PB95-182945
EPA;542-R-95-005
"March 1995
Remediation Case Studies:
Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing,
and In Situ Vitrification
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
REPRODUCED BY: M1M
U.S. Department of Commerce1"-™
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Recycled/Recyclable
I Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
NOTICE
This report and the individual case studies were prepared by Agencies of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any Agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its
use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
Agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any Agency thereof.
-------
Remediation Case Studies:
Thermal Desorption, Soil
Washing, and In Situ
Vitrification
N
Prepared by Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Coast Guard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
March 1995
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a collection of eight case studies of thermal desorption, soil
washing, and in situ vitrification projects prepared by Federal agencies. The case studies,
collected under the auspices of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, were
undertaken to document the results and lessons learned from early technology applications.
They will help establish benchmark data on cost and performance which should lead to
greater confidence in the selection and use of cleanup technologies.
The Roundtable was created to exchange information on site remediation
technologies, and to consider cooperative efforts that could lead to a greater application of
innovative technologies. Roundtable member agencies, including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of Energy, expect to
complete many site remediation projects in the near future. These agencies recognize the
importance of documenting the results of these efforts, and the benefits to be realized from
greater coordination.
There are four case study reports, organized by technology, in this series. In
the future, the set will grow through periodic supplements tracking additional progress with
site remediation. In addition to this report on thermal desorption, soil washing, and in situ
vitrification projects, the following volumes are available:
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation;
Remediation Case Studies: Ground water Treatment; and
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction.
Ordering information for these and other Roundtable documents is on the following page.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Chairman
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
11
-------
Ordering Instructions
The following documents are available free-of-charge from the U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications and
Information (NCEPI). To order, mail or fax the completed form below to: U.S. EPA/National Center for Environmental Publications
and Information, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242, or FAX requests to (513) 489-8695.
Title
Abstracts of Remediation Case Studies [106pp]
Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation Projects [64pp]
Number Price
EPA-542-R-95-001 Free
EPA-542-B-95-002 Free
Please Send
Name.
.Date.
Organization.
Address
City/State/Zip.
. Telephone.
Internet Address.
The following documents are available by calling the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 703-487-4650 or writing
them at: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161
litis
Remediation Case Studies: Bioremediation
Remediation Case Studies: Groundwater Treatment
Remediation Case Studies: Soil Vapor Extraction
Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing,
and In Situ Vitrification
Remediation Case Studies: Four Document Set
Number
PB95-182911
PB95-182929
PB95-182937
PB95- 182945
PB95- 182903
Price*
$17.50
$17.50
$25 JO
$1750
$67.00
Other Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR) documents available from NTIS:
TJtitle Number
Accessing Federal Databases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies (3rd Edition) PB94-144540
Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for
Corrective Action and Site Remediation (3rd Edition) PB94-144557
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies
(3rdEdition) PB94-144565
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide (2nd Edition) PB95-104782
* Additional fee for shipping and handling; next day delivery also available. Major credit cards accepted.
Price*
$1750
$1750
$4450
$45.00
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ii
ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS iii
INTRODUCTION 1
THERMAL DESORPTION, SOIL WASHING, AND IN SITU
VITRIFICATION 6
Thermal Desorption at the Anderson Development
Company Superfund Site Adrian, Michigan 7
Soil Washing at the King of Prussia Technical
Corporation Superfund Site Winslow Township, New
Jersey 28
Thermal Desorption at the McKin Company Superfund
Site Gray, Maine 54
Thermal Desorption at the Outboard Marine Corporation
Superfund Site Waukegan, Illinois 69
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM
Enterprises Superfund Site Grand Ledge, Michigan 92
Thermal Desorption at the Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site
Reading, Ohio 109
Thermal Desorption at the T H Agriculture & Nutrition
Company Superfund Site Albany, Georgia 129
Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation at the Wide Beach
Development Superfund Site Brant, New York 149
NRJ-081
0315-04.nrj
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide case studies of site cleanup projects
utilizing thermal desorption, soil washing, and in situ vitrification. This report is one of four
volumes which are the first in a series of studies that will be prepared by Federal agencies to
improve future remedy selection at contaminated sites. For projects that are ongoing, interim
findings will be updated in future publications as additional data become available.
The case studies were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
They present cost and performance information for full-scale remediation efforts and several
large-scale demonstration projects and were prepared retrospectively, based on available
information and interviews with project personnel. The case studies are meant to serve as
primary reference sources, and contain information on the site; contaminants and media
treated; technology and vendor; cost and performance; and points of contact for the
technology application. The studies contain varying levels of detail, reflecting the differences
in the availability of data and information. Full-scale cleanup efforts are not conducted
primarily for the purpose of technology evaluation, and data collection is often limited to
establishing compliance with contractual requirements or regulatory levels.
This volume contains reports on projects using thermal desorption, including
six completed applications at sites contaminated with PCBs, pesticides, or chlorinated
aliphatics. Two projects in this volume used soil washing and in situ vitrification
technologies.
Table 1 provides a project summary including information on technology used,
contaminants and media treated, and project duration. The table also notes highlights of the
technology applications.
Table 2 summarizes cost data, including information on quantity of media
treated and contaminant removed. In addition, Table 2 shows a calculated unit cost for some
projects, and identifies key factors potentially affecting project cost. While a summary of
project costs is useful, it is difficult to compare costs for different projects because of site-
specific factors and differences in level of detail.
Cost data are shown on Table 2 as reported in the case studies, and have not
been adjusted for inflation to a common year basis. The dollar values shown in Table 2
should be assumed to be dollars for the time period that the project was in progress (shown
on Table 1 as project duration).
The project costs shown in the second column of the table were compiled
consistently. However, the case studies themselves vary in terms of the level of detail and
format of the available cost data. Where possible, project costs were categorized according to
-------
an interagency Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).1 The WBS specifies costs as 1) before-
treatment costs, 2) after-treatment costs, or 3) treatment costs. (Table 2 provides some
additional information on activities falling under each category.) In many cases, however, the
available information was not sufficiently detailed to be broken down in this way.
The column showing the calculated treatment cost provides a dollar value per
unit of soil or groundwater treated and, if possible, per pound of contaminant removed. Note
that comparisons using the information in this column are complicated by the fact that
calculated costs may only be available on a per cubic yard or per ton basis, and cannot be
converted back-and-forth due to limited availability of soil bulk density data.
Key factors that potentially affect project costs include economies of scale,
concentration levels in contaminated media, required cleanup levels, completion schedules,
and hydrogeological conditions. It is important to note that several projects in the case study
series represent early applications, and the costs of these technologies are likely to decrease in
the future as firms gain experience with design and operation.
Abstracts and On-Line Access
The case studies have been summarized in abstracts which precede each study
and provide key project information in a consistent format. The abstracts are based on
recommended terminology and procedures from the Guide to Documenting Cost and
Performance for Remediation Projects.
The case study abstracts are also available on-line through EPA's Cleanup
Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN). To access CLU-IN by modem, call (301) 589-
8366, or to contact the CLU-IN help desk, call (301) 589-8368. CLU-IN is available on the
Internet; the telnet address is clu-in.epa.gov or 134.67.99.13.
'Additional information on the contents of the Work Breakdown Structure and on whom to contact for WBS
and related information is presented in the Guide to Documenting Cost and Performance for Remediation
Projects - see ordering instructions on page iii.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Remediation Case Studies: Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification
Site Name, State (Technology}
Anderson Development Company Superfund
Site, MI (Thermal desorption)
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site, NJ (Soil washing)
McKin Superfund Site, ME (Thermal
desorption)
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site,
OH (Thermal desorption)
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund
Site, MI (In situ vitrification)
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site (Thermal
desorption)
T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company
Superfund Site, GA (Thermal desorption)
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site, NY
(Thermal desorption w/dehalogenation)
Contaminants Treated
a
0*
f->
*
£
B
U
•
»
5
5
«
fe
•
•
•
V
?
1
•
•
•
t>
•s
i
•< g
*§ F
5,1
5 S.
(2 as
•
•
•
•
t
V
*B
«
J
1
I
•
•
5
I
•
•
83
'"S §
e S
E I
la
•si
S *3
I- s
s£
as C-
Manufacturing process
(MBOCA, phenol,
phthalates)
Surface impoundment
(Cr, Cu, Ni)
Disposal Pit (TCE)
Surface water & sewer
discharges
Surface water & sewer
discharges (DDT,
mercury, dioxins)
Spills and on-site
disposal (aldrin, DDT,
dieldrin, dioxin)
Spills and leaks (DDT,
toxaphene, BHC)
Road oiling (PCB
1254)
Media
(Quantity)
Soil (5,100 tons)
Soil and sludge
(19,200 tons)
Soil (11, 500 yd3)
Soil and sediment
(12,755 tons)
Soil (3,000 yd3)
Soil (12,800 tons)
Soil (4,300 tons)
Soil (42,000 tons)
Project
Duration
1/92 - 6/93
6/93 - 10/93
7/86 - 4/87
1/92 - 6/92
5/93 - 5/94
11/93-3/94
7/93 - 10/93
10/90 - 9/91
Highlights
Treatment using a thermal auger
system with hollow-screw conveyors
Innovative on-site monitoring
technique, including use of X-ray
fluorescence; early full-scale soil
washing application at a Superfund site
Early full-scale application of thermal
desorption
Achieved PCB mass removal
efficiency of 99.98%-much higher
than the 97% requirement
First application at a Superfund site;
melt requires one year to cool, and
final results expected after May 1995
Contaminated soils exhibited a wide
range of pH and moisture conditions,
and contained greater than 2%
elemental sulfur
Soils contaminated with a mixture of
organochlorine pesticides; interlock
process control system monitored 9
process parameters
Thermal desorption combined with
APEG dechlorination
Key:
BTEX - Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data
for Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification Projects
Site Name, State (Technology)
Anderson Development Company
Superfund Site, MI (Thermal
desorption)
King of Prussia Technical
Corporation Superfund Site, NJ
(Soil washing)
McKin Superfund Site, ME
(Thermal desorption)
Outboard Marine Corporation
Superfund Site, OH (Thermal
desorption)
Parsons Chemical/ETM
Enterprises Superfund Site, MI
(In situ vitrification)
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site, OH
(Thermal desorption)
T H Agriculture & Nutrition
Company Superfund Site, GA
(Thermal desorption)
Project Cost ($)*
Not available
7,700,000
2,900,000
T - 2,474,000
B - 900,000
T - 800,000
B - 800,000
A - 90,000
Not available
T - 849,996
B - 252,582
Quantity Treated
5,100 tons of soil
19,200 tons of soil
and sludge
11, 500 cubic yards
of soil
12,755 tons of soil
and sediment
3,000 cubic yards
of soil
12.800 tons of soil
4,300 tons of soil
(2,500 cubic yards)
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
—
--
-
—
--
—
Calculated Cost for
Treatment**
Projected costs range from
$190 to $340/ton of soil
treated (SITE program cost
estimates based on
demonstration project)
Not Calculated
Not Calculated
$190/ton of soil and
sediment treated
$270/cubic yard of soil
treated
--
$200/ton of soil treated
$340/cubic yard of soil
treated
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Project Costs
Projected costs affected by soil
moisture content
No information available on
components of total cost
Limited information available on
components of total cost
—
Application involved excavation
and staging of wastes
-
Small project limited economies-of-
scale; cleanup completed in 4
months
Project Cost*
T = Costs for treatment activities, including preprocessing, capital equipment, operation, and maintenance
B = Costs for before-treatment activities, including site preparation, excavation, and sampling and analysis
A = Costs for after-treatment activities, including disposal of residuals and site restoration
C = Capital costs
O = Annual operating costs
Calculated Cost for Treatment**
**Calculated based on costs for treatment activities (T): excludes costs for before- (B) and after-
(A)treatment activities. Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of treatment costs
unavailable.
