solvated Electron Technology Chemical reduction
Gas Phase Chemical Reduction Chemical reduction
Supercritical Water Oxidation Oxidation reaction
Plasma Waste Converter High temperature destruction
B-l
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
The vendors in Exhibit B-l were derived from the EPA REACH IT database using an advanced search
completed on September 30, 1999 with the following search criteria.
• Technology type - Bioremediation (ex situ) - other
Chemical treatment - oxidation/reduction
Chemical treatment - other
Plasma high temperature recovery
Vitrification
AND
• Contaminant group Explosives/propellants
Organic pesticides/herbicides
PCBs
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Solvents
The search found 45 vendors with 49 technologies and vendor-supplied performance information on 102
sites. These 45 technologies were then reviewed to identify the primary mechanisms used to treat the
wastes and assess whether or not the technology had an analogous treatment mechanism to the ACWA
technologies. Of the 49 technologies obtained in the search:
• 1 technology was an ACWA technology (EcoLogic)
• 7 technologies were determined to be similar to ACWA technologies
• 13 did not have adequate descriptions to make a determination
• 28 other technologies in the search contained technologies that did not have treatment
mechanisms similar to ACWA technologies, such as
- Fentons reagent - 2
— Vitrification - 6
- Extraction technologies - 3
- Dissolved oxygen - 4
— Microorganisms - 10
- Other technologies (phyto-) - 3
B-2
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
EXHIBIT B-l: Vendors Listed in EPA REACH IT as Providing Technologies Similar to ACWA Technologies
Vendor
Contact
Trade Name
No. of Full-
scale Units
D£
IK
4J
Q
•^
ws
B
o
U
"3,
£
o
U
Technology
Performance Claims
Specific
Mechanisms
Employed
Patent
Information
ACWA Technology: AEA's SILVER II Technology
None
ACWA Technology: AlliedSignal's Immobilized Cell Bioreactor
EnSolve
Biosy stems
Dames and Moore
Jason C apian
President, CEO
(919)755-9788
Fax: (91 9) 832-
5980
[no email avail.]
Joseph Tarsavage,
PE
Senior Chemical
Engineer
Phone: (2 15) 657-
5000
X2010
Fax: (2 15) 657-
5454
EnCell Bioreactor
Bioinfiltration
50
3
0
5
2
5
• Remediates groundwater.
lagoon, or processed
wastewater contaminated
with petroleum
hydrocarbons, alcohols.
nitroaromatics, solvents, and
surfactants
• Provides skid-mounted
integrated design for site
installations
• Achieves 99 percent removal
for wastewater
• Treats hydrocarbons,
phenols, chlorinated
compounds, and alcohols
• Provides greater lateral
influence than other
bioremediation technologies
Specialized
microorganisms
Proprietary bacterial
support media (fixed
film)
Passive nutrient and pH
adjustment system
Combines in-situ
bioremediation of soils
with ex- situ
bioremediation of
groundwater
Pumps groundwater
through aboveground
bio-process train then
reinjects it through
infiltration gallery in
contaminated soil
Patent pending
Patent pending
B-3
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Vendor
Contact
Trade Name
No. of Full-
scale Units
a
OD
°l»
Q)
P
C
+rf
Vl
a
o
U
"5,
5
o
U
Technology
Performance Claims
Specific
Mechanisms
Employed
Patent
Information
ACWA Technology: Commodore's Solvated Electron Technology and Eco Logic's Gas Phase Chemical Reduction
High Voltage
Environmental
Applications
William J. Coope
President
Phone: (94 1)41 8-
4832
E-Beam
3
l
1
• Organic contaminants are
destroyed resulting in the
formation of carbon dioxide,
water, and halide salts
• Non- selective destruction
process with demonstrated
capability to destroy 140
hazardous organic s
• No pre- or post- treatment
required
• No air emissions
Processing of liquid
streams containing
suspended solids,
sediments, or sludge
Utilizes insulating core
transformer electron
accelerators
Injects stream of
electrons into flowing
stream of
contamination
producing a highly
reactive species:
reducing aqueous
electron, hydrogen
atom, and hydroxyl
radical
Patented with
additional patents
pending
Registered
trademark
Vendor has
exclusive license
B-4
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Vendor
Contact
Trade Name
No. of Full-
scale Units
a
O
Constr.
"5,
S
o
U
Technology
Performance Claims
Specific
Mechanisms
Employed
Patent
Information
ACWA Technology: Foster Wheeler and General Atomies' Supercritical Water Oxidation
Delphi Research,
Inc.
G.E.M.,Inc.
