EPA542-R-98-011
September 1998
Remediation Case Studies:
Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies
(Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction,
Thermal Desorption)
Volume 7
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
-------
Case Studies:
Ex Situ Soil Treatment
Technologies (Bioremediation,
Solvent Extraction, Thermal
Desorption)
Volume 7
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coast Guard
September 1998
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies and abstracts were prepared by agencies of the U.S.
Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that
its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency
thereof.
Compilation of this material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
11
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection often case studies of ex situ soil treatment technology projects prepared by
federal agencies. The case studies, collected under the auspices of the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable, were undertaken to document the results and lessons learned from technology applications.
They will help establish benchmark data on cost and performance which should lead to greater confidence
in the selection and use of cleanup technologies.
The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation technologies, and to consider
cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of innovative technologies. Roundtable member
agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S.
Department of Energy, expect to complete many site remediation projects in the near future. These
agencies recognize the importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the benefits to be realized
from greater coordination.
The case study reports and abstracts are organized by technology in a multi-volume set listed below.
Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 1-6, and Abstracts, Volumes 1 and 2, were published previously, and
contain 54 case studies. Remediation Case Studies, Volumes 7-13, and Abstracts, Volume 3, were
published in September 1998. Volumes 7-13 cover a wide variety of technologies, including ex situ soil
treatment technologies (Volume 7). The 10 case studies in this report include completed full-scale
remediations and large-scale field demonstrations of bioremediation, solvent extraction, and thermal
desorption. In the future, the set will grow as agencies prepare additional case studies.
1995 Series
Volume 1: Bioremediation, EPA-542-R-95-002; March 1995; PB95-182911
Volume 2: Groundwater Treatment, EPA-542-R-95-003; March 1995; PB95-182929
Volume 3: Soil Vapor Extraction, EPA-542-R-95-004; March 1995; PB95-182937
Volume 4: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification, EPA-542-R-95-005;
March 1995; PB95-182945
1997 Series
Volume 5: Bioremediation and Vitrification, EPA-542-R-97-008; July 1997; PB97-177554
Volume 6: Soil Vapor Extraction and Other In Situ Technologies, EPA-542-R-97-009;
July 1997; PB97-177562.
1998 Series
Volume 7: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction,
Thermal Desorption), EPA-542-R-98-011; September 1998
Volume 8: In Situ Soil Treatment Technologies (Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal Processes),
EPA-542-R-98-012; September 1998
111
-------
1998 Series (continued)
Volume 9: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Chlorinated Solvents), EPA-542-R-98-013;
September 1998
Volume 10: Groundwater Pump and Treat (Nonchlorinated Contaminants), EPA-542-R-98-014;
September 1998
Volume 11: Innovative Groundwater Treatment Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-015;
September 1998
Volume 12: On-Site Incineration, EPA-542-R-98-016; September 1998
Volume 13: Debris and Surface Cleaning Technologies, and Other Miscellaneous
Technologies, EPA-542-R-98-017; September 1998
Abstracts
Volume 1: EPA-542-R-95-001; March 1995; PB95-201711
Volume 2: EPA-542-R-97-010; July 1997; PB97-177570
Volume 3: EPA-542-R-98-010; September 1998
Accessing Case Studies
The case studies and case study abstracts are available on the Internet through the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable web site at: http://www.frtr.gov. The Roundtable web site provides links to
individual agency web sites, and includes a search function. The search function allows users to complete
a key word (pick list) search of all the case studies on the web site, and includes pick lists for media treated,
contaminant types, and primary and supplemental technology types. The search function provides users
with basic information about the case studies, and allows them to view or download abstracts and case
studies that meet their requirements.
Users are encouraged to download abstracts and case studies from the Roundtable web site. Some of the
case studies are also available on individual agency web sites, such as for the Department of Energy.
In addition, a limited number of hard copies are available free of charge by mail from NCEPI (allow 4-6
weeks for delivery), at the following address:
U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 489-8190 or
(800) 490-9198
Fax: (513)489-8695
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
INTRODUCTION 1
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (BIOREMEDIATION, SOLVENT
EXTRACTION, THERMAL DESORPTION) CASE STUDIES 7
BIOREMEDIATION CASE STUDIES 9
Land Treatment at the Bonneville Power Administration, Ross Complex,
Operable Unit A, Wood Pole Storage Area, Vancouver, Washington 11
Land Treatment of the UST Soil Piles at Fort Greely, Alaska 19
Ex Situ Bioremediation at Novartis Site, Cambridge, Ontario 37
SOLVENT EXTRACTION CASE STUDIES 45
Solvent Extraction at the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Alaska 47
/
THERMAL DESORPTION CASE STUDIES 63
Vacuum-Enhanced, Low Temperature Thermal Desorption at the PCX Washington
Superfund Site, Washington, North Carolina ; 65
Thermal Desorption at the Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant, Ft. Lewis, Washington 83
Thermal Desorption at Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2
Jacksonville, Florida 101
Thermal Desorption at the Port Moller Radio Relay Station, Port Moller, Alaska 109
Thermal Desorption at the Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts .. 129
Thermal Desorption at the Waldick Aerospace Devices Site, Wall Township, New Jersey .. . 149
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
Increasing the cost effectiveness of site remediation is a national priority. The selection and use of more
cost-effective remedies requires better access to data on the performance and cost of technologies used in
the field. To make data more widely available, member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (Roundtable) are working jointly to publish case studies of full-scale remediation and
demonstration projects. Previously, the Roundtable published a six-volume series of case study reports.
At this time, the Roundtable is publishing seven additional volumes of case study reports, primarily focused
on soil and groundwater cleanup.
The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The case studies were
prepared based on recommended terminology and procedures agreed to by the agencies. These procedures
are summarized in the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for
Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007; October 1998). (The October 1998 guide supersedes the
original Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects, published in March 1995.)
The case studies present available cost and performance information for full-scale remediation efforts and
several large-scale demonstration projects. They are meant to serve as primary reference sources, and
contain information on site background and setting, contaminants and media treated, technology, cost and
performance, and points of contact for the technology application. The studies contain varying levels of
detail, reflecting the differences hi the availability of data and information. Because full-scale cleanup
efforts are not conducted primarily for the purpose of technology evaluation, data on technology cost and
performance may be limited.
The case studies in this volume describe ten applications of ex situ soil treatment technologies, including
three applications of land treatment (bioremediation), one application of solvent extraction, and six
applications of thermal desorption. Two of the land treatment applications were full-scale remediations of
sites contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and petroleum hydrocarbons, and one
was a field demonstration at a site contaminated with pesticides. The solvent extraction application was a
full-scale application to treat soil contaminated with PCBs. All six thermal desorption applications were
full-scale, and involved treatment of soil contaminated with chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons,
PAHs, and pesticides. All case studies in this volume are for completed applications.
1
-------
Table 1 provides a summary including information on technology used, contaminants and media treated,
and project duration for the 10 ex situ soil treatment technology projects in this volume. This table also
provides highlights about each application. Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information on
quantity of media treated. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for some projects, and
identifies key factors potentially affecting project cost. (The column showing the calculated unit costs for
treatment provides a dollar value per unit of soil treated.) Cost data are shown as reported in the case
studies and have not been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The costs should be assumed to
be dollars for the time period that the project was in progress (shown on Table 1 as project duration).
While a summary of project costs is useful, it may be difficult to compare costs for different projects
because of unique site-specific factors. However, by including a recommended reporting format, the
Roundtable is working to standardize the reporting of costs to make data comparable across projects. In
addition, the Roundtable is working to capture information in case study reports that identify and describe
the primary factors that affect cost and performance of a given technology. Key factors that potentially
affect project costs for incineration projects include economies of scale, concentration levels in
contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion schedules, matrix characteristics such as soil
classification, clay content and/or particle size distribution, moisture content, pH, total organic carbon, oil
and grease or total petroleum hydrocarbons, field capacity, Btu value, halogen content, and metal content,
and other site conditions.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies
(Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction, Thermal Desorption)
% f ' f $,
1 . 1 < * : , '* " \ I
* ;*- '* '' - *' <: -, „
\ '< ''' ',
'', '' ' * '*' ', 5
"'",', '* , ''' *', , :
"-'-' '""p,,. ••< ; r t
5 f mv&#m^^te&wbwJ0@ft
PjlindpalCiJtttatti^ats*
j
|
'%
'i
jt
;
f
5
!
tm
' > $ i ':
$ .
*, t t >
'''
f *
'y ,'
j ; m®/ '
;• (QHajj% 1r«9t
1 ff
1 1
: ^PjPp|Wt
jp«ratlo«
'" " '•• * M* '
\ '' i ' '•
••} 'f
1 '•! ' 5 * 1
"" ', '-• l ', - * "* :
'i - f '' "
HighUghts
Bioremediation
Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex,
Operable Unit A, WA (Land Treatment)
Fort Greely, UST Soil Pile, AK (Land Treatment)
Novartis Site, Ontario, Canada (Land Treatment)
9
•
•
Soil (2,300 yd3)
Soil (9,800 yd3)
Soil (200 tons)
11/94-1/96
9/94 - 8/97
3/96 - 9/97
Combination of bioremediation and
enhancements used to land treat
contaminated soil
Application of land treatment to treat
gasoline and diesel contaminated soil ex
situ
Demonstrated the performance of the
DARAMEND process for treating
Metolachlor-contaminated soils
Solvent Extraction
Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, AK
(Solvent Extraction)
Soil (288 yd3)
6/96 - 8/96
Application of an innovative technology
to treat PCB-contaminated soil at a
remote site in Alaska
Thermal Desorption
PCX Washington Superfund Site, NC
(Thermal Desorption)
Fort Lewis, Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
(SRCPP), WA (Thermal Desorption)
•
•
Soil (13,591 yd3)
Soil (104,366 tons)
3/95 - 3/96
8/96 - 12/96
Vacuum-enhanced low temperature
thermal desorption used to treat
pesticide-contaminated soil
Thermal desorption of a relatively large
amount of soil contaminated with PAHs
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies
(Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction, Thermal Desorption) (continued)
k'tj " X
Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2, FL
(Thermal Desorption)
Port Moller Radio Relay Station, AK (Thermal
Desorption)
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, MA
(Thermal Desorption)
Waldick Aerospaces Devices Superfund Site, NJ
(Thermal Desorption)
Principal Contaminants'' ;
1
•
|
*
*
*
s
*
1
f
•a,'
*'
J1 V <
''',-Ut'
•
> ;
Soil (11,768 tons)
Soil (9,500 yd3)
Soil (36,200 yd3)
Soil (3,450 yd3)
J -,
\ ' xv-*x"
6/95-9/25/95
6/95-8/95
6/93 - 12/94
6/93 - 10/93
J°~* f**' f ^
^ "" "v f
"~ ''<• ' ^ ^
Mobile thermal desorption unit used to
treat soil contaminated with fuel and
solvents
Application of thermal desorption to
treat sandy soil contaminated with
diesel fuel at a remote site in Alaska
Thermal desorption of PCB-
contaminated soil
LTTD of soil contaminated with a wide
range of organics
' Principal contaminants are one or more specific constituents within the groups shown that were identified during site investigations.
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data
" i '' t '*' '"
f f % ** !• '•
'f 1" 'f % ',
- Sit«Na8«iSyep«6JmoJ^y) '
^ 2 f ' f
'•• Teefcaotogy * i
£ttrt$P' i
,* ' '' * '*
"' QjB»%
Calculated Unit Cost
• ' luF-l^eatsfteal** '
& <,'?'<,''••
f , , ' t ', \
Key factors l?otenlta%Mfecta»g i
' '' - !T«ei>»»l^y«>fe(**^^ ' ' i
Bioremediation
Bonneville Power Administration
Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, WA
(Land Treatment)
Fort Greely, UST Soil Pile, AK
(Land Treatment)
Novartis Site, Ontario, Canada (Land
Treatment)
Total: 1,082,859
Total: $290,288
Not provided
2,300 yd3
9,800yd3
200 tons
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
$470/yd3
$29.62/yd3
Projected as $186/ton
(Canadian dollars) for
a full-scale application
at this site
Costs were relatively high because
this project involved researching rates
of degradation under various
enhancement techniques
Costs were higher than anticipated
because treatment took twice as long
as anticipated
Factors for full-scale include site
location (distance from material and
climate), quantity of soil treated,
initial concentrations of target
compounds, applicable remediation
criteria, and soil pretreatment
requirements
Solvent Extraction
Sparrevohn Long Range Radar
Station, AK (Solvent Extraction)
Total: $828,179
288yd3
Not applicable
$780/yd3
High transportation costs were
incurred because this site was at a
remote location and was accessible
only by air
Thermal Desorption
PCX Washington Superfund Site, NC
(Thermal Desorption)
Fort Lewis, Solvent Refined Coal
Pilot Plant (SRCPP), WA (Thermal
Desorption)
Total: $1,696,800
Total (for entire
RA): $7,100,000
Total (for
treatment only):
$tbd
13,591 yd3
104,366 tons
Not applicable
Not provided
$125/yd3
$68/ton (for entke RA)
$34/ton (for treatment
only)
One of the first applications of this
vendor's technology at a full-scale;
required several modifications during
operation at this site
Unit costs were relatively low because
ofeconomies-of-scale
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies: Summary of Cost Data (continued)
^'^$i^$faffidto!idt%$ -
Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site
17, OU 2, FL (Thermal Desorption)
Port Moller Radio Relay Station, AK
(Thermal Desorption)
ReSolve, Lie. Superfund Site, MA
(Thermal Desorption)
Waldick Aerospaces Devices
Superfund Site, NJ (Thermal
Desorption)
Tttftftritogr
' €«»<$*
Total: $1,946,122
Total: $3,325,000
Total: $6,800,000
Total (for entire
RA): $4,995,159
Total (for
treatment only):
$2,017,361
-------
Ex Situ Soil Treatment Technologies
(Bioremediation, Solvent Extraction, Thermal Desorption)
Case Studies
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
BIOREMEDIATION
CASE STUDIES
9
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
10
-------
Land Treatment at the Bonneville Power Administration
Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, Wood Pole Storage Area
Vancouver, Washington
11
-------
Land Treatment at the Bonneville Power Administration
Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, Wood Pole Storage Area
Vancouver, Washington
Site Name:
Bonneville Power Administration
Ross Complex, Operable Unit A,
Wood Pole Storage Area
Location:
Vancouver, Washington
Contaminants:
High molecular weight polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (HPAHs)
and pentachlorophenol (PCP)
- HPAHs in soils during RI at
levels up to 150 mg/kg (1,500
mg/kg in hot spots)
- PCP in soils during RI at levels
up to 62 mg/kg (5,00 mg/kg in hot
spots)
Period of Operation:
November 1994 - January 1996
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
(EPRI also used this application for
research)
Vendor:
Information not provided
PRP Representative:
TonyMorrell
BPA Ross Complex
5411 Northeast Highway 99
Vancouver, WA 98663
(360) 418-2884
EPRI Representative:
Dr. Benjamin J. Mason
ETHURA
Electric Power Research Institute
9671 Monument Drive
Grants Pass, OR 97526-8782
(541) 471-1869
Technology:
Land Treatment
- Four treatment beds (housed in a
temporary tent); soil pretreated
using a 0.25-inch vibrating screen
- Total of four treatment series -
each series involved the four
treatment beds used concurrently to
test different combinations of
enhancements (UV oxidation,
peroxide addition, and ethanol
addition) and bioremediation
(nutrient addition)
- Mixing rate - weekly during
treatment series 1; beds changed
once every 84 days
- Residence time - average of 84
days
- Depths of lifts - 6 to 12 inches
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD signed: May 6, 1993
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Nancy Harney
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-6635
Waste Source: Drips and spills
from wood preserving operations
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil - 2,300 cubic yards
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Combination of
bioremediation and enhancements
used to land treat contaminated soil
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The ROD specified primary target goals of 1 mg/kg for HPAH and 8 mg/kg for PCP.
- Because of concern about the ability to achieve the primary goal, the ROD included three alternatives (tiers) of
cleanup goals. Tier 1: Enhanced land treatment - 1 mg/kg for HPAH; 8 mg/kg for PCP; Tier 2: Enhanced land
treatment with installation of gravel cap on soil and institutional controls - 23 mg/kg for HPAH; 126 mg/kg for
PCP; and Tier 3: Enhanced land treatment, with installation of multilayered cap on soil and institutional
controls, greater than 23 mg/kg HPAH, greater than 126 mg/kg PCP.
12
-------
Land Treatment at the Bonneville Power Administration
Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, Wood Pole Storage Area
Vancouver, Washington (continued)
Results:
- HPAH and PCP levels in soil were reduced by approximately 80 percent after treatment, and all soils met Tier 2
levels, at a minimum.
- Concentrations for the four treatment series ranged from 6.76 to 21.83 mg/kg for HPAHs and from 6.8 to 20.7
mg/kg for PCP.
- EPRI concluded that land treatment could not meet Tier 1 cleanup goals for all soil at the site.
Cost:
- Actual total cost of the project through November 1995 - $1,082,859 ($532,859 paid by BPA and $550,000
paid by EPRI). Includes costs for excavation, capital equipment, and operation and maintenance (O&M). Does
not include cost for a gravel cap that was not completed until January 1996.
- The total cost of $1,082,859 corresponds to a unit cost of $470 per yd3 for 2,300 yd3 of soil treated.
Description:
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) owns and operates a power distribution center in Vancouver,
Washington, known as the Ross Complex. The site, an active facility that BPA has operated since 1939 to
distribute hydroelectric power throughout the Pacific Northwest, also has been used for research and testing,
maintenance construction operations, and storage and handling of hazardous and nonhazardous waste. Operable
Unit A (OU A) at the Ross complex consists of 21 contaminated areas, including the Wood Pole Storage Area.
The Wood Pole Storage Area had been used to dry transmission line poles treated off site with pentachlorophenol
(PCP) and creosote. The treated poles were transported'to the site and placed on cross poles to dry.
Contamination occurred when chemicals dripped from the poles onto the ground. A remedial investigation (RI)
identified HPAHs (the sum of eight carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in creosote) and PCP
as the contaminants of concern. Under a RODxsigned May 6, 1993, land treatment was selected as the remedy
for the Wood Pole Storage Area. EPRI agreed to split the cost of the remediation in exchange for use of the
project as a research tool to evaluate the rates of degradation under various bioremediation enhancement
techniques.
The land treatment system consisted of a temporary treatment tent that housed four treatment beds.
Contaminated soil first was passed through a 0.25-inch vibrating screen and then was placed in a treatment bed.
Four treatment beds were used to concurrently test different bioremediation enhancement techniques including
UV oxidation, peroxide addition, and ethanol addition, well as biodegradation (nutrient addition). Several
combinations (configurations) of enhancements and biodegradation with nutrient addition were tested with the
four test beds operated concurrently over a total of four different treatment series. All soils met Tier 2 levels;
however, EPRI concluded that land treatment could not meet Tier 1 cleanup goals for all soil at the site. For this
application, the performance of bioremediation with nutrient addition was found to be comparable to land
treatment enhanced with hydrogen peroxide, ethanol, or UV light or with combinations of these enhancements.
EPRI identified factors that could improve performance of UV-enhanced bioremediation for future applications,
including: (1) using a higher-intensity UV light, (2) mixing soil more frequently, and (3) increasing the
dissolution of contaminants to increase exposure to the UV rays. Initially, the nutrient solution was based on
Alaska fish meal. However, test results showed that the microorganisms consumed the fish meal but did not
degrade the contaminants of concern. A change was made to a new nutrient solution based of Miracle Gro™, a
fertilizer containing nitrogen. EPRI noted that results improved when a relatively large volume of nutrient
solution was maintained in the soils and that the treatment efficiency was relatively consistent throughout the
year, independent of ambient temperature and precipitation.
13
-------
Cost and Performance Summary Report
Land Treatment at the Bonneville Power Administration
Ross Complex, Operable Unit A, Wood Pole Storage Area
Vancouver, Washington
Summary Information H. 2,4,61
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) owns and operates
a power distribution center in Vancouver, Washington, known
as the Ross Complex. The site is an active facility that BPA has
operated since 1939 to distribute hydroelectric power
throughout the Pacific Northwest. The site also has been used
for research and testing, maintenance construction operations,
and storage and handling of hazardous and nonhazardous
waste.
Operable Unit A (OU A) at the Ross complex consists of 21
contaminated areas, including the Wood Pole Storage Area.
The Wood Pole Storage Area had been used to dry transmission
line poles treated off site with pentachlorophenol (PCP) and
creosote. The treated poles were transported to the site and
placed on cross poles to dry. Contamination occurred when
chemicals dripped from the poles onto the ground. A remedial
investigation (RI) was performed at the Ross Complex in 1991.
The RI identified high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (HPAHs) and PCP as the contaminants of
concern. HPAHs consist of the sum of the eight carcinogenic
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are found in creosote,
specifically benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo{k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene.
The RI identified concentrations ranging from nondetect (ND)
to 150 milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg) for HPAHs and ND to
62 mg/kg for PCP. In hot spots at the site, where there were
heavy deposits of wood preservatives, concentrations were
reported as high as 5,000 mg/kg for HPAHs and 1,500 mg/kg
for PCP. Following excavation of contaminated soil, average
concentrations were identified as 35 and 33.9 mg/kg,
respectively, in the excavated site soils.
Under a record of decision (ROD) signed May 6,1993, land
treatment was selected as the remedy for the Wood Pole Storage
Area. BPA and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
conducted remediation of the Wood Pole Storage Area from
November 1994 through January 1996. EPRI agreed to split the
cost of the remediation in exchange for use of the project as a
research tool to evaluate the rates of degradation under various
bioremediation enhancement techniques.
Approximately 2,300 cubic yards (yd3) of material required
treatment at this site. This amount consisted of 1,400 yd3 from
the pole storage areas and 900 yd3 from the roadways. Of this
material, 1,252 yd3 were fines (material passing a 0.25-inch
screen) and 1,048 yd3 were gravel. Other materials at the site
were identified in preliminary sampling as potentially requiring
treatment. However results from additional sampling showed
that treatment of these materials was not required.
CERCLIS ID Number: WA1891406349
Lead: Potentially Responsible Party
Timeline [3,51
May 6, 1993
November 1994 - January 1996
September 23, 1996
ROD signed ||
Land treatment conducted 1
Site deleted from National I
Priorities List (NPL) |
Factors That Affected Cost or Performance of Treatment [61
The table below lists the key matrix characteristics that affected
the cost or performance of this technology and the values
measured for each during site characterization.
Matrix Characteristics
Soil Classification:
Clay Content and/or
Particle Size Distribution:
Field Capacity:
pH:
Gravelly silt loam
Gravel - 45.6%; Sand - 37%;
Silt-11%; Clay-6.4%
25%
4.7
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
14
-------
Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex, Operable Unit A
Treatment Technology Description H. 2. 3,4, 61
The land treatment system implemented at the Wood Pole
Storage Area consisted of a temporary treatment tent that
housed four treatment beds. Contaminated soil first was passed
through a 0.25-inch vibrating screen and then was placed in a
treatment bed. According to EPRI, there were four series of
treatment activities that each lasted an average of 84 days. Four
treatment beds were used concurrently in each series of
activities so that different treatment configurations could be
tested. The four series of treatment activities, and the specific .
enhancements used in each of the beds, are shown below.
1 1 UV (82 days)
1 2 Biodegradation (30 days), UV
(30 days), and peroxide (22 days)
1 3 Biodegradation (30 days), peroxide
(20 days), and biodegradation
(32 days)
1 4 Biodegradation (82 days) - control bed
2 1 UV and ethanol (20%)
2 2 UV and ethanol (20%)
2 3 Biodegradation and ethanol (20%)
2 4 Biodegradation and ethanol (5%)
3 1 UV and ethanol (35%)
3 2 UV and ethanol (35%)
3 3 Biodegradation and ethanol (35%)
3 4 Biodegradation and ethanol (5%)
4 1 UV and ethanol (5%) - bed front
350 nm bulb; bed back 310 nm bulb
4 2 UV and ethanol (5%)
4 3 Biodegradation and ethanol (5%)
4 4 Biodegradation only
Biodegradation (land treatment) consisted of subterranean soil
irrigation in each of the beds, with a nutrient solution added
regularly. The nutrient solution was aerated by a pump that
stirred the solution in a tank. Each of the four beds was sampled
on an average of once every 11 days and analyzed using EPA
Methods 8270 and 350, with Bonification for extraction. Soils in
each bed were mixed and replaced once every six weeks.
Initially, the nutrient solution was based on Alaska fish meal.
However, test results showed that the microorganisms consumed
the fish meal but did not degrade the contaminants of concern.
A change was made to a new nutrient solution based on Miracle
Grow™, a fertilizer containing nitrogen (31 percent by weight)
and phosphorus (3 percent by weight) which EPRI typically had
used for this technology. EPRI noted that results improved when
a relatively large volume of nutrient solution was maintained in
the soils and that the treatment efficiency was relatively
consistent throughout the year, independent of ambient
temperature and precipitation.
Listed below are the key operating parameters for each treatment
series and the values measured for each.
Operating Parameters
Treatment beds 1 and 2 were 27 ft by 17 ft and beds 3 and 4
were 34 ft by 17 ft. The volume of soil treated in each bed
averaged 15 yd3, with a range of 9.4 to 18.9 yd3.
Mixing Rate or Frequency:
Depth of Lifts:
Number of Lifts:
Moisture Content:
pH:
Residence Time:
Temperature:
Rate of Degradation (for
each treatment scenario):
Enhancements:
Weekly during treatment
series 1; beds changed once
every 84 days
6 to 12 inches
4
12%
4.7
Average of 84 days
Ambient 47.2+-15.1 °F;
Maximum 97 °F;
Minimum 5 °F
0.20 mg/kg/day
Hydrogen peroxide (35%),
UV light at 350 nm and
310 nm, and combinations
of UV, hydrogen peroxide,
and ethanol
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
15
-------
• Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex, Operable Unit A
Performance Information HU 2,3,4,61
According to EPA, there was concern that it would be difficult
to achieve the primary target goals of 1 mg/kg for HPAH and 8
mg/kg for PCP identified in the ROD. A decision was made to
include alternative goals for the site, should the primary goals
not be achieved. Therefore, the ROD specified three different
levels (tiers) of cleanup goals. Tier 1 goals were the primary
target goals; soil treated to those levels could be placed on site
without further controls. Soil treated to the less stringent Tier 2
or Tier 3 goals could be placed on site, but additional controls
would be required, as described below.
• Tier I: Enhanced land treatment - 1 mg/kg for HPAH; 8
mg/kg for PCP
• Tier 2: Enhanced land treatment with installation of gravel
cap on soil and institutional controls - 23 mg/kg for HPAH;
126 mg/kg for PCP
• Tier 3: Enhanced land treatment, with installation of
multilayered cap on soil and institutional controls, greater
than 23 mg/kg HPAH, greater than 126 mg/kg PCP
Analytical results from the four treatment beds within each
treatment series were combined by EPRI and reported as one
value. No quantitative analytical data were provided to evaluate
the performance of individual treatment enhancements. EPRI
also analyzed soil in a storage pile and a "biopile". The storage
pile was the original stockpile of material that had been
excavated from the Pole Yard. The biopile was a portion of the
stored material (approximately 3 ft thick) that had shallow
basins cut into the top; waste nutrient media was pumped into
these basins and allowed to soak into the pile. Analytical data
on the concentrations of HPAH and PCP in treated soils (four
treatment series, storage pile, and biopile) are shown below.
1
2
3
4
Storage
pile
Biopile
15.43
34.48
16.14
10.03
37.16
20.94
15.08
21.83
11.71
6.76
10.03
8.20
25.17
41.75
20.39
13.59
35.76
21.72
20.70
18.05
18.15
6.80
13.59
12.30
Soils from treatment series 1 were sampled again 120 days after
the "final" samples were collected. In this additional sample,
concentrations of HPAHs had decreased to 5.04 mg/kg and PCP
to 9.64 mg/kg.
As these data illustrate, HPAH and PCP levels in soil were
reduced by approximately 80 percent after treatment, and all
soils met Tier 2 levels, at a minimum. After treatment, the
average concentrations for the four treatment series ranged from
6.76 to 21.83 mg/kg for HPAHs and from 6.8 to 20.7 mg/kg for
PCP. EPRI concluded that land treatment could not meet Tier 1
cleanup goals for all soil at the site.
Treated soils were placed in a storage cell located along the south
fence line at the site and covered with approximately one foot of
clean gravel. The area of the storage cell was less than one acre.
According to EPRI, the treatment enhancements achieved results
that were similar to those for land treatment. Results of UV
treatment demonstrated that only the top 1 to 10 millimeters
(mm) of soil were affected by exposure to UV rays.
Performance Data Quality
Duplicate, split, and co-located samples were collected
throughout the research effort. In addition, a random selection
of samples were run using SW-846 Method 8270. EPRI reported
that a comparison of the analytical results indicated that there
was not a significant difference between the paired samples.
Cost Information fl, 21
The ROD indicated that the remediation was projected to cost
from $482,120 to $586,520 to achieve Tier 2 goals. In a
summary of project costs, BPA reported the actual cost of the
project to be $1,082,859 through November 1995 ($532,859 paid
by BPA and $550,000 paid by EPRI). The total project cost
consisted of costs for excavation, capital equipment, and
operation and maintenance (O&M); no additional information
was provided about the detailed components of the total project
cost. In addition, no information was provided about the portion
of the total project cost that was expended for testing and
research. The total project cost reported may not be
comprehensive because costs were reported only through
November 1995, and the gravel cap was not completed until
January 1996. The total cost of $1,082,859 corresponds to a unit
cost of $470 per yd3 for 2,300 yd3 of soil treated.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
16
-------
> Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex, Operable Unit A
Actual Project Costs
Contact Information
Excavation (of soil)
Capital
Operation & Maintenance
Disposal of Residuals
Analytical (related to compliance
monitoring, not technology
performance)
Total Project Cost
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
0
0
$1,082,859
Observations and Lessons Learned [2,3.4.51
BPA completed remediation of the Wood Pole Storage Area in
cooperation with EPRI. EPRI agreed to split the cost of the
remediation in exchange for use of the project as a research tool
to evaluate the rates of degradation under various
bioremediation enhancement techniques. The PRP reported
that overall project costs exceeded those projected in the ROD
because additional activities were performed to support the
research aspects of this application, including varying the
treatment regimes to demonstrate variability in the rate of
biodegradation.
For this application, the performance of land treatment was
found to be comparable to land treatment enhanced with
hydrogen peroxide, ethanol, or UV light or with combinations
of these enhancements.
EPRI identified factors that could improve performance of UV-
enhanced bioremediation for future applications, including: (1)
using a higher-intensity UV light, (2) mixing soil more
frequently, and (3) increasing the dissolution of contaminants to
increase exposure to the UV rays. EPRI indicated that the
Institute is considering obtaining a patent on the use of UV
light as an enhancement to land treatment; no specific
information was provided about the innovation to be submitted
for a patent.
The vendor supporting EPRI initially used Alaska fish meal as
the nutrient for this application because of the vendor's
experience in the use of that approach to treat fuel spills.
However, according to EPRI, the fish meal solution proved to be
consumed quickly, and its use did not lead to sufficient
biodegradation of the contaminants of concern.
For more information about this application, please contact:
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Nancy Harney*
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206)553-6635
E-mail: harney.nancy@epamail.epa.gov
PRP Representative:
TonyMorrell
BPA Ross Complex
5411 Northeast Highway 99
Vancouver, WA 98663
Telephone: (360)418-2884
EPRI Representatives:
Dr. Benjamin J. Mason
ETHURA
Electric Power Research Institute
9671 Monument Drive
Grants Pass, OR 97526-8782
Telephone: (541)471-1869
E-mail: ethbjm@cpros.com
Adda Quinn
Project Officer
Electric Power Research Institute
P.O. Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: (650) 855-2478
E-mail: aquinn@epri.com
* Primary contact for this application
References
The following references were used in the preparation of this
report.
1. EPA Region 10. 1993. Final Record of Decision for
Bonneville Power Administration, Ross Complex, Operable
Unit A. May 6.
2. Bonneville Power Administration. Not Dated. Summary of
Project Costs.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
17
-------
• Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex, Operable Unit A
3. EPA. 1997. Innovative Treatment Technologies Database,
Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition). August.
4. TetraTechEMInc. 1998. Record of Telephone
Conversation Regarding Technology Performance of Land
Treatment Application at BPA Ross Complex, OU A.
Between Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc., and Ben
Mason, Electric Power Research Institute. June 9.
5. TetraTechEMInc. 1998. Record of Telephone
Conversation Regarding Availability of Data for BPA Ross
Complex, OU A. Between Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech
EM Inc., and Tony Morrell, Bonneville Power
Administration. June 9.
6. Dr. Benjamin J. Mason, EPRI. 1998. Comments on Draft
Cost and Performance Summary Report for Bonneville
Power Administration. Provided by e-mail to Richard J.
Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc. August 20.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
18
-------
Land Treatment of
the UST Soil Piles at
Fort Greely, Alaska
19
-------
Land Treatment of
the UST Soil Piles at
Fort Greely, Alaska
Site Name:
UST Soil Piles
Location:
Fort Greely, Alaska
Contaminants:
Semivolatile and volatile
nonhalogenated hydrocarbons -
gasoline, diesel fuel, and BTEX
components. Maximum
contaminant concentrations of
3,000 mg/kg gasoline range
organics, 1,200 mg/kg diesel range
organics, and 20.2 mg/kg BTEX.
Period of Operation:
Status: Complete
Report covers: 9/94 through 8/97
Cleanup Type:
Remedial Action
Vendor:
John Terwilliger
Nugget Construction, Inc.
8726 Corbin Drive
Anchorage, AK 99507
(907) 344-8365
USACE Contact:
Bernard T. Gagnon
USACE - Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
(907) 753-5718
Technology:
Land Treatment
- Stockpiled soil was washed and
screened into stockpiles by
particle size.
- The small diameter soil was
placed into windrows and tilled
during summer months.
Cleanup Authority:
Remedial Action under Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation UST Regulations
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Rielle Markey
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
University Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99709
(907)451-2117
Waste Source:
Leaks from USTs and/or
overfilling of USTs or ASTs
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Application of land treatment to
treat gasoline and diesel
contaminated soil ex situ
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 11,939 yd3 screened and washed
- 9,800 yd3 land treated
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The goal of this remedial objective was to meet the ADEC Level A standards for UST-contaminated soils (as
cited at 18 AAC 78.315) so that the soil could be used as final cover material for Landfill 7. The Level A
standards are: DRO - 100 mg/kg, GRO - 50 mg/kg, benzene - 0.1 mg/kg, total BTEX - 10 mg/kg, and RRO -
2,000 mg/kg.
20
-------
Land Treatment of
the UST Soil Piles at
Fort Greely, Alaska (continued)
Results:
- The concentrations of hydrocarbons in the contaminated UST soil stockpiles was reduced to below the ADEC
Level A standards in two summers (with the exception of two samples that still contained DRO above the
cleanup standard). The soil was used in the capping of the landfill.
- The average concentrations of contaminants indicate that the mass of DRO in the contaminated soil was
reduced from 4,641 kg to 719 kg (approximately 85 percent), and the mass of GRO in the contaminated soil
was reduced from 175 kg to nondetectable levels (approximately 100 percent) during the land treatment.
- Initial estimates, based on oxygen uptake measurements taken during a treatabililty study, showed that the
remediation of the soil would take approximately 60 days of summer temperatures. The actual remediation
took more than twice that long (July 1995 through July 1997).
Cost:
- The total cost of this remedial action was $696,171, consisting of $405,883 Phase I, soil screening and
washing (including site preparation and mobilization) and $290,288 for Phase JJ, land treatment of soil.
- A total of 11,939 yd3 of gasoline- and diesel-contaminated soil were processed in Phase I and 9,800 yd3
(approximately 82 percent of the total volume) were treated in Phase n. The unit cost breakdown is: $34/yd3
for Phase I, $29.62/yd3 for Phase H, and $58.29/yd3 for the total treatment.
Description:
The UST soil stockpiles are located at the 1970s landfill or "Landfill 7," located in the southeast sector of the
U.S. Army Ft. Greely military facility. Ft. Greely is located approximately five miles south of Delta Junction,
Alaska. The contaminated soil stockpiles were generated from the excavation of contaminated soil during a
facility upgrade and site restoration activities at the Black Rapids Ski Area during the Summers of 1992 and
1993 and from the excavation of contaminated areas near buildings 602 and 606 at Ft. Greely in August 1991.
In the Fall of 1994 and Summer of 1995, Phase I of the remedial action was conducted, involving the screening
and washing of the contaminated soil stockpiles and the completion of a biotreatability study on samples of the
contaminated soil. The biotreatability study determined that the contaminated soil could be effectively treated
via land treatment. In the Summer of 1995, the contaminated soil stockpiles were separated into windrows, to
which nutrients and water were added. The windrows were tilled on a regular schedule during the summers of
1995 and 1996. Samples of the contaminated soil were collected at the end of each summer. In June 1997,
closure samples were collected, which showed that the levels of contaminants in the soil had been reduced to
below ADEC Level A cleanup standards in all but two of the samples. The soil was then used in the capping of
Landfill 7.