-------
Table 2. Remediation Case Studies - Summary of Cost Data
for Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification Projects (Continued)
Site Name, State (Technology)
Wide Beach Development
Superfund Site, NY (Thermal
desorption/dehalogenation)
Project Cost ($)*
T- 11,600,000
B - 908,000
A - 3,400,000
Quantity Treated
42,000 tons of soil
Quantity of
Contaminant
Removed
—
Calculated Cost for
Treatment**
$280/ton of soil treated
Key Factors Potentially Affecting
Project Costs
Lack of structural integrity of
treated soil led to need for off-site
disposal
Project Cost*
T = Costs for treatment activities, including preprocessing, capital equipment, operation, and maintenance
B = Costs for before-treatment activities, including site preparation, excavation, and sampling and analysis
A = Costs for after-treatment activities, including disposal of residuals and site restoration
C = Capital costs
O = Annual operating costs
Calculated Cost for Treatment**
"Calculated based on costs for treatment activities (T): excludes costs for before- (B) and after-
(A)treatment activities. Calculated costs shown as "Not Calculated" if an estimate of treatment costs
unavailable.
-------
THERMAL DESORPTION, SOIL
WASHING, AND IN SITU VITRIFICATION
CASE STUDIES
-------
Thermal Desorption at the
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site
Adrian, Michigan
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the Anderson Development Company
Superfund Site, Adrian, Michigan
Site Name:
Anderson Development Company
Superfund Site
Location:
Adrian, Michigan
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics, PAHs, Other Organics,
and Metals
- MBOCA (4,4-methylene bis(2-
chloroaniline) primary contaminant
concentration in untreated soil
- Manganese at levels up to 10%
Period of Operation:
January 1992 to June 1993
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Michael G. Cosmos
Weston Services
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 701-7423
SIC Code:
2869 (Industrial Organic Chemicals,
Not Elsewhere Classified)
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
- Solids pretreated by shredding, screening,
and dewatering
- Thermal processor consisting of 2 jacketed
troughs
- Hollow screw conveyors in the troughs mix,
transport, and heat the contaminated soil
- Soil residence time 90 minutes, temperature
of soil/sludge 500-530°F
- Treated soil was discharged into a
conditioner, where it was sprayed with
water
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA and State: Michigan
-ROD Date: 9/30/91
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
Jim Hahnenburg (HSRW-6J)
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-4213
Waste Source:
Surface Impoundment/Lagoon
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Treatment using a thermal auger
system; main contaminant is a
hardener for plastics.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Sludge
- 5,100 tons treated
- Moisture content: soil - not available, sludge - 65-70% (before dewatering),
41-44% (after dewatering)
- pH: <7 (before dewatering), 10.9-11.2 (after dewatering)
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil - MBOCA: 1.684 mg/kg
- Soils/sludges - VOCs and SVOCs: Michigan Environmental Response Act (MERA) Number 307, Regulation 299.5711,
compliance with Type B criteria for soil standards; off-site disposal required for treated soil due to elevated manganese
levels ^
Results:
- Analytical data for 6 piles of treated soil indicated that the cleanup goals for MBOCA and VOCs were met
- Seven of eight SVOCs met cleanup goals; analytical problems were identified for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
- Treated soil disposed off site due to elevated manganese levels ^^^^
Cost Factors:
Information not available
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the Anderson Development Company
Superfund Site, Adrian, Michigan (Continued)
Description:
Between 1970 and 1979, the Anderson Development Company (ADC) site located in Adrian, Lewanee County, Michigan, was
used for the manufacture of 4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) or MBOCA, a hardening agent used in plastics manufacturing.
Process wastewaters were discharged to an unlined lagoon. A remedial investigation determined that soil and sludges in and
around the lagoon were contaminated. Contaminated soils and sludges were excavated, dewatered, and stockpiled. A Record
of Decision (ROD), signed in September 1991, specified thermal desorption as the remediation technology for the excavated
soil. Soil cleanup goals were established for MBOCA and specific volatile and semivolatile organic constituents.
Thermal desorption using the Roy F. Weston LT3 system was performed from January 1992 to June 1993. The LT3 thermal
processor consists of two jacketed troughs. Hollow-screw conveyors move soil across the troughs, and act to mix and heat
the contaminated soil. The thermal processor discharges treated soil to a conditioner where it is sprayed with water. Thermal
desorption achieved the soil cleanup goals specified for MBOCA and all volatile organic constituents. Seven of eight
semivolatile organic constituents met cleanup goals; analytical problems were identified for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
Information on costs for this application were not available at the time of this report. Originally, the treated soils were to be
used as backfill for the lagoon. However, the state required off-site disposal of treated soils due to the presence of elevated
levels of manganese.
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 1 of 18
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance
data for a thermal desorption treatment
application at the Anderson Development
Company (ADC) site located in Adrian,
Lewanee County, Michigan. Between 1970
and 1979, the ADC site was used for the
manufacture of 4,4-methylene bis(2-
chloroaniline) or MBOCA, a hardening agent
used in plastics manufacturing. Process
wastewaters were discharged to an unlined
lagoon. A subsequent remedial investigation
determined that soil and sludges in and
around the lagoon were contaminated and
contaminated soils and sludges were exca-
vated, dewatered, and stockpiled. A Record
of Decision (ROD), signed in September 1991
specified thermal desorption as the remedia-
tion technology for the excavated soil. Soil
cleanup goals were established for MBOCA
and specific volatile and semivolatile organic
constituents.
Thermal desorption using the Roy F. Weston
LT3® system was performed from January
SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Anderson Development Company
Adrian, Michigan
CERCLIS# MID002931228
ROD Date: September 30, 1991
1992 to June 1993. The LT3® thermal pro-
cessor consisted of two jacketed troughs, and
operated with a residence time of 90 minutes
and a soil/sludge temperature of 500-530°F in
this application. Hollow-screw conveyors
moved soil across the troughs, and acted to
mix and heat the contaminated soil. The
thermal processor discharged treated soil to a
conditioner where it was sprayed with water.
Thermal desorption achieved the soil cleanup
goals specified for MBOCA and all volatile
organic constituents. Seven of eight
semivolatile organic constituents met cleanup
goals; analytical problems were identified for
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
Information on costs for this application were
not available at the time of this report. Origi-
nally, the treated soils were to be used as
backfill for the lagoon. However, the state
required off-site disposal of treated soils due
to the presence of elevated levels of manga-
nese.
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study associated with applica-
tion? Yes (see Appendix A)
tPA SITE Program test associated with
application? Yes (see Reference 9)
Period of Operation: 1/92 - 6/93
Quantity of material treated during applica-
tion: 5,100 tons of soil and sludge
Background [1, 2, 5, 11]
Historical Activity that Generated Contami-
nation at the Site: Chemical Manufacturing -
plastics hardener
Corresponding SIC Code: 2869 (Industrial
Organic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified)
Waste Management Practice that Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Surface Impound-
ment/Lagoon
Site History: The Anderson Development
Company (ADC) is a specialty chemical
manufacturer located in Adrian, Lewanee
County, Michigan, as shown on Figure 1. The
ADC site covers approximately 12.5 acres of a
40-acre industrial park. Residential areas
surround the industrial park. Figure 2 shows a
layout of the ADC site.
U S ENV1RONMENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
10
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 2 of 18
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background [1, 2, 5, 11] (cont.)
Between 1970 and 1979, ADC manufactured
4,4-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline), or
MBOCA. MBOCA is a hardening agent used
in the manufacture of polyurethane plastics.
As part of the manufacturing process, process
wastewaters containing MBOCA were dis-
charged to an unlined 0.5-acre lagoon.
In May 1986, Anderson Development Com-
pany (ADC) entered into an Administrative
Order by Consent with EPA to conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/
FS). The remedial investigation determined
that soil and sludge in and around the lagoon
were contaminated, and contaminated soils
and sludges were excavated, dewatered, and
stockpiled.
Regulatory Context: A 1990 ROD selected in
situ vitrification (ISV) as the remediation
technology. An amended ROD was issued in
September 1991 which specified thermal
desorption as the remediation technology,
with ISV as a contingent remedy if thermal
desorption was found to be not effective. In
August 1991, ADC signed a consent decree to
conduct a Remedial Design/ Remedial Action
(RD/RA) to remediate the site according to the
specifications in the 1991 Record of Decision
(ROD).
Development
Supcituud Site
Atfrun, Michigan
Figure 1. Site Location [1]
Remedy Selection: Thermal desorption was
selected based on a review of the results from
a bench-scale thermal desorption study. The
performance data from the bench-scale test
indicated that thermal desorption was capable
of meeting the MBOCA cleanup levels.
Additionally, the costs projected for thermal
desorption treatment were lower than costs
projected for other technologies.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: PRP Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Jim Hahnenburg (HSRW-6J)
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-4213
State Contact:
Brady Boyce
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Knapp's Office Centre
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-4824
Treatment System Vendor:
Michael G. Cosmos
Weston Services
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 701-7423
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC71ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
11
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 3 of 18
• SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts (cont.)
