&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Minergy Corporation
Glass Furnace Technology
Evaluation
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION •
-------
EPA/540/R-03/500
March 2004
MINERGY CORPORATION
GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY
EVALUATION
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Contract No. 68-CO-00-181 to Tetra Tech EM Inc. It has been subjected to EPA peer
and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention
of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, EPA
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and
building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely,
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the
future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (Laboratory) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to
human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and
groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort
is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support
regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure
effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Lee Mulkey, Acting, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents performance and economic data for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program demonstration of the Minergy Corporation
(Minergy) Glass Furnace Technology (GFT). The demonstration evaluated the technology's ability to
reduce polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and metal concentrations in river sediment.
GFT was developed by Minergy to remove PCBs, other organics, and metals from river sediment. The
GFT consists of a dryer, a melter, and an air pollution control system. After drying to about lOpercent
moisture, the dried sediment is mixed with a flux material to control melting temperatures and improve
the physical properties of the glass aggregate product, and introduced into the melter. The sediment is
heated in the melter to a temperature of about 1,600 degrees Celsius (°C), at which temperature the
sediment is molten. At these high temperatures, PCBs and organic contaminants are destroyed or
removed, and metals are encapsulated within the glass matrix. The molten sediment exits the melter into
a water-quench bath, where it quickly hardens and shatters to form glass aggregate that, Minergy
maintains, has reuse value.
Laboratory tests of sediment samples collected during a pilot dredging project on the Lower Fox River,
Wisconsin, indicated that the sediment was suitable for melting using the GFT. A demonstration of an
indirect-disk or paddle dryer, the intended type of dryer for a full-scale implementation of the GFT, was
conducted by Hazen Research, Inc., at its facility in Golden, Colorado in January 2001. A pilot-scale
melter was designed and built at Minergy's facility in Winneconne, Wisconsin, where the GFT
demonstration treated a total of about 27,000 pounds of dried sediment in the Summer of 2001.
The primary objective for the GFT technology demonstration was to evaluate the treatment efficiency of
PCB destruction or removal by the GFT process during the demonstration period. Results of the
demonstration indicate that Minergy's GFT removed 99.9995 percent of the PCB contamination in the
sediment.
This technology is potentially applicable at hazardous waste sites where river sediment has been impacted
by PCBs, other organics, and metals. Economic data indicate that remediation costs of using GFT are
affected by site-specific factors, such as local land prices and site suitability. The cost for treatment using
a full-scale treatment facility, constructed at a location in proximity to sediment removal activities, was
calculated to be $38.74 per ton of dredged-and-dewatered sediment (containing about 50 percent
moisture). Treatment costs, which are affected by the amount of moisture in the sediment and potential
end use of the glass aggregate, are based on operating a melter on an average of 600 tons of sediment per
day over a 15-year project life.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
NOTICE ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM .. 1
1.2 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT 3
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
1.4 THE GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY 4
1.4.1 General Description of the Glass Furnace Technology 5
1.4.2 Minergy Corporation's Glass Furnace Technology 6
1.4.3 Site-specific Dryer Configuration 8
1.4.4 Site-specific Furnace Configuration 9
1.5 KEY CONTACTS 12
2.0 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS 14
2.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA 14
2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 14
2.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
15
2.1.3 Short-term Effectiveness 15
2.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 15
2.1.5 Long-term Effectiveness 16
2.1.6 Implementability 16
2.1.7 Costs 16
2.1.8 State Acceptance 17
2.1.9 Community Acceptance 17
2.2 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY 17
2.2.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 19
2.2.2 Toxic Substances Control Act 20
2.2.3 Clean Air Act 21
2.2.4 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 21
2.2.5 Department of Transportation Regulations 22
2.2.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Off-Site Rule 22
2.3 OPERABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY 22
-------
2.4 KEY FEATURES OF GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY 23
2.4.1 Contaminant Reduction 23
2.4.2 Mass Reduction 23
2.4.3 Glass Aggregate Qualities 24
2.4.4 Full-scale Design 24
2.4.5 Clean Air Emissions 24
2.4.6 Costs 25
2.5 APPLICABLE WASTES 25
2.6 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT 25
2.7 MATERIALS-HANDLING REQUIREMENTS 26
2.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY 26
3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 30
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 30
3.2 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 30
3.3 COST ELEMENTS 31
3.3.1 Site Preparation 33
3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 33
3.3.3 Capital Equipment 34
3.3.4 Startup Costs 35
3.3.5 Labor Costs 35
3.3.6 Consumables and Supplies 35
3.3.7 Utilities 35
3.3.8 Residue Treatment and Disposal Costs 36
3.3.9 Transportation Costs 36
3.3.10 Monitoring and Analytical Costs 36
3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs 37
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs 37
3.4 BENEFICIAL REUSE 37
3.5 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 38
4.0 TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS 40
4.1 DEMONSTRATION BACKGROUND 40
4.2 METHODOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION 41
4.2.1 Pre-demonstration Activities 41
4.2.1.1 Hazen Research Inc. Dryer Demonstration 42
4.2.1.2 Drum Dryer 42
4.2.2 Glass Furnace Technology Melter Demonstration 42
4.2.2.1 June 2001 Glass Furnace Technology Demonstration 42
4.2.2.2 August 2001 Glass Furnace Technology Demonstration .... 43
4.2.3 Sampling Program 44
4.2.3.1 Drum Dryer 44
4.2.3.2 Glass Furnace Technology Melter 45
4.3 GFT DEMONSTRATION DATA 45
4.3.1 Dryer 45
4.3.1.1 Dredged-and-Dewatered Sediment 46
4.3.1.2 Drum-Dried Sediment 46
4.3.2 Melter 51
4.3.2.1 Melter Feed Dry Sediment 51
4.3.2.2 Flux 56
VI
-------
4.3.2.3 Glass Aggregate Product 56
4.3.2.4 Melter Flue Gas 61
4.3.2.5 Post-Carbon Treatment Flue Gas 66
4.3.2.6 Quench-Tank Water 66
4.3.2.7 Cooling-Tower Discharge 71
4.3.2.8 Dust 73
4.3.2.9 Leachates of Glass Aggregate Product and Crushed Glass
Aggregate Product 74
4.3.2.9.1. Glass Aggregate Product ASTM
Water-Leach Text 77
4.3.2.9.2 Glass Aggregate Product SPLP Leach
Test 78
4.3.2.9.3 Crushed Glass Aggregate Product SPLP
Leach Test 80
4.3.3 SITE Demonstration Objectives 82
4.3.3.1 Primary Objectives Evaluation 82
4.3.3.2 Secondary Objectives Evaluation 87
4.4 DATA QUALITY 89
4.4.1 Surrogate Recoveries 89
4.4.2 Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate 90
4.4.3 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate 91
4.4.4 Equipment Blanks, Field Blanks, and Method Blanks 91
4.4.5 Audits 91
4.4.6 QAPP Sampling Deviations 92
4.5 OVERALL EVALUATION 92
5.0 TECHNOLOGY STATUS 98
5.1 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE 98
5.2 SCALING CAPABILITIES 99
6.0 REFERENCES 100
APPENDICES
A CONGENER AND ANALYTE LISTS 101
B VENDOR CLAIMS 105
C HAZEN RESEARCH INC. DRYER DEMONSTRATION RESULTS 127
D WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER NR538 '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 137
vn
-------
FIGURES
1-1 SCHEMATIC OF GFT PROCESS 7
1-2 MELTER CONFIGURATION 11
TABLES
Table
1-1 PILOT-SCALE MELTER CHARACTERISTICS 10
2-1 POTENTIAL FEDERAL APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY 27
3-1 PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS SEDIMENT MELTING PLANT 34
3-2 SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR MINERGY GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY 39
4-1 SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION DEMONSTRATION
EVENTS 41
4-2 DREDGED-AND-DEWATERED SEDIMENT PCB RESULTS 47
4-3 DRUM-DRIED SEDIMENT PCB RESULTS 49
4-4 MELTER FEED DRY SEDIMENT COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS 52
4-5 FLUX MATERIAL SAMPLE RESULTS 57
4-6 GLASS AGGREGATE PRODUCT COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS 58
4-7 MELTER FLUE GAS SAMPLE RESULTS 62
4-8 POST CARBON GAS SAMPLE RESULTS 67
4-9 QUENCH WATER COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS 70
4-10 COOLING TOWER WATER 72
4-11 DUST COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS 75
4-12 GLASS AGGREGATE ASTM LEACHATE SAMPLE RESULTS 76
4-13 GLASS AGGREGATE SPLP LEACHATE SAMPLE RESULTS 79
4-14 CRUSHED GLASS AGGREGATE SPLP LEACHATE SAMPLE RESULTS 81
4-15 INPUT AND OUTPUT PCB CONCENTRATIONS 85
4-16 BENEFICIAL REUSE RESULTS AND CRITERIA 86
4-17 DISCREPANCIES TO QAPP SAMPLE PROTOCOL FOR MINERGY MELTING
DEMONSTRATION 94
5-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT SIZE FOR SCALING AND UNIT COSTING 99
Vlll
-------
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS
ARARs Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CAA Clean Air Act
CAMU Corrective action management unit
°C Degrees Celsius
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COC Contaminant of concern
Comp Composite
DOT Department of Transportation
dryer Indirect heat disk or paddle dryer (can we delete this one?)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
FS Feasibility study
GFT Glass Furnace Technology
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
Hazen Hazen Research, Inc.
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
ID Identification
ITER Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
J Estimated
kg/hr Kilogram per hour
kj Kilojoule
kWh Kilowatt-hour
Laboratory National Risk Management Research Laboratory
LCS Laboratory control sample
LCSD Laboratory control sample duplicate
LDR Land Disposal Restriction
IX
-------
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS (Continued)
M Million
melter Minergy's pilot-scale melter
Minergy Minergy Corporation
mg Milligram
mg/kg Milligram per kilogram
mg/L Milligram per liter
MS Matrix spike
MSB Matrix spike duplicate
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCP National Contingency Plan
ND Nondetect
NPV Net present value
O2 Oxygen
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORD EPA Office of Research and Development
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
oxy-fuel Oxygen and natural gas mixture
P Primary
Paradigm Paradigm Analytical Laboratories
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin
PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzofuran
%R Percent recovery
PPE Personal protective equipment
ppm Parts per million
ppt Parts per trillion
PW Present worth
-------
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS (Continued)
QA Quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality control
RCRA Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act
S Secondary
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SMU Sediment management unit
SPLP Synthetic Precipitate Leaching Procedure
SVOC Semivolatile organic compound
Tetra Tech Tetra Tech EM Inc.
TE Treatment efficiency
TEQ Toxicity equivalent
TER Technology Evaluation Report
tons/day Tons per day
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSD Treatment, storage, and disposal
TSS Total suspended solids
UCL95 95 Percent upper confidence limit
VOC Volatile organic compound
WAC Wisconsin Administrative Code
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared under the direction of Marta K. Richards, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Work Assignment Manager for this Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program demonstration at the National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. The
Glass Furnace Technology evaluation was a cooperative effort funded by Minergy Corporation
(Minergy), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) and involved the following personnel from EPA, WDNR. Minergy, and Tetra
Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech):
Marta K. Richards
Ann Vega
Scott Cieniawski
Mark Tuchman
Jeff Krieder
Terry Carroll
Tom Baudhuin
Joe Dauchy
Ken Partymiller
Ken Brown
EPA
EPA
EPA - GLNPO
EPA - GLNPO
WDNR
Minergy
Minergy
Tetra Tech
Tetra Tech
Tetra Tech
xn
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glass Furnace Technology (GFT) treatment process was developed by Minergy Corporation
(Minergy) as an ex situ remediation technology to treat river sediment contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), other organic compounds, and metals. An evaluation of the technology was conducted
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program. The demonstration of the GFT, which consisted of a drying process and a melting
process, was completed at the Hazen Research, Inc. (Hazen) facility in Golden, Colorado, and Minergy's
GlassPack Test Center facility in Winneconne, Wisconsin.
According to the vendor, Minergy, the GFT process was designed to treat contaminated river sediment
and is intended for use at any location where dredging and remediation of sediment is prescribed.
Although site-specific background data are not relevant to the SITE demonstration, the technology
evaluation was conducted on river sediment dredged from the Lower Fox River in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The purpose of this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report is to present information that will assist
Superfund decision-makers in evaluating the GFT for application to hazardous waste site cleanups
associated with contaminated river sediment. This executive summary describes the GFT, provides an
overview of the SITE evaluation of the technology, discusses evaluation criteria for the GFT, and
summarizes SITE evaluation results.
Glass Furnace Technology
The GFT process was developed and configured for this SITE demonstration by Minergy. The
demonstration process consisted of two basic steps: sediment drying and dried-sediment vitrification.
According to the vendor, a full-scale GFT project will integrate drying and melting operations in a single
facility. Both processes were evaluated independently for the SITE demonstration. The dryer evaluation
was conducted in Golden, Colorado in January 2001, and the melter evaluation was completed in
Winneconne, Wisconsin in August 2001.
The GFT process was designed as an alternative treatment to landfilling for river sediment impacted by
PCBs, other organics, and metals. Dewatered sediment is dried, flux is added to control melting
temperatures and improve the physical properties of the glass aggregate product, and then the sediment
and flux mixture melted at a temperature of about 1,600 degrees Celsius (°C) (2,900 degrees Fahrenheit
[°F]), removing or destroying PCBs and organic contaminants, and encapsulating metals. The treated
ES-1
-------
product consists of black glass aggregate with particles the size of coarse sand. Minergy claims the glass
aggregate meets state regulatory criteria for beneficial reuse.
For clarification, this document refers to the indirect heat disc or paddle dryer as the dryer and the
pilot-scale melter portion of the GFT as the melter.
Overview of the GFT Technology SITE Demonstration
River sediment from a pilot dredging project conducted on the Lower Fox River in Green Bay,
Wisconsin, was used to demonstrate the GFT. Sediment was delivered to the dryer in dewatered form (45
to 55 percent solids by weight). The purpose of the dryer demonstration was to reduce moisture in the
sediment from 50 percent to about 10 percent moisture.
According to Minergy , after researching available sediment drying technologies, it was determined that,
because of its low volume of sweep air and low potential for generating dust, a indirect heat disc or
paddle dryer unit was the most appropriate drying technology for the GFT treatment process. Because
this type of large-scale dryers were not available for rent and the purchase of an appropriately sized unit
was too costly for the demonstration, Minergy chose a bench-scale Holoflite® dryer, located at the Hazen
facility in Golden, Colorado to be used to dry a small amount of the sediment under very similar
conditions to those in a large-scale dryer unit. For the melter to operate at optimal efficiency, the dried
sediment must contain no more than 10 percent moisture. Sediment entering and exiting the dryer, air
emitted from the dryer, and condensed water from the dried sediment were sampled as part the SITE
evaluation of the technology. Data from the dryer evaluation were inadequate to use in the overall
technology evaluation because sediment dust was drawn into the dryer vent, the condensate collection
vessel, and air sampling equipment, and the PCB congeners analyzed were not the same as those analyzed
in the sediment.
The bulk of the sediment was dried in a drum oven at Minergy's facility in Winneconne, Wisconsin. To
permit the calculation of the overall efficiency of the GFT, samples were collected from the sediment
before and after drying in the drum oven. The melting phase of the process was evaluated using a
pilot-scale melter (melter) specifically designed for this SITE evaluation. The sediment, flux, glass
aggregate, and waste streams were analyzed for predetermined contaminants of concern (COCs) before
and after processing through the glass furnace. COCs included PCBs; dioxins and furans; metals,
including mercury; and semivolatile organic compounds. The melter evaluation began in June 2001, but
was halted after three days when molten sediment corroded a hole in the refractory brick. The
ES-2
-------
demonstration was stopped before evaluation sampling was completed. Repairs were made to the melter,
and the demonstration was rerun in August without incident.
The SITE demonstration for the GFT was designed with two primary and three secondary objectives to
provide potential users of the technology with the information necessary to assess the applicability of the
GFT for other similarly contaminated sites.
The primary objectives (P) of the technology demonstration were as follows:
PI Determine the treatment efficiency (TE) of PCBs in dredged-and-dewatered river
sediment when processed in the Minergy GFT.
P2 Determine whether the GFT glass aggregate product meets the criteria for
beneficial reuse under relevant federal and state regulations. The aggregate
product will be judged to be beneficial with respect to each metal or PCB if the 95
percentile upper confidence limit (UCL9S) for the estimated mean (of each metal or
PCB) is less than the federal or state regulatory requirements, as applicable.
The secondary objectives (S) of the technology demonstration were as follows:
SI Determine the unit cost of operating the GFT on dredged-and-dewatered river
sediment.
S2 Quantify the organic and inorganic contaminant losses resulting from the existing
or alternative drying process used for the dredged-and-dewatered river sediment.
S3 Characterize organic and inorganic constituents in all GFT process input and
output streams.
SITE Demonstration Results
Key findings of the GFT are listed below:
Analytical data indicate that the GFT was able to significantly reduce PCB contamination
in all samples collected. Overall, the GFT successfully removed or destroyed 99.9995
percent of the PCBs in the river sediment, measured as total PCBs.
The GFT appeared to be capable of decreasing mercury concentrations in the river
sediment. Mercury was observed in sediment at a concentration slightly less than 1 part
per million (ppm), and it was not detected in the glass aggregate analysis. If not removed
by the furnace thermally, the mercury likely was inactivated within the glass matrix.
Mercury did not leach from the glass aggregate, as evidenced by the results of the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and Synthetic Precipitate Leaching
Procedure (SPLP) water leach tests.
ES-3
-------
The GFT reduced the concentration of dioxins and furans in dried sediment. Total dioxin
and furan concentrations in the glass aggregate ranged from 1.8 x 10"6 to 3.8 x 10"6parts
per million (ppm), a reduction of greater than 99.9995 percent.
The GFT produced glass aggregate that met Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR
538 Category 2 criteria and qualified for beneficial reuse under the regulation. This
qualification allows a wide range of uses, including as an additive to concrete, a material
in floor tiles, and as construction fill.
Minergy demonstrated the dryer and meIter technologies separately. Data collected
during the Holoflite® dryer test were not used to determine the TE because of the
sediment carry-over into all waste streams and the incompatibility of the PCB congener
lists analyzed for the dryer and melter evaluations. The TE was calculated using data
obtained from sampling dredged-and-dewatered sediment from roll-off boxes and dried
sediment from the drum dryer.
Samples of the glass aggregate were crushed and subjected to ASTM and SPLP leaching
analyses. The results of the leaching tests indicated no detections of contaminants of
concern in leachates for either method.
The air sample probe and the flue of the pilot-scale furnace were occasionally clogged by
dust during the furnace operation. Removal of the accumulated dust interrupted air
sample collection frequently during the demonstration. Analysis of the dust material
indicated the presence of metals such as lead and chromium. Dioxins and furans were
detected in very small concentrations (1.0 x 10~5 ppm) in those dust samples.
Post-carbon treatment air samples show a reduction in PCB congeners and PCDD/PCDF
concentrations detected in the melter flue gas samples.
Based on information from Minergy and observations made during the SITE evaluation,
the estimated treatment cost is $38.74 per ton of dredged-and-dewatered sediment
containing 50 percent moisture. Unit costs are based on a 15-year project life expectancy
and may depend on the location of the treatment facility, amount of moisture in the
sediment, and potential end use of the product.
ES-4
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program, evaluated the ability of the Glass Furnace Technology (GFT), developed by
Minergy Corporation (Minergy) of Waukesha, Wisconsin to treat sediment containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and metals. This introductory section provides background information about the SITE
Program, discusses the purpose of this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER), and describes
the proposed technology. This ITER describes additional information about the SITE Program, the GFT,
the SITE demonstration, and Minergy's claims about the technology. The SITE evaluation of the GFT
involved testing of two phases, a drying phase and a melting phase. The majority of activities undertaken
for this evaluation involved the melting phase of Minergy's technology. Key individuals for this project
are listed at the end of this section.
1.1 THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM
The primary purpose of the SITE Program is to advance development and implementation and to
establish the commercial availability of innovative treatment technologies applicable to Superfund and
other hazardous waste sites. The SITE Program was established by the EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) in response to the
1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), which recognized the need for an
alternative or innovative treatment technology research and demonstration program. The SITE Program
is administered by the ORD National Risk Management Research Laboratory in the Land Remediation
and Pollution Control Division, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The overall goal of the SITE Program
is to implement procedures of research, evaluation, testing, development, and demonstration of alternative
or innovative treatment technologies that can be used in response actions to achieve protection of human
health and welfare and the environment. Under the SITE Program, an innovative technology's
performance in treating an individual waste at a particular site is evaluated.
The SITE Program consists of four component programs: (1) the Demonstration Program, (2) the
Emerging Technology Program, (3) the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program, and (4) the
Technology Transfer Program. An innovative treatment technology can be evaluated under one of these
programs. This ITER for the GFT was prepared under SITE's Demonstration Program. The objective of
the Demonstration Program is to provide reliable performance and cost data on innovative technologies so
that potential users can assess a given technology's suitability for specific site cleanups. To produce
1
-------
useful and reliable data, demonstrations are conducted at hazardous waste sites or under conditions that
closely simulate actual waste-site conditions.
Technologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration Program through EPA's annual requests for
proposals. ORD staff review the proposals to determine which technologies show the most promise for
use at Superfund sites. Technologies chosen must (1) be at the pilot- or full-scale stage, (2) be innovative,
and (3) have some advantage over existing technologies. Mobile or transportable technologies are of
particular interest. Implementation of the SITE Program is an ongoing effort involving EPA's ORD,
OSWER, various EPA regions, and private business concerns, including technology developers and
parties responsible for site remediation.
EPA and the innovative technology developer establish responsibilities for conducting demonstrations
and evaluating the technology. The developer is typically responsible for demonstrating the technology
at the selected site and is expected to pay any costs for the transport, operation, and removal of related
equipment. EPA is typically responsible for evaluating the performance of the technology during the
demonstration. This responsibility includes project planning, site preparation, technical assistance
support, sampling and analysis, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC), report preparation,
information dissemination, and transport and disposal of treated waste materials.
At the conclusion of the demonstration, EPA typically prepares a Demonstration Bulletin (2-page
summary), a Technology Capsule (10- to 12-page summary), an ITER, and a Technology Evaluation
Report (TER). These reports provide an evaluation of all available information on the technology and
analyze its overall applicability to other site characteristics, waste types, and waste matrices. Testing
procedures, performance and cost data, and QA/QC standards also are presented. A Demonstration
Bulletin for Minergy's GFT was published in August 2002. The ITER is discussed in detail in the
following sections, and the TER provides relevant information on the technology, emphasizes key results
of the demonstration, and includes detailed analytical results.
-------
1.2 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT
The ITER is intended for use by EPA remedial project managers, EPA on-scene coordinators, contractors,
and other decision-makers, who are implementing specific remedial actions. The ITER provides details
about the technology, SITE evaluation procedures and findings, and unit cost information to aid in
evaluating the technology. In particular, the report includes information on cost and site-specific
characteristics, and it discusses advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of the technology.
Each SITE demonstration evaluates the performance of a technology in treating a contaminated material
or media. Successful field demonstration of a technology at one site does not necessarily ensure that it
will be applicable at other sites. Data from field demonstrations may require extrapolation for estimating
the operating ranges in which the technology will perform satisfactorily. Only limited conclusions can be
drawn from a single field demonstration. This ITER provides information of the GFT developed by
Minergy and includes a comprehensive description of the demonstration and its results.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The GFT process is designed to treat PCB- and mercury-contaminated sediment. The GFT project is
funded by a cooperative agreement among between Minergy, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR), and EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO). Because the GFT is not
designed to be used on any one particular site, detailed information regarding site location, geology, and
hydrology is not necessary for the understanding of this demonstration project.
The GFT was developed by Minergy of Waukesha, Wisconsin. Minergy originally developed
vitrification technologies to process wastewater sludge into glass aggregate that, Minergy contends, could
be sold as a commercial product. Minergy modified a standard glass furnace to treat river sediment
containing PCBs and metals, and the SITE Program evaluated the resultant technology's ability to treat
sediment containing PCBs and mercury.
With WDNR oversight and funding from a coalition of six paper companies with ties to the Lower Fox
River, called Fox River Group, the sediment used in this evaluation was obtained from the Lower Fox
River during the 1999 Sediment Management Unit (SMU) 56/57 pilot dredging project. This project
included hydraulic dredging, onshore dewatering, filter pressing, and treatment with lime. The PCB-
containing sediment dredged during the project was transported to, and disposed of in, a landfill in Green
Bay; Wisconsin. However, approximately 70 tons of sediment was segregated in four roll-off boxes and
-------
stored at the Brown County Landfill for use in the Minergy GFT demonstration. The stockpiled,
filter-pressed sediment was characterized as containing approximately 50 percent solids.
The Lower Fox River sediment has been subjected to various studies over the last 15 years. Sediment in
the vicinity of SMU 56/57 consists of 60 to 80 percent silt, with lesser amounts (0 to 40 percent each) of
sand and clay. PCB concentrations as high as 710 parts per million (ppm) have been detected in samples
collected from SMU 56/57. However, analytical results for sediment stockpiles prior to, and immediately
following, sediment acquisition for the GFT evaluation indicated PCB concentrations of less than 50 ppm
and mercury concentrations of about 1 ppm.
Minergy required that the sediment contain no more than 10 percent moisture for the melter to operate at
optimal efficiency. Minergy researched available sediment drying technologies and determined that a
indirect heat disc or paddle dryer unit was the most appropriate drying technology for the GFT treatment
process. Because no large-scale dryers of this type were available for use, a suitable, bench-scale
Holoflite® dryer, located at the Hazen facility in Golden, Colorado, was used to dry a representative
amount of sediment under similar conditions to those in a large-scale dryer unit. The dryer unit was
configured to allow sample collection of all waste and process streams, including off-gases.
The SITE evaluation of the GFT focused on the melting phase where contaminant reduction would occur.
The melting phase of the process was evaluated at a pilot-scale melter that was specifically designed for
the SITE evaluation at Minergy's facility in Winneconne, Wisconsin. The sediment, glass aggregate, and
waste streams were analyzed for contaminants of concern (COCs) before and after (1) treatment in the
bench-test sediment dryer, and (2) processing through the melter. COCs included PCBs; dioxins and
furans; metals, including mercury; and SVOCs. Metals were characterized by analysis for the eight
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Toxicity Characteristic metals, which include
mercury.
1.4 THE GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY
The following sections provide a general description of the GFT, as well as Minergy's melter and its
specific configuration.
-------
1.4.1 General Description of the Glass Furnace Technology
The information in the following 3 paragraphs has been paraphrased from Minergy's Final
Report on Sediment Me her Demonstration Project for WDNR, submitted in December 2001
(Minergy 2001).
Glass furnaces have been used for decades in industrial glass manufacturing. The process design of a
glass furnace is focused on melting low-energy feedstock; that is, materials with low energy content, as
measured in kilojoules (kj). Feedstock, consisting primarily of silica sand, melts in the furnace, and the
molten product is cooled to form glass. Silica is one of the primary constituents of river sediment and, in
this case, the GFT vitrifies the river sediment, with the expectation of destroying COCs and creating a
useable aggregate as a final product. Minergy claims that other thermal destruction processes are too
costly to be appropriate for use on river sediment, because the sediment has limited fuel value. Many
other processes rely on the significant organic content (fuel content) of the feed material, but because
limited energy is contained in sediment, large quantities of auxiliary fuel or electric power are needed.
Minergy and WDNR have successfully completed two phases of a multiphase feasibility study (FS) to
evaluate GFT as a remediation alternative. The first phase (Phase I) involved characterizing the mineral
composition of river sediment to estimate glass quality, durability, and melting points. Data gathered
during Phase I indicated that characteristics of river sediment are consistent throughout the river and are
favorable for producing a quality glass product. Based on mineral composition, combustibility, moisture
content, and costs to operate, Minergy claims that analysis of the sediment indicates vitrification
technology is more appropriate than incineration for treatment of river sediment.
In Phase II, sediment from the Lower Fox River was test-melted in a crucible to determine glass
characteristics and qualities of the vitrified sediment, both alone and when augmented with other
materials (flux mixtures) to control melting temperatures and improve the physical properties of the glass
aggregate product. Four different test "recipes" were included in the crucible melts, and the sediment was
successfully melted into glass in all four tests. Data obtained during Phase II were used to develop (1) a
proposed "recipe" for melting river sediment into glass aggregate, and (2) preliminary engineering
designs for the pilot-scale facility proposed for Phase III. The preliminary engineering analysis indicated
that it was not practical or cost-efficient to use an existing glass furnace for GFT testing. This analysis
indicated that it would cost as much to retrofit an existing facility to specifications needed to melt the
sediment as it would to build a pilot glass furnace to the same specifications. Project stakeholders also
-------
discovered that most existing glass manufacturing facilities are too large to accommodate a limited
duration test.
Results of the FS indicated that capital and operating costs of the GFT provide for an economically viable
option for treating contaminated river sediment.
1.4.2 Minergy Corporation's Glass Furnace Technology
Minergy's intent with the GFT process was to treat dewatered sediment from the dredging site. The GFT
process for the demonstration is shown in the diagram in Figure 1-1.
Sediment would be delivered in dewatered form, in the range of 45 to 55 percent solids (by weight). The
first step of the process involves drying the sediment to about 10 percent moisture. Drying the sediment
increases the overall efficiency of the process by limiting the amount of moisture in the melter, thereby
reducing the physical volume of the feed and maintaining high processing temperatures. Several
technologies were available for thermal drying. Ideally, gases from the drying step would be directed into
the glass furnace or into another destruction device to control COC emissions.
In the planned GFT process, sediment passes from the drying system into the glass furnace. The glass
furnace is a refractory-lined, rectangular melter. The refractory is a special type of brick that is resistant
to chemical and physical abrasion, has a high melting point, and provides a high degree of insulating
value to the process. The furnace, configured with oxygen and natural gas delivery systems with control
and safety devices, attains internal temperatures of about 1,600 °C (2,900 °F). At this temperature,
sediment melts and flows out of the furnace as molten glass.
The molten material is then quickly cooled in a water-quench system to form the glass aggregate product.
Minergy claims that the glass aggregate can be stored and handled similarly to conventional quarried
aggregates. Some off-site crushing and screening would be required to meet particle size specifications of
certain aggregate markets.
-------
CONDENSER
COOLING
TOWER
CARBON
FILTER
HOLOFLITE®
DRYER
US EPA SITE PROGRAM
MINERGY DEMONSTRATION
FIGURE 1-1
SCHEMATIC OF OFT PROCESS
&EPA
Figure 1 -1 SCHEMATIC OF GFT PROCESS
-------
Minergy expects that the high-temperature environment in the melter will completely destroy any organic
compounds that may be present. In addition, trace metals in the sediment are expected to be stabilized in
the glass aggregate product and are anticipated to be biologically and chemically inert. Minergy claims
that off-gas treatment is simplified and energy efficiency is improved by the melter's use of purified
oxygen, rather than atmospheric air, as the oxygen source. Minergy has made modifications to a standard
glass furnace design, which have been incorporated to best suit this application, including the following:
• The height of the furnace was increased from typical designs to provide additional
volume for destruction of organic vapors. The additional height increases the residence
time that organic contaminants spend within the furnace.
• Use of a water quench system to quickly harden the molten glass and increase the inert
characteristics of the final product. Glass melters typically use annealing or other slow-
cooling processes to enhance glass clarity and other product qualities. These product
qualities are not applicable to the manufacture of glass aggregate because of its intended
final use as a construction product.
• Use of a "shallow" glass pool inside the melter. Glass melters typically have deeper
pools of glass inside the melter, taking advantage of the low opacity of the glass being
produced. Molten sediment is quite opaque, thereby reducing energy transfer by
radiation.
Use of refractory brick selected to resist corrosive and abrasive qualities of molten
sediment.
• Use of flux materials selected to enhance properties of molten sediment material.
Minergy hopes to construct GFT treatment facilities in locations where sediment removal is chosen as a
remedial approach, and to treat contaminated sediment as an alternative method to landfilling.
1.4.3 Site-specific Dryer Configuration
A dryer, determined by Minergy to be of suitable configuration, was located at the Hazen facility in
Golden, Colorado. The Holoflite® dryer was a small, bench-scale unit with the capacity to process 14
pounds per hour (Ib/hr) (6.4 kilograms per hour [kg/hr]) of dredged-and-dewatered (45 to 55 percent
moisture) sediment. To produce an adequate feed material for introduction into the dryer, portions of the
sediment were dried and mixed with dredged-and-dewatered sediment to reduce the stickiness of the
material. Mixing dredged-and-dewatered sediment with dried sediment is a standard materials-handling
practice that creates better flow characteristics.
-------
The dryer itself consisted of a small metal box about 76 centimeters (30 inches) long that contained two
hollow, oil-filled augers that turned slowly. The oil in the augers was heated to about 180 °C (360 °F),
and the heat of the augers drove moisture from the sediment. The turning of the augers moved the
sediment through the dryer to the end, where it fell into a flask. Water in the form of steam escaped from
the dryer through a manifold in the top and was condensed and collected. The dryer reduced the moisture
content of the sediment to less than 10 percent. Figure 1-2 shows the dryer used for the technology
demonstration.
1.4.4 Site-specific Furnace Configuration
The pilot-scale glass furnace, or melter, was designed to simulate a full-scale production unit for
generation of glass aggregate from sediment. To produce an adequate simulation, some assumptions were
made regarding the full-scale melter, based on typical glass-manufacturing practices. Melter
characteristics are presented in Table 1-1.
Figure 1-2 shows the melter as constructed for the demonstration. The pilot-scale melter area was 0.9
square meters (10 square feet), with a 2:1 aspect ratio, meaning that it was twice as long as it was wide.
The melter was fired with oxygen and natural gas to use the best available control technology for
nitrogen-related emissions and particulate matter. The melter had eight split-stream, oxygen-fuel (oxy-
fuel) burners to approximate the eight burners used in a full-scale melter. The charger was a standard
screw feeder used universally in glass furnaces. The screw feeder was chosen for its ability to tightly seal
the hopper to the charger and the charger to the furnace. Tight seals minimized dust formation during
introduction of the dried sediment into the melter. The charger was similar in size to those used in a full-
scale unit, but was retrofit with a small screw barrel and flights for the pilot-scale melter.