21
-------
• Ft. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name:
Location:
Technology:
Type of Action:
UST Soil Stockpiles
Ft. Greely, Alaska
Land Treatment
Remedial Action
TECHNQLOJaY-APPLICATION
Period of Operation: September 1994 - August 1997 (1,2)
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: 9,800 cubic yards (yd3)
BACKGROUND
Site Background (1,2):
• The UST soil stockpiles are located at the 1970s landfill or "Landfill 7," located in the southeast
sector of the U.S. Army Ft. Greely military facility. Ft. Greely is located approximately five miles
south of Delta Junction, Alaska.
• The Black Rapids stockpile (BRS) of soil contaminated with diesel fuel was generated during
upgrading of the facility and site restoration activities conducted at the Black Rapids Ski Area
during the summers of 1992 and 1993.
• The small and large stockpiles of gasoline-contaminated soil (SGS and LGS) originated from the
excavation of contaminated areas near buildings 602 and 606 at Ft. Greely in August 1991.
Waste Management Practices That Contributed to Contamination: Leaks from underground storage
tanks (USTs) or overfilling of USTs or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) (2)
Site Investigation (5):
• The diesel-contaminated soil in the Black Rapids area was identified during preconstruction
sampling conducted in 1991 and in samples taken during construction excavation in 1992 and
1993. A report on the contractor's findings was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-
Alaska District (USAGE) in the summer of 1994.
« The extent of soil contamination in the area of buildings 602 and 606 at Ft. Greely was
delineated and the contaminated soil excavated during a UST removal conducted in 1991 and
1992. The excavated soil was sampled between June 21 and 25,1993 and the soil was
determined to contain gasoline. Closure sampling for the excavations in the area of buildings
602 and 606 was conducted in May and June 1993.
Soils excavated from the Black Rapids site were transported to Ft. Greely for treatment. Those
soils were stockpiled and treated as part of the technology application discussed in this report.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
22
-------
• ft Greely UST Soil Stockpile
SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS
USAGE Point of Contact:
Bernard T. Gagnon*
Environmental Engineering and Innovative Technology Advocate
USACE-Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
Telephone: (907) 753-5718
E-mail: bernard.t.gagnon@pba02.usace.army.mil
Construction and Installation Contractor:
Nugget Construction, Inc.
8726 Corbin Drive
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone: (907) 344-8365
Primary Point of Contact: John Terwilliger
U.S. Army - Alaska contact:
Cristal Fosbrook, Chief, Environmental Restoration/Compliance Branch
US Army- Alaska, Directorate of Public Works
Quartermaster Road
Ft. Richardson, Alaska 99505
Telephone: 907-384-3044
E-mail: fosbrooc® richardson-emh2.army.mil
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) contact:
Rielle Markey, Environmental Specialist
Northern Field Office
State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
University Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: 907-451-2117
E-mail: RMarkey@envircon.state.ak.us ..
* Primary point of contact for this application.
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Soil (ex situ)
SITE STRATIGRAPHY Ml
• The subsurface consists of the capped 1970s Landfill, with groundwater at approximately 280 ft
below ground surface.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
23
-------
• Ft. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
CONTAM1MMILCHARACTERIZATION
Semivolatile and volatile nonhalogenated hydrocarbons - gasoline and diesel fuel
CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES
Property
Chemical Makeup
Flash Point
Toxicity
Gasoline' ;, '-^~^
Paraffins, olefins, naphthenes,
and aromatics
less than 50° F
High
-* -~ ";," -'Diesel Fye> „;
Unbranched paraffins
110° to 190° F
High
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
SI • ii.,,, ' ,' " i|.iiHi|.!;!':!!i!i,,.!'' " »':•' •! ", •' ' >,, • ' '",
Parameter
Soil classification
Particle Size Distribution
Organic Matter
Moisture Content
PH
Ammonia - Nitrogen
Nitrate - Nitrogen
Available Nitrogen
Available Phosphorus
Available Potassium
Cation Exchange Capacity
Biological Oxygen Demand
(BOD) (two-days at 20° C)
Field Capacity
Soil to Be Treated -;>;^> /£ . *!--'
Poorly graded sandy gravel with silt (GP-GM) and poorly graded
gravel with sand (GP)
GP-GM (69% sand, 19% silt, 12% clay), GP(53.3% gravel, 40.9%
sand, 5.8% fines)
1.3% -1.4%
7.7 - 13.2% (solid dry weight)
7.3 (average)
2.1 - 5.46 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
2- 13 mg/kg
9.3 mg/kg (mean)
6.4 mg/kg (mean)
23 mg/kg (mean)
4.7 milliequivalents per 100 grams (mean)
34.8 mg O2/kg soil1
15- 16% moisture
1 BOD was calculated on the basis of reported hydrocarbon degradation rate results. Those results
were based on the two-day differential in pore space oxygen from a closed sample incubated at 20°C.
The two-day BOD value included contributions from degradation of non-contaminant organic material,
as well as the degradation of the contaminant.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
24
-------
• Ft, Greely UST Soil Stockpile
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY TREATMENT TYPE
Land treatment
SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY TYPE
Screening (pretreatment)
TIMELINE M.21
- 3f "\v*f* ;-, "<
August 1991
1992 to 1993
September to October 1 994
July to September 1 995
June 1996 to August 1996
June 1997
May 1998
"* .:/ : *'^*:" ^;' ~*&&^^:i}&*£* -iV^
Gasoline-contaminated soil from excavations near
606 at Ft. Greely stockpiled at the Landfill 7 site
buildings 602 and
Diesel-contaminated soil from excavations at Black Rapids Ski Area
stockpiled at the Landfill 7 site
Phase I - Screening and washing of stockpiles and biotreatability study
Completion of Phase I work; first season of Phase
treatment of soil
II work, land
Second season of Phase II work
Performance of closure sampling.
Submittal of remedial action report (RAR)
TREATMENT SYSTEM C\.2.S\
• This application was conducted in two phases: Phase I, pretreatment of the stockpiled soil, and Phase
II, land treatment of the contaminated soil.
Phase I - Screening and Washing of the Stockpiles
• Figure 1 shows the layout for the soil screening and washing equipment used in Phase I of this
remediation effort.
• The soils from the site were screened and sorted into stockpiles by particle size (<1", 1" - 5", >5") and
contaminant type—diesel and gasoline.
• According to the RAR, the stockpiles containing material of a diameter greater than 5" had no odor or
visible contamination and were considered clean. Those stockpiles were not treated.
• For this project, ADEC extended the policy on oversized material to include all materials of a diameter
greater than one inch that were free of odor or visible contamination. Therefore, the soils containing
materials of a diameter of 1 inch to 5 inches were not treated. Those soils were spray- washed with a
mixture of PES-31 (a proprietary additive containing a suspension of live cultured microorganisms
preserved in a sterile solution with no nutrients) and water and left on site for use as final cover.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
25
-------
• Ff. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
Figure 1. Layout of Screening and Washing Equipment - Phase I (1)
The following table presents the volume of each of the soil stockpiles screened during Phase I by
particle size, along with the volume of soil treated during Phase II.
aiVt;
i in" i*[i PHI" Jj' v " T" "" " " ' Un
i* tf *{*• ."('I " *
^tAftbUUd '
1 "Phase I; ^, ^
VoIuitieljoftScreened"'. ,.
StokpifaM' "*<
>-— ,',$*»«,-?',, '
" ' """""**' j*. '• *•
- ~- VoJIimt 5»Nafe?l Mdftti I1
Black Rapids Stockpiles - Diesel-Contaminated Soil
1 " minus
1" - 5" oversize
5" plus
5,988 yd3
2,090 yd3
698 yd3
5,988 yd3
—
—
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
26
-------
•Ft. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
*'£:."%&*'*
*-**», /" Phase! *> , '"/"
<•* <"«v <••" -fc^
*• ' ^euSQftlqpffe£ ''"ir-^
.•'-^^SpHiM^ i'~t
- - "*; -v ""/'""r^ " * " *. " "*l ~ ^
T^VrihBhftf treated Material' V
Small and Large Stockpiles - Gasoline-Contaminated Soil
1" minus
1 " - 5" oversize
5" plus
Liner cover over stockpile liner
(Estimated one-foot thick layer)
Totals
2,462 yd3
639 yd3
62yd3
11,939vd3
2,462 yd3
—
—
1,350yd3
9,800 yd3
Note: Soil volumes based on measurements of stockpiles provided by Delta Survey Associates (1)
A biotreatability analysis was performed on the one-inch minus soil segregated from the BBS, SGS,
and LGS stockpiles and two background samples from the Black Rapids Ski Area soil. The average
results are presented under the heading Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or
Performance.
In 1993 and 1994, hydrocarbon analyses were performed on samples from the BBS, SGS, and LGS
soils. Samples were analyzed for gasoline range organics (GRO); diesel range organics (DBO);
residual range organics (BBO); and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX). The results
of those analyses are presented below by ranges of concentrations and average concentrations.
DRO
BBS (1" minus)
10/94
ND(5) -
8.2
243-530/
425
495 - 839/
670
ND(0.025)
0.34/0.23
BBS(1"-2")
10/94
ND(5) - 71
5.5
ND(10)-
279/138
ND(40) - 58/
45
ND(0.025)
0.30/0.088
SGS/LGS
(1 " minus)
10/94
ND(5) - 84/
44.5
162-1200/
681.0
215-1420/
818
ND(0.2) -
2.36/1.28
SGS/LGS
(1--2-)
10/94
— /ND(5)
15-44/30
118-362/
240
— /ND(0.2)
SGS/LGS
(before
screening)
6/93
29
ND(1) -
3000/372
ND - 20.26
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
27
-------
• Ft Greely UST Soil Stockpile
Notes:
ND{ ) Not detected in concentrations above the reported detection limit. The detection limit (shown in parentheses)
was used in calculating averages for samples for which results were ND.
1 GRO by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 5030/8015 Modified
2 DRO by EPA Method 3540/8100 Modified
3 RRO analyzed as Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) by EPA Method 418.1
4 BTEX by EPA Method 8020
5 Average concentration for all reported results. The higher of the results from any duplicate samples was
used to calculate this average.
6 Calculation of the average concentration of BTEX was not possible because of high detection limits reported
for several of the samples.
Phase II - Land Treatment (1. 2. 5)
• Soil at the Landfill 7 area totaling approximately 22,000 yd3 was graded to accommodate the land
treatment operations, and a stormwater control berm, a containment ditch, and a collection area
were constructed to control stormwater runon and runoff.
. As described above, only soils from the BBS, SGS, and LGS stockpiles that had a particle size of
one inch or less were included in the land treatment application. With a front-end loader, a
dumptruck, and a dozer, the soil was placed on the graded area in uncompacted five-foot-high
windrows (35 for the diesel contaminated soil and 8 for the gasoline contaminated soil). The rows
were set approximately 20 feet apart. Figure 2 shows the configuration of the windrows.
According to the ADEC, the contractor had designed the configuration of the windrows to allow
the most efficient use of the tilling machine, to keep the GRO and the DRO soils separate, and to
fit the configuration of the site.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
28
-------
•Ft. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
TOFOKTCfflEELY
J I
MOXEH
!
!§§!
!!
P*
122!
»-JO»<
9 IN. PLUS OVERSIZE
MATERIALS (DIESEL)
Figure 2. Layout of Windrows for Land Treatment Process: Phase
II (2)
With a scat rotary mixer-tiller, each windrow was tilled f rorn bottom to top once each week during
the summers of 1995 and 1996 (July through September in 1995 and June through August in
1996).
The site work was conducted under a site-specific safety and health plan. The tilling machine was
towed with a bobcat that had roll protection, and the operator wore a hard hat, steel-toed boots,
and coveralls. Workers conducting sampling and testing wore level D personal protective
equipment, which consisted of Tyvex coveralls, hard hat, protective boots, and Nitrile gloves.
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE f1. 2\
~*~-~"~*f- *,
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content
PH
Residence Time
Temperature
-<-&, ••"•-'*. -:- =
Tilled weekly during the summers of 1995 and 1996 (July
through September 1995 and June through August 1996)
8 - 13% (soil dry weight)
7.3 (average) initially
2 years (July 1995 - June 1997)
52.5° F (mean summer)
Microbial Activity:
- Oxygen Uptake Rate
- CO2 Evolution
- Hydrocarbon Degradation
Nutrients and Other Amendments
1 7.4 mgO.j/kg soil/day
Information not provided
5.0 mg hydrocarbon/kg soil/day
Information not provided
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
29
-------
• Ft. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES M.2.5^
• The goal of this remedial action was to meet the ADEC Level A standards for UST-contaminated
soils (as cited at 18 AAC 78.315) so that the soil could be used as final cover material for Landfill
7. The Level A standards are:
: Parameter ;
DRO
GRO
Benzene
Total BTEX
RRO
', '•'••'-. prW ^.iCJeanup Level .'.<•<•
100mg/kg
50 mg/kg
0.1 mg/kg
10 mg/kg
2,000 mg/kg
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA (2\
• Soil in the windrows was sampled in September 1995, August 1996, and June 1997. The
frequency and analysis parameters presented below were used for the soil sampling.
a!:'.
Windrows of Gasoline-
Contaminated Soil
; Date
September
1995, August
1996
June 1997
Frequency"
Two Samples for initial 100 yd3
One sample for each additional 100 yd3
Total of 30 samples per year
Two samples for initial 50 yd3
One sample for each additional 50 yd3
Total of 51 samples (plus 5 duplicates
and 5 quality assurance/quality control
QA/QC samples)
Parameters
DRO, GRO,
BTEX
Windrows of Diesel-
Contaminated Soil
September
1995, August
1996
Two samples for initial 100 yd3
One sample for each additional 300 yd3
Total of 26 samples per year
DRO
June 1997
Two samples for initial 50 yd3
One sample for each additional 150 yd3
Total of 42 samples (plus 5 duplicates
and 5 QA samples)
Beneath Liner of BRS
September
1995
31 samples from 30,625 ft2 (plus 6
QA/QC samples)
DRO
Beneath Liner of SGS
September
1995
Two samples from 2,025 ft2 area (plus 2
QA/QC samples)
DRO, GRO,
BTEX
Beneath Liner of LGS
September
1995
Six samples from 5,700 ft2 area (plus 2
QA/QC samples)
DRO, GRO,
BTEX
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
30
-------
• Ft. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
The results of the soil sampling in relation to ADEC's Level A cleanup standards are presented in the
following table. Because concentrations of RRO in untreated soils were below the cleanup standard,
no analyses of RRO were performed. Benzene was not reported separately from BTEX.
•j*
Pate
.Number
Samples
-MealT
Samples
' Exceeding
^is/lean"
Number «>f
Standards
ceeding
ADEC Level A Standards
100
50
10
Gasoline-
Contaminated
Windrows
9/95
8/96
6/97
25
25
51
263
77
71
25
5
1 (115mg/kg)
ND-5
NS
ND
0
NA
0
ND
NS
ND
0
NA
0
Number
Mean
Location
Date
Samples
Number of ;
Samples ;=,
Exceeding
Standards
iberof
FljpiQj*/,
Exceeding
Standards
Number of
imples
Diesel-
Contaminated
Windrows
9/95
8/96
6/97
21
21
42
279
93
80
21
8
1 (140mg/kg)
NS
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NS
NS
NS
NA
NA
NA
SGS/LGS
Liner Areas
9/95
8
ND-23
ND
ND
0
BRS Liner
Areas
9/95
31
ND-68
0
NS
NA
NS
NA
Notes:
ND - Not detected in concentrations above method detection limits
NS - Sample not analyzed for parameter
NA - Not applicable
The final RAR for the site was completed in May 1998. The RAR was submitted to the ADEC,
which concurred that the soil met cleanup objectives.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
31
-------
• Ft. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
PERFORMANCE DATA ASSESSMENT
Only the soil in the gasoline-contaminated windrows was analyzed for GRO and BTEX. The results
of the analysis of samples collected in the September 1995 sampling showed that the
concentrations of GRO and BTEX were below the cleanup standards in all 25 of the windrows
sampled. Concentrations of GRO ranged from not detected to 5 mg/kg. BTEX was not detected.
The soil in both the gasoline- and the diesel-contaminated windrows was analyzed for DRO. The
results of the analysis of samples collected in June 1997 showed that concentrations of DRO were
below the cleanup standard in all but one sample of each type of contaminated soil. The
concentrations of DRO that exceeded the cleanup standard were 115 mg/kg for the gasoline-
contaminated windrows and 140 mg/kg for the diesel-contaminated windrows. According to the
USAGE, those exceedances were statistically insignificant. (5)
On the basis of the average concentrations of DRO and GRO in pretreatment (1994) and post-
treatment (1997) soil, the mass of DRO in the soil was reduced from 4,641 to 719 kg, and the mass
of GRO in the soil was reduced from 174 kg to nondetectable concentrations. The amounts of DRO
and GRO destroyed during the land treatment phase of the remedial action are summarized as
follows:
• nijjiuiliEi iBIbiii iiii lAiiliin Aiiin
111!-. i,1*-
Source
BRS Soil
SGS/LGS
Soil
Liner
Cover Soil
Total
Volume
Treated
(yd3)
5,988
2,462
1,350
9,800
Average DRO (mg/kg)
19941
424.6
681.0
O4
-
1997Z
80
71
O4
-
?*/--- ' f 'fi',,1, ^ ',„./';/'
AvVfage'GRQ, (mg/kg) -,,
"',?"£&&"/ •
8.2
44.5
O4
-
V-H99&*
ND5
NDS
O4
-
- Contaminant
~ 'Destroyed (kg)
DRO
2,270
1,652
0
3,922
GR0 .
54
121
0
175
dies:
1994 data from (1)
1997 data from (2)
Average soil density (1,100 kg/yd3) based on average soil dry bulk density of 1.35 grams per cubic centimeter
(g/cm3) and water content of 8.6 percent (1)
Liner cover soil assumed to contain no contamination for purpose of material balance
All 1997 GRO analyses showed no detection; 0 mg/kg was used for this material balance
Insufficient analytical data from the period before Phase I were available to determine the amount
of contaminant destroyed in Phase I. The contractor estimated that at least 20 percent of the initial
GRO volatilized during the soil screening process.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
32
-------
•Ft. GreelyUST Soil Stockpile
PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY (2)
QA/QC activities were conducted in accordance with specifications, requirements established in
contract documents, and guidelines provided by the ADEC.
Sampling was performed in accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan developed for this
project in August, 1995, and approved by the USAGE and the ADEC.
QC samples were analyzed by the primary laboratory, and additional QA samples were sent to
USAGE QA laboratories, which provided the required 1997 government quality assurance report.
• The USAGE chemical data quality report concluded that "...the data were sufficiently consistent and
results were adequate to satisfy cleanup goals."
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
PROCUREMENT PROCESS (S\
Procurement for this application was by indefinite delivery-type remedial action (IDTRA) contract. For this
contract, only 8A contractors were evaluated. USAGE solicited proposals for the contract, and the
contractor was selected on the basis of technical qualifications to perform a variety of potential remedial
actions. This application was issued as a delivery order against the contract; the contractor submitted a
cost proposal for the work; and a firm, fixed price for the application was negotiated.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (4)
The total cost of the Phase I and Phase II work was $696,171, broken down as follows.
Mobilization $76,265
and preparatory work
Site Work (Phase I
screen and wash)
Land treatment (Phase II)
TOTAL
$329,618
$290,288
$696.171
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
This remedial action was conducted according to procedures set forth in ADEC's Guidance
Manual for Underground Storage Tank Regulations, dated June 18,1991 and in accordance with
18 AAC 78, UST regulations.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
33
-------
• Ft. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• The total cost of this remedial action was $696,171, consisting of $405,883 for Phase I, screening
and washing (including site preparation and mobilization) and $290,288 for Phase II, land
treatment.
• A total of 11,939 yd3 of gasoline- and diesel-contaminated soil was processed in Phase I, and
9,800 yd3 (82 percent of the total volume) were treated in Phase II. The unit cost breakdown is:
Phase I1
Phase II2
Total (w/ 82% of total volume being Land
Treated)3
$34.00/yd3
$29.62/yd3
$58.29/yd3
1 Phase I unit cost for screening and washing of 11,939 yd3 of stockpiled soil
2 Phase II unit cost for land treatment of 9,800 yd3 of screened soil (one inch or less in diameter)
3 The total unit cost is the average cost of treatment of any given yd3 of originally stockpiled soil (all
of which was screened and washed and 82 percent of which was land treated).
PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• The average concentrations of contaminants indicate that the mass of DRO in the contaminated soil
was reduced from 4,641 kg to 719 kg (approximately 85 percent), and the mass of GRO in the
contaminated soil was reduced from 175 kg to nondetectable levels (approximately 100 percent)
during Phase II (land treatment).
• Initial estimates, based on oxygen uptake measurements taken during the treatability study, showed
that remediation of the soil would take approximately 60 days of summer temperatures. The actual
remediation took more than twice that long (July 1995 through July 1997). That fact suggests that the
rates of degradation of hydrocarbons for land treatment estimated from oxygen uptake analyses may
require additional adjustment for site conditions, such as the noncontaminant organic composition of
the soil or for maintenance factors for land treatment such as addition of nutrients.
• The concentrations of hydrocarbons in the contaminated soil from the SGS, LGS, and BRS stockpiles
were reduced to levels below the ADEC Level A standards in two summers (with the exception of one
sample each from the gasoline-contaminated windrows and the diesel-contaminated windrows that
still contained DRO in concentrations above the cleanup standard). The treated soil was used in the
capping of the landfill.
• The contractor concluded that use of PES-31 during the soil washing in Phase I was probably not
necessary, but that the analytical scope of the analyses should have been increased to determine
whether such was the case.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
34
-------
• Ft. Greely UST Soil Stockpile
1. Nugget Construction Company. 1994. Work Plan for Phase II, UST Soil Stockpile Bioremediation,
Ft. Greely, Alaska. Prepared for USAGE, Anchorage, Alaska. DACA85-94-D-0013, DO# 006.
December.
2. Nugget Construction, Inc. 1998. Remedial Action Report, Phase II Lapdfarming Operation, UST Soil
Stockpile Bioremediation; Ft. Greely, Alaska. Prepared for USAGE, Ft. Wainwright, Alaska. DACA85-
94-D-0013, DO#0001. May.
3. USAGE. 1994. Revised Statement of Work, Contaminated Soil Stockpiles, Characterization,
Screening, Segregation, Ft. Greely, Alaska. DACA85-94-D-0013, DO0001. August.
4. USAGE. 1996. Cost Data for Innovative Treatment Technologies, UST Soil Pile Bioremediation, Ft.
Greely, Alaska.
5. USAGE, Alaska District. 1998. Ft. Greeley UST Stockpile Pre-Draft Cost and Performance Report,
Comments and Answers to Questions. September 11.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under USAGE Contract No. DACA45-96-
D-0016, Delivery Order No. 12. Assistance was provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Radian International
LLC.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
35
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
36
-------
Ex Situ Bioremediation at
Novartis Site, Cambridge, Ontario
37
-------
Ex Situ Bioremediation at
Novartis Site, Cambridge, Ontario
Site Name:
Novartis
Location:
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Contaminants:
Semivolatiles - halogenated
- organic pesticides/herbicides,
including Metolachlor, 2,4-D,
Dinoseb, Atrizine
- Metolachlor - initial
concentrations as high as 170
mg/kg
Period of Operation:
3/96 - 9/97
Cleanup Type:
Demonstration
Vendor:
David Raymond, Project Manager
Grace Bioremediation
Technologies
3465 Semenyk Court
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada
(905) 273-5374
Technology:
Ex situ bioremediation of soils
using the DARAMEND process
- main treatment area, high
Metolachlor test cell and static
control cell
- alternated aerobic and anaerobic
conditions (10 cycles)
Cleanup Authority:
Information not provided
Additional Contacts:
Information not provided
Regulatory Point of Contact:
Information not provided
Waste Source: Contamination
resulting from formulating and
warehousing pesticides and
herbicides
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil - 200 tons. Excavated from the site and stockpiled for treatment.
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Demonstrate the
performance of the DARAMEND
process for treating Metolachlor-
contaminated soils
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Information on specific cleanup objectives was not included in this report. Performance and results are
described in terms of reductions in concentrations of contaminants.
Results:
- Concentrations of Metolachlor in the main treatment cell were reduced from initial levels ranging from 48 to
84 mg/kg to below a detection level of 1.0 mg/kg. Concentrations in the high Metolachlor (HM) test cell were
reduced from initial concentrations of 170 mg/kg to 38 mg/kg.
- Within the HM test cell, only the top 30 cm of a 60 cm deep cell were tilled during the demonstration.
According to the vendor, effective treatment may not have occurred throughout the cell. A sample of the top 30
cm only of the HM test cell showed Metolachlor concentrations of 11.8 mg/kg.
Cost:
- No costs were reported for the demonstration.
- The vendor used data from the demonstration to estimate that the cost for treating the estimated 600 tons of
contaminated soil that remained at the Novartis site would be $111,600 or $186/ton (in Canadian dollars).
38
-------
Ex Situ Bioremediation at
Novartis Site, Cambridge, Ontario (continued)
Description:
The Novartis site (formerly Ciba-Geigy), located in Cambridge, Ontario, has been used for the formulation and
warehousing of agricultural chemicals since 1972. The site was contaminated with organochlorine pesticides
and herbicides, with Metolachlor being the primary contaminant at the site. In 1996, Grace Bioremediation
Technologies (Grace) conducted a pilot-scale demonstration of an ex situ bioremediation technology as part of a
grant to complete the development of the DARAMEND bioremediation process. The grant was funded by the
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy's Environmental Technologies Program, Environment Canada's
Development and Demonstration of Site Remediation Technologies Program, and by Grace. The
demonstration, conducted from March 1996 to September 1997, involved 200 tons of soil from the Novartis site
that had been excavated and stockpiled. The soil was contaminated with Metolachlor, Dinoseb, Atrizine, and
2,4-D.
The ex situ treatment area included three cells - the main treatment cell (180 tons), the high Metolachlor (HM)
test cell (10 tons), and a static control cell (10 tons). Soils were placed in the cells which were located within a
greenhouse enclosure. The demonstration was designed to cycle between aerobic conditions and anaerobic
conditions to promote the degradation of the contaminants. During the demonstration, the soil was subjected to
a total often cycles. DARAMEND amendments and inorganic amendments (for example multivalent metal)
were added to the soil. The soil was covered with a tarp during the anaerobic cycle and was tilled during the
aerobic cycle. Data from the treated soil in the main treatment cell showed that concentrations of contaminants
were reduced to below detection levels. Metolachlor was reduced from initial concentrations ranging from 48 to
84 mg/kg to below the detection limit of 1.0 mg/kg. Levels of Metolachlor within the HM cell were reduced
from 170 mg/kg to 38 mg/kg. However, according to Grace, only the top 30 cm of the 60 cm deep cell were
tilled during the demonstration such that the treatment was not effective throughout the entire cell. Data from
the top 30 cm only of the HM cell showed that Metolachlor levels had been reduced to 11.8 mg/kg.
The projected cost to treat the remaining 600 tons of soil at the Novartis site using this technology was $111,600
or $186/ton in Canadian dollars. Grace noted that because these costs were based on the demonstration, which
included extensive process monitoring and waste analysis costs, the projected cost for a full-scale application
would be significantly less.
39
-------
Cost and Performance Summary Report
Ex Situ Bioremediation of Soils at the Novartis Site, Cambridge, Ontario
Summary Information fl. 2.31
The Novartis site (formerly Ciba-Geigy) is located in Cambridge,
Ontario. Since 1972, the site was used for formulating and
warehousing of agricultural chemicals. Data obtained during
characterization work performed by Ciba indicated that the site was
contaminated with Metolachlor, a chlorinated herbicide.
In 1996, a pilot-scale demonstration of an ex situ bioremediation
technology was conducted at the site by Grace Bioremediation
Technologies (Grace) as part of a grant to complete development of
the DARAMEND™ bioremediation process. The grant was
funded by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy's
Environmental Technologies Program, Environment Canada's
Development and Demonstration of Site Remediation
Technologies Programs, and Grace.
The demonstration was conducted from March 1996 to September
1997. Approximately 200 tons of soil contaminated with
Metolachlor were treated during this demonstration.
Timeline
February 6, 1996
February 23, 1996
Mar. 7, 1996 -Sept 23, 1997
September 23, 1997
Identified site for demonstration
Construction completed
Demonstration conducted
Final samples collected
Factors that Affected Cost or Performance of Treatment [3,4]
Matrix Characteristics
Listed below are the key matrix characteristics for this technology
and the values measured for each.
Soil Classification:
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution:
Moisture Content
pH:
Total Organic Carbon:
Total Nitrogen:
Available Phosphorus:
Fine sandy loam
59.6% sand, 37.5% silt,
2.9% clay
Varies*
7.8
0.58%
8mg/kg
* Moisture content was 90% of water holding capacity during anoxic phase and
60% of water holding capacity during oxic phase.
Treatment Technology Description HU 2, 3,41
The DARAMEND™ process is an ex situ soil bioremediation
technology that has been modified by Grace to treat soils
contaminated with chlorinated organics, such as organochlorine
pesticides and herbicides that degrade slowly under aerobic
conditions. The modified process uses organic and inorganic
amendments to promote the activity of indigenous
microorganisms in the soil to degrade contaminants. Microbial
inoculation is not required. According to Grace, the technology
has been applied to both ex situ and in situ treatment of soil.
This report addresses the results of the ex situ demonstration at
the Novartis site.
The treatment area included three treatment cells - the main
treatment cell (Plot A), the high Metolachlor (HM) test cell (Plot
B), and the static control cell (Plot C). The treatment area was
lined with clay underlain with a high density polyethylene
(HOPE) liner. The main treatment cell was designed to hold 180
tons of soil; the remaining cells were each designed to hold 10
tons of soil.
A 204 ft. long by 30 ft. wide greenhouse structure was
constructed over the treatment area. The arches for the
greenhouse were placed every four ft. along its length and
secured using concrete columns (18" by 48"). The greenhouse
was covered with two layers of polyethylene, separated by forced
air. The HM cell and the static control cell were constructed
within the treatment area. Each cell was a rectangular wood-
framed box open at the top, lined with a 40 mil HOPE.
Construction of the treatment area was completed in February
1996. A total of about 200 tons of soil were placed in the
treatment area including drummed soil (about 15 cu. meters) and
soil from excavation activities at Novartis. The demonstration
was designed to cycle between anaerobic or "anoxic" conditions
and aerobic or "oxic" conditions to promote reductive
dechlorination and subsequent aerobic degradation of the
chlorinated pesticides. From March 7, 1996, to September 23,
1997, the soil was subjected to a total of 10 complete aerobic and
anaerobic cycles. For the anaerobic cycle, DARAMEND™1
amendments and inorganic amendments (for example,
multivalent metal) were added to the soil, the soil was irrigated,
and then covered with a tarpaulin. For the aerobic cycle, the
tarpaulin was removed and the soil was tilled twice a week. No
amendments were added during the aerobic cycle in this
application.
According to Grace, the demonstration was originally planned
for 6 cycles. However, 10 cycles were used to compensate for
initial delays in startup and slightly slower than anticipated
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
40
-------
•Novartis Site
biodegradation rates. In addition, the HM cell was tilled using
a hand operated rotary tiller because of the small cell size. As a
result, Grace stated that tillage was effective in the top 30 cm
rather than the full 60 cm plot depth (for the HM cell only).
Operating Parameters [4]
Performance Information Fl, 2.31
Mixing Rate or Frequency
Moisture Content
pH
Temperature
Rate of Degradation
Enhancement
?:h&
Twice a week during aerobic
cycle
Refer to matrix
characteristics
Varies (6 -7.8)
Ambient (>10 °C)
19.4 ppm/month
Daramend™ (organic)
inorganic (multivalent
metal)
and
For sampling purposes, the main treatment cell was divided into
five zones, and each zone was further divided into 20 equal
subunits. Within each zone, five subunits were randomly
selected for sampling during the course of the demonstration;
these samples were composited for analysis. .The HM and static
control cells were not subdivided for sampling. Rather, for each
sampling event, five samples were collected and composited from
each of the cells.
Initial samples were collected prior to the start of treatment and
analyzed for 2,4-D, Dinoseb, Atrazine, and Metolachlor using a
toxic organic (TO) Scan (EPA Method 625). Samples were also
analyzed for soil physical/chemical properties, selected metals,
and chloride. Samples to monitor treatment progress were
collected on days 2, 7, 98, 208, 306, and 454 of the
demonstration and screened for Metolachlor using a HPLC quick
screening method (EPA Method SW846-8150). Final samples
were collected on day 565 and analyzed in the same manner as
the initial samples.
Table 1 presents the initial and final concentrations of these
compounds by soil plot. Table 2 presents the progress sampling
results for Metolachlor in soil by treatment area.
Table 1 - Initial and Final Concentrations of Target Compounds [3]
- - -•• '•(>*>' '
-^-c.?l?Iot iv"
- - ,• ,* ~^,^a^
A
B
C
!, £* v s "v* -A*
& «" * 4^,
• «"• , ,,/• *?
Sample
Zonel
Zone 2
Zone3
Zone 4
Zone 5
HM2
HM3
Static
control
Untreated
Material4
^f ' ^Mtial Con^atration.
-------
•Novartis Site
Table 2 - Metolachlor Concentrations (mg/kg) [3]
Area
Main
Treatment
cell1
HM cell2
Static Control
cell
Initial
67
170
37
Day
2
72
140
NS
Day
7
65
140
49
Day
28
53
110
87
Day
208
27
78
63
Day
306
14
57
57
Day
454
3.1
42
66
Day
565
ND
38
56
1- Average of 5 zones
2- Sample collected from entire 60 cm depth
NS- Not sampled
ND- Not detected (below 1.0 mg/kg)
The goal of the demonstration was to reduce the concentrations
of the target organic compounds - 2,4-D, Dinoseb, Atrizine,
and Metolachlor in the treated soil (the principal target
compound on which the system operation was optimized was
Metolachlor). As shown in Table 1, Dinoseb was not detected
in any of the initial or final samples. 2,4-D was reduced from
initial concentrations as high as 3.7 mg/kg to below detection
limits in Plots A and 8. Atrizine was reduced from initial
concentrations as high as 17.0 mg/kg to below detection limits
in these plots.
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the concentration of Metolachlor
in the main treatment cell was reduced from initial levels
ranging from 48 to 84 mg/kg (67 mg/kg average) to below the
detection level of 1.0 mg/kg. This reduction was observed in all
5 sample zones. In the HM cell, concentrations of Metolachlor
were reduced from 170 mg/kg to 38 mg/kg (a 78% reduction).
According to Grace, because only the top 30 cm of soil were
tilled in the HM cell (as described above), effective treatment
may not have occurred throughout the cell. A final sample of
the top 30 cm of the HM cell showed Metolachlor
concentrations of 11.8 mg/kg, below the 38 mg/kg for the entire
60 cm sample. Metolachlor concentrations in the static control
cell remained essentially unchanged (initial concentration of 37
mg/kg and a final concentration of 56 mg/kg).
Performance Data Quality [31
According to Grace, split samples and field duplicates indicated
that the data quality was generally good. The relative percent
difference (RPD) was less than 20% for all progress samples.
The RPD for the initial samples was high (100%). According
to Grace, this high RPD was likely due to the relatively
heterogeneous matrix following a single tillage event.
Cost Information [3,41
Specific cost information was not provided for the 200 ton
demonstration. However, Grace used the results of the
demonstration to project a cost of $111,600 or $186/ton (in
Canadian dollars) for remediating the 600 tons of waste currently
stored at the Novartis facility using DARAMEND™
bioremediation. (Based on an exchange rate of 0.65, this
corresponds to a projected cost of $73,000 or $120/ton in U.S.
dollars.) According to Grace, this cost was calculated by
dividing the appropriate components of the project budget by the
total mass of soil treated during the demonstration. Grace noted
that while capital and startup costs (e.g., lease of tractor and
permitting) would remain relatively constant regardless of scale,
about one-third of the project budget was dedicated to items
required for the demonstration (e.g., extensive process
monitoring, supplemental waste analysis) that would not
typically be required during commercial applications (these costs
are not included in the projected costs shown above).
Grace also noted that a number of factors will affect the actual
cost of using this technology on a full-scale basis at other sites.
These include the site location (distance from source of
equipment, supplies, and personnel, as well as climate), quantity
of soil treated, initial concentrations of target compounds,
applicable remediation criteria, monitoring requirements, soil
pretreatment requirements, and personal protective equipment
requirements. For example, Grace stated that a full-scale
application involving treatment of 2,500 - 5,000 tons of waste
would cost $80-125/ton (in Canadian dollars; $52-8 I/ton in U.S.
dollars).
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
42
-------
• Novartis Site
Observations and Lessons Learned
The modified DARAMEND™ process reduced the
concentrations of Metolachlor in the main treatment cell by
99%, from initial concentrations of 67 mg/kg to below detection
limits (1.0 mg/kg). Concentrations of this compound in the HM
cell were reduced by 93% in the top 30 cm of soil that were
tilled and by 78% in the entire 60 cm of soil in the cell. These
results were achieved after 565 days of operation.
