EPA/540/2-89/018
SUPERFUNDTREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
AFESC, Tyndall AFB. "Full Scale Rotary Kiln Incinerator Field Trial: Phase I,
Verification Trial Burn on Dioxin/Herbicide Orange Contaminated Soil." Internal
technical report. 21 pp. Undated.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Superfund Treatabllity Clearinghouse - EUZH
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITT CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process:
Media:
Document Reference:
Document Type:
Contact:
Site Name:
Location of Test:
Thermal Treatment - Rotary Kiln Incineration
Soil/Sandy
AFESC, Tyndall AFB. "Full Scale Rotary Kiln
Incinerator Field Trial: Phase I, Verification Trial
Burn on Dioxin/Herbicide Orange Contaminated Soil."
Internal technical report. 21 pp. Undated.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Major Terry Stoddart
U.S. DOD/AFESC
Bldg. 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, MS
(Non-NPL - Federal facility)
Gulfport, MS
BACKGROUND; This treatability study reports on the results of one of a series
of field trials using various remedial action technologies that may be capable
of restoring Herbicide Orange (HO)XDioxin contaminated sites. A full-scale
field trial using a rotary kiln incinerator capable of processing up to 6 tons
per hour of dioxin contaminated soil was conducted at the Naval Construction
Battalion Center, Gulfport, MS.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; Concentrations of HO on the site range from less
than 0.1 ppb to over 500 ppb. It was estimated that a total of 11,000 tons of
sandy or sandy loam soils contaminated with HO could be excavated and treated.
The ENESCO mobile incinerator used in the test was capable of treating 100
tons of dioxin contaminated soil daily. The system successfully demonstrated
99.9999% Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE) for PCB and Dioxin surrogates.
In the incinerator, the soil was heated to 1000-1800°F in the rotary kiln
which burned or volatilized all the gases. The gases were then drawn into a
secondary combustion chamber (SCC) operated at 2000-2400°F for 2.2 seconds in
an excess 0« atmosphere to ensure complete combustion.
The residence time of the contaminated soil in the rotary kiln could be
varied from 30 to 60 minutes by altering the kilns rotation speed and/or the
angle of attack. Air pollution control equipment on the system included
cyclones for particulate control, a packed tower, a scrubber and a 35 foot
stack. The packed tower removed HCL from the gas stream. The scrubber was
designed to remove additional HCL and larger particulates (>3 microns).
PERFORMANCE; The trial burns were structured to evaluate system performance
at various feed rates to ensure the mobile incinerator could be operated over
a range of conditions with minimal environmental impacts. A total of five
individual tests were conducted with contaminated soil feed rates ranging from
2.6 to 6.3 tons/hour. The unit would be brought to steady state temperatures
and the sampling of the feedstock, treated soil and stack gases would be
3/89-14 Document Number: EUZH
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
initiated. The "running time" of each test was dictated by the time required
to collect a stack gas sample. The results of five different trial runs
revealed that the incinerator is capable of removing dioxin and HO from the
soil matrix to concentrations not detectable at 10 ug/kg (10 ppb). The
results of a test run are shown in Table 1. The only operational problem
resulted from wet soil from heavy rains. Soil drying would solve the problem.
EPA dioxin protocols from SW 846 were followed. These tests were con-
sidered successful and follow up tests on incinerator reliability, maintain-
ability, and cost effectiveness are planned. The treated soils should be
delis table under RCRA based on the data.
CONTAMINANTS:
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The breakdown
of the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W02-Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
W03-Halogenated Phenols,
Cresols and Thiols
CAS Number
93-76-5
94-75-7
1746-01-6
F1746-01-6
OCDD
95-95-4
34DCP
Contaminants
2,4,5-Tri chlorophenoxyacet i c
acid (2,4,5-T)
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid (2,4-D)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
furan
Octachlorobenzodioxins
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
3,4-Dichlorophenol
Note: This is a partial listing of data.
information.
