United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, DC 20460
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Superfund
EPA/540/2-91/008
May 1991
&EPA
Engineering Bulletin
Thermal Desorption Treatment
Purpose
Section 121 (b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to select remedies
that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maxi-
mum extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in
which treatment "permanently and significantly reduces the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollut-
ants and contaminants as a principal element." The Engi-
neering Bulletins are a series of documents that summarize
the latest information available on selected treatment and site
remediation technologies and related issues. They provide
summaries of and references for the latest information to help
remedial project managers, on-scene coordinators, contrac-
tors, and other site cleanup managers understand the type of
data and site characteristics needed to evaluate a technology
for potential applicability to their Superfund or other hazard-
ous waste site. Those documents that describe individual
treatment technologies focus on remedial investigation scoping
needs. Addenda will be issued periodically to update the
original bulletins.
Abstract
Thermal desorption is an ex situ means to physically
separate volatile and some semivolatile contaminants from
soil, sediments, sludges, and filter cakes. For wastes contain-
ing up to 10% organics or less, thermal desorption can be
used alone for site remediation. It also may find applications
in conjunction with other technologies or be appropriate to
specific operable units at a site.
Site-specific treatability studies may be necessary to
document the applicability and performance of a thermal
desorption system. The EPA contact indicated at the end of
this bulletin can assist in the definition of other contacts and
sources of information necessary for such treatability studies.
Thermal desorption is applicable to organic wastes and
generally is not used for treating metals and other inorganics.
Depending on the specific thermal desorption vendor se-
lected, the technology heats contaminated media between
200-1000°F, driving off water and volatile contaminants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agencf
;i 5. Ltory (P! r, .'
^': '-'••••• :: 12th Floor
Offgases may be burned in an afterburner, condensed to
reduce the volume to be disposed, or captured by carbon
adsorption beds.
Commercial-scale units exist and "are in operation. Ther-
mal desorption has been selected at approximately fourteen
Superfund sites [1]* [2]. Three Superfund Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation demonstrations are planned for the next year.
The final determination of the lowest cost alternative will
be more site-specific than process equipment dominated.
This bulletin provides information on the technology applica-
bility, limitations, the types of residuals produced, the latest
performance data, site requirements, the status of the tech-
nology, and sources for further information.
Technology Applicability
Thermal desorption has been proven effective in treating
contaminated soils, sludges, and various filter cakes. Chemi-
cal contaminants for which bench-scale through full-scale
treatment data exist include primarily volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), semivolatiles, and even higher boiling point
compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
[3][4][5][6]. The technology is not effective in separating
inorganics from the contaminated medium. Volatile metals,
however, may be removed by higher temperature thermal
desorption systems.
Some metals may be volatilized by the thermal desorp-
tion process as the contaminated medium is heated. The
presence of chlorine in the waste can also significantly affect
the volatilization of some metals, such as lead. Normally the
temperature of the medium achieved by the process does not
oxidize the metals present in the contaminated medium [7, p.
85].
The process is applicable for the separation of organics
from refinery wastes, coal tar wastes, wood-treating wastes,
creosote-contaminated soils, hydrocarbon-contaminated soils,
mixed (radioactive and hazardous) wastes, synthetic rubber
processing wastes, and paint wastes [8, p. 2][4][9].
Performance data presented in this bulletin should not be
considered directly applicable to other Superfund sites. A
number of variables, such as the specific mix and distribution
* [reference number, page number]
C0604-J
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Table 1
RCRA Codes for Wastes Treated
by Thermal Desorption
Wood Treating Wastes K001
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Float K048
Slop Oil Emulsion Solids K049
Heat Exchanger Bundles Cleaning Sludge K050
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Separator Sludge K051
Tank Bottoms (leaded) K052
Table 2
Effectiveness of Thermal Desorption on
General Contaminant Groups for Soil,
Sludge, Sediments, and Filter Cakes
Contaminant Croups
.0
s
o
Inorganic
¥
|
ce
Halogenated volatiles
Halogenated semivolatiles
Nonhalogenated volatiles
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
PCBs
Pesticides
Dioxins/Furans
Organic cyanides
Organic corrosives
Volatile metals
Nonvolatile metals
Asbestos
Radioactive materials
Inorganic corrosives
Inorganic cyanides
Oxidizers
Reducers
Effectiveness
Sedi- Filter
Soil Sludge merits Cakes
V
a
•
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
V
T
V
V
T
V
V
V
a
T
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
V
T
V
V
V
T
T
T
a
T
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
•
•
•
T
V
T
T
a
T
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
• Demonstrated Effectiveness: Successful treatability test at some scale
completed
T Potential Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will work
Q No Expected Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will not
work
of contaminants, affect system performance. A thorough
characterization of the site and a well-designed and con-
ducted treatability study are highly recommended.