LP PROCESS
EQUIPMENT AREA
FEED SOIL
STAGING BUILDING
Figure 2. Site Layout [adapted from [I])
| MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix processed through the
treatment system:
Soil (ex situ)/Sludge (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant groups: Halogenated
and nonhalogenated volatile organic com-
pounds and polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons
The contaminants in the lagoon area identified
during the remedial investigation included
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phtha-
lates, phenols, and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). 4,4-Methylene bis(2-
chloroaniline) (MBOCA) was identified as the
primary constituent of concern. Other VOCs
present included toluene and degradation
products of MBOCA. High levels of metals
(e.g., manganese at levels up to 10%) were
also present at the site. [1,2]
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Listed below in Table 1 are the major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance for
this technology.
Tablet. Matrix Characteristics [9]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle
Size Distribution
Moisture Content
pH
Oil and Grease or Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Bulk Density
Lower Explosive Limit
Value
A- 7-6 Soil Group
Arithmetic mean diameter of untreated
sludge was 765 microns
Soil: Not available
Sludge: 65-70% (before dewatenng)
Sludge: 41-44% {after dewatenng)
< 7 (before dewatenng)
1 0,9- 1 1 .2 (after dewatering)
Not available
Not available
Not available
Measurement Procedure
ASTM (no further description
available at this time)
Not available
Not available
Not available
-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
12
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 4 of 18
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Type;
Thermal Desorption
Supplemental Treatment Technology 'types: [2]
Pretreatment (Solids): Shredding/Screening/ Post-Treatment (Water): Oil-Water Separa-
Dewatering tor, filter, Carbon Adsorber
Post-Treatment (Air): Baghouse, Condenser,
Carbon
Thermal Desorption System Description and Operation
The following treatment technology descrip-
tion is an excerpt from the Applications
Analysis Report [9]:
"The LT3® system consists of three main
treatment areas: soil treatment, emissions
control, and condensate treatment. A block
flow diagram of the system [see Figure 3] is
described below.
Soil is treated in the LT3® thermal processor.
The thermal processor consists of two jack-
eted troughs, one above the other. Each
trough houses four intermeshed, hollow-screw
conveyors. A front-end loader transports feed
soil (or sludge) to a weigh scale before depos-
iting the material onto a feed conveyor. The
feed conveyor discharges the soil into a surge
hopper located above the thermal processor.
The surge hopper is equipped with level
sensors and provides a seal over the thermal
processor to minimize air infiltration and
contaminant loss. The conveyors move soil
across the upper trough of the thermal pro-
cessor until the soil drops to the lower trough.
The soil then travels across the processor and
exits at the same end that it entered. Hot oil
circulates through the hollow screws and
trough jackets and acts as a heat transfer fluid.
During treatment in the processor, each
hollow-screw conveyor mixes, transports, and
heats the contaminated soil. The thermal
processor discharges treated soil into a
conditioner, where it is sprayed with water to
cool it and to minimize fugitive dust emis-
sions. An inclined belt conveys treated soil to
a truck or pile.
To ftmot pron
SwMpQa*
Hot oH burner ofF^M**
FiMVoomburton ifr
V
To umosphara
Figure 3. LT3® System Block Flow Diagram [9]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
13
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 5 of 18
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Thermal Desorption System Description and Operation (cont.)
A burner heats the circulating oil to an operat-
ing temperature of 400 to 650°F (about 100°F
higher than the desired soil treatment tem-
perature). Combustion gases released from
the burner are used as sweep gas in the
thermal processor. A fan draws sweep gas
and desorbed organics from the thermal
processor into a fabric filter. Dust collected
on the fabric filter may be retreated or
drummed for off-site disposal. Exhaust gas
from the fabric filter is drawn into an air-
cooled condenser to remove most of the
water vapor and organics. Exhaust gas is then
drawn through a second, refrigerated con-
denser, which lowers the temperature further
and reduces the moisture and organic content
of the off-gases. Electric resistance heaters
then raise the off-gas temperature back to
70°F. This temperature optimizes the perfor-
mance of the vapor-phase, activated carbon
column, which is used to remove any remain-
ing organics. At some sites, caustic scrubbers
and afterburners have been employed as part
of the air pollution control system, but they
were not used at the ADC site.
Condensate streams from the air-cooled and
refrigerated condensers are typically treated in
a three-phase, oil-water separator. The oil-
water separator removes light and heavy
organic phases from the water phase. The
aqueous portion is then treated in the carbon
adsorption system to remove any residual
organic contaminants; after separation and
treatment, the aqueous portion is often used
for soil conditioning. The organic phases are
disposed of off site. When processing ex-
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Table 2 lists the major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technology
and the values measured for each.
Table 2. Operating Parameters * [9]
tremely wet materials like sludge, the oil-
water separation step may not be appropriate
due to the high volume of condensate gener-
ated. In such cases, aqueous streams from
the first and second condensers may be
pumped through a disposable filter to remove
particulate matter prior to carbon adsorption
treatment and off-site disposal."
System Operation [2]
At ADC, contaminated soil and sludge were
excavated and screened. Additionally, sludges
were dewatered with a filter press to reduce
the moisture content to levels sufficient for
thermal treatment. The soil and dewatered
sludge were then stockpiled in the feed soil
staging building prior to thermal treatment.
No information is available at this time on the
disposition of water extracted by the filter
press.
Treated soils, sludges, and fly ash were sent
off-site for disposal at the Laidlaw Landfill, a
Type II facility located in Adrian, Michigan.
The ROD originally called for backfilling the
excavated lagoon with the treated soil, sludge,
and fly ash. However, due to high manganese
levels, off-site disposal was required. Sec-
ond-time fly ash, which is fly ash generated
during the treatment of fly ash through the
LT3® system, did not meet the established
guidelines, and could not be disposed in the
landfill. Instead, the second-time fly ash was
barreled and incinerated at Petrochem Pro-
cessing, Inc. in Detroit, Michigan.
Parameter
Value
Residence Time
System Throughput
Temperature (Soil/Sludge)
90 minutes
2.1 tons/hr
500° -530° F
*Values reported during SITE Demonstration.
u s ENV,RONMENTALpROTECT,ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
14
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 6 of 18
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
A timeline of key activities for this application is shown in Table 3.
Table3. Timeline [2]
Start Date
End Date
Activity
5/86
Administrative Order by Consent entered by PRP to conduct RI/FS
9/91
10/91
11/91
1 1/9)
12/91
12/91
1/92
5/921
6/92
9/92
6/93
10/93
3/24/93
8/91
9/8/83
9/28/90
9/30/91
9/91
12/91
8/92
Administrative Order by Consent entered by PRP to conduct RD/RA
Site Placed on NPL
ROD signed
ROD amendment signed
Thermal Desorptton Treatabillry Study conducted
Contract led to Weston Services for site remediation
UP® mobilized to Anderson Development Company Site
Dewaterlng activities for high water content sludges
1st UP® Operations test (delayed due to transportation problems)
2nd LT3® Operations test (required because results from 1st test were
destroyed In a fire)
Results from 2nd LP® Operations test received
LT3® Operations started
LT3® operations stopped to assess operabllity of the process and to
review potential problems with the analytical method for MBOCA
Evaluation of QAPP, resampling of treated materials, evaluation of
operating temperatures via pilot plant test
Restart of LT3® operation
LT3® operations complete
LT3® removed from site
Memo from MDNR to EPA indicating that all ARARs have been achieved
and delisting process can proceed
[ TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
The Consent Decree and ROD amendment
identified cleanup goals for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs) in treated soil and
of 1.684 mg/kg. Cleanup goals for VOCs and
SVOCs in soil and sludge were identified as
the Michigan Environmental Response Act
(MERA) Number 307, Regulation 299.5711,
sludge, including an MBOCA cleanup standard Type B criteria for soil. Cleanup goals were
U.S. ENMRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office J5
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 7 of 18
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Cleanup Goals/Standards (cont.)
not identified for metals. The specific con-
stituents from the MERA 307 list with which
ADC was required to comply are not available
at this time. In addition, no information is
shown on any air emission standards in the
references available at this time. [1, 2, 6]
Additional Information on Goals
The cleanup goal for MBOCA, as specified in
the ROD, is based on EPA guidance documen-
tation and is based on the excess lifetime
cancer risk level of 1 x 10'6.