The lower reduction in the entire 60 cm depth of the HM cell
was attributed by Grace to the fact that tillage was effective only
to a depth of about 30 cm.
The use of alternating aerobic and anaeobic cycles appeared to
promote biodegradation of chlorinated pesticides and herbicides
without the use of microbial innoculum.
The time and number of cycles required for the demonstration
was longer than planned. According to Grace, this was caused
by initial delays in startup as well as low temperatures during
the winter months that slowed biological activity.
Contact Information
For more information about this application, please contact:
David Raymond, Project Manager
Grace Bioremediation Technologies
3465 Semenyk Court
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada
Telephone: (905)273-5374
Fax: (905)273-4367
E-mail: david.raymond@grace.com
References
The following references were used in the preparation of this
report.
1. Ex-situ Bioremediation of Soils Containing Metolachlor:
Pilot-Scale Demonstration at Ciba-Geigy Facility, Cambridge,
Ontario. First Interim Report. Prepared by GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies. Undated.
2. Ex-situ Bioremediation of Soils Containing Metolachlor:
Pilot-Scale Demonstration at Ciba-Geigy Facility, Cambridge,
Ontario. Second Interim Report. Prepared by GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies. February 1997.
3. Ex-situ Bioremediation of Soils Containing Metolachlor:
Pilot-Scale Demonstration at Ciba-Geigy Facility, Cambridge,
Ontario. Draft Final Report. Prepared by GRACE
Bioremediation Technologies. February 1998.
4. Comments provided by David Raymond, Grace
Bioremediation Technologies on Draft Cost and Performance
Summary Report. October 7, 1998.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
43
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
44
-------
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
CASE STUDIES
45
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
46
-------
Solvent Extraction at
the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station,
Alaska
47
-------
Solvent Extraction at
the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station,
Alaska
Site Name:
Sparrevohn Long Range Radar
Station
Location:
Alaska
Contaminants:
Semivolatile (halogenated) - PCBs.
PCB concentrations in untreated
soil analyzed during the treatability
study ranged from 13 to 346 rag/kg,
with an average concentration of 80
rag/kg.
Period of Operation:
Status: Complete
Report covers: 6/96 through 8/96
Cleanup Type:
Indefinite Delivery Type Remedial
Action
Vendor:
Prime Contractor:
Linder Construction
8220 Petersburg Street
Anchorage, AK 99507
(907) 349-6222
Treatment Vendor:
Terra Kleen Response Group
Lanny D. Weimer
3630 Cornus Lane
Ellicott City, MD 21042
(410) 750-0626
Additional Contacts:
Bernard T. Gagnon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
(907) 753-5718
Air Force Project Manager:
Patricia Striebich
eil^CES/CEVR
Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK
99506
(907) 552-4506
Technology:
Solvent extraction
- Stockpiled soil was treated in 85
yd3 batches using solvent
extraction in specially-
constructed lined treatment cells.
- The system was operated in a fill-
and-drain mode, with 1
day/treatment cycle and 8
treatment cycles/batch.
- The solvent was reclaimed on site
through a molecular sieve, and
burned on site after the treatment
was completed.
- Solvent extraction was chosen
over thermal desorption and soil
washing on the basis of cost-
effectiveness and the relative
logistics of mobilizing treatment
equipment to the isolated site.
Cleanup Authority:
Air Force Installation Restoration
Program. The cleanup was
negotiated by the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) and target
levels were agreed upon mutually
by the Air Force and ADEC.
State Point of Contact:
Ray Burger
State of Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Contaminated Sites Remediation
Program
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 563-6529
Waste Source:
Transformer storage, transformer
maintenance, and drum storage
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Application of an innovative
technology to treat PCB-
contaminated soil at a remote site
in Alaska.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 288yd3
- Gravel with fines and likely little or no clay
- Moisture content 9%
48
-------
Solvent Extraction at
the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station,
Alaska (continued)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- A target cleanup level of 15 mg/kg for PCBs in soil was established for this application.
- The contractor was required to perform sampling of the soil at the surface and the bottom of each treatment
cell.
- Concentrations of PCBs in the reclaimed solvent were required to be less than 2 mg/L before the solvent could
be burned on site.
Results:
- Average concentrations of PCBs were reduced from 80 mg/kg in the untreated soil to 3.27 mg/kg after
treatment.
- Concentrations of PCBs measured in samples from the tops and bottoms of each of the five batches of treated
soil were reduced to below the 15 mg/kg target cleanup level.
- The concentrations of PCBs in treated soil varied among the batches by one order of magnitude. This
variation was attributed to the variations in the concentrations of PCBs in the untreated soil.
- PCBs were not detected at concentrations above detection limits (0.1 mg/L) in the reclaimed solvent.
- Based on a mass balance, approximately 33.8 pounds of PCBs were transferred from the 441,000 kg of
contaminated soil to 4,772 pounds of molecular sieve (used to reclaim the solvent), resulting in a
contaminated material mass reduction of almost 100 to 1.
Cost:
- The total cost of this application was $828,179, including $602,530 for mobilization and demobilization, and
$225,649 for the solvent extraction. This was less than one-half of the estimated cost of $1,908,545 to
transfer all of the contaminated soil to the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office.
- The cost for solvent extraction corresponds to a unit cost of $780 per cubic yard of soil treated
- Because of its remote location, the site was only accessible by air. Therefore, transportation costs for both
mobilization and demobilization were a major factor in the overall cost of the project.
Description:
The Sparrevohn LRRS was constructed in 1952, and is one often Aircraft Control and Warning sites
constructed as part of the air defense system in Alaska. The site is located approximately 200 miles west of
Anchorage and is accessible only by air. It is currently operated by the Air Force as a Minimally Attended
Radar facility and consists of a lower camp (elevation 1,700 feet) mat includes support facilities and an upper
camp (elevation 3,300 feet that houses radar equipment.
In 1986, PCB contamination was delineated at the site. In 1989, approximately 450 tons of PCB-contaminated
soil from the lower camp were excavated and transported off site for disposal, and approximately 600 tons of
PCB-contaminated soil from the upper camp were transported to the lower camp and stockpiled.
A treatability_study was conducted on the stockpiled soil in 1995, and as a result of the study, the stockpiled soil
was treated in batches using solvent extraction between June and August of 1996. Closure and site restoration
activities at the site were completed in September 1996.
49
-------
• Sparrevohn LRRS
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name: Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station (LRRS)
Location: Alaska (approximately 200 miles west of
Anchorage)
Technology: Solvent Extraction
Type of Action: Indefinite Delivery Type Remedial Action
(IDTRA)
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION Ml
Period of Operation: Treatability study -1995; Full-scale operation
- June through August 1996
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: 288 cubic yards
of soil
BACKGROUND
Site Background (1, 2):
• Sparrevohn LRRS, constructed in 1952, was one of ten Aircraft Control and Warning (AC&W)
sites constructed as part of the air defense system in Alaska. The Air Force currently operates
the site as a Minimally Attended Radar (MAR) facility staffed by four people.
• The site is located approximately 200 miles west of Anchorage in the Sparrevohn Mountains and
is accessible only by air. The site consists of a lower camp (elevation 1,700 feet) that includes
support facilities and an upper camp (elevation 3,300 feet) that houses radar equipment.
• In June 1986, soil sampling for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) was conducted at the lower
camp in the vicinity of a former transformer pad and drum dump, and field screening for PCBs
was conducted at the upper camp. In 1986, Sparrevohn and other bases were beginning to
investigate possible PCB contamination in soil, and the sampling was conducted for those efforts
to identify potential environmental problems at the bases.
• The results of the laboratory analyses of soils from the lower camp showed concentrations of
PCBs ranging from 0.1 to 11,358 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg); the results of field screening
of the upper camp showed contamination with PCBs at concentrations above levels of concern.
• PCB test kits were used in conducting field screening. A positive result indicated that PCBs were
present at or above a level of concern. At the time the screening was conducted, field test kits
typically identified concentrations of PCBs at levels higher than 10 to 50 mg/kg as positive
results (that is, the detection level). Information on the specific detection level for the PCB test
kits used at Sparrevohn was not available.
• In 1989 contaminated soil at the lower camp was excavated and shipped off site for disposal;
contaminated soil at the upper camp was excavated and transported to the lower camp, where it
was stockpiled in a lined, diked containment area.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
50
-------
>Sparrevohn LRRS
• Approximately 450 tons of PCB-contaminated soil were removed from the containment area,
overpacked, and shipped off site.
• An estimated 600 tons of stockpiled PCB-contaminated soil remained at the site. According to
USAGE, concentrations of PCBs in the stockpiled soil were estimated at 5 to 500 mg/kg, based
on information in manifests for material shipped from the site. No direct sampling of stockpiled
soil at the site was performed at that time.
SIC Code: 9711 (National Security)
Waste Management Practice that Contributed to Contamination: Transformer storage, transformer
maintenance, and drum storage.
Remedy Selection (1, 2):
• Several remedies were considered for treating the stockpiled PCB-contaminated soil, including
thermal desorption, solvent extraction, and soil washing. Solvent extraction was selected over
the other technologies on the basis of cost-effectiveness and the logistics of mobilizing on site.
For example, solvent extraction was determined to require less equipment and less logistical
support— fuel, water, and electricity— than the other technologies. On-site thermal
destruction was not feasible because of the high costs of the mobilization and operation of a unit
and the relatively low volume of contaminated soil to be treated. In addition, there was a
concern that the use of thermal desorption would require that the system perform under stringent
conditions to prevent the formation of dioxins and furans. Further, solvent extraction was
expected to be more effective than soil washing.
• In addition to considering other technologies such as thermal desorption, soil washing,' and
solvent extraction, off-site disposal at the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) at
Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, Alaska was considered. The cost of solvent extraction was found
to be less than that of off-site disposal at DRMO. Disposal at DRMO was estimated to cost
$0.76 per pound (approximately $3,080 per cubic yard), plus costs for mobilization and
demobilization, for a total of $1,908,545. The negotiated cost of solvent extraction was less than
half the estimated cost for disposal at DRMO (see the discussion under 'Treatment System
Costs").
SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS
USAGE Environmental Engineer and Innovative Technology Advocate:
Bernard T. Gagnon*
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
Telephone: (907)753-5718
E-mail: bernard.t.gagnon@usace.army.mil
Air Force project manager:
Patricia Striebich
611thCES/CEVR
Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK 99506
Telephone: (907) 552-4506
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
51
-------
State of Alaska site manager:
Ray Burger
State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Contaminated Sites Remediation Program
555 Cordova St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 563-6529
Prime Contractor:
Under Construction
8220 Petersburg Street
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone: (907) 349-6222
Treatment Vendor:
Terra Kleen Response Group
Lanny D. Weimer
3630 Comus Lane
EllicottCity,MD21042
Telephone: (410) 750-0626
•Primary point of contact for this application
• Sparrevohn LRRS
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Soil (ex situ)
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
Semivolatiles (halogenated) - PCBs (the specific PCB congeners or group of congeners was not
identified.)
CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES
||1.« i. Property
CAS No.
Specific Gravity
Toxicity
Flammability
Solubility
,„,„„,&»*,, ,r ^;/
1336-36-3
1.3 to 1.8 at 60° F
High
Low
0.04 - 0.2 mg/L (in water <§
5 20° C)
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
52
-------
• Sparrevohn LRRS
NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION (1. 2)
• Only limited information is available about the nature and extent of contamination at Sparrevohn
LRRS.
• Concentrations of PCBs in untreated stockpiled soil were measured as part of the treatability
study. The results of eight composite sarriples showed PCB concentrations ranging form 13 to
346 mg/kg, with an average of 80 mg/kg.
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE fl. 21
Listed below are the major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance for this
technology and the values measured for each parameter.
•^ /*""'", % W * . pVahietelt*"'' All "~",,^ ..-"
,.3, "XT ^ "•" x^S. ' ~' ?** **• "** 7 a ? -^ f " * '''
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
Hydraulic Conductivity/Water Permeability
Contaminant Sorption/Soil Organic Content
Lower Explosive Limit
Presence of Emulsifying Agents
Moisture Content
&5P- ^-*»^ ^a« ^atee L, •£ ,;/- :^^ ™: «*\ ,
Gravel with fines, GM or GP (based on observation)
Not quantified, but likely little or no clay
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
None
9%
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
53
-------
• Sparrevohn LRRS
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TYPES
Solvent extraction
SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TYPES
Post-treatment (solids): thermal destruction (residual solvent)
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (1.3\
Solvent Application
Leachate
Return
Contaminated
Solvent Storage
Disposal
Figure 2. Process Flow Diagram (1)
Construction
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
54
July 14,1998
-------
• Sparrevohn LRRS
More than 200 tons of equipment and materials were mobilized to the site by air.
Preliminary activities included construction of a contractor's camp, utilities, and cells for soil
treatment and for clean and contaminated soil.
The solvent extraction system used at Sparrevohn consisted of specially constructed soil
treatment cells, storage cells for clean and contaminated solvent, solvent purification equipment
(settling, 10-micron-bag filter, and molecular sieve purification stations), and associated process
pumps and piping.
The composition of the solvent used at Sparrevohn was proprietary business information, and
was maintained by the treatment vendor. According to the contractor, the solvent is considered
a non-hazardous and non-toxic substance.
Soil treatment cells were constructed in the following steps: 1) the area of each cell was
excavated to a depth of approximately two feet, 2) plywood sidewalls were erected on three
sides of each cell, with one side left open to facilitate loading, 3) each cell's interior was lined
with an impermeable membrane liner, 4) an underdrain system was installed to remove PCB-
laden solvent, and 5) the cells were covered after loading to reduce evaporation of solvent and
prevent rain from diluting the solvent.
Five soil treatment cells were constructed, each with dimensions of 36 feet long, 16 feet wide,
and 4 feet deep, a volume of approximately 85 cubic yards for each cell. Two additional cells of
the same dimensions were constructed to store clean and contaminated solvent.
Operation
The system operated in fill-and-drain mode. Contaminated soil was loaded into a soil treatment
cell, and 3,000 to 4,000 gallons of clean solvent were pumped into the cell to immerse the soil in
the solvent. Soil and solvent were held in the cell for one day to allow the PCBs to solubilize in
the solvent.
Contaminant-laden solvent was removed from the cells through the underdrain system, and
transferred to the contaminated solvent cell. PCBs were removed from the solvent and
concentrated in the molecular sieve medium, while cleaned solvent was collected in the clean
solvent storage cell.
The system treated the soil in batches, with each cell undergoing repeated cycles of fill and
drain, until field screening, followed by confirmation sampling and laboratory analyses, showed
that the concentration of PCBs in the soil was less than 15 mg/kg. Eight cycles of fill and drain
were used for each soil treatment cell.
At the conclusion of treatment, clean solvent was burned on site. The clean solvent was
analyzed to determine that it contained concentrations of PCBs below 2 ppm, as required by the
State.
Solvent-consuming microbes and nutrients were added to the treated soil to promote
biodegradation of residual solvent in the soil. According to the contractor, the solvent typically
exhibited a half-life of approximately one or two days after such treatment.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
55
-------
'Sparrevohn LRRS
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE Ml
Listed below are the major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and
the values measured for each parameter.
Parameter
-•\i u ^ ''i ' 7 '; I* . . . .' *
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Moisture Content
pH
Pumping Time
Residence Time/Number of Cycles
System Throughput
Temperature of Soil in Treatment Cells
Additives and Dosage
'''S^'* ' ValCe-V^r '— < " '
Not Applicable - Fill and drain operating mode
9% (for all 5 treatment cells)
Information not available
Information not available
1 day/treatment cycle; 8 treatment cycles/batch
288 cubic yards in 5 batches
Information not available
Information not available
Closure
Closure and site restoration activities included: dismantling the soil treatment cells (removing
the roofs, puncturing the bottom liners, detaching the liners from the plywood sides, and
removing the plywood sides); folding the liner edges over the top of the treated soil; adding a 12-
millimeter liner on top of the treated soil; and placing clean soil (soil that had been excavated to
construct the cells) over the liner to form a two-foot-thick cap. Remaining liner and piping were
left in place with the treated soil. The closed cells were visible above grade as five smoothly
graded, rectangular mounds. The molecular sieves and other project-derived wastes (that is,
personal protective equipment (PPE) and liner material) were packed in drums and shipped off
site for disposal at a facility approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Molecular sieves were shipped to a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) of Phillip
Environmental and from there to Rollins Environmental for incineration. Additional PPE and
stockpiled liner were turned in to the DRMO at Elmendorf Air Force Base for disposal. Solvent
drums were crushed and sent to a metal recycler, and other debris were sent to a conventional
municipal solid waste landfill in Anchorage, Alaska.
TREATMENT PLAN
Planning and design of this project were conducted in the following three phases: 1) bench-scale
treatability study of solvent extraction; 2) preparation of an engineering evaluation and cost
analysis (EE/CA — see previous discussion under Remedy Selection), and 3) preparation of a
delivery order (DO) to be issued to a previously selected IDTRA contractor for implementation of
the selected remedy.
The vendor of the solvent extraction process conducted the treatability study at the vendor's
facilities, using a 5-gailon sample of PCB-contaminated soil.
The study showed that concentrations of PCBs were reduced from 350 to less than 15 mg/kg
through the application of seven cycles of fill and drain solvent extraction.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
56
-------
'Sparrevohn LRRS
• The DO required that the contractor conduct sampling and testing (one sample per 50 cubic
yards of soil before treatment); develop a work plan and other related plans; conduct treatment;
and dispose of the stockpile of PCB-contaminated soil.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Alaska District, the U.S. Air Force, and state
regulators reviewed the plans. Major issues identified during the review included the nature of
the solvent to be used, the confirmatory sampling protocol, and the method of disposal of the
solvent at the completion of the project.
TIMELINE M. 2^
-" %£ jjf "-'"Dale*- '~ v.'V"
1952
June 1986
1989
Construction Season
1995
July 1995
July 1995 to May 1996
May 28 to June 13, 1996
June 20 to August 12, 1996
August 12 to September 17,
1996
j~: A.-" ,_">T'\- -* ^"' ^tfrftfe £&' " " ~f' '""* ^ '""
Construction of Sparrevohn LRRS completed
Soil sampling for PCBs conducted at lower and upper camps
PCB-contaminated soils excavated at lower and upper camps
lower camp and some from upper camp shipped off site; and
from upper camp stockpiled on site
, all soil from
remaining soil
Treatability study of solvent extraction process conducted
Delivery order awarded
Work plans prepared with approval in May 1996
Materials and equipment mobilized to site
Treatment, including confirmational sampling, conducted
Closure and site restoration activities conducted
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES (1. 2)
A target cleanup level of 15 mg/kg for PCBs in soil was established for this application.
• The contractor was required to perform sampling of the soil at the surface (top) and the bottom
of each treatment cell.
Concentrations of PCBs in the clean solvent were required to be less than 2 mg/liter (mg/L)
before the solvent could be burned on site.
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA M. 2)
• Table TPD-1 shows treatment performance data for each of the five soil treatment cells.
Analyses were performed by both an immunoassay procedure and an analytical laboratory
procedure (shown in Table TPD-1 as "composite"). The immunoassay procedure was used as a
screening procedure to monitor the performance of the extraction system during operation.
When screening data indicated that the soil had met the target cleanup level, additional samples
were collected and shipped off site for analysis by the analytical laboratory procedure to confirm
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
57
-------
• Sparrevohn LRRS
that the cleanup level had been met. The detection limit for the screening was 10 mg/kg, and for
the analytical laboratory was 0.36 mg/kg (the detection limit for the analytical laboratory varied
slightly from analysis to analysis).
Samples of treated soil were collected from both the top and the bottom of each treatment cell
for analyses by the off-site laboratory using EPA Method 8080 (3). Originally, the contractor had
recommended that samples be collected only from the tops of the cells. However, because of
concerns that the solvent might mobilize the PCBs and that the PCBs might concentrate at the
bottoms of the treatment cejls, samples were collected at both the tops and the bottoms of the
treatment cells to confirm that the target cleanup level had been met at both locations.
Table TPD-1. Solvent Extraction Treatment Performance Data, Sparrevohn LRRS [1]
J;T • Parameter
CeiH
Cell 2
Celt 3
Cell'4
'-." c&iis '"'
PCB Concentration, mg/kg
Untreated Soil (composite,
average)*
Treated Soil (immunoassay
procedure)
Treated Soil (composite
from top)
Treated Soil (composite
from bottom)
80
<10
0.55
0.68
80
<10
0.95
0.99
80
<10
3.15
2.19
80
<10
0.98
8.84
80
<10
6.48
7.88
Treated Soil (Average) 3.27
* Concentration of 80 mg/kg in untreated soil, on the basis of average of results for .eight individual composite samples,
as follows: 346,41,13,52, 59, 68, 40, and 28 mg/kg.
• PCBs were measured at levels below the detection limit (detection limit of 0.1 mg/L) in the
regenerated (clean) solvent.
PERFORMANCE DATA ASSESSMENT
• The average concentration of PCBs was reduced from 80 mg/kg in untreated soil to 3.27 mg/kg
in treated soil (96 percent reduction).
• The concentration of PCBs in treated soil was less than the soil target cleanup level (15 mg/kg)
for all five treatment cells.
• The results of the immunoassay screening procedure indicated that the PCB concentrations in
the treated soil had met the target cleanup level. The results of the screening were confirmed
through off-site analysis which showed PCB concentrations in composite samples from both the
top and the bottom of the treatment cells to be below the target cleanup levels.
• Samples were collected from both the top and the bottom of the treatment cells because of
concerns that PCBs might concentrate at the bottom of the cells.
• The concentrations of PCBs in treated soil varied among the treatment cells by one order of
magnitude (concentrations in composites from the tops of cells ranged from 0.55 to 6.48 mg/kg;
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
58
-------
• Sparrevohn LRRS
concentrations in composites from the bottoms of cells ranged from 0.68 to 8.84 mg/kg). This
variation may be attributed to variations in the actual concentrations of PCBs in the untreated
soil. While the average PCB concentration in untreated soil was 80 mg/kg, this was based on a
composite of samples with PCB concentrations ranging from 13 mg/kg to 346 mg/kg.
The concentration of PCBs in clean solvent was less than the concentration of 2 mg/L required
by the state for burning the solvent on site. Therefore, spent solvent was burned in onsite
burners and did not have to be transported off-site at the end of the application.
Material Balance: The concentration of PCBs in the soil before and after treatment and the weight of
PCB extracted from the soil by the solvent and then accumulated in the molecular sieve are summarized
below.
•"~f '*. <-* s -*7
" * .Media -*,
fe.~ 4& 2fe 'A?*
ff£ ~«~/; ,
Soil
Molecular Sieve
^AA, ~,X'.*£.
Vvx Mass •-"
•«*SU "'5-
\^f* ~
441,000kg1
4,772 kg
'vf^* PCB^dehfratiotT; '" v",;.
Bef8|-e Treatment
80 mg/kg
0 mg/kg
k*s^ \%$s ., j
After Tftjatment^5
' ^t-^." •**.•!
3.27 mg/kg
7,090 mq/kq2
-Weight of PCB
**• Tt^sfert-ed.-
"^ ^ ~« *
-33.8 kg
+33.8 kg
Residual solvent PCB concentration assumed to be 0 mg/kg for the purpose of material balance.
1 Mass of soil based on 288 cubic yards at 125 pounds/cubic foot
2 Concentration of PCBs in molecular sieve after treatment calculated as the weight of PCBs removed
from the treated soil homogeneously distributed in the mass of the molecular sieve.
Removal Efficiencies: The PCB removal efficiency averaged 96 percent, on the basis of a comparison
of an average concentration of PCBs in untreated soil of 80 mg/kg with an average concentration of
PCBs in treated soil of 3.27 mg/kg.
PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY (2)
EPA Method 8080 was used by the laboratory to determine PCB concentrations in the soil and
solvents
The contractor wrote a SAP and a QAPP, which the USAGE district, the Air Force, and the
ADEC reviewed. Analytical data were reviewed internally by the district, and the USAGE
division laboratory wrote a chemical quality assurance report that validated the data. The report
concluded that overall quality control was satisfactory.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
The procurement was conducted under an indefinite delivery type remedial action contract.
USAGE solicited proposals for the contract, and the contractor was selected on the basis of
technical qualifications to perform a variety of remedial actions that might be necessary. Only
8A contractors were evaluated for this contract.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
59
-------
• Sparrevohn LRRS
• The contractor submitted a cost proposal for the project, which was issued as a delivery order
(DO) against the contract. USAGE required a minimum of three bids by any subcontractors in
the contractor's proposal. In addition, in this case, USAGE required that the contractor prepare a
cost for shipment of contaminated soil to DRMO without treatment, for use in comparing costs.
The contractor submitted its proposal for the work, and USAGE negotiated a firm fixed-price
contract for accomplishment of the work. The prime contractor had overall responsibility for the
project, including the preparation of all project documents and subcontracting. The treatment
subcontractor ran the treatment process and provided technical advice.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST C\)
Combination of mobilization and demobilization: $602,530
Treatment - solvent extraction: $225,649
• The costs presented above are the negotiated costs for treatment (total of $828,179); they were
compared with the costs of transfer to DRMO (total of $1,908,545, as discussed under the
Treatment Plan section of this document).
COST SENSITIVITIES
• Because of its remote location, the site was accessible only by air. Therefore, transportation
costs for both mobilization and demobilization were a major factor in the overall cost of the
project.
• For mobilization, over 200 tons of equipment and materials were transported to the site by air.
• For demobilization, efforts were made to reduce the amount of material to be transported off
site. For example, the technology achieved a reduction in mass of almost 100 to 1
(contaminants in 441,000 kg of soil transferred to 4,700 kg of molecular sieve) and excess
solvent was incinerated on site rather than transported.
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
The project was managed by the Air Force (611th) under its Installation Restoration Program
(IRP). The cleanup was negotiated with ADEC, and target cleanup levels were agreed upon
mutually by the Air Force and ADEC. Contractor requirements were identified by examination of
applicable codes, regulations, and guide specifications. Plans prepared by the contractor (work
plan, SAP, QAPP, health and safety plan, and waste management plan) were reviewed by the
USAGE district, Air Force, and ADEC. (1,2)
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Solvent extraction of soil contaminated with PCBs at Sparrevohn LRRS cost $828,179 with a
cost of $225,649 for activities directly attributed to treatment. This represents a unit cost of $780
per cubic yard of soil treated (288 cubic yards treated), for activities directly attributed to
treatment.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
60
-------
• Sparrevohn LRRS
• Because the location of the site was remote and the site was accessible only by air, the
mobilization and demobilization costs of $602,530 were relatively high, compared with those
costs for a similar operation in a more accessible location.
• Considering mobilization, demobilization, treatment, and disposal costs, solvent extraction was
less than 50 percent as costly as off-site disposal through the DRMO (estimated at about $1.9
million).
• On-site thermal destruction of the clean solvent reduced the costs of the demobilization as the
solvent did not have to be transported off site.
PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• Within a three month period (one construction season in Alaska), the solvent extraction system
at Sparrevohn reduced the concentration of PCBs to less than the soil target cleanup level of 15
mg/kg for all five treatment cells.
• Solvent extraction reduced the average concentration of PCBs from 80 mg/kg in untreated soil to
3.27 mg/kg in treated soil, representing a 96 percent overall reduction.
• The immunoassay screening procedures used at Sparrevohn indicated that target cleanup goals
had been met in the treated soil. In all five cases where the screening procedure indicated that
the goals had been met, this was confirmed in the analyses performed by the off-site laboratory.
• A requirement to sample both the top and bottom of the treatment cells was added because of
concerns that PCBs would concentrate at the bottom of the cells in this type of application.
• The solvent regeneration system used at Sparrevohn reduced PCB concentrations in the clean
solvent to below detectable levels, thereby meeting the requirement for burning the clean solvent
on site (below 2 mg/L). Because solvents could be burned on site, no solvent had to be
transported off the site as part of the demobilization activities.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• The following additional observations and lessons learned were provided by the USAGE project
manager:
• The performance of the solvent extraction technology is limited by fines, moisture, and
organic content:
Treatment of contaminated soils having more than 15 percent clays or fines or
high organic content is difficult because contaminants are strongly sorbed to the
soil particles (soil particles also form tight aggregates that are difficult to break
up).
Soils containing more than 20 percent moisture must be dried before treatment
(excess water dilutes the solvent, reducing the solubility of the contaminant and
transport efficiency).
Solvent extraction suppliers require a particle size analysis and information
about moisture content, organic content, contaminant identification and
concentration, and the target cleanup level to determine the number of wash
cycles required and to estimate the cost of treatment.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
61
-------
> Sparrevohn LRRS
The treatment vendor indicated that the solvent extraction technology could be limited by soil
moisture content. If the moisture content of treated soils exceeded 20 percent, a solvent
dehydration unit would be required to recover or recycle the solvent.
Solvent extraction vendors recommend a bench-scale treatability test to support the cost
estimate.
The process was flexible and rapid enough to allow additional soil to be treated midway through
the project without delaying completion. For example, because of an error in measuring the
stockpile of soil, an additional cell (approximately 50 cubic yards) was constructed midway
through the project in treating the soil.
REFERENCES
1. Gagnon, Bernard T., P.E. Not dated. Solvent Extraction Treatment of PCS Contaminated Soil
at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site, Alaska.
2. Gagnon, Bernard T., P.E. 1997. USAGE - Alaska District, Comments and Responses on Pre-
draft Report. December 2.
3. Berman, Michael H. 1998. Record of Telephone Conversation with Bernard Gagnon. June 19.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under USAGE Contract No. DACA45-96-
D-0016, Delivery Order No. 12. Assistance was provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Radian
International LLC.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 14,1998
62
-------
THERMAL DESORPTION
CASE STUDIES
63
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
64
-------
Vacuum-Enhanced, Low Temperature Thermal Desorption at the PCX
Washington Superfund Site
Washington, North Carolina
65
-------
Vacuum-Enhanced, Low Temperature Thermal Desorption at the FCX Washington
Superfund Site
Washington, North Carolina
Site Name:
FCX Washington Superfund Site
Location:
Washington, North Carolina
Contaminants:
Pesticides
- Aldrin, chlordane, DDT, DDE,
DDD, dieldrin, heptachlor,
heptachlor epoxide, methoxychlor,
benzene hexachlorides
Period of Operation:
March 1995 - March 1996
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor:
Nanette Orr
McLaren/Hart Environmental
Engineering Corporation
Great Woods Park
800 South Main Street
Mansfield, MA 02048
(508) 261-1515
State Contact:
Randy McElveen
North Carolina DEHNR
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919)733-2801
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
- IRHV-200 vacuum-enhanced low
temperature thermal desportion
system
- Four treatment chambers each
equipped with 8 infrared heaters.
At 1100°F, each heater produced
137,000 BTU/hr
- Liquid seal vacuum pump used to
create vacuum of 50 mmHg
- High flow recirculation blower
(6,000 acfm)
- Air draw off recirculation stream
(300 acfm) directed to air
emissions control
- Dry particulate filters,
condensers, and carbon adsorption
units
- Residence time - 4 hr (batch
process)
- Soil temperature - 350°F for a
minimum of 5 minutes
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA Removal
- Action memorandum date:
9/29/88
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC):
Paul Peronard
EPA Region 4
345 Corfland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 562-8767
Waste Source: Buried waste
pesticides
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil - 13,591 cubic yards
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Vacuum-enhanced
low-temperature thermal
desorption used to treat pesticide-
contaminated soil
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Total pesticides - 1.0 mg/kg
- For the demonstration, air emissions were to meet the EPA Region 4 Air Compliance Section standards for
vented air emissions; no air emission standards were set for the full-scale operation.
Results:
- Treated soil met the cleanup goal of 1 mg/kg total pesticides.
- A one-time stack air monitoring test was performed during the demonstration; all standards were met.
66
-------
Vacuum-Enhanced, Low Temperature Thermal Desorption at the FCX Washington
Superfund Site
Washington, North Carolina (continued)
Cost:
- Total cost of $1,844,600 including $1,696,800 in costs directly associated with treatment.
- Based on 13,591 cubic yards of soil treated, the unit cost was $125 per cubic yard.
Description:
From 1945 to 1982, the Farmers Cooperative Exchange (FCX) operated a pesticide blending facility and
warehouse where it packaged pesticides. The pesticides most frequently handled at the site were chlorinated
organic pesticides including chlordane, methoxychlor, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), and 1,1-
dichloro>-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl) ethene (DDE). Various other chlorinated and nonchlorinated organic
chemicals were used in mixing and blending of pesticides. Outdated or out-of-specification materials were
buried in trenches on the FCX property. In 1985, the company filed for bankruptcy, and the building and
warehouses were cleaned out. In 1986, the Fred Webb Grain Company (FWGC) purchased approximately 15
acres of the FCX property to be used to store grain under the federal government grain subsidy program.
Subsequent investigations of the site performed by EPA and the state indicated that the site was contaminated
with pesticides. The site was listed on the NPL in March 1989. The removal site investigation, performed in
1992, identified pesticide contamination in trenches at the site. Approximately 14,700 cubic yards of
contaminated soil (total chlorinated pesticides above 1 ppm) were excavated and stock piled for on-site
incineration. As a result of objections by the city to on-site incineration and in response to state issues
regarding off-site disposal, EPA identified on-site thermal desorption as the remedy for the excavated
contaminated soil at FCX.
Vacuum-enhanced, low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) was used to .treat the contaminated soil at the
FCX site. The system operated under a vacuum of about 50 mm Hg and used an infrared heat source to desorb
contaminants from the soil. By operating under a vacuum, the temperature required to desorb contaminants
from the soil and the amount of oxygen present in the treatment chamber are lower than if the unit were
operated under atmospheric conditions, helping to reduce the potential for formation of dioxins and furans. The
model IRHV-200 mobile LTTD system used at the site included a treatment chamber, and emission control
equipment including a dry particulate filter, condenser, and carbon adsorption unit. McLaren/Hart conducted
two site demonstrations before full-scale operations began. The initial demonstration, conducted with a batch of
clean soil, failed to heat the soil throughout. Several modification were made to the full-scale system to improve
heat transfer. Samples of treated soil were collected for each 500-ton lot of soil (total of three lots). The results
of the full-scale operation showed that the LTTD met the cleanup goal of 1 mg/kg total pesticides in each of the
three lots. Data also showed that concentrations of dioxins and furans in the treated soil were less than in the
untreated soil. McLaren/Hart used the results of the FCX application to identify a number of modifications and
improvements to the LTTD system to further improve heat transfer rates and to decrease the overall length of
the treatment cycles for other applications. A detailed summary of these improvements is included in the report.
67
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
PCX Washington Superfund Site
Washington, North Carolina
CERCLIS # NCD981475932
Action Memorandum Date:
September 29,1988
TreatmenLABpJLcation;
Type of Action: Removal
EPA SITE Program Test Associated With
Application? No
Period of Operation: March 1995 - March
1996
Quantity of Material Treated During
Application: 13,591 cubic yards
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: Burial of
outdated and out-of-specification mixed
pesticides in trenches.
Site History [4,5]:
From 1945 to 1982, the Farmers Cooperative
Exchange (FCX) operated a pesticide blending
facility and warehouse where it packaged
pesticides. The pesticides most frequently
handled at the site were chlorinated organic
pesticides including chlordane, methoxychlor,
dichloro-di-phenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and
1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl) ethene
(DDE). Various other chlorinated and
nonchlorinated organic chemicals were used in
mixing and blending of pesticides. Outdated or
out-of-specification materials were buried in
trenches on the FCX property. In 1985, the
company filed for bankruptcy, and the building
and warehouses were cleaned out. In 1986, the
Fred Webb Grain Company (FWGC) purchased
approximately 15 acres of the FCX property to
be used to store grain under the federal
government grain subsidy program.
Subsequent investigations of the site performed
by EPA and the state indicated that the site was
contaminated with pesticides. In January 1989,
EPA Region 4 initiated a removal action.
Approximately 2,200 cubic yards of debris and
soils contaminated with pesticides were
excavated and disposed off site. The site was
listed on the NPL in March 1989.
The removal site investigation, performed in
1992, identified pesticide contamination in
trenches at the site. Approximately 14,700
cubic yards of contaminated soil (total
chlorinated pesticides above 1 mg/kg) were
excavated and stock piled for on-site
incineration. As a result of objections by the city
to the use of on-site incineration and in
response to state issues regarding off-site
disposal, EPA identified on-site thermal
desorption as the remedy for the excavated
contaminated soil at FCX.
Regulatory Context:
The removal action at the FCX site was
performed under an action memorandum signed
September 29,1988. As a result of the issues
identified above with respect to on-site
incineration and off-site disposal, EPA made the
decision to use on-site thermal desorption as the
remedy.