The height of the glass processing area was slightly increased to provide additional volume for
destruction of organic vapors. The flue was located in the front of the melter, which is not the traditional
location for oxy-fuel furnaces. However, this configuration allowed any fine particulate matter that
became entrained
-------
TABLE 1-1
PILOT-SCALE MELTER CHARACTERISTICS
(supplied by Minergy)
Parameter
Aspect Ratio (Length/Width)
Area
Melting Rate
Dwell Time
Gas Usage
Oxygen Usage
MM Btu/ton
Output
Measurement
2:1
0.9 square meters (10 square feet)
0.49 square meters per ton
(5.4 square feet per ton)
6 hours
1.8 MM kj per hour
(l.TMMBtuperhour)
1 . 1 cubic meters per hour
(35 cubic feet per hour)
22 MM kj per ton
(21MMBtuperton)
2.0 tons per day
Notes: Btu = British thermal unit
kj = Kilojoule
MM = Million Million
10
-------
Figure 1-2 MELTER CONFIGURATION
11
-------
in the exhaust gases to have the maximum residence time in the furnace, allowing these particulates to be
melted or minimized.
The glass flowed under a skimmer block into a section of the glass furnace, called the forehearth. The
forehearth was constructed in a conventional manner, with the glass outlet flowing to the water quench
system. This method is used in other aggregate-making operations.
The pilot-scale melter was regulated by process controls. The controls used thermocouple signals to
maintain a constant temperature and automatically adjust the gas and oxygen for each zone. Gas and
oxygen delivered to the eight split-stream burners had several safety systems. The furnace is configured
with oxygen and natural gas delivery systems with control and safety devices. If either natural gas or
oxygen flow was lost, the system shut down that source. Each zone within the furnace was automatically
regulated for gas and oxygen flows by a signal from the mass flow meter to a process control loop back to
an automatic valve.
Refractory brick was selected by Minergy for the pilot-scale melter based on an evaluation of the abrasive
qualities of the molten sediment and an analysis of thermal requirements. The analyses were conducted
to ensure that the materials would not be used in temperatures beyond their specifications and to
determine the total heat loss of the entire system.
1.5 KEY CONTACTS
Additional information on the GFT and the SITE Program can be obtained from the following sources:
EPA SITE • Mr. Terry Carroll and Mr. Tom Baudhuin
Ms. Marta K. Richards Minergy Corporation
EPA SITE Project Manager 1512 S. Commercial Street, P.O. Box 375
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Neenah, Wisconsin 54957
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Phone: 920/727-1411
26 West Martin Luther King Drive Fax: 920/727-1418
Cincinnati, OH 45268 Email: tcarroll@,minergy.com
(513)569-7692 Email: tbaudhuinigjminergv.com
Fax:(513)569-7676
E-mail: richards.marta@epa.gov
12
-------
Information on the SITE Program is available through the following on-line information clearinghouses:
• EPA's Reach It, developed by the Technology Innovations Office
http: //www .epareachit. org
REACH - IT combines information from three databases: Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies, Vendor Facts, and Innovative Treatment
Technologies
CLU-IN
http: //www .clu-in. org
CLU-IN provides information about innovative treatment and site-characterization
technologies, while acting as a forum for all waste remediation stakeholders
13
-------
2.0 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS
This section assesses the general applicability of GFTto remediate PCB- and metal-contaminated
sediment from Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. This assessment is based on results from the
demonstration of the technology under the EPA SITE Program.
2.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA
This subsection assesses the GFT relative to the nine evaluation criteria used to conduct detailed analyses
of remedial alternatives in Feasibility Studies (FSs) performed under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This assessment of FS criteria assumes that the
contaminated sediment will be transported to a fixed treatment facility and delivered in a dewatered state.
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) regarding transportation, dewatering, and
handling of pre-treatment waste are not considered to be part of this evaluation.
2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This section addresses whether a technology provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed
by each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
Minergy claims that the GFT provides both short- and long-term protection to human health and the
environment by binding hazardous inorganic constituents into a noncrystalline, glass-like product. A risk
evaluation to assess potential impact to human health and the environment was not performed as part of
the SITE process.
In a full-scale operation, potential accidental releases during treatment could temporarily affect air quality
in the vicinity of the treatment facility. Short-term exposure to workers may also occur during various
materials-handling tasks.
14
-------
2.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
This criterion addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the ARARs of federal and state environmental
statutes. General and specific ARARs identified for the GFT are presented in Section 2.2. Compliance
with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs should be determined on a site-specific basis.
Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs depends on the chemical constituents of the waste and the
Treatment Efficiency (TE) of the glass melter system.
2.1.3 Short-term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection of human health and
the environment, as well as any adverse impacts that may be posed during the treatment period until
clean-up goals are achieved.
Melting is a proven treatment technology for hazardous wastes contaminated with PCBs and inorganic
constituents. Sediment melting transforms the physical state of contaminated sediment from assorted
granular matrices to a glassy solid state. The Minergy process transforms sediment into a glass aggregate
with minimal PCB and organic contaminants, and inorganic contaminants are incorporated into the glass
matrix making them resistant to leaching. Exposure to contaminants during treatment should be minimal
because of the design of the full-scale GFT, which includes automated handling and dust collection.
2.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
The anticipated performance of this treatment technology's potential for use at a Superfund site was
assessed with respect to its ability to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste. The GFT reduces
the toxicity of the dredged-and-dewatered sediment by destroying organic contaminants and incorporating
hazardous, inorganic constituents into a glass matrix, resistant to leaching. Test data from the Minergy
SITE demonstration indicated that mercury and PCB concentrations in dredged sediment could be
reduced to below laboratory detection in the final aggregate product. An almost three-fold volume
reduction of sediment to glass aggregate was observed during the SITE demonstration.
15
-------
2.1.5 Long-term Effectiveness
Long-term effectiveness refers to the ability of a technology to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time. Based on Synthetic Precipitate Leaching Procedure (SPLP) and
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) water leach analyses performed on glass aggregate
during the technology demonstration, it appears that any PCBs and metals present in the aggregate are
resistant to leaching by aqueous solvents, rendering them biologically unavailable. Water leaching tests
simulate natural weathering and can indicate whether the material will be resistant to leaching
contaminants to groundwater.
PCBs and other organic contaminants present in the sediment are treated in the furnace atmosphere. In
the GFT, metals are incorporated into the glass structure, thereby rendering metals resistant to leaching,
based on the results of the leaching-test analyses. Crushed aggregate subjected to leaching analysis also
indicated no contaminants will leach from the glass material over time.
2.1.6 Implementability
To consider the technical and administrative feasibility of a technology, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement a particular option, implementability of the technology is
considered. GFT previously has been used to treat sludge from paper mills, power plants, and municipal
wastewater processors. Only minor modifications to the handling systems and air pollution control
system are required to use a similar system for treatment of PCB-contaminated sediments.
2.1.7 Costs
Estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, as well as net present worth costs were considered
for the SITE evaluation. For large-scale projects the GFT appears to be a cost-effective treatment
alternative to landfilling. Section 3.0 of the report provides a detailed discussion of cost for this
application.
16
-------
2.1.8 State Acceptance
This criterion addresses technical or administrative issues and concerns that the support agency may have
regarding the technology. This SITE demonstration project was performed cooperatively among EPA-
ORD, WDNR, and EPA-GLNPO.
2.1.9 Community Acceptance
The SITE evaluation needs to address any issues or concerns the public may have regarding the GFT.
Public acceptance of this technology should be positive for two reasons: (1) the technology presents
minimal short- or long-term risks to the community, and (2) the material is permanently treated and not
just relocated from one area (contaminated site) to another (landfill).
Contaminated sediment is a relatively common problem throughout the United States, with sediment
removal and landfilling or solvent extraction generally being the most preferred remediation methods.
The public is currently reluctant to accept placing PCB- and mercury-contaminated sediment in landfills.
The public also has expressed a desire to explore remediation technologies that address the contaminant
exposure pathway. The GFT can help in addressing the problem of disposal of contaminated dredge
materials. Providing acceptable and cost-effective disposal of contaminated sediment would resolve the
public's concern with contaminated sediment disposal and could significantly enhance clean-up actions.
2.2 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY
This subsection discusses federal and state environmental regulations that could be pertinent to operation
of the GFT, including transport, treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) of wastes and treatment residuals
during a response action pursuant to CERCLA, as amended by the SARA. CERCLA provides for federal
funding to respond to releases or potential releases of any hazardous substance into the environment, as
well as to releases of pollutants or contaminants that may present an imminent or significant danger to
public health and welfare or to the environment.
SARA includes a strong statutory preference for innovative technologies that provide long-term
protection and directs EPA to:
17
-------
• Use remedial alternatives that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity,
or mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Select remedial actions that protect human health and the environment, are cost-effective,
and involve permanent solutions and alternative treatment or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent possible.
Avoid off-site transport and disposal of untreated hazardous substances or contaminated
materials when practicable treatment technologies exist.
In general, two types of response actions are possible under CERCLA: removal activities and remedial
actions. The GFT would be part of a CERCLA remedial action.
Remedial actions are governed by SARA amendments to CERCLA. As stated above, these amendments
promote remedies that permanently reduce the volume, toxicity, and mobility of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. The GFT is a toxicity reduction technology because it reduces PCBs and
other contaminant concentrations in solid media.
On-site CERCLA remedial actions must comply with federal and more stringent state ARARs. CERCLA
provides no ARARs itself; instead, CERCLA requires that remedial actions comply with substantive
requirements of other environmental statutes. ARARs are determined on a site-by-site basis, considering
the types of chemicals present (chemical-specific), actions taken and waste streams generated (action-
specific), and location of the site in relation to sensitive environments (location-specific). Location-
specific ARARs depend on site-specific conditions and are not addressed in this report.
This discussion addresses potential chemical- and action-specific ARARs. The GFT is designed to treat
chemicals such as PCBs, metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, VOCs, and metals. Waste streams
generated by GFT relate to the material to be treated, dryer condensate, the desired properties of treated
material, and personal protective equipment (PPE). The GFT is an ex-situ treatment technology, and
generation and disposal of PCB waste, when exceeding 50 ppm, is regulated by TSCA and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 761. If other contaminants also are present at a site, site wastes
should be characterized to determine whether they meet the definition of hazardous wastes under RCRA.
If so, RCRA requirements for management of hazardous wastes also will be ARARs for this technology.
Specific ARARs that may be applicable to the GFT are identified in Table 2-1.
18
-------
2.2.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, is the primary federal legislation governing
hazardous waste activities. RCRA was enacted in 1976 to address safe disposal of the enormous volume
of municipal and industrial solid waste generated annually. Subtitle C of RCRA contains requirements
for generation and TSD of hazardous waste, most of which also are relevant and appropriate to CERCLA
activities where hazardous wastes are managed. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
greatly expanded the scope and requirements of RCRA.
These regulations are applicable to the GFT only if RCRA-defmed hazardous wastes are treated or
generated during the CERCLA action. Regulations that are likely to be listed as ARARs include the
requirement to characterize waste for a hazardous waste generator (40 CFR Part 262.11), the requirement
to determine if the hazardous waste is restricted from land disposal (40 CFR Part 268.7(a)), and either 40
CFR Part 262.34(a) for storage of waste on site up to 90 days prior to off-site shipment or 40 CFR Part
264.553 for storage of waste in a temporary unit for up to 1 year prior to disposal. Requirements for
treatment and disposal units are considered to be ARARs for this process, because waste storage will be
conducted on site. Waste generated by the GFT included treated material, dryer condensate, and used
PPE. These materials would require analysis to determine requirements for disposal or discharge. If
these wastes are determined to be hazardous according to RCRA (either because of a characteristic or a
listing carried by the waste), all substantive RCRA requirements regarding management and disposal of
hazardous waste must be addressed by remedial managers. Criteria for identifying characteristic
hazardous wastes are included in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 261, Subpart C. Listed
wastes from specific and nonspecific industrial sources, off-specification products, spill clean-ups, and
other industrial sources are itemized in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D. The technology could be used on
sites where lead, cadmium, chromium, mercury, or other metals are present and could, depending on
concentrations, be characteristic hazardous wastes. PPE and clean-up wastes from a PCB-contaminated
site (if greater than 50 ppm) may not be disposed of in an ordinary landfill. It must be disposed of in a
TSCA chemical waste landfill or a TSCA incinerator. Because this is a fixed treatment facility that will
have waste delivered to the site, clean-up waste should not be an issue. PPE used at the treatment facility
will require special disposal.
Listed hazardous wastes (40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D) remain listed wastes, regardless of the treatment
they may undergo and final contamination levels in the resulting effluent streams and residues. This
regulation implies that, even after remediation, treated wastes are still classified as hazardous if the
19
-------
pre-treatment material was a listed waste. Under the contained-in policy, listed wastes contained in other
materials that are managed as waste require that those materials be managed as listed wastes. Material
can be de-listed in many cases, depending on the attributes of the treated material.
For generation of any hazardous waste, the responsible party must obtain an EPA identification number.
Other applicable RCRA requirements may include a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (if the waste is
transported), restrictions on placing the waste in land disposal units, time limits on accumulating waste,
and permits for storing the waste.
RCRA corrective action regulations regarding corrective action management units (CAMUs) and
temporary units may be ARARs for CERCLA action involving RCRA hazardous waste. The CAMU rule
allows for disposal of remediation wastes without triggering land disposal restrictions and minimum
technology requirements. The temporary units rule allows treatment or tanks without triggering RCRA
tank regulations.
2.2.2 Toxic Substances Control Act
TSCA grants EPA authority to prohibit or control the manufacture, import, processing, use, and disposal
of any chemical substance that presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the
environment. Regulations promulgated under TSCA may be found at 40 CFR Part 761.
Most of the PCB contamination addressed by this technology will be in waste that contains more than
50 ppm PCB contamination and is defined as "PCB remediation waste" under 40 CFR Part 761.3, and its
remediation and disposal will be regulated by 40 CFR Part 761.61. Three options in 761.61 to dispose of
PCB remediation waste, and substantive clean-up levels are provided in 761.61 (a), the "self-
implementing" clean-up option. Requirements in Part 761.61(b) are for a "performance-based" option for
disposing of PCB remediation waste and give performance specifications for certain disposal technologies
such as incineration and placement in a chemical landfill. The final option is for a "risk-based approval"
and is found in 40 CFR Part 761.61(c). This option contains no substantive requirements or ARARs, but
allows EPA Regional Directors to approve remedial actions for PCBs through a site-specific, risk-based
decision.
Minergy's GFT demonstration was considered to be exempt from TSCA because PCB concentrations in
the sediment were consistently below 50 ppm. The full-scale implementation will likely treat sediment
20
-------
with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm, and approval for treatment of that sediment would be
subject to EPA approval.
2.2.3 Clean Air Act
The CAA and its 1990 amendments establish primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for
protection of public health and emission limitations on certain hazardous air pollutants.
CAA permitting requirements are administered by each state as part of State Implementation Plans
developed to bring each state into compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Ambient air quality standards for specific pollutants apply to the operation of the GFT system, because
the technology ultimately results in an emission from a point source to ambient air. Allowable emission
limits for the operation of a GFT system will be established in a case-by-case basis, depending on the type
of waste treated and whether the site is in a NAAQS attainment area. Allowable emissions limits may be
set for specific hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, or other pollutants. An air
pollution control system will likely be required to control the discharge of emissions to the ambient air.
2.2.4 Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Several requirements must be addressed, although they are not ARARs. CERCLA remedial actions and
RCRA corrective actions must be performed in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements detailed in 29 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926, particularly 29 CFR
Part 1910.120, which provides for the health and safety of workers at hazardous waste sites. On-site
construction activities at Superfund or RCRA corrective action sites must be conducted in accordance
with 29 CFR Part 1926, which describes safety and health regulations for construction sites. State OSHA
requirements, which may be significantly stricter than federal standards, also must be met. All
technicians operating the GFT system are required to have completed an OSHA training course and must
be familiar with all OSHA requirements relevant to hazardous waste sites. Noise levels are an OSHA
concern, but GFT noise levels are not expected to be high. Therefore, anticipated noise levels are not
expected to adversely affect the community.
21
-------
2.2.5 Department of Transportation Regulations
Once dredged sediment is dewatered, it may need to be transported, depending on the siting of the
treatment facility. Minergy's intent is to site the treatment facility as close to dredging-and-dewatering
operations as possible. Off-site shipment of hazardous materials is subject to Department of
Transportation (DOT) requirements for packaging and placarding. Additionally, if the treated material
was generated from a RCRA-defined hazardous waste, the material would be subject to DOT regulations
in 49 CFR Parts 172 and 173.
2.2.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Off-Site
Rule
The CERCLA Off-site Rule requires that wastes taken from a CERCLA site for off-site disposal must be
transported to permitted waste disposal facilities. Each EPA Region has a coordinator for assistance in
identifying disposal facilities in the region that are in compliance with their appropriate permits and that
are approved to receive waste from CERCLA sites.
CERCLA covers specific environmental regulations pertinent to demonstration and operation of the GFT,
including transport and treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes and treatment residuals. CERCLA, as
amended by SARA, requires consideration of ARARs. CERCLA issues, although not true ARARs, also
are considered.
2.3 OPERABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY
A schematic of the GFT process is shown as Figure 1-1. According to Minergy, the first step in the glass
aggregate recycling process is to receive dewatered sediment at the full-scale treatment facility. It is
assumed that sediment will be dewatered in the vicinity of dredging operations, unless a pipeline is used
to transfer sediment slurry to the treatment facility. Within the treatment facility, the sediment will be
conveyed to a drying system, where the solids are dried to approximately 10 percent moisture. The dryer
will be vented to the melter furnace to ensure that contaminants potentially released in dust during the
drying process are treated.
The GFT is designed so that dried sediment will be conveyed from the dryer system to the melter, at
which point sediment melts and flows out of the furnace as molten glass. High temperatures in the
22
-------
furnace are expected to remove or destroy organic compounds contained in the sediment, including PCBs.
In addition, the melting process is expected to permanently stabilize the metals within the glass.
The molten glass flows into a water quench bath, where it cools quickly and forms the glass aggregate
product. In this form, the glass aggregate product can be stored and handled similarly to conventional
quarried aggregates. Some crushing and screening can be done, as required to meet the size requirements
of a particular application. Potential markets for the glass aggregate product include floor tiles, abrasives,
roofing shingles, asphalt and chip seal aggregates, and decorative landscaping.
2.4 KEY FEATURES OF GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY
This section describes the key features of the GFT process, which may separate it from other remedial
technologies. These features may be unique to the Minergy GFT.
2.4.1 Contaminant Reduction
One of the primary objectives of the SITE evaluation was to assess the efficiency of the GFT in removing
or destroying PCB concentrations in the sediment. This objective was accomplished by sampling the
sediment before treatment, the glass aggregate, the furnace flue gas, the quench water, and the cooling
tower discharge water. The PCB concentration in the dewatered sediment averaged 28.8 ppm based on a
geometric mean. The geometric mean of the PCB concentrations in the glass aggregate was
1.4x 10~4ppm.
The treatment efficiency (TE) was calculated using the geometric mean of the total PCB concentrations
from each sampled media. The TE calculation is further discussed in Section 4.3.3.1.
2.4.2 Mass Reduction
The SITE demonstration began in June 2001, but the melter run was interrupted because of a failure of
the furnace refractory brick, allowing molten glass to leak. About 4,900 kg (11,000 Ibs) of river sediment
had been processed at the time the system shut down. After the furnace was repaired, the demonstration
was restarted in August 2001, during which steady operating conditions were achieved and maintained
throughout the demonstration. About 7,500 kg (17,000 Ibs) of sediment were processed during the
August demonstration.
23
-------
A total of 12,400 kg (27,000 Ibs) of sediment was treated during the two demonstrations, resulting in the
generation of about 4,900 kg (11,000 Ibs) of glass aggregate. A mass reduction of 2.5 to 1 was observed
during the demonstrations, based on information obtained from Minergy.
2.4.3 Glass Aggregate Qualities
Minergy claims that the glass aggregate product has qualities that support its value in the marketplace. It
does not leach PCBs or metals and has desired physical properties, such as high particle density. These
properties qualify the product for use as construction fill, floor-tile component, roofing-shingle granules,
or an additive to concrete.
2.4.4 Full-scale Design
Minergy has designed a full-scale GFT system to support large river-sediment dredging operations. The
treatment facility is expected to be located nearby dredging and dewatering operations to minimize
transportation costs. The design incorporates mixing and drying, flux addition and mixing, and melting.
The design incorporates several distinctive elements, such as, heat exchangers to capture lost heat and run
the dryers, venting to reduce particulates in the air stream, and closed conveyors to move sediment
without creating dust. The full-scale GFT is designed to melt 600 tons per day of dewatered sediment and
produce 250 tons per day of glass aggregate. A unit cost study was performed by Minergy that evaluated
costs to build and run full-scale treatment facilities of 250, 500, and 750 tons of glass per day.
2.4.5 Clean Air Emissions
Glass furnaces use oxygen-fuel burners, combining natural gas and oxygen to heat the furnace. The
burners raise the internal temperature of the furnace to 1,600 °C (2,900 °F). The use of oxygen instead of
atmospheric air keeps nitrogen oxide emissions low and results in a cleaner burning operation. PCB
emissions from the pilot-scale melter were low (geometric mean of the samples collected was
3.5x 10-6ppm).
24
-------
2.4.6 Costs
Unit costs for the full-scale implementation of Minergy's GFT are detailed in Section 3.0. The cost to
treat dewatered sediment with the GFT was estimated at $38.74 per ton. These costs are comparable to
landfilling costs. Because it appears that contaminant concentrations in the treated glass aggregate have
been permanently removed, or are resistant to leaching, the future liability associated with landfilling the
glass product seems to be much lower than that associated with landfilling the dewatered sediment.
The glass produced by the GFT may have some economic value that could offset some of the
implementation or disposal costs. Additionally, reuse of the treated material will minimize the need to
landfill the glass aggregate, reducing the need for landfill space.
2.5 APPLICABLE WASTES
The GFT process produces a glass aggregate product from contaminated sediment. There are three
sources of process wastewater: quench-tank water, condensate from the dryer exhaust, and blowdown
from the exhaust cooling tower. The condensate from the dryer exhaust and blowdown from the exhaust
cooling tower will likely require permitting and treatment prior to disposal.
2.6 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT
The GFT process for handling contaminated soils was initially developed by Minergy to process
wastewater sludge into glass aggregate that could be sold as a commercial product. The melter is
modified from a standard glass furnace. Other components, such as the indirect heat disc or paddle dryers
and packed cooling towers, are used in other industries and can be modified to fit the requirements of the
GFT process. Based on the amount of on-site assembly required, facility construction would be expected
to take about 9 to 12 months. Minergy states that, for a project of suitable size, design work could begin
immediately. The size of the equipment limits the potential for a transportable unit. Because the
equipment is housed within a building, the facility could be constructed anywhere that space and
permitting would allow.
25
-------
2.7 MATERIALS-HANDLING REQUIREMENTS
The GFT process is most efficient when feed materials contain less than 10 percent water and metal
particles, such as nuts or bolts, etc., have been minimized. Mixing is necessary to get the material to feed
through the dryers, where the moisture content will be reduced to about 10 percent. Waste feed may
require the addition of a fluxing agent to control melting temperatures and improve the physical
properties of the glass aggregate product. For the SITE demonstration, waste feed pretreatment consisted
of reducing the particle size, removing excess metal, drying, and blending with 5 percent sodium sulfate
by weight. Large pieces of material, iron in particular, are expected to be found in the dredged sediment.
These pieces will be removed before pumping the sediment slurry or mixing the dewatered sediment with
dried sediment. After processing through the full-scale GFT, the glass aggregate product will be
withdrawn from the water quench by a set of screws, dewatered, and transported to a storage pile. The
aggregate will then be removed from the site for sale or disposal.
2.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY
The GFT system has several limitations. Since the treatment facility is not transportable, material must be
delivered to the facility for treatment. The material must be dewatered, either mechanically or passively,
to about 50 percent moisture prior to drying. Additional indoor storage of feed material will be required
in cold climates to keep material in a non-frozen state.
Although the cost analyses performed in this ITER are based on a project that would treat 1-million-tons
of sediment, Minergy claims that melters could be scaled to accomodate sediment projects of most sizes.
This could include sediment from multiple sites that can be delivered to a centrally-located treatment
facility.
26
-------
TABLE 2-1
POTENTIAL FEDERAL APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY
Process Activity
ARAR
Description
Basis
Requirements
Sediment
Characterization
RCRA 40 CFR Part 267 or state
equivalent
Identify and characterize
sediment to be treated.
A RCRA requirement must be met
before managing and handling
waste.
Chemical and physical analyses
must be performed.
Notification
TSCA 40 CFR Part 761
Mandate notification to EPA of
PCB waste activity.
Any activity associated with PCB
waste has notification
requirements.
Notify EPA with Form 7710-53.
Transportation for
Off-site Treatment
to
RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 or state
equivalent
Mandate manifest requirements,
packaging, and labeling prior to
transporting.
Waste may require manifesting
and managing as a hazardous
waste.
An ID number must be obtained
from the EPA.
RCRA 40 CFR Part 261 or state
equivalent
Set transportation standards.
Waste may need permits for
transportation as a hazardous
waste.
A licensed hazardous waste
transporter must be used.
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 or state
equivalent
Apply standards for storage of
hazardous waste.
The sediment will be stored on site
prior to treatment.
If separate storage building is not
used, material must be placed on
and covered with plastic to
minimize fugitive air emissions
volatilization and water infiltration.
Storage of Sediment
Prior to Processing
TSCA-40 CFR Part 761
Apply standards for storage of
PCB waste.
The sediment will be stored on site
prior to treatment.
Storage is limited to 1 year, unless
written notification is granted from
EPA. The storage facility must be
constructed to control runon/runoff
and must be approved by EPA.
Waste Processing -
Smelting, Melting,
and Refining Furnace
RCRA 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266
(Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
Rule in Subpart H and Part 270)
Apply standards for the melting
of hazardous waste at permitted
and interim status facilities.
Processing of hazardous waste
must be conducted in a manner
that meets RCRA operating and
monitoring requirements.
Equipment must be maintained
daily. Air emissions must be
characterized by continuous
emissions monitoring. Equipment
decontamination is required upon
completion.
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
POTENTIAL FEDERAL APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY
Process Activity
Storage After
Processing
Disposal
Disposal
Post-treatment
Transportation
Flue Gas Emissions
ARAR
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 or state
equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 or state
equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 268 or state
equivalent
TSCA 40 CFR Part 761 or state
equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 or state
equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 263 or state
equivalent
CAA or equivalent State
Implementation Plan
Description
Apply standards for the storage of
hazardous waste.
Apply standards for landfilling
hazardous waste.
Apply standards that restrict
placement of certain hazardous
wastes on the ground.
Apply disposal options for PCB
remediation waste.
Apply manifest requirements and
packaging and labeling
requirements prior to
transporting.
Apply transportation standards.
Control air emissions that may
impact air quality standards.
Basis
If vitrified product is derived from
treatment of a RCRA-listed waste,
requirements for storage of
hazardous waste in containers will
apply-
By -products derived from
treatment of hazardous waste may
need to be managed as hazardous
waste.
The waste may be subject to
federal Landfill Disposal
Regulations (LDRs)..
PCB waste is subject to federal
requirements regarding disposal.
By-products may need to be
manifested and managed as
hazardous waste if they are
derived from hazardous waste.
By-products may need to be
transported as a hazardous waste if
they are derived from hazardous
waste.
An off-gas treatment system is part
of the glass furnace technology
system design.
Requirements
The vitrified product must be stored
in containers that are well-
maintained and stored in an area
constructed to control runoff.
Wastes must be disposed of at a
RCRA-permitted facility, or EPA
approval for other disposal action
must be obtained.
Waste must be characterized to
determine if LDRs apply; treated
waste must be tested and results
compared to the standard.
Apply in writing to the EPA
regional administrator for risk-
based disposal approval.
An ID number must be obtained
from EPA.
An EPA licensed transporter must
be used.
Treatment of contaminated air must
adequately remove contaminants so
that air quality is not impacted.
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
POTENTIAL FEDERAL APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY
Process Activity
ARAR
Description
Basis
Requirements
Worker Safety
OSHA 29 CFR Parts 1900 through
1926; or state OSHA requirements
Apply worker health and safety
standards.
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act remedial actions and
RCRA corrective actions must
follow requirements for the health
and safety of on-site workers.
Workers must have completed and
maintained OSHA training and
medical monitoring; use of
appropriate personal protective
equipment is required.
to
Notes: ARAR - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
CAA-Clean Air Act
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ID - identification
LDR - landfill disposal restrictions
OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCB - Fob/chlorinated biphenyl
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TSCA - Toxic Substance Control Act
-------
3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Cost data were compiled during the SITE demonstration at the Minergy facility in Winneconne,
Wisconsin, as well as from information obtained from Minergy. Costs have been placed in 12 categories
applicable to typical clean-up activities at Superfund and RCRA sites Evans 1990). Costs are considered
to be order-of-magnitude estimates, with an expected accuracy to within 50 percent above and 30 percent
below actual costs.
This section describes costs associated with using GFT to treat contaminated sediment and presents the
conclusions of the economic analysis.
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
PCBs are identified in river and stream sediments at various locations throughout the United States.
Various remedial options are under consideration for treating these and other contaminated sediment.
This economic analysis presents costs associated with vitrifying contaminated river sediment at high
temperatures, removing, destroying, or binding PCBs and any metals in the glass aggregate product
produced. Several cost scenarios were reviewed, including varying the size and annual operational days
for the system. The scenario used for this analysis consisted of one sediment melter rated at about 600
tons of sediment per day combined with three dryers rated at an input capacity of 200 dredged-and-
dewatered tons per day per dryer. Sediment storage was included to allow year-long operation in all
climates.
Important assumptions regarding operating conditions and task responsibilities that could affect the cost
estimate results are presented in the following sections.
3.2 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Costs for the GFT have not previously been applied to full-scale remediation projects for sediments.
Historical project construction data and data for relatively standard construction practices are available for
other components, such as sediment removal and disposal, but such data are not available for the GFT.
30
-------
A conventional present worth (PW) approach was used for this cost analysis. This approach is universal,
in that it provides procedures for computing the PW of any cost to be considered. In the conventional
approach, each cost is escalated and discounted in separate steps, as necessary to determine its PW.
Costs incurred over the lifetime of a project are classified into four types of cost with respect to frequency
of occurrence:
1. One-time costs are incurred only once over the life of the project. These costs include
those for initial investment, startup, and some alterations or modifications.
2. Continuous costs are incurred periodically throughout a given year. Examples are energy
costs, operational labor costs, scheduled maintenance costs, and sampling costs.
3. Cyclical costs are incurred several times over the life of the project, but less than annual
costs. Some of these costs include some alterations, repair, or replacement of equipment.
4. Annually recurring costs are incurred once each year over the life of the project. These
costs would include annual monitoring and permitting.
The cost elements in the following section were classified into one of these four categories. The cost of all
items was assumed to escalate at a rate less than, or equal to, the general inflation rate. Therefore, the
differential escalation rate is zero. The discount rate, based on the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A-94 and a project life expectancy of 15 years, was calculated at 3.3 percent (OMB
1972). Several additional assumptions were made in this cost estimate, based on an understanding of
process requirements, equipment design, and information from the demonstration project performed.
Assumptions are identified as they relate to each section of the process.
3.3 COST ELEMENTS
The costs directly attributable to the treatment component are discussed below in terms of the cost
elements generally used by the SITE Program for evaluating treatment costs based on field tests for
treatment technologies. The relative importance of each element in selecting various treatment
technologies depends on unit operations involved in the process, the importance of chemical additives for
the process, energy requirements and costs, and project-specific factors. The cost elements are the
following:
Site Preparation Costs - This element includes site design and layout, surveys and site
logistics, legal searches, access rights and roads, preparation of support facilities, and
utility connections. Where the site is used for more than just the treatment technology
(for example, pretreatment or disposal of residues), site preparation costs may be partially
included in the costs for other components.
31
-------
Permitting and Regulatory Requirements - This element includes permits required by
RCRA, TSCA, and CAA, system monitoring requirements as may be required by state
regulations, and development of monitoring and analytical protocols to comply with
regulatory requirements.
Capital Equipment - Major equipment items, process equipment, and residual materials
handling equipment are included in this element. The annualized equipment cost is based
on the life of the equipment, the salvage value, and the annual interest rate.
Startup Costs - Costs associated with operator training, system startup, and ensuring the
proper functioning of the system.
Labor Costs - Labor charges for operational, supervisory, administrative, professional,
technical, maintenance, and clerical personnel supporting the treatment processes must be
estimated for this element.
Consumables and Supplies - The raw materials and supplies required to process the
material are included in this element.
Utilities - Fuel, oxygen, and electricity required to process the material are included in
this element.
Residue Treatment and Disposal Costs - Treatment systems may generate one or more
residues (for example, water, oil, solids, sludges, air, or gas) that require further treatment
before discharge or disposal. This element may also include filters or carbon treatment to
control air emissions.
Transportation Costs - Some transportation of dewatered sediment may be necessary if
the treatment facility is not located in proximity to dredging and dewatering operations.
Costs do not include transportation of glass aggregate to an off-site location.
Monitoring and Analytical Costs - Field and laboratory costs for monitoring conditions
of the treatment process and the quality of residues are included in this element.
Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs - This element includes design
adjustments, facility modifications, scheduled maintenance, and equipment replacement.
Maintenance labor costs are assumed to be part of the operational labor costs.
Site Demobilization Costs - Costs for demobilizing the GFT include equipment
demolition and general clean-up.
The 12 cost factors examined as they apply to GFT, along with the assumptions employed, are described
in the following paragraphs and are shown in Table 3-2.
32
-------
3.3.1 Site Preparation
The amount of preliminary site preparation required will depend on the site's location, suitability for
development, and proximity to dredging operations. Site preparation components include site design and
layout, surveys and site logistics, legal searches, access rights and roads, preparation for support and
decontamination facilities, utility connections, fixed auxiliary buildings, and soil stockpiling. No costs
for geotechnical evaluation of the treatment site are included. It is also assumed that the facility will be
constructed in an area zoned industrial. Because of the variability in property value and utility
availability throughout the country, costs associated with lease or purchase of property are not included.
This cost analysis begins with the sediment dewatered to a moisture content of 50 percent; therefore,
excavation or dredging, mobilization, and dewatering costs are not included. It is assumed that metals
removal during full-scale implementation will occur prior to dewatering; additional metals removal is
not included as part of this cost estimate.
Once dewatered, the material will be moved by front-end loader to the drying equipment. Costs to move
the material to the treatment unit include costs for operating heavy equipment, labor charges, and
equipment fuel costs. These costs are broken down in the labor, capital equipments and consumables
sections; therefore, no site preparation costs are included in this cost analysis.
3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs will vary, depending on location of the treatment facility. ARARs include
federal standards, as well as more stringent standards under state or local jurisdiction.