Refer to the document for more
3/89-14 Document Number: EUZH
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
TABU: i
RESULTS or CHEMICAL. ABALYSES OF SOIL
TREATED IB ROTART KIIJI
(Concentration as uq/kg)
Test 1
2.82 tons/hr)
Feed Treated
Analyte
2,4,D
2,4, 5-T
2,4,5 Trichorophenol
3 , 4-Dichlorophenol
TCDD
OCDD
TCDF
56,000
100,000
1,600
ND(330)
32.1
0.70
0.45
ND (20)
ND (2)
ND (1600)
ND (330)
ND ( .0015)
0.0024
ND ( .00085)
Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
(3.64 tons/hr) (3.71 tons/hr) (5.22 tons/hr) (6.31 tons/hr)
Feed
3,300,000
510,000
3,700
ND (330)
54.2
0.64
0.49
Treated Feed
ND (20) 120,000
ND (2) 220,000
ND (1600) 3,600
ND (330) ND (330)
ND (.0015) 38.0
0.00437 0.72
0.0129 0.58
Treated Feed
ND (20) 23,000
ND (2) 47,000
ND (1600) 8,000
ND (330) ND (330)
ND ( .00089) 45.8
0.0193 0.80
0.0160 0.66
Treated Feed
ND (20) 400,000
ND (2) 840,000
ND (1600) 5,700
ND (330) 370
ND (.0022) 60.6
0.0227 1.2
0.0067 1.2
Treated
ND (20)
ND (2)
ND (1600)
ND (330)
ND ( .0025)
0.0116
0.0108
ND = Not Detected At The Indicated Limit
3/89-14
Document Number: EUZH
HOTE: Quality assurance of data Bay not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
FULL SCALE ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR FIELD TRIAL:
PHASE I, VERIFICATION TRIAL BURN ON DIOXIN/HERBICIDE ORANGE
CONTAMINATED SOIL
BY
MAJOR TERRY L STODDART
AND
MR JEFFREY J. SHORT
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE ENGINEERING AND SERVICES CENTER
ENVIRONICS DIVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING BRANCH
TYMDALL AFE, FL 32403
-------
ABSTRACT
The Air Force Engineering and Services Center is currently conducting
a series of field trials (site demonstrations) employing a variety of
currently available remedial action technologies that may be capable
of restoring Herbicide Orange/Dioxin contaminated sites.As part of
this continuing research program the Air Force is conducting a
full-scale field trial at the Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Gulfport, MS. This test will employ a full scale rotary kiln
incinerator capable of processing up to 6 tons per hour of dioxin
contaminated soils.The results of 5 verification trial burns reported
here indicate that the incinerator is capable of removing dioxin and
Herbicide Orange from the soil matrix to concentrations not
detectable at 10 ug/kg. Future plans call for the unit to thermally
treat 11000 tons of contaminated soil to support reliability,
maintainability, and cost-effectiveness studies.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Background
Herbicide Orange (HO) was used as a tactical military •
defoliant in Southeast Asia until 1971 wnen DOB suspended "its---
use due to suspected health risks (Reference 1). The formula
was a 5G/50 mixture of the herbicides 2, U-dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid (2,'I-D) and 2 , 4 , 5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T).
Trace amounts of 2 , 3 , 7 , 3-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
contaminated HO during the production of 2,4,5-T. The average
concentration of TCDD in HO was about 2 parts per million
(Reference 2).
lir.s barrel^ of .icroiciae were storea and shipped to the
theater from the N'aval Construction Battalion Center (NCBC) in
Gulfport, Mississippi, after its ban, 1.37 million gallons of
herbicide from Southeast Asia was placed in storage at Johnston
Island (JI). Another 850, COO gallons were in storage at NCBC.
The remaining 2.22 million gallons were destroyed in 1977 by
incineration at sea (Operation PACER HC).
Following PACER HO, USAF OEHL initiated site sampling at JI,
;iC5C and iglin A.rB, Florida —wnere HO was application tested--
to monitor migration and degradation of HO and its associated
dioxin. The JI and ;:CLC sites were contaminated with 2,M,5-T,
2,4-D, and TCDD as a result of spills of the riO during storage
and handling. In 1QoO, the Environmental Quality Division of
the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/.'JIQ) directed that the HO
sites be returned to full and beneficial use. The Environics
Division of^ the Air Force Engineering and Services Center
(AFESC/RDVv.) was tasked to evaluate and develop management
techniques to restore the sites and reduce impacts of the
contamination.