Table 1 lists the codes for the specific Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes that have been treated
by this technology [8, p. 2][4][9]. The indicated codes were
derived from vendor data where the objective was to deter-
mine thermal desorption effectiveness for these specific in-
dustrial wastes. The effectiveness of thermal desorption on
general contaminant groups for various matrices is shown in
Table 2. Examples of constituents within contaminant groups
are provided in "Technology Screening Guide For Treatment
of CERCLA Soils and Sludges" [7, p. 10]. This table is based on
the current available information or professional judgment
where no information was available. The proven effectiveness
of the technology for a particular site or waste does not ensure
that it will be effective at all sites or that the treatment
efficiencies achieved will be acceptable at other sites. For the
ratings used for this table, demonstrated effectiveness means
that, at some scale, treatability was tested to show the tech-
nology was effective for that particular contaminant and me-
dium. The ratings of potential effectiveness or no expected
effectiveness are both based upon expert judgment. Where
potential effectiveness is indicated, the technology is believed
capable of successfully treating the contaminant group in a
particular medium. When the technology is not applicable or
will probably not work for a particular combination of con-
taminant group and medium, a no expected effectiveness
rating is given. Another source of general observations and
average removal efficiencies for different treatability groups is
contained in the Superfund Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
Guide #6A, "Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance
for Remedial Actions," (OSWER Directive 9347.3-06FS, Sep-
tember 1990) [10] and Superfund LDR Guide #6B, "Obtain-
ing a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Removal Ac-
tions," (OSWER Directive 9347.3-06BFS, September 1990)
[11].
Limitations
The primary technical factor affecting thermal desorption
performance is the maximum bed temperature achieved. Since
the basis of the process is physical removal from the medium
by volatilization, bed temperature directly determines which
organics will be removed.
The contaminated medium must contain at least 20 per-
cent solids to facilitate placement of the waste material into
the desorption equipment [3, p. 9]. Some systems specify a
minimum of 30 percent solids [12, p. 6].
As the medium is heated and passes through the kiln or
desorber, energy is lost in heating moisture contained in the
contaminated soil. A very high moisture content can result in
low contaminant volatilization or a need to recycle the soil
through the desorber. High moisture content, therefore,
causes increased treatment costs.
Material handling of soils that are tightly aggregated or
largely clay, or that contain rock fragments or particles greater
than 1-1.5 inches can result in poor processing performance
due to caking. Also, if a high fraction of fine silt or clay exists
in the matrix, fugitive dusts will be generated [7, p. 83] and a
greater dust loading will be placed on the downstream air
pollution control equipment [12, p. 6].
The treated medium will typically contain less than 1
percent moisture. Dust can easily form in the transfer of the
treated medium from the desorption unit, but can be mitigated
by water sprays. Normally, clean water from air pollution
control devices can be used for this purpose.
Although volatile organics are the primary target of the
thermal desorption technology, the total organic loading is
limited by some systems to up to 10 percent or less [13, p. II-
Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment
-------
30]. As in most systems that use a reactor or other equipment
to process wastes, a medium exhibiting a very high pH (greater
than 11) or very low pH (less than 5) may corrode the system
components [7, p. 85].
There is evidence with some system configurations that
polymers may foul and/or plug heat transfer surfaces [3, p. 9].
Laboratory/field tests of thermal desorption systems have
documented the deposition of insoluble brown tars (presum-
ably phenolic tars) on internal system components [14, p.
76].
High concentrations of inorganic constituents and/or
metals will likely not be effectively treated by thermal desorp-
tion. The maximum bed temperature and the presence of
chlorine can result in volatilization of some inorganic constitu-
ents in the waste, however.