All of the exhaust cooling systems in the GFT use non-contact heat exchangers to prevent contamination
of cooling water. The exhaust is designed to allow for minimal particulate within the air stream. Costs
for initial permitting of this facility are estimated at about $150,000. Sampling of the air stream and
wastewater for permitting purposes is estimated to be $10,000 per year, which includes professional
services, analytical services, and regulatory fees. Initial permitting is a one-time cost, and sampling and
permit update costs are an annually recurring cost. Using a discount rate of 3.3 percent, the net PW of the
permitting and regulatory costs is $252,400. Based on the estimated project life of 15 years and facility
throughput of 210,000 tons per year, the permitting and regulatory cost is estimated to be $0.08 per ton.
33
-------
3.3.3
Capital Equipment
Equipment costs associated with the GFT include the sediment storage building, melter building,
sediment mixers, sediment dryer, sediment-handling system, glass melter, oxygen-generating plant, and
off-gas treatment system. Capital costs are based on information supplied by Minergy. Costs to construct
the melter, associated equipment, and buildings, as detailed in Table 3.1, are estimated at $36,387,736.
Based on an estimated operating life of 15 years and contaminated sediment volume of 210,000 tons per
year, the estimated capital equipment cost is $ 11.55 per ton.
TABLE 3-1
PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS - SEDIMENT MELTING PLANT
Item
Melter (delivered and installed)
Dryer (3@ $862,835)
Materials-Handling System
Dryer Off-gas System
Thermal Oil System
Air Quality Control System
Oxy-fuel System
Utilities Equipment
Mechanical Contractor
Electrical Contractor
Main Building
Engineering
Front-end loader
Sediment Storage Building
TOTAL
Cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,511,976.00
2,588,505.00
3,019,923.00
394,515.00
995,579.00
468,931.00
845,081.00
488,383.00
7,886,711.00
2,113,548.00
2,634,900.00
5,274,684.00
365,000.00
1,800,000.00
36,387,736.00
34
-------
3.3.4 Startup Costs
Startup costs include training of operators and workers on equipment use and health and safety
procedures, initial system testing, and system shakedown. Startup costs are estimated at $764,000. Based
on an estimated operating life of 15 years and contaminated sediment volume of 210,000 tons per year,
the estimated capital equipment cost is $0.24 per ton.
3.3.5 Labor Costs
The facility is assumed to operate 24 hours per day, 350 days per year. Based on operations at similar
facilities and observations during the SITE demonstration, a four-person crew per shift should be
adequate for safe operation of the facility. The crew would consist of a shift supervisor, two equipment
operators, and a laborer. Assuming three shifts consisting of four crews, labor charges for operational,
supervisory, administrative, professional, technical, maintenance, and clerical personnel supporting the
treatment processes are estimated at $2,382,000 per year. The net PW of labor costs over the 15-year life
is estimated at $27,829,000. Based on the throughput of 210,000 tons per year, estimated labor costs are
$8.83 per ton.
3.3.6 Consumables and Supplies
Minergy has estimated the consumables and supplies to cost $241,900 per year. In addition, the system
uses a lime flux rate of approximately 15 percent. With a lime flux cost of $25 per ton, flux costs are
estimated at $447,000 per year. The net present worth of consumables and supplies over the 15-year life
is estimated at $8,048,400. Based on the throughput of 210,000 tons per year, estimated consumables
costs are $2.56 per ton.
3.3.7 Utilities
The facility is expected to use approximately 1.9 million Btu of gas per ton of treated sediment and 115
kilowatt-hours of electricity per ton of treated sediment. Based on estimates of gas delivery at
$3.25/million btu and an electricity rate of 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour, utility costs are estimated at
$2,403,000 per year. The PW of operational costs over the 15-year life is estimated at $28,074,000, or
$8.91 per ton.
35
-------
3.3.8 Residue Treatment and Disposal Costs
The three sources of process water for the operation are condensate from the dryer, blowdown from the
packed tower on the melter exhaust, and cooling tower blowdown. The condensate from the dryer may
have high total suspended solids (TSS), as well as potential PCB contamination, attached to sediment
particles. This water will require treatment prior to disposal. The packed tower blowdown will have high
concentrations of TSS and high chemical oxygen demand. The cooling water blowdown is a non-contact
cooling water and therefore would not require treatment prior to disposal.
The volume of process water requiring treatment is estimated at 63 gallons per minute, for an annual
estimated volume of 31.7 million gallons. This process water will be routed through the wastewater
treatment facility processing the dredged sediment. If the sediment is delivered to the melter in a
dewatered state, no treatment facility for the dredged water will be available. Therefore, it is assumed
that this water would be sent to a municipal treatment facility. Assuming a municipal charge of $ 1.50 per
1,000 gallons, the annual costs for treating the process water is estimated to be $47,600, or over the life of
the facility, an estimated cost of $0.18 per ton.
3.3.9 Transportation Costs
It is assumed that for the full-scale operation of the GFT, the facility will be located next to the
dewatering operation and that no transportation of the dewatered sediment will be necessary before
staging the sediment for processing through the GFT.
3.3.10 Monitoring and Analytical Costs
Field and laboratory costs for monitoring conditions of the treatment process and the quality of residues
are included in this element. Incoming sediment will be sampled at a rate of one sample per 300 tons of
sediment. Treated material will require initial analysis to prove treatment effectiveness and periodically
throughout the treatment process. Monitoring and analytical costs are estimated at $300,000 per year.
Based on the 15-year life and throughput of 210,000 tons per year, estimated monitoring and analytical
costs are $1.11 per ton. These monitoring and analytical costs are based on TSCA regulatory
requirements as the most stringent requirements. In some cases less stringent monitoring may be
possible.
36
-------
3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs
Maintenance labor is included as a part of operational labor costs. Minergy has estimated operations,
replacement, and repair costs to be $1,370,455 per year. Modification costs are site-specific and vary,
based on weather issues, regulatory changes, or operational observations; therefore, modification costs are
not included in this cost estimate. Based on the 15-year life and throughput of 210,000 tons per year,
estimated operations and maintenance costs are $5.08 per ton.
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs
It is assumed that the site used for the treatment process will be purchased or leased by Minergy or the
responsible party. Site restoration requirements will vary, depending on the future use of the site, and
therefore are not included in this analysis. Costs to demobilize equipment at the end of 15 years are
estimated at $1,000,000. Based on the above-identified discount rates and sediment throughputs, the
estimated cost for demobilization of the equipment is estimated at $0.20 per ton. Based on the above
costs, the total cost to treat dredged-and-dewatered sediment with the GFT was estimated at $38.74 per
ton.
3.4 BENEFICIAL REUSE
The GFT glass aggregate product passes the ASTM water leachate test. Contaminants contained in the
river sediment appear to be stabilized within the glass matrix of the product and, according to data
obtained during the SITE demonstration, are not available to leach into the environment. Leaching tests
were conducted to evaluate the primary objective associated with beneficial reuse of the glass aggregate,
the methods for which are discussed in Section 4.3.2.7. Results of the leaching tests and a comparison to
beneficial reuse criteria is presented in Section 4.3.3.1. Further, the GFT glass aggregate product can be
stored like any quarried aggregate.
Glass aggregate product can meet industrial requirements for the manufacture of the following products:
• Ceramic floor tile
• Abrasives
Concrete additives
• Asphalt paving and chip seal
• Roofing shingle granules
37
-------
Depending on use, markets may require additional manipulation of material, and those costs are not
included in this analysis. Glass aggregate product sales will vary by demand, and credits are also not
included as part of this cost analysis.
3.5 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
This section summarizes the costs for the GFT process. Costs were based on information from the pilot
study, data supplied by Minergy, and information collected from other industry sources. Estimated costs
identified within this section were based on the assumptions previously identified in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
The facility identified within this section is estimated to treat about 600 tons of dredged-and-dewatered
sediment per day, which produces about 250 tons of glass per day. It is estimated that the facility would
operate 350 days per year for 15 years, which works out to approximately 3.2 million tons of treated
sediment.
The net present value (NPV) of the facility was determined for all components. To compute NPV, it is
necessary to discount future benefits and costs, which reflect the time value of money. The discount rate
used for this estimate was 3.3 percent, based on current OMB guidelines.
The NPV of the facility described in this document was estimated at $122,041,000. The estimated cost
per ton to treat the sediments is $38.74 per ton.
Costs identified in Section 3.3 are summarized in Table 3-2.
38
-------
TABLE 3-2
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR MINERGY GLASS FURNACE TECHNOLOGY
Cost Element
Site Material Preparation Costs
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Capital Equipment
Start-up Costs
Labor Costs
Consumables and Supplies
Utilities
Residue Treatment and Disposal
Transportation
Monitoring and Analytical
Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement
Site Demobilization and Restoration
TOTAL
Estimated
Cost per Ton
-
$ 0.08
$ 11.55
$ 0.24
$ 8.83
$ 2.56
$ 8.91
$ 0.18
-
$ 1.11
$ 5.08
$ 0.20
$ 38.74
Percent of
Total
-
0.2
29.8
0.6
22.8
6.6
23.0
0.5
-
2.9
13.1
0.5
100
39
-------
4.0 TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
The following sections discuss the sample results and effectiveness of the GFT technology to treat
PCB- and metal-contaminated sediments.
4.1 DEMONSTRATION BACKGROUND
This demonstration evaluated the effectiveness of the GFT process to treat PCB- and metal-contaminated
sediment. The technology evaluation consisted of pre-treatment (and pre-dryer) sediment sampling; post-
dryer sediment sampling and post-melter glass; and air, quench-water, and cooling-tower-water sampling
during treatment.
Sediment used in this demonstration was obtained from the Lower Fox River during the 1999-2000
Sediment Management Unit (SMU) 56/57 pilot dredging project, which included hydraulic dredging,
onshore dewatering, filter pressing, treatment with lime, and disposal of PCB-contaminated sediment.
The sediment removal action was conducted adjacent to the Fort James Corporation facility in Green Bay,
and dewatered sediment was disposed of at the Fort James Landfill, while all treated water was returned
to the river. WDNR conducted oversight on the project with funding from the Fox River Group. The
SMU 56/57 project goal was to generate information to assess the effectiveness and expense for
large-scale sediment dredging and disposal of contaminated sediment from the Lower Fox River.
In general, the dredging project consisted of hydraulic dredging of a portion of the river bottom into two
lined settling basins. After the solids settled out, they were pumped to plate-and-frame presses for
mechanical dewatering. Lime was added, on an as-needed basis, to aid solidification, and the sediment
was transported to the Fort James Landfill for disposal. Water was treated with sand filtration and
activated carbon before it was discharged back into the Lower Fox River.
A portion of the sediment from the SMU 56/57 project was segregated for the purpose of the SITE
evaluation of the GFT, an innovative sediment-treatment technology. On December 17, 1999, rather than
loading all dredged-and-dewatered sediment into trucks for transport and disposal, a portion was loaded
into four lined 20-cubic-yard roll-off boxes. The boxes were covered and transported to the Brown
County Landfill in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where the sediment was temporarily stored until the GFT
evaluation.
40
-------
4.2
METHODOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
This section details activities conducted prior to and during the GFT demonstration. The evaluation was
arranged to scientifically verify Minergy's claims and to assess the effectiveness of the GFT in meeting
project objectives. Objectives form the basis for the evaluation and provide a measure by which
performance of the technology can be measured. Elements of the experimental approach and the
procedures involved, conducted during both the dryer and melter demonstrations, are presented in the
following sections. Table 4-1 summarizes the events and dates of the demonstrations.
TABLE 4-1
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION DEMONSTRATION EVENTS
Event
Dryer Demonstration at Hazen Research, Golden, Colorado
Dredged-and-Dewatered Sediment Sampling from Roll-off Boxes at
Minergy Facility, Winneconne, Wisconsin
Dried Sediment Sampling from Supersacks after Drum Dryer at
Minergy Facility, Winneconne, Wisconsin
GFT Melter Demonstration at Minergy Facility, Winneconne,
Wisconsin
Glass Samples Crushed at UW-Platteville, Platteville, Wisconsin
Duration
January 23 through 25, 2001
April 24 and May 7, 2001
June 4 and 5, 2001
June 19 through 23, 2001 and
August 14 through 17, 2001
August 22 and 23, 2001
4.2.1
Pre-demonstration Activities
Before sediment could be fed into the melter, the moisture content needed to be reduced from a dewatered
condition (50 percent) to a moisture content of 5 to 15 percent for optimal melter efficiency. Minergy
researched available drying technologies and determined that an indirect heat disc or paddle dryer unit
was the most appropriate drying technology for the GFT treatment process; however, no production-sized
dryers of this type were available for use at the Minergy facility or elsewhere. Therefore, Minergy set up
a bench-scale demonstration of a Holoflite® dryer at the Hazen facility in Golden, Colorado, to provide
data on a unit similar to that intended for use by Minergy in the full -scale design.
41
-------
4.2.1.1 Hazen Research Inc. Dryer Demonstration
Based on the dust carryover into the air and condensate streams, it was evident that the results were
strongly influenced by the contamination in the dust and should be disregarded. The size of the bench-
scale Holoflite® dryer also proved to be inadequate to achieve the evaluation objectives. Appendix C
contains details of the Hazen Holoflite® dryer demonstration.
4.2.1.2 Drum Dryer
The dryer selected by Minergy to dry the bulk of the sediment to be used in the melter demonstration was
not suitable for sampling and evaluation of its potential waste streams. Minergy had planned the dryer
test to be a bench-scale demonstration only, using a portion of the sediment. The rest of the sediment
stored in the roll-off boxes was to be dried using a different technology. The dredged-and-dewatered
sediment was manually shoveled from the roll-off boxes into 55-gallon drums. The drums were placed,
12 at a time, into a drum oven, where they were heated for about 36 hours, until the sediment contained
about 10 percent moisture. The drum oven was chosen, because it was electrically heated and could be
set up for low-temperature drying, with minimal air circulation. Each dried, 12-drum batch was
transferred to two supersacks, weighing about 1,000 pounds each. Thirty batches of sediment were dried
in the drum oven, yielding 60 supersacks of dried sediment. Each supersack was numbered to designate
from which roll-off box the sediment originated.
4.2.2 Glass Furnace Technology Melter Demonstration
The melter-demonstration evaluation was designed to collect six composite samples of the sediment
entering the melter and six composite samples of glass aggregate product exiting the melter. These
samples would provide the data necessary to evaluate the primary objectives. In addition, samples were
collected from all waste streams of the melter, including air, quench-tank water, cooling-tower water,
accumulated dust, and flux.
4.2.2.1 June 2001 Glass Furnace Technology Demonstration
Minergy initially began the GFT demonstration on June 19, 2001. The demonstration began with the
melter warmup and introduction of sediment. Minergy began melting sediment segregated for the SITE
42
-------
demonstration early on the morning of June 20, 2001. Sediment grab samples were collected at
15-minute intervals over a 6-hour period. Glass aggregate product samples were collected at 15-minute
intervals over a 6-hour period. Glass-aggregate-product sampling began after completion of the 6-hour
sediment feed sampling. The sampling protocol was arranged to account for the 6-hour residence time
within the melter, so that sampled glass aggregate corresponded with sampled sediment.
The initial demonstration suffered problems associated with the flow of sediment feed and the effluent
flow of the molten glass from the weir of the melter. The lack of fluidity of the molten glass caused many
interruptions of the flow from the melter and forced adjustments to the sampling schedule. In cases where
flow was interrupted for a significant period of time, sampling of the glass aggregate was suspended until
flow was restored. Upon restoration of the molten glass flow, sampling resumed at shorter intervals to
collect the required volume of glass aggregate within the 6-hour sampling period. These conditions
persisted over the first 2 days of the melter demonstration.
On the third day of the demonstration, molten glass began leaking through the side of the melter at the
forehearth and spilled onto the floor. The leak location was immediately doused with cold water, and
project stakeholders decided to halt the demonstration due to the hazardous conditions resulting from the
melter leak. The molten sediment was more corrosive to the originally selected refractory brick than
previously predicted. The melter was rebuilt with an improved grade of refractory and the demonstration
was re-scheduled.
4.2.2.2 August 2001 Glass Furnace Technology Demonstration
The melter demonstration restarted on August 13, 2001, with melter warming, sediment introduction, and
sampling of the sediment, glass, and other waste streams from the melter operation. Less sediment was
available for this demonstration as a result of the failed first attempt, so two sampling runs were
conducted each day, rather than one. This schedule was necessary due to a shortened melter
demonstration period.
The melter operated continuously throughout the August-demonstration period. Sediment and glass
sampling began on August 14 and ended August 16, 2001. Molten glass continued to flow from the
melter as long as sediment entered the melter. The sampling probe that was inserted into the flue to
collect air samples was a source of intermittent problems caused by plugging with what was thought to be
flux material. The material buildup resulted in the periodic interruption of air sampling so that the probe
43
-------
could be cleaned. The interruption of flow lengthened the time needed to collect individual air samples;
consequently, the air sampling team worked in shifts to cover the sampling 24 hours per day. Air
sampling activities continued for 5 days and ended on August 17, 2001, while sediment and glass
sampling was completed in 3 days.
All of the melter data presented in this ITER were generated during the August 2001 demonstration.
4.2.3 Sampling Program
To facilitate evaluation of the technology, a sampling program was designed to assess the GFT's capacity
to meet the objectives outlined above. The sampling program was detailed in the quality assurance
project plan (QAPP) (EPA 2001) before the demonstration was begun.
The roll-off boxes were delivered to Minergy's facility in Winneconne, Wisconsin, and thawed. A hand
auger was used to collect sediment samples from randomly selected locations within the roll-off boxes.
Those samples were composited by coning and quartering on a plastic sheet. Six composite sediment
samples were collected from the roll-off boxes. The material in the roll-off boxes was subsequently
processed in the drum dryer.
4.2.3.1 Drum Dryer
Because the SITE evaluation intended to use data collected from an indirect disc or paddle dryer,
sampling of the drum dryer was not outlined in the QAPP. After the data from the bench-scale dryer were
determined to be inadequate, it was decided to collect samples of the dredged-and-dewatered sediment
entering the drum dryer and as well as the dried sediment exiting the drum dryer. No samples of air or
condensate emitted by the dryer were sampled. The drum dryer was not configured to allow for sampling
of the exhaust or condensate.
44
-------
4.2.3.2 Glass Furnace Technology Melter
Sampling of the GFT melter was planned to obtain corresponding samples of sediment entering the
melter, glass aggregate product exiting the melter, and quench water used to cool the molten glass. Air
and other samples collected during the demonstration were not meant to parallel sediment and glass
samples. Sediment and glass samples were collected as composite samples, to assess the uniformity, as
well as potential contaminant losses, of the sediment feed and glass product. Composites consisted of 24
individual grab samples gathered every 15 minutes over a 6-hour period. Quench-water composite
samples consisted of 12 grab samples collected over a 6-hour period.
Ancillary media samples, such as air, cooling tower discharge water, city water, and flux were not
collected as composite samples. Forty air samples were collected to be analyzed for PCBs, dioxins and
furans, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, VOCs, and hydrogen chloride/chlorine.
For the August 2001 demonstration, sediment and glass sampling was completed in 3 days, while air
sampling required five 24-hour sampling days to collect the desired number of samples.
4.3 GFT DEMONSTRATION DATA
This section presents the results of data gathered for the drum dryer and GFT melter during the SITE
demonstration. Sediment, glass, air, and water sampling results and operating data were used to evaluate
the performance of the GFT in relation to evaluation objectives. Sampling results are shown in Tables
4-2 through 4-12. Significant figures used to report analytical data in the tables and text of this report
reflect the same number of significant figures reported by the laboratories. All solids results are reported
on a dry-weight basis.
4.3.1 Dryer
Data collected from the sampling of the dredged-and-dewatered sediment in the roll-off boxes and the
dried sediment in the supersacks at the Minergy facility in Winneconne, Wisconsin, were used to
calculate the Treatment Efficiency (TE) of the GFT. Results of the before and after dryer samples
collected in Winneconne, Wisconsin, are detailed in the following sections. As mentioned in Section
4.2.1.1, results of the Holoflite® dryer sampling are detailed in Appendix C, but are not used in the
evaluation of the GFT.
45
-------
4.3.1.1 Dredged-and-Dewatered Sediment
To evaluate the GFT process as a whole, dredged-and-dewatered (wet) sediment samples were collected
from the roll-off boxes.
Composite samples were analyzed for both the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene list of PCB
congeners and total PCBs by EPA Method 680 (EPA 1985). The results of the analyses are presented in
Table 4-2. Total PCB results were calculated by summing the concentration of homologs (series of PCBs
where each successive member has one additional chlorine). Non-detect values were not used in this
calculation. These concentrations ranged from 20.1 to 35.9 ppm.
4.3.1.2 Drum-Dried Sediment
Six composite samples were collected from the supersacks containing drum-dried sediment and were
analyzed for both the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene list of PCB congeners and total PCBs by
EPA Method 680 (EPA 1985). Total PCB results, calculated by summing the concentration of PCB
homologs, are reported in Table 4-3. The results range from 20.5 to 25.0 ppm.
46
-------
TABLE 4-2
DREDGED-AND-DEWATERED SEDIMENT RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 680)
(ng/g)
(l)-MoCB
(4,10)-DiCB
(9,7)-DiCB
(6)-DiCB
(5,8)-DiCB
(19)-TriCB
(18)TriCB
(17)-TriCB
(27,24)-TriCB
(16,32)-TriCB
(29)-TriCB
(26,25)-TriCB
28,(31)-TriCB
(21,33,20)-TriCB
(22)-TriCB
(37)-TriCB
(53)-TeCB
(45)-TeCB
(46)-TeCB
(43),52-TeCB
(49)-TeCB
(47,48,75)-TeCB
(44)-TeCB
(59,42)-TeCB
(41,71,72)-TeCB
(64,68)-TeCB
(40)-TeCB
(63)-TeCB
(74)-TeCB
(70)-TeCB
(66,80)-TeCB
(56,60)-TeCB
(77)-TeCB
(91)-PeCB
(84)-PeCB
(101,113)-PeCB
(99)-PeCB
(119,112)-PeCB
(86,97, 125)-PeCB
(87,lll,115)-Pecb
(85)-PeCB
(HO)-PeCB
Sample Identification
Rolloff #3
Liftl
260
1,050
195
1,630
2,010
302
2,700
1,500
326
1,850
<4.39
2,820
7,350
825
851
554
274
271
104
1,540
1,190
646
1,070
588
628
879
214
108
483
637
654
517
148
55.7
83.1
150
94.0
14.6
61.2
72.6
45.7
302
Lift 2
279
1,010
198
1,680
2,040
292
2,750
1,470
321
1,860
<4.67
2,890
7,320
793
828
508
278
280
108
1,550
1,190
625
1,140
592
636
870
224
105
463
578
616
498
141
54.3
86.8
145
90
13.9
59.7
72.9
45.4
295
Lift3
190
642
113
942
1,150
172
1,460
823
184
1,030
<3.59
1,570
4,060
459
484
316
151
154
58.6
860
666
362
603
341
358
499
124
61.6
276
357
378
300
85.8
32.4
49.9
91.3
56.5
9.00
36.9
44.8
27.3
184
Rolloff #4
Liftl
275
842
164
1,390
1,740
252
2,210
1,260
278
1,570
5.25
2,440
6,320
721
752
500
232
234
90.4
1,330
1,030
557
1,100
354
554
774
190
96.0
434
566
605
470
135
49.8
75
138
86.1
14.1
55.4
68.0
41.4
280
Lift 2
<341
879
165
1,350
1,660
248
2,090
1,210
270
1,490
<4.61
2,280
5,920
683
718
469
221
226
84.9
1,260
984
539
900
485
531
745
183
93.6
417
537
573
453
131
48.0
71.2
131
82.4
13.4
53.0
63.7
40.5
266
Lift3
277
721
132
1,090
1,350
201
1,690
988
220
1,220
<4.20
1,880
4,860
552
578
381
182
185
70.6
1,040
820
446
746
423
440
613
150
77.7
340
442
460
364
111
39.9
59.9
104
68.2
10.7
44.0
53.1
33.8
223
47
-------
TABLE 4-2
DREDGED-AND-DEWATERED SEDIMENT PCB RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Analyte
PCBs (Method 680)
(ng/g)
(82)-PeCB
(123)-PeCB
118-PeCB
(114)-PeCB
(136)-HxCB
(151)-HxCB
(135)-HxCB
(139,149)-HxCB
(146,161)-HxCB
(132),153,(168)-HxCB
(141)-HxCB
(137)-HxCB
(138,160)-HxCB
(158)-HxCB
(128)-HxCB
(167)-HxCB
(156)-HxCB
(157)-HxCB
(176)-HpCB
(178)-HpCB
(182,187)-HpCB
(183)-HpCB
(174,181)-HpCB
(177)-HpCB
180,(193)-HpCB
(170,190)-HpCB
(196,203)-OcCB
(206)-NoCB
(209)-DeCB
PCBs (Method 680)
homolog sum (ng/g)
Sample Identification
Rolloff #3
Liftl
31.0
<4.39
163
10.6
17.6
22.4
16.9
76.9
19.6
113
14.6
4.62
58.9
6.93
10.6
7.22
<9.38
<4.39
4.76
5.98
34.3
14.4
21.9
14.2
57.3
26.2
11.4
9.52
5.40
35,900
Lift 2
30.0
<4.67
152
10.4
16.0
21.2
15.8
67.2
17.1
97.4
13.3
<4.67
51.3
8.87
8.90
<5.88
<12.4
<4.67
<4.67
5.60
29.7
12.8
20.5
12.9
51.4
22.2
<12.0
7.84
4.99
35,700
Lift3
19.2
<3.59
97.3
<3.59
<11.8
14.3
<13.0
45.9
11.0
67.3
8.66
<3.59
34.8
5.31
7.03
<3.59
<8.54
<29.0
<3.59
<3.66
18.7
<8.78
12.4
7.67
<33.5
13.4
<7.39
5.55
<3.59
20,100
Rolloff #4
Liftl
28.3
<3.50
147
<3.50
15.3
20.3
15.4
69.2
18.1
101
13.3
4.2
37.6
48.7
9.15
<3.50
<8.23
9.96
<3.50
5.36
31.5
12.9
20.1
13.2
53.0
22.5
10.4
7.47
4.43
31.100
Lift 2
26.5
20.8
139
8.01
15.7
19.1
14.8
66.1
16.8
94.3
12.0
<4.61
47.1
6.81
10.2
<4.61
<4.61
<4.61
<4.61
<5.16
29.4
12.1
21.0
13.7
50.0
21.7
<11.3
7.65
<4.61
29,300
Lift3
23.2
<4.20
115
7.65
12.5
15.9
12.3
55.4
13.6
80.5
10.6
<4.20
43.0
5.14
8.43
4.71
6.78
19.4
<4.20
4.23
24.7
10.5
15.0
9.89
40.3
18.5
7.57
5.56
<4.20
24,300
Notes:
ng/g = Nanogram per gram
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCB congeners less than detection limits in all samples are not included in this table. For a complete list of these
analytes, see Appendix A.
Results are reported on a dry-weight basis.
48
-------
TABLE 4-3
DRUM-DRIED SEDIMENT PCB RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 680)
(ng/g)
(l)-MoCB
(4,10)-DiCB
(9,7)-DiCB
(6)-DiCB
(5,8)-DiCB
(19)-TrCB
(18)-TrCB
(17)-TrCB
(27,24)-TrCB
(16,32)-TrCB
(26,25)-TrCB
28,(31)-TrCB
(21,33,20)-TrCB
(22)-TrCB
(37)-TrCB
(53)-TeCB
(45)-TeCB
(46)-TeCB
(43),52-TeCB
(49)-TeCB
(47,48,75)-TeCB
(44)-TeCB
(59,42)-TeCB
(41,71,72)-TeCB
(64,68)-TeCB
(40)-TeCB
(63)-TeCB
(74)-TeCB
(76)-TeCB
(70)-TeCB
(56,60)-TeCB
(77)-TeCB
(91)-PeCB
(84)-PeCB
(101,113)-PeCB
(99)-PeCB
(119,112)-PeCB
(86,97, 125)-PeCB
(87,lll,115)-PeCB
(85)-PeCB
(HO)-PeCB
Sample Identification
Rolloff#3
A
86.2
400
100
855
1,110
161
1,500
877
200
1,140
1,850
4,770
549
587
379
179
185
72.8
1,050
824
452
763
413
450
635
156
78
349
450
484
378
108
41.6
64.3
115
71.6
11.2
47.1
56.5
35.4
235
B
<71.4
332
87.9
753
980
141
1,360
806
185
1,060
1,750
4,530
527
558
372
172
175
68.2
1,030
812
445
760
403
452
632
155
78.6
359
482
483
390
113
42.7
65.2
122
74.8
11.6
49.1
58.8
37.5
246
C
88.2
436
108
924
1,200
174
1,640
958
219
1,250
2,020
5,280
603
640
414
197
205
78.2
1,160
911
497
847
463
502
699
174
87.1
388
500
532
417
120
46.5
71.6
125
79.7
12.3
52.1
64.6
39.4
261
Rolloff#4
A
<76.0
363
91.9
803
1,060
148
1,430
837
192
1,100
1,840
4,810
553
588
393
177
183
69.5
1,060
822
455
758
402
451
635
156
79.9
358
472
484
390
113
42.0
63.5
119
72.1
11.3
47.6
56.7
35.7
238
B
67.9
308
79.5
691
910
127
1,250
731
169
976
1,650
4,340
502
535
364
162
166
64.3
976
767
420
708
389
432
596
147
76.1
340
436
472
371
109
40.7
62.7
114
70.6
10.8
47.1
55.9
35.1
234
C
56.9
310
84.3
741
971
136
1,360
798
181
1,050
1,770
4,750
539
568
386
169
174
66.5
1,010
790
432
741
396
441
612
153
76.8
348
456
472
378
111
40.4
61.8
110
69.9
10.5
45.4
54.4
34.6
230
49
-------
TABLE 4-3
DRUM-DRIED SEDIMENT PCB RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Analyte
PCBs (Method 680)
(ng/g)
(82)-PeCB
(123)-PeCB
118-PeCB
(114)-PeCB
(136)-HxCB
(151)-HxCB
(135)-HxCB
(139,149)-HxCB
(146,161)-HxCB
(132),153,(168)-HxCB
(141)-HxCB
(137)-HxCB
(138,160)-HxCB
(158)-HxCB
(128)-HxCB
(156)-HxCB
(176)-HpCB
(178)-HpCB
(182,187)-HpCB
(183)-HpCB
(185)-HpCB
(174,181)-HpCB
(177)-HpCB
(172)-HpCB
180,(193)-HpCB
(170,190)-HpCB
(196,203)-OcCB
(208)-NoCB
206-NoCB
209-DeCB
PCBs (Method 680)
Congener sum (ng/g)
Sample Identification
Rolloff#3
A
25.4
<2.58
120
7.45
13.0
16.5
13.2
57.3
15.7
84.8
11.3
3.62
41.3
6.58
8.38
7.12
3.63
4.43
26.5
10.9
<2.58
17.0
<11.0
2.85
43.2
18.8
8.20
<2.58
6.24
2.74
22,800
B
25.6
<3.65
136
<8.94
14.6
17.2
14.7
61.9
16.3
92.3
11.5
<2.61
46.4
7.36
<8.68
<2.61
<4.74
5.15
28.4
12.1
2.70
17.7
<26.3
2.86
48.8
21.2
8.78
<2.61
7.44
<3.81
21,700
C
26.7
<22.8
135
<2.75
14.2
18.8
17.1
61.5
16.6
91.3
<11.5
<2.75
43.4
<6.63
8.87
<23.9
<3.99
<5.45
29.5
<13.0
<2.90
20.2
12.0
<2.75
<51.4
21.4
<11.2
2.98
8.13
3.81
25,000
Rolloff#4
A
24.2
<3.82
128
<2.65
14.4
18.0
13.5
59.7
16.2
89.1
11.2
2.91
45.7
<6.60
<7.82
<2.65
<4.65
<4.55
28.7
11.1
<2.65
18.1
<11.6
3.33
46.9
20
8.57
<2.65
6.98
2.91
22,500
B
24.7
13.0
127
<2.68
13.1
17.0
12.8
58.5
15.2
86.7
10.0
<3.04
43.2
7.25
6.97
<17.7
<5.92
<5.50
26.7
11.9
<2.68
17.9
<18.0
<2.97
44.6
19.6
8.78
3.51
6.38
3.91
20,500
C
23.9
<2.33
121
<2.33
12.7
16.0
12.9
55.8
15.3
84.1
11.1
3.59
40.2
5.67
8.35
<6.99
3.37
4.64
26.1
10.7
<2.33
16.2
11.0
2.36
43.5
19.3
8.14
<2.33
5.87
2.71
21,700
Notes:
ng/g = Nanogram per gram
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls
ND = Not detected; analytes were less than detection limits of laboratory instruments. Laboratory
did not specify detection limits.
PCB congeners less than detection limits in all samples are not included in this table. For a complete list of these
analytes, see Appendix A.
50
-------
4.3.2 Melter
The melter-phase of the demonstration was conducted at Minergy's facility in Winneconne, Wisconsin.
The pilot-scale melter (glass furnace) was built to produce 2 tons of glass aggregate per day. The melter
was designed to run on an oxygen-and-natural-gas mixture to burn more efficiently and produce higher
temperatures, which should result in lower emissions of nitrogen oxides in the furnace flue gas. The
melter was built with refractory brick that was selected based on an analysis of heat flow and the bricks'
ability to cope with the corrosive qualities of molten sediment. The retention time of sediment in the
melter was 6 hours, after which the molten sediment flowed from the melter into a water-quench tank.
The molten sediment quickly cooled and cracked, producing a black glass aggregate product.
4.3.2.1 Melter Feed Dry Sediment
The drum-dried sediment was divided into 50-pound plastic bags for handling and tracking purposes.
The dried sediment was fed into the melter at a rate of 200 pounds per hour over a 5-day period. Dried
sediment was sampled every 15 minutes (once per 50-pound bag) as it was entering the screw feeder. A
4-ounce sample was collected from the bag and was placed in a disposable aluminum pan to be
composited with other grab samples collected over the 6-hour sample collection period. Upon
accumulation of all grab samples, the composite sample was mixed, using a coning-and-quartering
technique. Analytical samples then were collected from the mixed composite sample.
PCBs
Composite samples, analyzed for both the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene list of PCB congeners
and total PCBs by EPA Method 680 (EPA 1985), are listed in Table 1-1 of the QAPP (EPA 2001). Total
PCB results, calculated by summing the concentration of homologs, ranged from 21,500 to 30,900
nanograms per gram (ng/g) (21.5 to 30.9 ppm). Table 4-4 contains analytical results from those
composite samples of sediment.