The Air Force contracted with the Idaho national Engineering
Laboratory (Department of Energy), operated by EG&G Idaho, to
field demonstrate innovative site restoration technologies. As a
part of this research program EG&G subcontracted with the ENSCC
Corp. to conduct a full-scale demonstration of a modular,
transportable, rotary-kiln incinerator at NCEC. Pilot-scale
technology demonstrations at iiCoC include the Huber Corporation
Advanced Electric Reactor (in press) and the I.T. Corporation
Inermal Desorption/Ultraviolet process (in pre_ss).
This paper will review the preliminary analytical results of
the set-up and trial ourn of contaminated soil at ;JC13C with the
E.'JSCO transportable incinerator. The field trial, which
includes a heavily documented validation test burn, will treat
approximately 11,000 tons of contaminated soil. This full-scale
field trial will allow tne Air Force to determine the efficacy,
reliability, and costs associated witn the use of an incinerator
to reclaim contaminated sites.
-------
Site Description
NCBC is located northwest of Gulfport, Mississippi
approximately two miles from the Gulf of llexico. The elevation
averages 30 feet above sea level. The HO storage area comprises
nearly 18 acres of flat sand and sandy loam type soils. The
soils at the site were mixed with Portland cement about 30; years
ago to provide a hardened surface for heavy equipment operation
and storage.
Beginning in April 19
-------
' I
i j
1
1 Steam
dium
i — u
1
Uafce-t
•
ip «••!•»
1 i
I 1
Irn
\
— i
o«
Packed
Elector »c(ubt>«f
Concentre t«a
•aH (Olution
Stack
Figure 1. Schcnatlc flow dlagraa of MWP-2000.
-------
The soil is heated to 1000-1800 degrees F. in the rotary
kiln which will burn or volatilize all combustibles. Ine
treated soil will then exits the rotary kiln falls into a
water-sealed, treated soil quencher. A chain-drag conveyor
discharges the soil into a large, roll-off bin. The soil is
held for analysis to ensure no residual contaminants exist. The
soil is returned to an excavated area when determined to-be
clean.
Meanwhile, the off-gas from the rotary kiln is drawn into
the secondary combustion chamber (SCO, where it is subjected to
temperatures of 2000 to 2400 degrees F. for a minimum residence
time of 2.2 seconds in an excess oxygen atmospnere. The 3CC
ensures complete destruction of organic gases. Acidic brine
produced at the scrubber is passed through tandem activated
carbon filters and neutralized.
Gases from the SCC then pass into the waste heat boiler to
produce steam for use downstream in the ejector scrubber. Frpm
the boiler, the gases tnen pass into the quench sump, which
reduces the off-gas temperature for subsequent processing in the
packed tower.
The packed tower removes 99 percent of the acid gases from
the released combustion air. In the packed tower, the gases
flow upward through tne tower and are scrubbed Dy a
countercurrent flow of water.
From the packed tower, the off-gas is drawn into the ejector
scrubber. That device, whicn operates similar to an ejection
pump, provides the prime motive force for moving the off-gases
and helps scrub particulates from the off-gas. Steam generated
in the wast« neat boiler serves as the motive fluid. The clean
off-gas then is forced up tne 25 foot stack.
System Description
The residence time of the waste in the system is varied from
30 to 60 minutes by altering the speed, the angle of tne kiln,
or the number and location of internal refractory darns. The
temperature of the rotary kiln is high enough to remove ICDD
from the soil matrix by volatilization of all organics into the
off-gas. Kiln temperature is controlled by adjusting fuel flow,
combustion air and soil input. At JCBC the system is modified
for natural gas. The single gas-fired burner produces a minimum
14 million British Thermal Units per hour (mETU/h). Wet soil
substantially affects kiln temperature, and consequently, the
quantity of throughput.