Treatment Performance Data
During treatment, treated soils and sludges
were placed in eight composite soil piles
(piles A through H). All eight soil piles were
approved by EPA for off-site disposal. Tables
4, 5, and 6 show the range of concentrations
for MBOCA, VOCs, and SVOCs for piles B
through G, respectively. No data are available
at this time on the concentration of these
items in the soils and sludges prior to treat-
ment or on the concentrations of these
contaminants in piles A or H. Table 7 shows
the range of concentrations for 13 metals in
treated soil piles B and G. [12]
Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and
furans (CDFs) were measured during the SITE
Demonstration in the untreated and treated
sludge, filter dust, liquid condensate, exhaust
gas from refrigerated condenser, and stack
gas. The results for 11 specific CDDs and
CDFs measured in these locations are shown
in Table 8. [9]
Table 4. Range of 4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA) Concentrations in Treated Soil Piles [12]
Constituent
MBOCA
(mg'kg)
Cleanup
Goal
1.684
PIleB
9/17-11/22
BDL-1.63
PUeC
11/30-12/12
0.55-1.52
PlteD
12/13-1/7
0.28-1.66
PifeE
1/7.1/22
0.21-1 .67
Pilef
1/26.2/13
0.36-1.60
PHeG
4/8.4/30
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 8 of 18
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 6. Range ofSVOC Concentrations in Treated Soil Piles [12]
Constituent
Chrysene (/L(g/kg)
Phenanthrene (/Jg/kg)
Pyrene frjg/kg)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Phenol Oug/kg)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene (/vg/kg)
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate (pg/kg)
Isophorone (/ug/kg)
4-Methyl Phenol
Cleanup
Goal
330
Not
Identified
4,000
330
80,000
330
6.0OO
40
160
8,000
PlIeB
9/J7-11/22
BDL (200)-
BDL (1,100)
200-3OO
2OO-300
NA
200-14,000
NA
200-300
300
200-600
600
PlleC
11/30-12/12
NA
300
2OO
NA
3,300-5,700
NA
200
NA
NA
NA
PlleD
12/13-1/7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PlleE
t/7-1/22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pile I
1/26-2/1$
BDL (700)-
BDL (5,300)
400-1,800
300
NA
4,700-5,900
NA
200-300
NA
NA
NA
PlIeG
4/8-4/30
BDL (3,900)-
BDL( 12,000)
700-3,200
700-2,300
300
300-1,000
200-300
200-300
NA
NA
NA
BDL - Below Detection Limit (value in parentheses is reported method detection limit)
NA - Not Available
Table 7. Range of Metals Concentrations in Treated Soil Piles [t2]
Constituent
Antimony (mg/kg)
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Cadmium (mg/kg)
Chromium (nig/kg)
Copper (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Marjganese (mg/kg)
Mercury (mg/kg)
Selenium (mg/kg)
Silver (mg/kg)
Thallium (mg/kg)
Zinc (mg/kg)
Cleanup Goal
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Identified
Not Idenified
PlleB
9/17-11/22
BDL- 1 1
BDL- 25
67-110
BDL-8,6
BDL-31
23-48
13-39
8,700-18,000
BDL-0.3
0,2-3.5
BDL-3.4
3-38
3.2-14,000
PlleG
4/8-4/30
0.5-3.6
16-31
61-130
4.1-7.7
16-46
30- 1 1 50
26-140
6,700-22,000
<0.1-<0.2
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 9 of 18
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 8. Arithmetic Mean Concentrations ofCDDs and CDFs Measured During SITE Demonstration [9]
Sampling Location
Parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDD
TCDD
TCDF
PeCDD
PeCDF
HxCDD
HxCDF
HpCDD
HpCDF
OCDD
OCDF
Untreated
Sludge
Ing/kg)
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.21
BDL
Treated Sludge
{"8*8)
BDL
0.987
2.42
0.534
0.066
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
filter Dust
(is/kg)
0.1
6.54
19.8
5.98
2.49
0.81
0.5
1.38
0.14
3.20
0.04
UquW
Condensate
(ngfl.)
BDL
119
697
60
47.7
BDL
2.8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Exhaust Gas
front
Refrigerated
Condenser
(BgUlcM)
0.01
o.i a?
0.178
0.2
0.14
0.002
0.0004
0.023
0.005
0.121
0.0067
Stack €«*
{ag/dBcn)
0.001
O.QQ87
0.066
O.QQ89
BDL
BDL
0.0003
0.017
0.0012
0.02S
0.0024
All CDDs and CDFs shown as Below Detection Limit (BDL) are assigned a value ofO
Detection limits in untreated sludge ranged from 0.04 to 0.80 nanograms per gram (ng/g). Detection limits In treated
sludge ranged from 0.07 to 1.6 ng/g. Detection limits In fabric filter dust ranged from O.I'4 to 9.6 ng/g. Detection limits
in the liquid condensate ranged from 1.4 to 17 ng/L
Performance Data Assessment
As shown in Tables 4, 5, and 6, MBOCA, other
VOCs, and SVOCs met the cleanup goals for 6
soil piles treated, with 2 exceptions. In soil
pile B, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP) was
measured as 300 ^g/kg, and the cleanup goal
was 40 jug/kg. BEHP is a common laboratory
contaminant, and its presence was attributed
to analytical problems rather than presence in
the treated soil. [12]
As shown in Table 6, isophorone was initially
measured in soil pile B at levels ranging from
200-600 p/g/kg, and the cleanup goal was 160
jL/g/kg. Additional samples from soil pile B
showed that isophorone and other SVOCs
were measured at levels below the detection
limit. The RPM stated that, prior to disposal,
soil at this site had to be retreated until all
cleanup goals were met. Soil from pile B was
disposed off site. It is not known at this time
if soil from pile B that showed the elevated
levels of isophorone was retreated.
As shown in Table 7, the treated soils con-
tained concentrations of manganese ranging
from 6,700 mg/kg to 22,000 mg/kg. Due to
these high concentrations of manganese, ADC
was required to dispose of these residuals in
an off-site landfill, instead of being backfilled
on site.
As shown in Table 8, dioxins and furans were
present in some treatment residuals. The
fabric filter dust contained the highest concen-
trations of dioxins/furans and was the only
solid residual containing measurable amounts
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
18
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 10 of 18
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness
Data are available on the concentrations of
MBOCA, VOCs. and SVOCs in six of eight
treated soil piles; these data are adequate for
Performance Data Quality
comparison with cleanup goals. Data are also
available on the concentrations of CDDs and
CDFs in six sampling locations.
EPA SW-846 methods were used for sampling
soil piles at ADC; no information is available at
this time on the analytical methods used.
Analytical problems were identified by the PRP
for chrysene, BEHP, and isophorone in soil pile
B. For chrysene, analytical data sheets were
identified incorrectly; problems for BEHP and
isophorone are described above under "Per-
formance Data Assessment."
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process [2]
The PRPs contracted with nine firms to pro- ADC. Table 9 lists each contractor and their
vide support services for the ADC remedia- role in this cleanup. No information is avail-
tion. Weston Services served as the primary able at this time on the competitive nature of
contractor for soil excavation and treatment at these procurements.
Table 9. ADC Remediation and Support Contractors [2]
Contractor
Activity
Weston Services
Clayton Environmental Consultants
Chester UbNet
Uldlaw Waste Systems
Simon Hydro-Search
OHM
Environmental Science and Engineering
Clean Harbors
Environmental Management Control, Inc.
Soil excavation and treatment
Analytical services
Analytical services
Transport and disposal of treated soils, sludge, and fly ash
Environmental consultants, Project management
Dewatering of high moisture content sludges
Installation of groundwater monitoring wells
Disposal of wastewater and contaminated stormwater
Backfilling the excavated lagoon
Treatment System Cost
No information is available at this time on the costs for the thermal desorption treatment
application at ADC.
Projected Cost
The Applications Analysis Report [9] includes
cost projections for using the LT3® system at
other sites. As shown in Tables 10, 11, and
12, costs are divided into 12 categories and
are reported as cost per ton of soil treated, for
three different soil moisture contents. The
values are based on using an LT3® system
similar to the system used at the Anderson
site. [9]
The costs are shown in Tables 10, 11, and 12
according to the format for an interagency
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS
specifies 9 before-treatment cost elements, 5
after-treatment cost elements, and 12 cost
U.S.ENVIRONMENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
19
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 11 of 18
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Projected Cost (cont.)
elements that provide a detailed breakdown
of costs directly associated with treatment.
Tables 10, 11, and 12 present the cost ele-
ments exactly as they appear in the WBS,
along with the specific activities, and unit cost
and number of units of the activity (where
appropriate), as provided in the Applications
Analysis Report.
Table 10. Projected Costs for Activities Directly Associated with Treatment [9]
Cost Categories
Startup/Testln^Permlts
Startup Costs*
Mobilization
Assembly
Shakedown
Total Startup Costs
Operation (Short-Term - up to 3 yean)
tabor Costs c
Operations Staff
Site Manager
Maintenance Supervisor
Site Safety Officer
Total Labor Costs
Supply and Consumable Costs
PPEC
PPE Disposable Drums'
Residual Waste Disposal Drums
Activated Carbone
Diesel Fuel'"
Calibration Gasese
Total Supply and Consumable Costs
Utility Costs
Natural Gas (@ $ 1 .43/1 .000 ft*)
Electricity (@ $0.1 8/kWh)
Water (@$ 1 .00/1 00 gal.)
Total Utility Costs
Equipment Repair and Replacement Costs
Maintenance
Design Adjustments'
Facility Modifications'
Total Equipment Repair and Replacement Costs
Cost of Ownership
Equipment Costs
LT>® Rental
Support Equipment Rental
Dumpstersc
Wastewater Storage Tanks'9
Steam Cleaner
Portable Toilet c
Optional Equipment Rental'
Total Equipment Costs
Total
Cost Per Ton of Soil Treated (dollars)"
Soil Moisture Content
20%
1000
25.00
15.00
5000
39.00
21.60
7.20
7.20
75.00
6.00
0.50
1 20
8.00
062
035
16.70
7.80
2.10
0.60
10.50
11.70
0.00
0.00
11 7O
I3.00<<
0.70
1 00
0.10
O.JO
12.00
26.90
190.80
45%
10.00
25.00
15.00
50.00
79.50
44.30
14.60
14.60
1 53.00
10.00
1.00
1.20
24.00
1.00
1.10
38.30
26.00
6.30
0.60
32.90
19.80
0.00
0.00
19.80
22.00
1.35
2.00
0.10
0.20
20.00
45.65
339.65
75%
10.00
25.00
15.00
50.00
79.50
44.30
14.60
14.60
153.00
10.00
1.00
1 20
24.00
1.00
1.10
38. 3O
26.00
6.30
0.60
32.90
19 SO
O.OO
OOO
19.8O
22.00
1.35
2OO
0.10
0.20
20.00
45.65
339.65
' = Cost per ton of soil treated; figures are rounded and have been developed for a 3,000-ton project.
b = Fixed cost not affected by the volume of soil treated.
c = Costs are incurred for the duration of the project.
d = Feed rate is double that of soils with 45% moisture content.
' = Costs are incurred only during soil treatment activities.
' = Cost included in the cost of renting the LT3® system.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
20
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 12 of 18
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Projected Cost (cont.)
Table 11. Protected Costs for Before- Treatment Activities [9]
Cost Categories
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
Site Preparation Costs
Administrative Costs
Fencing Costs
Construction Costs
Dewateririg Costs
Total Site Preparation Costs
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permit
Engineering Support
Total Permitting and Regulatory Support
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
Analytical Costs
Treatability Study*
Sample Analysis for VOCs
Total Analytical Costs
Total
Cost Per Ton of Soil Treated (dollars)'
Soil Moisture Content
20%
1 1.00
0.40
0.70
NA
12.10
3.30
80.00
83.30
10.00
4.20
14.20
109.60
45%
1 1.00
0.40
0.70
NA
12.10
3.30
80.00
83.30
10.00
12.00
22.00
117.40
75%
1 1.00
0.40
0.70
1 87.90
200.00
3.30
80.00
83.30
10.00
12.00
22.00
305.30
NA = Not Applicable
" = Cost per ton of soil treated; figures are rounded and have been developed for a 3,000-ton project.