The concentrations observed in the dried sediment are similar to concentrations observed in dredged-and-
dewatered sediment samples.
51
-------
TABLE 4-4
MELTER FEED DRY SEDIMENT COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method (680)
(ng/g)
(l)-MoCB
(4,10)-DiCB
(9,7)-DiCB
(6)-DiCB
(5,8)-DiCB
(19)-TriCB
(18)TriCB
17(TriCB)
(27,24)-TriCB
(16,32)-TriCB
(26,25)-TriCB
(28,31)-TriCB
(21,33,20)-TriCB
(22)-TriCB
(37)-TriCB
(53)-TeCB
(45)-TeCB
(46)-TeCB
(43),52-TeCB
(49)-TeCB
(47,48,75)-TeCB
(44)-TeCB
(59,42)-TeCB
(41,71,72)-TeCB
(64,68)-TeCB
(40)-TeCB
(63)-TeCB
(74)-TeCB
(70)-TeCB
(66,80)-TeCB
(56,60)-TeCB
(77)-TeCB
(91)-PeCB
(84)-PeCB
(101,113)-PeCB
(99)-PeCB
(119,112)-PeCB
(86,97, 125)-PeCB
(87,lll,115)-Pecb
(85)-PeCB
(HO)-PeCB
(82)-PeCB
Sample Identification
M-S-01
99.0 E
445 E
HIE
1,170E
1,330 E
182 E
1,840 E
1,080 E
232 E
1,360 E
1,300 E
6,090 E
677 E
703 E
458 E
211E
217 E
84.3
1,240 E
997 E
518E
997 E
422 E
548 E
753 E
199 E
94.4
417 E
639 E
488 E
446 E
160 E
49.2
50.3
148 E
82.8
12.4
53.9
77.5
39.2
279 E
27.2
M-S-02
77.2
40.3 E
109
1,130 E
1,290 E
174 E
1,790 E
1,040 E
228E
1,340 E
2,290 E
6,290 E
693 E
724 E
477 E
210E
215E
83.7
1,260 E
1,010 E
516E
998 E
432 E
549 E
764 E
196 E
96.8
428 E
630 E
514E
461 E
145 E
49.4
53.9
151 E
84.5
12.6
56.4
66.4
40.5
283 E
31.3
M-S-03
79.9
446 E
117E
1,230 E
1,420 E
187 E
1,960 E
1,140E
241 E
1,430 E
1450 E
6,020 E
737 E
744 E
494 E
219 E
225 E
86.5
1,300 E
1040 E
531 E
1,040 E
432 E
568 E
784 E
204 E
99.4
436
649 E
529 E
468 E
128 E
50.3
46.8
153 E
85.9
12.5
56.1
80.6
40.7
289 E
29.2
M-S-04
92.3
418E
107
1,070 E
1,260 E
173 E
1,730 E
1,010 E
219E
1,290 E
2,130 E
6,060 E
656 E
668 E
439 E
202 E
208 E
81.5
1,180 E
962 E
481 E
954 E
393 E
532 E
708 E
188 E
89.9
399 E
573 E
493 E
428 E
131E
46.8
49.7
140 E
78.8
12.1
52.0
63.3
38.3
265 E
27.1
M-S-05
62.7
351 E
99.4
1,030 E
1,190E
162 E
1,720 E
986 E
215 E
1,290 E
2,180 E
6,210 E
668 E
687 E
457 E
204 E
209 E
81.7
1,220 E
995 E
497 E
973 E
414 E
546 E
742 E
179 E
93.9
421 E
638 E
493 E
446 E
136 E
48.6
51
149 E
83.4
11.7
53.5
65.8
38.9
277 E
27.1
M-S-06
51.7
287 E
79.5
776 E
922 E
121 E
1,270 E
729 E
158 E
950 E
1,590 E
4,580 E
493 E
509 E
341 E
147 E
150 E
59.2
871
704 E
369 E
695 E
305 E
382 E
544 E
133 E
67.8
304 E
480 E
341 E
330 E
101
34.5
36.1
107 E
59.5
9.26
39.6
56.4
28.5
201 E
20.5
52
-------
TABLE 4-4
MELTER FEED DRY SEDIMENT COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Analyte
PCBs (Method (680)
(ng/g)
(107)-PeCB
(123) PeCB
(118)-PeCB
(136)-HxCB
(151)-HxCB
(135)-HxCB
(139,149)-HxCB
(146,161)-HxCB
(132,153,168)-HxCB
(141)-HxCB
(137)-HxCB
(138,160)-HxCB
(158)-HxCB
(176)-HpCB
(178)-HpCB
(182,187)-HpCB
(183)-HpCB
(185)-HpCB
(174,181)-HpCB
(177)-HpCB
(172)-HpCB
(180,193)-HpCB
(170,190)-HpCB
(202)-OcCB
(196,203)-OcCB
(208)-NpCB
(206)-NoCB
(209)-DeCB
Total PCBs (homolog sum)
(ng/g)
Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
PCDD/Fs (pg/g)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
Sample Identification
M-S-01
5.2
<22.2 P
148 E
<1.36
17.8
<1.36
58.9
15.5
90.9
11.5
3.44
34.6
49.2
<3.35P
4.23
26.8
<11.2P
2.15
18.9
<1.36
<1.36
48.7
<20.8 P
<1.36
<1.36
<1.36
7.42
2.85
29,700
M-S-01
7.3
96
0.86
39
0.68
69
10 J
<2.3
M-S-01
14.8
29.5
234
254
M-S-02
<4.14P
<22.6 P
151 E
<1.39
18.3
13.9
62.0
15.6
91.8
<1.39
<3.00P
33.8
51.4
3.64
4.51
28.4
11.8
2.27
17.8
<1.39
<1.39
46.1
<1.39
<1.39
8.25
<1.39
6.77
10.6
30,900
M-S-02
8.0
84
0.83
37
0.87
68
6J
<2.3
M-S-02
28.0
41.0
240
251
M-S-03
<3.88P
<21.7P
155 E
14.6
19.6
16.8
65.2
15.5
95.5
<10.8P
<2.72 P
32.5
47.7
3.89
4.74
28.6
12.9
<1.41P
18.8
12.4
2.86
50.5
21.4
2.01
8.41
<22.5 P
6.99
3.22
30,900
M-S-03
8.1
85
0.90
38
0.70
69
6.5
<2.3
M-S-03
12.8
27.6
245
284
M-S-04
<4.77 P
<19.3P
139 E
13.2
17.2
14.9
56.2
14.1
82.7
10.4
<1.39
44.0
<1.39P
3.16
4.04
25.9
10.7
1.78
16.4
10.8
2.66
44.3
18.6
2.04
7.67
2.00
6.36
3.96
26,200
M-S-04
8.5
91
0.90
39
0.64
87
6.7
<2.3
M-S-04
13.4
29.5
234
262
M-S-05
<4.21 P
<19.7P
148 E
14.6
17.9
13.6
60.9
<1.35
90.5
<1.35
<1.35
46.7
<1.35
2.88
<1.35
<1.35
11.9
<1.35
17.2
<1.35
<1.35
<1.35
<1.35
2.17
7.87
2.15
7.27
3.06
29,100
M-S-05
<5.9
83
0.85
36
0.76
69
<5.9
<2.4
M-S-05
52.8
93.6
241
289
M-S-06
<1.27
15
108
107 E
14.3
<1.27
46.1
12.7
70.0
<1.27
<1.27
35.5
<1.27
2.34
3.27
20.9
8.75
<1.27
13.6
9.50
2.46
37.4
15.4
1.48
6.13
<1.27
5.91
2.23
21,500
M-S-06
<5.5
87
0.93
37
0.66
69
<5.5
<2.2
M-S-06
18.9
49.0
235
310
53
-------
TABLE 4-4
MELTER FEED DRY SEDIMENT COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Analyte
PCDD/Fs (pg/g)
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HcCDF
PCDDs/PCDFs
(Method 8290)
(Pg/g)
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Total PCDDs/PCDFs
(homolog sum)
(pg/g)
SVOCs (ug/L)
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Total SVOCs
VOCs Gig/kg)
Acetone
2-Butanone
Total VOCs
Sample Identification
M-S-01
107
9,330
56,500
63.0
14.0
28.2
27.1
M-S-01
25.9
41.7
4.57
622
20.9
1,530
101,000
M-S-01
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
M-S-01
840
150
990
M-S-02
117
9,940
63,100
66.3
18.1
32.0
28.9
M-S-02
26.5
45.3
<4.67
756
26.5
2,190
111,000
M-S-02
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
M-S-02
630
130
760
M-S-03
140
9,870
67,300
65.0
17.6
35.1
31.3
M-S-03
28.7
42.1
4.49
684
28.5
1,690
115,000
M-S-03
270 J
300 J
240 J
280 J
340 J
190 J
270 J
1,890
M-S-03
330 ND,J
150
480
M-S-04
125
9,130
62,300
60.8
16.0
34.7
29.1
M-S-04
27.6
40.5
<4.01
623
22.3
1,580
106,000
M-S-04
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
<190
M-S-04
<5.7
<5.7
<5.7
M-S-05
212
8,880
61,000
56.9
14.3
34.8
29.2
M-S-05
28.9
54.6
<4.20
620
22.8
1,370
107,000
M-S-05
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
M-S-05
—
~
~
M-S-06
182
8,470
48,500
81.6
19.8
39.4
40.0
M-S-06
30.4
64.2
4.31
546
21.9
1,220
168,000
M-S-06
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
M-S-06
—
-
-
Notes:
mg/g = Milligram per gram
ng/g = Nanogram per gram
pg/g = Picogram per gram
Hg/kg = Microgram per kilogram
Ug/L = Microgram per liter
PCBs - Poly chlorinated biphenyls
PCDDs/PCDFs - Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds
VOCs - Volatile organic compounds
E = Estimated Value. Concentration above Upper Calibration Range.
EMPC = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
J = Estimated Value, Concentration Below Lower Calibration Range.
ND,J = Estimated nondetect. Low MS/MSD recoveries
P = Not detected at raised detection limit. Ion ratio is noncompliant. Equivalent to EMPC.
— Not sampledPCB and PCDD/PCDF congeners, SVOCs, and VOCs less than detection limits in all samples are not included in
this table. For a complete list of these analytes, see Appendix A.
54
-------
Metals
Dried sediment composite samples were analyzed for the RCRA metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver) by EPA Methods 601 OB/7471 A (EPA 1996). These
results are presented in Table 4-4.
Mercury was considered a critical metal for this evaluation. It is consistently observed at concentrations
of about 0.72 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (0.721 ppm) in all pre-melter sediment samples.
Dioxins and Furans
The six composite samples were analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method 8290 (EPA 1996). The
results are presented in Table 4-4. Total dioxins and furans concentrations, calculated by summing the
concentration of homologs, ranged from 101,000 to 168,000 picograms per gram (pg/g) (0.101 to 0.168
ppm).
Toxicity Equivalents (TEQs) are used to assess the risk of exposure to a mixture of dioxin-like
compounds. Because dioxins differ in their toxicity, the toxicity of each component in the mixture are
accounted for in estimating the overall toxicity. To do so, toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) have been
developed that compare the toxicity of different dioxins. Given these TEFs, provided in EPA Method
8290, the toxicity of a mixture can be expressed in terms of its TEQ, which is the amount of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-/?-dioxin it would take to equal the combined toxic effect of all the dioxins found in
that mixture. TEQs were not assessed as part of the GFT demonstration evaluation. All of the TEQs
observed exceed the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) screening level of 50
parts per trillion (ppt).
SVOCs
Four composite samples of dried sediment were collected and analyzed for SVOCs by EPA Method
8270C (EPA 1996). The resulting SVOC concentrations, analyzed by EPA Method 8270C (EPA 1996)
are listed in Table 4-4.
Total SVOC concentrations observed in dried sediment composite samples were generally small (below
detection limits in most samples), ranging from less than 190 to 1,890 micrograms per kilogram (fig/kg)
(0.190 to 1.89 ppm).
55
-------
VOCs
Four composite samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260B (EPA 1996). The
results of VOC analyses are listed in Table 4-4. The only VOCs observed were acetone and 2-butanone,
which are suspected laboratory artifacts. Acetone and 2-butanone are typically used by laboratories to
clean equipment.
4.3.2.2 Flux
One composite sample was collected from the sodium sulfate flux material and analyzed for PCBs by
EPA Method 680 (EPA 1985). Total PCB results are reported in Table 4-5. PCBs were detected at a
concentration of 0.79 ppm.
4.3.2.3 Glass Aggregate Product
Molten sediment exited the melter into a water-quench tank, where it cooled quickly and shattered into
small pieces. This glass aggregate product was removed from the water-quench tank by a screw conveyor
and discharged into 55-gallon drums. The aggregate was produced at a rate of 170 Ib/hr (77 kg/hour)
over the demonstration period.
The screw-conveyor discharge was sampled every 15 minutes for six hours. These samples were
composited in a disposable aluminum pan. Analytical samples were collected from the mixed composite
sample. The following sections detail the results of the laboratory analyses of the composited glass
aggregate product samples (aggregate).
PCBs
Composite glass samples, analyzed for both the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene list of PCB
congeners and total PCBs by high-resolution EPA Method 1668 (EPA 1997), are listed in Appendix A.
Total PCBs, calculated by summing the concentration of homologs, were reported by the laboratory and
ranged from less than 26.0 to 1,240 pg/g (2.60 x 10 "6 to 1.24 x 10 "3 ppm). The analytical results are
shown in Table 4-6.
56
-------
TABLE 4-5
FLUX MATERIAL SAMPLE RESULT
Analyte
PCBs (Method 680)
(P2/2)
8-DiCB
18,(30)-TriCB
(26,29)-TriCB
31-TriCB
(20),28-TriCB
52-TeCB
49,(69)-TeCB
44,47,(65)-TeCB
209-DeCB
Total PCBs (homolog sum)
(pq/g)
Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
PCDDs/PCDFs (pg/g)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
OCDF
Total PCDDs/PCDFs (pq/g)
(homolog sum)
SVOCs (ug/kg)
Total SVOCs
Sample Identification
M-F-01
36.7
33.3
27.1
61.2
70.3
37.2
22.7
28.3
27.0
790
M-F-01
<5.0
O.50
O.50
<1.0
<5.0
<0.25
<5.0
<2.0
M-F-01
<0.639
<3.50
<0.399
5.07
M-F-01
<170
Notes:
mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram
pg/g = Picogram per gram
Ug/kg = Microgram per kilogram
PCBs - Poly chlorinated bipheny Is
PCDDs/PCDFs - Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated
dibenzofurans
SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds
PCB and PCDD/PCDF congeners, SVOCs, and VOCs less than
detection limits in all samples are not included in this table. For a
complete list of these analytes, see Appendix A.
Subtotal consists of the sum of the congeners investigated.
Total PCB and PCDD/PCDF values provided by the laboratory.
57
-------
TABLE 4-6
GLASS AGGREGATE PRODUCT COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 1668)
(Pg/g)
(6)-DiCB
8-DiCB
18,(30)-TriCB
(26,29)-TriCB
31-TriCB
(20),28-TriCB
22-TriCB
37-TriCB
(45,51)-TeCB
49,(69)-TeCB
44,47,(65)-TeCB
(40,71)-TeCB
64-TeCB
(61),70,74,(76)-TeCB
66-TeCB
56-TeCB
60-TeCB
77-TeCB
(85,116)-PeCB
PCBs (Method 1668)
(Pg/g)
Total PCBs
Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
PCDDs/PCDFs
(Method 8290)
(Pg/g)
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PCDDs/PCDFs
(homolog sum)
(Pg/g)
Total PCDDs/PCDFs
Sample Identification
M-G-01
<25.7
49.9
42.6
32.7
109
146
28.2
54.6
<25.7
47.4
59.6
26.9
<25.7
57.7
43.2
<25.7
<25.7
<25.7
28.8
790
<5.2
330
<0.52
50
12
O.26
9.2 J
<2.1
<0.151
<0.0684
0.0668
2.01
M-G-02
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<26.0
<5.0
320
0.50
48
12
O.25
8J
<2.0
0.173 A
0.149 A
0.125 A
3.77
M-G-03
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
26.3
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
58.1
<5.0
320
0.50
49
15
O.25
8.1
<2.0
0.165
0.0826
0.0806
1.93
M-G-04
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
<24.2
26.5
<5.0
330
0.50
49
16
O.25
7.7
<2.0
0.189
0.111
0.109
1.77
M-G-05
<24.5
<24.5
<24.5
<24.5
31.4
182
79.2
84.3
24.6
73.9
118
70.2
62.3
114
125
74.3
50.4
26.6
29.2
1,240
<5.0
350
0.50
53
16
O.25
<5.0
<4.0
~
~
~
-
M-G-06
41.9
40.8
36.3
<25.0
53.8
62.7
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
25.8
35.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
<25.0
345
<5.0
320
0.50
52
14
O.25
<5.0
<2.0
~
~
~
-
58
-------
TABLE 4-6
GLASS AGGREGATE PRODUCT COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS (CONTNUED)
Notes:
mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram
pg/g = Picogram per gram
PCBs - Poly chlorinated bipheny Is
PCDDs/PCDFs - Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds
VOCs - Volatile organic compounds
A = Estimated Value, Concentration Below Lower Calibration Range. Values above EDL were used to calculate
totals.
EDL = Estimated Detection Limit
J = Estimated Value, Concentration Below Lower Calibration Range.
~ Not sampled
PCB and PCDD/PCDF congeners, SVOCs, and VOCs less than detection limits in all samples are not included in
this table. For a complete list of these analytes, see Appendix A.
Subtotal consists of the sum of the congeners investigated.
Total PCB and PCDD/PCDF values provided by the laboratory.
59
-------
Mainly tri- and tetra-substituted congeners were detected in the glass aggregate product composite
samples. The highest concentrations found were the congeners 2,3,3'-trichloro biphenyl and 2,4,4'-
trichloro biphenyl (coeluted and reported as (20),28-TriCB), which was detected at 146 and 182
picograms per gram (pg/g) (1.46 x 10 "4 to 1.82 x 10 "4 ppm) in samples M-G-01 and M-G-05,
respectively.
Minergy has included, in the Vendor Claims appendix of this ITER, additional information about a
toxicological report.
Metals
The glass aggregate product composite samples also were analyzed for the eight RCRA metals by EPA
Methods 6010B/7471A (EPA 1996). The results are shown in Table 4-6.
Barium (320 to 350 mg/kg [320 to 350 ppm]) and chromium (48 to 53 mg/kg [48 to 53 ppm]) were
consistently observed in glass aggregate product composite samples. Mercury concentrations were all
below detection limits.
Dioxins and Furans
Glass aggregate product samples were submitted for analysis of dioxins and furans by EPA Method 8290
(EPA 1996). The results of the dioxins and furans analysis are detailed in Table 4-6.
Total dioxin and furan concentrations, calculated by summing the concentration of homologs, ranged
from 1.77 to 3.77 pg/g (1.77x 10 "6 to 3.77 x 10 "6 ppm). TEQs are used to assess the risk of exposure to
a mixture of dioxin-like compounds. All of the TEQs observed in glass aggregate composite samples are
well below the ATSDR screening level of 50 ppt.
Minergy has included, in the Vendor Claims appendix of this ITER, additional information about a
toxicological report.
SVOCs
Composite samples of the glass aggregate product were collected and submitted for analysis of SVOCs.
The resulting SVOC concentrations, analyzed by Method EPA 8270C (EPA 1996), were all below
detection limits.
60
-------
VOCs
A glass aggregate product sample was collected and submitted for analysis by EPA Method 8260B (EPA
1996) of VOCs to verify that PCBs had not been broken down into VOCs in the glass. None of the VOC
analytes was detected above detection limits.
4.3.2.4 Melter Flue Gas
As the PCB-contaminated sediment entered the melter, PCBs were removed or destroyed in the furnace
atmosphere, which reached a temperature of about 1,600 °C (2,900 °F). The melter flue gas was sampled
to evaluate the effectiveness of the furnace in destroying PCBs and other organic contaminants, such as
dioxins and furans and SVOCs. A water-cooled probe was inserted into the melter flue to extract a
portion of the flue gas for sampling. The flue gas was sampled after its temperature was reduced from
1,600 °C (2,900 °F) to about 200 °C (400 °F).
Several samples were collected for analysis of PCBs, metals, dioxins and furans, SVOCs, VOCs, and
HC1/C12. Depending on the analysis, the melter flue gas was sampled for various durations using sample
trains specific to each method and parameter. The sample train apparatus from each sample was then
recovered, and the samples were sent to a laboratory for completion of the analysis. The following
sections detail the results of the laboratory analyses of melter flue gas samples.
PCBs
PCB analytical results determined by high-resolution EPA Method 1668 (EPA 1997) were reported for
individual congeners on the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene list. Total PCBs, calculated by
summing the concentration of homologs, also were reported by the laboratory. Total PCB results from
the air samples ranged from 16.4 to 130 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) (5.54 x 10"6 to
1.27 x 10"5 ppm). Table 4-7 contains the analytical results from the melter flue gas air samples.
61
-------
TABLE 4-7
MELTER FLUE GAS SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 680)
(ng/dscm)
1-MoCB
(4)-DiCB
(7)-DiCB
(6)-DiCB
8-DiCB
(19)-TriCB
18,(30)-TriCB
(17)-TriCB
(27)-TriCB
(24)-TriCB
(26,29)-TriCB
(25)-TriCB
31-TriCB
(20),28-TriCB
(21),33-TriCB
22-TriCB
37-TriCB
(50,53)-TeCB
(45,51)-TeCB
(46)-TeCB
52-TeCB
49,(69)-TeCB
(48)-TeCB
44,47,(65)-TeCB
(59,62,75)-TeCB
(40,71)-TeCB
64-TeCB
(61),70,74,(76)-TeCB
66-TeCB
56-TeCB
77-TeCB
84-PeCB
90,101,(H3)-PeCB
86,87,97,(108),119,(125)-
PeCB
(85,116)-PeCB
110-PeCB
118-PeCB
(147),149-HxCB
(129),138,(163)-HxCB
Sample Identification
Run#l
1.06
2.19
0.531
6.85
7.85
1.03
14.1
6.26
1.45
2.84
7.14
4.99
13.4
13.2
2.22
3.01
0.949
2.74
3.40
0.930
8.73
5.46
0.245
7.22
O.245
2.24
1.80
2.25
1.13
0.448
0.308
0.440
0.866
0.729
1.06
0.245
0.401
0.286
0.320
Run #2
0.576
1.34
0.324
3.39
4.11
0.440
5.13
2.18
0.452
1.16
2.16
1.49
4.64
4.74
1.47
1.38
0.866
0.648
0.834
0.254
2.66
1.69
0.336
2.47
0.341
1.08
0.842
1.29
0.646
0.384
0.317
0.242
0.571
0.242
0.706
O.242
0.351
O.242
0.281
Run #3
0.398
0.699
0.239
1.95
2.48
0.279
3.03
1.28
0.255
0.649
<1.19
0.825
2.55
2.60
0.697
0.728
0.332
0.379
0.530
O.238
<1.39
0.866
O.238
1.30
0.238
0.592
0.420
0.716
0.377
O.238
0.389
0.238
0.312
0.296
0.394
O.238
O.238
O.238
0.238
Run #4
0.516
1.08
0.289
2.08
2.41
0.308
3.15
1.40
0.261
O.678
<1.32
O.895
2.71
2.82
0.736
0.775
0.370
0.421
0.583
O.231
1.66
1.04
O.231
<1.52
0.231
0.571
0.484
O.747
0.377
O.231
0.319
0.231
0.303
0.303
0.368
O.231
O.231
O.231
0.231
Run #5
0.383
O.228
0.228
1.21
1.83
0.228
1.88
0.774
O.228
0.455
0.742
O.5283
1.78
1.88
0.638
0.547
0.296
0.291
0.417
O.228
1.20
0.754
O.228
<1.14
0.228
0.476
0.403
O.699
0.387
O.228
0.228
0.228
0.228
0.319
O.228
0.276
O.228
O.228
0.228
Run #6
0.707
O.226
0.226
2.75
3.50
0.422
3.82
1.62
0.307
0.842
<1.49
<1.06
3.00
3.21
0.750
0.847
0.413
0.350
0.476
O.226
<1.43
0.928
O.226
<1.39
0.226
0.571
0.458
O.664
0.341
O.226
O.226
0.226
0.348
0.246
O.226
0.273
O.226
O.226
0.226
62
-------
TABLE 4-7
MELTER FLUE GAS SAMPLE RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Analyte
Metals
(Hg/dscm)
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
PCDDs/PCDFs
(Method 8290)
(ng/dscm)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
SVOCs (ng/dscm)
Benzoic Acid
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
2-Methylphenol
3- & 4-Methylphenol
2-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Total SVOCs
VOCs (ng/dscm)
Bromomethane
Carbon Bisulfide
Methylene Chloride
Benzene
Sample Identification
Run#l
<1,900
<10,000
<150,000
<3,200
< 19,000
<1,900
0.009 EMPC
0.015
0.019
0.057
0.028
0.531
0.883
0.022
0.030
0.056
0.073
0.060
0.081
0.025
0.274
0.037
0.242
143,000
22,000
5,020
3,860
4,630
7,720
186,000
46.5
14.0
17.3
18.2
Run #2
<2,500
<13,000
<40,000
<2,800
<26,000
<3,100
0.012 EMPC
0.047
0.044
0.131
0.065
0.624
0.723
0.100
0.158
0.222
0.271
0.186
0.162
0.067
0.551
0.069
0.239
140,000
3,590
3,590
3,590
4,310
3,590
159,000
18.6
34.4
19.8
18.7
Run #3
<1,800
<9,500
<2 1,000
<1,800
< 18,000
<1,990
O.0038
0.012
0.012
0.043
0.023
0.174
0.170
0.028
0.035
0.050
0.067
0.047
0.034
0.014
0.132
0.016
0.078
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
Run #4
<1,320
<5,460
<26,200
<8,990
<13,200
<1,320
0.0087
0.028
0.021
0.084
0.071
0.298
0.218
0.034
0.054
0.070
0.115
0.072
0.046
0.020
0.227
0.023
0.106
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Run #5
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.0061
0.007
0.006
0.023
0.014
0.092
0.10
O.011
0.017
0.022
0.037
0.024
0.017
0.007
0.077
0.011
0.051
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Run #6
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.0024
0.004
0.007
0.026
0.014
0.115
0.12
0.015
0.021
0.026
0.049
0.029
0.016
0.007
0.088
0.012
0.077
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
63
-------
Toluene
Total VOCs
Analyte
HC1/C1, (n2/dscm)
HC1
Cl,
146
242
99.1
191
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sample Identification
Run#l
54,600
4,380
Run #2
140,000
838
Run #3
27,600
37.900
Run #4
57,300
137
Run #5
—
-
Run #6
—
-
Notes:
C12 - Chlorine
HC1 - Hydrogen chloride
Hg/dscm = Microgram per dry standard cubic meter
ng/dscm = Nanogram per dry standard cubic meter
PCBs - Poly chlorinated bipheny Is
PCDDs/PCDFs - Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds
VOCs - Volatile organic compounds
EMPC = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
~ Not sampled
PCB and PCDD/PCDF congeners, SVOCs, and VOCs less than detection limits in all samples are not included in
this table. For a complete list of these analytes, see Appendix A.
Total PCB and PCDD/PCDF values equal the sum of the congeners investigated.
64
-------
Metals
Melter flue gas samples were analyzed for RCRA metals by Methods 6010B/7471A (EPA 1996).
Individual metals were analyzed, and their resulting concentrations observed in the flue gas are detailed in
Table 4-7.
Metals concentrations in the melter flue gas samples were all below detection limits.
Dioxins and Furans
Melter flue gas air samples were submitted for analysis of dioxins and furans by EPA Method 8290 (EPA
1996). Results of the dioxins and furans analysis are detailed in Table 4-7.
Total dioxin and furan concentrations, calculated by summing the concentration of homologs, for air
samples collected during the demonstration ranged from 0.406 to 3.66 ng/dscm. (3.14 x 10"8 to 2.22 x 10"7
ppm).
SVOCs
Air samples of melter flue gas were collected and submitted for analysis of SVOCs. The resulting SVOC
concentrations, analyzed by EPA Method 8270C (EPA 1996), are summarized in Table 4-7.
Two samples were analyzed for SVOCs. The resulting concentrations in air samples were 186,000 and
159,000 ng/dscm. (0.0342 and 0.0284 ppm).
VOCs
Melter flue gas samples were collected and submitted for analysis of VOCs. Two samples were analyzed
for VOCs, and the resulting concentrations, which were analyzed by EPA Method 8260B (EPA 1996),
are summarized in Table 4-7.
VOC concentrations observed in the two air samples collected from the melter flue gas were 242 and 191
ng/dscm (7.43 x lO'6 and 6.17 x lO'6 ppm).
65
-------
HC1/CU
Melter flue gas was also sampled for hydrogen chloride (HC1) and chlorine (C12), which were analyzed by
EPA Method 26A. The flue gas was sampled for HC1/C12 verify that the destruction of PCBs in the
furnace did not create other pollutants. The resulting concentrations of HC1 ranged from 27,600 to
140,000 ng/dscm (18 to 94 ppm). Concentrations of C12 in the melter flue gas ranged from 137 to 37,900
ng/dscm (<0.047 to 13 ppm). Table 4-7 contains the results of the HC1/C12 analyses for four sampling
runs.
4.3.2.5 Post-Carbon Treatment Flue Gas
The melter flue gas stream passed through a carbon filter unit prior to discharge to the atmosphere. This
stream was sampled after the carbon filter to evaluate the effectiveness of carbon treatment. Three
samples of this stream were extracted into sampling bags and analyzed for PCB congeners,
PCDDs/PCDFs, metals and SVOCs. The results are reported in Table 4-8.
4.3.2.6 Quench-Tank Water
The quench tank was situated at the end of the melter furnace, beneath the forehearth, where the molten
sediment exited the melter. The molten sediment dropped into the quench tank, where it cooled
immediately into black glass and shattered into small pieces collectively called glass aggregate product.
The aggregate fell into a hopper at the bottom of the quench tank. The hopper was attached to a screw
conveyor, which lifted the aggregate out of the quench tank and dropped it into 55-gallon drums. The
water level in the tank was maintained by a float valve that allowed water into the tank as the level was
reduced.
The quench tank was sampled from a valve installed on the tank drain. A 1-liter grab sample was
collected every half hour over the same 6-hour period, during which the glass aggregate was sampled.
Grab samples were composited in a large, glass container, which was mixed upon collection of all grab
samples. Samples for laboratory analysis were collected by pouring the composited quench-tank water
into laboratory sample containers. Quench-tank water was analyzed for PCBs, metals, and SVOCs.
66
-------
TABLE 4-8
POST-CARBON GAS SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 680)
(ng/dscm)
1-MoCB
(4)-DiCB
(7)-DiCB
(6)-DiCB
(5)-DiCB
8-DiCB
(19)-TriCB
18,(30)-TriCB
(17)-TriCB
(27)-TriCB
(24)-TriCB
(26,29)-TriCB
(25)-TriCB
31-TriCB
(20),28-TriCB
(21),33-TriCB
22-TriCB
37-TriCB
(50,53)-TeCB
(45,51)-TeCB
(46)-TeCB
52-TeCB
49,(69)-TeCB
(48)-TeCB
44,47,(65)-TeCB
(59,62,75)-TeCB
(40,71)-TeCB
64-TeCB
(61),70,74,(76)-TeCB
66-TeCB
56-TeCB
90,101,(H3)-PeCB
86,87,97,(108),119,(125)-
PeCB
(85,116)-PeCB
118-PeCB
158-HxCB
Metals (Hg/dscm)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Sample Identification
Run#l
1.18
4.09
0.468
8.08
0.246
8.87
0.863
8.92
3.97
0.722
1.68
3.38
2.39
6.51
6.80
1.40
1.67
0.488
0.927
1.34
0.355
3.43
2.28
0.365
3.28
0.419
1.90
1.10
1.21
0.628
1.11
0.589
O.246
0.579
0.271
0.261
Run#l
<1,410
<141
<141
<281
Run #2
<0.232
0.781
0.232
1.60
2.02
1.97
O.232
2.41
1.04
0.232
0.505
0.971
0.668
2.06
2.18
0.651
0.580
0.269
0.334
0.468
O.232
<1.35
0.962
O.232
1.40
0.232
0.941
0.508
0.679
0.366
0.777
0.267
0.311
0.327
0.232
O.232
Run #2
<1,390
<150
<139
<279
Run #3
0.0650
0.0650
0.0650
0.226
O.0650
0.322
O.0650
0.362
1.49
0.0650
0.0839
0.133
O.0878
O.345
O.371
0.147
0.113
0.0650
0.0650
0.0696
O.0650
O.245
0.141
O.0650
0.224
0.0650
0.125
0.0800
0.159
0.0891
0.117
O.0650
0.0650
0.0650
0.0650
O.0650
Run #3
<1,340
<134
<134
<268
67
-------
TABLE 4-8
POST-CARBON GAS SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
Metals (jig/dscm)
(Continued)
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
PCDDs/PCDFs
(Method 8290)
(ng/dscm)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
SVOCs (ng/dscm)
Benzoic Acid
Sample Identification
Run#l
<1,410
<1.46
<1,410
<141
Run#l
<0.00232
<0.00185
0.002 12 EMPC
<0.00286
<0.00180
<0.00872
<0.0451
0.00532
0.00759
0.00335
0.00912
0.00409
O.00148
O.00163
O.0690
O.00207
0.0124
Run#l
<3,220
Run #2
<1,390
<2.32
<1,390
<139
Run #2
0.00705
0.00199
0.00223
0.00283
0.00121
O.0121
O.0399
O.00118
0.00278
0.00274
0.00626
0.00325
O.000904
O.000997
O.00427
O.00146
0.00366
Run #2
25,900
Run #3
<1,340
<1.04
<1,340
<134
Run #3
0.00302
0.00141
0.00166
0.0272
O.00156
O.0832
O.0317
O.00205
0.000966
0.000941
0.00116
0.00109
O.00121
O.00134
O.0253
O.00171
0.00317
Run #3
6,410
Notes
Hg/dscm = Microgram per dry standard cubic meter
ng/dscm = Nanogram per dry standard cubic meter
PCBs - Poly chlorinated biphenyls
PCDDs/PCDFs - Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds
EMPC = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration.
PCB and PCDD/PCDF congeners, SVOCs less than detection limits in all samples
are not included in this table. For a complete list of these analytes, see Appendix A.