The off-gases from tne kiln pass through dual cyclones to
separate the fine particulates. The particulates settle out
into the treated soil receiving tank. This tank receives the
ash from the lower end of tne rotary kiln. Treated soil is
discharged into a bellows-sealed creaching at the lower end of
the In into the tank. This tank is filled with water to a
-------
level above the discharge opening of the -oreaching providing a
water seal and preventing escape of gases. A chain-drag
conveyor removes the treated asn from the receiving tank and
transfers it to a storage bin. Large (20 cubic yard) roll-off
bins are used to hold the treated soil until analysis verifies
that it contains no contaminants.
The purpose of the SCC is to completely burn the waste
off-gas containing TCDD into simple combustion products: water,
carbon dioxide and hydrochloric acid (HCL). The SCC uses a 24
mBTU vortex burner designed to produce a short, turbulent
flame. Additionally, combustion air is introduced into the SCC
to ensure maximum turbulence and optimal burning of the TCDD.
The gases exit tne SCC through into the waste heat exchanger
(boiler) through a duct equipped with an emergency vent in case
of loss of coolant water.
The purpose of the waste heat boiler is to produce 8400 Ib/h
of high pressure steam to be used as the primary motive force in
the ejector scrubber. Inis boiler reduces the off-gas
temperature from approximately 220C degrees F. to 388 degrees r.
The air pollution control train consists of a quench
system, a packed tower, an ejector scrubber and a 35-foot
stack. This equipment is designed to further cool the gases,
remove 1500 Ib/h of HCL and remove particles larger than 3
microns in size.
The quench system conveys exit gases from the waste heat
boiler through a 90-degree elbow to tne quench sump. The quench
sump collects excess recirculation water for the entire air
pollution control system and provides some additional residence
time to cooi gases. The quench elbow contains spray nozzles
which produce a fine water mist to cool the gases from 600 to
approximately 153 degrees F. The mist also absorbs HCL
contained in tne off-gas and settles into the quench sump or is
carried to the packed tower. Calcium carbonate (lime) is added
to the water in the quench tank to neutralize the resultant
acid. The quench sump is fed by a raw water line in case of an
emergency low-water condition.
The packed tower is designed to remove HCL from the
off-gas. Assuming a maximum loading of 1600 Ib/h, the packed
tower is capable of removing 99« of the HCL leaving the quench
sump. Tne packed tower is a fiberglass-reinforced plastic tank
packed to a 6-foot depth with two-inch diameter plastic shapes
called "tellerettes". The gases flow upward through the .tower
and are scrubbed by a downward flow of water recirculated from
the packed tower sump and ejector scrubber.
The ejector scruboer is designed to remove additional
particulate and HCL from the gases before they are discnarged.
The scrubber removes 995 of the HCL and incoming particulates
larger than tnree microns. Turbulence created by the unique
nozzle in the ejector mixing tube consolidates submicron
p =-^ ;_—:lates cor.~:_ •_ ^ed in the steam. The ejector scr\;.; ~ also
-------
serves as the primary motive force for the entire system.
Negative pressure is created by drawing gases through the
ejector scrubber mixing tubes. This partial vacuum pulls gases
through the incinerator system and helps prevent emmission of
gases through leaks. All structural components of the ejector
scrubber are fiberglass-reinforced plastic.
Process Monitoring
The controls for the incinerator system are housed in a
trailer on site. All indicating devices and system controllers
are displayed on a master control panel. The data acquisition
and control computer is used to interrogate and store selected
critical measurements. The computer is programmed to perform
automatic waste feed cutoff and is programmed to control
selected operating functions. Some of these are displayed
instantaneously on the computer monitor and are printed every 15
minutes.
PERMITS
3oth state and federal permits were required to conduct this
research. The Research, Development and Demonstration Permit
was issued to the Air Force by EPA Region IV (Atlanta Georgia)
in June 1936 under the authority of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, Subtitle C, 42 U.3.C. SS6921-6931. Discharge
of water into the public water system at Gulfport required
compliance with Publicly Owned Treatment Worto criteria for
pollutants as required by the State of Mississippi.
-------
VERIFICATION IRIAL c.1*?.!.
Scope.
The verification trial burn was conducted to validate the performance
of the ENSC3 i:.JP 2000 on the site specific soils found on the
contaminated site at the 'laval Construction battalion Center, The
trial burn was structured to evaluate system performance at various
feed rates and to provide assurance to the permit issuing agencies
that the mobile incinerator could be operated with no adverse
environmental impact.