In July 1994, the agency issued a request for
proposal (RFP) for an on-site thermal desorption
system to remove the contaminants from the
soil. To support the selection of an on-site
thermal desorption unit, the agency prepared
technical specifications that included:
1. Elimination of oxygen within the unit (less
than five percent) during treatment to
reduce the potential for formation of dioxins
and furans during thermal desorption
2. Recycling of the unit's air stream or use of a
low-flow system to minimize the amount of
gas discharged to the atmosphere
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
°^'ce °f Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
68
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
3. Exclusion of any type of device that allows
combustion to take place in the presence of
the contaminants
4. Use of a low-temperature condenser
5. Discharge flow of less than 500 actual cubic
feet per minute (acfm), cooling of the
emissions stream, and use of an indirect-
fired system
Remedy Selection: On-site thermal desorption
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: Fund Lead
Oversight: EPA
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC):
Paul Peronard*
EPA Region 4
345 Cortland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Telephone: (404) 562-8767
State Contact:
Randy McElveen
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Superfund
Station
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919)733-2801
ERCS Site Assessment Contractor:
Sara Legard
Four Seasons Industrial Services, Inc.
3107 South Elm-Eugene Street
P.O. Box 16590
Greensboro, NC 27416
Telephone: (910)273-2718
Treatment System Vendor:
Nanette Orr
McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering
Corporation
Great Woods Park
800 South Main Street
Mansfield, MA 02048
Telephone: (508)261-1515
* Primary point of contact for this application.
MATRl*DESCRiPTIONi
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Recovery System: Soil (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: Pesticides
Soil samples were collected from soil above the
trench and inside the trench and analyzed for
pesticides. Table 1 presents the results of
analyses of soil samples.
Table 1: Contaminants and
Concentrations in Soil [5]
ir : M
•••&&^W&&$&:\-
Above the Trench
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
DDE
Mercury
27.0-1585.0
1.0-50.0
1.0-37.7
1.0-37.7
0.0 - 28.0
In the Trench
Chlordane
ODD
DDT
DDE
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Total benzene
hexachlorides (BHC)
(alpha BHC and gamma
BHC)
1.0-6629.0
1.0-500.0
1.0-19435.0
1.0-47.0
1.0-47.0
1.0-79.0
1.0-79.0
1.0-<130.0
1.0-189.0
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
69
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment
Cost or Performance
Table 2 presents the major characteristics of the
matrix that affected the cost or performance of
this technology and the values measured for
each.
Table 2: Matrix Characteristics [11,12]
Parameter
Soil classification/
particle size
distribution
Moisture content
Oil and grease or
total petroleum
hydrocarbons
(TPH)
Bulk density
Lower explosive
limit
Value
Silly Sand (Augusta fine)
Less than 15 percent
most of the time.
Approximately 15 to 20
percent during final phase
of project.
Information not
provided
Information not
provided
Information not
provided
Soil was generally a silty sand that was fairly
homogenous in nature and that required no
processing before thermal treatment. Soil
moisture had a significant effect on the length of
the treatment cycle. Rate of transfer of heat
was regulated primarily by the percentage of
contained moisture. The average moisture
content of the soil during most of the treatment
program was less than 15 percent. During the
final phase of treatment (December 1995 to
March 1996), inclement weather increased the
moisture content of the soil, which during that
period was estimated to be between 15 to 20
percent, with an average of approximately 18
percent. The higher moisture content increased
the length of the treatment cycle [11].
Primary Treatment Technology
Vacuum-enhanced, low-temperature thermal
desorption
Supplemental Treatment Technology Types;
Post-Treatment (Air): Dry particulate filter
(DPF), condenser with chiller, carbon adsorption
Post-Treatment (Water): Reverse osmosis
(R/O), carbon adsorption
System Description and Operation
System Description [1,10,12,13]
Vacuum-enhanced, low temperature thermal
desorption (LTTD) was used to treat the
contaminated soil at the PCX site. Figure 1
shows the components of the model IRHV-200
mobile LTTD system used at the site, which
consisted of a treatment chamber and emission
control equipment including a dry particulate
filter, condenser, and carbon adsorption unit.
The IRHV-200 LTTD system used infrared heat
to desorb high-boiling point contaminants from
the soil matrix and air to "strip" target
contaminants from the soil matrix. The
treatment chamber was operated under vacuum
conditions to lower the effective boiling points of
the target contaminants.
According to the vendor, by operating under a
vacuum, the temperature required to desorb
contaminants from the soil and the amount of
oxygen present in the treatment chamber were
lower than if the unit were operated under
atmospheric condition. In addition, operating
under low oxygen (anaerobic) conditions helped
reduce the potential for formation of dioxins and
furans.
A description of the major components of the
system is presented below.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
70
-------
PCX Washington Super/und Site
DESCRIPTION OF THE ^REATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.) ^
oodooooo
O OjO O^O CijO O
ccccccccccccccacccecc
i»£££££££££S££££.£c £££££
/Vttjiw ^-w-^.-^, wwOOOOOOGCGCOCCSCCCCOOClS
<- Klgccg^fccccccccc^cccccccccgcccgs
CARBON
UK IT
CONDENSATE
COLLECTION
VESSEL
Figure 1. Major System Components of the IRHV-200
Four treatment chambers were used in this
application. The treatment chamber was
equipped with two bins, each measuring 8 feet
wide by 8 feet long by 18 inches deep (2.5 cubic
yards). Each bin was constructed of carbon
steel sidewalls and a stainless steel, perforated
base with 0.001" slots per square inch (46%
open space) to allow for downward flow of air
through the soil into two 4" x 20" air exhaust
outlets centrally located in the base of each bin.
Each bin was loaded with contaminated soil
outside the chamber, placed into the treatment
chamber by a wheel loader, and placed on top
of the unit's internal support system inside the
treatment chamber.
Eight individual infrared units arranged in
parallel rows were used to generate infrared
energy. During operation, thin-walled
aluminized steel tubes were heated to
approximately 1,100° F. At that temperature,
each aluminized steel tube emitted energy in
the infrared spectrum at the rate of
approximately 137,500 British thermal units per
hour (Btu/hr) for a total system output (infrared
energy) of approximately 1.1 million Btu/hr.
Generally, within 30 minutes, the surface of the
soil was heated to over 250 ° F with a goal of
heating to a minimum of 350 ° F
A liquid seal vacuum pump was used to create a
vacuum of about 50 mmHg within each
treatment chamber. As shown in Figure 1, each
chamber was equipped with a high flow
recirculation fan or blower, that was used to
draw air through the soil in the treatment
chamber to promote heat transfer. Air was
drawn through outlets at the bottom of the
chamber and returned to the chamber through
air inlets at the top of the chamber. Air was
drawn off of the recirculation air stream using
the vacuum pump (rated at approximately 300
acfm) and directed to the emissions control
system, as shown in Figure 1.
The dry particulate filters (DPFs) were in-line,
static microfiltration elements (less than 10
microns) used to minimize the accumulation of
particulates in the downstream air emission
control equipment, such as condenser and
carbon units and to control the release of smoke
and particulates to the atmosphere. The DPFs
were installed in the recirculation loop before
the inlet for the primary condenser. The DPFs
were designed to receive an air stream as high
as 6,000 acfm at a maximum temperature of
approximately 500° F.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
71
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
A primary condenser, installed between the
treatment chamber and the vacuum pump,
received an air stream at a flow rate of
approximately 6,000 acfm (per treatment
chamber) and a maximum temperature of
approximately 400°F. The temperature of that
air stream was reduced to approximately 40°F
and passed through a velocity dissipator that
functioned as a moisture separator to remove
any residual water from the air stream. The
majority of air exiting the primary condenser
(5,400 acfm) was recirculated back into the
treatment chambers (not shown on Figure 1).
The balance of the air (600 acfm) was directed
to the secondary condenser and carbon
polishing system.
The temperature of the air stream was reduced
to less than 32°F by the secondary condenser.
Approximately 350 tons of chilling capacity was
required at the PCX site. All condensate (water
and contaminants) was transferred to a general
collection vessel by a transfer pump. The
condensable products were transferred from the
collection tank to a 20,000-gallon Frac tank by
an electrically powered transfer pump.
The air stream was passed through a vapor-
phase carbon adsorption polishing system
before it was discharged to the atmosphere.
The system was charged with a single carbon
adsorption unit that contained 2,000 pounds of
activated carbon and was designed for mass
flows as high as 100 acfm.
System Operation [1, 2, 3, 9,10,11,12,13]
McLaren/Hart conducted two site
demonstrations before full-scale operations
began. One hundred yd3 of contaminated soil
were treated during the demonstration program;
analyses of total pesticides in the treated soil
was performed for three lots. The initial
demonstration, conducted with a batch of clean
soil, failed to heat the soil throughout. Only the
top 6 inches of 16 inches of soil in the treatment
chamber reached 300° F. McLaren/Hart
investigated several methods to improve the
heat transfer. These included:
• Piping the exhaust gas from the propane
unit through the bottom of the treatment
chamber. However, this was not effective in
increasing the temperature of the soil.
• Varying the depth of the soil in the
treatment chamber. While this increased
the rate of heat transfer, the throughput of
the system was reduced.
• Adding a mechanical agitation system to
increase the amount of heat transfer
through the soil. A fan-type system was
initially used. However, this turned the soil
to powder after about an hour. The system
was subsequently altered to use a
hydraulically driven propeller for mechanical
agitation.
• Adding an in-line blower to increase the air
flow rate within the treatment chamber to
6,000 acfm and increasing the volume of air
passing through the chamber, thereby
improving the heat transfer through the soil.
As a result, the following design changes were
made:
• The blower pump was increased in size
from 30 to 300 hp.
« Mechanical agitations were added to the soil
trays.
• A 6,000 acfm recirculation blower was
added in-line after the primary condenser.
• Infrared heaters were added to the bottom
of treatment chamber number four.
Full-scale operation started on April 26,1995.
Beginning in July of 1995, McLaren/Hart shut
down the system for 3-4 hours per day as part of
a power saver agreement with the local electric
company. During September 1995, McLaren/
Hart modified one of the treatment chambers by
adding infrared heating tubes underneath the
soil tray to help reduce the treatment time.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
72
-------
PCX Washington Superfuncf Site
DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.);
When all of the soil reached the desired
temperature of 350° F, the temperature was held
at that level for five minutes. The treatment
time was recorded, and the infrared heat source
for the treatment chamber was deactivated
manually. Before the heat source was
deactivated, the vacuum pump remained
operational for an additional 30 seconds to one
minute to ensure that the chamber had been
flushed of any fugitive emissions. The material
bins then were removed from the treatment
chamber. The treated soil was stockpiled and
held until analytical data confirmed that it met
cleanup levels.
The system was operated 24 hours/day for 7
days/week. The average treatment cycle was
approximately 4.0 hours/treatment chamber.
Each unit had a capacity of 6.0 hours/treatment
chamber. With all four treatment units
operational, the average treatment cycle was
6.0 tons/hr.
In total, McLaren/Hart treated 13,591 cubic
yards of contaminated soil. After the results of
analysis of post-treatment confirmatory soil
samples were received, the treated soil was
transported outside the treatment zone and
stockpiled for eventual beneficial reuse by the
city of Washington, North Carolina.
At the FCX site, all condensate generated was
collected in a 20,000-galIon Frac tank. The
condensate was treated by:
1. A phase separator
2. An iron-selective sand filter
3. A reverse osmosis unit (selective
membrane)
4. A granular activated carbon polishing unit
The rated capacity of the system was
approximately five gpm, with a discharge water
quality of less than 10 ppb of hazardous organic
compounds. The treated water was used to
rehydrate the treated soil. Approximately
450,000 gallons of condensate (water and
contaminants) were collected and treated at the
site, resulting in the generation of thirty-three
55-gallon drums of pesticides and three 55-
gallon drums of carbon from the water treatment
system that required disposal at an off-site
facility permitted under RCRA.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment
Cost or Performance M. 121
Table 3 presents the major operating
parameters that affected cost or performance of
the technology and the values measured for
each.
Table 3: Operating Parameters [1,12]
"';?ZJK£$'r j&t'&y&i.' * " -' r'h
J%«|-Pirameteif • •••*,:*
'%/'y',f>. , ' ' ' *•"*/ ^\ ^- „„;& ,.
Vacuum condition in
treatment chamber
Energy output of total
system (infrared energy)
Air flow rate for
treatment chamber
Temperature of infrared
source
Total cooling capacity of
chiller
Flow rate for reverse
osmosis system
Mass flow for carbon
adsorption polishing
system
Residence time
System throughput
Soil temperature
50 mm Hg
1.1 million Btu/hr
300 acfm (6,000 acfm
for recirculated air
stream)
1,100°F
350 tons
1 to 4 gpm
Maximum 100 acfm
4 hours/chamber
(5 minutes at
minimum of 350 °F)
6 tons/hr
350 - 400 °F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
73
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Table 4: Timeline [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,12]
?" : Start Date
March 31 ,1989
September 29, 1988
1992
July 1994
November 28, 1994
January 25, 1995
February 1, 1995
March 16, 1995
March 20, 1995
April 26, 1995
March 18, 1996
August 30, 1 996
End Date
...
...
...
—
...
—
—
April 20, 1995
March 12, 1996
March 21, 1996
—
-*•;,-*;,< >~c Activity S>; ^ .;' 'V;
The site was listed on the NPL.
Action memorandum signed.
On the basis of the results of the Rl, ERRB initiated excavation of
13,000 cubic yards of soil.
EPA Region 4 issued an RFP for thermal desorption of 14,700
cubic yards of soil contaminated with pesticides.
Site mobilization began.
Using a batch of clean soil, the contractor conducted an initial site
demonstration of the low-temperature, vacuum-enhanced thermal
desorption unit.
The LTTDS system was 95 percent completed following
modifications to increase uniform heating of soil and to operate
the system under conditions specified in the contract.
The contractor was given approval by the OSC to conduct a
second site demonstration program for treatment of contaminated
soil by the LTTDS system after the system was modified to
increase heat transfer through the soil.
The contractor completed treatment of 1 05 cubic yards of
contaminated soil before a contract deadline of March 30, 1995.
The contractor conducted full-scale operation of the unit, treating
approximately 13,591 cubic yards of contaminated soil in
warehouses and stockpiled.
The LTTDS equipment was demobilized from the site.
The contractor submitted a final report on the project.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
^M^C D A Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
74
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM;
PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards T61
The cleanup goal for the site was 1.0 mg/kg of
total pesticides (per EPA method 8080 for
organochloride pesticides and polychlorinated
biphenyls [PCB]).
To confirm that the cleanup goals had been
achieved, three independent grab samples were
to be taken each day or from each 500-ton lot.
Each of the three samples was to show
concentrations below 1.0 mg/kg of total
pesticides before the lot was to be considered
treated successfully.
No permit was required to vent the carrier gas
from the treatment system because the
contaminants were expected to have negligible
vapor pressures at 32 °F. An upper limit of
approximately 150 mg/kg for total hydrocarbons
was established for emissions for the carbon
polishing system during full-scale operation.
Table 5 shows the standards the EPA Region 4
Air Compliance Section developed for the
release of the vented carrier gas during the
demonstration. A one-time stack air monitoring
test was performed during the demonstration
program. Three sample trains were obtained
during the stack sampling and analyzed for
volatile organic compounds, total pesticides,
dioxins, furans, particulates, moisture, and
volume of gas.
Table 5: Standards for Vented Air
Emissions for Demonstration [6]
Performance Data and Data Assessment [12.
in
rfr. ^ **. ^ <•
Compound " ;-
, — r «, ^/ >
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Maximum Concentration
<"\ 'J.rtipds'fcm ^,,1
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.25
0.5
0.5
30.0
Table 6 presents results of analyses of soil for the
demonstration program. Results indicated that
the LTTD met the cleanup goal of 1 mg/kg total
pesticides in each of three lots. Data also
showed that concentrations of dioxins or furans
(toxicity equivalent) in the treated soil were less
than in the untreated soil.
The results of the analyses of stack samples from
the demonstration (Table 7) indicated that the
concentrations for pesticides were below the EPA
standards, as specified in Table 5. Dioxin and
furan (toxicity equivalent) were reported at 1.180
x10-9mg/dcsm.
Table 8 shows post-treatment analytical data for
full-scale operations. All samples of treated soil
met the cleanup goal of 1.0 mg/kg total
pesticides. The table shows the concentrations of
total pesticides for the three composite samples
for each of 43 stockpiles.
Emissions from the exhaust stack met the
standards for discharges of total hydrocarbons
from all four treatment chambers. The average
FID reading for total hydrocarbon emissions
ranged from 2.8 mg/kg to 142.7 mg/kg.
A total of 13,591 cubic yards of soils were treated.
Less than one percent of soil required
retreatment.
Performance Data Quality
The quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) program conducted throughout the
remedial action met the requirements of both
EPA and the state of North Carolina. Methods
approved by EPA were used in performing all
monitoring. Results of all laboratory analysis
were submitted with a Level III data quality
package; results of analyses are on file with EPA
Region 4 (Contract No. 68-54-4003). All soil
analysis was performed by laboratories approved
by EPA Region 4 (Kiber Environmental Services
in Atlanta, Georgia, and Southern Testing in
Wilson, North Carolina).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
75
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Table 6: Analytical Results of Soil Analysis for the Demonstration Program [12]
.1^
Total Pesticides1
Dioxins/furan (expressed as
2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalent)2
Semivolatiles
RCRA metals
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
L.63CJ
Lot
1
2
3
Composite sample
from lots 1 , 2, and 3
Composite sample
from lots 1, 2, and 3
Composite sample
from lots 1 , 2, and 3
- -P^trfitnjfBt, "
concentration (mg/kg)
3226.0
57.2
57.7
0.193X10'3
0.571
8.5
11.0
3.1
4.0
Post4R$atin«rtt'; *_ ,^j
< concentration (mg/lcg)
0.0252
0.0292
0.187
0.0085 X10'3
Not available
Not available
Table 7: Results of Analysis of Emissions for the Demonstration Program [12]
III I I III ,l Hill *
ill! jF'njilllPPTO^
Particulate
Dioxin and furan (expressed as
2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalent)
Semivolatiles
VOCs
PCBs
Total Pesticides
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Methoxvchlor
Concentration
(mg/dscm)
0.035 X10'3
1.180X10'9
3.108 x1Q-6
2.202
1.236X1Q-4
6.744 X10'3
0.083 X1Q-3
0.115X1Q-3
< 0.032 X 10'3
0.039 X10'3
0.016 X1Q-3
<0.158x10'3
"' ' Mass Rate-' < ^
, - CW»/hr> '-
0.001
1.40X10'11
1.345X1Q-4
1.125X10'3
8.47 X10'8
1.565X10'6
5.65 X1Q-8
7.90 X10'8
<2.16x1Q-8
2.64 x10'8
1.12X10'8
<10.8x10'8
1 Total pesticides consisted of alpha-BHC, gamma-BHC, dieldrin, endrin, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDT, aldrin, heptachlor
epoxide, 4,4'-DDE, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, and toxaphene. Lot 1 contained 56 mg/kg of 4,4-ODD
and 3,170 mg/kg of toxaphene.
2 Total dioxin concentration was expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalent. The pretreatment concentration
of total dioxin was 0.193 x 10"3 mg/kg. Individual concentrations of dioxin before treatment were 7.14 x 10'd
mg/kg of 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD and 122 x 10'3 mg/kg of 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD. The post-treatment
concentration of total dioxin was 0.0085 x 10'3 mg/kg. Individual concentrations of dioxin after treatment were
0.36 X10'3 mg/kg of 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD and 4.88 x 10'3 mg/kg of 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
_. D . Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
CP/V Technology Innovation Office
76
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONT;.) .
Table 8: Summary Log of Post-Treatment Analyses [13]
\->-^ --.;
Treatment
stockpile
^^ no. -% -i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
• 24
-S. * '- lif -?••*
, <>*<•;• -SW-
- Cteaiftiplf-
„ ..goal :..-
v <{ing/kg)^
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
feonc-ertraMon^r*
- total pesticides ; ,5*3?:
'""TConcentratS^iDf ~
total pesticides
>^^ipo|!,ifl ^
'- ' "'^mpteAs, ;-,
••jc>\c (m§(/Kj!j!> -*'*?
0.095
0.044
0.132
0.103
0.250
0.235
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.006
BQL
0.043
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.017
0.034
0.037
0.012
0.097
0.086
0.035
0.023
0.060
^one0p*ra«loii^
^,c bjf, total, Cwi
pesticides
fin composite1
,; j&m&&9_~^ t
'<; -'(mg/kg)^, _
0.071
0.037
0.149
0.093
0.287
0.156
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.150
BQL
0.051
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.038
0.044
0.071
BQL
0.110
0.032
0.039
0.030
**'* •* -, , 3' *^--'
> Average FID *
* wJadlpffotv,
total
hydrocarbons
.-' '((mg%)';/'
30.9
51.1
53.6
61.2
142.7
54.9
78.5
48.6
16.5
3.2
3.1
13.80
14.30
34.7
8.3
9.8
8.3
7.7
8.3
5.5
6.0
7.0
6.8
6.6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
77
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Table 8 (continued): Summary Log of Post-Treatment Analyses [13]
Treatment
stockpile
: ' HO.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Cleanup
goal
(mg/kg)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Concentration of
total pesticides
in composite1
sample 1
(mg/kg)
0.160
0.063
0.110
0.027
0.131
0.090
0.112
0.102
0.040
BQL
BQL
0.036
0.032
0.765
BQL
BQL
0.030.
BQL
0.039
-rtftt'??
Concentration of--'
total pesticides
in composite1
sample 2
(mg/kg)
0.190
0.072
0.043
0.061
0.075
0.019
0.091
0.034
0.086
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.180
0.998
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.008
Concentration
t '' of total"" ,
pesticides-^
*;'In composite!^
sample 3
(mg/kg)'~->~.
0.170
0.083
0.110
0.172
0.213
0.075
0.081
0.082
0.045
BQL
BQL
BQL
0.080
0.539
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
BQL
r >-" , '''
Average FID_x,
- reading for ;-
, total
hydrocarbons
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
COST OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM i I
Procurement Process
The lead agency for the site was EPA Region 4.
A lump sum contract for $1,247,000 was issued
to McLaren/Hart on September 16,1994 for the
remediation of approximately 14,700 cubic
yards of soil.
Initial oversight was performed by EPA Region
4. After successful completion of the
demonstration program, and at the midpoint of
full-scale treatment operations, EPA Region 4
contracted with the U.S. Coast Guard for daily
oversight.
costs rei
Table 9 presents the costs reported by the vendor
for the thermal desorption application at the PCX
Washington Superfund site. Costs incurred to
implement modifications of the system necessary
to improve the heat transfer rate are presented as
equipment costs.
Table 9: Summary of Costs [12]
Excavation (of soil)
Capital
Mobilization/Demobilization
- Mobilization of equipment
- Site closure and demobilization
Site Work/Preparation
- Site preparation (permits not required)
Equipment and Appurtenances
- Equipment modifications/rentals
Start-up and Testing
- Performance evaluation
Capital Subtotal
Included with capital costs
65,000
20,000
15,000
907,200
30,000
1,037,000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
79
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
COST OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM (CONT.)
Table 9 (continued): Summary of Costs [12]
E:
....i
v
Operation and Maintenance
Direct Labor
- Labor
- Subcontractors
Direct Materials (includes utility and fuel costs)
- Utilities
Health and Safety
- Miscellaneous and health and safety
Analytical (related to technology performance, not
compliance monitoring)
- Treatment verification
O&M Subtotal
Disposal of Residuals
- Waste disposal
Analytical (related to compliance monitoring,
not technology performance)
Total Project Cost
Other
- EPA oversight (estimated at 480 days at $500)
453,000
75,600
150,000
71,000
40,000
789,600
18,000
Included under O&M
1,844,600
240,000
The total reported cost for this application,
without oversight was $1,844,800, including
$1,696,800 for costs directly associated with
treatment. Based on treating 13,591 cubic yards
of soil, this corresponds to a unit cost of $125
per cubic yard.
However, the contract was issued as a fixed-
price (lump sum) contract for $1,247,000. While
the costs incurred by the vendor were
$1,844,800, EPA paid only the $1,247,000
amount. The cost overrun of $597,800 was
borne by the contractor.
The primary reason for the contractor's cost
overruns was the extended treatment cycle
required because of limitations in the
convective heat transfer rate in the treatment
chamber at elevated vacuum pressures. All
costs for modifications of the system to
improve the heat transfer were borne by
McLaren/Hart.
Quality Of Cost Data
Costs included in this report are estimates
provided by McLaren/Hart.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
r- Q A Office °f Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tr /\ Technology Innovation Office
80
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
OBSERVATIONS AND|
LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
McLaren/Hart stated that the initial system
design could have been improved and conduct
of more treatability studies at the start of the
cleanup phase would have resulted in an
improved initial system design that would have
required fewer modifications during full-scale
operation.
The OSC indicated that McLaren/Hart
considered the cost overrun a research and
development cost for optimizing its technology.
Performance Observations and Lessons
The results of the demonstration indicated that
the LTTD system could achieve the specified
cleanup goal of 1.0 mg/kg total pesticides for the
contaminated soil at the PCX site. The results of
a one-time stack test met the EPA Region 4
standards for vented air emissions.
One of the objectives of operating the system
under vacuum was to allow treatment to occur at
lower soil temperatures and under low oxygen
conditions to reduce the potential of formation of
dioxins and furans. Data on stack emissions
from the demonstration showed a very low mass
rate for dioxin and furans of 1.4 x 10"11 Ib/hr.
For the full-scale application, the cleanup goals
were met for the 43 stockpiles of soil treated
(13,591 cubic yards). Less than one percent of
the soil required retreatment.
Other Observations and Lessons
Learned T2. 3.10.13.141
After the application of LTTD at the PCX site,
McLaren/Hart made a number of modifications
to the system. These included:
• Increasing the size of the infrared units from
137,500 BTU/hrto 1.5 million BTU/hr.
• Replacing the thin-walled aluminized steel
heating elements with heavier gauge cast
iron to reduce metal fatigue and to improve
heat transfer rate which allows for shorter
treatment cycles.
• Eliminating the primary condenser in the
recirculation loop. McLaren/Hart
determined that there was no benefit to
removing water and contaminants from the
air stream prior to recirculation to the
treatment chamber. In addition,
McLaren/Hart found that without the
primary condenser, the heat capacity of the
air stream was higher, reducing energy
use.
McLaren/Hart determined that continuous
operation of the IRHV-200 system at elevated
vacuums was not cost-effective. Rather,
significant improvement in treatment cycle
times was achieved by "ramping" to the desired
treatment temperature initially under low-
vacuum conditions (2 to 4 inches Hg). Once
the target treatment temperature is achieved,
full vacuum is applied to the treatment
chamber to attain 50 mm Hg of pressure. This
procedure reduced the overall length of the
treatment cycle.
McLaren/Hart reported using the modified
IRHV-200 system and revised operating
parameters to successfully treat contaminated
soil at other sites, including soils contaminated
with pesticides and mercury.
REFERENCES
1. McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering
Corporation (McLaren/Hart). No date.
Standard Operating Procedures Manual for
Farmer's Cooperative Exchange, Inc.,
Washington, North Carolina.
2. Farmers Cooperative Exchange, Inc.
(PCX). 1995. Pollution Reports (POL
RPT) to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). February 2 through
September 19.
3. PCX. 1995. Weekly POL RPTs to U.S.
Coast Guard. March 23 through
September 13.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA
81
-------
PCX Washington Superfund Site
REFERENCES (CONT.)
4. EPA Region 4. No date. PCX Washington
Site Removal Action, Washington, Beaufort
County, North Carolina.
5. EPA Region 4. 1991. Action Memorandum
Regarding Request for increase in the
Removal Action Ceiling and Exemption from
the $2 Million Limit at the PCX Pesticide
Site, Washington, North Carolina. From
Greer C. Tidwell, Regional Administrator.
To Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste. October 16.
6. EPA Region 4. 1994. Award Contract to
McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering
Corporation. September 16.
7. EPA Region 4. 1994. PCX - Washington,
Washington, Beaufort County, North
Carolina, Superfund Removal Update.
December.
8. McLaren/Hart. 1994. Facsimile Regarding
PCX Mobilization Schedule. From Dan
Sullivan. To Paul Peronard, OSC, EPA
Region 4. November 14.
9. PCX. 1995. Washington Superfund Site
Meeting Notes. November 25.
10. McLaren/Hart. 1997. Memorandum
Regarding Questions about PCX. From Ed
Walsh. To Tom Sinski, Tetra Tech EM Inc.
(Tetra Tech). September 5.
11. McLaren/Hart. 1997. Memorandum
Regarding Questions About PCX. From Ed
Walsh. To Tom Sinski, Tetra Tech. June 9.
12. McLaren/Hart. No date. Cost and
Performance Report, Low-Temperature
Thermal Desorption of Pesticide-Impacted
Soil at the PCX Superfund Site, Washington,
North Carolina.
13. McLaren/Hart. 1997. Memorandum
Regarding PCX Cost and Performance
Report. From Nicole A. Ihlenfeld. To Tom
Sinski, Tetra Tech. June 9.
14. McLaren/Hart, Inc. 1996. Final Report
Farmers Cooperative Exchange,
Washington, North Carolina, EPA Contract
No. 68-54-4003. August 30.
Preparation of the Analysis
This case study was prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was
provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA
Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
82
-------
Thermal Desorption at
the Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant,
Ft. Lewis, Washington
83
-------
Thermal Desorption at
the Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant,
Ft. Lewis, Washington
Site Name:
Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
(SRCPP)
Location:
Ft. Lewis, Washington
Contaminants:
Semivolatile (nonhalogenated) -
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). PAHs were detected
throughout the SRCPP, with
individual PAH concentrations as
high as 410 mg/kg, and typically
not exceeding 2 mg/kg.
Period of Operation:
Status: Complete
Report covers: August through
December 1996
Cleanup Type:
Remedial Action
ROD Date: October 15, 1993
Vendor:
Melody Allen
Dames & Moore, Inc.
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, Washington 98121
(206)728-0744
USAGE Contact:
Bill Goss
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -
Seattle District
CENWS-PM-HW
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-2255
(206) 764-3267
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
- Soil was pre-screened using al
Vz -inch bar screen.
- Pre-screened soil was fed to the
direct-fired, rotary kiln-type
thermal desorption unit.
- Soil was treated at nominally
700-750°F with a throughput of
50-150 tons per hour.
- Off-gas was treated with a
baghouse and recycled to the
desorber or thermally oxidized
and discharged to the
atmosphere.
Cleanup Authority:
Conducted under a federal
facilities agreement among the
EPA, the U.S. Army, Ft. Lewis,
and the State of Washington
Department of Ecology
EPA Point of Contact:
Bob Kievit
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Washington Operations Office
300 Desmend Street, Suite 102
Lacey, Washington 98503
Telephone: (360) 753-9014
Waste Source:
Leaks and spills
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Thermal desorption of a relatively-
large amount of soil contaminated
with PAHs.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 104,336 tons of soil were treated during this application, including
2,200 tons during the field demonstration.
- Soil was classified as various sand and gravel.
- Moisture content was 4%.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup levels for this application were 1 mg/kg for the sum of the concentrations for seven carcinogenic
PAHs (based on the Record of Decision) and 200 mg/kg for both diesel range and oil range fuel hydrocarbons
(based on the Ft. Lewis base management).
- The PAH cleanup level was derived from Washington State Model Toxics Control Act Method B cleanup
levels for ingestion of soil containing carcinogenic PAHs.
- Air emission limits for this application were established by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency as
performance standards limiting the acceptable physical operating parameters for the baghouse and thermal
oxidizer.
84
-------
Thermal Desorption at
the Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant,
Ft. Lewis, Washington (continued)
Results:
- The LTTD system used at the SRCPP achieved soil cleanup levels and air emission standards during the
treatment of the contaminated soil at a desorber temperature generally between 700 and 750°F.
- During the field demonstration test, the system treated soil contaminated with total carcinogenic PAHs at
levels ranging from 0.6 mg/kg to 4.2 mg/kg to less than the 1.0 mg/kg cleanup level established for this
application.
- During full operation of the LTTD system, samples of treated soil had concentrations of total carcinogenic
PAHs ranging from below detection limit to 0.44 mg/kg.
Cost:
- The total cost for this application was approximately $7,100,000. The unit cost for thermal desorption
treatment of contaminated soil was approximately $34 per ton treated, and for the entire RA was
approximately $68 per ton treated.
- The original bid for this application was approximately $3,500,000. There were 23 modifications to the bid,
resulting in a final cost that was approximately twice the original. Modifications included such items as an
increase in the quantity of soil requiring treatment and additional site work.
Description:
The SRCPP occupies approximately 25 acres between Sequalitchew Lake and Hammer Marsh on North Ft.
Lewis, approximately 12 miles south of the city of Tacoma, Washington. It was operated from 1974 to 1981 as
a production and research facility that worked to develop a solvent extraction process to derive petroleum
hydrocarbon products from coal via operations such as heat extraction and thermal cracking. Soil at the SRCPP
was contaminated by leaks and spills of process materials that occurred during operations at the plant.
On the basis of the remedial investigation and pre-remediation surface soil chemistry survey, 17 areas were
identified for excavation of contaminated soil. The thermal desorption system used to treat the soil consisted of
a rotary thermal desorber with a baghouse and a thermal oxidizer for off-gas treatment.
Approximately 104,000 tons of contaminated soil were treated during a field demonstration test and full-scale
operation of the system. Samples of treated soil had total concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs ranging from
below detection limits to 0.44 mg/kg.
85
-------
• Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name:
Location:
Technology:
Type of Action:
ROD Date:
Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant (SRCPP)
Ft. Lewis, Washington
Thermal Desorption
Remedial
October 15, 1993
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION Ml
Period of Operation: August through December 1996 (11)
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: 104,336 tons of
soil were treated during the application, including 2,200 tons during the
field demonstration. (4)
BACKGROUND
Site Background (6, 7):
• Ft. Lewis is located approximately 12 miles south of the city of Tacoma, Washington; the 86,000-
acre fort is divided by I-5 into North Ft. Lewis and main Ft. Lewis. The SRCPP occupies an area
of approximately 25 acres between Sequalitchew Lake and Hamer Marsh on North Ft. Lewis.
• The SRCPP was operated from 1974 to 1981 as a production and research facility that worked to
develop a solvent extraction process to derive petroleum hydrocarbon products from coal.
Operations conducted at the SRCPP included heat extraction and thermal cracking.
• Treated liquid wastes from the process were sent to an unlined wastewater lagoon adjacent to
the site. Surface runoff was collected and discharged at two points, one north and one south of
the facility; the runoff later was redirected and sent to an wastewater treatment plant on site.
• Raw materials used in the process included coal, coal-derived organic liquids, water, and
hydrogen gas; the process also required the use of catalysts.
• By-products of the process included such liquids as phenols, gasoline, kerosene, and fuel oil and
such gases as hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane.
• Soil at the SRCPP was contaminated by leaks and spills of process materials that occurred
during operations at the plant.
SIC Code: 9711 (National Security)
Waste Management Practice that Contributed to Contamination: Leaks and spills
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
86
-------
• Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
Site Investigation (6, 7):
From 1993 to 1994, a remedial investigation (Rl) was performed at the SRCPP to identify
potential effects on soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediments in Sequalitchew Lake and
Hamer Marsh.
Soil contamination was investigated by drilling 23 borings and excavating 20 test pits within and
in the vicinity of the SRCPP. In addition, one hand auger boring was installed in a former
wastewater treatment area. Soil samples were collected from each exploration and analyzed for
volatile organic compounds (VOC), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), and metals. Table
RI-1 summarizes the results of analyses of soil samples collected during the Rl for VOCs,
SVOCs, and metals, in terms of concentration ranges measured and frequencies of detection.
The Rl found that VOCs, SVOCs, and metals characteristic of SRCPP operations (metals from
coal and catalysts) were present in soils at the site. In addition, it concluded that the distribution
of contaminants beneath the SRCPP was highly variable and discontinuous in nature. Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were detected throughout the SRCPP, with average individual
PAH concentrations of PAH typically not exceeding 2 mg/kg.
Table RI-1 shows that the relatively lowest frequency of detection was that for VOCs (detected in
fewer than 20 of 85 samples), while the frequency of detection of PAHs and metals was
relatively greater.
Table RI-1. Results of Analysis of Soil Samples Collected During the Rl (6)
$? * '" v- "' ' " "^' ' > ' '4""~"4'
- .,„ "# C- - Detected JUtaJyle"" , " -^ "T y^tT
VOCs:
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
2~Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
SVOCs-PAHs:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2-MethyInaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
"ConceMratiort" j^
Range (mg/kg)
<0.052-0.30
<0.054-0.3
<0.052-12
<0.052-11
<0.052-0.98
<0.052-0.20
<0.052-0.12
<0.052-5.2
<0.052-34
<0. 18-69
<0. 18-1 .05
<0.18-30
<0.18-12
<0.18-17
<0. 18-5.3
<0. 18-5.7
<0. 18-8.8
<0.18-19
<0.18-1.2
<0.18-99
<0.18-130
<0.18-84
<0. 18-3.3
<0.1 8-270
<0. 18-290
<0. 18-410
<0.18-79
- * '-^ Detection" fx-
1/85
2/85
8/85
1/85
17/85
1/85
2/85
13/85
15/85
30/159
8/159
41/159
42/159
53/159
33/159
48/159
48/159
54/159
14/159
43/159
61/159
37/159
43/159
40/159
32/159
73/159
69/159
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
87
Final
September 23,1998
-------
• Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
Table RI-1. Results of Analysis of Soil Samples Collected During the Rl (6) (continued)
m I'M ' i ii i Detected Analyse
SVOCs-Others:
Aniline
Benzoic Acid
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
4,6-Dinitro-2-methyl phenol
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Phenol
2-Methyl phenol
4-Methyl phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Total Metals:
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
t< Concentration o '
Range (mgy^glT" ' '
0.11 J-1.4
<5.3-0.49 J
0.041 J-19
<0.18-0.15J
<0.1 8-0.52
<0.91-0.95J
<0.18-0.14J
<0.18-1.2
<0. 18-0.41 Ja
<0.1 8-0.575 J
<0.1 8-0.36 J
<0.26-3.25
0.78-12
22-84
<0.26-0.52
<0.26-2.5
3.8-19
8-1700
6200-37000
<1. 54-1 20
110-500
<0.1 0-0.11
6.7-26
<0. 16-0.90
<0.26-1.5
13-220
Frequency of
Detection"
1/159
1/159
8/159
1/159
NR
1/159
1/159
5/159
1/159
7/159
8/159
7/69
69/69
69/69
10/69
5/69
69/69
69/69
69/69
69/69
69/69
1/69
69/69
3/69
11/69
69/69
totes:
J
NR
All measured values are below method reporting limit (MRL)
Frequency of detection is calculated as the number of samples that exhibit detections divided by the total
number of samples taken.