* = Fixed cost not affected by the volume of soil treated.
Table 12. Projected Costs for After-Treatment Activities [9]
Cost Categories
Disposal (Commercial)
Residual Waste and Waste Shipping, Handling.
and Transportation Costs
Oversized Material (2% of feed soil)
Drums
Wastewater
Total Residual Waste and Waste Shipping,
Handling, and Transportation Costs
Demobilization
Site Demobilization Costs
Total
Cost Per Ton of Soil Treated (dollars)*
SoU Moisture Content
20%
5.40
27.00
7.20
39.60
33.00
72.60
45%
5.40
27.00
14.40
46.80
33.0O
79.80
75%
5.40
27.00
14.40
46.80
33.00
79.80
1 = Cost per ton of soil treated; figures are rounded and have been developed for a 3,000-ton project.
U.S.ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 21
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 1 3 of 18
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
No information is available at this time
on the costs for the thermal desorp-
tion treatment application at ADC.
Projected costs for treatment activities
ranging from $190 to $340 per ton of
soil treated were identified by the SITE
program based on the results of a
demonstration test. The SITE program
identified moisture content as a key
parameter affecting costs.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
• Cleanup goals for treated soil and
sludge in this application were speci-
fied for 4,4-Methylene bis(2-
chloroaniline) and six other VOCs, and
nine SVOCs. Cleanup goals ranged
from 20 ppb (e.g., for benzene) to
80,000 ppb (e.g., for phenol).
• Analytical data for six treated soil piles
show that MBOCA and all other VOCs
met the cleanup goals. Eight of nine
SVOCs met cleanup goals; analytical
problems were identified for BEHP.
• Elevated levels of manganese were
measured in the treated soil; as a
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
result, ADC was required to dispose of
treated soils in an off-site landfill.
SITE program data indicate that
dioxins and furans were present in
some treatment residuals; of all solid
residuals, the fabric filter dust con-
tained the highest concentrations of
dioxins and furans.
This cleanup of 5,100 tons of soil and
sludge was completed in a 1 7 month
period, which included several months
of system downtime.
The technology tested in the
treatability study was not used in the
full-scale application; the reason for
this is not available at this time.
REFERENCES |
1. U.S. EPA, Superfund Record of Deci-
sion: Anderson Development
(Amendment. Ml. EPA/ROD/ROS-91 /
1 77. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
September 30, 1991.
2. Simon Hydro-Search, Final Remedial
Action Report. Anderson Development
Company Site, Houston, Texas, April
1994.
3. NPL Public Assistance Database (NPL
PAD); Anderson Development Com-
pany, Michigan; EPA ID#
MID002931228. March 1992.
4. U.S. EPA, Superfund Preliminary Close
Out Report. Anderson Development
Company Site. Adrian. Michigan,
Region 5, Chicago, IL, September 24,
1993.
5. U.S. EPA, Superfund Record of Deci-
sion. Anderson Development. MI.
EPA/ROD/R05-90/137. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C., September 1990.
6. U.S. District Court, Consent Decree,
United States of America v. Anderson
Development Co., Washington D.C.,
August 19, 1991.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
22
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 14 of 18
REFERENCES (CONT.)
7. U.S. EPA, Public Meeting. Explanation
of Significant Differences for Remedial
Activities at the Anderson Develop-
ment Company Site. October 21,
1992.
8. Weston Services, Inc., Thermal Treat-
ment Systems Proposal. Remediation
of MBOCA Contaminated Sludge and
Underlying Soil at the Adrian. Michi-
gan Facility for Anderson Development
Company. August 8, 1991.
9. U.S. EPA, Applications Analysis Report
- Low Temperature Thermal Treatment
(LT3®) Technology. Rov F. Weston.
Inc.. EPA/540/AR-92/019. Office of
Research and Development, Washing-
ton, D.C., December 1992.
10. Canonic Environmental, Treatabilitv
Study Report and Remedial Contract-
ing Services Proposal. September
1990.
11. Comments on 30 November 1994
Draft Report from Jim Hahnenburg,
RPM, received January 18, 1995.
12. Memorandum from Mark Hastings,
Anderson Development Company, to
James J. Hahnenberg, US. EPA,
regarding Offsite disposal of Compos-
ite Soil Pile B, December 3, 1992.
13. Memorandum from Mark Hastings,
Anderson Development Company, to
James J. Hahnenberg, U.S. EPA,
regarding Offsite disposal of Compos-
ite Soil Pile B, Additional Semivolatile
Analytical Data, December 14, 1992.
14. Memorandum from Mark Hastings,
Anderson Development Company, to
James J. Hahnenberg, U.S. EPA,
regarding Offsite disposal of Compos-
ite Soil Pile C. December 22, 1992.
15. Memorandum from Mark Hastings,
Anderson Development Company, to
James J. Hahnenberg, U.S. EPA,
regarding Offsite disposal of Compos-
ite Soil Pile D, January 20, 1993.
16. Memorandum from Mark Hastings,
Anderson Development Company, to
James J. Hahnenberg, U.S. EPA,
regarding Offsite disposal of Compos-
ite Soil Pile E, February 18, 1993.
17. Memorandum from Mark Hastings,
Anderson Development Company, to
James J. Hahnenberg, U.S. EPA,
regarding Offsite disposal of Compos-
ite Soil Pile F, March 10, 1993.
18. Memorandum from Mark Hastings,
Anderson Development Company, to
James J. Hahnenberg, U.S. EPA,
regarding Offsite disposal of Compos-
ite Soil Pile G, May 13, 1993.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the US. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
23
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 15 of 18
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Treatability Study Objectives
Canonic conducted a bench-scale treatability
study using their Low Temperature Thermal
Aeration (LTTA) process on contaminated soil
from the Anderson site. The study had the
following objectives [10]:
• Determine the effectiveness of the
LTTA process to reduce MBOCA
concentrations in contaminated
Treatability Study Test Description
sludge and clay from the Anderson
site to levels below the cleanup goal
of 1.684 mg/kg;
Optimize the operating parameters,
especially bed temperature and
residence time; and
Develop cost estimates for the full-
scale treatment application.
The treatability study consisted of six runs. A
bench-scale thermal desorption system was
used during the study to simulate the full-
scale LTTA system. The bench-scale system
utilized a batch process, and consisted of a
hollow rotating cylinder with a metal shell
which simulated the rotary drum dryer in the
LTTA system. The shell was heated externally,
which in turn heated the soil fed into the
cylinder. In the full-scale design, heat transfer
is accomplished directly, and includes a
continuous feed of soil.
Off-gasses from the soil were carried from the
dryer by induced air flow through the rotating
cylinder. Air flow was induced through the
cylinder at a rate of 0.25 to 0.30 cubic feet
per minute (cfm). The amount of air flow per
mass of soil in the dryer was much smaller
than in the full-scale unit. Because of the
relatively lesser amount of particulates pro-
duced, a baghouse was not included in the
design of the bench-scale unit.
The off-gasses from the bench-scale unit were
first vented through a series of water cooled
condensers, which simulated the Venturi
scrubber in the full-scale system. This unit
condensed water vapor and some volatile and
semivolatile organics, including MBOCA. For
the fifth and sixth run, the condenser off-gas
was vented through Tenax or polyurethane
foam (PUF) tubes, respectively, to sample for
volatile or semivolatile compounds which
remained in the off-gas. This measured the
amount of volatiles and semivolatiles which
would enter the vapor phase carbon unit in
the full-scale system.
The first four runs of the treatability study
were preliminary runs, while the last two were
system optimization runs. Canonic performed
the runs on contaminated sludge and clay
from the Anderson site. The clay was shred-
ded to a particle size of less than one-half
inch and then dried. The procedure used for
the treatability study follows:
1. Contaminated wet sludge and shred-
ded, dried clay were mixed at a ratio
of approximately one to three or one
to four (weight-to-weight basis).
2. Between 1,300 and 1,400 grams were
batch fed into the preheated dryer
cylinder for each run.
3. Air was induced through the dryer
cylinder at a flow rate between 0.2
and 0.3 cfm.
4. The residence time was 10.0 minutes
for the first, second, and sixth runs,
and 12.5 minutes for the third, fourth,
and fifth runs. The cylinder was
rotated at 6 rpm for all six runs.
5. Off-gas from the process was vented
through a series of condensers, and a
glass container was used to collect
the condensate.
6. During the fifth run, a portion of the
off-gas was vented through Tenax
tubes to sample for volatiles. During
the sixth run, the off-gas was passed
through PUF tubes to sample for semi-
volatiles. In both runs, the off-gas
passed through the tubes after it had
passed through the condensers.
U.S. EhMRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
24
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 16 of 18
I APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatabllity Study Test Description (cont.)
7. The soil inside the cylinder was heated
to temperatures (bed temperature)
between 480°F and 700°F. [10]
TreatabiHty Study Performance Data
Untreated and treated soil samples from each
run were analyzed for MBOCA. The operating
parameters and the MBOCA data for the six
runs are presented in Table A-1. The results
show that runs with a bed temperature of
greater than 600°F (runs 1 and 2) had a
removal efficiency of greater than 99.99%,
removing MBOCA to concentrations of less
than 0.05 mg/kg. Runs 3 and 4 showed that
when the bed temperature was below 600°F
and untreated soil concentrations were
relatively high (300 mg/kg or higher), large
concentrations of MBOCA remained in the
treated soils.
Samples from Runs 5 and 6 were analyzed for
concentrations of volatile and semivolatile
organics. The results, shown in Table A-2,
show that volatile and semivolatile soil con-
centrations were relatively low before treat-
ment, and that the technology reduced
concentrations of toluene. Other compounds
showed no decrease or an increase in concen-
tration. Results of the condensate analysis are
presented in Table A-3.
Results of the off-gas analysis show that no
semivolatiles were present and only low levels
of volatiles were present. Of the volatiles,
acetone and acetaldehyde were present at the
greatest concentrations, at 20 |Ug/kg and 6 jUg/
kg, respectively. The off-gas analytical data is
presented in Table A-4. [10]
Canonie estimated that they could perform
the full-scale remediation for a fixed price of
$810,000. This estimate was based on a
maximum of 2,000 tons of soil. This esti-
mated cost does not include site preparation,
electrical costs, or waste disposal.