68
-------
PCBs
Quench water was analyzed for PCB content to determine whether, as a waste stream, the quench water had
acquired PCBs from the molten sediment. Quench-water samples were analyzed for both the Wisconsin
State Laboratory of Hygiene list of PCB congeners and total PCBs by high-resolution EPA Method 1668
(EPA 1997). Results of the PCB analysis were used in the evaluation of Primary Objective PI, and are
reported in Table 4-9.
Total PCBs, calculated by summing the concentration of homologs, ranged from less than 0.500 to 1.09
nanograms per liter (ng/L) (0.5 x 10"6 to 1.09 x 10"6 ppm].
Metals
Quench-tank-water composite samples were analyzed for RCRA metals by EPA Methods 6010B/7470A
(EPA 1996). Individual metals analyzed and their resulting concentrations observed in the glass aggregate
product are detailed in Table 4-9.
All of the quench-tank-water samples exhibited minor detections of barium, but all other metals were below
detection limits.
SVOCs
Four samples of the quench-tank water were collected and submitted for analysis of SVOCs. The resulting
SVOC concentrations, analyzed by EPA Method 8270C (EPA 1996), are summarized in Table 4-9. Only
one detection of a single SVOC, di-n-octylphthalate, was observed in sample M-QW-02. Phthalates are
sometimes considered to be common laboratory or sampling contaminants.
69
-------
TABLE 4-9
QUENCH WATER COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 1668)
(Pg/g)
8-DiCB
18,(30)-TriCB
Total PCBs (homolog
sum)
(pg/g)
Metals (mg/L)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
SVOCs (ng/L)
Di-n-octylphthalate
Total SVOCs
Sample Identification
M-QW-01
<0.500
0.563
0.563
<0.10
0.029
<0.01
<0.02
<0.0002
<0.10
<0.10
<0.01
<5.0
<5.0
M-QW-02
0.513
0.575
1.09
<0.10
0.035
0.01
0.02
0.0002
O.10
O.10
O.01
21 J
21J
M-QW-03
0.500
0.500
0.500
O.10
0.031
0.01
0.02
0.0002
O.10
O.10
O.01
<5.0
<5.0
M-QW-04
0.500
0.539
0.539
O.10
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.0002
O.10
O.10
O.01
<5.3
<5.3
M-QW-05
0.500
0.500
0.500
O.10
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
O.10
O.10
O.01
~
—
M-QW-06
0.500
0.500
0.500
O.10
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
O.10
O.10
O.01
~
—
Notes:
mg/L = Milligram per liter
pg/g = Picogram per gram
[ig/L = Microgram per liter
PCBs - Poly chlorinated bipheny Is
PCDDs/PCDFs - Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds
~ Not sampled
J = Estimated Value, Concentration Below Lower Calibration Range.
PCB congeners and SVOCs less than detection limits in all samples are not included in this table. For a complete list
of these analytes, see Appendix A.
Samples were not analyzed for PCDDs/PCDFs or VOCs.
70
-------
4.3.2.7 Cooling-Tower Discharge
As previously described, a water-cooled air sampling probe was inserted into the melter flue to extract a
portion of the melter flue gas for sampling. The temperature of the flue gas was reduced to 190°C (400° F)
for sampling. After sampling, the flue gas was further cooled using a cooling tower before it passed
through carbon treatment. Because the melter was fired by natural gas, it was expected that the cooling
tower would generate water as the flue gas cooled and that it would need to be drained periodically. In
practice, the cooling water in the loop quickly became acidic and degraded parts in the recirculating pump.
The system then was converted to a non-recirculating system, wherein fresh water entered the cooling tower
and was discharged to a drain.
Cooling-tower samples were collected from the drain during the second, fourth, and sixth sampling runs.
During the second sampling run, the cooling-tower system was configured as a recirculating loop, and any
contaminants in the water in the system were expected to be more concentrated. During the fourth and
sixth sampling runs, the system was configured with fresh water, so the contaminants in the water were
expected to be more dilute. Cooling-tower-water samples were submitted to a laboratory for analysis of
PCBs, metals, and SVOCs. The samples were grab samples and were not collected over time for
compositing.
PCBs
Cooling-tower water was analyzed for PCB content to determine whether, as a waste stream, the cooling
tower water had acquired PCBs from the melter flue gas. Cooling-tower water samples were analyzed for
both the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene list of PCB congeners and total PCBs by high-resolution
EPA Method 1668 (EPA 1997). The results of the PCB analyses were used in the evaluation of Primary
Objective PI, and PCB results reported in Table 4-10.
Total PCBs, calculated by summing the concentration of homologs, in the cooling-tower-water samples
ranged from less than 0.500 to 7.78 ng/L (5.00 x 10'7 to 7.78 x 10'6 ppm). The total PCB concentration in
sample M-CTD-02 was higher than those in other samples. Sample M-CTD-02 was collected while the
cooling tower was configured as a recirculating loop, and the water in the cooling tower was expected to
exhibit higher concentrations than water after it was converted to use fresh water.
71
-------
TABLE 4-10
COOLING-TOWER-WATER SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 1668)
(Pg/g)
8-DiCB
18,(30)-TriCB
(26,29)-TriCB
31-TriCB
(20),28-TriCB
52-TeCB
49,(69)-TeCB
44,47,(65)-TeCB
Total PCBs (all congeners)
Total PCBs (homolog sum)
(Pg/g)
Metals (mg/L)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Sample Identification
M-CTD-02
0.607
0.788
0.712
1.45
1.46
1.10
0.635
1.03
7.78
0.65
0.082
0.079
3.5
0.12
5.9
<2.5
O.02
M-CTD-04
0.500
0.500
0.500
O.500
O.500
O.500
O.500
0.500
<0.500
O.10
0.026
O.01
0.033
0.0045
0.25
0.10
O.01
M-CTD-06
0.500
0.500
0.500
O.500
O.500
0.515
O.500
0.500
0.515
O.10
O.01
O.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
0.10
O.01
Notes:
mg/L = Milligram per liter
pg/g = Picogram per gram
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDDs/PCDFs = Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzorurans
~ Not sampled
PCB congeners and SVOCs less than detection limits in all samples are not included in this table. For a complete list
of these analytes, see Appendix A.
Samples were not analyzed for PCDDs/PCDFs or VOCs.
72
-------
Metals
Cooling-tower-water samples were analyzed for the eight RCRA metals by EPA Methods 6010B/7470A
(EPA 1996). Individual metals analyzed and their resulting concentrations observed in the cooling-tower
water are shown in Table 4-10.
As expected, metal concentrations in the initial sample (M-CTD-02) were higher than concentrations in
subsequent samples.
SVOCs
Two samples of the cooling-tower water were collected and submitted for analysis of SVOCs by Method
8270C (EPA 1996). No SVOCs were detected in either of the two samples.
4.3.2.8 Dust
As the demonstration began and air sampling proceeded, it became apparent that the air-sampling probe was
becoming clogged by solids in the melter flue gas as it rapidly cooled from 1600°C to 190°C (2900°F to
400°F). Solids accumulated in the probe until the gas would no longer flow, and sampling became difficult.
Sampling was halted, and the probe was removed from the furnace and cleaned. The solid material, which
apparently consisted of accumulated dust, was collected as the probe was cleaned and weighed. The
accumulated dust was composited daily, so three composite samples of dust were obtained over the course
of the demonstration.
The dust material was brown in color and consisted of some large pieces, so it was crushed with a
mechanical crusher so it could be inserted into laboratory sample containers. Dust samples were submitted
to a laboratory and analyzed for metals and dioxins and furans.
Minergy claims that the dust issues encountered during the demonstration would be controlled in a
commercial scale operation.
Metals
Dust samples were analyzed for RCRA metals by EPA Methods 601 OB/7471 A (EPA 1996). Individual
metals analyzed and their resulting concentrations observed in the dust-composite samples are detailed in
Table 4-11.
73
-------
Several metals were present at elevated levels. Metals concentrations in each of the dust composites were
similar in magnitude.
Dioxins and Furans
The dust material was sampled to determine whether dioxins and furans were present. The material was
analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method 8290 (EPA 1996), and the laboratory provided results for
individual congeners and total dioxins and furans, based on summing the homologs. Results of the dioxins
and furans analysis are summarized in Table 4-11.
The table shows that the dust contained total dioxin and furan concentrations ranging from below detection
limits (<0.327) to 10.1 ng/g (<3.27 x 10-7to 1.01 x 10'5 ppm).
4.3.2.9 Leachates of Glass Aggregate Product and Crushed Glass Aggregate Product
The glass aggregate product was subjected to two water-leach tests: the ASTM Standard Test Method for
Shake Extraction of Solid Waste with Water (D3987-99) (ASTM 1999) and the Synthetic Precipitate
Leaching Procedure (SPLP) (EPA Method 1312) (EPA 1996). The glass aggregate product was extracted
by the ASTM water leach method and analyzed for PCBs and metals. Glass-aggregate-product samples
also were extracted by the SPLP method and analyzed for PCBs, metals, dioxins and furans, and SVOCs.
Results of total PCBs and metals analysis of the leachates were used to evaluate Primary Objective P2, and
the results are summarized in Table 4-12.
74
-------
TABLE 4-11
DUST COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
PCDDs/PCDFs (Method 8290)
(Pg/g)
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HcXDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
Total PCDDs/PCDFs
(homolog sum)
(Pg/g)
M-AS-01
87
230
12
190
0.50
760
44
4.7
O.334
O.327
<0.548
<0.831
<0.327
Sample Identification
M-AS-02
120
210
18
250
0.61
1,100
40
7.1
O.430
O.420
<0.480
<0.748
<0.420
M-AS-03
130
210
19
240
1.0
1,200
43
8.1
0.636
0.771
0.585
0.871
10.1
Notes:
mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram
pg/kg = Picogram per kilogram
PCDDs/PCDFs - Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
PCDD/PCDF congeners less than detection limits in all samples are not included in this table. For a complete list of
these analytes, see Appendix A.
Samples were not analyzed for PCBs, SVOCs or VOCs.
75
-------
TABLE 4-12
GLASS AGGREGATE PRODUCT ASTM LEACHATE SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 1668)
(Pg/g)
Total PCBs (homolog sum)
(pg/g)
Metals (mg/L)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Sample Identification
M-G-01
0.500
<0.10
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
<0.0002
<0.10
<0.10
0.01
M-G-02
O.500
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
M-G-03
O.500
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
M-G-04
O.500
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
M-G-05
O.500
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
M-G-06
O.500
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
Notes:
pg/g = Picogram per gram
mg/L = Milligram per liter
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCB congeners less than detection limits in all samples are not included in this table. For a complete list of these
analytes, see Appendix A.
Samples were not analyzed for PCDDs/PCDFs, SVOCs or VOCs.
76
-------
Portions of the glass aggregate product were crushed and screened through a 200-mesh (75-micron, 0.003-
inch) sieve at the University of Wisconsin at Platteville Engineering Department laboratory. Glass aggregate
product samples had to be air-dried before crushing, so they were laid out in disposable aluminum pans in
front of fans. Some of the pans were placed in drying ovens and set on circulating air only. After drying,
the glass aggregate product was transferred to a rotating drum crusher that contained several steel balls of
various sizes. The drum crusher (Soiltest Model M-501) was cleaned between each sample, and a sand blank
was crushed and collected before each sample was placed in the crusher. The crushed glass was then
transferred to sieves and shaken to separate the finely ground glass particles. Fine particles that passed the
200-mesh sieve were collected, extracted by SPLP methods, and analyzed for PCBs, metals, and SVOCs.
4.3.2.9.1 Glass Aggregate Product ASTM Water-Leach Test
Portions of the glass aggregate product samples collected from the six sampling runs were extracted by the
ASTM water-leaching procedure (ASTM 1999) before analysis for PCBs and metals. Results of the extract
analysis were used in the evaluation of Primary Objective P2 to determine the material's potential for
beneficial reuse.
PCBs
PCBs were analyzed by high-resolution EPA Method 1668 (EPA 1997), and individual congeners and total
PCBs were reported by the laboratory. Results of the ASTM extraction and PCB analyses are summarized in
Table 4-12. The table shows that there were no detections of PCBs in any of the six sampling runs.
Metals
Glass aggregate product ASTM water leach samples were analyzed for RCRA metals by EPA Methods
6010B/7470A (EPA 1996). Individual metals analyzed and their resulting concentrations observed in glass
aggregate leachates are detailed in Table 4-12.
Metals concentrations in ASTM-leachate samples are below detections limits for all metals analyzed.
77
-------
4.3.2.9.2 Glass Aggregate Product SPLP Leach Test
Glass aggregate product composite samples also were extracted using SPLP (EPA 1996) and analyzed for
PCBs, metals, dioxins and furans, and SVOCs. SPLP was designed to mimic rainwater leaching
contaminants from a material and potentially migrating into groundwater. SPLP generally is used to more
closely simulate actual rainwater leaching effects, rather than landfill leaching effects. The sample extract
was analyzed for PCBs, metals, and dioxins and furans.
PCBs
After SPLP extraction, PCBs were analyzed by high resolution EPA Method 1668 (EPA 1997), with total
PCBs and individual congeners reported by the laboratory. Results of the laboratory analysis are detailed in
Table 4-13.
Results of the PCB analysis exhibited no detections of PCB congeners in any of the glass aggregate product
samples.
Metals
Glass aggregate product SPLP leachate samples were analyzed for RCRA metals by EPA Methods
6010B/7470A (EPA 1996). Individual metals analyzed and their resulting concentrations observed in the
glass aggregate product leachates are summarized in Table 4-13
No detections of any of the metals analyzed were exhibited in any of the glass aggregate product sample
leachates.
Dioxins and Furans
Glass aggregate product SPLP-leachate samples were analyzed for dioxins and furans by EPA Method 8290
(EPA 1996), and the laboratory provided results for individual compounds and total dioxins and furans.
Results of the dioxins and furans analysis are summarized in Table 4-13.
As shown, the leachate was observed to contain total dioxins and furans concentrations ranging from 0.0332
to 0.615 ng/L (3.33 x 10-8to 6.15 x 10-7ppm).
78
-------
TABLE 4-13
GLASS AGGREGATE PRODUCT SPLP LEACHATE SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 1668)
(Pg/g)
Total PCBs (homolog sum)
(Pg/g)
Metals (mg/L)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
PCDDs/PCDFs (Method 8290)
(Pg/g)
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
Total PCDD/Fs
(homolog sum)
Sample Identification
M-G-01
O.562
<0.10
<0.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
0.387
0.0061
0.596
M-G-02
O.588
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
0.0445
0.0025
0.0615
M-G-03
O.61
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
0.0377
0.0030
0.0532
M-G-04
O.633
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
0.0323
0.0027
0.0385
M-G-05
O.725
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
0.0261
0.0024
0.0332
M-G-06
O.694
O.10
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.0002
0.10
O.10
O.01
0.0310
0.0023
0.0435
Notes:
pg/g = Picogram per gram
mg/L = Milligram per liter
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDDs/PCDFs = Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
~ Not sampled
PCB and PCDD/PCDF congeners, and SVOCs less than detection limits in all samples are not included in this table.
For a complete list of these analytes, see Appendix A.
Samples were not analyzed for VOCs.
79
-------
SVOCs
Four of the six glass aggregate product composite samples were submitted for SPLP extraction and
SVOC analysis by EPA Method 8270C (EPA 1996). Total SVOC concentrations in SPLP-leachate
samples are below detections limits for all SVOCs analyzed.
4.3.2.9.3 Crushed Glass Aggregate Product SPLP-Leach Test
Portions of the glass aggregate product composite samples were crushed and screened through a 200-
mesh (75-micron, 0.003-inch) sieve. The crushed glass aggregate product was then transferred to sieves
and shaken to separate the finely ground glass particles. The fine particles that passed the 200-mesh sieve
were collected and submitted to a laboratory for SPLP extraction and analysis of PCBs, metals, and
SVOCs.
PCBs
After the crushed glass aggregate product was subjected to SPLP extraction, PCBs were analyzed by
high-resolution EPA Method 1668, with total PCBs and individual congeners reported by the laboratory.
Results of the laboratory analysis are detailed in Table 4-14.
Results of the PCB analysis exhibited no detections of PCBs in any of the glass aggregate product
composite samples.
Metals
Crushed glass aggregate product SPLP-leachate samples were analyzed for RCRA metals by EPA
Methods 6010B/7470A (EPA 1996). Individual metals analyzed and their resulting concentrations
observed in glass aggregate leachates are detailed in Table 4-14.
No metals were detected in any of the glass aggregate product composite sample leachates.
80
-------
TABLE 4-14
CRUSHED GLASS AGGREGATE SPLP LEACHATE SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
PCBs (Method 1668)
(Pg/g)
Total PCBs (homolog sum)
(Pg/g)
Metals (mg/L)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
SVOCs (ng/L)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Total SVOCs
Sample Identification
M-CG-01
O.500
0.10
0.01
0.01
O.02
O.0002
O.10
O.10
0.01
<5.0
<5.0
M-CG-02
O.500
0.10
0.01
0.01
O.02
O.0002
O.10
O.10
0.01
-
-
M-CG-03
O.500
0.10
0.01
0.01
O.02
O.0002
O.10
O.10
0.01
<5.0
<5.0
M-CG-04
O.500
0.10
0.01
0.01
O.02
O.0002
O.10
O.10
0.01
<5.0
<5.0
M-CG-05
O.500
0.10
0.01
0.01
O.02
O.0002
O.10
O.10
0.01
-
-
M-CG-06
O.500
0.10
0.01
0.01
O.02
O.0002
O.10
O.10
0.01
14 J
14 J
Notes:
pg/g = Picogram per gram
mg/L = Milligram per liter
[ig/L = Microgram per liter
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls
SVOCs = Semivolatile organic compounds
J = Estimated Value, Concentration Below Lower Calibration Range.
~ Not sampled
PCB congeners and SVOCs less than detection limits in all samples are not included in this table. For a complete list
of these analytes, see Appendix A.
Samples were not analyzed for PCDDs/PCDFs or VOCs.
81
-------
SVOCs
Glass aggregate product SPLP-leachate samples were analyzed for SVOCs by EPA Method 8270C (EPA
1996). The resulting concentrations expressed as total SVOCs observed in the glass aggregate product
leachates are summarized in Table 4-14.
Only one SVOC (bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate) was detected in one of the four SPLP-leachate crushed glass
aggregate product samples (M-CG-06). SVOC concentrations in SPLP-leachate samples were below
detections limits for the other three crushed glass aggregate product samples analyzed.
4.3.3 SITE Demonstration Objectives
The main component of the Minergy GFT is an oxygen/fuel-fired melter that operates at a temperature of
1,600 °C (2,900 °F). The technology can be used to vitrify PCB-contaminated sediments as well as
sediments containing metal contamination. When the molten glass is cooled, a glass aggregate is formed.
The product has potential economic value as a concrete aggregate, roadbed fill, or other construction
material.
The purpose of the SITE demonstration of the Minergy GFT technology was to provide an unbiased,
quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of this technology. To ensure the collection of data
that would allow such an evaluation, specific, performance-based objectives were developed. The two
primary objectives are considered to be critical for the technology evaluation. Secondary objectives
provide additional information that is useful but not critical. The following sections provide an
evaluation of the primary and secondary objectives.
4.3.3.1 Primary Objectives Evaluation
The following primary objectives (P) are considered to be critical to the success of the SITE evaluation.
For each objective, a brief description of the experimental approach is given.
PI Determine the treatment efficiency (TE) of PCBs in dredged-and-dewatered river
sediment when processed in the Minergy GFT.
The concentration of PCBs in river sediment, the glass aggregate product and all the waste streams were
analyzed. The TE calculation for the GFT consisted of a comparison of the PCB content of the six
composite samples of the dredged-and-dewatered sediment versus PCB concentrations of all other
process outputs, including six composite samples of the glass aggregate product, quench water, and three
82
-------
composite samples of the cooling -tower discharge. Based on the sampling methodology, the six flue-gas
samples were discrete samples, not composite samples.
The TE of the GFT process was calculated as follows:
Where:
Wln = Geometric mean of PCB input concentration:
For the GFT process, Win represents the PCB concentration of the
dredged-and-dewatered sediment; for the melting system only, Win
represents the PCB concentration of the drum-dried sediment.
Wout = Geometric mean of PCB output concentration:
For the GFT process, Wout represents the combined PCB concentrations
of the process flue gas stream, the quench water stream, and the glass
aggregate product.
A TE for the Holoflite® dryer demonstration could not be calculated due to the sediment carry-over into
all waste streams and data incompatibility. Data collected during the Holoflite® dryer test were not used
to determine a TE for the GFT because of the incompatibility of the PCB congener lists analyzed for the
dryer and melter evaluations. The TE for the GFT was calculated using data obtained from sampling
dredged-and-dewatered sediment from roll-off boxes. This calculation provides a TE for the technology
as demonstrated by Minergy. Table 4-13 provides the geometric means of the input and output PCB data.
The TE for the GFT process was calculated to be 99.9995 percent.1
A removal efficiency (RE) was calculated for the melter phase only of the GFT, because of the
uncertainties associated with the drum dryer used to dry the bulk of the demonstration sediment. Only
sediment entering and exiting the drum dryer were sampled, and samples of dryer exhaust gas or
condensate were not collectable based on the dryer setup.
Minergy claims that commercial GFT units will condense all water vapor from the dryer vent and send it
to the dredging wastewater treatment operation while non-condensable gases will be recycled to the
melter.
The melter RE consisted of a comparison of six composite samples of dried and prepared sediment
entering the furnace versus PCB concentrations of all other furnace outputs, including composite samples
of glass aggregate, quench water, furnace flue gas, and cooling tower discharge water. The RE
1 The treatment efficiency was calculated two ways: ND = MDL, the TE = 99.9994%; for ND = !/2 MDL, the
TE = 99.9995%.
83
-------
calculation provides a measure of the efficiency of the melter furnace only. Minergy proposes that the
final design of a full-scale GFT system will route all dryer output streams into the melter furnace. The
RE for the melter phase only of the GFT was calculated to be 99.9995 percent.
P2 Determine whether the GFT glass aggregate product meets the criteria for
beneficial reuse under relevant federal and state regulations. The aggregate
product will be judged to be beneficial with respect to each metal or PCB if the 95
percent upper confidence limit (UCL9S) for the estimated mean (of each metal or
PCB) is less than federal or state regulatory requirements, as applicable.
The final glass aggregate product from the GFT demonstration was subjected to SPLP and ASTM
extractions. Aqueous extraction procedures were followed by analysis of the extracts for metals and
PCBs. The results of these tests were evaluated against federal and state requirements to determine if the
glass aggregate product is suitable for beneficial reuse. No federal criteria were found for evaluation of
the glass material for beneficial reuse; however, the state of Wisconsin has promulgated a regulation with
criteria for the use of industrial by-products. Results of the analyses on the extracts, as well as total
contaminants in the glass aggregate product, were evaluated against Wisconsin Administrative Code
Chapters NR 538 (NR 538) and NR140 (NR140) criteria. (WDNR 1997).
The purpose of Wisconsin's NR 538 regulation (WDNR 1997) is to allow and encourage the beneficial
reuse of industrial by-products to preserve resources, conserve energy, and reduce or eliminate the need to
dispose of industrial by-products in landfills. The regulation contains criteria for five categories of
industrial by-products, the uses for which depend upon which criteria category the material meets. The
categories dictate how the material can be used and become more restrictive as the criteria become less
strict. The extent of allowable uses for the evaluated material (glass aggregate product) diminishes as the
category numbers rise from one to five. Based on a chemical analysis of the glass aggregate product
compared to the criteria in NR 538, the glass aggregate product qualifies for beneficial reuse under NR
538 Category 2 criteria. Under this category, the glass aggregate product qualifies for beneficial reuse as
any of those products or uses described in the rule as Category 2 and may be subject to notification
requirements.
84
-------
TABLE 4-15
INPUT AND OUTPUT PCB CONCENTRATIONS
Feed or Waste Stream
Dredged-and-Dewatered Sediment
Drum-Dried Sediment
Sediment Entering Melter
Glass Aggregate Product
Flue Gas
Quench Water
Cooling-Tower Discharge Water
Geometric Mean of Total PCBs in Samples
(parts per million)
28.8
22.4
27.8
1.37 xlO'4
3.51 xlO'6
4.16xlO-7
1.26xlO-6
Notes: When calculating the geometric mean non-detects were assigned a value of !/2 the method
detection limit.
Geometric Mean is calculated as GM y = n v yl, y2, y3..yn
Material evaluation under Category 1 criteria is subject to strict standards, some of which are lower than
current method detection limits. Category 2 criteria, while less stringent, still require low contaminant
concentrations derived from total solid and ASTM water-leach analyses. Materials qualifying for
beneficial reuse under Category 2 criteria are subject to monitoring and to regulatory and property owner
notification requirements. A copy of Chapter NR 538 Wisconsin Administrative Code is provided in
Appendix D.
Table 4-14 presents the post-demonstration glass aggregate product sample results compared to the NR
538 Category 2 criteria for both water-leach tests (SPLP and ASTM), for Total Elements Analysis
(WDNR 1997), and for NR140 groundwater quality criteria (WDNR 2001). EPA's evaluation of the
GFT product included water leach tests of the glass aggregate product, as well as the crushed glass
aggregate product that passed through a 200-mesh (75-micron, 0.003-inch) sieve.
85
-------
TABLE 4-16
BENEFICIAL REUSE RESULTS AND CRITERIA
Contaminant
Total PCBs f
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Glass
Aggregate
Product
ASTMa
Leachate
Concentration
(mg/L)b
<5.00xlO-7
O.IO1
<0.010
<0.010
<0.020
<0.10
<0.00020
<0.10
<0.010
NR 538/NR140c
Category 2
Criteria for
Water Leach
Tests (mg/L)
0.000003s
0.05
4.0
0.005
0.10
0.015
0.002
0.10
0.10
Total Elements
Analysis Results
for Glass
Aggregate
(mg/kg)d
0.00092
5.1
341
0.51
52
16
0.26
8.9
3.2
NR538
Category 2
Criteria for
Total
Elements
Analysis
(mg/kg)
h
21
-
-
-
-
-
-
Glass Aggregate
Product SPLPC
Leachate
Concentration
(mg/L)
<6.35 x ID'7
<0.10
<0.010
<0.010
<0.020
<0.10
<0.00020
<0.10
<0.010
Note: a ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials
b mg/L = Milligram per liter
c NR538/NR140 = Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters NR 538 and NR 140
d mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram
The Total Elements Analysis Results for Glass Aggregate are derived from the glass-
aggregate-composite-sample results. These values are the 95% upper confidence bound
(UCB) of the arithmetic mean of the glass aggregate results. The 95% UCBs for arsenic,
cadmium, and mercury are calculated from method detection limits. The methods used
for the calculation of the 95 % UCB are detailed in the QAPP Section 3.2.
e SPLP = Synthetic Precipitate Leaching Procedure. SPLP analysis results are not
compared to NR 538 Category 2 criteria.
f PCBs = Poly chlorinated biphenyls
g NR 538 does not contain criteria for total PCBs. The criteria for comparison is NR 140,
Groundwater Quality Standards Preventive Action Limit
h - Criteria do not exist
i < less than
86
-------
As shown in Table 4-14, the glass aggregate product meets the Wisconsin NR 538 beneficial reuse
criteria for Category 2 with the possible exception of arsenic and cadmium. The NR 538 water leachate
criteria for arsenic and cadmium are lower than the detection limits for each of these elements.
4.3.3.2 Secondary Objectives Evaluation
The following secondary objectives are not considered critical to the success of the evaluation but may
offer additional information on the innovative technology. For each objective, a brief description of the
experimental approach is given.
SI Determine the unit cost of operating the GFT on dredged-and-dewatered river
sediment.
The unit cost of removing PCBs and organic and inorganic contaminants from river sediment were
determined based on data provided by Minergy. This secondary objective was achieved by assessing
twelve expense categories.
Capital and operating costs were estimated for conducting a full-scale operation of the GFT. A detailed
discussion of costs is included in Section 3.0 of this report. The NPV of the facility described in this
document was estimated at $122,041,000. The estimated cost per ton to treat the sediments is $38.74 per
ton.
S2 Quantify the organic and inorganic contaminant losses from the existing or
alternative drying process used to dry the dredged-and-dewatered river
sediment.
The sampling plan for the dryer demonstration was designed to permit the quantification of organic and
inorganic content before and after the drying process. However, the small scale of the demonstration and
the carryover of dust from the dryer into the condensate and gas streams gave rise to ambiguous results.
As explained in Section 4.2.1.1, the Holoflite® dryer process evaluation had critical flaws, which
prevented proper evaluation of contaminant losses. The results of the PCB analyses were based on a
limited list of congeners and are not comparable to PCB analyses performed after the dryer
demonstration. The list of congeners was based on a small number of congeners (about 25) that were
considered to be among the most toxic PCB constituents, but these congeners were not necessarily present
in the PCBs used by the paper industry or found in the sediment used in the GFT demonstration. The
evaluation of the Secondary Objective S2 was not completed because of these differences. Analytical
results of samples collected during the Holoflite® dryer demonstration are presented in Appendix C.
87
-------
Also, because the carryover of dust into the condensate and dryer gas streams resulted in suspect results,
inorganic contaminant losses were not characterized for the dryer.
S3 Characterize the organic and inorganic constituents in all GFT process input and
output streams.
Secondary Objective S3 was intended to combine data from all the input and output streams of the GFT
process and characterizes the results. As noted in Section 1.0, the GFT process consists of a drying phase
and a melting phase. Input streams include: dredged-and-dewatered sediment, dried sediment, flux, and
city water. Output streams include: dried sediment, dryer gas, dryer condensate, glass aggregate, furnace
gas, quench tank water, cooling tower discharge water, and accumulated dust. These input and output
streams were analyzed for some or all of the following analytes: PCBs, dioxins and furans, metals,
SVOCs, VOCs, and HC1/C12. VOC analysis was conducted on both pre- and post- melter samples to
evaluate the potential production of VOCs in the melting process.
Analytical results of the samples collected from all input and output streams, which were presented in
Section 4.3 through 4.3.2.8, were evaluated for this objective. This objective consisted mainly of review
and presentation of analytical results from the demonstration, and not an interpretation. Analytical results
from the melter demonstration were presented in Tables 4-2 through 4-12, while Holoflite® dryer
demonstration results are presented in Appendix C.
As in Secondary Objective S2, Analytical results of all of the samples collected during both the pilot-
scale dryer test and the melter test were evaluated in a similar manner as those used to obtain Primary
Objective PI. The UCL95 were calculated with the same formula described in Primary Objective P2.
This objective consisted mainly of a review of analytical results from the demonstration and not an
interpretation.
Results of the Holoflite® dryer test are presented in Appendix C. Analytical results of dredged-and-
dewatered sediment samples collected from the roll-off boxes and drum-dried sediment samples collected
from the supersacks at the Minergy facility in Winneconne, Wisconsin, were detailed previously in
Tables 4-2 and 4-3, respectively.
Melter samples were collected during the demonstration in August 2001, results of which were presented
in Section 4.3.2.
-------
4.4 DATA QUALITY
Data and analytical results from 94 percent (191 samples) of the 203 samples analyzed in support of the
GFT demonstration were reviewed for quality, usability, and evaluation of the primary objectives. Data
validation was performed on PCBs, metals, dioxins and furans, SVOCs, VOCs, and hydrogen
chloride/chlorine results. This validation was based on a review of the QC results, which included
surrogate recoveries; laboratory control samples (LCS) and laboratory control sample duplicates (LCSD);
matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD); and field, equipment, and method blanks.
The following paragraphs briefly summarize the results of the QC analyses; more detailed information is
provided in the TER.
4.4.1 Surrogate Recoveries
Surrogates are compounds of known concentrations added to each sample to evaluate the effectiveness of
the analysis in measuring organic contaminants that may be present in the sample. The analytical results
of surrogate compounds in samples analyzed by the laboratories were found to be within acceptable
limits, except in the samples described below.
Most of the problems with surrogate recoveries were observed in the SVOC analyses. Several samples
had low or no surrogate recoveries, indicating a possible low bias for associated sample results. The acid
surrogate 2,4,6-tribromophenol was not recovered in any of the dried melter feed samples (M-S-01, -02,
-03, -04, and -03D). Additionally, the recoveries for two other acid surrogates, 2-fluorophenol and
phenol-d5, were low for samples M-S-03, M-S-03D, and M-S-04. All phenol results for the dried melter
feed samples were nondetect but were qualified as invalid (IS) because of poor surrogate recoveries.
Therefore, the SVOC results for these samples were qualified as IS. The percent recoveries of all SVOC
analytes in the MS and MSD sample (M-G-03), which was designated as the soil MD/MSD sample, were
within QC limits with the exception of N-nitrosodimethylamine for which the recovery was below the
lower QC limit of 40 percent. The non-detect result for this analyte has been qualified as estimated
nondetect (UJ), because of the likely low bias. Although there could have been a negative bias in the
phenol and single N-nitrosodimethylamine results, when calculating total SVOCs in these samples, all
these results were assumed to be below their detection limits. Discrepancies were observed for the SVOC
duplicate analysis on sample M-S-03. The results for the analysis of the primary sample showed the
presence of seven polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), ranging in concentration from 190 ug/kg
for benzo(k)fluoranthene to 340 ug/kg for benzo(b)fluoranthene. The results for all these PAHs were
89
-------
reported as nondetect for the analysis of the duplicate sample M-S-03D. The discrepancy reflects, most
likely, nonhomogeneous sample matrix. The concentrations of the 7 PAHs reported in sample M-S-03,
therefore, are qualified as estimated values based on the uncertainty of the overall precision of sampling
and analytical procedures.
Some minor problems, such as low recoveries and out of calibration range results, were observed with
surrogate recoveries in VOC analyses that did not warrant qualifications. For samples M-S-03, M-S-04,
and M-S-04D the recovery of VOC surrogate dibromofluoromethane, at less than 10 percent for each
sample, was unacceptable. In addition, for sample M-S-04D, the recoveries of 1,2-dichloroethane and
4-bromofluorobenzene were marginally biased high. No data, however, were impacted for samples
M-S-03 and M-S-03D for VOC analysis, because out-of-control recovery of one surrogate is acceptable.
For sample M-S-04D, all analytes associated with these two surrogates were nondetect in the sample. No
data, therefore, were qualified based on the high recoveries of the two surrogates.
4.4.2 Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate
An LCS is a blank sample consisting of laboratory-grade water with method-appropriate reagents, spiked
with known concentrations of target analytes and analyzed in exactly the same way as field samples.
Recovered concentrations of spiked analytes are then determined as percent recoveries (%R), which are
used to evaluate the precision and accuracy of the analytical procedure.