Terry Rodgers
President
Phone: (505) 243-
3111
Fax: (505) 243-
3188
Cleve A. Bond
President
Phone: (50 1)337-
9410
Fax: (50 1)337-
1208
DETOX (SM)
Not identified
0
i
i
0
0
0
• Destruction efficiencies
greater than 99.99999
percent
• Treats all organic
compounds and concentrates
metals
• Products are carbon dioxide.
water, inert solids in waste
stream, and concentrated
residue of toxic metals as
oxides or salts
• Treats hydrocarbons, PCBs,
PCPs, and possibly dioxins
• Products are non-hazardous
aluminum compounds
Catalyzed wet
oxidation waste stream
process for non-thermal
oxidation of materials
Contaminated stream is
introduced to the
DETOX solution in a
vessel
Off-gas is condensed to
remove water and
hydrogen chloride
while other gases may
be released or re-
circulated
Operates as a closed
system in which
contaminants react with
aluminum oxide and
either an acid or caustic
Treatment occurs in a
heated pressure
chamber with off-
gasses condensed and
possibly treated before
released
Residuals can be
adsorbed to
rehydratable alumina
Patent pending
#4,919,819
B-5
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Vendor
Contact
Trade Name
No. of Full-
scale Units
a
•Sf
°l»
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
APPENDIX C
Results from Queries of EPA's 1997 Biennial Reporting System for Selected RCRA Wastes
Background and Methodology
Facilities that generate and manage RCRA hazardous waste on site, or generate RCRA hazardous waste
and ship it off site for management, report to EPA's BRS using the GM form. Facilities receiving RCRA
hazardous waste from off site for management report using the WR form.
It is possible for a single waste stream that is shipped off site for management to be reported twice to the
BRS - once by the facility that generated the waste and once by the facility managing the waste. For
purposes of this analysis, waste stream information from the management perspective was used. That is,
waste streams reported as (1) generated and managed on site on the GM form or (2) received from off
site for management on the WR form.
In addition to the quantity of waste generated and/or managed, facilities must provide a description of the
waste stream. While generators must provide information on the origin of the waste stream, both
generators and managers must provide (1) RCRA hazardous wastes codes that characterize the waste, (2)
the waste form (i.e., solid, liquid, sludge, gas), and (3) how the waste was managed (i.e., system type
codes). A discussion of how these three descriptions were used in the evaluation is provided below.
Any waste stream containing the waste code shown in Figure 3-2 was included in the evaluation,
regardless of the number of other waste codes associated with the stream. Waste streams carrying more
than one waste code of interest were accounted for each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be
counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a waste contains both 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (D030) and
Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
Waste streams quantities were further classified as liquid or solid/sludge using the BRS form code
reported on the GM or WR form. Waste streams with form codes beginning with B1 or B2 (/'. e.,
inorganic liquids or organic liquids, respectively) were classified as liquid. Waste streams with waste
form codes beginning with B3 and B4 (i.e., inorganic and organic solids, respectively) and B5 and B6
(i.e., inorganic and organic sludges, respectively) were classified as solid/sludge. Gases (i.e., waste form
codes beginning with B7 or B8) were also included as solid/sludges. All other waste streams (i.e.,
invalid codes) were excluded from the analysis.
C-l
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table C-l. Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Generated and
Managed On Site and Received from Off Site for Management *
EPA
Hazardous
Waste Code
D016
D017
D030
D036
F003
F004
F005
K017
K025
K038
K040
K083
Kill
P020
P089
U240
Incineration
(tons)
16,170
4,543
42,903
49,291
499,804
52,925
383,410
84
4,090
197,252
464
4,662
2,029
2,605
2,477
11,770
Energy
Recovery
(tons)
158
158
148,207
161,687
496,330
195,403
380,932
61,732
56,667
124
158
108,330
902
54
54
6,645
Stabilization
(tons)
0
210
210
726
197
1,033
22
22
22
22
22
Aqueous
Organic
Treatment
(tons)
2,236
193
810,778
495,180
44,417,221
42,716,728
44,683,282
160
180
336,032
93,498
160
160
Disposal
(tons)
7,632
315,051
840,380
23,208,637
42,003,541
68,001,282
6,593
6,593
6,593
3,461,337
9
32,652
Other
(tons)
6,104
3,842
118,119
44,097
1,148,795
100,930
909,387
877
283
0
5,139
439,518
21
18
60