Technology Description
Thermal desorption is any of a number of processes that
use either indirect or direct heat exchange to vaporize organic
contaminants from soil or sludge. Air, combustion gas, or
inert gas is used as the transfer medium for the vaporized
components. Thermal desorption systems are physical sepa-
ration processes and are not designed to provide high levels
of organic destruction, although the higher temperatures of
some systems will result in localized oxidation and/or pyroly-
sis. Thermal desorption is not incineration, since the destruc-
tion of organic contaminants is not the desired result. The
bed temperatures achieved and residence times designed
into thermal desorption systems will volatilize selected con-
taminants, but typically not oxidize or destroy them. System
performance is typically measured by comparison of untreated
soil/sludge contaminant levels with those of the processed
soil/sludge. Soil/sludge is typically heated to 200 - 1000° F,
based on the thermal desorption system selected.
Figure 1 is a general schematic of the thermal desorption
process.
Waste material handling (1) requires excavation of the
contaminated soil or sludge or delivery of filter cake to the
system. Typically, large objects greater than 1.5 inches are
screened from the medium and rejected. The medium is then
delivered by gravity to the desorber inlet or conveyed by
augers to a feed hopper [8, p. 1].
Significant system variation exists in the desorption step
(2). The dryer can be an indirectly fired rotary asphalt kiln, a
single (or set of) internally heated screw auger(s), or a series of
externally heated distillation chambers. The latter process
uses annular augers to move the medium from one volatiliza-
tion zone to the next. Additionally, testing and demonstration
data exist for a fluidized-bed desorption system [12].
The waste is intimately contacted with a heat transfer
surface, and highly volatile components (including water) are
driven off. An inert gas, such as nitrogen, may be injected in a
countercurrent sweep stream to prevent contaminant com-
bustion and to vaporize and remove the contaminants [8, p.
1][4]. Other systems simply direct the hot gas stream from
the desorption unit [3, p. 5][5].
The actual bed temperature and residence time are the
primary factors affecting performance in thermal desorption.
These parameters are controlled in the desorption unit by
using a series of increasing temperature zones [8, p. 1], mul-
tiple passes of the medium through the desorber where the
operating temperature is sequentially increased, separate
compartments where the heat transfer fluid temperature is
higher, or sequential processing into higher temperature zones
[15][16]. Heat transfer fluids used to date include hot com-
bustion gases, hot oil, steam, and molten salts.
Offgas from desorption is typically processed (3) to re-
move particulates. Volatiles in the offgas may be burned in an
afterburner, collected on activated carbon, or recovered in
condensation equipment. The selection of the gas treatment
system will depend on the concentrations of the contaminants,
cleanup standards, and the economics of the offgas treat-
ment system(s) employed.
Figure 1
Schematic Diagram of Thermal Desorption
Clean Offgas
Spent
Carbon
Concentrated Contaminants
Water
Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment
-------
Process Residuals
Operation of thermal desorption systems typically cre-
ates up to six process residual streams: treated medium,
oversized medium rejects, condensed contaminants and wa-
ter, particulate control system dust, clean offgas, and spent
carbon (if used). Treated medium, debris, and oversized
rejects may be suitable for return onsite.
Condensed water may be used as a dust suppressant for
the treated medium. Scrubber purge water can be purified
and returned to the site wastewater treatment facility (if
available), disposed to the sewer [3, p. 8] [8, p. 2] [4, p. 2], or
used for rehumidification and cooling of the hot, dusty me-
dia. Concentrated, condensed organic contaminants are
containerized for further treatment or recovery.
Dust collected from particulate control devices may be
combined with the treated medium or, depending on analy-
ses for carryover contamination, recycled through the des-
orption unit.
Clean offgas is released to the atmosphere. If used, spent
carbon may be recycled by the original supplier or other such
processor.
Site Requirements
Thermal desorption systems are transported typically on
specifically adapted flatbed semitrailers. Since most systems
consist of three components (desorber, particulate control,
and gas treatment), space requirements on site are typically
less than 50 feet by 150 feet, exclusive of materials handling
and decontamination areas.
Standard 440V, three-phase electrical service is needed.
Water must be available at the site. The quantity of water
needed is vendor and site specific.