Test Plan
A total of five discrete tests were conducted. Feed rates ranged from
2.6 to 6.3 tons per hour. Curing the five tests the incinerator was
operated within the performance envelope specified by the EPA R&D
permit. Tables 1-5 document the operational conditions for each of
the five tests. The operational approach for each test run involved"
bringing the unit to steady state at the specific contaminated soil
feed rate. Cnce at steady state,sampling of the feedstock, treated
soil and stack gas was initiated. The "run-time" for each test was
dictated by the time required to collect a valid stack-gas sample.
Following completion of tne stack—gas sampling the soil feed was —
stopped and the unit brought to an "idle" condition to faclitate
replacement of the stack gas sampling equipment
Process Sample Collection.
During each of the test runs process composite samples were collected
from the soilxfeed stock, treated soil and stack gas. Samples were
collected by the Vr]ftSAR Corp.,Springfield, Virginia and analyzed by
the International Technologies Corp., Knoxville, Tennessee. Aliquots
for the feed stock and treated soil were collected approximately
every 30 minutes during the course of each test run. Stack gas
samples were collected employing a modified method 5 and V'OS
(volatile organic substances) sample trains specified by £PA
regulations.
Sample Analysis
Analytical protocols employed were taken from i?A 3«646, Certified
Laboratory Program (CLP) dioxin protocols or by generally accepted
1.-ilcr-vcor., .rc^3uur-33. II erejcrvriticn i.ia ct^i'r'o protocols
specified by the stated regulations/protocols were followed without
exception.
-------
TABLE 1
TEST 1 OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
PARAMETER ' - VALoE
DATE 6 DEC 86
START 14:55
E'lD 16:05
FEED RATE (TQNS/HR) 2.32
KILN OUTLET TEi'.P (DEGREES F) 1645
SEC CO.!L OUTLET TE;-.P (DEGREES F) 217.1
STAC?: CUTLET CO i 0.0
STAC?! OUTLET C02 % 9.0
STACK OUTLET 02 5 6.0
C0..5UJ;iO.: iFFICItl.CY 1 100
STAC': PARIICULATE (GR/DSCF) 0.003
-------
TAbLE 2
TEST 2 OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALJE
DATE ' 7 £^.C to
START 09:45
END 11:00
FttCD RATL (TOIJS/HR) 3.64
KILJJ OUTLET TZ.'IP (D£GRL£S F) 1377
SEC CO.IE OUTLET TE;:P (DEGREES F) 2159
STACK OUTLET CO % ' .0.0
STAGS CUTLET C02 ,, 9.0
ST.AC' CUTLET 02 *, 5.5
cor.BJSTiCN E?FICIE:~CY ; 100
STAC:-: PARTICULATE (GR/DSCF) 0.018
-------
TABLE 3
TEST 3 OPERATIONAL PARA.-IETERS
PARAMETER V.AL'JE
DATE 7 Lie 86
START 14:55
^~D 16:05
FEED RATE (TOiJS/KR) 3.7!
KILN OUTLET TE!-:P (DEGREES F) 1552
SEC co::s OUTLET TE:;P (DEGREES F) 2167
STACK OUTLET CO * 0.0
STACK OUTLET C02 % 9.0
STACK CUTLET 02 % 4.5
COtlEl'STIO'! EFFICIENCY % 100
STAC?: PARTICULAR (GR/DSCF) 0.015
-------
TAELE 4
TEST 4 OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALUE
DATE 15 DEC 86
START 09:20
END 10:30
FEED RATE (TCiiS/HR) 5.22
KILiI OUTLET TEilP (DEGREES F) 1485
SEC C0.13 OUTLET PC.'lP (DEGREES F) 2113
STAC:\ OUTLET CO o 0.0
STACK OUTLET C02 ," 3.0
SIACX OUTLET 02 T, 6.0
COhE'JSTION t:F?ICILI-.CY % 100X
STAC:-: PARTICULATE (GR/DSCr) ' 0.022
-------
TABLc. 5
TEST 5 OPERATIONAL PARA^.ETERS
PARAMETER VALUE
DATE 15 DZC 86
START 11:45
END 12:55
FEED RATE (TONS/HR) 6.31
KILN OUTLET TE.j? (DEGREES F) 1355
SEC cc;:a OUTLET TE ;? (DEGREES F) 2101
STAC'C OUTLET CO ', 0.0
STACK OUTLET C02 % 7.6
STAC;-: OUTLET 02 I 6.6
co;iDUSTio;i EFFICIENCY % 100
STACK PARTICULATL' (GR/DSCF) 0.019
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During the five verification test burns, the ENSCO unit was
operated within the operational envelope dictated by the EPA Region 4
R&D permit. The only serious operational problem encountered was wet
soil that resulted from extremely heavy rains. Future operations of
the unit at the NCBC site will incorporate soil drying as a routine
activity.