Estimated concentration
Not reported
On the basis of the results of the Rl, 11 zones were identified (Areas A through K), where
contaminated soil was to be excavated. Figure 1 shows those areas. Figure 1 also shows the
originally planned vertical extent of excavation for each of those areas and the planned locations
of confirmatory samples in each of the areas. Sample frequency was based on the results of
pre-excavation sampling used to designate each area as hot, moderate, or cool.
Dames & Moore performed a pre-remediation surface soil chemical survey in September 1995 to
determine whether additional areas of soil contamination were present outside the area covered
by the original soil excavation plan. In total, 173 surficial soil samples were taken from outside
the original soil excavation area. The results of analysis of those samples supported the
Inclusion of six additional areas (Areas L through Q) in the excavation plan. Figure 1 also shows
those areas.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
88
-------
• Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Pfanf
f-'fr'rl
l"*
K
ffuovallon
!?*xcavilJon
3Viuanlioi>
SxifO lociilon (noO Miy 20 !•«
Simpu toullon (mocjtnlo) ntiy 40 IM
S«i|>litocufen|cool)mrycorMl
A-Q
(UsIedlnottlMof ucwaHon)
onsp Ov«iiJi
-------
• Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
Prime Contractor:
Melody Allen
Dames & Moore, Inc.
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 728-0744
Regulatory contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Bob Kievit
Remedial Project Manager
Washington Operations Office
300 Desmend Drive, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503
Telephone: (360) 753-9014
Fax: (360) 753-8080
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Soil (ex situ)
PONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION (6\
• Semivolatiles (Nonhalogenated) - carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAH), metals
• Seven cPAHs and arsenic, were identified as contaminants concern in soil at the SRCPP. The
seven cPAHS were: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.
• The substances were identified as contaminants of concern on the basis of their occurrence and
distribution in the soil and a risk-based screening approach. Under the screening approach, an
estimate was made of the potential that given constituents would affect groundwater adversely if
pavements at the site were removed. The estimate showed that the cPAHs would affect
groundwater adversely, while the arsenic would not. Therefore, although arsenic was identified
as a contaminant of concern, no remedial action for arsenic was found to be necessary.
CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES (9\
1 1 II 1 1 1 1 III "1 » '
1
Contaminant
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bonzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthraene
Indeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Chemical
Formula
C18H12
C20H12
C20H12
C20H12
C18H12
C22H14
C^H^
^ltel4lM&£',<:
" WeigHtt-"'
(g/mole);V^I
228.29
252.32
252.32
252.32
228.29
278.35
276.35
iioliP^wV'
425
480
480
310-312
448
535
530
,JIf a£i^lr-
160.7
168
217
179-179.3
255-256
266
162.5-164
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
90
Final
September 23,1998
-------
•So/vent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
H*"^: .^ ^"^ > paramMei^* ' '* - ,^. j**^-.
Soil Classification
Clay Content/Particle Site Distribution
Soil Plasticity
Moisture Content
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Presence of Alkaline Metal Salts
Lower Explosive Limit
'"'-/' "^C* ] 3 Value r-i 4 -7 •;-,""'*
Various sand and gravel
Information not available
Information not available
4%
Not Detected - 8200 mg/kg
Information not available
Information not available
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Thermal desorption
SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Pre-treatment (soil): screening
Post-treatment (off-gas): baghouse and thermal oxidizer
TIMELINE (8. Ill
ja
1974-1981
SRCPP operated as a production and research facility.
1993-1994
Remedial investigation was conducted.
September 1995
Pre-remediation surface soil chemistry survey was conducted.
May- December 1996
Contaminated soil was excavated and post-excavation sampling conducted.
June 1996
Field demonstration test of size sorting was conducted.
August 5-9, 1996
Equipment startup was performed.
August 12-14,1996
Field demonstration test of soil treatment was performed.
August 15 - December 9, 1996
Full-production thermal desorption treatment was performed.
December 1996 - March 1997
Post-remediation confirmation sampling was conducted.
December 15, 1997
Final Chemical Reports 2 and 3 were submitted.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
91
-------
• Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC AND TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION (8. 11)
Construction
The low-temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) system used in this application was supplied by
Midwest Soil Remediation, of Elgin, Illinois. The system consisted of a rotary thermal desorber
system rated at 64 million British Thermal Units per hour (MM BTU), a baghouse rated at 48,000
actual cubic feet per minute (acfm), and a thermal oxidizer rated at 74 MM BTU/hr.
The LTTD system was a direct-fired unit, in that the rotary kiln heated the soil through direct
contact between the oil-fired burner exhaust and the soil.
Operation
Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the process flow for soil and gases in the LTTD system. As
Figure 2 shows, soil entered the system through a primary feeder (hopper) and passed through a
screen (1 1/2-inches) and a belt weigh scale before it was conveyed to the rotary desorber.
Treated soil went through a thermal dust conductor and soil cooler before exiting through a
stacking conveyor onto piles of soil.
A combustion burner fed hot gases countercurrent to the flow of soil through the desorber.
Gases from the desorber passed through a baghouse and were recycled to the desorber or
thermally oxidized and discharged to the atmosphere through a stack.
Several post-excavation soil samples showed evidence that soil containing cPAHs at
concentrations above cleanup levels were being left in place at the site. However, a sitewide
statistical analysis of the final post-excavation soil samples indicated that the 95 percent upper
confidence limit for the concentration of cPAHs at the bottom of all of the excavations was 0.55
mg/kg, a concentration that was below the 1.0 mg/kg cleanup level. (See the discussion of
cleanup levels under Performance Objectives.)
System Monitoring Requirements (11)
Parameter Monitored
Soil temperature in thermal
desorber
Pressure drop in baghouse
Temperature of the thermal
oxidizer
••- ":;;prepiSllyiW!
Twice per hour
during field
demonstration
test and once per
hour thereafter
700 to 750°F
3.5 - 7.5 inches WC
Higher than 1600°F
Closure
From December 1996 through March 1997, 57 confirmatory surface soil samples were collected
from areas of the site at which site remediation activities had been carried out to confirm that
previously uncontaminated surface soil had not been contaminated during the remedial action
(RA) Several additional contaminated areas were excavated to a depth at which concentrations
of cPAH were found to be below the cleanup standard. Soil excavated at that time was disposed
of at an offsite landfill.
In May June and November 1996 groundwater samples were collected from five monitoring
wells. In all three rounds of sampling, cPAH and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were
measured at levels below detection limits and results for metals were similar to the data
collected during the 1993-94 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). On the basis of
these data, the contractor concluded that groundwater had not been affected by site remediation
activities.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
92
-------
• Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
Semen —eatwelgh
»- / Scale
Figure 2. Low-Temperature Thermal Desorption Process Flow
Diagram (8)
On the basis of the results of post-excavation and closure sampling, the contractor determined
that a total of six areas of soil containing cPAHs at concentrations above cleanup standards
remained in place. Three of those areas were considered to be "ate minimum because of the
extent of excavation performed in each area. The other three areas remained in place at the site
under the direction of the USAGE. The contractor stated that those three areas likely will require
remediation in the future to attain cleanup levels that are appropriate to the residential use
identified in the future land use scenario for the site.
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE (S\
' ^i /- v ,-% f:Parame*er .,* -, . *^"^5
Residence Time
System Throughput
Temperature (of thermal desorber)
Drum Pressure (of thermal desorber)
Baghouse Inlet Temperature
Baghouse Outlet Temperature
Baghouse Pressure Change
Thermal Oxidizer Temperature
-",;.__ **"«;•;, Y *, iliijeP. r"- :« r ~ - „; *»
Information not available
Approximately 50 to 150 tons per hour
Approximately 700 to 750°F
-0.05 to -0.9 inches WC
205 to 323°F
190 to 301 °F
1.6 to 7.6 inches WC
956to1,813°F
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
93
-------
• Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
• Table CL-1 summarizes the cleanup levels established for treated soil in this application, and the
sources of the cleanup levels.
Table CL-1. Summary of Cleanup Levels for Treated Soil at the SRCPP (6)
!' 'j "' Contaminant
Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo{k)fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Fuel hydrocarbons - diesel range
(referred to as TPH-diesel)
Fuel hydrocarbons - oil range
(referred to as TPH-oil)
Cleanup Level (mg/kg) , .
1 .0 for the sum of the
concentrations for all seven cPAHs
200
200
Source of Cleanup Level - ''-*'
Record of Decision (12)
Ft. Lewis base management (6)
Ft. Lewis base management (6)
• The cleanup level identified for this application was the sum of the concentrations for all seven
cPAHs, and were derived from Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method B
cleanup levels for ingestion of soil containing cPAHs. The slope factor and MCL for
benzo(a)pyrene was used in calculating cleanup levels for all cPAHs; consequently, cleanup
levels are identical for all of cPAHs are the same. The Method B cleanup level represents a
one-in-one million risk for each cPAH, producing an aggregate risk of seven in one million. (10)
Air emission limits for this application were established by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency (PSAPCA). The PSAPCA identified the following limits (8):
Pressure drop across baghouse: 3.5 to 7.5 inches WC
Minimum temperature in thermal oxidizer: 1,600°F
- Maximum exhaust stack opacity: 5 percent
Maximum exhaust stack emissions of paniculate matter: 0.02 grains per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf)
Maximum exhaust stack emissions of cPAHs: 0.04 pounds per hour
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA (8.11 \
• For the field demonstration test, treatment was conducted for three days, with each day
consisting of one eight-hour shift. Composite samples were collected as soil was fed into the
LTTD unit and as soil exited from the LTTD unit. Each composite sample consisted of individual
grab samples taken at approximately one-half hour intervals; collection of the exit samples
began one-half hour later than collection of feed samples. Samples were composited at the one-
hour, four-hour, and eight-hour intervals. In addition, two field duplicate samples were collected
for quality control purposes.
• Table TPD-1 summarizes the results of analysis of the samples collected during the field
demonstration test, in concentrations of individual cPAHs and total concentrations of cPAHs.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
94
-------
-Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
Table TPD-1. Treatment Performance Data from Field Demonstration Test - mg/kg (8)
::_ v^r:-- g=5«-
\'>. ; * ;- "-"' " -X" *- *. t?C. 'J
*£* ;«,: *>yl, %i ,," .
SamplVlD -^ Uaboratorf ID^^ C&iiecteti
FFDT11 58664-01 8/12/96
FFDT41 58664-02 8/12/96
FFDT81 58664-03 8/12/96
EXFDT11 58664-04 8/12/96
EXFDT112 58664-05 8/12/96
EXFDT41 58664-06 8/12/96
EXFDT81 58664-07 8/12/96
FFDT12 58696-01 8/13/96
FFDT42 58696-02 8/13/96
FFDT82 58696-03 8/13/96
EXFDT12 58696-04 8/13/96
EXFDT42 58696-05 8/13/96
EXFDT82 58696-06 8/13/96
FFDT13 58726-01 8/14/96
FFDT43 58726-02 8/14/96
FFDT83 58726-03 8/14/96
EXFDT13 58726-04 8/14/96
EXFDT43 58726-05 8/14/96
EXFDT83 58726-06 8/14/96
EXFDT832 58726-07 8/14/96
i'.Y--
.^_ £ ^
V-, - *S*
f"*'.
„",
'*»-;•» - ^
0.62
0.52
0.56
0.027 J
0.034 J
0.038
0.059
0.43
1.20
0.47
0.035 U
0.033 J
0.028 J
0.13
0.31
0.36
0.017 J
0.032 J
0.025 J
0.030 J
: |,'-
"'•j.v"
•*•- --g «-ij
-Jiiv
^* ^
,, -<- ^ /;
0.59
0.64
0.63
0.042
0.066
0.059
0.083
0.45
0.67
0.40
0.035 U
0.050
0.037
0.13
0.29
0.33
0.033 U
0.037
0.035 U
0.032 J
Tsr*
.i fV-i
-.<• 5S-^X "
;«|| ;":
VI. ~;
,4. ', ".
•^r '-^
0.13
0.034 U
0.068
0.033 U
0.035 U
0.035 U
0.035 U
0.10
0.21
0.065
0.035 U
0.036 U
0.034 U
0.041
0.11
0.064
0.033 U
0.034 U
0.035 U
0.034 U
TS' v
« "t-
1 f ."*:
s •? ^
,,,r, x
£ r/ "
0.42
0.48
0.54
0.022 J
0.035
0.032 J
0.047
0.42
0.55
0.320
0.035 U
0.027 J
0.020 J
0.099
0.26
0.25
0.033 U
0.034 U
0.035 U
0.034 U
; ^ ^
%!-•
ijk ^
"'$-*
^
0.83
0.61
0.67
0.043
0.063
0.048
0.074
0.54
1.20
0.54
0.024 J
0.061
0.029 J
0.17
0.41
0.47
0.026 J
0.046
0.037
0.043
-- , f- ~ ',
I* 4
k §;-^
"il-t
-«? - ; "
V ^ H
0.035 U
0.034 U
0.035 U
0.033 U
0.035 U
0.035 U
0.035 U
0.032J
0.040
0.029 J
0.035 U
0.036 U
0.034 U
0.035 U
0.034 U
0.034 U
0.033 U
0.034 U
0.035 U
0.034 U
*"* "%* \
"-l^
-I-*
;rf« v
^ \ «""'%
^ -«* ^ . ,
0.17
0.21
0.23
0.033 U
0.035 U
0.035 U
0.035 U
0.14
0.28
0.15
0.035 U
0.036 U
0.034 U
0.029 J
0.097
0.099
0.033 U
0.034 U
0.035 U
0.034 U
~ "J^",-
^ <,--'*
--,
Totar
CPAH,
1.0
~%Z ,
2.8
2.5
2.7
0.13
0.20
0.18
0.26
2.1
4.2
2.0
0.024
0.17
0.11
0.60
1.5
1.6
0.043
0.12
0.062
0.11
J = Analyte was analyzed for and positively identified, but the associated numerical value is an estimated quantity.
U = Analyte was analyzed for but not detected.
Sample EXFDT112 is the field duplicate of EXFDT11. Sample EXFDT832 is the field duplicate of EXFDT83.
Sample Prefixes: FFDT - Feed sample from the field demonstration test collected before soil entered the LTTD unit.
EXFDT - Exit sample from the field demonstration test of soil leaving the LTTD.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
95
-------
Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
• As Table TPD-1 shows, feed samples from the field demonstration test had total concentrations
of cPAHs ranging from 0.6 mg/kg to 4.2 mg/kg, with eight of nine samples measured at a
concentration higher than 1.0 mg/kg. Exit samples had total concentrations of cPAHs ranging
from 0.024 mg/kg to 0.26 mg/kg, less than the 1.0 mg/kg cleanup level established for this
application. The average concentration of total cPAH in the feed samples was 2.2 mg/kg, and
the average in the exit samples was 0.13 mg/kg.
• The field demonstration test determined that a screen size of one and one-half inches was the
most appropriate screen size for sorting coarse material (oversize) from soil to be treated. That
screen size was found to produce oversize material that had concentration of cPAHs of less than
1.0 mg/kg, and a concentration of TPH of less than 200 mg/kg.
• Each day during full production, a composite of three discrete soil samples from the treated soil
exiting the cooler was taken and analyzed for cPAHs. No pre-treatment samples of the soil were
taken during full production. According to the contractor's report, the results of analysis of the
treated soil indicated that the treated soil had concentrations of cPAHs below the 1.0 mg/kg
cleanup level. This was based on an analysis of 93 sample of tested soil. The results ranged
from below detection limits to 0.44 mg/kg.
• No data from analyses of the treated soil for concentrations of fuel hydrocarbons were available.
• The air emissions testing during the operation test of the LTTD systems showed that average
emissions of particulate matter were 0.017 gr/dscf, and that no emissions of cPAHs were
detected at or above the specified reporting limits, corresponding to a calculated emission rate of
less than 0.0003 pounds per hour. In addition, the opacity measured during the test was zero
percent. The system generally met the requirements of PSAPCA for pressure drop across the
baghouse and for minimum temperature in the thermal oxidizer. According to the contractor, the
air emission results met the requirements established by PSAPCA for this application.
Material Balance: No quantitative material balance was completed for this application because of the
limited amount of matched performance data on untreated and treated soil.
Links to Operating Conditions: The LTTD system was found to meet the cleanup levels established
for this application, operating at a temperature of 700 to 750°F with a system throughput of 50 to 150
tons/hr.
Removal Efficiencies: An average removal efficiency of 94 percent for cPAHs was calculated for the
field demonstration test phase of this application on the bases of an average concentration of cPAHs in
the feed samples of 2.2 mg/kg and an average in the exit samples of 0.13 mg/kg.
PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY (6,7,8,11)
• The contract specifications for this application required the use of Environmental Protection
Agency SW-846 Method 8270 for analysis of SVOCs in soil. That method uses gas
chromatography and mass spectroscopy (GC/MS). The contract required GC/MS for
quantification of cPAHs and required that measured values be based on a 95 percent upper
confidence limit on the mean. Post-excavation sampling indicated that the 95 percent upper
confidence limit was 0.55 mg/kg.
• The contract required that a minimum detection limit of 0.1 mg/kg be achieved for each of the
cPAHs that were identified as contaminants of concern and that the contractor refine the
analytical methodology as needed to meet the data quality objectives for this application. This
criterion was satisfied, except in the case of some samples submitted to the QA laboratory.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
96
-------
Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
Fuel hydrocarbons were analyzed by the Washington State Department of Ecology Diesel
Method Modified, rather than the EPA SW-846 Method 8015 (extended), with a minimum
detection limit of 50 mg/kg.
• Analytical laboratories used during this application were: Pace Laboratory; Analytical Resources,
Inc. (ARI); Sound Analytical Services, Inc.; and AMTest Air Quality LLC.
Air emission source testing included collection of samples at sample port and traverse point
locations (EPA Test Method 1) and testing for velocity and volumetric flow rate (EPA Test
Method 2); molecular weight (fixed gas composition)(EPA Test Method 3); stack gas moisture
(EPA Test Method 4); particulate emissions (EPA Test Method 5); sulfur dioxide (EPA Test
Method 6C); nitrogen oxides (EPA Test Method 7E); opacity (EPA Test Method 9); and total
hydrocarbons and VOCs (EPA Test Method 25A). Air emissions of PAHs were analyzed by EPA
SW-846 Method 0010.
• QA/QC procedures used in this application included review of holding times and use of blanks,
surrogates, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates, field duplicates, laboratory control samples,
field duplicate samples, and split samples.
• According to the contractor's report, procedures for monitoring dust, organic vapor, and noise set
forth in the health and safety plan were followed.
TREATMENT PLAN 17. 8.111
• The ROD for this application specified that contaminated soil at the site would be treated with
thermal desorption or soil washing. Thermal desorption was selected for this application, on the
bases of the results of a treatability study.
• The prime contractor for this application developed a remedial action management plan (RAMP)
in August 1995. The RAMP described health and safety requirements and included the
contractor's quality control plan, chemical data management plan, the environmental protection
and stormwater plan, the soil treatment plan, the materials handling plan, the waste management
plan, the demolition and decontamination plan, and the site demobilization and restoration plan.
• This application was completed in three phases: (1) pre-remediation activities, (2) remediation
at full production, and (3) confirmation of closure. The pre-remediation phase included a
surface-soil chemical survey and a field demonstration test of thermal desorption.. The full-
production phase included thermal desorption treatment of the majority of soil, as well as
continued sampling and testing of groundwater and storm water; aboveground demolition; and
disposal of investigation-derived wastes and the wastes that were sent off site. The confirmation
of closure phase included a return visit to the site to identify areas that might have remained
contaminated with cPAHs.
• The field demonstration test involved identifying the appropriate screen size for sorting coarse
material (oversize) from the soil to be treated, and treating "highly contaminated" (soil known
through sampling to contain high concentrations of cPAHs and TPH), as well as collecting and
analyzing samples of soil from the feed point and exit point of the LTTD unit and associated
testing for stack emissions.
• Before the field demonstration test was conducted, the equipment was started so that the
system's mechanical components could be adjusted and the operating parameters set.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
97
-------
Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
PROCUREMEMTPROCESS (3, 7)
• USAGE, through its Seattle, Washington District office, administered the remediation activities at
the SRCPP. Dames & Moore was selected as the prime contractor for this activity under
USAGE Contract No. DACA67-95-C-0062.
• USAGE received seven bids for this application, ranging in cost from $3,513,349 to $5,426,030.
The Dames & Moore bid was the lowest of the seven.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST <6\
• The original bid submitted by Dames & Moore for this application was $3,513,349 and included
the first six items (with subitems) shown in Table C-1. As Table C-1 shows, the cost of thermal
desorption treatment of the first 37,000 tons of soil was projected to be $1,261,700, or $34.10 per
ton of soil treated.
• For this application, 23 modifications were identified, covering such items as an increase in the
quantity of additional soil treated from 15,000 to 67,336 tons; excavation of contaminated soil
from the area in which the LTTD unit was to be set up; and demolition of a railroad spur at that
location. To reflect the 23 modifications, the cost for this contract was revised to a total cost of
$7,100,467.
Table C-1. Summary of Original Bid and Actual Costs (4, 6)
:";iTEM
NO.
0001
0002
0002A
0002B
0003
0003A
0003B
0004
0005
0005A
0005B
0006
DESCRIPTION
Design and Management Plan and
Reporting
Excavation and Size Separation of Soil
Excavation of first 40,000 Cubic Yards
(yd3)
Excavation of next 10,000 Cubic Yards
(yd3)
Treatment of Contaminated Soil
Treatment of first 37,000 Tons
Treatment of next 15,000 Tons
Soil Excavation and Stockpiling
Field and Laboratory Chemical And
Analytical Testing of Soils
First 1 ,200 tests
Next 300 tests
Demolition and Site Work
QUANTITY
1
° .--"-: '.-.
40,000
10,000
•-.<.:.• •: - -• -
37,000
15,000
4,000
<- •
1,200
300
1
UNIT
Job
(yd3)
(yd3)
tons
tons
(yd3)
<,;
each
each
Job
TOTAL
VUNIT pj5jc|'($K
Lump Sum
>%> ""_« £
7.08
7.08
« ,
34.10
33.72
3.24
"f",
, ^ '£
145.64
,145.64
Lump Sum
/ "•??
AMOUNT (%
196,670
*•*
283,200
70,800
, "''
1,261,700
505,800
12,960
A -^ ^ *
174,768
43,692
963,759
$3,513,349
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
98
Final
September 23,1998
-------
Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
As of August 12,1998, approved payment of $7,094,767.23 in costs for this application,
including $3,532,270 for thermal desorption treatment of 104,336 tons of soil. All items are paid
in full.
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
The remedial activity at the SRCPP was conducted under a federal facilities agreement (FFA)
among EPA, the U.S. Army, Ft. Lewis, and the State of Washington Department of Ecology.
The ROD prepared for this application describes requirements for excavation and remediation of
contaminated soil, monitoring of the groundwater of the upper aquifer, and maintenance of
institutional controls at the SRCPP. (6,7,12)
Under the FFA, the U.S. Army was designated the lead agency, with approval by EPA and
concurrence by the state. (12)
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• The total cost for this application was approximately $7,100,000. The unit cost for thermal
desorption treatment of contaminated soil was approximately $34 per ton treated, and for the
entire RA was approximately $68 per ton treated.
• The original bid for this application was approximately $3,500,000. There were 23 modifications
to the bid, resulting in a final cost that was approximately twice the original. Modifications
included such items as an increase in the quantity of soil requiring treatment and additional site
work.
PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The LTTD system used at the SRCPP achieved soil cleanup levels and air emission standards
during the treatment of approximately 104,000 tons of contaminated soil from August through
December 1996 at a desorber temperature generally between 700 and 750 °F.
• During the field demonstration test, the system treated soil contaminated with total cPAHs at
levels ranging from 0.6 mg/kg to 4.2 mg/kg to less than the 1.0 mg/kg cleanup level established
for this application. The average concentration in the feed samples was 2.2 mg/kg, and the
average in the exit samples was 0.1 S mg/kg.
• During full operation of the LTTD system, samples of treated soil had total concentrations of
cPAHs ranging from below detection limit to 0.44 mg/kg.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• The field demonstration test determined that a screen size of one and one-half inches was the
most appropriate screen size for sorting coarse material (oversize) from the soil to be treated.
That screen size was found to produce oversize material that had a concentration of cPAHs of
less than 1.0 mg/kg and a concentration of TPH of less than 200 mg/kg.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
99
-------
Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant
REFERENCES
1. Project summary sheet, prepared by USACE-Omaha, July 1997.
2. Treatability Study Engineering Report, Solvent-Refined Coal Pilot Plant, Fort Lewis Military
Reservation, Fort Lewis, Washington, Volume III, Appendices J through M, Hart Crowser, for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACA67-93-D-1004, Delivery Order No. 18,
October4, 1994, J-3933-18.
3. Abstract of Offers - Construction, Solicitation Number DACA67-95-B-0047, May 2,1995.
4. Payment Estimate - Contract Performance, Contract No. DACA67-95-C-0062, USACE-Seattle
District, May 23,1997.
5. USAGE, Cost Estimate, Project SRCPPR: SRCPP Soil Remediation, DACA67-95-R-0015,
March 3,1995.
6. USAGE Contract Specifications, Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant (SRCPP) Soil Remediation,
Fort Lewis, WA, DACA67-95-C-0062, May 2,1995 (and subsequent modifications).
7. Final Remedial Action Management Plan, Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant Soil Remediation,
Fort Lewis, Washington, Dames & Moore, Inc., for USAGE Contract #DACA67-95-C-0062,
Novembers, 1995.
8. Draft Chemical Report 1, Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant Soil Remediation, Fort Lewis,
Washington, Dames & Moore, Inc., for USAGE Contract #DACA67-95-C-0062, November 8,
1996.
9. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 1st Student Edition, CRC Press, 1988.
10. Final Feasibility Study Report, Landfill 4 and Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant, Fort Lewis,
Washington, Applied Geotechnology, for USACE-Seattle District, May 1993.
11. Final Chemical Reports 2 and 3, Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant, Fort Lewis, Washington,
Dames & Moore, Inc., for USAGE Contract #DACA67-95-C-0062, December 15, 1997.
12. Record of Decision for Landfill 4 and the Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant, Fort Lewis Military
Reservation, Washington, October 15,1993.
13. Record of Telephone Conversation with Kira Lynch, USAGE, Berman, Michael H., September
14,1998.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under USAGE Contract No. DACA45-96-
D-0016, Delivery Order No. 12. Assistance was provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Radian
International LLC.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
Final
September 23,1998
100
-------
Thermal Desorption at Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2
Jacksonville, Florida
101
-------
Thermal Desorption at Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2
Jacksonville, Florida
Site Name:
Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site
17.0U2
Location:
Jacksonville, Florida
Contaminants:
Petroleum products and
chlorinated solvents
-BTEX
- 1,2-dichlorobenzene as high as
18 mg/kg
- Napthalene as high as 19 mg/kg
- 2-methylnapthalene as high as 47
mg/kg
Period of Operation:
June 19 to September 25, 1995
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor:
Dustcoating, Inc.
Maple Plain, Minnesota
Navy Point of Contact:
Mark Davidson
Southern Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command
North Charleston, SC 29419-9010
(843) 820-5526
Technology:
Thermal Desorption:
- Mobile propane-fired Gencor
Model 232 rotary drum dryer
modified to thermally process
contaminated soil
- 60-inch-diameter-by-20-foot-
long rotary dryer with burner
(direct-fired), a primary collector
baghquse, and an afterburner
system
- Nominal system throughput - 25-
50 tons/hour; actual system
throughput - 17 tons/hour.
- Soil temperature - 825 °F
- Average residence time - 3.5
minutes
- Afterburner temperature -
1,500°F with a retention time of
approximately two seconds
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Interim ROD dated September
30, 1994
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Debbie Vaughn-Wright
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
(404) 562-8539
Waste Source: Disposal of waste
fuel and oil
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil-11,768 tons
Purpose/Significance of
Application: .Mobile thermal
desorption unit used to treat soil
contaminated with fuel and
solvents
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH) level of 50 mg/kg provided that total polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) were less than 1 mg/kg and total volatile organic hydrocarbons were less than 50 mg/kg.
- Particulate emissions of 0.04 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)
Results:
- 110 of 115 post-treatment samples met the cleanup goal of 50 mg/kg TRPH after one pass.
- For the five post-treatment samples that did not meet the cleanup goal, the five batches of soil (724.5 tons, or
approximately 6% of the total) were re-treated. All samples of the re-treated soil met the cleanup goals.
102
-------
Thermal Desorption at Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2
Jacksonville, Florida (continued)
Cost:
- The total cost for the application was $1,946,122.
- This represents a unit cost of $165 per ton of soil treated for treatment of 11,768 tons of contaminated soil.
Description:
Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Field, established in 1941, provides facilities, services, and material support for
the operation and maintenance of naval weapons, aircraft, and other units of the operating forces. NAS Cecil
Field includes several operable units (OU) and contaminated sites, including Site 17 in OU2. Site 17 reportedly
was used for two or three years during the late 1960s and early 1970s for the disposal of waste fuel and oil,
possibly including oil contaminated with solvents and paints. Soil at Site 17 was found to be contaminated with
petroleum products and chlorinated solvents. In September 1994, EPA signed an interim Record of Decision
(ROD) for Site 17 specifying that soil be excavated and treated by thermal desorption.
The thermal desorption unit used at Site 17 was a mobile unit provided by Dustcoating, Inc. of Maple Plain,
Minnesota. The unit, a propane-fired Gencor Model 232 rotary drum dryer modified to thermally process
contaminated soil, consisted of a 60-inch-diameter-by-20-foot-long rotary dryer with burner (direct-fired), a
primary collector baghouse, and an afterburner system. The nominal system throughput for this unit was 25-50
tons/hour; the actual system throughput during this application was 17 tons/hour. The desorber treated
contaminated soil at approximately 825°F with an average residence time of 3.5 minutes. An afterburner
operated at a temperature of at least 1,500°F with a retention time of approximately two seconds to destroy
organic compounds in the off-gas. A total of 115 post-treatment soil samples were collected and analyzed. All
but five of these samples met the cleanup goal after the first pass. The five samples were retreated and all met
the cleanup goal. According to the EPA RPM, no specific operational problems were identified as causing the
failure to meet the cleanup goals on the first pass; however, the contractor suspects that this was caused by
elevated levels of moisture in the soil.
103
-------
Cost and Performance Summary Report:
Thermal Desorption at Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2
Jacksonville, Florida
Summary Information [1,2,4,61
Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Field, established in 1941,
provides facilities, services, and material support for the
operation and maintenance of naval weapons, aircraft, and
other units of the operating forces. NAS Cecil Field's
responsibilities have included operation of fuel storage facilities,
performance of aircraft maintenance, maintenance and
operation of engine repair facilities and test cells for turbojet
engines, and support for special weapons systems. NAS Cecil
Field, recently identified for closure under the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program, is located 14 miles
southwest of Jacksonville, Florida, primarily in Duval County.
NAS Cecil Field includes several operable units (OU) and
contaminated sites, including Site 17 in OU 2. Site 17
reportedly was used for two or three years during the late 1960s
and early 1970s for the disposal of waste fuel and oil, possibly
including oil contaminated with solvents and paints. The
wastes were transported to the site in small tank trucks,
bowsers, and 55-gallon drums, and emptied into a pit
approximately 50 feet in diameter and 3 to 4 feet deep. While
in the pit, the wastes either evaporated or percolated into the
ground.
Soil at Site 17 was found to be contaminated with petroleum
products and chlorinated solvents. Specific contaminants
identified in the soil at Site 17 included benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and methylene chloride.
During a 1991 remedial investigation, methylene chloride was
detected in soil borings at concentrations as high as 58
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). During a 1995 feasibility
study, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatiles, and
inorganics were detected in both surface and subsurface soil
samples. In subsurface soil samples, BTEX constituents were
detected as high as 14 mg/kg for xylenes. In addition, a number
of semivolatiles were detected in the subsurface, including 1,2-
dichlorobenzene as high as 18 mg/kg, napthalene as high as 19
mg/kg, and 2-methylnapthalene as high as 47 mg/kg.
In September 1994, EPA signed an interim Record of Decision
(ROD) for Site 17. The ROD specified that soil at Site 17 be
excavated and treated by thermal desorption.
A total of 11,768 tons of contaminated soil was excavated from
Site 17 and treated on site by a thermal desorption system. The
period of performance for the thermal desorption treatment was
June 19 to September 25, 1995. During that three-month period,
the desorber had a cumulative run time of approximately 800
hours.
CERCLIS ID Number: FL5170022474
Lead: Southern Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command
Timeline [21
September 30, 1994
January 1, 1995
April 13, 1995
June 19 - September 25, 1995
October 23, 1995
October 27, 1995
Interim ROD signed
Contractor mobilizes to the
site
Contractor begins to excavate
and stockpile contaminated
soil
Thermal desorption system
operated
Contractor hydromulches
Site 17
Final site inspection
conducted
Factors That Affected Cost or Performance of Treatment F4,61
Listed below are the key matrix characteristics for this
technology and the values measured for each during site
characterization.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
104
-------
•Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Operable Unit 2
Matrix Characteristics
Soil Classification:
Clay Content and/or
Particle Size Distribution:
Moisture Content:
pH:
Oil and Grease:
Bulk Density:
Lower Explosive Limit:
Sand and silty sand
2% medium sand, 88% fine
sand, 10% silt and clay (typical
site soils)
20% (average natural moisture
content)
Not available
Not available
90 lbs/ft3 for dry site soils
Not available
Treatment Technology Description Fl. 2,61
The thermal desorption unit used at Site 17 was a mobile unit
provided by Dustcoating, Inc. of Maple Plain, Minnesota. The
unit, a propane-fired Gencor Model 232 rotary drum dryer
modified to thermally process contaminated soil, was mounted
on two trailers. The unit consisted of a 60-inch-diameter-by-20-
foot-long rotary dryer with burner (direct-fired), a primary
collector baghouse, and an afterburner system. The nominal
system throughput for this unit was 25-50 tons/hour; the actual
system throughput during this application was 17 tons/hour.
The desorber treated contaminated soil at approximately 825 °F
with an average residence time of 3.5 minutes. An afterburner
operated at a temperature of at least 1,500°F with a retention
time of approximately two seconds to destroy organic
compounds in the off-gas.
Before treatment in the desorber, soil was excavated from the
disposal pit from four to eight feet below ground surface and
stockpiled on a 30-millimeter (mil) high-density polyethylene
(HOPE) liner. The liner was configured so that contaminated
water excavated with the soil, including entrained groundwater,
would flow back into the pit at Site 17, thereby reducing the
moisture content in the soil before the soil was transferred to the
desorber unit. The stockpiled soil also was covered with a
plastic liner to protect the soil from rainfall and to direct storm
water into the pit at Site 17. The water that collected in the pit
at Site 17 was transported through a pipe to the wastewater
treatment facility (WWTF) at Cecil Field for treatment.
After treatment, the excavation at Site 17 was backfilled with
both treated and clean soil, and the site was graded for proper
drainage. At the completion of grading, all areas that had been
disturbed were re-seeded. Solid wastes generated as part of the
application, such as personal protective equipment (PPE), plastic
sheeting material, and construction material and debris, were
placed in roll-off bins and transported off site to a landfill
permitted under RCRA Subtitle D. A final site inspection was
conducted on October 27, 1995.
Listed below are the key operating parameters for this technology
and the values measured for each.
Operating Parameters
Residence Time:
System Throughput:
Soil Temperature:
3.5 minutes
17 tons/hour
825 °F
Performance Information F2.3.61
Operation of the thermal desorption unit was permitted by the
state of Florida under Permit No. 31-16-0345-01. The permit
included conditions for particulate emissions of 0.04 grains per
dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf). In addition, the Florida
Administrative Code (FAC) required the collection and analysis
of samples of soil collected before treatment and samples of soil
collected after treatment, with analysis of those samples for total
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), volatile organic
halocarbons (VOH), volatile organic aromatic compounds, and
total metals. Analyses of metals were required to comply with
the FAC concentration limits for Soil Thermal Treatment
Facilities.