Treatment of contaminated soils or other waste materials
require that a site safety plan be developed to provide for
personnel protection and special handling measures. Storage
should be provided to hold the process product streams until
they have been tested to determine their acceptability for
disposal or release. Depending upon the site, a method to
store waste that has been prepared for treatment may be
necessary. Storage capacity will depend on waste volume.
Table 3
PCB Contaminated Soils
Pilot X'TRAX™ [4]
Matrix
Clay
Silty Clay
Clay
Sandy
Clay
Feed
(ppm)
5,000
2,800
1,600
1,480
630
Product
(ppm)
24
19
4.8
8.7
17
Removal
(%)
99.3
99.5
99.7
99.1
97.3
Onsite analytical equipment capable of determining site-
specific organic compounds for performance assessment make
the operation more efficient and provide better information
for process control.
Performance Data
Several thermal desorption vendors report performance
data for their respective systems ranging from laboratory
treatability studies to full-scale operation at designated
Superfund sites [17][9][18]. The quality of this information
has not been determined. These data are included as a
general guideline to the performance of thermal desorption
equipment, and may not be directly transferrable to a specific
Superfund site. Good site characterization and treatability
studies are essential in further refining and screening the
thermal desorption technology.
Chem Waste Management's (CWM's) X*TRAX™ System
has been tested at laboratory and pilot scale. Pilot tests were
performed at CWM's Kettleman Hills facility in California.
Twenty tons of PCB- and organic-contaminated soils were
processed through the 5 TPD pilot system. Tables 3 and 4
present the results of PCB separation from soil and total
hydrocarbon emissions from the system, respectively [4].
During a non-Superfund project for the Department of
Defense, thermal desorption was used in a full-scale demon-
stration at the Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma. The success
of this project led to the patenting of the process by Weston
Services, Inc. Since then, Weston has applied its low-tem-
perature thermal treatment (LT3) system to various contami-
nated soils at bench-scale through full-scale projects [19].
Table 5 presents a synopsis of system and performance data
for a full-scale treatment of soil contaminated with No. 2 fuel
oil and gasoline at a site in Illinois.
Canonie Environmental has extensive performance data
for its Low Temperature Thermal Aeration (LTTASM) system at
full-scale operation (15-20 cu. yds. per hour). The LTTASM has
been applied at the McKin (Maine), Ottati and Goss (New
Hampshire) and Cannon Engineering Corp. (Massachusetts)
Superfund sites. Additionally, the LTTASM has been used at
the privately-funded site in South Kearney (New Jersey). Table
Table 4
Pilot X'TRAX™
TSCA Testing - Vent Emissions [4]
Total Hydrocarbons
(ppm-V)
Before
Carbon
1,320
1,031
530
2,950
2,100
After
Carbon
57
72
35
170
180
Removal
(%)
95.6
93.0
93.3
94.2
91.4
voc
(Ibi/day)
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.07
0.08
PCB'
(mg/m3)
<0.00056
<0.00055
<0.00051
<0.00058
<0.00052
*Note: OSHA permits 0.50 mg/m3 PCB (1254) for 8-hr
exposure.
Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment
-------
6 presents a summary of Canonie LTTASM data [5]. The Can-
non Engineering (Mass) site, which was not included in Table
6, successfully treated a total of 11,330 tons of soil, containing
approximately 1803 Ibs. of VOC [20].
T.D.I. Services, Inc. has demonstrated its HT-5 Thermal
Distillation Process at pilot- and full-scale for a variety of RCRA-
listed and other wastes that were prepared to simulate Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute (API) refinery sludge [8]. The com-
pany has conducted pilot- and full-scale testing with the API
sludge to demonstrate the system's ability to meet Land Ban
Disposal requirements for K048 through K052 wastes. Inde-
pendent evaluation by Law Environmental confirms that the
requirements were met, except for TCLP levels of nickel,
which were blamed on a need to "wear-in" the HT-5 system
[21, p. ii].
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (ReTec) has performed
numerous tests on RCRA-listed petroleum refinery wastes.