The preliminary results of laboratory analysis are presented in
Tables 6 through 10. Additional analyses on stack-gas samples were
not available at the time this report was prepared. The data
presented indicates that the ENSCO MWP 2000 is capable of removing
the principal hazardous constituents from the soil matrix found at
NCBC. These data also indicate that the treated soil should be
delistable under the conditions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act(RCRA). Additional tests are being conducted to determine"
the concentration of heavy metals in the feed stock and treated soil.
Following submittal of all laboratory test results to the
various regulatory agencies the ENSCO system will undergo reliability
ind maintainability testing. The test plan calls for continuous
operation of the unit for 90 days. During this period the unit will
treat approximately 11,000 tons of Herbicide Orange/ Dioxin
contaminated soil. Following completion of the test period
engineering and cost reports will be prepared to document the
reliability, maintainability and cost effectiveness of the ENSCO
system.
-------
TABLE 6
RESULTS Or CHEMICAL ANALYSES
TEST 1 (2.62 TONS/HR)
CONCENTRATION A3 ug/kg(ppb)
A.MLYIE
TREATED SOIL
2,4,0
2,4,5-T
2,1,5-TRICHLOROPhE.JCL
3,4-DICHLORCPHE'.IOL
PHENOL
TCDD
PeCDD
HxCDD
HoCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PeCDF
HxCDF
HpCDF
OCDF
56,000
100,000
1 ,600
. -D(330)
:JD(660)
32.1
:,D(0. 15)
;. 0(0.058)
:;c(o. 1C)
0.70
0.45
MD(0.23)
iJD( 0.081)
NrD(0.070)
ND(O.C01 1)
ND (20)
ND(2)
ND( 1600)
NDC330)
NDC330)
i:D(0.0015)
ND(0.0013)
IJD(0.0054)
ND(0. 00045)
0.0024
ND(0. 00035)
nD(0. 00018)
:ID(O. 00031 )
:JD( 0.001 1 )
,JD(0. 00024)
MD= I1QT DETECTED A.I THE INDICATED DETECTION LIilIT
-------
TABLE 7
RESULTS CF CHEMICAL ANALYSES
TEST 2 (3.64 TO;IS/HR)
CONCENTRATION AS ug/kg(ppb)
A:-;ALYTE
FEED STOCK
TREATED SOIL
2,4,D
2,4,5-T
2,4, 5-TRICHLCROPHEuOL
3,4-DICriLOROPHENOL
PHEJOL
TCDD
PeCDD
HxCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PeCDF
HxCDF
HpCDF
OCDF
3,300,000
510,000
3,700
MX 330)
ND(660)
54.2
NDC0.28)
" PI I o 1 n 1
i.M U . Id;
ND(0. 14)
0.64
0.49
NDCC.15)
1'j D ( C . 0 6 0 )
ND(0. 10)
;jD(0.066)
:;o(20)
;\" D ( 2 )
ND( 1600)
KD(330)
ND(330)
.'JDC0.0015)
NDCO.C029)
NDCC.0014)
0.00039
0.00437
0.0129
iiD(0. 00069)
ND(0. 00057)
ND(0. 00062)
ND( 0.00012)
!.'D= :.:OT DETECTED AT THE INDICATED DETECTION LlillT
-------
TAcLi 3
RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES
TEST 3 (3.71 lOtiS/HR)
CONCENTRATION AS ug/kg(ppb)
ANALYTE
FEED STOCK
TREATED SOIL
2,4,D
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHE:;OL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