Table A-1. MBOCA Concentrations in Pre- and Post-Treatment Soil and Relative Test Run Conditions
Test Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
MBOCA (mg/kg)
Pretreatment
570
1100
3OO
320
9.2
81
Post-
treatment
<0.05
<0.05
13
240
<0.05
0,23
Percent
Reduction In
MBOCA
99.99
99.99
95.67
25
99.45
99,72
Test Run Conditions
Median Bed
Temperature
(F°>
700
600
50O
480
520
520
Run Time (mln)
10
10
12.5
12.5
12.5
10.0
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPR07ECT10NAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
25
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 18
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatability Study Performance Data (cont.)
Table A-2. Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Organics in Pre- and Post-Treatment Soil
Test Run No.
5
6
Compound Detected
Volatile*
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Methyl Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
Semivolatiles
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Methylphenol
Votatlles
Acetone
Benzene
Methyl Chloride
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
Semivolatiles
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Methylphenol
Concentration (ffgfeg)
Pretreatment Sample
1,900
ND
40
ND
40
1,800
40
1,000
2,600
ND
ND
ND
720
ND
1,200
2,100
Post-Treatment
Sample
1,900
8
ND
58
ND
54
5
1,200
2,100
2,600
12
200
98
12
ND
ND
ND - Not detected
Table A-3. Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Organics In Condenser Off-Gas
Concentration
Test Run No.
Compound Detected
Volatile* Only*
OH ^Hydrocarbon
Acetaldehyde
CjH/0 Hydrocarbon
QH a Hydrocarbon
CjH« Hydrocarbon
Furan
Carbon Disulflde
Propanol
Acetone
C^H ^Hydrocarbons
Acetonitrile
CfH /^Hydrocarbons
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Propanol + C^H^ Hydrocarbon
Methyl Propanol
C4H(0Hydrocarbon + C«H hydrocarbon
Unknown Compound
Butanol
Unknown Compound
SemlvolatJIesOnly'
None Detected
o.z
6
o.i
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.7
3
20
0.9
0.3
3
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.07
0.08
0.9
0.03
"The GC column was not heated during VOC analyses, hence the list presented may
not include all the volatile compounds present in the sample
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
26
-------
Anderson Development Company Superfund Site—Page 18 of 18
APPENDIX A - TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatability Study Performance Data (cont.)
Table A-4. Summary of Condensate Analyses
Compound Detected
MBOCA
Volatiles
Acetone
Toluene
Acetaldehyde
Methyl Ester of Methyl Propeonic Acid
Semivolatiles
4-Chloroaniline
4-Methyl phenol
Phenol
Aniline
Pyridine
Furancarboxaldehyde
Dimethyl Pyridine
Benzaldehyde
Bromophenol + Acetophenone
Chloroaniline Isomer
Benzothiazole
Chloromethyl Benzeneamine
Bromophenol
Unknown Nitrogen Compound
Dibromophenol
Chloro Methoxy Pyrimidinamine
Unknown Nitrogen Compound
Concentration
860
30,000
600
1,000
300
1,500
12,000
5,100
20,000
800
900
800
2,000
900
200,000
1,000
1,000
900
1,000
3,000
8,000
3,000
Treatability Study Lessons Learned
Canonie's LTTA technology was
effective in reducing concentrations of
MBOCA to levels below the cleanup
goal of 1.684 mg/kg, when operated
at temperatures of 520°F or greater.
The vendor specified that optimal
operating parameters for the full-scale
system would be a residence time of
10 minutes at 600°F to 650°F, and a
system throughput of 35 to 40 tons
per hour. Under these conditions, the
system would be effective in meeting
the cleanup goals.
According to the vendor, the full-scale
LTTA system would achieve a greater
removal efficiency than the bench-
scale system due to the direct heating
and the greater air flow in the full-
scale unit.
Canonic estimated that they could
perform the full-scale remediation for
a fixed price of $810,000. This
estimate was based on a maximum of
2,000 tons of soil. This estimated
cost does not include site preparation,
electrical costs, or waste disposal.
"** -**
U.S.ENV1RONIVENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
27
-------
Soil Washing at the
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site
Winslow Township, New Jersey
28
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Washing at the King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site Winslow Township, New Jersey
Site Name:
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site
Location:
Winslow Township, New Jersey
Contaminants:
Metals
- Beryllium, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc,
lead, mercury
- Highest metals concentrations in sediments -
chromium (8,010 mg/kg), copper (9,070
mg/kg), mercury (100 mg/kg)
- Highest metals concentration in sludge -
chromium (11,300 mg/kg), copper (16,300
mg/kg), lead (389 mg/kg), nickel (11,100
mg/kg)
Period of Operation:
June 1993 to October 1993
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Mike Mann
Alternative Remediation Technologies, Inc.
14497 Dale Mabry Highway
Tampa, FL 33618
(813) 264-3506
SIC Code:
4953 (Sanitary Services-Refuse Systems)
Technology:
Soil Washing
Materials Handling
- Selective excavation of metals-contaminated
soil using visual inspection, confirmed using
on-site X-ray fluorescence
Soil Washing System
- Four components - screening, separation,
froth flotation, sludge management; rated
feed capacity of 25 tons/hour
- Screening - multiple screens; coarse screen
(>8 inches) and process oversize (>2 inches);
wet screening of <2 inch materials
- Separation - hydroclones separate coarse and
fine-grained materials
- Froth flotation - air flotation treatment units
- Sludge management - overflow from
hydroclones sent through clarifier, sludge
thickener, filter press; filter cake disposed off
site; water reused for wet screening
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date: 9/28/90
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
John Gorin
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY
(202) 264-7592
Waste Source:
Surface Impoundments/Lagoons
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Sludge
- 19,200 tons of soil and sludge
- Moisture content of approximately 15%
- pH of approximately 6.5
Purpose/Significance of Application:
EPA's first full-scale application of soil washing to remediate a Superfund site. Innovative on-site monitoring technique;
selective excavation techniques, including use of X-ray fluorescence, to screen soil for cleanup.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
1990 ROD identified soil cleanup levels for 11 metals
- Arsenic (190 mg/kg), beryllium (485 mg/kg), cadmium (107 mg/kg), chromium (483 mg/kg), copper (3,571 mg/kg), lead
(500 mg/kg), mercury (1 mg/kg), nickel (1,935 mg/kg), selenium (4 mg/kg), silver (5 mg/kg), zinc (3,800 mg/kg)
29
-------
Case Study Abstract
Soil Washing at the King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Superfund Site Winslow Township, New Jersey (Continued)
Results:
- Cleanup goals were met for all 11 metals
- Cleanup goals were achieved in less than 4 months
Cost Factors:
- Total cost of $7,700,000 (including off-site disposal cost)
Description:
The King of Prussia (KOP) Technical Corporation Superfund site had been used as a waste recycling facility from 1971 to
1974. An estimated 15 million gallons of liquid industrial waste were processed in six lagoons. These activities resulted in
soiland sludge contamination at the site. The primary constituents of concern were chromium (at levels up to 11,300
mg/kg), copper (at levels up to 16,300 mg/kg), and nickel (at levels up to 11,100 mg/kg). The ROD, signed in September
1990, specified complete excavation of soils, sediments, and sludges from these lagoons and use of contaminant extraction
(soil washing) to achieve the specified soil cleanup levels for 11 metals.
The soil washing system at KOP was selected based on the results of a treatability study and data from a demonstration run
using KOP soil at a full-scale unit in the Netherlands. The soil washing system was operated at KOP from June 1993 to
October 1993. The system consisted of a series of hydroclones, conditioners, and froth flotation cells. Approximately
19,200 tons of contaminated soil and sludge were treated during this application. The soil washing system achieved the
specified soil cleanup levels for all 11 metals, and the treated soil was used as backfill at the site. Of note for this full-scale
cleanup was the use of selective excavation techniques to screen contaminated soil and sludge for treatment. Selective
excavation was performed through visual examination confirmed using on-site X-ray fluorescence, and resulted in fewer tons
of soil requiring treatment.
The total cost for this application was $7,700,000, including off-site disposal costs for the sludge cake. Selective excavation
reduced the overall costs for the application by reducing the amount of soil requiring treatment by a factor of two. Further,
the data from the demonstration run expedited the design schedule of the full-scale unit by more than a year.
30
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 1 of 23
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
This report summarizes cost and performance
data for a soil washing treatment application
at the King of Prussia (KOP) Technical Corpo-
ration Superfund site. This site, located in
Winslow Township, New Jersey, is a former
waste processing facility that operated from
January 1971 to April 1974. On September
28, 1990, a Record of Decision (ROD) was
signed to conduct a remedial action for
contaminated soil and sludge at KOR A full-
scale soil washing unit, owned and operated
by Alternative Remedial Technologies, Inc.
(ART) of Tampa, Florida, was used from June
28, 1993 to October 10, 1993 to treat
19,200 tons of soil and sludge at the site The
soil and sludge were contaminated primarily
with chromium, copper, and nickel. Maximum
concentrations of these metals measured in
the soil were chromium at 8,010 mg/kg;
copper at 9,070 mg/kg; and nickel at 387 mg/
kg. Average treatment unit feed concentra-
tions were 660 mg/kg, 860 mg/kg, and 330
mg/kg, respectively. ART performed the soil
washing operation under direct contract to the
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) committee
who had received a Unilateral Administrative
Order from the US. EPA in April 1991.
A treatability test of soil washing using soil
from the KOP site was conducted in January
1992; the results from the treatability test
indicated that the soil at KOP had an accept-
able level of sand content and could be
effectively treated by soil washing. A demon-
stration run was conducted in July 1992 when
164 tons of contaminated soil and sludge
from the KOP site were processed through a
full-scale unit in the Netherlands. The results
from the demonstration run conducted in July
1992 further supported the feasibility of soil
washing for treating soil from the KOP site to
the ROD-specifted cleanup levels.
For the full-scale remediation, ART operated
the soil washing unit on a production basis
with the goal of maintaining a 25 ton/hour
throughput. The soil washing unit consisted of
a series of hydrocyclones, conditioners, and
froth flotation cells. The cleaned sand (prod-
uct) and process oversize from the soil
washing unit were redeposited on site while
the sludge cake was disposed off site as a
nonhazardous waste. Performance data
showed that the cleaned sand and process
oversize met the cleanup levels for 11 metals
in this application.