According to the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM), the
cleanup goal identified for soil at Site 17 was a TRPH level of 50
mg/kg provided that total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) were less than 1 mg/kg and total VOHs were less than 50
mg/kg.
At Site 17, 21 pre-treatment soil samples from the soil stockpiles
and 115 post-treatment soil samples were collected and analyzed.
However, results from specific samples were not provided.
Throughout the system operation, post-treatment soil samples
were collected hourly and composited over an eight-operational-
hour (maximum) time interval. Five post-treatment samples did
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
105
-------
• Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Operable Unit 2
not meet the cleanup goal of 50 mg/kg TRPH. As a result, five
batches of soil (724.5 tons, or approximately 6% of the total)
required re-treatment. All samples of the re-treated soil met the
cleanup goals. According to the EPA RPM, no specific
operational problems were identified as causing the failure to
meet the cleanup goals on the first pass; however, the contractor
suspects that this was caused by elevated levels of moisture in
the soil.
A comparison of material input and output from the desorber
was not completed because matched untreated/treated soil
samples were not collected. Untreated (i.e., before-treatment)
samples were collected from soil stockpiles and treated (i.e.,
post-treatment) samples were composited from the material
exiting the desorber.
The thermal desorption unit was tested for particulate emissions
on July 12,1995 (3 weeks after startup), and was found to have
emissions greater than the permitted limit of 0.04 gr/dscf (the
actual emission level was not provided). This circumstance was
believed to be the result of a pinhole leak in one of the bags in
the primary collector baghouse. The bag was repaired, and
when the unit was tested again on August 3, 1995, it met the
emission limit, with an actual emission of 0.005 gr/dscf.
Performance Data Quality [21
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities for this
application included use of EPA-approved test methods.
Methods 8020,9073, and 8010 were used for analysis of pre-
burn and post-burn samples. The Response Action Contract
(RAC) contractor noted that the subcontract for the laboratory
that performed analyses at the beginning of this application,
Geological Environmental and Oceanographic Services, Inc.
(GEOS), was terminated because of QA problems (these
problems were not specified). Environmental Conservation
Laboratories performed the remainder of the analyses; no
problems were noted about the work performed by this
organization.
Cost Information F2.61
The original award cost for remedial activities at Site 17 was
$1,539,689. However, four changes in scope increased the total
cost to $1,946,122. The changes covered activities associated
with site work and preparation, and included relocation of the
thermal desorption unit at Cecil Field; addition of a water
pipeline to transport water to the Cecil Field WWTF; addition
of water filtration equipment; and addition of other water
management equipment. No additional detail was provided on
the specific elements included under equipment and
appurtenances.
The Navy requested relocation of the unit to Site 3, which
required clearing, grading, installation of a water disposal system
and a liner. A water pipeline was installed from Site 3 to the
WWTF to allow storm water overflow from Site 3 to be pumped
to the WWTF. A second pipeline was added to allow clean water
from the WWTF to be pumped to Site 3. Both pipelines were 3-
inch HOPE fusion-welded pipes. Water filtration equipment,
including in-line sand filters, a bag filter, a cyclone, and larger
capacity pumps were installed to control Total Suspended Solids
(TSS). Increased quantities of storm water and groundwater
from Site 3 and Site 17 had resulted in TSS concentrations above
acceptable levels at the WWTF. Additional water management
equipment was required to handle increased storm water runoff
and groundwater levels that resulted from excessive
precipitation. Temporary measures included installation of
ERAC tanks for Site 17 water storage, and construction of a
berm around the Site 17 excavation perimeter to contain storm
water. As a result of a hurricane threat, the Site 17 excavation
was backfilled on an expedited and emergency overtime basis.
As shown below, a detailed breakdown of project costs was not
provided. For example, information was not provided on the
portion of the total project cost that was expended for excavation
of soil or disposal of treatment residuals. The total cost of
$1,946,122 represents a unit cost of $165 per ton of soil treated
for treatment of 11,768 tons of contaminated soil at Site 17.
In addition, the vendor of the thermal desorption treatment for
this application has filed a lawsuit seeking to recover an
additional $500,000 in costs allegedly resulting from
unanticipated down time that was not caused by the treatment
vendor. No additional information on the status of the lawsuit
was provided.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
106
-------
•Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Operable Unit 2
Actual Project Costs
Excavation (of soil)
Capital
Site Work and Preparation
- Locate thermal unit to Site 3
- Pipeline, Site 3 to WWTF
- Water filtration equipment
- Water management - FRAC tanks,
pipeline from Site 17 to Site 3 sump,
berm around Site 17,
backfill/hurricane preparation
Equipment and Appurtenances
Capital Subtotal
Operation & Maintenance
Disposal of Residuals
Analytical (related to compliance
monitoring, not technology
performance)
Total Project Cost
Included in
total
150,000
15,127
11,526
229,780
1,539,689
1,946,122
Included with
capital
Included with
capital
0
1,946,122
Observations and Lessons Learned Fl. 2. 61
Several innovations were incorporated into this remedial
activity. According to the RAC contractor (Bechtel
Environmental, Inc.), 24-hour operations were conducted to
help meet tight schedules, an innovative design for the stockpile
area was used to provide cost savings, and Bechtel used one of
its subsidiaries (Bechtel Leasing, Inc.) to provide much of the
equipment to the Navy at a lower cost than otherwise would
have been available. In addition, Bechtel worked with the Navy
to minimize disturbance of wetlands adjacent to the remediated
area, and to ensure that the remedial work did not interfere with
flight operations at the base.
The effort involved in managing storm water at the site was
more extensive than had been estimated. Several measures
(discussed in the cost section) were taken to control storm
water, resulting in an increase in costs of about $250,000. The
Navy decided before September 1994 that a storm water
management plan was not necessary for the site. During the
remedial activity, storm water collected within the bermed area
at Site 17 and created a "lake" at the excavation. According to
personnel at Cecil Field and at Bechtel, that condition could have
been avoided if treated soil had been used as backfill in the
excavation at Site 17 as soon as the soil had been determined
acceptable for use as backfill. In addition, on two occasions,
storm water discharges from Site 17 to the NAS Cecil Field
WWTP caused the WWTP to exceed its limits under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for
biochemical oxygen demand.
According to the EPA RPM, conducting operations 24-hours a
day was the most efficient way to operate since it takes
approximately four hours to bring the unit up to operating
temperature from a cold start.
The vendor of the thermal desorption technology mobilized on
this site before completing all necessary paperwork and permits
and notifications required by the state of Florida. In addition, in
its first stack test, the desorption unit failed to meet the
particulate limit established for the application. According to the
Navy's contractor, those events delayed the application of the
thermal desorption unit and temporarily ceased operation of the
technology.
Contact Information
For more information about this application, please contact:
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Debbie Vaughn-Wright *
U.S. EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Telephone: (404) 562-8539
Facsimile: (404) 562-8518
E-mail: vaughn-wright.debbie@epamail.epa.gov
Navy Point of Contact:
Mark Davidson
Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM)
North Charleston, SC 29419-9010
Telephone: (843) 820-5526
E-mail: medavidson@esdsouth.navfac.navy.mil
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
107
-------
• Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Operable Unit 2
Response Action Contractor:
Fred Scale
Project Manager
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
Quarters E, G Avenue
P.O. Box 171
Jacksonville, FL 32215
Telephone: (904) 779-8900
Facsimile: (904)779-8999
Thermal Desorption Vendor:
Larry D. Johnson
Dustcoating, Inc.
6925 D'Chene Lane
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Telephone: (612) 479-1593
* Primary contact for this application
References
The following references were used in the preparation of this
report.
1. Installation Restoration, Environmental Division, NAS
Cecil Field and Bechtel Environmental, Inc., Jacksonville,
Florida. 1996. Construction Completion Information for
Site 17, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville,
Florida. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Southern
Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, under
Contract No. N62467-93-D-0936. August.
2. ABB Environmental Services, Inc. 1996. Remedial Action
Report, Site 17 Source Control, Naval Air Station Cecil
Field, Jacksonville, Florida, Unit Identification Code:
N60200, Contract No.: N62467-89-D-0317/090. Prepared
for Department of the Navy, Southern Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Mark Davidson, Code
1879, Engineer in Charge. September.
3. U.S. EPA. 1997. Innovative Treatment Technologies
Database, Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition). August.
4. EPA. 1994. Interim Record of Decision, Naval Air Station
Cecil Field, Site 17, O.U. 2, EPA/ROD/R04-94/190.
September 30.
5. EPA. 1994. Declaration for the Interim Record of
Decision, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, O.U. 2,
EPA/ROD/R04-94/196. September 30.
6. Deborah A. Vaughn-Wright, Regional Project Manager,
EPA Region 4. 1998. Letter to Richard Weisman, Tetra
Tech. Response to Request for Additional Information,
Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Site 17, OU 2. April 14.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
108
-------
Thermal Desorption at
the Port Moller Radio Relay Station,
Port Moller, Alaska
109
-------
Thermal Desorption at
the Port Moller Radio Relay Station,
Port Moller, Alaska
Site Name:
Port Moller Radio Relay Station
Location:
Port Moller, Alaska
Contaminants:
Volatiles (nonhalogenated) -
BTEX and Petroleum
Hydrocarbons - GRO, DRO, and
total recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbons (TRPH). Maximum
contaminant concentrations were
300,000 rag/kg TRPH and 11,000
mg/kg DRO.
Period of Operation:
Status: Complete
Report covers: 6/95 through 8/95
Cleanup Type:
Remedial Action
Vendor:
Frederick Paine, Anderson
Excavating and Wrecking Co.
1824 South 20th Street
Omaha, NE 68108
(402)345-8811
USAGE Contact:
Bernard T. Gagnon
USAGE, Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
(907)753-5718
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
- Soil was pre-screened using a
two-inch bar screen.
- Pre-screened soil was fed to the
on-site, direct-fired thermal
desorption unit.
- Soil was treated at nominally
500°F with a throughput of 40-
60 tons per hour.
- Off-gas was treated with a
baghouse and afterburner.
- Treated soil was used as backfill
on site.
Cleanup Authority:
Managed under the Formerly Used
Defense Sites Program and the
Installation Restoration Program,
with USAGE serving as lead
agency. USAGE solicited review
comments, as appropriate, from the
U.S. Air Force and ADEC
State Point of Contact:
John Halverson, State of Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation, Contaminated Site
Program
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907)563-6529
Waste Source:
Oil spills (contamination was
located primarily in an outfall
ditch connected to a floor drain
inside a building, near USTs and
ASTs, and at drum and warehouse
areas)
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 9,500 yd3 of soil was treated
- Approximately 10% of soil was clayey silt; remainder was sand or sand
with gravel
- Moisture content 11%
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
Application of thermal desorption
to treat sandy soil contaminated
with diesel fuel at a remote site in
Alaska.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup goals for this application were based on the results of negotiations with ADEC. They consisted of
the following cleanup goals: DRO (200 mg/kg), GRO (200 mg/kg), TRPH (200 mg/kg), BTEX (15 mg/kg).
- An air quality permit issued by the State of Alaska required air emissions to meet the following limits:
particulate matter (<0.05 gr/dscf), and carbon monoxide (< 100 ppmv and 2.39 Ibs/hr).
110
-------
Thermal Desorption at
the Port Moller Radio Relay Station,
Port Moller, Alaska (continued)
Results:
- The thermal desorption unit at Port Moller achieved the cleanup goals after three months of operation.
- Of the 118 treated soil samples analyzed, 115 (97 percent) achieved the cleanup goals after one pass through
the desorption unit. The three samples that did not achieve the cleanup goals after one pass were treated at
relatively low soil temperatures (less than 400 °F). Those soil samples were retreated and subsequently
achieved the cleanup goals.
- Air emissions testing was conducted at the site, but no data were available for review. However, analytical
data from an application similar to that at Port Moller met the state's requirements for air emissions.
Cost:
- USAGE Alaska Division used an innovative approach to procuring a remediation contractor for this
application. That approach was based on the use of unit prices established by the government for specific
activities associated with the remediation and solicitation of bids as a percentage of the unit prices.
- The actual cost of thermal desorption of contaminated soil at Port Moller was $3,325,000 (for activities
directly attributed to treatment), or $350 per yd3 of soil treated (9,500 yd3 treated).
Description:
The Port Moller Radio Relay Station (RRS) was constructed in the late 1950s and served as a communication
link between Cold Bay and Port Heiden, Alaska. Until 1969, a Defense Early Warning line facility and the
White Alice Communication System facility were co-located at the site. From 1969 to 1978, the site functioned
as a RRS, and the site was abandoned in 1978. The site consists of the White Alice facility (buildings and
antenna) located on a plateau at an elevation of 1,000 feet, and a fuel storage and supply facility located on the
shoreline at the foot of the slope leading to the plateau.
In 1994, the USAGE demolished the buildings, removed the fuel tanks, constructed a landfill for the disposal of
debris, installed monitoring wells, identified areas of soil contamination, and seeded the landfill and other
disturbed areas. In addition, a treatability study was conducted on contaminated soil from the site to determine
the relative effectiveness of treatment using thermal desorption, soil washing, and bioremediation. Thermal
desorption was chosen for the full-scale site remediation based on the results of the treatability study.
The contractor mobilized the remediation equipment to Port Moller in May 1994. Approximately 9,500 yd3 of
contaminated soil were treated using an oil-fired portable thermal desorption unit, which had a rated capacity of
70 tons per hour. The soil was treated in three months of operation and the treated soil was used as backfill to
grade the site.
The total cost for treatment of contaminated soil at Port Moller was $3,919,736, which includes $3,325,000 for
treatment and almost $600,000 for mobilization and demobilization, due to the remote location of the site.
Ill
-------
•PortMollerRRS
SITE INFORMATION
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Site Name:
Location:
Technology:
Type of Action:
Port Moller Radio Relay Station (RRS)
Port Moller, Alaska
Thermal Desorption
Remedial
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION (1)
Period of Operation: Treatability study -1994; full-scale operation -
June through August 1995
Quantity of Material Treated During Application: 9,500 cubic yards
of soil
BACKGROUND
SIC Code: 9711 (National Security)
Waste Management Practice that Contributed to Contamination: Oil spills (contamination was
located primarily in an outfall ditch connected to a floor drain inside a building, near underground storage
tanks [UST] and aboveground storage tanks [AST], and at drum and warehouse areas).
Site Background (14,15):
• The Port Moller Radio Relay Station (RRS) (also referred to as the U.S. Air Force White Alice
RRS, or the White Alice Communications System (WAGS) site) was constructed in the late
1950s and served as a communication link between Cold Bay and Port Heiden, Alaska.
• Until 1969 a Defense Early Warning (DEW) line facility and White Alice facility were co-located
at the site. From 1969 to 1978, the site functioned as an RRS. In November 1978, the site was
abandoned.
• The site consists of the White Alice facility (buildings and antenna) located on a plateau at an
elevation of 1,000 feet, and a fuel storage and supply facility located on the shoreline at the foot
of the slope leading to the plateau.
• The site is located approximately 500 miles southwest of Anchorage on the Alaska Peninsula
and is accessible only by air or water.
• In 1994, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) performed the following environmental
remediation work at Port Moller: demolition of buildings, removal of fuel tanks, construction of a
landfill for disposal of debris, installation of monitoring wells, exploration and sampling of soil and
water to identify areas of contamination, and seeding of the landfill containing demolition debris
and of other disturbed areas.
Remedy Selection
• Thermal desorption was selected for the application on the basis of the results of a treatability
study and an engineering cost analysis. A treatability study was performed for ex situ
bioremediation; that technology was found to be not feasible. A cost analysis showed that on-
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
112
-------
•PortMollerRRS
site thermal desorption was less expensive than off-site thermal treatment; for that reason, on-
site thermal desorption was selected as the remedy for the application.
Site Investigation (14):
A site investigation was performed from May to August, 1994. Sampling performed at 10 distinct
areas at Port Moller consisted of testing for soil type, depth to groundwater, and concentrations
of hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Chemical analysis was performed for diesel range
organics (DRO); gasoline range organics (GRO); benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX); total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); and volatile organic compounds (VOC).
• Sampling results showed that DROs were present at 3 of the 10 areas in concentrations greater
than 2,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), and in 2 additional areas in concentrations higher
than 200 mg/kg.
• On the basis of the results of the sampling, the 10 areas were scored against matrices identified
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), which included a quantitative
analysis based on depth to subsurface water, mean annual precipitation, soil type, potential
receptors, and volume of contaminated soil. Scores for the 10 areas ranged from 20 to 36 under
the ADEC matrices, with 3 of the 10 areas scoring in the range of 27 to 36. These scores were
used in the process of setting cleanup goals - see discussion below under performance
objectives.
SITE LOGISTICS/CONTACTS
Bernard T. Gagnon*
Environmental Engineer and Innovative Technology Advocate
USAGE, Alaska District
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
Telephone: (907)753-5718
Electronic mail: bernard.t.gagnon@usace.army.mil
Air Force Project Manager:
Patricia Striebich
Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK 99506
Telephone: (907)552-4506
State of Alaska Site Manager:
John Halverson
State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Contaminated Site Program
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 563-6529
Prime Contractor:
Frederick Paine
General Superintendent
Anderson Excavating and Wrecking Co.
1824 South 20th Street
Omaha, NE 68108
Telephone: (402)345-8811
*Primary point of contact for this application
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
113
-------
•PortMolterRRS
MATRIX AND CONTAMINANT DESCRIPTION
MATRIX IDENTIFICATION
Soil (ex situ)
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
Volatiles (nonhalogenated) - GRO and BTEX
Semivolatiles (nonhalogenated) - DRO and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH)
CONTAMINANT PROPERTIES
• GRO, DRO, Residual Range Organics (RRO), and TRPH are indicator parameters that refer to a
range of hydrocarbons and are defined by ADEC as follows:
GRO - hydrocarbons in the range of C6 - C10 (flash point -50°F)
DRO - hydrocarbons in the range of C10 - C28 (flash point 110° to 190°F)
RRO - hydrocarbons as C28 and greater (flash point > 190°F)
- TRPH - hydrocarbons as the sum of DRO, GRO, and RRO
Properties of the contaminants are provided below for BTEX.
L, . Property
Chemical Formula
Moleular Weight
Specific Gravity (at 20° C)
Vapor Pressure (mm Hg at
70° F)
Boiling Point (°C at 760
mgHg)
OctanoI-Water
Partition Coefficient (KJ
Benzene
C6H6
78.11
0.88
79.4
80.1
132
... -TSlueneHfC
CgHsGr^
92.14
0.87
23.2
110.6
537
?:?Ethylbenzene;, ,
C6H5C2H5
106.17
0.87
10.4
136.2
1,100
-. ' Xyteneis *'',
C6H4((CH3)2
106.17
0.86 - 0.88
5-9
138.3-144.4
1,830
CHARACTERISTICS OF UNTREATED SOIL
• Based on the results of ADEC's scoring (see site investigation), soil was excavated from five
areas at Port Moller for treatment by thermal desorption. Table C-1 shows the quantity of soil
excavated, soil characteristics, and maximum level of contamination found in each of the five
areas.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
114
-------
•PortMollerRRS
Table C-1. Characteristics of Untreated Soil [1]
•\s-~- '*"Tv «£• 3?!?., -,,'
"^ 1-: ''""'• , "T' Wi -
;''..';^?>«& i;; ,_ ^
Outfall Ditch
Antennas 1 and 3
Warehouse
Tank Rack
Tank Farm
TOTAL
Soil Quantity
f^lBtoav&M**'-. -
r'lcufefeyaros}"".
1,000
600
1,100
1,300
5,500
9,500
- - 35^ ! jJS
7-soij^,^
UtftfiMttiL
A
B
C
D
E
% "- ' ' '""* -,;'. ^* W
Maximum Level of Contamination -
300,000 mg/kg TRPH (1994
Investigation)
6,700 mg/kg DRO (1994 Investigation)
8,400 mg/kg DRO (1995 Excavation)
2,400 mg/kg DRO (1994 Investigation)
11,000 mg/kg DRO (1994 Investigation)
A - Clayey silt with subangular rocks and cobbles, moderately to strongly cohesive.
B - Sand (from backfill).
C - Sand with small amounts of gravel
D - Sand with small amounts of gravel
E - Sand (primarily)
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
Listed below are the major matrix characteristics affecting cost of performance for this technology and
the values measured for each parameter.
^ r 'tV 1 ^-Parameter- - t,,^
Soil Classification
Clay Content or Particle Size Distribution
Soil Plasticity
Moisture Content
Oil & Grease or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Presence of Alkaline Metal Salts
Lower Explosive Limit
•>r^, '/^L ^VdWjf *, " £ ,^ "1 "" 7
See Table C-1
Information not available
Information not available
11 % by mass (3)
See Table C-1
Information not available
Information not available
The soil at Port Moller is characterized as either lowland or upland. The lowland area
(warehouse, tank rack, and tank farm) is a flat outwash plain of glacial sand and minor gravel
that has been reworked by shoreline wave action. Typically, those deposits have little or no silt,
and the sands tend to be of larger grain sizes. The upland area (outfall ditch and antennas 1 and
3) is a substantial glacial moraine, which forms the 1,000-foot plateau, and is an undifferentiated
mix of silt, often with minor clay, and coarse gravel, often with large, subangular rocks. Only
small amounts of sand are present in the upland area.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
115
-------
•PortMollerRRS
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
PRIMARYJREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Thermal desorption
SUEELEMENTARY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Post-treatment (off-gas): oxidizer and baghouse
TIMELINE m
iv '"Date ':,.....,.;.;
1950s
1950s to 1969
1969 to 1978
November 1978
1994 (months not specified)
May 1994 to August 1994
1994 (month not specified)
April 1995
May 1995
June 28, 1995 to August 24,
1995
August 1995
January 1996
Activity^ ' <-"'' ' " ,,„ '; ,"
Construction of Port Moller RRS was completed.
Port Moller functioned as a DEW line.
Port Moller functioned as an RRS.
The site was abandoned.
Anderson Excavating and Wrecking Co. (Anderson) performed the following
environmental remediation work at Port Moller: demolition of buildings,
removal of fuel tanks, construction of a landfill for disposal of debris,
installation of monitoring wells, exploration, and sampling of soil and water to
identify areas of contamination, and seeding of landfill containing demolition
debris and other disturbed areas (note that seeding was not successful).
Anderson performed a site investigation, including sampling and analysis of
soil and groundwater.
Enviros, Inc. conducted a treatability study on soil from Port Moller.
Anderson submitted a chemical data report related to the environmental
remediation activities conducted in 1994.
Anderson mobilized to the site to implement the thermal desorption
technology.
Treatment of contaminated soil by thermal desorption was conducted.
USACE reseeded areas that had been seeded unsuccessfully.
Anderson Excavating and Wrecking submitted a final report on site
remediation and restoration activities at Port Moller.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
116
-------
'Port Moller RRS
TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC AND TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION (1,2r16)
Mobilization
In May 1994, the contractor mobilized equipment to Port Moller. The equipment included a drill
rig, a compressor, asbestos abatement equipment, oil recovery equipment, excavators, loaders,
trucks, generators, all-terrain vehicles (ATV), and miscellaneous support equipment required for
self-sufficiency at a remote site in Alaska.
Construction
• The thermal desorption system used at Port Moller consisted of an oil-fired portable treatment
unit, including a 40,000,000-British thermal unit (Btu)/hour rotary kiln (direct-fired burner and
afterburner Model No. P-830HO), a 28,000,000-BTU/hour oxidizer, and a 450-filter baghouse
(Model No. P1533BH). The unit was custom designed to handle the wide variety of soils to be
remediated at Port Moller. The unit had a rated capacity of 70 tons per hour and was
manufactured by Tarmac, Inc., of Kansas City, Missouri.
Operation
Soil was fed to the desorber continuously after prescreening; a two-inch bar screen was used to
remove oversize material. A conveyor belt with a built-in scale was used to feed the soil. After
treatment in the desorber, soil was cooled by a water quench and transferred to a stockpile for
clean soil. Off-gasses from the desorber were treated in a baghouse and high temperature
afterburner before they were discharged to the atmosphere. Particulate matter collected in the
baghouse was mixed with treated soil in the clean soil stockpile.
Soil from the outfall ditch area was a highly cohesive clayey silt and was found to be difficult to
treat separately from other soil. Some of the soil was saturated with petroleum oil lubricants
(POL) at concentrations as high as 300,000 mg/kg. At times, the soil was too oily to travel up the
conveyor belt that fed the treatment unit. The vendor revised the plan of operation to address
that problem by blending highly contaminated soil from the outfall ditch with sandy soil from the
tank rack and warehouse areas at a ratio of one part outfall ditch soil to three parts tank rack and
warehouse area soil (one part clayey silt to three parts sandy soil). This soil blending was
performed before treatment as a means of controlling temperatures in the rotary kiln. The
vendor noted that a critical factor for controlling temperatures was maintaining an even flow of
uniformly mixed soil into the unit.
Moisture content of the soil also was found to affect operating temperatures, To address that
concern, the vendor covered the soil stockpile with a tarp during heavy rains. The references
available provide no additional information about the range of moisture content in the untreated
soil or of the effect of elevated moisture content on the temperature of soil in the rotary kiln.
For the major portion of the time during which the system was operated, soil temperatures in the
thermal desorption unit ranged from 500 to 1,200°F (initial operations took place at temperatures
in the range of 400 to SOOT).
At times, soil temperatures were less than SOOT. This occurred when unusually wet or fine-
grained soil, or soil having an elevated concentration of contaminants, was introduced into the
unit. The lower soil temperatures, which occurred primarily at the beginning of the application,
were minimized after the vendor began mixing soil from different areas at the site.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
117
-------
•PortMollerRRS
• During treatment of highly contaminated soil (estimated to be over 100,000 mg/kg), the vendor
reported that because combustible vapors were being desorbed from the soil in quantities
sufficient to sustain the oxidizer's operation, the external fuel supply to the oxidizer could be
"virtually shut off."
• During the operation of the unit, paniculate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), and oxygen (O2)
levels in the exhaust gas from the oxidizer were monitored continuously and recorded. No
analytical data on the results of this monitoring were included with available references.
• Water was obtained from an infiltration trench near the treatment unit and was used to cool the
soil and control dust.
• Approximately 9,500 cubic yards of excavated soil were treated at Port Moller.
• The references available provide no information about the percentage of time the system was
operational.
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE M. 16^
Listed below are the major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology and
the values measured for each parameter.
tii ji riiipiiiMfi i LI LI > ii'i HIM ' "y T" wwv
1C'"! I'"'1! "fff" 1! " 1"! """ FVaWeter , ,. ««^ ,
Residence Time
System Throughput
Soil Temperature
• , Valu0 ' *' " --
Information not available
40-60 tons per hour at 10% moisture
500to1200°F(seetext)
Closure
After treatment, soil was used to backfill and contour the tank rack, warehouse, and tank farm
excavations. In 1994, the USACE attempted to revegetate (seed) the landfill containing
demolition debris and other disturbed areas at Port Moller with a mix of red fescues, rye grass,
and Kentucky bluegrass. This initial seeding was not successful. In August 1995, after thermal
desorption had been completed, USACE reseeded the areas with a different seed mix. Grass
was growing vigorously in all areas within three weeks of the reseeding. The seed mix used in
1995, recommended by the Plant Materials Center in Palmer, Alaska, consisted of bering hair
grass, arctared red fescue, and Gruening alpine bluegrass. The seed was spread with 20-20-10
(N-K-P) fertilizer at 12.5 pounds per 1,000 square feet. The Plant Materials Center
recommended this mixture for soil at Port Moller having a pH ranging from 5.2 to 5.9.
Seven acres at Port Moller were reseeded: the warehouse and tank rack area (one acre); the
tank farm and operations area (one acre); and the landfill, an abandoned road to the reservoir,
the outfall ditch, and the antenna area (5 acres).
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
118
-------
•PortMollerRRS
TREATMENT PLAN (3
In 1994, Enviros, Inc. performed a treatability study of three remediation technologies using soil
collected from the diesel tank farm, the gasoline and diesel tank area, and the waste drain
outfall. The treatability study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness, at a bench scale, of
thermal desorption, soil washing, and bioremediation. In addition, the treatability study provided
a detailed soil characterization, including specific gravity, hydrocarbon speciation, pH, nutrients
and microorganisms present, particle size distribution, and soil classification. Thermal
desorption was tested on three soil samples representing different concentrations of
hydrocarbons in the untreated soil. The results of the treatability study showed that, of the three
technologies tested, thermal desorption achieved the lowest concentration of hydrocarbons
(measured by EPA Method 418.1 Modified) in the treated soil (220 mg/kg at 750°F). The results
of treatment of the three soil samples by thermal desorption are summarized below by treatment
temperature.
Table TS-1. Results of Treatability Study of Thermal Desorption [3]
^ .*»» ^£; ~*Sfr > s ?
Treatment Temperature
No treatment
225°F
450°F
750°F
.... s"*^** Concentration of Hydrocarbons (mg/kg, dry weight) v, %,
,, ~ \Sanpl #1 -;'-
4,000
1,100
280
60
i?^ ^§f«t$Me$2.;^ *'
11,600
2,500
920
190
r?i, " Sample »3?x ^
205,000
193,000
185,000
220
In its recommendations, the vendor of the treatability study noted that soil treated by thermal
desorption met the required cleanup levels for the site and that the performance of thermal
desorption was not as dependent on site conditions (for example, relatively short summer season
and inclement weather) as soil washing or bioremediation.
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES (2\
The cleanup goals for the application were based on the results of negotiations with ADEC.
The negotiated cleanup goals for the application consist of the following:
DRO - 200 mg/kg
GRO - 200 mg/kg
TRPH - 200 mg/kg
BTEX-15 mg/kg
ADEC first proposed Matrix Level A cleanup criteria that include a concentration of DRO of 100
mg/kg. However, during the negotiation, it was agreed that the cleanup goal for DRO be
increased from 100 to 200 mg/kg. USAGE Alaska District indicated that the application of that
criterion would ensure that the site would be restored to levels that are environmentally
acceptable, at considerable cost savings to the government over application of the Level A
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
119
-------
•PortMollerRRS
criterion. USAGE Alaska District had estimated that the additional testing and slower production
needed to meet a cleanup goal of 100 mg/kg for DRO would have increased the project cost by
48 percent.
• The air quality permit issued by the state of Alaska required that the emissions meet the
following limits: paniculate matter, 0.05 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); and CO,
100 parts per million volume (ppmv) and 2.39 pounds per hour.
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA AND ASSESSMENT (1.16>
Table TPD-1 summarizes the results of analyses of samples collected during the operation of the
thermal desorption system at Port Moller. Listing the results by specific sample numbers and
groups of sample numbers, the table shows sampling date, soil temperature, and results of
analysis for before- and after-treatment for DRO, GRO, TRPH, and BTEX. At Port Moller, 118
samples of treated soil were collected. Samples were collected at a frequency of one per 50
tons for the first 250 tons, one per 100 tons for the next 4,000 tons (approximately), and one per
200 tons for the remaining 5,000 tons (approximately).
• Matching samples of untreated soil were available for only 8 of the 118 samples of treated soil
(those samples were mostly those collected at lower soil temperatures - e.g., 350 to 400°F). In
the case of soil temperatures shown as more than (>) or less than (<) a certain value, the
references available do not indicate the exact soil temperature.
• Only three samples of after-treatment soil contained concentrations of contaminants higher than
the applicable cleanup goals (samples 253, 258, and 277). For sample 253, collected at a soil
temperature of <350°F, the concentration of DRO was 210 mg/kg, and the concentration of
TRPH was 242 mg/kg. For sample 277, collected at a soil temperature of 350°F, the
concentration of DRO was 258 mg/kg, and the concentration of TRPH was not reported. Both of
the samples were treated again in the desorber at higher temperatures and subsequently
achieved the cleanup goals.
For sample 258, collected at a soil temperature of >500°F, the concentration of DRO was 122
mg/kg, and the concentration of TRPH was 206 mg/kg. The concentration of TRPH was 3
percent higher than the applicable cleanup goal; however, according to USAGE, the sample was
not retreated, probably because the TRPH concentration was relatively close to the cleanup level
(206 versus 200 mg/kg), and because it was believed that the difference was within the range of
error for the analytical method used.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
120
-------
Table TPD-1. Thermal Desorption Treatment Performance Data, Port Moller [1]
•Port Moller RRS
' .
^artiplgv
Lfto- :
(95PMS ;
-ft-J-i,
191/192
193/194
195/196
197/198
199/200
201/202
203/204
207-210,
212-216
217-252
253
254-275
276/277
283-430
•^%,* *£1£^
•;*•': P*t
Jj^. ^-•^-
;:',c^te ^
6/28/95
6/29/95
6/29/95
6/29/95
6/29/95
6/29/95
6/30/95
6/30-
7/2/95
7/2-
7/19/95
7/20/95
7/20-
8/2/95
8/2/95
8/3-
8/24/95
II *""' ;
asfe Soil 4f8
JTam^iture^
:y *:p>.«
>400
>400
>400
>400
>400 .
>400
750
400 to >400
>500
<350
>500 to 550
350
>600 to 1,200
4Sfei' - ' ',".•! • ***-*"•'
Before Treatment {mg/kg) . , .
y ^-i*
• ORG ,
564
735
546
5,590
6,500
487
6,340
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,080
NR
^". J"*-^ JJ«
\ j
GB$n»
6
22
5
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
>&,<<
*"i x "' ^
^TRP$ ;
NR
NR
NR
6,800
6,800
NR
10,700
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
>"*p
.'Jfnsjtr
0.06
0.43
ND
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
\Tt^ **&$*.$*$&!&
4 ^\ s£2§" fel?anJ'
•m
45
45
132
150
122
49
41
12-112
23-160
210
23-140
258
ND-160
GRO :
ND
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND-23
ND
NR
NR
NR
MsntrCmg/Bg)
a Goat) v'; c , -
; 'it**'.
^(200) ,
NR
NR
NR
120
87
NR
74
ND-94
26-175
242
54-206
NR
ND-178
iBI^C,,
^ 11'4,.
ND
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
NR
ND
ND
ND
NR
NR
NR
Laboratory testing methods were not available
NR = Not reported.
ND = Not detected; detection limit not provided.
While data on the actual air emissions from the Port Moller application were not available, the
RPM provided emissions data for a similar application show that actual emissions were:
paniculate matter, 0.0046 gr/dscf; CO, 0.29 ppmv; and CO, 0.016 pounds per hour. According
to the RPM, this similar application met the state's requirements for air emissions.
Material Balance: No quantitative material balance was completed for this application because of the
limited amount of performance data available from matched samples of untreated and treated soil.
Links to Operating Conditions: The data provided in Table TPD-1 show the link between soil
temperature and treatment performance. As the data show, when soil temperatures were lower than
400° F concentrations of contaminants in the treated soil were higher than the limits established as the
cleanup goals for DRO and TRPH.
Removal Efficiencies: No quantitative analysis of removal efficiencies could be completed for the
application because of the limited amount of performance data available from matched samples of
untreated and treated soil.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
121
-------
•PortMollerRRS
PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY
The sampling and analysis program conducted at Port Moller included use of quality control
procedures, such as quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) samples. The vendor noted
no exceptions to QA or QC procedures for the application.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
• USAGE, through its Richardson Resident Engineer (RRE) Office in Anchorage, Alaska,
administered the environmental remediation activities at Port Moller. Anderson performed the
environmental remediation activities in support of the RRE under USAGE Contract No. DACA-
94-D-0003. (1)
• USAGE Alaska District used an indefinite quantity, unit price, delivery order-type contract to
procure a contractor for the application. The contract included a 10-page list of unit prices that
covered all work items to be needed at the site, ranging from equipment mobilization to
individual analytical tests. The prices were established by staff of USAGE Alaska District. The
contract was advertised through a request for proposals (RFP), and bidders were instructed to
submit separate items addressing technical qualifications and costs. For costs, the bidders were
instructed to submit bids as a percentage of the government-established unit prices. USAGE
Alaska District received five proposals, with bids ranging from 89 to 105 percent of the unit
prices. Anderson was selected on the basis of five rating factors that ranked bidders by technical
expertise and cost. Anderson's bid included a cost of 93.9 percent of the government-
established unit prices. (2)
• USAGE Alaska District used the contracting approach described above to address its concerns
about the difficulty of accurately defining the quantity of contaminated soil for a thermal
desorption project. Under the contract developed by USAGE Alaska District, the contractor was
required to determine the extent of contamination during the site investigation phase of the work
in 1994 and use the unit prices in the contract to determine the total cost to USAGE for treating
contaminated soil.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (2, 7)
• The environmental remediation activities at Port Moller were conducted under three delivery
orders (DO). DO 1, under which work was performed in 1994, included mobilization and
demobilization, operation of a contractor's camp, testing, site delineation, removal and closure of
underground and aboveground storage tanks, asbestos abatement, general demolition, and
landfilling; costs under DO 1 were $4,043,463.