Table 7 presents results from treatment of refinery vacuum
Table 5
Full-Scale Performance Results
for the LT3 System [19]
Contaminant
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Ethyl benzene
Napthalene
Carcinogenic
Priority PNAs
Non-carcinogenic
Priority PNAs
Soil Range
(ppb)
1000
24000
110000
20000
4900
<6000
890-6000
Treated Range
(PP^
5.2
5.2
<1.0
4.8
<330
<330-590
<330-450
Range of
Removal
Efficiency
99.5
99.9
>99.9
99.9
>99.3
<90.2-94.5
<62.9-94.5
Table 6
Summary Results of the LTTASM
Full-Scale Cleanup Tests [5]
Site
S. Kearney
McKin
Ottati &
Coss
Processed
1 6000 tons
>9SOO cu yds
2000 cu yds
4500 cu yds
Contam-
inant
VOCs
PAHs
VOCs
PAHs
VOCs
Soil
(ppm)
1 77.0 (avg.)
35.31 (avg.)
ND-3310
1500 (avg.)
Treated
(ppm)
0.87 (avg.)
10.1 (avg.)
ND-0.04
<10
<0.2 (avg.)
Table 7
ReTec Treatment Results-Refinery
Vacuum Filter Cake (A) [3]
Table 8
ReTec Treatment Results-Creosote
Contaminated Clay [3]
Compound
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(ab)antracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
lndeno(1 23-cd)pyrene
Treatment Temperature:
Original
Sample
(ppm)
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
10.49
46.50
9.80
73.94
158.37
56.33
64.71
105.06
225.37
1 74.58
477.44
163.53
122.27
450°F
Treated
Sample
(ppm)
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.43
<0.1
2.17
3.64
1.89
10.25
5.09
4.16
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
—
...
—
>98.9
>99.3
>96.6
>99.8
>99.9
97.5
>99.9
97.9
98.4
98.9
97.8
96.6
96.6
Compound
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(ab)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
lndeno(1 23-cd)pyrene
Treatment Temperature:
Original
Sample
(ppm)
1321
<0.1
293
297
409
113
553
495
59
46
14
14
15
<0.1
7
3
500°F
Treated Removal
Sample Efficiency
(ppm) (%)
<0.1 >99.9
<0.1
<0.1 >99.96
<0.1 >99.96
1.6 99.6
<0.1 >99.7
1.5 99.7
2.0 99.6
<0.1 >99.99
<0.1 >99.8
2.5 82.3
<0.1 >99.8
<0.1 >99.9
<0.1
<0.1 >99.4
<0.1 >99.3
Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment
-------
Table 9
ReTec Treatment Results-Coal Tar
Contaminated Soils [3]
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Xylenes
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
lndeno(1 23-cd)pyrene
Treatment Temperature:
Original
Sample
(ppm)
1.7
2.3
1.6
6.3
367
114
223
112
214
110
56
58
45
35
47
24
27
450°F
Treated
Sample
(ppm)
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.3
<1.7
<0.2
18
7.0
15
11
<1.4
3.7
<1.4
<2.1
<0.9
<1.1
<6.2
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
>94
>95
>93
>95
>99
>99
91.9
93.8
93.0
90.0
>97
93.6
>97
>94
>98
>95
>77
filter cake. Tests with creosote-contaminated clay and coal
tar-contaminated soils showed significant removal efficiencies
(Tables 8 and 9). All data were obtained through use of
ReTec's 100 Ib/h pilot scale unit processing actual industrial
process wastes [3].
Recycling Sciences International, Inc. (formerly American
Toxic Disposal, Inc.) has tested its Desorption and Vaporiza-
tion Extraction System (DAVES), formerly called the Vaporiza-
tion Extraction System (VES), at Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.
The pilot-scale test demonstrated PCB removal from material
containing up to 250 parts per million (ppm) to levels less
than 2 ppm [12].
RCRA LDRs that require treatment of wastes to best dem-
onstrated available technology (BOAT) levels prior to land
disposal may sometimes be determined to be applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements for CERCLA response
actions. Thermal desorption can produce a treated waste
that meets treatment levels set by BOAT but may not reach
these treatment levels in all cases. The ability to meet re-
quired treatment levels is dependent upon the specific waste
constituents and the waste matrix. In cases where thermal
desorption does not meet these levels, it still may, in certain
situations, be selected for use at the site if a treatability
variance establishing alternative treatment levels is obtained.