Recoveries for LCSs and LCSDs analyzed for SVOCs were within QC limits, with the following
exceptions. Two compounds were found to be out of control limits, and their associated non-detect (ND)
results were qualified as estimated (UJ). The non-detect results for 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol,
2,4-dinitrophenol, and pentachlorophenol were qualified as invalid (IV) for both flue gas samples because
of the possible extremely low bias in their recoveries during analysis, and these samples are not included
in the ITER. It is important to note that SVOCs are reported as total SVOCs in the ITER.
In general, LCSs and LCSDs analyzed for metals were within laboratory control limits, and no data were
qualified as a result. Dioxins and furans control samples were analyzed within limits.
90
-------
4.4.3 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate
MS/MSDs are field samples that are used to determine the effect the sample matrix has on the analysis of
the samples. In an MS/MSD, the sample matrix is (1) identical to those submitted as samples, (2) spiked
with known concentrations of target analytes, and (3) analyzed in exactly the same way as the other
samples. One pair of MS/MSD samples was submitted to the laboratories for each group of samples
(sediment, glass, quench water) and for each analysis requested (PCBs, dioxins and furans, VOCs, and
SVOCs). The recoveries of all the MS/MSDs were in control, with the following exceptions.
In the MS/MSD samples analyzed, three compounds were detected outside of established laboratory
control limits. As a result, these detected compounds, which were not detected in the field samples, were
qualified as estimated (UJ).
In one MS, 28 of 70 VOCs were detected below QC limits. For these compounds, any NDs in
corresponding samples were qualified as estimated (UJ) and any detections were qualified as estimated
(J).
4.4.4 Equipment Blanks, Field Blanks, and Method Blanks
Six equipment blanks and 11 field blanks, were collected during the GFT demonstration. PCBs were
detected at low levels - less than 1 nanogram per liter in two of the field blank samples and less than 40
pg/g in two sand field blank samples. However, the congeners were not detected in samples associated
with the field blank samples, and qualification of sample results was not warranted.
One sand field blank was collected and submitted to a laboratory for SVOC analysis. No SVOCs were
detected at concentrations above method detection limits, and no qualification of samples associated with
the sand blank was warranted.
None of the equipment and field blank samples was analyzed for dioxins and furans or metals.
Ten method blanks were analyzed by the laboratory as well as two trip blanks for VOC analysis.
4.4.5 Audits
As a vital part of the QA program, one field audit and one laboratory audit were conducted by EPA to
ensure that measurements associated with sampling and analysis were in conformance with the final
QAPP (EPA 2001). The audit of field activities was conducted on June 21, 2001. Two findings and four
91
-------
minor observations were documented. The first finding recommended collection of field blanks in the
sample preparation area to document any potential impacts that fugitive dust might have on sediment and
glass aggregate product samples. The second finding recommended the collection of sand blanks
between crushed glass aggregate samples. Both of the recommendations were agreed upon and
implemented. All of the minor observations were also agreed to and implemented.
The Paradigm Analytical Laboratory audit was conducted on March 21, 2001. Two observations were
noted by the auditors. Paradigm addressed the observations, and data quality was not affected. The TER
documents the results of these audits.
4.4.6 QAPP Sampling Deviations
For various reasons the number of samples specified in the QAPP were not collected. Table 4-17 list the
planned sampling protocol, the actual samples collected, and the rationale for any changes in the QAPP.
4.5 OVERALL EVALUATION
Evaluation of the analytical data indicates that the GFT was able to significantly reduce PCB
contamination in all samples collected. The GFT successfully destroyed 99.9995 percent of the total
PCBs in the river sediment. The glass aggregate produced by Minergy's GFT met Wisconsin
Administrative Code Chapter NR 538 Category 2 criteria and qualified for beneficial reuse under the
regulation. This qualification allows a wide range of uses, including as an additive to concrete, a material
in floor tiles, and as construction fill. It also requires environmental monitoring and regulatory
notification under the accepted uses.
The GFT reduced the concentration of dioxins and furans in the dried sediment. Total dioxin and furan
concentrations in the glass aggregate ranged from 1.77 to 3.77 pg/g, a reduction of greater than 99
percent.
The GFT appeared to be capable of decreasing mercury concentrations in the river sediment. Mercury
was observed in sediment at a concentration slightly less than 1 part per million, and it was not detected
in the glass aggregate analysis. If not removed by the furnace thermally, the mercury likely was
inactivated within the glass matrix. Furnace flue gas samples did not detect mercury above method
detection limits. Nor did mercury leach from the glass aggregate, as evidenced by the results of the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and Synthetic Precipitate Leaching Procedure
92
-------
(SPLP) water leach tests.
Analysis of the sediment, glass aggregate product, and other output streams indicate that SVOCs and
VOCs were not contaminants of any measure, and treatment of the sediment by the GFT did not create
byproducts in the process waste streams. Similarly, dioxins and furans were observed at only minor
concentrations in the glass aggregate product samples. The destruction of PCBs in the sediment did not
cause hazardous constituents in the furnace flue gas to be released during operation.
Based on information from Minergy and observations made during the SITE evaluation, the estimated
treatment cost is $38.74 per ton of dredged-and-dewatered sediment containing 50 percent moisture. Unit
costs may depend on the location of the treatment facility, sediment moisture, and potential product end
use. Sale of the glass aggregate product would decrease the costs of treatment, but SITE's determination
of process cost per ton of material did not take into account the sale of the glass aggregate.
93
-------
TABLE 4-17
DISCREPANCIES TO QAPP SAMPLE PROTOCOL FOR MINERGY MELTING DEMONSTRATION
DESCRIPTION AND
PURPOSE
Dredged-and-dewatered
sediment collected
from roll-off boxes
Dried, mixed sediment
without flux addition
To determine the
variability of the
material
Collected from
Supersacks
Dried, mixed sediment
with flux addition
To determine the
chemical
characteristics of the
dried sediments prior
to the melter
Collected over 6-hour
periods
Glass material from the
melter
To determine the
chemical
characteristics of the
glass
Collected over 6-hour
periods
SAMPLE
TYPE
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
ANALYSES SPECIFIED IN QAPP
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES PER
COMPOSITE
~
28
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
-
PARAMETER
~
PCB
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
Mercury
voc
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
Mercury
VOC
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
~
6
6
4
4
4
6
4
6
4
4
4
6
-
ACTUAL ANALYSES
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES PER
COMPOSITE
5
42
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
PARAMETER
PCB
PCB
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
Mercury
VOC
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
Mercury
VOC
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
4
6
4
4
6
6
1
RATIONALE FOR
DIFFERENCE
Needed to collect samples of
the wet sediment for
calculation of the treatment
efficiency
It was determined that three
samples from each of 14
sacks should be split three
ways to represent all sacks
associated with each roll-off
box above.
Samples were collected at
15-minute intervals over 6-
hour periods. Two
additional dioxin/furan
analyses were performed to
better characterize the
sediment entering the melter
Samples were collected to
match those collected of the
sediment entering the
melter. One VOC analysis
was added to confirm the
absence of VOCs in the glass
-------
DESCRIPTION AND
PURPOSE
Glass material from the
melter
To determine the
chemical
characteristics of the
leachate extracted off
the glass surface
Collected over 6-hour
periods
Glass material from the
melter
Crushed to <200 mesh
To determine the chemical
characteristics of the
leachate extracted off
the glass surface
Collected over 6-hour
periods
SAMPLE
TYPE
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
ANALYSES SPECIFIED IN QAPP
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES PER
COMPOSITE
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
PARAMETER
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
Mercury
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
Mercury
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
6
4
4
4
6
12
6
4
4
6
ACTUAL ANALYSES
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES PER
COMPOSITE
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
PARAMETER
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
Mercury
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
Mercury
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
12
6
4
12
12
6
4
6
6
RATIONALE FOR
DIFFERENCE
PCB, metals, and mercury
samples were analyzed with
both ASTM and SPLP
extractions, doubling the
number of samples analyzed.
Six, rather than 4, samples
were analyzed for the full
RCRA suite of metals
because there was no
difference in cost to analyze
the suite and mercury only.
Two additional dioxin/furan
samples were analyzed
because dioxins/furans were
detected in pre-melter
sediment
All crushed glass samples
were analyzed with SPLP
extractions only.
Dioxin/furan analysis of
crushed glass was not
performed because this
parameter was non-critical,
the analyses were expensive,
and analysis by ASTM and
SPLP extractions had
already been performed on
the glass aggregate samples.
It was expected that dioxins
and furans, if present, would
be adsorbed to the surface of
the glass particles and
crushing the glass would not
cause a difference in
concentration. Six samples
were analyzed for the full
RCRA suite of metals
because there was no
difference in cost to analyze
the suite and mercury only.
-------
DESCRIPTION AND
PURPOSE
City Water
To determine the quality
of the water entering
the quench tank
Collected at the beginning
and the end of the 6-day
period
Quench Water
To determine the quality
of the water exiting the
quench tank
Collected over 6-hour
periods
Discharge from Cooling
Tower
To determine the quality
of the water discharged
Collected at the beginning
and end of the 6-day
period
Gas Sample Train 1
To determine the chemical
characteristics of the
materials discharged to
the pollution control
equipment
Collected over 4 hours
Gas Sample Train 2
To determine the chemical
characteristics of the
materials discharged to
the pollution control
equipment
Collected over 4 hours
Collected over 1 hour
SAMPLE
TYPE
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
ANALYSES SPECIFIED IN QAPP
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES PER
COMPOSITE
NA
NA
NA
12
12
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PARAMETER
PCB
SVOC
Metals
PCB
SVOC
Metals
PCB
SVOC
Metals
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
HC1/C12
VOC
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
2
2
2
6
4
4
2
2
2
6
6
4
4
4
12
ACTUAL ANALYSES
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES PER
COMPOSITE
NA
NA
NA
12
12
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PARAMETER
PCB
SVOC
Metals
PCB
SVOC
Metals
PCB
SVOC
Metals
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
HC1/C12
VOC
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
1
1
1
6
4
6
3
2
3
6
6
2
4
4
2
RATIONALE FOR
DIFFERENCE
One sample of city water
was collected during the
melter demonstration to
save costs.
Two additional samples were
analyzed for metals to better
characterize the quench
water
Recirculating pump broke
down after the first sample
was collected, and the
system was remodeled to use
fresh water. Two samples
(including both SVOC
samples) were collected
after the cooling tower was
retrofitted.
No discrepancies
Samples for SVOC and
VOC were reduced to
conserve time during the
demonstration. Due to
plugging of the sample
probe, sample collection for
all samples took longer than
planned.
-------
DESCRIPTION AND
PURPOSE
Accumulated dust
deposited in the flue
gas-sampling probe
Gas Sample Train
To determine the chemical
characteristics of the
materials discharged by
the pollution control
equipment
Collected over 4 hours
Sample of Flux Additive
To validate chemical
characteristics of any
additives to the process
Collected from single lot
SAMPLE
TYPE
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
ANALYSES SPECIFIED IN QAPP
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES PER
COMPOSITE
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PARAMETER
Dioxins/Furan
Metals
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
ACTUAL ANALYSES
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES PER
COMPOSITE
8
8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PARAMETER
Dioxins/Furan
Metals
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
PCB
Dioxin/Furan
SVOC
Metals
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
RATIONALE FOR
DIFFERENCE
Dust material was collected
each time the probe was
extracted and cleaned out.
The material was
composited over the entire
day. Dust accumulation was
not foreseen before the
demonstration began.
No discrepancies
One sample of flux material
was adequate to characterize
any additives to the process
Notes: For sampling locations, see QAPP Figure 4-2
- Sample not specified to be collected or analyzed
ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials
SPLP - Synthetic Precipitate Leaching Procedure
-------
5.0 TECHNOLOGY STATUS
This section discusses Minergy's development and use of the GFT and other vitrification technologies. It
also examines the potential for the technology to be used at other sites or on a larger scale.
5.1 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
One version of Minergy's thermal technology is presently being used for recycling wastewater solids from
12 paper mills. The first step in the process is to transport wastewater solids (sludge) from a wastewater
treatment facility to the glass aggregate plant. The received sludge is then conveyed into a closed-loop
drying system, where the sludge is dried to approximately 90 percent solids.
In the next step, the sludge is conveyed from dryers to the glass furnace. Once in the furnace, the organic
component of the sludge helps to fuel the high temperatures required to melt the dried sludge into glass.
The inorganic component of the sludge melts and flows out of the furnace as molten glass. According to
Minergy, while the high temperatures destroy the organic compounds, the melting process encapsulates
trace metals contained in the sludge, permanently stabilizing the metals in an amorphous glass matrix.
The molten glass is discharged to a water quench system to form the glass aggregate product. The glass
aggregate can be stored and handled similarly to conventional quarried aggregates. Some crushing and
screening can be done offsite, if necessary to meet the size requirements of a particular aggregate market.
Markets for the glass aggregate product include: floor tiles, abrasives, roofing shingles, asphalt and chip
seal aggregates, and decorative landscaping.
The heat generated in the melting process is recovered by a heat-recovery steam generator to produce
energy used to dry the wastewater solids, as well as to co-generate steam and electricity.
Minergy's Fox Valley glass aggregate plant in Neenah, Wisconsin, recycles 350,000 tons of wastewater
solids annually, producing process steam for an adjacent paper mill and glass aggregate for resale.
Minergy claims that the GFT, an adaptation of this technology, is capable of remediating any
contaminated river sediment. They claim that it will successfully remove or destroy contaminants from
small and large volumes of sediment. Depending on the mineralogy of the sediment, application of the
GFT can result in a quality glass product suitable for resale as a construction material. Minergy claims
that typical contaminant-removal efficiencies are greater than 99 percent.
98
-------
5.2
SCALING CAPABILITIES
Minergy has assessed several scenarios for construction and operation of a GFT system, based on the
treatment of different amounts of sediment. Table 5-1 details the different scenarios assessed by Minergy
and the resulting unit costs associated with each.
Although the cost analyses performed in this ITER are based on a project that would treat 1-million-tons
of sediment, Minergy claims that melters could be scaled to accommodate sediment projects of most
sizes. Table 5-1 shows how a larger project size results in lower unit costs. Areas where scale-up
economies could be realized include the potential lower energy costs per ton of sediment treated, reduced
sampling and analysis once treatment efficiencies have been established, and automation of some
processes.
The estimated cost per ton is based on the facility operating for 24 hours per day, 350 days per year, over
a 15-year project period. This schedule translates to treatment of 1.26 to 9.45 million tons of
contaminated sediment over the life of the project.
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT SIZE FOR SCALING AND UNIT COSTING
Project Size
Small
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Mid-sized
Large
Description/Type
Integrated
Integrated
Stand Alone
Stand Alone
Stand Alone
Dredged-
and-
Dewatered
Sediment
Capacity
(tons/day)
240
600
600
1,200
1,800
Glass
Aggregate
Production
(tons/day)
100
250
250
500
750
Minergy 's Unit
Cost ($/ton) *
$42.96
$31.24
$32.92
$29.43
$27.01
Notes: Tons/day - Tons per day
Minergy - Minergy Corporation
Costs are based on operation of the facility 350 days per year over 15 years.
$/ton - Dollars per ton
* Source for unit costs - Minergy
Integrated - Located in proximity to an existing industrial facility, which would allow for sharing
of some utilities
99
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1999. "Standard Test Method for Shake Extraction of Solid
Waste with Water. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Evans, G.M. 1990. "Estimating Innovative Technology Costs for the SITE Program." Journal of Air
Waste Management. Volume 40, Number 7.
Minergy Corporation (Minergy). 2001. "Final Report on Sediment Melter Demonstration Project for
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources". December 1.
Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech). 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the Minergy
Corporation Glass Furnace Technology Demonstration." June.
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1999. Authorizations for PCB Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions. 40 CFR Part 761.3
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1993. PCB Spill Clean-up Policy Under the Toxic Substances
Control Act. 40 CFR Parts 761.120-761.139
U.S. Department of Energy. 2000. Publication DOE/EH-413-0003. "Environmental Compliance
Consultation: DOE PCB Questions and Answers - Part I". 2000.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Laboratory
Manual, Volume 1A through 1C, and Field Manual, Volume 2. SW-846, Third Edition, Final
(Promulgated) Update III, Office of Solid Waste, EPA Document Control No. 955-001-00000-1,
December.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Determination of Pesticides andPCBs in Water and Oil/Sediment by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, Method 680. CD-ROM. EPA Region 1 No. 01A0005295.
November.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Method 1668: Toxic Poly chlorinated Biphenyls by Isotope Dilution High Resolution
Gas Chromatography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry, EPA Publication No. 821/R-97-001.
March.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 1972. "Discount Rates to be Used in Evaluating Time-
Distributed Costs and Benefits". Circular A-94. March 27.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1997. "Beneficial Reuse of Industrial Byproducts",
Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 538. December.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2001. "Groundwater Quality", Wisconsin Administrative
Code Chapter NR 140. April.
100
-------
APPENDIX A
Congener and Analyte Lists
101
-------
Appendix A
Complete List of Analytes
(l)-MoCB
(4)-DiCB
(7)-DiCB
(6)-DiCB
(5)-DiCB
8-DiCB
(19)-TriCB
18,(30)-TriCB
(17)-TriCB
(27)-TriCB
(24)-TriCB
(16)-TriCB
(26,29)-TriCB
(25)-TriCB
31-TriCB
(20),28-TriCB
(21),33-TriCB
22-TriCB
37-TriCB
(50,53)-TeCB
(45,51)-TeCB
(46)-TeCB
52-TeCB
49,(69)-TeCB
(48)-TeCB
44,47,(65)-TeCB
(59,62,75)-TeCB
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Arsenic
Barium
PCB
(40,71)-TeCB
64-TeCB
(61),70,74,(76)-TeCB
66-TeCB
56-TeCB
60-TeCB
81-TeCB
77-TeCB
(88),91-PeCB
84-PeCB
90,101,(H3)-PeCB
99-PeCB
86,87,97,(108),119,(125)-PeCB
(85,116)-PeCB
110-PeCB
82-PeCB
(107,124)-PeCB
123-PeCB
118-PeCB
114-PeCB
105-PeCB
126-PeCB
136-HxCB
135,151-HxCB
(147),149-HxCB
132-HxCB
146-HxCB
PCDD/PCDF
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HcXDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
METALS
Chromium
Mercury
153,168-HxCB
141-HxCB
137-HxCB
(129),138,(163)-HxCB
158-HxCB
128,166-HxCB
167-HxCB
156,157-HxCB
169-HxCB
(176)-HpCB
178-HpCB
187-HpCB
183,185-HpCB
174-HpCB
177-HpCB
(172)-HpCB
180,(193)-HpCB
170-HpCB
190-HpCB
189-HpCB
202OcCB
203-OcCB
208-NoCB
206-NoCB
209-DeCB
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Selenium
Silver
102
-------
Cadmium
Phenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
2-Chlorophenol
1 ,3 -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol
3/4-Methylphenol
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorone
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloropropene
1 ,2,3 -Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3 -Trichloropropane
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dibromo-3 -chloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Lead
svoc
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3 -methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Diethylphthalate
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether
Fluorene
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
3 ,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( 1,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
voc
2-Hexanone
4-Chlorotoluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Isopropylbenzene
Methylenechloride
m-Xylene
Naphthalene
n-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
o-Xylene
p-Isopropyltoluene
p-Xylene
sec-Butylbenzene
Styrene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
103
-------
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 -Dichlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
voc
1 ,3 -Dichloropropane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
2-Chlorotoluene
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Fluorotrichloromethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
104
-------
APPENDIX B
Vendor Claims
105
-------
MINERGY CORP.
SEDIMENT MELTER
SUMMARY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
This report is written to summarize the activities undertaken during the sediment melter
demonstration project. This demonstration was Phase 3 of a multi-phase feasibility study. The
first two phases of the feasibility study determined that the minerals contained in dredged
sediments could form a stable glass, and that the variability of mineral concentrations along the
lower Fox River appeared to be within acceptable ranges.
During a demonstration dredging
project, the Wisconsin DNR
containerized approximately 60
tons of de-watered, contaminated
river sediment. The DNR
contracted with Minergy for the
design, construction, and
operation of a pilot melter, to
melt the sediment into a glass
aggregate.
The melter evaluation was
performed at Minergy's
GlassPack Test Center in
Winneconne, Wisconsin. A
demonstration-scale melter was
constructed, with operation of the
melter from May to August,
2001. The pilot program was
designed to confirm that the
technology can destroy PCB
contamination, stabilize trace
metals, and convert the mineral
content of river sediment into an
inert, marketable construction
material.
Under SITE program, the fate of
PCBs and other compounds
within the river sediment were
monitored during the processing
and melting of the river sediment.
Sediment Loading into Containers
106
-------
MINERGY CORP.
SEDIMENT MELTER
SUMMARY REPORT
SYSTEM DESIGN
Phase III of the project included construction and operation of the sediment demonstration
melter, and subjected to the monitoring by U.S. EPA SITE program. This phase was performed
at Minergy's GlassPack Test Center in Winneconne, Wisconsin.
The pilot melter is designed to simulate a full-scale production melter for the generation of glass
aggregate from sediments. In order to adequately produce a model, some assumptions have been
made with regard to the full-scale melter in accordance with typical glass operating practices.
The pilot melter is scaled down from the full-scale melter and has been designed to operate in a
manner which would suggest design features for most major elements of the full scale melter.
Pilot Melter Characteristics
Aspect Ratio
Area
Melting Rate
Dwell Time
Gas Usage
Oxygen Usage
MM Btu/Ton
Output
2:1
10 sq ft.
5.4ft.2/ton
6 hrs.
1.7MMBtu/hr.
35ccfh
20.9 mmbtu/ton
2 tons/day
Several features were incorporated to the
standard melter design in order to best
suit this application. These
modifications include:
Exterior Views of Melter
107
-------
MINERGY CORP.
SEDIMENT MELTER
SUMMARY REPORT
The use of a water quench system to
quickly harden the molten glass and
increase the inert characteristics of the
final product. Glass melters typically
use annealing or other slow-cooling
products to enhance glass clarity and
other product qualities. These product
features are not significant in the
manufacture of glass aggregate because
its final use is as a construction product
where glass clarity is not necessary.
Molten material is drained from the end
of the melter into the water-filled
quench tank. An inclined H-inch steel
plate, cooled by a constant water
stream, directs falling liquid aggregate
into the quench tank.
An inclined screw conveyor removes
hardened aggregate from the quench
tank. The conveyor's hopper is
submerged in the quench tank. The
auger moves the aggregate out of the
quench tank into barrels.
The melter has eight Split-Stream oxy-
fuel burners to approximate the burners
that would be used in a full-scale melter.
The melter is oxy-fuel fired to utilize the
B.A.C.T. forNOx emissions and
reduced particulate.
Molten Glass in Quench Tank
Aggregate Screw Conveyor
-------
MINERGY CORP.
SEDIMENT MELTER
SUMMARY REPORT
The pilot melter is 10 square
feet with a 2:1 aspect ratio.
The materials selected are
typical for soda-lime glass
operations in an oxy-fuel
environment. Six inches of
extra sidewall has been added
to the height to accommodate
organics contained in the
sediment feedstock. The glass
quality is adequate with 6
hours of dwell time, so it runs
a shallow glass level.
The flue is located in the front
of the melter, which is not the
traditional location for oxy-
fuel furnaces. This is done so
that any fine particulate that
becomes entrapped into the
exhaust gases will have the
maximum time in the furnace
to allow these particulates to
be melted, or minimized.
The melter was designed and
built under a contract with
Frazier-Simplex of
Washington, Pennsylvania.
Side of Melter in Operation
109
-------
MINERGY CORP.
SEDIMENT MELTER
SUMMARY REPORT
The pilot melter is controlled by
control loops to the melter and
forehearth. The control loops use
thermocouple signals to maintain
a constant temperature by
automatically adjusting the gas
and oxygen for each zone. The
control panel contains two single
loop controllers, two digital gas
flow meters, two digital oxygen
flow meters, six digital
temperature meters, status lights
for the main fuel train, E-stop,
alarm horn, and alarm silence
push button.
Both the gas and oxygen skids
have essentially the same safety
system. A strainer is utilized prior
to a pressure regulator. A
high/low pressure switch is tied to
the double block automatic shut-
off valves. A differential pressure
switch is used to determine flow
through the system. This is a
safeguard against injecting raw
natural gas or oxygen into the
furnace. If flow is lost on either
natural gas or oxygen, the skid
shuts down that zone. Each zone
is then automatically controlled
for gas and oxygen flows via a
signal from the mass flow meter to
a control loop back to an
automatic valve.
Oxy-Fuel Control System
110
-------
MINERGY CORP.
SEDIMENT MELTER
SUMMARY REPORT
Refractory selection has been
developed for this pilot melter
based on the heat flow analyses
for each construction type. These
are used to insure that none of the
materials is placed in temperatures
beyond their capability and to
determine the total heat loss of the
entire system.
The use of refractory selected by
evaluating the abrasive qualities of
the molten sediment. Glass
products vary according to the
chemical makeup of the feedstock.
After the June run, an inspection
of the inside of the forehearth
verified that the refractory
material at the glass line was
seeing significant wear. The
melter was relined with a higher
grade refractory in place of the
mullite originally installed in the
melter for the August run.
Startup of the melter is performed
gradually over 36-48 hours. A
separate, dedicated warmup
burner is used to raise the
temperature of the melter to
approximately 1,400 degrees F.
After this temperature, the main
burners are used to reach final
temperature target of 2,900
degrees F.
The melter uses a "shallow" glass
line. Glass melters typically have
deeper pools of glass inside the
melter, taking advantage of the
low opacity of the glass being
produced. Molten sediments are
quite opaque, thus reducing
energy transfer by radiation.
Inspection of Glass Line
111
-------
MINERGY CORP.
Sediment is fed in on one end of the
melter through a water-cooled screw
charger. The charger is a standard screw
batch charger that has been used all over
the world for charging batch in glass
furnaces. The screw charger was chosen
due to the ability to tightly seal the
charging hopper to the charger and the
charger to the furnace. This minimizes
dusting of the raw material feedstock.
The charger is similar in size to that
which would be used in a full-scale unit.
It has been retrofitted with a small screw
barrel and flights for the pilot melter.
This charger can be reused for a full-
scale melter by modifying the barrel and
flights. A variable-speed drive allows control of the
feed rate.
Negative pressure and air filtration is placed on the
feed hopper during charging operations to control
dust.
The melter design capacity is 2 tons per day or 170
pounds of river sediment per hour. The sediment
bags weighed approximately 50 gross pounds, so the
feed rate was between four and five bags per hour.
SEDIMENT MELTER
SUMMARY REPORT
Sediment Screw Charger
Air Filtration on Sediment Hopper
Batch Bags of Dried Sediment
-------
MINERGY CORP.
SEDIMENT MELTER
SUMMARY REPORT
. An extraction
probe is used to
cool the hot gas
from the melter
exhaust at a
controlled rate.
The rate of
cooling would be
equivalent to the
heat recovery
systems installed
on a full scale
melter system.
The section of the probe which is inserted into the melter is
contained in a water-cooled jacket, and is hung from a rail
that allows it to be inserted into the stack for testing, then
removed when testing is not taking place. A cleanout port
is placed on the back end of the probe, and a brush and rod
are used to manually clean out paniculate buildup within
the probe.
Packed Tower Condenser
• Sampling ports are located before the
condenser and after the carbon filter, to
allow connection of air testing equipment.
Piping connects the extraction probe to a contact
packed tower condenser. An induced draft fan
pulls the exhaust gases through the tower
condenser, and then through a carbon barrel,
before discharging the air stream out of doors.
113
-------
MINERGY CORP.
SEDIMENT MELTER
SUMMARY REPORT
CONCLUSIONS
The demonstration project
determined that river sediment
melts easily at high temperature
into a hard, angular aggregate.
The melter worked well with this
type of feedstock, and the end
product appeared consistent and
marketable. When river
sediment was being fed into the
melter, temperatures within the
melter were maintained between
2600 and 2900 degrees F.
The demonstration clearly
showed that sediment will
successfully create a quality
glass aggregate material using a
glass furnace. The properties of
the glass aggregate product were quite positive
producing a hard, dark, granular material.
Molten Glass Tapping
The aggregate was very consistent,
Conclusions Drawn From Results
1) PCB
a) Met the "six nines" criterion for stack basis Destruction Removal Efficiency
b) Treatment efficiency was 99.999488%
2) Dioxin
a) No 2,3,7,8 TCDD was detected in the stack either before or after the carbon filter
b) Greater than 99.9% removal of dioxins/furans
both before and after the carbon filter
3) Mercury
a) No mercury was detected after the carbon filter
b) Removal efficiency was greater than 99.9%
4) Glass Aggregate
a) Leach test showed no-detect or no significant
levels of any test parameter
b) PCB mass was less than that found in U.S.
food supply and were not bioavailable
114
-------
INTERPRETATION OF PROJECT RESULTS
1.0 Six Nines Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE).
1.1 Background. Section 40 CFR 761.70 of federal environmental regulations
sets forth requirements for processing PCB waste in a commercial facility.
The requirement states that the mass air emissions shall be no greater than
0.001 gram PCB out per kilogram PCB in. Calculating the corresponding
DRE by substituting 1000 grams for 1 kilogram, the "six nines" are derived:
ORE = (Win - Wout) / Win X 100%
DRE = (1000.0 - 0.001) / 1000.0 x 100%
DRE = 99.9999%
The six nines are attributable to the six digits behind the decimal point in the
decimal equivalent of a percentage (ie, 0.999999 = 99.9999%).
1.2 Calculation of the GFT's Six Nines DRE. The GFT demonstration met the
Six Nines DRE. According to the EPA SITE report, the PCB concentrations
were:
Sediment Entering Melter 27.8 parts per million
Flue Gas Exiting Melter 0.00000351 parts per million
Using the DRE formula,
DRE = (Win - Wout) / Win X 100%
DRE = (27.8 - 0.00000351) / 27.8 x 100%
DRE = 99.999987%
As can be seen, the GFT achieved greater than the six nines reduction.
1.3 Discussion on ITER Treatment Efficiency. The U.S. EPA SITE Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report calculates a Treatment Efficiency (TE) of the
demonstration project of 99.9995%. It should be noted that the TE is not the
same as the DRE specified in 40 CFR 761.70. Instead, the TE was calculated
by summing the PCB concentrations of the flue gas, the quench water, and the
glass aggregate.
115
-------
2.0 Full Scale Implementation Expected To Be Even Better.
2.1 Quench Water. In a commercial facility, the aggregate tank quench water will
be treated prior to discharge to the wastewater treatment plant. It is highly
probable that the source of residual concentrations was small particles of glass
aggregate suspended in the quench water. The combination of pre-treatment
and wastewater treatment will be very effective in removing the suspended
Glass Aggregate from the quench water. Therefore we would expect quench
water PCB concentrations to be even lower in a full-scale system
2.2 Dust in Exhaust Gas. As indicated in the EPA report, the sample probe used
for exhaust gas measurement was subject to accumulations of sediment dust.
In a full-scale facility, a paniculate control device would be used. No control
device was used in the demonstration due to cost constraints. Devices of this
sort are commercially available and are highly efficient at removal of dust.
The collected dust would be re-directed back into the melter for treatment.
Therefore we would expect the exhaust gas PCB concentrations to be even
lower in a full-scale installation.
2.3 Residence Time. The melter used in the demonstration project had a 2 second
gaseous residence time. The design of a full scale melter would allow for a
gaseous residence time of 16 seconds. This longer residence time would be
expected to significantly increase the destruction efficiency over that which
was seen in the demonstration. Therefore we would expect the exhaust gas
PCB concentrations to be even lower in a full-scale installation.
116
-------
3.0 Glass Aggregate Product Is Very Inert.
3.1 Non-Leaching. As indicated in the EPA report, the PCBs in the Glass
Aggregate were non- teachable for all tests, including those done on Glass
Aggregate that had been finely ground. This is because the PCBs have either
been destroyed or have been permanently stabilized in the ceramic matrix of
the glass.
3.2 Not Bioavailable. As indicated in the attached Risk Perspective Toxicologist
Report (issued as part of this section of Vendor Claims), PCBs in the Glass
Aggregate are non-bioavailable and do not represent a health risk. The
Toxicologist Report also shows that the PCBs detected in the Glass
Aggregate are below background concentrations and are less than most
foodstuffs in the American diet.
J.J
Exemption from Wisconsin DNR The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources has reviewed the EPA SITE report and the resultant data on the
inertness of the Glass Aggregate. They have concluded that "the beneficial
use of processed river sediment, as proposed, and in accordance with the
conditions of this approval, will not result in environmental pollution." The
WDNR has provided an exemption from all Wisconsin solid waste regulations
for the Glass Aggregate.
117
-------
Minergy Glass Aggregate
A Risk Perspective
Prepared for.
Minergy Corporation
1512S. Commercial St.
Neenah, Wl 54956
Prepared by:
STS Consultants, Ltd.
10900-73rd Ave. N., Suite 150
Maple Grove, MN 55369-5547
Project No. 99087
Jeffrey B. Stevens, Ph.D.
Project Manager, Toxicology/Risk Assessment Services
March, 2003
118
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
A. INTRODUCTION 1
B. GLASS AGGREGATE 1
C. QUENCH WATER 3
119
-------
A. INTRODUCTION
In 2002-3, U.S. EPA conducted an innovative technology evaluation of Minergy Corporation's Glass
Furnace Technology (Feb. 2003). This technology is a proposed ex situ remediation technology that has
been designed to treat river/lake sediments contaminated with inorganic and/or organic materials. The
product from the process is a black glass aggregate, comprised of particles the size of coarse sand.
As part of this U.S. EPA study, analytical testing was conducted on both the process input material
(sediment) and its output product (aggregate). These data from the study indicated that there was
>99.99% PCB and PCDD/PCDF1 destruction, and that all chemical residuals that were remaining in the
aggregate were non-leachable. Among other analytes, residual PCBs and PCDD/PCDF were identified
in the glass aggregate. To put the residual concentrations of these specific analytes in the glass
aggregate in perspective, Minergy Corporation contracted with STS Consultants, Ltd. to conduct a risk
analysis on the material. Also addressed in this study was the residual PCB concentration detected in the
process quench water.
The approach taken in this data interpretation study was to compare the residual PCB and PCDD/PCDF
concentrations in the glass aggregate and PCB concentrations in the quench water to:
• typical background levels of these substances in the environment,
• risk-based remediation goals used in state/federal Superfund/RCRA programs, and/or
• other state guideline/rule concentrations of these chemicals.