Total
Managed
(tons)
32,300
8,736
1,435,267
1,590,845
69,771,513
85,069,724
114,359,326
69,308
67,634
197,397
804
124,926
4,239,839
96,178
2,718
51,287
* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams carrying more than one waste
code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a waste contains both 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
C-2
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table C-2. Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes
Generated and Managed On Site and Received from Off Site for Management
EPA
Hazardous
Waste Code
D016
D017
D030
D036
F003
F004
F005
K017
K025
K038
K040
K083
Kill
P020
P089
U240
Incineration
(tons)
9,789
5,297
16,426
17,406
217,745
186,476
228,402
3,756
4,406
3,735
3,874
6,993
5,887
4,881
3,233
13,981
Energy
Recovery
(tons)
178
178
26,138
26,568
73,702
27,015
73,687
30
30
208
36,898
178
208
1,008
Stabilization
(tons)
58,548
32,478
60,250
62,465
125,536
114,548
133,650
43,081
39,905
35,415
34,018
47,872
31,750
46,398
47,561
47,708
Aqueous
Organic
Treatment
(tons)
0
1
8
7,777
1
7,705
Disposal
(tons)
79,843
79,437
13,341
1,460
204,497
111,084
168,551
475
222
477
239
611
477
312
250
942
Other
(tons)
5,677
441
6,357
7,491
94,522
16,725
85,879
1,282
1,241
429
521
2,013
2,949
738
687
1,616
Total
Managed
(tons)
154,037
117,831
122,513
115,398
723,779
455,849
697,874
48,624
45,804
40,056
38,861
94,386
41,063
52,507
51,94(
65,255
* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams carrying more than one waste
code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a waste contains both 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
C-3
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table C-3. Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Generated and Managed On Site
EPA
Hazardous
Waste Code
D016
D017
D030
D036
F003
F004
F005
K017
K025
K038
K040
K083
Kill
P020
P089
U240
Incineration
(tons)
2,087
2,085
20,107
21,105
416,449
15,840
311,424
41
41
197,063
275
427
2,014
2,272
2,260
2,272
Energy
Recovery
(tons)
70
70
107
3,224
44,826
70
13,257
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Stabilization
(tons)
1
8
9
Aqueous
Organic
Treatment
(tons)
807,002
492,353
44,376,958
42,712,995
44,659,146
335,996
93,339
Disposal
(tons)
6,327
313,000
804,461
23,171,480
41,967,473
67,961,146
6,327
6,327
6,327
3,461,071
9
32,386
Other
(tons)
3,816
3,813
85,735
3,362
370,381
21,644
428,142
241
241
241
439,476
0
Total
Managed
(tons)
12,30(
5,968
1,225,951
1,324,505
68,380,094
84,718,028
113,373,125
6,679
6,679
197,132
345
7,065
4,238,627
95,611
2,269
34,728
* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams carrying more than one waste
code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a waste contains both 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
C-4
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table C-4. Management Methods for Selected Liquid Wastes Received from Off Site for Management
EPA
Hazardous
Waste Code
D016
D017
D030
D036
F003
F004
F005
K017
K025
K038
K040
K083
Kill
P020
P089
U240
Incineration
(tons)
14,083
2,457
22,795
28,186
83,355
37,085
71,986
43
4,050
189
189
4,235
14
332
217
9,498
Energy
Recovery
(tons)
88
88
148,100
158,463
451,504
195,333
367,675
61,662
56,597
54
88
108,260
833
54
54
6,575
Stabilization
(tons)
0
210
210
725
189
1,024
22
22
22
22
22
Aqueous
Organic
Treatment
(tons)
2,236
193
3,776
2,828
40,263
3,733
24,136
160
180
35
160
160
160
Disposal
(tons)
1,305
2,051
35,918
37,157
36,068
40,136
266
266
266
266
266
Other
(tons)
2,287
28
32,384
40,736
778,414
79,287
481,245
636
42
0
4,898
42
21
18
60
Total
Managed
(tons)
20,OOC
2,768
209,317
266,34C
1,391,419
351,696
986,201
62,629
60,955
265
459
117,861
1,212
567
448
16,559
* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams carrying more than one waste
code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a waste contains both 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
C-5
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table C-5. Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes Generated and Managed On Site
EPA
Hazardous
Waste Code
D016
D017
D030
D036
F003
F004
F005
K017
K025
K038
K040
K083
Kill
P020
P089
U240
Incineration
(tons)
1,689
1,648
2,188
2,133
174,694
172,467
185,720
2,446
2,318
2,236
2,362
3,633
2,229
2,935
2,400
2,513
Energy
Recovery
(tons)
17,608
17,608
48,224
5,136
48,224
30
30
30
23,530
30
30
Stabilization
(tons)
9
9
1
1
34,854
33,929
34,854
69
Aqueous
Organic
Treatment
(tons)
7,660
7,636
Disposal
(tons)
79,227
79,227
10,029
534
172,528
97,887
147,355
226
3
3
3
347
7
3
3
3
Other
(tons)
30
27
1,543
468
7,763
1,082
7,726
45
1
2
2
Total
Managed
(tons)
80,955
80,912