This application was the first full-scale appli-
cation of soil washing to remediate a Super-
fund site in the United States. In addition, a
selective excavation technique was used to
collect and identify contaminated soil and
sludge for treatment in the soil washing unit,
and the associated use of advanced on-site
monitoring techniques. Selective excavation
was performed through visual determination
of contaminated material and confirmation of
clean materials on site with an X-ray fluores-
cence instrument in an on-site laboratory. This
excavation technique resulted in the process-
ing of fewer tons of soil requiring soil washing
than would have occurred with a less discrimi-
nating excavation technique.
Actual costs for the soil washing treatment
application at the King of Prussia site, includ-
ing off-site disposal costs, were approximately
$7,700,000.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
31
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 2 of 23
I SITE IN FORMATION
Identifying Information
King of Prussia Technical Corporation
Operable Unit 1
Winslow Township, New Jersey
Treatment Application
CERCLIS #:
ROD Date:
NJD980505341
28 September 1990
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study associated with applica-
tion? Yes (Refer to Appendix A for additional
information on treatability study and Appendix
B for information on demonstration run.)
EPA SITE Program test associated with
application? No
Period of Operation: 6/28/93 to 10/10/93
Quantity of soil treated during application:
19,200 tons
Background
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Waste processing
facility
Corresponding SIC Code: 4953: Sanitary
Services—Refuse Systems
Waste Management Practice that
Contributed to Contamination: Surface
impoundment/lagoon; and dumping—unau-
thorized
Site History: The King of Prussia (KOP)
Technical Corporation site is located in
Winslow Township, Camden County, New
Jersey, as shown in Figure 1. The site, a
rectangular shaped, 10-acre parcel, as shown
in Figure 2, is bordered to the northeast,
northwest, and southwest by a dense pine
forest of the state-owned 6,000-acre Winslow
Wildlife Management Area. The southeast
border is Piney Hollow Road. The Great Egg
Harbor River, used for recreational purposes,
is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest
of the site. A drainage swale in the site is
dammed by two fire roads; site runoff flows
toward the river. The swale has been desig-
nated as a wetlands. The site is generally
barren and sandy with sparse patches of tall
seed grass. [1 and 9]
The KOP Corporation began operating a waste
recycling facility at this site in January 1971.
The facility included six lagoons used to
process liquid industrial waste. Industrial
wastes were converted to materials that were
intended to be marketed and sold as con-
struction material and for other uses. Excess
materials were transferred to other disposal
locations. During its operation, it is estimated
that at least 15 million gallons of acids and
alkaline aqueous wastes were processed at
this site. Site operations are believed to have
ceased and site abandonment to have oc-
curred in late 1973 to early 1974. In addition,
between 1976 and 1988, illegal dumping of
trash and hazardous materials was suspected
to have occurred at the site. [1 and 9]
King of Prussia
SiiperfuMd Site
Winslow Township, New Jersey
Figure 1. Site Location
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
32
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 3 of 23
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Figure 2. Site Map [9]
Soil and sediment at the site were determined
to be contaminated with heavy metals. Prior
to issuance of a ROD, cleanup activities at the
site included excavation and removal for off-
site disposal of buried plastic containers
(carboys) and visibly-contaminated, surround-
ing soils located west of the lagoons. [1 ]
Regulatory Context: A ROD was issued for
this site in September 1990 and defined five
components of remedial activities pertaining
to contaminated media, including the area
relevant to this report (i.e., Component 1).
These components included [1,12]:
Component 1—The metals-contaminated
soils adjacent to the lagoons, the sludge in
the lagoons, and the sediment in the
swale. (Operable Unit One)
Component 2—The buried drums and
soils contaminated with volatile organic
compounds located in the northwest
section of the site. (Operable Unit Two)
Component 3—Two tankers and their
contents located near the southeast
sections of the site.
Component 4—The groundwater at the site
contaminated with organics and metals.
(Operable Unit Three)
Component 5—The surface waters, sedi-
ments, and biota of the Great Egg Harbor
River.
EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to
the PRPs in April 1991 requiring the PRPs to
implement the requirements of the ROD. The
remedial activities for Component 1 were led by
the PRPs with EPA oversight. [9]
Remedy Selection: The following six remedial
alternatives were considered for remediation of
Component 1 of the KOP site:
1. No action;
2. Limited action (site and deed restrictions;
additional fencing around swale area);
3. Limited excavation of sediments and soils
with consolidation and capping;
4. Complete excavation of soils, sediments,
and sludges that exceed the cleanup
objective with contaminant extraction (soil
washing), to achieve specified cleanup
levels followed by redeposition on site;
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
33
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 4 of 23
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
5. Stabilization/solidification, either in
situ or following excavation of soils,
sediments, and sludges, both fol-
lowed by capping; and
6. Complete removal and off-site
disposal.
Soil washing was selected as the remedial
alternative for Component 1. Soil was deter-
Site Logistics/Contacts
mined to provide a permanent solution by
removing the contaminants from the site and
thus protecting human health and the environ-
ment. In addition, the treated material could
be redeposited to its original location to
restore site topography. [1]
Site Management: PRP Lead
Remedial Project Manager:
Gary Adamkiewicz (through May 1994)
John Gorin (June 1994 to Present)
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 720
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-7592
Oversight: EPA
Treatment System Vendor:
Jill Besch/Mike Mann
Alternative Remedial Technologies, Inc.
14497 Dale Mabry Highway
Tampa, FL 33618
(813)264-3506
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix processed through the treatment system:
Soil (ex situ)/Sediment (ex situ)/Sludge (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant group: Heavy metals
Investigations at the site were conducted by
the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and by the PRPs. Samples of
surface soil (<2 feet deep), subsurface soil
(2 to 10 feet), and sediment were collected
during the investigations to characterize the
soil next to the lagoons, the sediments in the
swale, and the sludges in the lagoons and
adjacent areas. The results from this sampling
indicated that beryllium, chromium, copper,
nickel, and zinc are the primary contaminants
in these areas. The highest concentration of
surface contamination was located in the
sediments at the bottom of the swale, with
maximum concentrations of chromium at
8,010 mg/kg, copper at 9,070 mg/kg, and
mercury at 100 mg/kg. The highest concentra-
tions of subsurface contamination were
located in a zone of sludge-like material at a
depth of 3 to 4 feet northwest of and adjacent
to the lagoons. The highest concentrations of
contaminants in the sludge material were
chromium at 11,300 mg/kg, copper at 16.300
mg/kg, lead at 389 mg/kg, and nickel at
11,100 mg/kg. Sampling results also indicated
that the soils have infrequent and low concen-
trations of volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds. Average soil concentrations were
measured as 660 mg/kg for chromium, 860
mg/kg for copper, and 330 mg/kg for nickel.
[1,9,12]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
34
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 5 of 23
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Listed below in Tables 1 and 2 are selected matrix characteristics which are considered to be
the major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance, and the values measured for
each.
Table i. Matrix Characteristics Affecting
Treatment Cost or Performance [5, / 0]
Parameter
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
Fines Content
Total Organic Carbon
Cation Exchange Capacity
Value
See Table 2
0.1
Not measured
Not measured
Measurement
Procedure
Not available
Wet screening
—
__
Table 2. Particle Size
Distribution of Background Soil [5]
Particle Sire
(microns)
> 4,000
2,000 to 4,000
1 ,000 to 2,000
500 to ! ,000
250 to 500
1 25 to 250
63 to 1 25
38 to 63
<38
Distribution
<%)
0
J2.6
12.6
22.1
28.8
12.5
3.9
0.9
6.6
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Type
Soil Washing
Technology Description
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Type
Screening
Excavation Description [7, 10]
Materials Handling: Selective excavation of
metals-contaminated soils was completed
using visual inspection and confirmed using an
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) instrument in an on-
site laboratory. Although 40,000 tons of
material were excavated, only 20,000 tons
exceeded the cleanup levels and required
treatment through the soil washing unit.
Selective excavation was identified as an
appropriate technique for this site based on
the findings of previous site investigation and
excavation activities which indicated that the
contaminants are associated within bands of
sludge material and soils adjacent to the
lagoons. Selective excavation of the soil and
sludge in and adjacent to the lagoons and the
swale area involved the following steps:
1. Excavation of clean, overburden soils
and staging and/or transportation of
material to the stockpile area;
2. Excavation of contaminated soils and
transportation of contaminated soils
to the screening and blending area;
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
35
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 6 of 23
3.
4.
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.) |
Technology Description (cont.)
samples of contaminated soil from the KOP
site. Initial efforts to develop suitable calibra-
tion standards involved collecting contami-
nated soil from the site, manual homogeniza-
tion, grinding, splitting and off-site laboratory
analysis. Continuing studies for developing
suitable standards resulted in refining the soil
sample preparation method by replacing the
manual homogenization, grinding, and split-
ting processes with mechanical processes for
each item.
XRF analysis of the contamination
levels in the trench bottom soils; and
Backfilling of the clean trench bottom
with XRF-confirmed clean material.
Excavation and blending of soils and sludges
to maintain a constant ratio of soil to sludge
involved the following three phases:
• Phase 1: excavating and blending of
the first third of the sludge band area
with material from the lagoon 1 area;
• Phase 2: excavating and blending of
the second third of the sludge band
area with material from the swale
area; and
• Phase 3: excavating and blending of
the third third of the sludge band area
with material from the lagoon 6 area.
X-Ray Fluorescence: An X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) instrument was used on-site during the
excavation activities and during the soil
washing operation for the analysis of chro-
mium, copper, and nickel. An XRF instrument
was also utilized during pre-remedial activi-
ties, including additional site characterization,
the treatability study, and the demonstration
run. For the treatability study and demonstra-
tion run, the XRF was calibrated with both
synthetic and commercial standard reference
materials. Confirmational analysis performed
by an outside Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP) laboratory indicated that the field results
for chromium and copper were biased high by
a factor of 1.3 to 2. It was determined that
both synthetic and commercial calibration
standards were not suitable for the concentra-
tions and matrices encountered at the KOP
site. Therefore, the XRF results relevant to the
treatability study and demonstration run for
this application were considered to be biased
high by a factor of 1.3 to 2.
Based on a review of the confirmational
analyses and calibration procedures used for
the XRF instrument during the runs described
above, the vendor modified the calibration
standards. Calibration standards were devel-
oped for the full-scale application using
For the full-scale activities, three calibration
standards, corresponding to concentrations
less than, approximately equal to, and greater
than the ROD-specified cleanup levels, were
prepared for chromium, copper, and nickel
using the refined technique and were used to
calibrate the XRF instrument. The results
obtained with the XRF using the mechanically
prepared calibration standards showed no
bias in the correlation with off-site confirma-
tory analysis.