• DO 2, under which work was performed in 1994, included sampling, testing, excavation, hauling,
and stockpiling of contaminated soil; treatability studies; and revegetation; costs under DO 2
were $415,175.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
122
-------
—•—---"--———^—______» Port Moiler RRS
DO 3, under which work was performed in 1995, included mobilization and demobilization;
operation of a contractor's camp; operation by the contractor of a field laboratory, including
sampling and testing; and thermal treatment of soil contaminated with POL; costs under DO 3
were $3,919,736.
The costs of DO 3 (thermal desorption activities) were categorized according to an interagency
remedial action work breakdown structure (WBS) that includes specific cost elements for before-
treatment activities, cost elements for activities directly attributed to treatment, and cost
elements for after-treatment activities. Under the WBS, the costs for DO 3 were categorized as
shown in Table C-1.
Table C-1. Summary of Costs for Thermal Desorption Activities
at Port Moller, Alaska, Categorized According to the WBS (7)
.-: :^" ^4tlv^'^>iC*
Mobilization and demobilization
Contractor's camp
Operation by the contractor of a field
laboratory
Thermal treatment of soil
contaminated with POL
"•A^"«, %$»($) ""W-C"-''
594,038
31,590
37,033
3,325,000
;§5ifes' ' ?**c i'^f»|j'^1^i» ;*-.'•% n ~'f"r" '?
Before- and after-treatment activities
Before-treatment activity
Before-treatment activity
Activity directly attributed to treatment
COST SENSITIVITIES
As discussed above, the costs of thermal desorption at Port Moller were affected by the cleanup
goals established by ADEC, the concentrations of contaminants in the soil, the moisture content
of the soil, and the quantity of soil to be treated. The references available provide no additional
information about specific factors of the application that affected costs.
In addition, because of the remote location of the site, mobilization and demobilization costs
were relatively high.
REGULATORY/INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
This project was managed under the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program and the
Installation Restoration Program (IRP), with USAGE serving as lead agency. In that role,
USAGE solicited review comments, as appropriate, from the U.S. Air Force and ADEC.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
123
-------
• PortMollerRRS
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
COST OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• USAGE Alaska District took an innovative approach to procuring a remediation contractor for the
application. That approach was based on the use of unit prices established by the government
for specific activities associated with the remediation and solicitation of bids as a percentage of
the unit prices.
• USAGE Alaska District developed an innovative contract based on the use of unit prices to
provide flexibility in determining the total cost to the government of remediating contaminated
soil at Port Moller. For a thermal desorption project, it is difficult to estimate accurately the
quantity of contaminated soil to be treated. For the Port Moller contract, costs were based on the
use of unit prices. The contractor was required to determine the quantity of contaminated soil
during the site investigation phase of the work and use the unit prices in the contract to
determine the total cost to USAGE for treating the contaminated soil. USAGE Alaska District
indicated that that approach required close coordination between the government and the
contractor and saved years of time that otherwise would have been spent delineating the
contaminated areas at the site.
The actual cost of the thermal desorption of soil contaminated with POL at Port Moller was
$3,325,000 (for activities directly attributed to treatment), or $350 per cubic yard of soil treated
(9,500 cubic yards treated).
PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• The thermal desorption unit used at Port Moller achieved the cleanup goals after three months of
operation. Untreated soil contained concentrations of DRO as high as 6,500 mg/kg, and
concentrations of TRPH as high as 10,700 mg/kg. Concentrations of DRO in treated soil were
less than 200 mg/kg, for soil treated at temperatures of 400 to 1,200° F.
Of the 118 soil samples, 115 (97 percent) achieved the cleanup goals after one pass through the
desorption unit. The three samples that did not achieve the cleanup goal after one pass were
treated at relatively low soil temperatures (less than 400° F). Those samples were retreated and
subsequently achieved the cleanup goals.
Air emissions testing was conducted at this site (17), but no data were available for review.
However, analytical data from an application similar to that at Port Moller met the state's
requirements for air emissions.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
124
-------
•PortMollerRRS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The USAGE Construction Branch Chief responsible for the Port Moller thermal desorption
application identified the following lessons learned related to thermal treatment of soil
contaminated with POL through the experiences gained at Port Moller (2):
Topic Area
Lessons Learned
Characteristics of
the matrix
Uniformity is essential in the feed material. Blend soil aggressively to avoid
clumps of peat and clay and remove rocks. Disperse pockets of extremely
highly contaminated soil to avoid flare-ups in the plant.
Take measures to decrease the moisture content of the stockpile. Keep the
stockpile compact in areal extent. Coyer the stockpile. Work from a building
or structure if possible, especially in high winds and heavy rain.
Skills of the
contractor and
government
oversight
personnel
During operation of the system, experienced, skilled personnel, including the
plant operator, the feed operator, and the millwright, must monitor the system.
An experienced geologist must manage field screening for excavation,
collecting samples of feed material and remediated soil for certification of
remediation. Rigorous management of field screening during excavation to
ensure proper segregation of contaminated and clean layers of soil is a crucial
element in maintaining cost control and requires diligent oversight by the
government.
The contractor must establish a strong support network of suppliers, including
the plant manufacturer, emissions control equipment manufacturer, the air
emissions consultant, and personnel of general equipment parts service
centers.
The complexity of the electronic control equipment requires very specialized
technical support personnel, including an electrician, an electrical engineer, a
computer programmer, and an air emissions technician. The technical
consultants must be available instantly to respond to equipment failures and
must be prepared to travel to the plant to troubleshoot the equipment and
perform repairs.
Quality control and
standard operating
procedures (SOP)
Rigorous QC and supervision of materials handling to avoid costly mistakes is
important. Remediated soil must be stockpiled according to a well-designed
plan to avoid the need to move it more than necessary before it is approved
for backfilling.
The contractor must demonstrate to the government that it has established a
rigorous SOP for maintenance of equipment. Failure to check high-wear
points, fines-accumulation points, fuel supply, and other features of the plant
otherwise would cause costly breakdowns and delays.
The contractor must establish a procedure for handling material that, for a
variety of reasons, must be reprocessed. Designate a location for stockpiling
such material, which could include cobbles that are screened out before the
contaminated soil enters the dryer unit. If lumps of clay, peat, or asphalt enter
the coarse-screened stockpile, the material must be rescreened at the
contractor's expense. If remediated soil fails to meet the cleanup criteria
established by ADEC, it must be retreated. Failure to address the need to
retreat some material in advance will cause delays.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
125
-------
•Port Moller RRS
Topic Area
Lessons Learned
Analytical
requirements
The support of an analytical laboratory is essential. Regulators are likely to
recommend sampling every 50 tons of processed soil. If the system is
performing properly, it is advisable to notify regulators that a greater
increment, such as 250 tons, will be used. USAGE must take the initiative to
maintain control of cost and technical aspects of projects. Further, excessive-
sampling overtaxes the laboratory's production capacity and diminishes its
ability to provide rapid turnaround when necessary
Air quality
Compliance with the requirements of an air emissions permit requires
sophisticated combustion control equipment, as well as dependable air
monitoring equipment for continuous monitoring of emissions. It is essential a
consultant be available under contract to monitor emissions and oversee
quarterly reporting to ADEC's Air Quality Program.
Access to USAGE HTRW CX is an essential resource for USAGE resident
office managers. Thermal desorption remediation equipment is complicated
and must meet strict air emissions criteria. Mr. Ed Mead of CEMRD-ET-HE
reviewed requirements and provided copies of relevant U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) publications and assisted in calculating air
emissions for reporting to ADEC.
Payment
procedures
The government and the contractor must establish the procedure for
measurement for payment that will be used. To do so requires continual
measurement of the quantity, density, and weight of the soil. The typical form
of measurement for process equipment is the use of a calibrated belt scale.
Belt scales require frequent calibration checks by the contractor and witnessed
by a representative of the government. To avoid confrontations during the
project, the procedure must be simple and clearly understood by both parties.
Since all equipment has limitations and failures occur, a backup procedure for
measurement for payment is necessary. To minimize the risks to both parties,
it must be agreed in advance that the government and the contractor will
maintain a system of multiple checks, independent measurement of all
excavations and of all stockpiles of segregated, contaminated, and
remediated soil. Frequent calculations of mass balance should be performed
to ensure that parties are in agreement.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson Excavating and Wrecking Co., Omaha, Nebraska. 1996. Final Report, White Alice RRS,
Site Remediation and Restoration, Port Moller, Alaska, Volume 1. January 15.
2. Clare L. Jaeger. 1995. Site Restoration and Debris Disposal, Port Moller, Alaska. Project Summary
and Fact Sheet. August 23.
3. Enviros, Inc. 1994. Treatability Evaluation Report for Soil Collected from Port Moller, Alaska.
Contract DACA85-94-D-003. September.
4. Anderson. 1994. Order for Supplies or Services. Debris Cleanup and Site Restoration, Port Moller,
Alaska. DACA85-94-D-0003, Delivery Order 0001. February 18.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
126
-------
•PortMollerRRS
5. Anderson. 1994. Order for Supplies or Services. DACA85-94-D-0003, Delivery Order 0002.
March 23.
6. Anderson. Not dated. Debris Cleanup and Site Restoration, Port Moller, Alaska, Work Order #2,
Estimated Cost. DACA85-93-R-0019.
7. Anderson. 1995. Order for Supplies or Services. DACA85-94-D-0003, Delivery Order 0003.
January 9.
8. Jim Levine, Engineering Manager. 1994. Memorandum for CENPA-CO-RR-S through CENPA-CO-
QA. Supplemental Construction Data Memorandum, DACA85-94-D-0003, Port Moller Radio Relay
Site, Alaska. January 12.
9. Scope of Work. Not dated. Debris Cleanup and Site Restoration, Port Moller, Alaska. DACA85-03-
D-0003, Delivery Order 2.
10. Chris LCottrell. 1994. Maj En. Memorandum for CENPA-CO-RR through CENPA-CO-QA, ATTN:
Randy Nida, CENPA-EN-G-MI, ATTN: Mollie Tevrucht, CENPA-EN-EE-TE, ATTN: Bernie Gagnon.
Submittal for Site Specification Investigation, Contract DACA85-94-D-0003, Debris Cleanup and Site
Restoration, Port Moller, Alaska. November 2.
11. Clare Jaeger. 1994. Electronic mail from Clare Jaeger to Clare Jaeger. Port Moller Sampling Plan.
February 9.
12. John Halverson, DoD Oversight Program. 1995. Correspondence to Clare Jaeger regarding Final
Draft Report, Contract DACA85-94-D-003, Debris Cleanup and Site Restoration; and, Sampling and
Analysis Plan Addendum, Port Moller, Alaska. April 19.
13. USAGE, Alaska District. 1993. Proposal Documents, Debris Cleanup and Site Restoration, Port
Moller, Alaska. DACA85-03-R-0019. August.
14. Anderson Excavating and Wrecking. 1995. Draft Chemical Data Report, White Alice RRS Site
Demolition and Restoration, Port Moller, Alaska, Volume 1. March.
15. USACE. 1993. Solicitation, Offer, and Award, Negotiated RFP. Debris Cleanup and Site
Restoration, Port Moller, Alaska. DACA85-93-R-0019. August 24.
16. B. Gagnon, USACE, Alaska District, 1997. Comments and Responses on Pre-draft Report,
December 2.
17. M. Berman. 1998. Record of Telephone Conversation with Bernard Gagnon. June 19.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under USACE Contract No. DACA45-96-
D-0016, Delivery Order No. 12. Assistance was provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Radian International
LLC.
Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste
Center of Expertise
July 29,1998
127
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
128
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts
129
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts
Site Name:
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site
Location:
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts
Contaminants:
PCBs and Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Period of Operation:
June 1993 - December 1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale
Vendor:
Gary Duke
RUST Remedial Services, Inc.
200 Horizon Center Blvd.
Trenton, New Jersey 08691-1904
(609) 588-6373
State Contact:
Nikki Korkatti
Project Manager
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
One Winter Street, 5th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Telephone: (617) 574-6840
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
- X*TRAX™ Model 200 - thermal
separation system, gas treatment
system, and liquid storage and
processing system
- Dryer feed rate - 120 tons/day
- Dryer temperature - 500 to
1100°F
- Treated soil temperature - 700 to
750°F (average 732°F)
- Residence time - 2 hours
- Condensate water generated by
the system was treated in the on-
site multi-stage treatment system
(oxidation; flocculation and
sedimentation; filtration; air
stripping; liquid-phase carbon
adsorption; vapor-phase carbon
adsorption)
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD date: 9/24/87
-BSDdate: 6/11/93
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Joseph LeMay
EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building,
Room 2203 •
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617) 573-9622
Waste Source: Disposal of waste
in lagoons
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil - 36,200 cubic yards (44,000 tons)
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Thermal desorption
of PCB-contaminated soil
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- The ROD specified a cleanup level of 25 mg/kg for PCBs in soil.
- Process vent emission rate was limited to 0.38 Ib/hr of total hydrocarbons (THC).
- Perimeter air monitoring was required for VOCs and dust during excavation; if action levels were exceeded,
excavation was to be stopped and control measures implemented.
- Effluent was required to meet daily and monthly limits for VOCs, PCBs, and metals.
Results:
- The treated soil met the cleanup goal of 25 mg/kg PCBs, with concentrations ranging from 0.59 mg/kg to
21 mg/kg.
- Greater than 99% of the soil met the cleanup goal after one pass through the treatment system; only 0.5
percent required retreatment.
- The process vent emissions met the air emission standard; THC emissions ranged from 0.002 to 0.296 Ib/hr.
- Treated water generally met the effluent standards. For the few exceedances, the vendor determined that the
concentrations would not be higher than the concentration used in developing a discharge permit; however,
information was not provided on any actions by the state as a result of the exceedances.
130
-------
Thermal Desorption at the Re-Solve, Inc. Superftmd Site
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts (continued)
Cost:
- Total cost to treat the soil - $6,800,000; corresponding to a unit cost of $155/ton (44,000 tons treated).
Description:
Re-Solve operated a waste chemical reclamation facility in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts from 1956 until
1980. Hazardous materials handled at the site included polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), solvents, waste oils,
organic liquids and solids, acids, alkalies, and inorganic liquids and solids. On December 23, 1980, the state
accepted Re-Solve's offer to surrender its disposal license, on the condition that all hazardous waste be removed
from the site. In late 1981, Re-Solve removed drums and other debris, including buildings, from the site;
however, contents of four on-site lagoons and a cooling pond and the residue from an oil spreading operation
were not removed. The site was placed on the the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983. The
results of the Remedial Investigation indicated that soil and groundwater at the site were contaminated with
PCBs and other compounds. In response to a 1983 ROD, soil contaminated with PCBs was excavated and
shipped off-site for disposal. However, the results of additional investigations conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of the remedial action indicated that extensive PCB contamination remained in areas beyond the
remediated lagoons, cooling pond, and oil spreading area. A second ROD for the site, signed in September
1987, called for excavation of additional contaminated soil and treatment by thermal desorption and
dechlorination (DECHLOR). However, the results of a pilot-scale demonstration of the DECHLOR process
indicated that the process would not be cost-effective or economically feasible on a full-scale basis. In June
1993, EPA issued an BSD to remove the DECHLOR process from the full-scale treatment system and specify
the treatment of the concentrated oil contaminated with PCBs that was recovered in the X*TRAX™ system at
an off-site incinerator permitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The X*TRAX™ Model 200 system consisted of three main components - thermal separation system, gas
treatment system, and liquid storage and processing system. In the thermal separation system, contaminated
solids were fed into a propane-fired rotary dryer, and heated indirectly to volatilize the moisture and organic
contaminants; the dryer consisted of a long steel cylinder rotating inside of a furnace. The moisture,
contaminants, and a small amount of dust were swept continuously from the dryer to the gas treatment system
by a nitrogen carrier gas. The gas treatment system removed moisture and contaminants from the carrier gas
and reconditioned the gas before recycling it to the dryer. Materials that accumulated within and later exited
the system were considered residues of treatment. All treated soil met the cleanup goal of 25 mg/kg for PCBs.
Greater than 99 percent of the soil met the cleanup goal after the first pass, with only 0.5 percent of the soil
requiring retreatment.
131
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Re-Solve, Inc. (Re-Solve), Superfund Site,
Operable Unit (OU) 2
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts
CERCLIS No. MAD980520621
ROD Date: September 24,1987; Explanation
of Significant Differences (ESD), June 11,1993
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
EPA SITE Program Test Associated With
Application? Yes (see Reference 2 for
additional information about the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
demonstration)
Period of Operation: June 21,1993 to
December 21,1994
Quantity of Material Treated During
Application: 36,200 cubic yards (yd3) of soil
and sediment
Background
Waste Management Practice That
Contributed to Contamination: On-site
disposal of hazardous wastes
Site History: Re-Solve operated a waste
chemical reclamation facility in North
Dartmouth, Massachusetts from 1956 until
1980. Hazardous materials handled at the site
included polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
solvents, waste oils, organic liquids and solids,
acids, alkalies, and inorganic liquids and solids.
In 1974, the Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control issued Re-Solve a license to
collect and dispose of hazardous waste. On
December 23,1980, the Massachusetts Division
of Hazardous Waste accepted Re-Solve's offer
to surrender its disposal license, on the
condition that all hazardous waste be removed
from the site. In late 1981, Re-Solve removed
drums and other debris, including buildings,
from the site. The contents of four on-site
lagoons and a cooling pond and the residue
from an oil spreading operation were not
removed.
In December 1982, the site was proposed for
inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL)
and was placed on the NPL on September 8,
1983.
Regulatory Context [1,2]
In Fall 1982, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) conducted a remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) to
assess the extent of contamination at the site.
The RI/FS included sampling of soil,
groundwater, lagoon wastes, and sediment. An
initial record of decision (ROD) for the site was
signed on July 1,1983. The remedial action
specified in that ROD called for excavation and
off-site disposal of approximately 15,000 yd3 of
soil contaminated with PCBs from the four
lagoons, the cooling pond, and the oil spreading
area. In 1985, EPA's contractor, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), completed
excavation and off-site disposal of that material,
referred to as OU 1. Additional investigations
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the
remedial action indicated that extensive PCB
contamination remained in areas beyond the
remediated lagoons, cooling pond, and oil
spreading area.
A supplemental RI/FS was performed from
September 1983 to June 1987 to assess the
extent of contamination that had migrated
beyond the remediated areas and the
boundaries of the site, including contamination
of both soil and groundwater. A second ROD
for the site, signed on September 24,1987,
called for excavation of an additional 22,500yd3
of soil contaminated with PCBs and 3,000 yd3 of
contaminated sediment, followed by treatment
of that material by a thermal desorptions and
dechlorination and management of migration
(MOM) for groundwater treatment. The
contaminated soil and sediment were referred to
as OU 2, and the groundwater was referred to
as OU 3.
In 1987, the responsible parties (RP) formed the
Re-Solve Site Group and assumed
responsibility for site remediation. A mixed
funding consent decree, signed on May
31,1989, required that EPA reimburse the RPs
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
132
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Sups/fund Site, OU 2
SITE INFORMATION (cpN|%)
approximately 30 percent of the reasonable
remedial action costs, not to exceed a cap of
$6.9 million. In 1991, the Re-Solve Site Group
contracted with RUST Remedial Services, Inc.
(RUST) to treat the contaminated soil and
sediment with RUST'S patented X*TRAX™
thermal desorption unit, followed by its
DECHLOR process to dechlorinate the PCBs.
In 1992, RUST conducted a pilot-scale
demonstration of the DECHLOR process under
the EPA SITE Program. Although during the
pilot-scale demonstration, the DECHLOR
process was successful in treating the
concentrated PCB oil generated by the
X*TRAX™ thermal desorber, the applications
analysis report for the technology demonstration
indicated that the process would not be cost-
effective or economically feasible on a full-seals
basis, primarily because the addition of reagents
during the DECHLOR process would lead to an
increase in the volume of process residues (oil)
requiring subsequent treatment. Consequently,
on June 11,1993, EPA issued an ESD to
remove the DECHLOR process from the full-
scale treatment system and specify the
treatment of the concentrated oil contaminated
with PCBs that was recovered in the X*TRAX™
system at an off-site incinerator permitted under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The thermal desorption application at OU 2 is
the subject of this report. The excavation and
off-site disposal (OU 1), and groundwater
treatment (OU 3) are not addressed.
Remedy Selection:
For OU 2, the selected remedy consisted of the
excavation and treatment of soils and sediments
contaminated with PCBs by thermal desorption,
followed by off-site incineration of concentrated
PCB oil recovered by the thermal desorber.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: RP lead
Oversight: Federal
Remedial Project Manager:
Joseph LeMay
EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Telephone: (617)573-9622
State Contact:
Nikki Korkatti
Project Manager
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
One Winter Street, 5th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Telephone: (617) 574-6840
Treatment System Vendor:
Gary Duke
RUST Remedial Services, Inc.
200 Horizon Center Blvd.
Trenton, New Jersey 08691-1904
Telephone: (609) 588-6373
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Soils and sediments
Contaminant Characterization [2. 31
Primary Contaminant Groups: PCBs; volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
The Applications Analysis Report (AAR)
prepared following the SITE demonstration for
the technology indicated that Aroclors 1242 and
1252 were the primary PCB congeners at the
site, and that PCBs were present in untreated
soils at concentrations of more than 240 mg/kg.
Only limited data are available on the
concentrations of VOCs in the soil at this site.
Elevated levels of methylene chloride, 2-
butanone (MEK), trans-1,2-dichloroethene,
trichloroethene (TCE), 4-methyl-2-pentanone,
tetrachloroethene (PCE), and toluene were
found in the lagoon soil. Elevated levels of
various organics, particularly acetone and MEK
were found in soil at the cooling pond area.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
133
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
The concentrations of PCBs in lagoon soil were
in the range of 500 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg). Relatively high levels of total VOCs
(2,666 mg/kg) also were found in this area.
Matrix Characteristics That Affected
TreatmenlCost or Performance [2]
Table 1 presents the major characteristics of the
matrix that affected cost or performance of this
technology and the values measured for each.
Table 1: Matrix Characteristics [2]
j^: \Pflrisinii4w;
SoM moisture content
Son classification
and particle size
distribution
OH & grease or total
petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH)
Bulk density
Lower explosive limit
Value
8.9 percent
Granular and sandy with moderate
silt content and a very low clay
content; classified In the A-2-4
group according to the American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) soil classification system
Information not provided
Calculated as 1 .2 tons/yd3
Information not provided
TREATMENT SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Thermal desorption
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Post-treatment (air): filtration and carbon
adsorption
System Description and Operation [1T 2,4]
System Description
In the X*TRAX™ system, soils containing
organic contaminants were heated indirectly in
an inert atmosphere, driving off the water and
organic contaminants as vapor and leaving the
dry solids behind. The vaporized contaminants
then were condensed and collected as liquids.
Figure 1 shows a material flow diagram for the
X*TRAX™ process.
The mobile X*TRAX™ Model 200 full-scale
system used at the Re-Solve site consisted of
three semitrailers, one control room trailer, eight
equipment skids, and various pieces of movable
equipment. All skids and trailers that contained
liquids had containment curbs for spill control.
An area of approximately 125 by 145 feet was
required for the equipment. Mobilization time
totaled 11 weeks because it was necessary to
construct a concrete slab at the site.
The X*TRAX™ Model 200 system had three
main components: (1) the thermal separation
system, (2) the gas treatment system, and (3)
the liquid storage and processing system. In the
thermal separation system, contaminated solids
were fed into a propane-fired rotary dryer, and
heated indirectly to volatilize the moisture and
organic contaminants; the dryer consisted of a
long steel cylinder rotating inside of a furnace.
The moisture, contaminants, and a small
amount of dust were swept continuously from
the dryer to the gas treatment system by a
nitrogen carrier gas. The gas treatment system
removed moisture and contaminants from the
carrier gas and reconditioned the gas before
recycling it to the dryer. Materials that
accumulated within and later exited the system
were considered residues of treatment. They
included water, organic liquids, and dust
collected by the eductor scrubber, and water
and organic liquids collected by the primary and
secondary condensers.
System Operation
Figure 2 shows the equipment layout for the
X*TRAX™ Model 200 and identifies the specific
equipment associated with the thermal
separation, gas treatment, and liquid storage
and processing systems. The thermal
separation system consisted of a vibratory
screener, a feeder, a rotary dryer, product
conveyors, and a product cooler.
Before treatment in the X*TRAX™ unit,
contaminated soil was passed through a
vibratory screener to separate materials that
were one inch or less in diameter from those
having diameters greater than one inch. That
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-. Q . Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tr A Technology Innovation Office
134
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
S3 RUBBER
WATTS
I SLUDGE
JT. / \
IOONDENSATE I
5. AQUEDUSflLTRME
16. ORGANIC CONDENSME
7. AOUEDUSCONDENSATE
8. WATERSfTOY
0. FflOCESSVENTGASIUPSlFEaM)
10. PFOCESSVENTQAS(DOWNSIHEAM)
MAKEUP
WATffl
| HK3
iTEMPffl
1 R&e
I
APRS)
GAS
rd
H
ATUFE
vim
k
k
NITROGEN
TANK
KEY
LIQUID FlOW
SDUDSRDW
GASHOW
INPUT
ouipur
) SMtrWG IOCAHON
XTRAX™ PROCESS
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
1. FEfflson.
2. TREATED SOIL
3. FOERCAKE
4. ORGANIC HLRWE
5. AQUEDUSBLTRME
6. ORGANIC CONDENSVE
7. AQUEDUSCONDBISATE
8. WATEHSPRAY
9. PnOCBSVBJTGAS(UPSTEEAM)
10. PFDCESSVENTGAS(DOWNSTFBkM)
Figure 1. XTrax® Material Flow Diagram [2]
1HERMAL SEPARA1ION SYS1EM
Feeder
Fbtary Dryer
Product Cooler
Roduct Conveyors
GAS TREA1MEN1 SYSTEM
Huctor Scrubber
Primary Condenser (HX-501)
Secondary Condenser(HX-301)
Peheater(HT-702)
Carbon Adsorbers
ProceseVent
LIQUID S1ORAGEAND PROCESSING SYS1EM
Scrubber Phase Separator (PS-101)
Sudge TtifekenerTank (T-101)
Filter Press Feed Tanks (T-202A and T-202B)
rater Press
RRrate Tank (T-402)
Phase Separator Make-up Tank (T-403)
Condensate TransferTank(T-301)
Condensate Phase Separator (PS-102)
OrganicsTank (1-102)
Condensad WaterTanks{T-40lA and T-401B)
Product Cooler Supply Tank (T-801)
Figure 2. XTrax® Model 200 Equipment Layout [2]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
135
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
TREATMENT SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED)
operation was required to ensure that soil
passing through the X*TRAX™ unit was small
enough to be treated without causing a
malfunction of the unit. Feed material typically
was delivered to the vibratory screener by a
front-end loader or similar equipment. The
inclined and horizontal conveyors then moved
the feed material from the screener to the rotary
dryer (thermal separator) at a regulated rate.
The X*TRAX™ system was equipped with an
automatic waste feed cutoff feature. When
certain operating parameters exceed specified
control limits, the inclined conveyor
automatically shut down, effectively stopping
the flow of contaminated solids to the dryer.
Table 2 presents the conditions that would
cause the automatic waste feed cutoff feature to
operate.
Table 2:
List of Conditions for Operations of
Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff [4]
Dryer internal gas pressure
Primary heat exchanger,
HX-501
Secondary heat exchanger,
HX-302
Recirculation blower
Dryer cylinder
Product handling equipment
(for example, cooler mixer,
double flap valve, or
product conveyors)
High oxygen
concentration
(greater than 7
percent)
High pressure
(greater than 2"
water column
(WC)for60
seconds)
High differential
pressure across
exchanger*
High outlet
temperature*
Low outlet
pressure*
Loss of rotation
Stoppage
The rotary dryer was a 42-foot-long steel
cylinder with a diameter of 90 inches that
rotated inside a furnace heated by burning
either propane or natural gas fuel. The dryer
was divided into five separate heating zones to
enhance temperature control, and was
positioned at an incline, slightly higher at the
inlet. As the dryer rotated, the feed material
tumbled slowly and gradually moved to the
lower end of the dryer.
The furnace supplied heat through the dryer wall
to vaporize water and organic contaminants
from the feed material as it moved through the
dryer. Because the heating was indirect,
contaminated solids in the dryer were isolated
completely from combustion gases in the
furnace.
The dryer operated under a slightly negative
pressure to prevent any waste or waste by-
products from leaking out of the system.
Moisture and organic vapors released from the
contaminated solids were swept continuously
out of the dryer by the nitrogen carrier gas. The
carrier gas had a flow rate ranging from 700 to
900 cubic feet per minutes (cfm) during the pilot
test. With experience, this was reduced to
about 400 cfm during full-scale operations.
About 5 to 10 percent of the carrier gas was
replaced continuously with fresh nitrogen gas to
maintain a low oxygen concentration (less than
4 percent) and prevent combustion from
occurring in the dryer. The X*TRAX™ system
was equipped with a high-level alarm that
sounded if the oxygen concentration of the
carrier gas exceeded 4 percent. If the oxygen
concentration increased to 7 percent, a second
high-level alarm would sound, the automatic
waste feed would cut off, and additional nitrogen
would be introduced directly into the rotary
dryer.
The primary process control parameter that
RUST used to determine the degree of
contaminant removal in the dryer was the
temperature of the treated soil. This parameter
was controlled by adjusting the feed rate,
furnace temperature, and residence time of
materials in the dryer (which is a function of
cylinder rotation speed and angle of inclination).
Two enclosed screw conveyors moved the
treated solids from the discharge end of the
dryer to the product cooler. The product cooler
• Value will depend on selected operating conditions.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
_ _ _ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
EP/V Technology Innovation Office
136
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
TREATMENT SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
was a horizontal, continuous mixer with a spray
tower mounted above the solids inlet. As dry,
treated solids entered the product cooler, they
were sprayed with water to lower the
temperature and reduce dust emissions. The
solids then were mixed as they passed through
the product cooler. The wet, cool solids exiting
the product cooler dropped onto an inclined belt
conveyor that carried the material to a soil
discharge bin. A full discharge bin constituted a
treatment batch and contained approximately
180 tons (150 yd3) of soil. A total of 250
batches were treated during the remedial action.
The rotary dryer produced decontaminated soil
and off-gases. Each batch of treated soil from
the X*TRAX™ unit was monitored for PCBs to
ensure that the treatment criterion of 25 mg/kg
had been achieved before the soil was returned
to the site for backfilling. Materials that were
shown to have concentrations of PCB higher
than 25 mg/kg were retreated in the X*TRAX™
system; one treatment batch (approximately 0.5
percent of soil treated) required reprocessing.
Treated soil and sediments were backfilled on
site and covered with 18 inches of gravel.
The carrier gas was passed through two
condensers in series. The primary condenser
typically cooled the carrier gas to near-room
temperature. Most of the water vapor, as well
as organic compounds of low and intermediate
volatility, was condensed. The resulting liquid
then flowed under gravity to the condensate
transfer tank. The carrier gas then passed
through the secondary condenser, where its
temperature was reduced to 40° F, condensing
the remaining water vapor and organic
constituents. A mist eliminator located
immediately downstream of the secondary
condenser was used to remove remaining
moisture entrained in the carrier-gas stream.
Liquids from both the secondary condenser and
the mist eliminator, if any, flowed under gravity
to the condensate transfer tank. After the
organic contaminants and water vapor were
removed, most of the carrier gas was recycled
to the rotary dryer. However, 5 to 10 percent of
the carrier gas was discharged continuously to
the atmosphere as process vent gas. This
process vent gas was treated with an air
pollution control (APC) system that consisted of
a 10-micron particle filter, a high-efficiency
paniculate air (HEPA) filter, three carbon
adsorption units, and a power vent blower. The
carbon unit included, in series, a 150-pound (Ib)
guard bed, a 1,000-lb main adsorber, and a 150-
Ib backup bed. The remedial design/remedial
action (RD/RA) statement of work called for the
carbon adsorber to be replaced before the daily
emission rate exceeded 0.38 pounds per hour
(Ib/hr) of total hydrocarbons (THC); however,
according to the final remedial action report,
emissions never exceeded 0.296 Ib/hr.
A phase separator was used to separate liquid
condensate into aqueous (water) and organic
phases. The recovered organic condensate was
shipped to an incinerator permitted under TSCA.
The recovered water initially was used to cool
the treated soils and sediments (product). Later,
because some high concentrations of organic
substances and particulates were detected in
the water, it was discharged to the on-site water
treatment system (WTS), and the treated water
from the WTS was used to cool the product.
The WTS was constructed on site to treat
groundwater extracted at the site, groundwater
removed during the dewatering operations
associated with excavation, surface water from
storm events, decontamination water, and
excess water condensate generated by the
X*TRAX™ system. The WTS consisted of the
following treatment units: oxidation using
potassium permanganate, flocculation and
sedimentation, green-sand filtration, sludge filter
pressing, air stripping, liquid-phase carbon
adsorption, and vapor-phase carbon adsoprtion.
The vapor-phase carbon units of the WTS were
changed once in the summer of 1993 and once
in the summer of 1994. An aerobic biological
fixed-film aqueous treatment system was
installed in the WTS to remove acetone from
the condensate because acetone was not
removed efficiently by air stripping or carbon
adsorption. The flocculation/sedimentation,
ultraf iltration, and biological treatment systems
were added during full-scale operation to treat
organic constituents and particulates in the
water condensate.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
137
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
TREATMENT SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
In this application, the XTRAX™ unit treated
36,200 yd3 of soils and sediments contaminated
with RGBs, consisting of 36,000 yd3 soils and
200 yd3 of sediments.
The full-scale WTS was designed for a
maximum flow rate of 150 gallons per minute
(gpm). However, during this application, it
operated at continuous flow rates that ranged
from 100 to 120 gpm.
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment
Cost or Performance T21
Table 3 presents the major operating
parameters that affected cost or performance of
this technology and the values measured for
each.
Table 3: Operating Parameters [2]
ES^TP^-I '"
_./erfeed rate
Dryer cylinder shell
temperature
Temperature of treated soil
Residence time of solids
Recirculation rate of
carrier gas
System throughput
ValjiieV,, v/,-;V "~ "t ;<
120 tons per day for entire project, including downtime (154 tons per day was the
maximum daily feed rate)
500 to 11 00° F
700 to 750° F; with an average of 732° F
2 hours for soil temperature of 732° F
700 to 900 cfm during pilot test, reduced to 400 cfm during full-scale operations
Calculated as 80 tons per day average reflects intermittent operation due mainly to
excess moisture in untreated soils from inclement weather
Timeline
Table 4: Timeline [1]
12/30/82
07/01/83
09/08/83
09/83
-
09/24/87
05/31/89
End
Date
-
™
-
06/87
9/85
-
-
Activity ''^'f "^ . ,„ /**.%^
Site was placed on NPL
First ROD was signed by EPA Regional Administrator, requiring the removal of PCB-
contaminated soil from four on-site lagoons, a cooling pond, and an oil spreading
area
Site was placed on NPL
Supplemental RI/FS was performed to assess the extent of contamination that had
migrated beyond the remediated areas and the boundaries of the site
USAGE completed removal of approximately 15,000 yd3 of highly contaminated PCB
soils for disposal off site.
Second ROD was signed by EPA Regional Administrator, requiring source control
(soil-sediment treatment) and MOM (groundwater treatment) remedies
Consent decree was signed by EPA Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Off'06 °f Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
138
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
TREATMENT SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION (COISIT.)
Table 4 (continued): Timeline [1]
Start Date .
4; _
09/91
05/12/92
06/11/93
06/18/93
06/21/93
12/14/94
-
C >lnd //
Pate-/,
-
06/10/92
-
-
06/19/94
06/21/95
12/21/94
tf", ~*. :. "r- " -"•>*; '-- vAct|vity,:4, "":" > ' '- "-• *"- <«£
.,* " -, , l^-f ~5**- •? Sc -- _ '<-N — *«~
^ .. - - «,j. , . , »-4v ?&*:- <* ' ' -v, ' " <„ ^ 'U' '
Source control pilot activities began
X*TRAX™/DECHLOR pilot test was conducted
EPA issued an ESD to eliminate the DECHLOR process from the remedy
EPA approved the Re-Solve group's submittals to begin full-scale remediation
Full-scale X*TRAX ™ treatment of PCB-contaminated soils and sediments was
conducted
Source control closeout walkthrough began and ended (three walkthroughs were
conducted)
Demobilization ended after approximately four to six weeks
TREATMENT SYSTEI
PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards n. 3]
The 1987 ROD identified a cleanup level for
PCBs in soil and sediment of 25 mg/kg. That
cleanup level was based on a IxlO"5 health-
based risk level. In addition, the ROD required
that sediment contaminated with PCBs at
concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/kg be
excavated. Although it was required that
sediment containing PCBs at concentrations
greater than 25 mg/kg be treated, it is not clear
from the available references whether sediment
containing PCBs at concentrations between 1.0
and 25 mg/kg was treated or simply backfilled
with treated soil. The ROD did not specify
cleanup goals for VOCs for soil and sediments.
Additional requirements were established for the
following aspects of this application:
• Perimeter air monitoring
Process vent emission rate
• Limits on concentrations of contaminants in
the effluent from the WTS
Table 5 summarizes the perimeter air
monitoring action levels for VOCs and dust, and
required response activities should the action
levels be exceeded.