31,37(
20,744
445,723
310,501
431,514
2,815
2,351
2,239
2,395
27,512
2,235
2,94(
2,435
2,546
* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams carrying more than one waste
code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a waste contains both 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
C-6
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table C-6. Management Methods for Selected Solid and Sludge Wastes Received from Off Site for Management
EPA
Hazardous
Waste Code
D016
D017
D030
D036
F003
F004
F005
K017
K025
K038
K040
K083
Kill
P020
P089
U240
Incineration
(tons)
8,100
3,649
14,238
15,273
43,051
14,009
42,682
1,310
2,088
1,499
1,512
3,359
3,658
1,946
833
11,468
Energy
Recovery
(tons)
178
178
8,530
8,960
25,478
21,879
25,463
178
13,367
178
178
978
Stabilization
(tons)
58,539
32,469
60,249
62,464
90,683
80,620
98,796
43,013
39,905
35,415
34,018
47,872
31,750
46,398
47,561
47,708
Aqueous
Organic
Treatment
(tons)
0
1
8
117
1
69
Disposal
(tons)
617
210
3,312
927
31,968
13,197
21,196
249
219
474
236
263
471
309
247
939
Other
(tons)
5,647
413
4,814
7,023
86,759
15,643
78,153
1,237
1,241
429
521
2,012
2,949
736
685
1,616
Total
Managed
(tons)
73,082
36,919
91,144
94,654
278,056
145,349
266,359
45,808
43,454
37,817
36,466
66,874
38,827
49,567
49,505
62,709
* Note that it is not appropriate to sum any of the columns on this table (such as for the total amount of waste treated by incineration). Waste streams carrying more than one waste
code of interest were accounted for under each waste code; therefore, waste quantities could be counted more than once. For example, if 10 tons of a waste contains both 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene (D030) and Nitrobenzene (D036), those same 10 tons are reported under both D030 and D036.
C-7
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table C-7. RCRA BRS System Type Codes and Descriptions
System
Type Codes
M011
M012
M013
M014
M019
M021
M022
M023
M024
M029
M031
M032
M039
M041
M042
M043
M044
M049
M051
M052
M053
M059
M061
M071
M072
M073
M074
M075
M076
M077
M078
M079
M081
M082
M083
M084
M085
M089
Description
High temperature metals recovery
Retorting
Secondary smelting
Other metals recovery for reuse: e.g.. ion exchange, reverse osmosis, acid leaching
Metals recovery - type unknown
Fractionation/distillation
Thin film evaporation
Solvent extraction
Other solvent recovery
Solvents recovery - type unknown
Acid regeneration
Other recovery: e.g., waste oil recovery, nonsolvent organics recovery
Other recover^' - type unknown
Incineration - liquids
Incineration - sludges
Incineration - solids
Incineration - gases
Incineration - type unknown
Energy recovery - liquids
Energy recovery - sludges
Energy recovery - solids
Energy recovery - type unknown
Fuel blending
Chrome reduction followed by chemical precipitation
Cyanide destruction followed by chemical precipitation
Cyanide destruction only
Chemical oxidation followed by chemical precipitation
Chemical oxidation only
Wet air oxidation
Chemical precipitation
Other aqueous inorganic treatment: e.g., ion exchange, reverse osmosis
Aqueous inorganic treatment - type unknown
Biological treatment
Carbon adsorption
Air/steam stripping
Wet air oxidation
Other aqueous organic treatment
Aqueous organic treatment - type unknown
C-8
-------
Potential Applicability of ACWA Technologies to RCRA Waste Streams and Contaminated Media
Table C-7. System Type Codes and Descriptions (continued)
System
Type Codes
M091
M092
M093
M094
M099
M101
M102
M103
M104
M109
Mill
M112
M119
M121
M122
M123
M124
M125
M129
M131
M132
M133
M134
Ml 35
M136
M137
M141
Description
Chemical precipitation in combination with biological treatment
Chemical precipitation in combination with carbon adsorption
Wet air oxidation
Other organic/inorganic treatment
Aqueous organic and inorganic treatment - type unknown
Sludge dewatering
Addition of excess lime
Absorption/adsorption
Solvent extraction
Sludge treatment - type unknown
Stabilization/chemical fixation using
cementitious and/or pozzolanic materials
Other stabilization
Stabilization - type unknown
Neutralization only
Evaporation only
Settling/clarification only
Phase separation (e.g., emulsion breaking, filtration) only
Other treatment
Other treatment - type unknown
Land treatment/application/fanning
Landfill
Surface impoundment (to be closed as a landfill)
Deep well/underground injection
Direct discharge to sewer/POTW (no
prior treatment)
Direct discharge to surface water under NPDES (no prior treatment)
Other disposal
Transfer facility storage — waste was
disoosal. or recvclina activity
shipped off site without any on-site treatment,
C-9
-------
1
cc
to
a:
CSI
5
UJ
------- |