Treatability variances are justified for handling complex soil
and debris matrices. The following guides describe when and
how to seek a treatability variance for soil and debris:
Superfund LDR Guide #6A, "Obtaining a Soil and Debris
Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions" (OSWER Directive
9347.3-06FS, September 1990) [10], and Superfund LDR Guide
#6B, "Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for
Removal Actions" (OSWER Directive 9347.3-06BFS, Septem-
ber 1990) [11]. Another approach could be to use other
treatment techniques in series with thermal desorption to
obtain desired treatment levels.
Technology Status
Significant theoretical research is ongoing [22][23], as
well as direct demonstration of thermal desorption through
both treatability testing and full-scale cleanups.
A successful pilot-scale demonstration of Japanese soils
"roasting" was conducted in 1980 for the recovery of mercury
from highly contaminated (up to 15.6 percent) soils at a plant
site in Tokyo. The high concentration of mercury made
recovery and refinement to commercial grade (less than 99.99
percent purity) economically feasible [24].
In this country, thermal desorption technologies are the
selected remedies for one or more operable units at fourteen
Superfund sites. Table 10 lists each site's location, primary
contaminants, and present status [1 ][2].
Most of the hardware components of thermal desorption
are available off the shelf and represent no significant problem
of availability. The engineering and configuration of the
systems are similarly refined, such that once a system is de-
signed full-scale, little or no prototyping or redesign is required.
On-line availability of the full-scale systems described in
this bulletin is not documented. However, since the ex situ
system can be operated in batch mode, it is expected that
component failure can be identified and spare components
fitted quickly for minimal downtime.
Several vendors have documented processing costs per
ton of feed processed. The overall range varies from $80 to
$350 per ton processed [6][4, p. 12][5][3, p. 9]. Caution is
recommended in using costs out of context because the base
year of the estimates vary. Costs also are highly variable due
to the quantity of waste to be processed, term of the reme-
diation contract, moisture content, organic constituency of
the contaminated medium, and cleanup standards to be
achieved. Similarly, cost estimates should include such items
as preparation of Work Plans, permitting, excavation, pro-
cessing itself, QA/QC verification of treatment performance,
and reporting of data.
EPA Contact
Technology-specific questions regarding thermal desorp-
tion may be directed to:
Michael Gruenfeld
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Releases Control Branch
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Bldg. 10(MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08837
FTS 340-6625 or (908) 321 -6625
Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment
-------
Table 10
Superfund Sites Specifying Thermal Desorption as the Remedial Action
Site Location Primary Contaminants Status
Cannon Engineering
(Bridgewater Site)
McKin
Ottati & Coss
Wide Beach
Metaltec/Aerosystems
Caldwell Trucking
Outboard Marine/
Waukegan Harbor
Reich Farms
Re-Solve
Waldick Aerospace
Devices
Wamchem
Fulton Terminals
Stauffer Chemical
Stauffer Chemical
Bridgewater, MA (1 )
McKin, ME(1)
New Hampshire (1)
Brandt, NY (2)
Franklin Borough, NJ (2)
Fair-field, Nj (2)
Waukegan Harbor, IL (5)
Dover Township, NJ (02)
North Dartmouth, MA (1 )
New Jersey (2)
Burton, SC (4)
Fulton, NY (2)
Cold Creek, AL (4)
Le Moyne, AL (4)
VOCs (Benzene, TCE &
Vinyl Chloride)
VOCs (TCE, BTX)
VOCs (TCE; PCE; 1, 2-DCA,
and Benzene)
PCBs
TCE and VOCs
VOCs (TCE, PCE, and TCA)
PCBs
VOCs and Semivolatiles
PCBs
TCE and PCE
BTX and SVOCs
(Naphthalene)
VOCs (Xylene, Styrene, TCE,
Ethylbenzene, Toluene) and
some PAHs
VOCs and pesticides
VOCs and pesticides
Project completed 1 0/90
Project completed 2/87
Project completed 9/89
In design
• pilot study available 5/91
In design
• remedial design complete
• remediation starting Fall '91
In design
In design
• treatability studies complete
Pre-design
In design
• pilot study June/July '91
In design
In design
• pilot study available 5/91
Pre-design
Pre-design
Pre-design
Acknowledgements
This bulletin was prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
(ORD), Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, by Science Applications International Corpora-
tion (SAIC) under contract no. 68-C8-0062. Mr. Eugene
Harris served as the EPA Technical Project Monitor. Mr. Gary
Baker (SAIC) was the Work Assignment Manager and author
of this bulletin. The author is especially grateful to Mr. Don
Oberacker, Ms. Pat Lafornava, and Mr. Paul de Percin of EPA,
RREL, who have contributed significantly by serving as tech-
nical consultants during the development of this document.