B. GLASS AGGREGATE
Analytical Data
Shown in Table 1 are the residual PCDD/PCDF and PCB concentrations in the glass aggregate, as
obtained from Table 4-5 of U.S. EPA's draft Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (2003).
PCDD/PCDF = polychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins/polychlorinated dibenzofurans.
-1 -
STS TOXICOLOGIST REPORT ON GA.DOC
120
-------
PCDD/PCDF
As is shown in this table, the range of residual PCDD/PCDF (in total TCDD equivalents) in the aggregate
was 0.1123 - 0.1565 pg/g, assuming each congener is present at its detection limit. The average
concentration from the four samples using this conservative approach is 0.1376 pg/g. If the non-detected
analytes were considered to not be present in the material, then the PCDD/PCDF concentration would be
zero in three samples and 0.1565 pg/g in one sample Averaging these values leads to a mean value of
0.0391 pg/g.
PCBs
Also shown in Table 1 are the residual PCB results on the glass aggregate. As is evident, there was a
wide range of total PCB concentration within the samples. The range reported in the study was <26-1240
pg/g. The average total PCB concentration of the six samples (again conservatively assuming that the
non-detected value was present at this detection limit) was calculated to be 414 pg/g.
Risk Analysis
To put the residual aggregate PCB and PCDD/PCDF data into perspective and to provide a qualitative
risk evaluation of the glass aggregate, STS performed a comparison of the analytical data in Table 1 to
soil background concentrations of these compound groups, to risk-based soil cleanup goals, and to
background concentrations of these compounds in various foodstuffs. Also, the PCB concentration was
compared to biosolids concentrations acceptable for landspreading in Wisconsin.
The foodstuff PCDD/PCDF concentrations listed in Table 1 were taken from Schecter et al. (1997).
These investigators measured PCDD/PCDF in pooled food samples that were collected in 1995 at
supermarkets across the United States.
PCDD/PCDF
As can be seen in Table 2, the glass aggregate PCDD/PCDF concentration is considerably less than
typical soil background levels of these compounds and considerably less than typical risk-based cleanup
goals for soils, calculated to be protective of human health. In fact, the glass concentration of
PCDD/PCDF is less than most foodstuffs in the U.S. diet. Also, it is important to note that since these
residual compounds were found to not be leachable from the glass aggregate, they will not be
bioavailable, i.e., in a form that could be absorbed into the body, even if an individual such as a young
child were to incidentally ingest some of this material. They also would not be bioavailable to fish and
other aquatic life if the material were to be reintroduced back into a surface water system, i.e., as a
sediment capping material.
-2-
STS TOXICOLOGIST REPORT ON GA.DOC
121
-------
Based on the above comparisons and analysis, it can be concluded that the residual PCDD/PCDF in the
glass aggregate are at very low levels and will not present a significant risk to human health or the
environment.
PCBs
As can be seen in Table 2, the glass aggregate PCB concentration is considerably less than typical risk-
based cleanup goals for soils, calculated to be protective of human health, and less than Wisconsin
DNR's soil criterion to be protective of wildlife. The residual PCB concentrations are also much less than
typical biosolids concentrations that WDNR has approved for landspreading. The glass aggregate
residual PCB concentration is less than or in the range of many of our foodstuffs in the U.S. diet. Also, as
with the PCDD/PCDF, the residual PCBs in this glass aggregate were not found to be leachable.
Based on the above comparisons and analysis, it can be concluded that the residual PCB in the glass
aggregate are at low levels and will not present a significant risk to human health and the environment.
C. QUENCH WATER
Analytical Data
Shown in Table 3 are the concentration data for PCB in the process stream quench water. These data
were obtained from Table 4-7 of U.S. EPA's draft Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (2003).
As is evident, only two PCB congeners were found. The total PCB content in the water varied from
<0.500 ng/L to 1.09 ng/L. Assuming that the non-detected total PCB values were present at the reported
detection limits, the average PCB concentration from these six quench water samples was 0.615 ng/L. If
the non-detected values were assumed to not be present in these samples, then the average
concentration is 0.365 ng/L.
Risk Analysis
To put these residual PCB data into perspective, a comparison was made to the State of Wisconsin's
Groundwater Standards. These standards have been developed to be protective of human health,
assuming an individual ingests groundwater daily (as drinking water) throughout their lives. The WDNR's
enforcement standard for PCBs is 30 ng/L; their Preventive Action Limit is 3 ng/L. It is therefore apparent
that the residual PCB concentration in the process quench water, 0.365-0.615 ng/L is well below these
safe drinking water exposure levels.
-3-
STS TOXICOLOGIST REPORT ON GA.DOC
122
-------
Since this process quench water would never ever be utilized as a drinking water source and will be
treated prior to discharging to a sanitary sewer system (Minergy, personal communication), it can be
concluded that the residual PCB in this water will not present a significant risk.
-4-
STS TOXICOLOGIST REPORT ON GA.DOC
123
-------
A. PCDD/PCDF
Table 1: Glass Aggregate
Analytical Data (pg/g)A
M-G-01
B.
Congener
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Congener
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Congener
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Congener
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
PCBs
Sample
M-G-01
M-G-02
M-G-03
M-G-04
M-G-05
M-G-06
Result
<0.151
<0.0684
<0.0668
Result
0.173(J)
0.149(J)
0.125(J)
Result
<0.165
<0.0826
<0.0806
Result
<0.189
<0.111
<0.109
TEQB
0.5
0.05
0.5
TOTAL
M-G-02
TECf
0.5
0.05
0.5
TOTAL
M-G-03
TEQP
0.5
0.05
0.5
TOTAL
M-G-04
TEQB
0.5
0.05
0.5
TOTAL
PCBs (total)
790
<26
58
27
1240
345
TCDD Eguivalent
0.0755
0.0034
0.0334
0.1123
TCDD Eguivalent
0.0865
0.0075
0.0625
0.1565
TCDD Eguivalent
0.0825
0.0041
0.0403
0.1269
TCDD Eguivalent
0.0945
0.0056
0.0545
0.1546
Data taken from Table 4-5 (Draft ITER, Minergy Corporation, Feb. 2003)
'Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. U.S. EPA, 1998.
-5-
124
STS TOXICOLOGIST REPORT ON GA.DOC
-------
Table 2: Comparative Data
A. PCDD/PCDF
B. PCBs
Minergy's Glass Aggregate
freshwater fishB
butter6
hot dog/bolognaB
ocean fishB
cheese
beef3
eggsB
ice cream6
chicken6
porkB
milkB
vegetables, fruits, grains, legumesE
soil (background)0
soil (risk-based remediation goal
for residential land use)
Concentration (pa/a)
0.04-0.14A(0.11-0.16)
1.43
1.07
0.54
0.47
0.40
0.38
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.12
0.07
5.00 (0-57)
20.00-200.00
Minergy's Glass Aggregate
fresh fish
hot doa/bologna0
butter
ocean fish0
chicken0
beef0
pork0
cheese
eggs0
vegetables, fruits, grains, legumesc
soil (risk-based remediation goal
for residential land use)
soil (WDNR wildlife criteria)
414A(<26-1240)
7481
3527
3234
1758
1040
980
879
584
212
159
120,000- 1,200,000
1900
Wl Proposed PCB landspreading rule (2002)
biosolids
• 89% municipalities >50,000
• median concentration 150,000
Mean value
Taken from UDSA (2000)-www.mindfully.org/Food/Dioxins-Food-Chain-USDA2000.htm
www.nutrifor.com/dioxin_factsheet.htm
Schecter, A. et al. (1997) ChemosphereS^T., 1437-47.
-6-
125
STS TOXICOLOGIST REPORT ON GA.DOC
-------
Table 3: Quench Water Analytical Data (ng/L)
PCB Congener
M-QW-01
8-diCB <0.500
18,(30)-TriCB 0.563
Sample
M-QW-02 M-QW-03 M-QW-04
0.513 <0.500 <0.500
0.575 <0.500 0.539
M-QW-05 M-QW-06
<0.500 <0.500
<0.500 <0.500
Data taken from Table 4-7 (Draft ITER, Minergy Corporation, Feb. 2003)
-7-
126
STS TOXICOLOGIST REPORT ON GA.DOC
-------
APPENDIX C
Hazen Research Inc. Holoflite® Dryer Demonstration Results
127
-------
HAZEN RESEARCH INC. HOLOFLITE® DRYER DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
January 9. 2001. Dredged-and-dewatered sediment was delivered to the Hazen Research, Inc. (Hazen),
facility in Golden, Colorado, in four 5 5-gallon drums. The tackiness of the sediment hindered its flow
through the feed hopper of the bench-scale dryer. After drying a portion of the sediment from one drum
in a drum dryer, Hazen workers mixed dried sediment with dredged-and-dewatered sediment, using a
coning-and-quartering technique. This technique was used to obtain an optimal moisture content for
introducing sediment into the dryer.
January 15. 2001. Experimentation with dredged-and-dewatered and dried sediment continued in an
effort to determine the right blending of material for feeding into the dryer. Work centered on the
sediment in the second drum (barrel), designated Barrel 2, which, after removal from the barrel, was
coned and quartered several times. The sediment was wetter than that from Barrel 1 and required more
dried sediment to obtain the right consistency. Mixing was accomplished with a pug mill.
January 16. 2001. The remainder of the sediment to be used in the Holoflite®-dryer test was mixed
through the pug mill to get a suitable consistency. The workable sediment was re-mixed in the pug mill
and placed in plastic bags for the bench-scale test.
Overall, three drums were prepared for the Holoflite® -dryer test. One-and-three-eighths barrels of the
wet soil was oven dried and remixed with one-and-five-eighths barrels of wet soil in the pug mill.
January 22. 2001. Joe Dauchy, Ken Brown, and Ken Partymiller (Tetra Tech EM Inc.); and Bob Paulson
(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources [WDNR]) arrived at Hazen and met Dennis Johnson
(Hazen) at 10:30 am. Mr. Johnson took everyone present on a tour of the Hazen facility. Marta Richards
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) arrived and noted the need for a meeting to discuss the
mixing that had occurred during the previous week and the sampling proposed for the current week. It
was decided that the sampling should be reduced to six runs (from eight) because of time constraints.
Also, the numbers of dioxins and furans, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals analyses
were reduced, because they were not associated with the primary objectives. The sample-labeling
protocol also was discussed. The sampling-and-analysis planning document discusses the sampling and
analyses for the dryer test. The samples were labeled as follows:
HZ - Hazen Dryer Test
128
-------
Bl-Batch #1
SI - Sediment in
SO - Sediment out
Example: HZB3SO = Hazen dryer test of Batch #3, Sediment Out
Sampling supplies were unpacked and shipments from laboratories were checked to ensure that
everything had arrived.
January 23. 2001. Terry Carroll (Minergy) arrived today. Mr. Johnson (Hazen) stated that the balance
used to measure the sediment going in and coming out of the dryer is calibrated every month by an
outside contractor. The dryer was warmed up and ready to start at 9:00 am. Mr. Dauchy monitored the
operational parameters (temperatures) of the dryer.
Run #1 began at 9:00 am and ended at 11:00 am One "run", or batch, consisted of sediment running
through the dryer over a 2-hour period. Weights of the grab-and-composite soil samples collected from
each run were entered in field logbooks. About 200 grams (g) of pre- and post-dryer samples were
collected every half-hour during each run. Composite samples (pre- and post-dryer) from each run
provided enough material for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), dioxin and furan, SVOC, and metals
analyses. Samples were containerized and put in the appropriate coolers for shipment to Kemron
Environmental Services (Kemron) in Marietta, Ohio, and Paradigm Analytical Laboratories (Paradigm) in
Wilmington, North Carolina. All of the condensate was collected and weighed for each run. At the end
of the run, the condensate was poured into sample containers for PCB, dioxin and furan, SVOC, and
metals analyses. Runs #1 through #3 were conducted and sampled.
January 24. 2001. Run #4 began at 8:00 am Pre- and post-dryer sediment and condensate were sampled
for PCB, dioxin and furan, SVOC, and metals analysis. Videographers arrived to videotape the process.
Mr. Paulson took several samples of the dried sediment and shipped them to the Wisconsin State
Laboratory for analysis of PCBs. The Holoflite® dryer was drying sediment to approximately 5 percent
moisture. Runs #4 through #6 were completed and sampled today. Run #6 was lengthened by 45
minutes to collect additional water for a duplicate and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) for
SVOC analysis.
129
-------
January 25. 2001. Mr. Dauchy and Mrs. Richards discussed and approved collection of one set of
samples for a single run (Run #7), in case the operational parameters of the dryer were different from the
previous 2 days. Run #7 started at 10:30 am and ended at 12:30 p.m. Operational temperatures were
recorded throughout the day. Samples were containerized and shipped to Kemron and Paradigm.
The following tables summarize the analytical results of sampling conducted during the Holoflite®-dryer
demonstration. Table C-l summarizes the Sediment-In sample analytical results. Table C-2 summarizes
the analytical results of the Sediment-Out composite samples. Table C-3 contains the analytical results of
the condensate samples, and Table C-4 summarizes the air-sample analytical results. The data indicate a
significant increase in PCB and dioxin and furan concentrations from pre-dryer to the post-dryer samples.
Increases in metals and SVOC concentrations were not observed from pre-to post-dryer samples.
Analytical results exhibited detections of some PCB congeners in the air and condensate samples
collected during the dryer demonstration. This was probably attributable to carryover of sediment dust
from the dryer chamber to the air stream exiting the dryer.
About 25 PCB congeners were specified to the laboratory for analysis. This list was based on toxic
congeners listed by the World Health Organization. The 25 congeners analyzed did not correlate well
with the congeners discharged to the Fox River. Total PCB values for each sample were not requested
and therefore were not provided by the laboratory. A comparison of the PCB results (for both individual
congeners and total PCBs) for the dredged-and-dewatered sediment and previous results obtained by the
WDNR could not be made. The designated high-resolution analytical method (EPA Method 1668) (EPA
1997) was inappropriate for the elevated levels of PCBs in the sediment (parts-per- million range). Many
of the analytical results exceeded the calibration range and thus were estimated.
Based on the results of the Holoflite®-dryer demonstration, it was decided that the dryer test was flawed
by the carryover of dust into the air and condensate streams, as well as the congener incompatibility in the
dryer test and the melter test. In addition, the increase in PCB and dioxin and furan concentrations in
dried sediment could not be explained.
130
-------
TABLE C-l
HAZEN HOLOFLITE® DRYER COMPOSITE SEDIMENT-IN SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
(parts per million)
Total PCBs3
Total PCDDs/PCDFsb
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Total SVOCs e
Sample Identification
HZB1SI
1.7
0.0062
8.7
84
0.95
37
0.94
72
4.5
<3.1d
<0.26
HZB2SI
2.6
C
9.7
84
0.94
37
0.91
71
4.5
<3.1
0.3
HZB3SI
3.1
-
9.3
85
0.95
40
0.89
73
5.3
<3.2
-
HZB4SI
8.2
0.024
9.3
78
0.95
36
0.92
75
4.1
<3.2
<0.26
HZB5SI
8.0
0.016
9.2
83
1.0
39
0.88
77
4.7
<3.1
<0.26
HZB6SI
9.5
-
9.6
83
1.0
37
0.87
74
4.2
<3.1
0.3
Note: a PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls. Total PCBs are based on the sum of 23 congeners
b PCDDs/PCDFs = Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
c - = not sampled
d < = less than
e SVOCs = Semi-volatile organic compounds
131
-------
TABLE C-2
HAZEN HOLOFLITE® DRYER COMPOSITE SEDIMENT-OUT SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
(parts per million)
Total PCBs3
Total PCDDs/PCDFsb
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Total SVOCse
Sample Identification
HZB1SO
14
0.047
8
81
0.9
37
0.89
70
5.4
<2.1d
2.3
HZB2SO
14
C
7.5
81
0.91
37
0.94
68
5.5
<2.1
1.8
HZB3SO
12
-
7.9
83
0.89
37
0.8
69
4.8
<2.2
-
HZB4SO
14
0.055
8.3
77
0.95
34
0.82
72
5.1
<2.1
2.7
HZB5SO
14
0.054
7.9
73
0.94
34
0.87
67
6
<2.1
2.5
HZB6SO
14
-
8.6
80
1.0
37
0.84
75
6.3
<2.1
1.4
Note: a PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls. Total PCBs are based on the sum of 23 congeners
b PCDDs/PCDFs = Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
c - = not sampled
d < = less than
e SVOCs = Semi-volatile organic compounds
132
-------
TABLE C-3
HAZEN HOLOFLITE® DRYER CONDENSATE-OUT COMPOSITE SAMPLE RESULTS
Analyte
(parts per million)
Total PCBs3
Total PCDD/PCDFs b
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
Silver
Total SVOCs e
Sample ID
HZB1CO
0.53
4.0 xlO'6
0.04
0.016
<0.01d
<0.02
0.0003
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
0.22
HZB2CO
0.47
C
0.018
0.023
<0.01
<0.02
0.00023
0.009
<0.01
<0.01
0.23
HZB3CO
0.21
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HZB4CO
0.30
7.5 x 10-6
0.026
0.015
<0.01
<0.02
<0.0002
0.0061
<0.01
<0.01
0.15
HZB5CO
0.50
1.7xlO-5
0.021
0.014
<0.01
<0.02
0.00023
0.0077
<0.01
<0.01
0.21
HZB6CO
0.57
1.4 xlO'5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.29
Note: a PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls. Total PCBs are based on the sum of 23 congeners
b PCDDs/PCDFs = Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
c - = not sampled
d < = less than
e SVOCs = Semi-volatile organic compounds
133
-------
TABLE C-4
HAZEN HOLOFLITE® DRYER AIR SAMPLE RESULTS
Sample ID
ft
300267
300270
300272
300274
300277
300280
300283
300285
300287
300289
300291
300293
300319
300320
300321
300322
Parameter
Total
PCDDs/
PCDFs d
(ng)e
1.43
1.25
1.77
0.74
2.54
2.96
Arsenic
(ppm)
<0.004 h
<0.004
Barium
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
Cadmium
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
Chromium
(ppm)
<0.02
<0.02
Mercury
(ppm)
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.023
<0.0002
Lead
(ppm)
<0.005
<0.005
Selenium
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
Silver
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
Total
SVOCs f
Oig)g
82
64
220
198
207
225
-------
Sample ID
ft
300323
300327
300328
300329
300330
300331
300332
300333
300334
300335
300336
300337
300338
300339
300340
Parameter
Total
PCDDs/
PCDFs d
(ng)e
Arsenic
(ppm)
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
<0.004
Barium
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Cadmium
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Chromium
(ppm)
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Mercury
(ppm)
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0003
<0.0003
0.048
O.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0004
O.0002
<0.0003
<0.0003
0.038
<0.0002
O.0003
Lead
(ppm)
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Selenium
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Silver
(ppm)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Total
SVOCs f
Oig)g
-------
Sample ID
ft
300341
300342
300343
Parameter
Total
PCDDs/
PCDFs d
(ng)e
Arsenic
(ppm)
<0.004
Barium
(ppm)
<0.01
Cadmium
(ppm)
<0.01
Chromium
(ppm)
<0.02
Mercury
(ppm)
<0.0002
0.12
<0.0002
Lead
(ppm)
<0.005
Selenium
(ppm)
<0.01
Silver
(ppm)
<0.01
Total
SVOCs f
(Hg)g
Notes: a ID = Identification
b PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls. Total PCBs are based on the sum of 23 congeners.
c ppm = parts per million
d PCDDs /PCDFs = Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
e ng = Nanogram
f SVOCs = Semivolatile organic compounds
g |ig = Microgram
h < = Less than
-------
APPENDIX D
Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 538
137
-------
164-1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NR 538.06
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
Chapter NR 538
USE OF
Purpose.
Applicability.
Definitions.
Performance standards.
Solid waste rules exemption.
Industrial byproduct characterization.
Industrial byproduct categories.
Beneficial uses.
Beneficial uses for specific categories of industrial byproducts
Reporting.
Storage and transportation requirements.
Public participation.
Environmental monitoring.
Property owner notification.
NR 538.01 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to al-
low and encourage to the maximum extent possible, consistent
with the protection of public health and the environment and good
engineering practices, the beneficial use of industrial byproducts
in a nuisance-free manner. The department encourages the bene-
ficial use of industrial byproducts in order to preserve resources,
conserve energy, and reduce or eliminate the need to dispose of in-
dustrial byproducts in landfills. This chapter is adopted under ss.
289.05, 289.06, 289.43 (4), (7) and (8), Stats, and 227.11, Stats.
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, cff. 1-1-98.
NR 538.02 Applicability. (1) Except as otherwise pro-
vided, this chapter governs the beneficial use of industrial byprod-
ucts, except hazardous waste and metallic mining waste.
(2) This chapter does not apply to the design, construction or
operation of industrial wastewater facilities, sewerage systems
and waterworks treating liquid wastes approved under s. 281.41.
Stats., or permitted under ch. 283, Stats., nor to facilities used sole-
ly for the disposal of liquid municipal or industrial wastes which
have been approved under s. 2 81.41, Stats., or permitted under ch.
283, Stats., except facilities used for the disposal of solid waste.
NR538.03 Definitions. The folio wing definitions as well
as the definitions in ch. 289, Stats., and s. NR 500.03 are applica-
ble to the terms used in this chapter unless the context requires
otherwise.
(1) "Base course" means the layer or layers of specified or se-
lected material of designated thickness placed on a subbase or
subgrade to support a pavement or other structure.
(2) "Industrial byproduct" means papennill sludge, coal ash
including slag, foundry excess system sand, foundry slag or other
non-hazardous solid waste with similar characteristics as deter-
mined by the department.
(3) "Residential area" means properties that are zoned as resi-
dential, are in areas planned for residential zoning under a master
plan approved or adopted by a local municipal authority or those
portions of properties on which there is a residence for human
habitation that are within 200 feet of the residence.
(4) "Subbase" means the layer or layers of specified or se-
lected material placed on a subgrade to support a base course.
(5) "Subgrade" means the top soil surface upon which a sub-
base or base course are placed.
(6) "Subgrade fill" means the layer or layers of material
placed above the natural ground surface to achieve a subgrade.
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, cff. 1-1-98.
NR 538.04 Performance standards. No person may
store, handle or beneficially use an industrial byproduct in a man-
ner mat may cause any of the following:
(1) A significant adverse impact on wetlands.
(2) A significant adverse impact on critical habitat areas.
(3) A detrimental effect on any surface water.
(4) A detrimental effect on groundwater quality or will cause
or exacerbate an attainment or exceedance of any preventive ac-
tion limit or enforcement standard at a point of standards applica-
tion as defined in ch. NR 140.
(5) The migration and concentration of explosive gases in any
structures, or in the soils or air at or beyond the project property
boundary in excess of 25% of the lower explosive limit for the
gases at tiny time.
(6) The emissions of any hazardous air contaminant exceed-
ing the limitations for those substances contained in s. NR 445.03.
Note: The placement of materials in a floodplam where an obstruction to .flood
flows or an increase in regional flood event or an adverse affect upon a drainage
course is regulated under ch. MR 116.
Note: The emissions of particulates and volatile organic compounds are regulated
under s. NR 415.03 and chs. NR 419 to 424.
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, eff. 1-1-98.
NR538.05 Solid waste rules exemption. (1) GENER-
AL. Persons who generate, use, transport or store industrial by-
products that are characterized and beneficially used in com-
pliance with this chapter are exempt from licensing under s.
289.31, Stats., and the regulatory requirements in chs. NR 500 to
536.
(2) EXISTING EXEMPTIONS. This chapter does not abrogate, re-
scind or terminate an approval or grant of exemption in effect on
January 1, 1998 that was issued under s. 289.43 (7) or (8), Stats.
Nothing in this subsection limits the authority of the department
to modify, terminate or rescind any approval or grant of exemption
as provided by law.
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, eft 1-1-98.
NR 538.06 Industrial byproduct characterization.
(1) GENERAL. Industrial byproducts that are beneficially used un-
der this chapter shall be characterized as specified in this section
to determine their appropriate categorization under s. NR 538.08.
The results of this characterization shall be reported to the depart-
ment as specified in s. NR 538.14. The testing program for materi-
als not specifically listed in tables 1A to 3 shall be approved by the
department prior to characterization. For those materials not
listed in tables 1A to 3 the department may modify the list of pa-
rameters required to be analyzed for and may establish standards
on a material specific basis for additional parameters.
(2) INITIAL CHARACTERIZATION. A representative sample of an
industrial byproduct shall be properly characterized prior to bene-
ficial use to determine its category under s. NR 538.08.
(3) CHARACTERIZATION METHODS, (a) The limits of detection
used in the characterization shall be at or below the concentration
listed in tables 1A to 3 for each parameter for the specific target
category where possible. When a limit of detection at or below a
target category standard is not achievable, or if no concentration
is listed, the method that will achieve the lowest detection limit
shall be used. All material sampling, total elemental analyses and
analyses of elutriate from leach testing shall be performed using
EPA SW-846 methods, unless otherwise approved by the depart-
138
Register, December 1997, No. 504
-------
NR 538.06 WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 164-2
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
merit. The limit of detection and the limit of quantitation shall be
reported with the sample results. If a substance is detected below
the limit of quantitation, the detected value with the appropriate
qualifier shall be reported.
(b) All industrial byproducts that are to be beneficially used
under this chapter shall be determined not to be a hazardous waste
as defined under s. NR 600.03 (98) using a method specified under
ch. MR 605.
(c) All industrial byproducts which are characterized to deter-
mine eligibility for category 1 to 4 under s. NR 538.08 (1) to (4)
shall be analyzed using the most recent revision of the ASTM
D3987 water leach test.
(d) All industrial byproducts which are characterized to deter-
mine eligibility for category 1 or 2 under s. NR 538.08 (1) or (2)
shall be analyzed using a total elemental analysis, unless another
analysis method is approved by the department.
Note: Copies oi EP.\ SW—846 are available ior inspection at the offices oi the de-
partment of natural resources, the secretary of state and the revisor of statutes. Copies
may be obtained from the national technical information service, 5285 port royal
road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Phone (703) 487-4600.
Note: ASTM--D3987 is the American society for testing and materials "Test
Method for Shake Extraction of Solid Wastes with Water/' Copies of this test proce-
dure can be obtained from the American society for testing and materials (ASTM),
1916 race street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1 9103-1187, (215)299-5400. Copies
of these test methods are also available for inspection at the offices of the department,
the secretary of state and the revisor of statutes.
(4) RECHARACTERIZATION, (a) Industrial byproducts that are
beneficially used under this chapter shall be recharacterized after
the initial characterization in accordance with this section, unless
the department approves an alternative recharacterization meth-
od. A representative sample of each industrial byproduct shall be
recharacterized whenever there i s a change in the process that pro-
duces the industrial byproduct that could result in a change of the
category of the industrial byproduct.
(b) A representative sample of each category 1 industrial by-
product shall be recharacterized in the same manner as specified
for the initial characterization once each year. Recharacterization
is not required for any category 1 industrial byproduct of which
less than 1000 cubic yards were beneficially used or stored for
beneficial use in the previous year.
(c) A representative sample of each category 2 industrial by-
product shall be recharacterized in the same manner as specified
for the initial characterization once ever)' 2 years. Recharacteriza-
tion is not required for any category 2 industrial byproduct of
which less than 2000 cubic yards were beneficially used or stored
for beneficial use during the previous 2-year period.
(d) A representative sample of each category 3 industrial by-
product shall be recharacterized in the same manner as specified
for the initial characterization once every 3 years. Recharacteriza-
tion is not required for any category 3 industrial byproduct of
which less than 3000 cubic yards were beneficially used or stored
for beneficial use during the previous 3-year period.
(e) A representative sample of each category 4 industrial by-
product shall be recharacterized in the same manner as specified
for the initial characterization once every 5 years. Recharacteriza-
tion is not required for any category 4 industrial byproduct of
which less than 5000 cubic yards were beneficially used or stored
for beneficial use in the previous 5-year period.
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, cff. 1-1-98.
NR 538.08 Industrial byproduct categories. The
categories of industrial byproducts, characterized in accordance
with s. NR 538.06, for beneficial use under this chapter are as fol-
lows:
(1) CATEGORY i INDUSTRIAL BYPRODUCTS. Industrial byprod-
ucts that have been determined to contain less than the concentra-
tion specified for the parameters listed in Appendix I, Tables 1A
and IB, are category 1 industrial byproducts.
(2) CATEGORY 2 INDUSTRIAL BYPRODUCTS. Industrial byprod-
ucts mat have been determined to contain less man the concentra-
tion specified for the parameters listed in Appendix I, Tables 2A
and 2B, and are not category 1 industrial byproducts are category
2 industrial byproducts. If in the total elemental analysis total
polyaromatic hydrocarbons exceed 100 mg/kg, department con-
currence is necessary prior to classification as a category 2 indus-
trial byproduct. Unless authorized by the department the total ele-
mental analysis for industrial byproducts not listed in Table 2B
shall also include aluminum, antimony, barium, boron, cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, molybde-
num, nickel, phenol, selenium, silver, strontium, thallium, vana-
dium and zinc.
(3) CATEGORY 3 INDUSTRIAL BYPRODUCTS. Industrial byprod-
ucts that have been determined to contain less than the concentra-
tion specified for the parameters listed in Appendix I, Table 2A,
and are not category 1 or 2 industrial byproducts are category 3
industrial byproducts.
(4) CATEGORY 4 INDUSTRIAL BYPRODUCTS. Industrial byprod-
ucts that have been determined to contain less than the concentra-
tion specified for the parameters listed in Appendix I, Table 3, and
are not category 1 to 3 industrial byproducts are category 4 indus-
trial byproducts.
(5) CATEGORY s INDUSTRIAL BYPRODUCTS. Industrial byprod-
ucts that have been determined not to be a hazardous waste as de-
fined in s. NR 600.03 (98) and are not category 1 to 4 industrial
byproducts are category 5 industrial byproducts.
(6) CRITERIA AND PROCESS FOR USING CATEGORY STANDARDS.
(a) If a standard for a parameter listed in Appendix I is above the
limit of detection and the limit of quantitation, the standard shall
be considered to be exceeded if the parameter is reported at or
above the standard.
(b) If a standard for a parameter listed in Appendix I is between
the limit of detection and the limit of quantitation, inclusive, the
standard shall be considered to be exceeded if the parameter is re-
ported at or above the limit of quantitation.
(c) The following applies when a standard for a parameter
listed in Appendix I is below the lowest achievable limit of detec-
tion:
1. If a parameter is not detected in a sample, the standard will
be considered to have been met.
2. If a parameter is reported at or above the limit of detection
but below the limit of quantitation, a confirmation analysis shall
be conducted. The standard shall be considered to be exceeded if
the presence of that parameter has been confirmed by the use of
an appropriate analytical method.
3. If a parameter is reported at or above the limit of quantita-
tion, the standard shall be considered to be exceeded.
(7) CASE SPECIFIC. The department may review the character-
ization results for an industrial byproduct in response to a request
from the generator of the industrial byproduct and assign a catego-
ry or categories for that material, or conditionally approve a bene-
ficial use that does not meet the beneficial uses or standards speci-
fied in this chapter, on a case specific basis. The department may
require additional information prior to a case specific approval.
Any exemption or approval granted under this subsection shall be
in accordance with the applicable requirements of s. 289.43 (4),
(7) and (8), Stats.
NR538.10 Beneficial uses. The beneficial uses of indus-
trial byproducts under this chapter which may be exempt from
regulation as provided under s. NR 538.12 are:
(1) Raw materials for manufacturing of a product in which the
measurable leaching, emissions or decomposition characteristics
of the industrial byproduct are substantially eliminated. Products
that would meet these criteria include cement, lightweight aggre-
gate, structural or ornamental concrete or ceramic materials, port-
Register, December, 1997, No. 504
139
-------
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAI, RESOURCES N R 538.10
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
land cement concrete pavement, asphaltic concrete pavement,
roofing materials, plastics, paint, fiberglass, mineral wool, wall-
board, plaster and other products as approved by the department.
(2) Agents for physical or chemical stabilization, solidifica-
tion or other treatment of solid waste that is to be disposed of at
a lined landfill having a leachate collection system, or utilized in
some other final use approved by the department.
(3) Supplemental fuels that provide energy through controlled
burning.
(4) Daily cover or internal structures at lined landfills having
a leachate collection system. The industrial byproducts used for
this purpose may not contain free liquids. The industrial byprod-
ucts used as landfill daily cover may contain not more than 15%
of silt and clay sized materials (P200 content), and may not be
placed in layers greater than 6 inches thick. In addition the indus-
trial byproducts used as landfill daily cover shall be able to control
disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter and scavenging with-
out presenting a threat to human health or the environment.
(5) Confined geotechnical fill material in accordance with the
project criteria and uses specified in this subsection. If more than
5,000 cubic yards are to be used in an individual project, prior
written notification in accordance with s. NR 538.14 (4) and con-
currence by the department are needed. If the department does not
respond to the notification within 10 business days, concurrence
is considered to be granted. Industrial byproducts shall be used
in accordance with best management practices. The criteria and
uses under this subsection are as follows:
(a) Base course, subbase or subgrade fill for the construction
of commercial, industrial or non residential institutional build-
ings. The industrial byproducts shall be placed underneath the
concrete floor slabs and within the frost wralls for these buildings.
This use of industrial byproducts in the construction of residential
buildings is specifically prohibited.
(b) Base course, subbase or subgrade fill for the construction
of a portland cement concrete or asphaltic concrete paved lot.
'The placement of the industrial byproduct may not extend more
than 4 feet beyond the paved area. Any area where industrial by-
products are not directly beneath the pavement structure shall be
sloped to prevent ponding of wrater, covered with topsoil and seed-
ed as soon after placement as is practical. The use of industrial by-
products as paved lot subbase fill is prohibited in residential areas.
(c) Base course, subbase or subgrade fill for the construction
of a paved federal, state or municipal roadway. Industrial byprod-
ucts placed as part of construction of the paved federal, state or
municipal roadway may not extend beyond the subgrade shoulder
point. Any area where industrial byproducts are not directly be-
neath the pavement structure shall be sloped to prevent ponding
of water, covered with base course or native soil including topsoil
and seeded as soon as practical after placement of the industrial
byproduct. The use of industrial byproducts as paved roadway
subbase or base fill is prohibited in residential areas, unless used
in a roadway designed with a rural type cross-section.
(d) Utility trench backfill. The industrial byproducts placed
as part of backfill of a trench constructed for the placement of sani-
tary or storm sewer, non-potable water line, gas main, telecom-
munications, electrical or other utility lines shall be beneath a
paved roadway, parking lot or other portland cement concrete or
asphaltic concrete paved structure. The industrial byproducts
may not extend more than 6 feet beyond the pavement structure.