PHE;;OL
TCDD
PeCDD
HxCDD
HpCDD
CCDD
TCDF
PeCDr
HxCDJ1
HpCDl"
OCDF
ND = !JOT DETECTED Ai TH£
120,000
220,000
3,600
:'iX330)
MD(330)
33.0
:^D(0.23)
XD(0. 18)
.JDC0.25)
0.72
0.58
iJDCO. 14)
\D(0.019)
i,'D( 0.052)
:,'D(0.067)
INDICATtD DETECTION
ND(20)
ND(2)
ND( 1600)
ND(330)
NDC330)
UD(0. 00089)
ND(0. 00028)
fJD(0.0022)
NDC0.0017)
0.0193
0.0160
NTD(0. 00129)
ND(O.OC063)
ND(0. 00050)
ND(C. 00027)
LIMIT
-------
TA£LE 9
RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES
TEST 4 (5.22 TOuS/KR)
CONCtMTRATIG;, AS ug/kg(ppb)
A::ALYTE
'SED
STOC:;
TREATED SOIL
2,4,D
2,4,5-T
2,4, 5-TRICHLORGPHE'uOL
3,4-DICHLORGPHENOL
PHEl-iOL
TCDD
PeCDD
HxCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PeCDF
HxCDF
HpCDF
OCDF
MDs liOI DETECTED AT THE
23,000
47,000
3,500
.^D(330)
i.'D(330)
45. 8
L1D(0.21 )
,\;D(0.91)
;-:D(O. 14)
0.30
0.66
;,:D(o. 12)
:;D( 0.050)
:JD(0.22)
MD(0. 16)
IriDICATED DiTZCIIOW
ND(20)
ND(2)
ND(1600)
ND(330)
ND(330)
ND( 0.0022)
ND( 0.00035)
ND(0. 00014)
0.00058
0.0227
0.0067
HD( 0.00048)
:JD(O. 00065)
0.00065
MD( 0.00028)
LIi.IT
-------
TABLE 10
RESULTS CF CHEMICAL ANALYSES
TEST 5 (6.31 IONS/HR)
CONCENTRATION" AS ug/kg(ppb)
A'lALYTE
2,4, D
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHE\"OL
3,4-DICHLOROPHEIiOL
PHEJjCL
TCDD
PeCDD
HxCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PeCDr
HxCDF
HoCDF
OCDF
;.D= i.OT D_Ii_CTED AT THE
FEED STOCK
400,000
540,000
5,700
370
NDC330)
60.6
UDC0.23)
ND( 0.085)
ND(0. 10)
1 .2
1 .2
:iD(0.96)
ND(0.050)
MD( 0.097)
ND(0.066)
INDICATED DETECTION
TREATED SOIL
ND(20)
;JD(2)
ND( 1600)
ND(330)
NDC330)
ND( 0.0025)
ND(0.0015)
iJD(0. 00076)
0.00092
0.0116
0.0108
ND(0. 00089)
ND(0. 00053)
f«D(0.0019)
.10(0.00023)
LI.ilT
-------
References
1. Channell, R.E. and Stoddart, T.L., Herbicide Orange
Monitoring Program: Interim Report, January 1930-December 1982.
ESL-TR-83-56,Engineering and Services Laboratory,Air Force
Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall AF3, Florida, April
1930. - !
2. Young, A.L., Cairney, w'.J., and Thalken, C.E., "Persistence,
Movement and Decontamination Studies of TCDD in Storage Sites
Massively Contaminated with Fhenoxy Herbicides", Chemosphere,
Vol. 4/5. Pergamon Press, 1933, pp. 713-726.
3. E.G. and G., Idaho, Inc., Herbicide Orange Site
Characterization Study: Kaval Construction Battalion Center,
E3L-TR-36-21, Engineering and Services Laboratory, Air Force
Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall AFB, Florida, October
1986.
i
4. united States Environmental Protection Agency Research,
Development and Demonstration Permit for Hazardous waste
Treatment, //.1S2 170 022 626, 2 July 1986.
------- |