The following other Agency and contractor personnel
have contributed their time and comments by participating in
the expert review meetings and/or peer reviewing the docu-
ment:
Dr. James Cudahy
Mr. James Cummings
Dr. Steve Lanier
Focus Environmental, Inc.
EPA-OERR
Energy and Environmental
Research Corp.
Ms. Evelyn Meagher-Hartzell SAIC
Mr. James Rawe SAIC
Ms. Tish Zimmerman EPA-OERR
Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment
-------
REFERENCES
1. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status
Report, EPA/540/2-91/001, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Technology Innovation Office, Jan. 1991.
2. Personal communications with various EPA Regional
Project Managers, April, 1991.
3. Abrishamian, Ramin. Thermal Treatment of Refinery
Sludges and Contaminated Soils. Presented at Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute, Orlando, Florida, 1990.
4. Swanstrom, C, and C. Palmer. X*TRAX™ Transportable
Thermal Separator for Organic Contaminated Solids.
Presented at Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and Interna-
tional, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1990.
5. Canonic Environmental Services Corp, Low Temperature
Thermal Aeration (LTTASM) Marketing Brochures, circa
1990.
6. Nielson, R., and M. Cosmos. Low Temperature Thermal
Treatment (LT3) of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Soil: A Technology Demonstrated. Presented at the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Meeting,
Denver, Colorado, 1988.
7. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA
Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1988.
8. T.D.I. Services, Marketing Brochures, circa 1990.
9. Cudahy, J., and W. Troxler. 1990. Thermal Remedia-
tion Industry Update - II. Presented at Air and Waste
Management Association Symposium on Treatment of
Contaminated Soils, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1990.
10. Superfund LDR Guide #6A: (2nd Edition) Obtaining a
Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial
Actions. Superfund Publication 9347.3-06FS, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
11. Superfund LDR Guide #6B: Obtaining a Soil and Debris
Treatability Variance for Removal Actions. Superfund
Publication 9347.3-06BFS, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1990.
12. Recycling Sciences International, Inc., DAVES Marketing
Brochures, circa 1990.
13. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program — Progress and Accomplishments Fiscal Year
1989, A Third Report to Congress, EPA/540/5-90/001,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
14. Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts. EPA/
540/2-89/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1989.
15. Soil Tech, Inc., AOSTRA - Taciuk Processor Marketing
Brochure, circa 1990.
16. Ritcey, R., and F. Schwartz. Anaerobic Pyrolysis of
Waste Solids and Sludges — The AOSTRA Taciuk Process
System. Presented at Environmental Hazards Confer-
ence and Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1990.
17. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program: Technology Profiles. EPA/540/5-89/013, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.
18. Johnson, N., and M. Cosmos. Thermal Treatment
Technologies for Haz Waste Remediation. Pollution
Engineering, XXI(11): 66-85, 1989.
19. Weston Services, Inc, Project Summaries (no date).
20. Canonie Environmental Services Corporation, Draft
Remedial Action Report - Cannons Bridgewater
Superfund Site, February 1991.
21. Onsite Engineering Report for Evaluation of the HT-5
High Temperature Distillation System for Treatment of
Contaminated Soils — Treatability Test Results for a
Simulated K051 API Separator Sludge, Vol 1: Executive
Summary, Law Environmental, 1990.
22. Lighty, J., et al. The Cleanup of Contaminated Soil by
Thermal Desorption. Presented at Second International
Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste
Management. EPA/600/9-87/018f, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1987. pp. 29-34.
23. Fox, R., et al. Soil Decontamination by Low-Tempera-
ture Thermal Separation. Presented at the DOE Model
Conference, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1989.
24. Ikeguchi, T., and S. Gotoh. Thermal Treatment of
Contaminated Soil with Mercury. Presented at Demon-
stration of Remedial Action Technologies for Contami-
nated Land and Groundwater, NATO/CCMS Second
International Conference, Bilthoven, the Netherlands,
1988. pp. 290-301.
8
Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment
------- |