Any area where industrial byproducts are not directly beneath the
pavement structure shall be sloped to prevent ponding of water,
topsoiled and seeded as soon as practical after placement of the in-
dustrial byproduct.
(e) Bridge abutment backfill. Industrial byproducts placed as
part of bridge abutment backfill shall be covered by a roadway
structure. Any area where industrial byproducts are not directly
beneath the pavement surface shall be sloped to prevent ponding
of water, covered with base course or topsoiled and seeded as soon
as practical after placement of the industrial byproduct. The use
of industrial byproducts as bridge abutment trench backfill is pro-
hibited in residential areas, unless used in a roadway designed
with a rural type cross-section.
(f) Abandonment of tanks, vaults or tunnels that will provide
total encapsulation of the industrial byproduct. This use does not
include the placement of an industrial byproduct in a location
where environmental pollution has been identified.
(g) Slabjacking material. Industrial byproducts used as a com-
ponent in a slabjacking material in combination with portland ce-
ment, lime or bentonite shall be placed beneath portland cement
concrete paved structures to raise areas that have settled. The
slabjacking material shall be placed directly from an enclosed
transport vehicle. Projects using more than 2 cubic yard of indus-
trial byproduct as a slabjacking material is prohibited in residen-
tial areas.
(6) Fully encapsulated transportation facility embankments
constructed under the authority of the Wisconsin department of
transportation, or a municipality, that meet the criteria in this sub-
section . Examples include linear roadway sound and sight barrier
berrn embankments, airport embankments and roadway bridge or
overpass embankments. For projects using more than 100,000 cu-
bic yards of industrial byproducts, or with a maximum thickness
of industrial byproduct greater than 20 feet, department concur-
rence shall be obtained prior to initiating the project. These em-
bankments shall be constructed, documented and monitored as
follows:
(a) The embankment shall be monitored in accordance with s.
NR 538.20 (2).
(b) The embankment shall be covered on the top and sidewalls
by 2 feet of recompacted clay, and underlain by a 3-foot thick re-
compacted clay liner. The recompacted clay base, sidewalls and
top cover shall meet the following specifications:
1. A minimum thickness of 3 feet under the entire base and
2 feet on the sidewalls and top compacted to a minimum of 95%
standard dry proctor density at a moisture content wet of optimum,
based on the characteristics of the appropriate proctor curve for
the clay being placed.
2. A classification of CL or CH under the unified soil classifi-
cation system.
3. A permeability of 1 x 10~7 cm/sec or less, when compacted
to 95% standard maximum dry proctor density or greater.
4. An average liquid limit of 25% or greater with no values
less than 20%, when tested in accordance with ASTM-
D4318-95.
5. An average plasticity index of 12% or greater with no val-
ues less than 10%. when tested in accordance with ASTM-
D4318-95.
6. A minimum of 50% by weight that passes the 200 sieve.
Note: AS'rM-D4318-95 is the American society ior testing and materials "Test
Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index for Soils." Copies of this
test procedure can be obtained from the American society for testing and materials
(ASTM), 1916 race street. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103 1187, (215)
299-5400. Copies of these test methods are also available for inspection at the offices
of the department, the secretary of state and the revisor of statutes.
(c) Any portion of the clay top cover or sidewalls of the em-
bankment not covered by the pavement structure, which includes
base course and pavement, shall be covered by one foot of cover
soil that includes a minimum of 4 inches of topsoil.
(d) Documentation testing for the recompacted clay base, side-
walls and top cover shall be as follows:
1. Field density and moisture content testing shall be per-
formed on a uniform grid pattern for each lift of clay placed with
the grid pattern offset on each subsequent lift. A lift may not ex-
ceed 8 inches in thickness following compaction. One density test
shall be performed for each 40,000 ft2 of surface area for every 8
inch lift of clay placed on the base and top cover. One density test
shall be performed for each 60,000 ft2 of surface area for every 8
140
Register, December 1997, No. 504
-------
NR 538.10 WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 164-4
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
inch lift of clay placed on the sideslopes offset on each subsequent
lift.
2. A disturbed soil sample shall be obtained for one of ever}'
3 field test locations in subd. 1. and analyzed in a laboratory for
atterberg limits and grain size to the 2 micron particle size. An un-
disturbed soil sample shall be obtained for one of even' 9 field test
locations in subd. 1. and analyzed for laboratory permeability.
3. A standard proctor curve, ASTM-D698-91, shall be de-
veloped for each distinct soil source and type in order that density
testing can be correlated to the appropriate soil type.
4. Monitoring devices including headwells, and associated
borehole construction shall be documented using the appropriate
department forms: monitoring well construction form
#4400-113A (rev. 4-90), soil boring log information form
#4400-122 (rev. 7-91) and well information form #4400-89 (rev.
1-90).
Note: ASTM-D698-91 is the American society for testing and materials "Test
Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soi! Using Standard Elffort"
Copies oi this test procedure can be obtained from the American society for testing
and materials (ASTM), 1916 race street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-1187,
(215)299-5400. Copies of these test methods are also available for inspection at the
offices of the department, the secretary of state and the revisor of statutes.
Note: Copies of these forms may be obtained from the department of natural re-
sources, bureau of waste management, 101 south Webster street, natural resources
building, p.o. box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921.
(e) Within 90 business days of completion of the construction
project, a site construction report shall be prepared and 3 copies
sent to the department. Two of these reports shall be submitted to
the bureau of waste management and one shall be submitted to the
department's field office responsible for the area in which the em-
bankment is located. The report shall include all of the following:
1. A plot plan showing final grades actually achieved in the
field, and the location of all soil tests, drainage ditches, surface
water drainage control structures, monitoring wells, control
points and any other pertinent features.
2. Documentation of the depth of the final cover material uti-
lizing a 200 foot grid pattern. All borings shall be replaced with
acceptable material and compacted to proper density. Hand auger
or survey data may be used for this documentation.
3. Documentation of the type and quantity of fertilizer, mulch
and seed used on the side slopes.
4. Documentation of the quantity and source of the industrial
byproduct used in the embankment fill.
5. The final perpendicular cross-sections of the completed
embankment. These cross-sections shall indicate the extent of the
industrial byproduct placement.
6. Typical detailed drawings of any special design features.
7. An appendix containing all the raw data from the soil test-
ing program.
8. A description of the institutional controls that will be in
place to ensure that the structural integrity of the embankment will
be maintained, and that any future disturbances of the embank-
ment design features will be repaired.
(f) The final cover and topsoil shall be smoothly graded to en-
hance positive surface runoff and seeded, fertilized and mulched
to establish a thick vegetative growth. Routine maintenance of the
embankment slopes shall be performed to insure the integrity of
the final soil cover.
(g) A perimeter berm shall be constructed within the limits of
the prepared clay base to contain any surface water runoff from the
industrial byproduct. The berm shall be maintained throughout
the period of industrial byproduct placement.
(h) Measures shall be taken to limit blowing and tracking of
the industrial byproduct during transportation to the construction
site and placement in the embankment. Measures include keeping
the industrial byproduct moist, and compacting it as soon as it is
deposited in the fill area.
(i) The department's field office responsible for the area in
which the embankment is located shall be contacted at least one
week prior to initiating construction of the clay liner so that ar-
rangements can be made for inspecting the site.
(7) Clay capped and sidewalled transportation facility em-
bankments constructed under the authority of the Wisconsin de-
partment of transportation, or a municipality, that meet the criteria
in this subsection. Examples include linear roadway sound and
sight barrier berm embankments, airport embankments and road-
way bridge or overpass embankments. For projects using more
than 100,000 cubic yards of industrial byproducts, or with a maxi-
mum thickness of industrial byproduct greater than 20 feet, de-
partment concurrence shall be obtained prior to initiating the proj-
ect. The construction, documentation and monitoring of these
embankments shall be as described under sub. (6) (b) 2. to (i) and
as follows:
(a) The embankment shall be monitored in accordance with s.
NR 538.20 (3).
(b) The embankment shall be covered on the top and sidewalls
by 2 feet of recompacted clay. The sidewalls and top cover shall
be a mininiuni of 2 feet thick. No liner is required.
(8) Unconfined geotechnical fill material used as part of the
construction of a building, parking area, utility trench or other
structural improvement, where the industrial byproduct is not
structurally confined and meets the criteria in this subsection. If
more than 200 cubic yards of industrial byproducts are to be bene-
ficially used in an individual project, prior written notification in
accordance with s. NR 538.14 (4) and concurrence by the depart-
ment are needed. If the individual project uses less than 600 cubic
yards of industrial byproduct and the department does not respond
to the notification within 10 business days, concurrence is consid-
ered to be granted. Any area where industrial byproducts are
beneficially used as unconfined geotechnical fill shall be sloped
to prevent ponding of water, covered with at least 2 feet of native
soils including topsoil within 15 business days of placement and
seeded as soon after topsoil placement as is practical. The benefi-
cial use of industrial byproducts as an unconfined geotechnical fill
is prohibited in residential areas.
(9) Unbonded surface course material used in accordance
with the criteria of this subsection. This includes the use of indus-
trial byproducts as a surface course material in unpaved drive-
ways, parking areas and recreation or exercise trails. Industrial
byproducts used as surface course shall conform to the require-
ments of s. 304.2, Wisconsin department of transportation stan-
dard specifications for road and bridge construction, and may be
placed at a thickness of 3 inches or less and in areas separated by
at least a 25 foot vegetated buffer to a navigable surface water.
The use of industrial byproducts as unbonded surface course is
prohibited in residential areas. If more than 10.000 cubic yards of
industrial byproducts are to be used in an individual surface
course application, prior written notification in accordance with
s. NR 538.14 (4) and concurrence by the department are needed.
If the department does not respond to the notification within 10
business days, concurrence is considered to be granted.
(10) Bonded surface course material used in accordance with
the criteria of this subsection. This use includes placement of in-
dustrial byproducts as a bonded surface course material such as
seal coats in roads, driveways, parking areas and recreational or
exercise trails. Industrial byproducts used as a bonded surface
course shall conform to the requirements of s. 401, Wisconsin de-
partment of transportation standard specifications for road and
bridge construction, and may not exceed 30 pounds per square
yard placed over an asphaltic mastic. Within 48 hours of applica-
tion of the industrial byproduct, the surface shall be rolled to thor-
oughly embed these materials into the asphaltic mastic. If more
than 10,000 cubic yards of industrial byproducts are to be used in
an individual bonded surface course application, prior written no-
tification in accordance with s. NR 538.14 (4) and concurrence by
the department are needed. If the department does not respond to
Register, December, 1997, No. 504
141
-------
164-5 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAI, RESOURCES N R 538.14
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
the notification within 10 business days, concurrence is consid-
ered to be granted.
(11) Decorative stone with particle size greater than or equal
to 3/4 inches, and with less than 5% silt and clay sized particles.
including those adhering to the larger particles. Industrial byprod-
ucts used as decorative stone shall conform to the wear and sound-
ness requirements for crushed aggregate base course in s. 304.2.3
and 304.2.4, Wisconsin department of transportation standard
specifications for road and bridge construction.
(12) Cold weather road abrasive on roadways with a rural
cross-section, including areas with incidental sections of curb and
gutter. The winter road abrasives using industrial byproducts.
wholly or as part of a mixture of abrasives, shall meet Wisconsin
department of transportation gradation recommendations. All
particles shall be smaller than 114 inch, and the material shall con-
tain no more than 5% silt or clay size particles. The application
rate of industrial byproducts used as a winter road abrasive may
not exceed 0.4 tons per lane mile per application. These materials
may be mixed with sand or other abrasives to achieve this applica-
tion rate or the Wisconsin department of transportation gradation
recommendations contained in the state highway maintenance
manual, policy 32.30, effective date January 1, 1991.
Note: Copies of Wisconsin department of transportation specifications for road
and bridge construction, and state highway maintenance manual, policy 32.30 can he
obtained from the department of natural resources, bureau of waste management, 101
south webster street, natural resources building, p.o. box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin
53707-7921. Copies are also available for inspection at the offices of the revisor of
statutes and the secretary of state.
Note: Under s. 30.12 (4), Stats., highway and bridge projects affecting the waters
of the state that are carried out under the direction and supervision of the department
of transportation are exempt from department permit or approval requirements if ac-
complished in accordance with interdepartmental liaison procedures established by
the department of natural resources and the department of transportation.
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, elT. 1-1-98.
NR538.12 Beneficial uses for specific categories of
industrial byproducts. (1) Persons who beneficially use
category 1 to 5 industrial byproducts in accordance with this sec-
tion are exempt from licensing under s. 289.31. Stats., and the reg-
ulatory requirements under chs. NR 500 to 536.
(2) GENERAL CRITERIA FOR USES, (a) All uses shall comply
with the performance standards under s. NR 538.04 and the appli-
cable criteria in this section.
(b) Materials that are not category 1 industrial byproducts and
that are utilized for any of the uses under s. NR 538.10 (5) to (12)
may not be placed below the water table, into permanent standing
water or areas that need to be dewatered prior to placement.
(c) All uses shall meet all applicable structural and physical
specification and generally accepted engineering practices for the
use.
(d) Industrial byproducts incorporated into controlled low
strength materials shall be used in accordance with ACI229R-94.
(e) All beneficial use projects shall be conducted in a manner
to minimize windblown dust, odor, tracking and spillage of the in-
dustrial byproduct and not to cause nuisance conditions or envi-
ronmental pollution as defined under s. 289.01 (8), Stats.
Note: ACI 229R 94 is the american concrete institute report "Controlled Low
Strength Materials.'' Copies of this report can be obtained from the American con-
crete institute, p.o. box 19150, Detroit, Michigan 4821 9-0150. Copies of this report
are also avai iahle for inspection at the offices of the department of natural resources,
bureau of waste management, 1 01 south webster street, natural resources building,
p.o. box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921. Copies are available for inspection
at the offices of the revisor of statutes and the secretary of state.
(3) USES FOR CATEGORY 1 INDUSTRIAL BYPRODUCTS. Category
1 industrial byproducts may be utilized for any beneficial uses de-
scribed under s. NR 538.10 (1) to (12), or other beneficial uses
which conform with the exposure assumptions listed in s. NR
720.19 (5) (c) 1. a. and 2. a. Category 1 industrial byproducts are
exempt from the notification requirements under s. NR 538.14
(4), the environmental monitoring requirements under s. NR
538.20 and the property owner notification requirements under s.
NR 538.22.
(4) USES FOR CATEGORY
2 industrial byproducts may
described under s. NR 538.
(5) USES FOR CATEGORY
3 industrial byproducts may
described under s. NR 538.
(6) USES FOR CATEGORY
4 industrial byproducts may
described under s. NR 538.
(7) USES FOR CATEGORY
5 industrial byproducts may
described under s. NR 538.
2 INDUSTRIAL PA'
be used for any
10(1) to (12).'
3 INDUSTRIAL PA'
be used for any
10(1) to (8).
4 INDUSTRIAL BY
be used for any
10(1) to (6).
5 INDUSTRIAL BY
be used for any
10(1) to (4).
•PRODUCTS. Category
of the beneficial uses
'PRODUCTS. Category
of the beneficial uses
'PRODUCTS. Category
of the beneficial uses
'PRODUCTS. Category
of the beneficial uses
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, eft 1-1-98.
NR538.14 Reporting. (1) INITIAL CERTIFICATION. Prior
to beneficial use of industrial byproducts under this chapter, or the
establishment of a storage facility as required under s. NR 538.16
(1) (c). each generator, storage facility operator, or their designee
shall submit an initial certification form to the department that
contains the information listed below. An initial certification form
shall be submitted prior to beneficial use in accordance with this
chapter for any industrial byproducts not previously classified, for
any industrial byproduct for which the classification has changed
or for the establishment of a storage facility for industrial byprod-
ucts. The initial certification form shall include the following in-
formation:
(a) Name and address of generator or storage facility operator.
(b) Name, address and telephone number of designated gener-
ator or storage facility operator contact.
(c) A description of each industrial byproduct intended for
beneficial use or storage that clearly identifies the process that
generated it and an estimate of the volume that could be made
available for beneficial use on an annual basis.
(d) The classification of each industrial byproduct to be benefi-
cially used or stored for beneficial use in accordance with s. NR
538.08. Documentation, including test results supporting the
classification, shall be included. Storage facilities may provide
the name and address of the generators of the industrial byprod-
ucts to be stored as an alternative to this documentation.
(e) Authorization for Wisconsin department of natural re-
sources staff to conduct inspections of the facilities genera ting in-
dustrial byproducts being beneficially used under this chapter or
storage facilities for these industrial byproducts, and collect sam-
ples to verify compliance with this chapter.
(f) Certification by each generator, storage facility operator or
their designee, that the information on the form is true and accu-
rate, and that the performance standards of s. NR 538.04 will be
(2) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION. Each generator of industrial by-
products that have been beneficial ly used under this chapter, oper-
ator of a storage facility for industrial byproducts as required un-
der s. NR 538.16 (I) (c), or their designee, shall submit an annual
certification, on a form supplied by the department, that docu-
ments the amount of material beneficially used in each category
in the previous calendar year and confirms the proper classifica-
tion of each industrial byproduct. The certification form shall be
submitted no later than April 1 of the year following the reporting
period. The annual certification form shall include the following
information:
(a) Name and address of generator or storage facility operator.
(b) Name, address and telephone number of the designated
generator or storage facility operator contact.
(c) A description of each industrial byproduct intended for
beneficial use or storage that clearly identifies the process that
142
Register, December 1997, No. 504
-------
NR 538.14 WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 164-6
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
generated it and an estimate of the volume that could be made
available for beneficial use on an annual basis.
(d) The volume of each industrial byproduct that was benefi-
cially used, or the change in the volume stored, during the report-
ing period, identified by category.
(e) The classification of each industrial byproduct in accor-
dance with s. NR 538.08. Documentation of any recharacteriza-
tion test results required under s. NR 538.06 (4) shall be included.
Storage facilities may provide the name and address of the genera-
tors of the industrial byproducts to be stored as an alternative this
documentation.
(f) A summary of any problems or obstacles encountered in the
beneficial use of the industrial byproducts and the actions taken
in response to these concerns.
(g) A summary of the performance, problems and mainte-
nance associated with any storage facilities in accordance with s.
NR 538.16 (l)(c).
(h) The environmental monitoring data collected for beneficial
use projects in accordance with s. NR 538.20.
(i) Certification by the generator, storage facility operator or
their designee, that the information on the form is true and accu-
rate, and that the performance standards of s. NR 538.04 have
been met.
(3) EXEMPTION. Subsection (2) does not apply if the volume
of the generator's industrial byproducts beneficially used, or
stored for future use, during the reporting period was less than
1000 cubic yards.
(4) NOTIFICATION. Each industrial byproduct generator or a
person designated by the generator, such as a broker, shall submit
written notification to the department prior to initiating a project,
where required in s. NR 538.10 (5), (8), (9) or (10). The following
information shall be included in the notification:
(a) The name, address and phone number of the contact for the
project.
(b) The location of the project and a site description.
(c) The approximate volume of industrial byproduct antici-
pated to be used in the project.
(d) The anticipated start and end dates for the project.
(e) Identification of the industrial byproduct or byproducts to
be used and the category of these materials.
(5) RECORD KEEPING. The generator of an industrial byproduct
or their designee, shall maintain records of where their industrial
byproduct has been utilized under this chapter for one or more of
the beneficial uses described under s. NR 538.10 (5) to (8). These
records shall be maintained and be accessible to department staff
upon request for 5 years after the use of the industrial byproduct.
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, cff. 1-1-98.
NR 538.16 Storage and transportation require-
ments. (1) STORAGE. Storage of industrial byproducts for bene-
ficial use shall meet the performance standards listed in s. NR
538.04. These storage facilities shall also meet the criteria in this
subsection unless exempt under par. (a).
(a) The following industrial byproduct storage facilities are
exempt from the requirements of this subsection:
1. Facilities for the storage of industrial byproduct within en-
closed structures such as buildings, silos or green boxes.
2. Facilities for the storage of industrial byproducts within a
lined area at a licensed engineered landfill that is owned or oper-
ated by the user, generator of the byproduct or a person designated
by the generator, such as a broker.
3. Facilities for the storage of only category 1 industrial by-
products.
4. Facilities for the storage of category 2 or 3 industrial by-
products that are used for industrial byproduct storage for less
than 2 years.
5. Facilities for which the department issues an exemption on
a case specific basis.
(b) Storage of industrial byproducts not exempt under par. (a)
shall meet all of the following design and operational criteria:
1. The storage area shall incorporate a lined low-permeabil-
ity., asphalt, concrete, or clay pad and be surrounded by curbs or
berms to control surface water run-on and run-off. If a clay pad
is used, it shall include protective material over the clay.
2. Means shall be provided for collecting, containing and
treating the volume of run-off expected to come in contact with
the stored material as a result of the 25-year, 24-hour storm event.
Water contact with the stored material shall be minimized, such as
by covering with a tarp, where practical.
3. A setback shall be maintained between the stored materials
and the edge of the pad to prevent spillage of materials off the pad
and allow for vehicle movement completely around stored materi-
al.
(c) The operators of storage facilities not exempt under par. (a)
shall provide the department an initial and annual certification in
accordance with s. NR 538.14, include a summary of storage fa-
cility performance, problems and maintenance in the annual certi-
fication under s. NR 538.14 (2) (g).
(d) Closure of an industrial byproduct storage facility shall in-
clude provisions to remove all visible residues from the storage
area.
Note: The discharge of stormwater is regulated under ch. NR 216.
(2) TRANSPORTATION . Vehicles used to transport industrial by-
products intended for beneficial use shall meet both of the follow-
ing criteria:
(a) Vehicles or containers used to transport industrial byprod-
ucts shall be durable and leak-proof. Vehicles and containers
shall be repaired on an as needed basis to prevent nuisance condi-
tions from occurring.
(b) Vehicles or containers used to transport industrial byprod-
ucts shall be loaded and hauled in such a manner that the contents
do not fall, spill or leak. Covers shall be provided to prevent litter-
ing and spillage as necessary. Any spilled industrial byproducts
shall be properly recovered.
Note: Storage and transportation of industrial byproduct in accordance with this
chapter is exempt from the storage and transportation requirements of ch. NR 502 as
specified in ss. NR 502.05 (3) (i) and 502.06 (2) (k).
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, eff. 1-1-98.
NR 538.18 Public participation. (1) NOTIFICATION.
Except as provided in sub. (2), no person may initiate a beneficial
use project where the volume of the industrial byproduct to be
used is greater than 30,000 cubic yards, or construct or operate a
storage facility with a design capacity greater than 30,000 cubic
yards, prior to the person giving notice to the affected public and
providing for adequate public participation. Unless other forms
of public notification and involvement are approved by the de-
partment, the notice and public participation process provided by
the person intending to initiate a beneficial use project or storage
facility shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(a) Placing a public notice in the local newspaper at least 30
business days prior to initiating an industrial byproduct beneficial
use project or storage facility, specifying the nature of the benefi-
cial use project or storage facility, including the type and amount
of the material to be used or stored, how and where the material
will be used, the time frame of the project or storage facility opera-
tion, that the person intending to initiate the beneficial use project
or storage facility may hold a public informational meeting, and
a contact person for the public to request a meeting.
Register, December, 1997, No. 504
143
-------
164-7 DEPARTMENT OF NATIJR AI, RESOURCES N R 538.22
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
(b) Holding a public informational meeting, if requested by the
public, at which details of the project can be discussed. Depart-
ment staff may participate in the meeting.
(2) EXEMPTIONS, (a) The following beneficial use projects are
exempt from the public participation requirements under this sec-
tion:
1. Beneficial use of category 1 industrial byproducts.
2. Wisconsin department of transportation beneficial use pro-
jects that were addressed in the department of transportation's en-
vironmental review process.
3. Beneficial use projects at facilities licensed under chs. NR
500 to 536.
4. Beneficial uses described under s. NR 538.10 (1) to (4).
(b) The following beneficial use storage facilities are exempt
from the public participation requirements under this section:
1. Storage facilities that are located on the property where the
industrial byproducts are generated
2. Storage facilities that are licensed under ch. NR 502.
3. Storage facilities for category 1 industrial byproducts.
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, cff. 1-1-98.
NR 538.20 Environmental monitoring. (1) Trans-
portation facility embankments described in s. NR 538.10 (6) or
(7) shall be monitored in accordance with this section unless
otherwise approved by the department. The generator of the in-
dustrial byproduct used in the embankment shall be responsible
for ensuring that this monitoring is completed. The results of this
environmental monitoring shall be included in the annual certifi-
cation under s. NR 538.14 (2) (h). The department may require
environmental monitoring for other beneficial use projects sub-
ject to this chapter that do not meet the beneficial uses described
nis.NR538.10.
(2) FULLY ENCAPSULATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITY EMBANK-
MENTS. Environmental monitoring for embankments that are fully
encapsulated under s. NR 538.10 (6) shall be conducted as fol-
lows:
(a) One headwell shall be installed if less than 50,000 cubic
yards of industrial byproducts are used in the embankment. A sec-
ond headwell shall be installed if 50,000 cubic yards or more of
industrial byproducts are used in the embankment.
(b) The head elevation in each headwell shall be monitored
twice each year at least 4 months apart. If the head level on the
liner exceeds 2 feet, the department shall be notified. This notifi-
cation shall include an evaluation of the reason for the head level
build up and a proposed response to reduce the head level on the
liner.
(3) CAPPED TRANSPORTATION FACILITY EMBANKMENT. The en-
vironmental monitoring for embankments that are capped and not
lined under s. NR 538.10 (7), shall be conducted as follows:
(a) One basin lysimeter shall be installed with a collection area
of 100 square feet. The lysimeter shall be placed directly below
the industrial byproduct, and shall be located so that it will be be-
neath the thickest placement of the industrial byproduct.
(b) The volume of fluid collected in a basin lysimeter shall be
monitored and recorded twice each year at least 4 months apart.
If the volume of liquid collected in a basin lysimeter exceeds 375
gallons in one year the department shall be notified. This notifica-
tion shall include an evaluation as to the reason for the volume of
liquid being collected, an analysis of the liquid collected for all the
parameters listed Appendix I, Table 2A and a proposed response
to reduce the volume of liquid exfiltrating through the industrial
byproduct.
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, eft. 1-1-98.
NR 538.22 Property owner notification. (1) Written
notice shall be provided to the owners of property on which indus-
trial byproducts are utilized under this chapter for one or more of
the beneficial uses described under s. NR 538.10 (5) to (8). Cate-
gory 1 industrial byproducts are exempt from the requirements of
this section. The generator of the industrial byproduct, or a person
designated by the generator, shall provide the notice in accordance
with this section, unless the department approves an alternative
notice procedure. This notice shall be on a form provided by the
department or in a format approved by the department. Any prop-
erty owner receiving this notice shall retain this information and
provide this information to the next purchaser of the property.
(2) SMALL-SIZED BENEFICIAL USE PROJECTS. For projects that
utilize no more than 200 cubic yards of industrial byproducts, the
notification shall identify the category, type, volume of industrial
byproduct and describe where these materials were placed.
(3) MEDIUM-SIZED BENEFICIAL USE PROJECTS. For projects that
utilize more than 200 cubic yards but no more than 10,000 cubic
yards of industrial byproducts, the notification shall include the
information required in sub. (1), and a sketch or drawing that
shows the approximate boundaries of the areas where industrial
byproducts were used.
(4) LARGE-SIZED BENEFICIAL USE PROJECTS. For projects that
utilize more than 10,000 cubic yards of industrial byproducts, the
notification shall include an affidavit recorded with the register of
deeds, within 60 business days of completing the placement of the
industrial byproduct, indicating that industrial byproducts were
used on the properly, and an indication where the information re-
quired in subs. (1) and (2), may be obtained.
Note: Under s. 30.12 (4), Stats., highway and bridge projects affecting the waters
of the state that are carried out under the direction and supervision of the department
of transportation are exempt from department permit or approval requirements if ac-
complished in accordance with interdepartmental liaison procedures established by
the department of natural resources and the department of transportation.
144
Register, December 1997, No. 504
-------
NR 538.22 WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 164-8
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
APPENDIX I
Table 1A
Category 1 ASTM Water Leach Test
Standard
(ing/1)
1.5
0.0012
0.005
0.4
0.0004
0.0005
125
0.010
0.130
0.040
0.8
0.15
0.0015
.025
0.0002
0.05
0.020
2.0
1.2
0.010
0.010
125
0.0004
2.5
Parameter
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chloride (Cl)
Chromium. Tot. (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Total Cyanide
Fluoride (F)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Nitrite & Nitrate
(NO2+NO3-N)
Phenol
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sulfate
Thallium (Tl)
Zinc (Zn)
Ferrous
Foundry
Excess
System Sand
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ferrous
Foundry Slag
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coal Ash
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 As provided under s. NR 538.06 (1), the testing program .for materials other than ferrous foundry system sand, ferrous foundry slag and coal ash must be approved by the
department prior to characterization. For other materials the department may modify the list of parameters required to be analyzed for and may establish standards on a material
specific basis for additional parameters.
Note: All testing is to be conducted on a representative sample of a single industrial byproduct prior to commingling with other materials, unless otherwise approved by
the department.
Register, December, 1997, No. 504
145
-------
164-9 DEPARTMENT OF NATIJR AI, RESOURCES N R 538.22
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
Table IB
Category 1 Total Elemental Analysis
Standard
(mg/kg)
6.3
0.042
1100
0.014
1400
7.8
14.5
50
4.7
78
310
9400
78
9400
9400
1.3
110
4700
900
8.8
5000
0.088
0.0088
0.088
0.88
0.88
8.8
0.0088
600
600
0.088
8.8
8.8
600
0.88
500
Parameter
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium. Hex. (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Phenol
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Strontium (Sr)
Thallium (Tl)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthy lene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(ah)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene
1-methyl naphthalene
2-methyl naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Ferrous
Foundry Excess
System Sand
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ferrous
Foundry Slag
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coal Ash
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 As provided under s. 1\R 538.06 (1), the testing program for materials other than ferrous foundry system sand, ferrous foundry slag and coal ash must be approved by
the department prior to characterization. For other materials the department ma}' modify the list of parameters required to be analyzed for and may establish standards on
a material specific basis for additional parameters.
Note: All testing is to be conducted on a representative sample of a single industrial byproduct prior to commingling with other materials, unless otherwise approved by
the department.
146
Register, December 1997, No. 504
-------
NR 538.22 WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 164-10
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
Table 2A
Category 2 and 3 ASTM Water Leach Test
Standard
(mg/1)
15
0.012
0.05
4.0
0.004
0.005
1250
0.10
1.30
0.40
8.0
1.5
0.015
.25
0.002
0.20
20
12
0.10
0.10
1250
0.004
25
Parameter
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chloride (Cl)
Chromium. Tot,
(Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Total Cyanide
Fluoride (F)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Nitrite & Nitrate
(NO2+NO3-N)
Phenol
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sulfate
Thallium (Tl)
Zinc (Zn)
Ferrous Foundry
Excess System Sand
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ferrous Foundry Slag
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coal Ash
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 As provided under s. TX'R 538.06 (1), the testing program for materials other than ferrous ioundry system sand, ierrous foundry slag and coal ash must be approved by
the department prior to characterization. For other materials the department may modify the list of parameters required to be analyzed for and may establish standards on
a matena! specific basis for additional parameters.
Note: All testing is to be conducted on a representative sample of a single industrial byproduct prior to commingling with other materials, unless otherwise approved by
the department.
Register, December, 1997, No. 504
147
-------
164-11 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NR 538.22
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
Table 2B
Category 2 Total Elemental Analysis
Standard
(mg/kg)
21
7
44
4.4
44
4.4
44
1002
Parameter
Arsenic (As)
Beryllium (Be)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Ben/(a)anthracene
Ben/o(a)pyrene
Ben/o(b)fluoranlhene
Ben/o(ghi)perylene
B enzo (k) fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(ah)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(123-cd)pyrene
1 -methyl naphthalene
2-methyl naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
Ferrous
Foundry
Excess System
Sand
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ferrous
Foundry Slag
X
X
Coal Ash
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, phenol, selenium, silver, strontium, thallium, vanadium and zinc, unless otherwise approved by the department.
2 If total polyaromatic hydrocarbons exceed 100 mg^tg, department concurrence is necessary prior to classification as a category 2 industrial byproduct.
Note: All testing is to be conducted on a representative sample of a single industrial byproduct prior to commingling with other materials, unless otherwise approved by
the department.
148
Register, December 1997, No. 504
-------
NR WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
Table 3
Category 4 ASTM Water Leach Test
164-12
Standard
(mg/1)
0.03
0.25
10
0.02
0.025
2500
0.5
6.5
1
20
o
j
0.075
0.5
0.01
0.5
50
30
0.25
0.25
2500
0.01
50
Parameter
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chloride (Cl)
Chromium. Total (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Total Cyanide
Fluoride (F)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Nitrite & Nitrate
(NO2+NO3-N)
Phenol
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sulfate
Thallium (Tl)
Zinc (Zn)
Ferrous
Foundry Excess
System Sand
X
X
X
X
X
Ferrous
Foundry Slag
X
X
X
X
Coal Ash
X
X
X
X
X
Other1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 As provided under s. KR 538.06 (1), the testing program for materials other than ferrous foundry system sand, ferrous foundry slag and coal ash must be approved by
the department prior to characterization. For other materials the department may modify the list of parameters required to be analyzed for and may establish standards on
a material specific basis for additional parameters.
Note: All testing is to be conducted on a representative sample of a single industrial byproduct prior to commingling with other materials, unless otherwise approved by
the department.
Register, December, 1997, No. 504
149
-------
164-13 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NR 538.22
Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
Table 4
Beneficial Use Methods
(1) Raw Material for Manufacturing a Product
(2) Waste Stabilization / Solidification
(3) Supplemental Fuel Source / Energy Recovery
(4) Landfill Daily Cover / Internal Structures
(5) Confined Geotechnical Fill
(a) commercial, industrial or institutional
building subbase
(b) paved lot base, subbase & subgrade fill
(c) paved roadway base, subbase & subgrade fill
(d) utility trench backfill
(e) bridge abutment backfill
(f) tank, vault or tunnel abandonment
(g) slabjacking material
(6) Encapsulated Transportation Facility Embankment
(7) Capped Transportation Facility Embankment
(8) Unconfined Geotechnical Fill
(9) Unbonded Surface Course
(10) Bonded Surface Course
(11) Decorative Stone
(12) Cold Weather Road Abrasive
Note: General beneficial use in accordance with s. NR 538. 12 (3)
Industrial Byproduct Category
5
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: Refer to s. NR. 538.10 for description of each beneficial use
History: Cr. Register, December, 1997, No. 504, eff. 1-1-98.
150
Register, December 1997, No. 504
------- |