The process vent emission rate was limited to
0.38 Ib/hr of THC, calculated on the basis of 150
mg/kg of THC in untreated soil, a processing
rate of 150 tons of soil per day, and 80 percent
reduction of THC across the carbon vessel.
Table 5: Perimeter Air Monitoring Action
Levels [1]
VOCs
Dust
li^t^C*
5 ppm above
background for
15 minutes or
0.5 ppm average
above
background for 8
hours (0900-
1700 hours)
5 milligrams per
cubic meter
(mg/m3) above
background for
15 minutes or
0.1 5 mg/m3
average above
background for
24 hours
'^~ \-\ "•
^: %&&*&"%
Stop
excavation,
initiate vapor
control
measures,
implement
contingency
plan, if needed
Stop
excavation,
initiate dust
control
measures,
implement
contingency
plan, if needed
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
139
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Effluent from the WTS had daily and monthly
limits for VOCs (acetone, methyl ethyl ketone,
and methylene chloride), PCBs, and metals
(arsenic, lead, and manganese); these limits are
shown under treatment performance data.
Treatment Performance Data
Treatment performance data for the application
of this technology include results of analysis
from the pilot-scale SITE demonstration and
from the full-scale remedial activity. SITE
demonstration results are provided in Appendix
A to this report.
Remedial Action Performance Data [1]
Post-treatment confirmatory analysis was
performed by collecting a grab sample every six
hours from the product conveyor while the bin
was being filled. Once the 150 yd3 bin was
filled, (approximately 30 to 36 hours of
operation), grab samples were composited into
one sample for analysis for PCBs. More than
250 samples of treated soil were collected.
Only one of these samples had a concentration
of PCB higher than 25 mg/kg, and
approximately 200 tons of soil were retreated.
Table 6 summarizes the results of analysis of
treated soil for PCBs from full-scale operations.
The data show that the concentration of PCBs in
treated soil ranged from 0.59 to 21 mg/kg, with
an average concentration of PCBs of 2.8 mg/kg.
No additional data were provided on the
concentrations of PCBs in specific samples of
treated soil.
Table 7 summarizes the results of testing of
process vent emissions from the full-scale
operation. The process vent emissions were
monitored continuously for THC with an FID,
both before and after they passed through a
1,000-lb carbon adsorption vessel. Table 7
shows the process vent emissions of VOCs
which ranged from 0.002 to 0.296 Ib/hr, with an
average emission rate of 0.138 Ib/hr.
Perimeter air monitoring was performed with
real-time instruments such as a MicroTIP
photoionization detector for VOCs and dust
monitor and filter/media. The results of filter
media samples were used for comparison with
real-time monitoring, primarily to identify
contaminants. The perimeter air monitoring
system was connected to a computer that
recorded continuous readings. The monitoring
static alarms were triggered when a VOC level
of 5 ppm above background or a dust level of 5
mg/m3 above background was detected.
Table 8 summarizes the results for daily and
monthly average concentrations for selected
constituents in the WTS effluent. This table
only shows those constituents detected in at
least one of the effluent samples analyzed. As
shown in Table 8, the following constituents
were measured at concentrations that exceeded
their respective toxicity limits: acetone (chronic),
PCBs (acute and chronic), arsenic (chronic),
and manganese (acute and chronic).
Table 6: Concentrations of PCBs in Treated Soil During Full-scale Operations [1]
Cleanup Level for PCBs
(mg/kg)
Range of Concentrations
Average Concentration (mg/kg)
Treated soil
25
0.59 to 21
2.8
Table 7: VOC Rates in Process Vent Emissions [1]
ir ~
||ii < Location
\ Process Vent
Performance Standard
(Ib/hr)
0.38
Range of
Emission Rates (Ib/hr)
0.002 to 0.296
• , Average ^
;f$ Emission Rate (Ib/hr) ^
0.138
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
__ _ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
EPA Technology Innovation Office
140
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
To evaluate the effect of those episodic
exceedances on the quality of water in the river
to which the effluent was discharged, the
treatment system vendor estimated the
concentration of those contaminants in the
riverusing data on the discharge concentrations,
and the actual water discharge and river flow
rates (as compared with the high discharge and
low river flow assumptions used for establishing
the discharge limits for the remedial action).
According to the vendor, the results from this
estimation indicated that the concentration of
acetone, PCBs, arsenic, and manganese would
not be higher than the concentrations of those
contaminants used in developing an effluent
discharge permit.
Performance Data Quality m
The quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) program used throughout the remedial
action met the requirements of the EPA and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. QC was
established and assured during the remedy.
Except for the ENSYS test kits, no problems or
exceptions were noted.
All monitoring was performed according to the
requirements set forth in the following
documents:
• Field Operations Support Plan (FOSP),
including a quality assurance project plan
Implementation plan
Remedial action work plan
• Source control remedy final (100 percent)
design report
ENSYS immunoassay test kits were used to
estimate concentrations of PCBs in soils. A
comparison of results from the test kits with
results from the off-site laboratory indicated that
the data from the test kits correlated with the
laboratory data in 90 percent of cases; in the
other 10 percent, the results from the test kits
showed higher concentrations than the
laboratory data. Therefore, the test kits were
shown to have a false positive bias.
Table 8: Summary of Daily and Monthly Average Concentrations
for Selected Constituents in WTS Effluent [1]
• '*.;,*' -**•
< ,„ ? ^ ^ T<
'4 *': ^ ta- " * *
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
PCBs
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese
, ^ % £. « * Acute fxppiiif jce% ; ".-,-
, Cfeity «-_
~ Limit,
>, **gl)'~
15.0
1.75
0.35
0.0005
0.05
0.075
5.7
Rangi of Daily Averages
v "^ ^mg/kj,jtt^
"*•£} -t -i
ND-15
ND-0.052
ND-0.2
ND-0.12
ND-0.05
ND-0.007
ND-14
"*?^- Chj^nfeixposuro * " ;. ^
Monthly Limit
:^Jmg[rt*y .'.
3.0
0.35
0.072
0.0001
0.01
0.015
5.7
**BT ,-v ' 'j*> '*<-' c,
Rangi of Monthly
; Averages (lig/fe)^
•i-,,. *T-~, .4,'
ND-4.3
ND-0.027
ND-0.036
ND-0.0123
ND-0.05
ND-0.006
0.12-10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
141
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
COST OF THE TREATMENT
SYSTEM
Procurement Process m
For this application, the Re-Solve Site Group
procured ENSR Consulting and Engineering Inc.
as its project coordinator, and RUST as the
prime soil/sediment (source control) contractor.
In addition, EPA procured Halliburton NUS
Corporation and Raytheon Engineers and
Constructors Inc. to serve as EPA oversight
contractor.
Region 1 determined that preparation of a
nonbinding preliminary allocation of
responsibility (NEAR) would promote expedited
settlement with the RPs. Region 1 therefore
prepared an NEAR that allocated 15 percent
total liability to generators of PCBs and
apportioned the remainder of the liability to non-
generators of PCBs, proportionate to their
volumetric contributions.
According to RUST, the actual cost to treat the
contaminated soil and sediment at this site was
approximately $6,800,000. This cost represents
a unit cost of $155 per ton of soil treated
(44,000 tons treated), and includes the following
cost directly associated with the X*TRAX™
technology: site preparation and mobilization of
the unit, capital equipment, startup, labor,
consumable materials, utilities, handling of
residues and waste associated with the unit,
transportation and disposal, maintenance and
modification, and demobilization of the unit.
Under the terms of a 1989 consent decree, EPA
was required to reimburse the RPs
approximately 30 percent of the reasonable
remedial action costs, not to exceed a cap of
$6,900,000. This condition would have required
EPA to reimburse the RPs approximately
$5,800,000 of the $19,190,000 expended on the
action. (It is not known under what timetable
such a reimbursement took or would take
place.)
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS
LEARNED
RUST was paid $19,190,000 to implement the
source control remedy at this site. That cost
included the cost of treatment of 44,400 tons, or
36,200 yd3, of soils and sediments with the
patented X*TRAX™ thermal desorption process.
The actual cost of the source control remedy
included the costs of the following ancillary
activities: design and implementation of a full-
scale pilot study, preparation of remedial design
documents, mobilization, on-site dewatering,
installation and operation of an on-site WTS,
excavation of soils and sediments, post-
excavation sampling, sampling of treated soil,
backfilling with treated soils, grading of the site,
monitoring of the X*TRAX™ process, perimeter
air monitoring, restoration of wetlands, and final
grading, installation of an 18-inch gravel cap,
demobilization, and installation of site fencing.
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned [1.2]
The total cost for the remedial action at Re-
Solve OU 2 was $19,190,000, which included
approximately $6,800,000 to treat the
contaminated soil and sediment at the site. This
cost for treatment represented a unit cost of
$155 per ton of soil treated (44,000 tons
treated).
The remedy identified in the 1987 ROD required
use of thermal desorption followed by
dechlorination of the residual oil contaminated
with PCBs. However, based on the results from
the pilot-scale demonstration of the
dechlorination technology, it was determined
that dechlorination would not be cost-effective
or economically feasible on a full-scale basis,
and it was replaced in this application with
off-site incineration of residual oils contaminated
with PCBs. The final remedial action report
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Off'06 of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
142
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
OBSERVATIONS AND LESS!ONS
LEARNED (CONT.)"
indicated that this modification saved money in
the implementation of the remedy; however the
amount of savings was not quantified.
Performance Observations and Lessons
Learned M.21
The soil and sediment treated in the remedial
action met the cleanup goal of 25 mg/kg for
PCBs, with only approximately 0.5 percent of
the soil quantity required to be re-treated
because it did not meet the cleanup goal on the
first pass through the desorber. During the full-
scale application, the concentration of PCBs in
the treated soil, as analyzed using Method 8080,
ranged from 0.59 to 21 mg/kg, with an average
of 2.8 mg/kg.
As illustrated by the SITE demonstration results,
the analytical results for total PCBs achieved by
Method 8080 are relatively similar to the results
achieved by Method 680, with both methods
showing PCB removal efficiencies of greater
than 99.7 percent for the pilot-scale testing.
The process vent emission rate during the full-
scale application ranged from 0.002 to 0.296
Ib/hr, with an average emission rate of 0.138
Ib/hr, thus meeting the performance standard for
an emission rate of 0.38 Ib/hr.
The condensate water generated by the
X*TRAX™ unit was treated on site using a
multi-stage WTS. All treated water met acute
and chronic limits identified for effluent water,
except for the following constituents in some
episodic samples: acetone (chronic), PCBs
(acute and chronic), arsenic (chronic), and
manganese (acute and chronic). To evaluate
the impact of those exceedances on the quality
of water in the river to which the effluent is
discharged, the treatment system vendor
estimated the concentration of these
contaminants in the river using data on the
measured discharge concentrations, and the
actual water discharge and river flow rates.
Information was not provided on whether those
exceedances resulted in any action by the state.
According to the vendor, the results from this
estimation indicated that the concentration of
acetone, PCBs, arsenic, and manganese would
not be higher than the concentrations of those
contaminants used in developing an effluent
discharge permit.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned f1]
According to the vendor, the optimum moisture
content for the X*TRAX™ system is 20 percent.
At significantly higher moisture content, the
system requires more heat and produces excess
water that requires treatment or disposal,
thereby increasing costs. At a moisture content
below 20 percent, supplemental water is
needed; during both the pilot-scale
demonstration and the remedial action,
supplemental water was provided from an on-
site groundwater treatment system.
Table 9 shows observations and lessons learned
as provided by EPA in its Remedial Action
Closeout Report.
Table 9: Other Observations and Lessons Learned [1]
The original design for the transportation of treated soils to the product cooler by vibrating V-
trough conveyors was modified to increase its effectiveness. Modifications included removal of
the vibrating conveyer, repositioning of the product cooler immediately after the rotary dryer, and
transportation of the wetted soils from the product cooler to a radial stacker by a standard
conveyor belt system.
The original design of the product cooler, consisting of a spray tower, a demister, and a blower,
was inefficient in removing dust particles from the steam. The efficiency of the process was
increased by the addition of a series of sprays, chevron packings, mesh pads, and a power
cyclone (called a powerclone) to the vent stack, installation of a high-pressure pump at the
powerclone also enhanced the removal efficiency of the system.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
143
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
TREATMENT SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Table 9 (continued): Other Observations and Lessons Learned [1]
3IHTT"™"3Pr^
The effectiveness of the phase separator used to separate the organic contaminants and water
from the organic condensate wastewater stream was increased by the installation of a biological
treatment process following the Calgon Klensorb 100™ (Klensorb) System (which involved a
combination of granular activated carbon and clay filters). It turned out to be more cost-effective
to incur increased costs for maintenance of the Klensorb System than to purchase new
membranes for the ultrafiltration membrane system (if used as a separator) every time a
membrane became clogged.
The biological treatment system used to treat the separated aqueous stream required an extended
startup period. The contractor recommended a self-adjusting pH monitoring and control system
for the biological treatment system for future use of the X*TRAX™ application.
Real-time air monitoring instruments were sensitive to changes in temperature and climate; that
sensitivity caused false positive readings at perimeter monitoring stations. The perimeter air
monitoring system, therefore was modified. The calibration frequency of the continuous
monitoring instruments was increased to two times per day, and the instruments were checked an
additional four times per day to ensure that instrument drift was not occurring.
Much of the gas and liquid processing equipment was erected and operated under open air roofs.
It was recommended that the structure used to house that equipment be oversized by 25 percent
to accommodate unanticipated additions to the treatment facility.
jction Process
ENSYS immunoassay test kits were used to estimate concentrations of PCBs in soil. The testing
provided an estimate of the concentration of PCBs within 30 minutes, allowing the contractor to
determine whether to continue excavating or to move heavy equipment to another area.
Covering large piles of soil with geotextiles to control fugitive dust proved to be ineffective. Wind
consistently disturbed the geotextile fabric or blew it off the pile; resecuring the geotextile fabric
was a labor-intensive task.
As the excavation location changes, the surface-water runoff controls must be changed to prevent
the migration of contaminants to previously excavated areas. Surface-water runoff controls
should be implemented, monitored, and maintained continuously throughout the application.
It would be more cost-effective to excavate to depths at which the concentration of PCBs is known
to be below the clean-up level as compared with collecting large numbers of post-excavation
samples. At Re-Solve, a kreiging model was used to predict the depth of the boundary layer.
Samples were collected from the predicted boundary layer to confirm the results of the model. It
would have been more cost-effective to excavate well beyond that layer. Results of analysis
indicated that 75 percent of samples from the predicted boundary layer showed concentrations
that required treatment. Excavating beyond the boundary layer would eliminate the use of
intermediate bins, saving time and money by eliminating the need to collect samples for analysis
and the need to construct and move the bins.
The lowest production rates occurred in winter because snow and ice increased the moisture
content of contaminated soils. If the pile of contaminated soil had been under roof to protect it
from winter weather, the time schedule could have been reduced by 11 to 17 percent, saving as
much as 16 to 21 percent of the total cost of remediation (less the cost of the structure).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
__ _ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
EP/V Technology Innovation Office
144
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
TREATMENT SysTEiyi
DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Table 9 (continued): Other Observations and Lessons Learned [1]
^",- •-*&*$ •Oti'SZ "
The steering committee of Re-Solve Site Group hired an executive coordinator and an
independent environmental consultant to report on the process of remedial design and remedial
action (RD/RA) and to coordinate technical aspects of the RD/RA process. That organizational
structure proved to be extremely successful at the Re-Solve Superfund site and was highly
recommended by the contractor [that coordinated the organization].
REFERENCES
1. Halliburton NUS Corporation and Raytheon
Engineers and Constructors, Inc. 1996.
Final Remedial Action Report, Source
Control Remedial Action, Re-Solve, Inc.
Superfund Site, North Dartmouth,
Massachusetts, Project 0211. February.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). 1996. Applications Analysis Report
of X*TRAX™ at Re-Solve Site. August.
3. EPA Region 1. Re-Solve Site. 1987.
Record of Decision. September 24.
4. MA Superfund. 1997. Letter in Response
to Questions: To Tom Sinski, Tetra Tech
EM Inc. (Tetra Tech). From Joseph F.
LeMay, PE. June 19.
Preparation of Analysis
This case study was prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Technology Innovation Office.
Assistance was provided by Tetra Tech EM Inc.
under EPA Contract No. 68-W4-0004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
145
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
APPENDIX A
Results From EPA SITE Demonstration F21
During the SITE demonstration, samples of
untreated (feed) and treated soil were analyzed
for PCBs by EPA Method 8080 and by EPA
Method 680-SIM (specific ion monitoring). The
results obtained by Method 8080 were used to
determine compliance with the cleanup standard
specified in the ROD. Results obtained by
Method 680 were used to determine whether
there were differences between the feed and
treated soils in the specific patterns of Aroclors.
It was believed that heating soil in the X*TRAX™
rotary dryer had the potential to affect Aroclor
patterns.
Table A-1 summarizes the results of the SITE
demonstration by both analytical methods for
samples of feed and treated soil. As Table A-1
shows, the average total concentration of
Aroclors as obtained by Method 680 was
reduced from 247 mg/kg to 0.13 mg/kg, a
removal efficiency of 99.95 percent. (For the 12
samples of feed soil analyzed by Method 680,
total concentrations of PCBs ranged from 181 to
425 mg/kg. Concentrations of PCBs in treated
soil were relatively consistent, ranging from not
detected to 0.22 mg/kg in the 12 samples.)The
average concentration of PCBs as obtained by
Method 8080 was reduced from 318 mg/kg to
0.863 mg/kg, a removal efficiency of 99.73
percent. (Total concentrations of Arochlors
ranged from 211 to 518 mg/kg in the three
samples of feed soil and from 0.68 to 1.01
mg/kg in the samples of treated soil analyzed by
Method 8080.)
Table A-1: Average PCB Concentrations in Feed and Treated Soil Samples as Measured During
SITE Demonstration [2]
ill i Compound
I ill in ii in I n i 1 1 ii inn 1 1
Feed Soil
(mglkg)
Treated Soil
(mg&g).
PCB Removal* /
, „ ifficie|tey(%)
Method 680a
Monochlorobyphenyls
Dichlorobyphenyls
Trichlorobyphenyls
Tetrachlorobyphenyls
Pentachlorobyphenyls
Heptachlorobyphenyls
Total9
ND (0.55)b
16
74
91
49
1.0°'d
247
ND(0.11)
ND(0.11)
0.13°
ND (0.21)
ND (0.21)
ND (0.32)
0.13
-
-
-
-
-
-
99.95
Method 8080'
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1254
Total
213
105
318
0.756
0.107
0.863
-
-
99.73
a No octachloroblphenyls, nonachlorobiphenyls, or decachlorobiphenyls were detected in any of the 12 samples analyzed by Method
680.
b ND indicates not detected, with the average laboratory target reporting limit (TRL) shown in parentheses.
c Compound was detected in some but not all soil samples; a value of one-half the TRL was used to represent ND samples in
calculating an average concentration.
d Numerical result listed is less than the average TRL and should be considered approximate.
e ND values are assigned a value of zero in calculating total concentrations of PCBs.
f Three samples (one from each test) were analyzed by Method 8080.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
_Q . Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
fcP/V Technology Innovation Office
146
-------
Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund Site, OU2
APPENDIXA
(CONT.)i
Throughout the SITE demonstration program,
the vendor measured concentrations of THCs in
the process vent continuously at intervals of one
hour. Measurements were made ahead of the
first 150-lb guard bed and after the 1,000-lb
main adsorber. The average upstream
concentration of THCs was 7,123 ppm, with a
maximum value of 8,762 ppm. The average
downstream concentration was 795 ppm, with a
maximum value of 1,349 ppm. The average
removal efficiency was 89 percent. After the
downstream monitoring location, the process
vent gas passed through a second 150-lb
carbon bed, where additional THC was removed
before discharge to the atmosphere.
To measure VOCs, three samples of gas were
collected during the SITE demonstration test.
The average total concentration of VOCs in the
process vent gas was 397 micrograms per cubic
meter (ug/m3). TWO compounds, chloromethane
and methylene chloride, accounted for almost
98 percent of VOC emissions. Monitoring and
sampling results indicated that, during the SITE
demonstration, air emissions from the
X*TRAX™ process vent met the performance
standard for process vent emissions.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
PA
147
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
148
-------
Thermal Desorption at the
Waldick Aerospace Devices Site
Wall Township, New Jersey
149
-------
Thermal Desorption at the
Waldick Aerospace Devices Site
Wall Township, New Jersey
Site Name:
Waldick Aerospace Devices
Superfund Site
Location:
Wall Township (Monmouth
County), New Jersey
Contaminants:
-BTEX
- Total petroleum hydrocarbons
(PHC)
- Volatile organic compounds
(VOC) - toluene,
tetrachloroethane,
tetrachloroethene
- Metals (cadmium, chromium,
nickel, zinc)
Period of Operation:
June - October 1993
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
RUST Remediation Services
USAGE Project Lead:
Ron Ackerman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New Jersey Area Office
1 Main St. (Suite 416)
Eatontown, NJ 07724
(908) 389-3040
Technology:
Low Temperature Volatilization
System (LTVS)
- Primary treatment unit - rotary
drum; external Hauck dual
propane/fuel oil burner used to
force heated air into the primary
treatment unit
- Secondary treatment unit -
refractory-lined horizontal cylinder
with a burner
- Design capacity of 35 tons/hr;
actual average system throughput
was 20 tons/hr at a soil
temperature of 450 to 500 °F
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- Original ROD date: 9/29/87
- Second ROD date: 3/29/91
(replaced in situ air stripping with
low temperature thermal
desorption followed by
stabilization and solidification)
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Daniel Weissman
U.S. EPA Region 2, EBRD
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-4384
Waste Source: Contaminated
wastewater discharged directly to
the ground; leaking drums of
spent machine oil
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil - 3,450 yd3
Purpose/Significance of
Application: Thermal desorption
of soil contaminated with a wide
range of organics
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Total VOCs - 1.0 mg/kg; total PHCs - 100 mg/kg; cadmium - 3.0 mg/kg; chromium -100 mg/kg; nickel - 100
mg/kg; zinc - 350 mg/kg
- Air emissions standards were specified in the NJDEPE air permit for the unit for particulates, sulfur oxides,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, hydrogen chloride, VOCs and metals.
150
-------
Thermal Desorption at the
Waldick Aerospace Devices Site
Wall Township, New Jersey (continued)
Results:
- The soil treated by the thermal desorber met the cleanup goals for total VOCs and total PHCs.
- The results of the July 1993 testing indicated that the emissions failed to meet air permit requirements, and
the unit was shut down on August 26, 1993. On September 8,1993, NJDEPE approved restarting operations
after corrective measures had been implemented and the unit was reported to have met the emission standards.
- No results were provided with regard to concentrations of metals; treated soil was disposed offsite in a RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill.
Cost:
- Total cost of $4,995,159 including $3,610,086 for activities related to the remediation of contaminated soil
and $1,385,073 for such other activities as demolition of two buildings and off-site disposal of debris, removal
of three underground storage tanks and off-site disposal of equipment and debris, and abandonment of 17 wells
at the site.
- The cost of $3,610,086 for activities related to the soil remediation includes $2,017,361 for the sum of costs
for capital and O&M elements; this corresponds to a unit cost of $585 per yd3 of soil treated (3,450 yd3 treated)
Description:
The Waldick Aerospace Devices Superfund Site is a 1.7-acre hazardous waste site located in Wall Township
(Monmouth County), New Jersey. The site was used primarily as a manufacturing facility that included
degreasing and metal-plating operations. Wastewaters containing heavy metals and solvents were discharged
directly to the ground surrounding the main building for a period of at least three years, and spent machine oil
leaked onto the ground from perforated drums located near the main building. In 1982, the state ordered
Waldick to conduct cleanup activities; however, sampling following these activities indicated that the soil and
groundwater at the site were still contaminated with volatile organics and metals. Contaminants included
VOCs; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC); other
nonhalogenated volatile organic compounds; and metals. While the initial Record of Decision (ROD) for this
site specified in situ air stripping for contaminated soil, a second ROD, signed in March 1991, revised the
remedy to replace in situ air stripping with low temperature thermal desorption followed by
stabilization/solidification. At the Waldick site, contaminated soils were treated on site using low temperature
thermal desorption and residuals were sent off-site for stabilization and solidification and disposal at a RCRA-
permitted landfill.
A Low Temperature Volatilization System (LTVS) designed by Rust Remedial Services (Rust) was used to treat
an estimated 3,450 yd3 of soil at this site. The unit was trailer-mounted and included feed hoppers/conveyors, a
primary treatment unit (rotary drum), a discharge conveyor with pugmill, cyclones, a secondary treatment unit
(thermal oxidizer), a quench tower, a baghouse, packed-bed scrubbers with stacks, and a power generator
operated with fuel oil. The unit had a design capacity of 35 tons/hr; the actual average system throughput was
20 tons/hr at a soil temperature of 450 to 500 °F. The unit operated from June 1993 until the results of stack
testing, performed in July 1993, indicated that the emissions failed to meet air permit requirements. The unit
was shut down on August 26, 1993. On September 8, 1993, NJDEPE approved restarting operations after
corrective measures had been implemented. Operations were restarted at the end of September to treat the
remaining soil. The soil treated by the thermal desorber met the cleanup goals for total VOCs and total PHCs.
The costs for excavation of soil and disposal of residuals were relatively high compared with the capital and
O&M costs for this application. Approximately $1,000,000 was spent on commercial disposal of treated soil,
which may be attributed to the disposal of treated soil as a RCRA hazardous waste. In addition, the RPM
indicated that the cost of the project was higher than originally estimated because the total amount of soil
treated was greater than had been anticipated. .
151
-------
Cost and Performance Summary Report
Thermal Desorption at the Waldick Aerospace Devices Site
Wall Township, New Jersey
Summary Information f 1,2,3,5,6]
The Waldick Aerospace Devices Superfund Site is a 1.7-acre
hazardous waste site located in Wall Township (Monmouth
County), New Jersey. The site was used primarily as a
manufacturing facility that included degreasing and metal-
plating operations. The property presently houses three vacant
buildings: the Main Waldick Building, the Pac-n-Post Building,
and the Auxiliary Building.
Wastewaters containing heavy metals and solvents were
discharged directly to the ground surrounding the main building
for a period of at least three years, and spent machine oil leaked
onto the ground from perforated drums located near the main
building. In 1982, the state ordered Waldick to conduct cleanup
activities (specific activities not specified); however, sampling
following these activities indicated that the soil and groundwater
at the site were still contaminated with volatile organics and
metals.
From May 1985 through September 1986, EPA conducted a
remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) at the
Waldick site. Primary contaminants of concern in soil and
groundwater included benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene (BTEX); petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC); other
nonhalogenated volatile organic compounds (VOC); and
cadmium, chromium, and other metals. Concentration data
provided by the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) showed a
number of constituents in the soil, including total petroleum
hydrocarbons at 493 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg); toluene
and tetrachloroethane at 26 mg/kg; tetrachloroethene at 160
mg/kg; cadmium at 1,220 mg/kg; chromium at 548 mg/kg;
nickel at 100 mg/kg; and lead at 625 mg/kg.
The initial Record of Decision (ROD) for this site, signed
September 29,1987, specified in situ air stripping for
contaminated soil. However, this remedial activity was not
performed. A second ROD, signed March 29,1991, revised the
remedy to replace in situ air stripping with low temperature
thermal desorption followed by stabilization/solidification.
Remedial work at the site was performed from May 1993 until
October 1993. Remedial activities included demolition of two
buildings, removal of three underground fuel oil storage tanks,
and removal of the septic tank at the Main Waldick Building.
Contaminated soils were treated on site by low temperature
thermal desorption, followed by off-site stabilization and
solidification. The solid residues were disposed of as hazardous
waste under the provisions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Approximately 3,450 cubic yards (yd3) of
soil were treated in this application.
CERCLIS ID Number: NJD054981337
Lead: Federal Lead/Fund-Financed
J
Timeline \1,2,3,5,61
May 1985 - September 1986
September 29, 1997
March 29, 1991
June - October 1993
August 26 - September 14,
1993
RI/FS conducted
Initial ROD signed
Second ROD signed
Thermal desorber operated
Thermal desorber
temporarily shut down
Factors That Affected Cost or Performance of Treatment [61
Listed below are the key matrix characteristics for this
technology and the values measured for each during site
characterization.
Matrix Characteristics
Soil Classification:
Clay Content and/or
Particle Size Distribution:
Moisture Content:
pH:
Petroleum Hydrocarbons:
Bulk Density:
Sand with some silt and clay
and gravel
Range of 0.1 to 10 mm - sand (5
of 6 borings at 3 ft to 11 ft bgs);
<0.1 mm - silt (1 boring)
Range 12-14%; mean 13.8%
Not available
493 mg/kg
Not available
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
152
-------
Waldick Aerospace Devices Site
Treatment Technology Description H. 3,6,71
The thermal desorption unit used at the Waldick site was a Low
Temperature Volatilization System (LTVS) designed by Rust
Remedial Services (Rust). The unit is trailer-mounted and
included feed hoppers/conveyors, a primary treatment unit
(rotary drum), a discharge conveyor with pugmill, cyclones, a
secondary treatment unit (thermal oxidizer), a quench tower, a
baghouse, packed-bed scrubbers with stacks, and a power
generator operated with fuel oil. Contaminated soil was stored in
twin feed hoppers (7.5 yd3 capacity) and fed to the primary
treatment unit via conveyors. The primary treatment unit was a
rotary drum with a burner. An external Hauck dual propane/fuel
oil burner was used to force heated air into the primary treatment
unit. The treated soil exiting the primary treatment unit was
discharged to a pugmill where it was mixed with water to
minimize fugitive dust emissions. From the pugmill, the treated
soil was sent to a stockpile for analysis and storage prior to
transport off-site for disposal.
Vapors and particles from the primary treatment unit were
directed to four high efficiency cyclone separators, each 2.66 ft in
diameter and rated at 27,500 cubic feet per minute (cfin) at
800°F. The particulate matter from the cyclones was discharged
to the pugmill via a screw conveyor where it was mixed with the
treated soil and water. The process air stream was directed to the
secondary treatment unit, which consisted of a refractory-lined
horizontal cylinder with a burner. The process air stream was
heated to a minimum temperature of 1,800°F for 1.9 seconds to
destroy organics. The process air stream was then sent through a
spray cooler to a baghouse. Particulates removed from the
process air stream were sent to the pugmill and the off-gas was
routed to a packed-bed wet scrubber (counter current flow of 300
to 360 gpm) and discharged through a stack. The scrubber
blowdown was sent to the pugmill.
The unit had a design capacity of 35 tons/hr. The actual average
system throughput was 20 tons/hr at a soil temperature of 450 to
500°F. The unit was operated for a total of approximately 540
hours (45 days at 12 hr/day). The unit began operating in June
1993 and had been operating for six weeks when the first
performance testing was conducted. According to the EPA
RPM, the six weeks of operation included time to perform startup
and shakedown of the system, and time to receive analytical
results from the laboratory (due to normal laboratory turnaround
time), and the conduct of internal data quality reviews.
The results of the July 1993 testing indicated that the emissions
failed to meet air permit requirements, and the unit was shut
down on August 26, 1993. On September 3, 1993, Rust
(formerly CWM) proposed an extensive list of modifications to
the LTVS to correct the problems and requested approval from
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy (NJDEPE) to re-start operations. At that time, the
contractor estimated that only about 2 to 3 days of operating time
was necessary to complete the cleanup at the site. On September
8, 1993, NJDEPE approved restarting operations after corrective
measures had been implemented, including operating the system
at no more than 25 tons/hr (versus the design capacity of 35
tons/hr), reducing system air flow, adding a pre-coat to the
baghouse, improving the scrubber system, monitoring pH, and
adjusting burners to control nitrogen oxide emissions.
Operations were authorized to restart on September 14,1993.
Thermal processing of the remaining soils was completed from
September 28 through October 7, 1993. Available emissions
data indicated that the unit was in compliance with all air permit
requirements.
Following treatment, the soil was stabilized to contain metals,
which were not destroyed by thermal desorption. The stabilized
soil was disposed of off-site in a Class C landfill.
Listed below are the key operating parameters for this technology
and the values measured for each.
Operating Parameters
Residence Time:
System Throughput:
Soil Temperature:
7-8 minutes
20 tons/hr
450 - 500°F
Performance Information \1,4, 6,71
The ROD identified the following cleanup goals for soil:
Total VOCs - 1.0 mg/kg
Total PHCs - 100 mg/kg
Cadmium - 3.0 mg/kg
Chromium - 100 mg/kg
Nickel - 100 mg/kg
Zinc - 350 mg/kg
Air emissions standards were specified in the NJDEPE air permit
for the unit. Emission standards were specified for particulates,
sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, total
hydrocarbons, hydrogen chloride, VOCs and metals.
The soil treated by the thermal desorber met the cleanup goals
for total VOCs and total PHCs. As discussed above, the results
of the performance testing indicated that the unit did not meet
the air emission standards. After instituting corrective measures
defined by NJDEPE, the unit met all air emission standards
specified in the permit.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
153
-------
1 Waldick Aerospace Devices Site
Performance Data Quality
No information was provided on quality assurance/quality
control for this application.
Cost Information T2.31
Cost information provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) indicated that a total of $4,995,159 was expended for
remedial activities at Waldick. The total consists of $3,610,086
for activities related to the remediation of contaminated soil and
$1,385,073 for such other activities as demolition of two
buildings and off-site disposal of debris, removal of three
underground storage tanks and off-site disposal of equipment and
debris, and abandonment of 17 wells at the site.
The cost of $3,610,086 for activities related to the soil
remediation includes $2,017,361 for the sum of costs for capital
and O&M elements; this corresponds to a unit cost of $585 per
yd3 of soil treated (3,450 yd3 treated).
Actual Project Costs
Excavation (of soil)
Capital
Mobilization/Demobilization
- Mobilization
- Demobilization
Site Work/Preparation
- Site security
- Site access
- Prepare and revise plans, conduct
site survey
- Construct soil storage and
decontamination areas
- Site utilities and temporary facilities
- Earthwork - gravel, backfill, paving
- Vegetative cover, installation and
maintenance of black pine trees
552,000
20,000
15,000
60,822
2,000
90,000
37,500
18,000
227,300
75,050
Equipment and Appurtenances
- Process equipment and 801,811
appurtenances
- Miscellaneous (not specified) 556,845
Startup and Testing
- Project startup 25,000
Capital Subtotal 1,929,328
Operation & Maintenance
Direct Labor/Materials Included with
capital costs
Health and Safety 66,469
Analytical (related to technology
performance, not compliance
monitoring)
- Stack sampling 21,564
O&M Subtotal 88,033
Disposal of Residuals 955,650
Analytical (related to compliance 85,075
monitoring, not technology
performance)
Total Project Cost $3,610,086
Observations and Lessons Learned [61
The costs for excavation of soil and disposal of residuals were
relatively high compared with the capital and O&M costs for this
application. Approximately $1,000,000 was spent on
commercial disposal of treated soil, which may be attributed to
the disposal of treated soil as a RCRA hazardous waste.
The unit had been operating for six weeks and the treatment was
almost complete (within 2-3 days) before the initial performance
test was performed. The system was shut down when the unit
failed to meet applicable air emission standards. According to
the EPA RPM, it would have been preferable to identify the non-
compliance at an earlier time. Further, the RPM indicated that
better emissions control design would have prevented the
problem.
The RPM indicated that the cost of the project was higher than
originally estimated because the total amount of soil treated was
greater than anticipated. The additional cost was negotiated
between the contractor and USAGE.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
154
-------
Waldick Aerospace Devices Site
Contact Information
For more information about this application, please contact:
EPA Remedial Project Manager:
Daniel Weissman *
U.S. EPA-EERD
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212)637-4384
E-mail: weissman.daniel@epamail.epa.gov
USAGE Project Lead:
Ron Ackerman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New Jersey Area Office
1 Main St. (Suite 416)
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Telephone: (908)389-3040
* Primary contact for this application
References
The following references were used in the preparation of this
report.
1. U.S. EPA. 1997. Innovative Treatment Technologies
Database, Annual Status Report (Eighth Edition). August.
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 1995. Payment
Estimate for Waldick Aerospace Devices Site. July.
3. USAGE. 1997. Cost Data for Innovative Treatment
Technologies. July.
4. EPA. 1987. Record of Decision for Waldick Aerospace
Devices. September.
5. EPA. 1991. Record of Decision for Waldick Aerospace
Devices. March.
6. Daniel Weissman, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region 2.
1998. Letter to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc.,
Thermal Desorption Process Data at Waldick Superfund Site.
April 16.
7. Philip Guenzer, Rust Remedial Services. 1994. Letter to
John Prince, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region 2,
Chronology of LTVS Stack Testing. March 3.
8. Daniel Weissman, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region 2.
1998. Feedback to Richard Weisman, Tetra Tech EM Inc.,
Thermal Desorption Process Data at Waldick Superfund Site.
August 13.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Tetra Tech EM Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-W5-0055.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
155
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA542-R-98-011
------- |