Soil Washing System Description
[4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12]
The soil washing unit used to remediate the
contaminated soil and sludge at the KOP site
was constructed by a Swedish-based firm
under contract to Alternative Remedial Tech-
nologies, Inc. The unit, shown in Figure 3,
consists of four components: screening,
separation, froth flotation, and sludge man-
agement (described below), and has a rated
system throughput of 25 tons/hour.
The soil washing unit was built off site as a
modular system, and constructed at the site,
as shown in Figure 4. Construction activities
began on March 30, 1993, and were com-
pleted on June 1, 1993. Following completion,
a slurry run, comprised of clean site soils and
water, was conducted to monitor operation of
the unit. To verify that the newly erected unit
was capable of treating the contaminated soil
to the ROD cleanup levels, a pilot run was
performed form June 3 through June 9, 1993.
The pilot run consisted of processing 991 tons
of contaminated soil from Lagoons 1 and 6
and the sludge band area.
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
36
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 7 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Technology Description (cont.)
Recycled Water
Fines
Mokeup Water
f~n Multi-Stoge
I jHydrocyclonin
To Water
Storage
Scrubbing
notation Cells
Figure 3. 3o// Washing Unit Used dt KOP [6j
SLUDGE CAKE
CLEAN SAND PRODUCT
Figure 4. Remediation System Layout [12]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 37
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 8 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Technology Description (cont.)
System operation included the following
processes:
Screening: This stage consists of screening
out the gross oversize fraction from the pile of
material to be treated by means of a hopper
and a vibrating grizzly (not shown on Figure 3).
The gross oversize (greater than 8-inch
material), which typically consists of concrete,
tree stumps, and branches, is periodically
removed from the hopper and staged. The
material that passes through the grizzly is then
directed to another mechanical screening unit,
which consists of a double-decked, coarse
vibrating screen with stacking conveyors, to
remove process oversize (greater than 2-inch
material) from the fall-through. The fall-
through (<2 inch) is then subjected to wet
screening with high pressure water nozzles.
The wet screening breaks up clods, drops out
pea-size gravel and forms a slurry. Gravel and
other material is combined with the process
oversize, while the slurry is further separated.
Separation: This stage consists of separating
the screened soil/water slurry into coarse- and
fine-grained material through the use of multi-
stage hydrocyclones. The use of multiple
cyclones achieves a separation efficiency of
>99% of the sands and fines. The
hydrocyclones have field-adjustable cone and
barrel components to set and modify as
necessary the "cut-point" between coarse-
and fine-grained material. For this application,
the hydrocyclone cut point was set at 40
microns (the distribution among size fractions
showed a diminishing removal efficiency
above 40 microns), determined using the
results of the treatability study. The
hydrocyclones were configured to minimize
the volume of sludge cake requiring off-site
disposal and to minimize the amount of fines
in the clean product. The underflow containing
coarse-grained material from the
hydrocycloning steps was conditioned and
directed to the froth flotation stage while the
fine-grained material was processed into a
sludge cake.
froth Flotation: This stage consists of remov-
ing the contaminants from the coarse-grained
material. The removal was done by means of
air flotation treatment units. For this applica-
tion, an air-flotation tank equipped with
mechanical aerators was used. The coarse-
grained material was pumped into the tank
where a surfactant was added. The surfactant,
selected based on the results of the treatabil-
ity test, reduced the surface tension between
the contaminant and sand. The contaminants
"float" into a froth and were removed from
the surface of the air flotation tank and were
directed to the sludge management process.
Surfactant dosing, slurry flow rate, and the
height of the overflow weir were continuously
monitored and adjusted as appropriate. The
"cleaned" underflow sands were directed to a
cyclone and sand dewatering screens, where
dewatering occurs. Approximately 85% of the
processed material (clean sand product) from
the KOP site was used as backfill, while the
water was recycled back to the wet screening
section.
Sludge Management: This stage of the
process consists of treating the overflow from
the hydrocyclones. The overflow, consisting of
fine-grained material and water, was pumped
to banked Lamella clarifiers. A polymer,
selected based on the results of the treatabil-
ity test, was added prior to introduction to the
Lamella. The clarified solids were directed to
a sludge thickener and ultimately to a pressur-
ized filter press, where the 15-20% solids
influent was converted into a 50-60% dry
solids filter cake. The filter cake was disposed
off site as a nonhazardous waste. The water
from the sludge management stage was
returned to the wet screening area for reuse.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
38
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 9 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost
or performance for this technology and the
values measured for each during this treat-
ment application are listed in Table 3.
ART operated the soil washing unit at KOP on
a production basis, with a goal of processing
25 tons/hour of contaminated materials, and
monitored and adjusted 15 operational
parameters. These parameters included the pH of
the conditioners and make-up streams, metering
of process streams (frother, conditioners, and
polymers), cyclone feed rates, operational heights
of process vessels (sumps and conditioner tanks),
and operating pressures of pumps and cyclones.
[6, 10]
Table 3. Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [3, 10]
Parameter
Value*
Moisture Content (of untreated soil)
pH (of untreated soil)
System Throughput
Washing/Flushing Solvent Components/Additives
-15%
-6.5
25 tons/hr
Polymer and Surfactant
*Vendor provided approximate values for moisture content and pH, but did not
identify the specific polymer and surfactant used in this treatment application.
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Timeline[1, 3, 7, 9, It, and 12]
Start Date
January 1971
September 1983
September 28, 1 990
January 1992
July 22, 1992
March 1, 1993
March 30, 1993
June 3, 1993
June 28, 1993
JuiyS, 1993
July 19, 1993
October 11, 1993
End Date
April 1974
—
—
—
—
November 4, 1 993
June 1, 1993
June 9, 1993
October 10, 1993
October 13, 1993
October 10, 1993
November 1, 1993
Activity
Operations at the KOP Technical Corporation conducted
KOP added to National Priorities List
ROD signed
Treatability test conducted
Demonstration run conducted
Site mobilization
Construction of soil washing unit
Pilot run conducted
Full-scale soil washing conducted
Off-site shipment of residual sludge
Backfilling of clean soils
Decontamination and disassembly of soil washing unit
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
39
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 10 of 23
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Levels
The 1990 ROD identified cleanup levels for 1 1
metals in the soils in the area adjacent to the
lagoons, sediments in the swale, and sludges
in the lagoons (Component 1 of the site
remediation). These levels are presented in
Tables. [1]
Table 5. Soil Cleanup Levels [I]
Constitutent
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Stiver
Zinc
Soil Cleanup Levels
(mg/kg)
190
485
107
483
3,571
500
1
1,935
4
5
3,800
Additional Information on Cleanup
Levels
The cleanup levels shown in Table 5 were
developed based on risk to public health using
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects. The
carcinogenic effects were assessed using the
cancer potency factors developed by the U.S.
EPA, and a cancer risk of less than 1 X 10'6.
The noncarcinogenic effects were assessed
using the hazard index approach, based on a
comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and Reference Doses. A hazard index of less
than 1 was used to develop the cleanup levels
from noncarcinogenic risks. The carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic risks were summed to
indicate the potential risks associated with
mixtures of potential carcinogens and
noncarcinogens. [1]
Treatment Performance Data
Table 6 presents a summary of the treatment
performance data for this application, corre-
sponding to the four sampling points shown in
Figure 3 and described below. Average con-
centrations and concentration ranges are
provided for the untreated soil, process
oversize, and clean sand, while only average
concentrations are shown for the sludge cake.
• Untreated (Feed^ Soil - This sampling
point represents the concentration of
metals in contaminated soil after
excavation and blending, but prior to
screening for gross or process over-
size. Determination of the chromium,
copper, and nickel concentrations in
the untreated soil was performed
using X-ray fluorescence. The concen-
trations of the other eight metals
shown on Table 6 were measured at
an off-site laboratory using samples
from the demonstration run and,
because the soil from the demonstra-
tion run was collected from the same
excavation trenches as for the full-
scale operation, are considered to be
representative of the average concen-
tration of the untreated soil processed
during the full-scale operation. These
average concentrations are lower than
the initial concentrations measured
during the site characterization, due to
blending and homogenization of the
feed pile prior to its introduction to
the treatment unit.
Process (Clean) Oversize - This
sampling point represents the concen-
tration of metals in the process
oversize. The process oversize is that
material which was screened from the
untreated soil and typically measures
greater than 2 inches in diameter and
consists of gravel and wood. The
process oversize was ultimately
redeposited at the site from the
location where it was excavated.
Samples for off-site analysis consisted
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
40
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 11 of 23
[TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 6. Treatment Performance Data [9,12]
Constituent
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Cleanup
Level
190
485
107
483
3571
500
1
1,935
4
5
3,800
Untreated (Feed) Soil
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
1
20
0.56
660
860
22
0.09
330
0.36
0.69
150
Range
N/A
N/A
N/A
500 to 5,000
800 to 8,000
N/A
N/A
300 to 3.500
N/A
N/A
N/A
Process (Clean) Oversize
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
0 62
5.9
ND (063)
172
350
6 5
ND (0.09)
98
ND (O 38)
ND (0.65)
48
Range
0.34 to 1.4
2.7 to 1 1
ND (0.97)
81 to 310
170 to 580
3.1 to 14
ND (0.10)
58 to 1 50
ND (040)
ND (0 76)
27 to 76
Clean Sand Product
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
ND (0.31)
1.9
064
73
1 10
3.9
ND (0.09)
25
ND (0.36)
ND (0.65)
16
Range
ND (0 39)
0.93 to 3.1
ND (0.95)
37 to 94
52 to ! 58
2.6 to 6. 1
ND (0.10)
18 to 38
ND (0.40)
ND (0.73)
9.4 to 22
Sludge Cake
Average
Concentration
(mg/kg)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,700
5,900
N/A
N/A
2,300
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Samples were not collected - see text.
ND - Not detected (detection limit shown in parentheses).
of daily split samples that were
combined into weekly composite
samples. The results of the weekly
samples are presented in Appendix C,
Table C-l, and are summarized in
Table 6.
• Clean Sand Product - This sampling
point represents the concentration of
metals in the treated clean sand
(treated soil). After screening and
separation, the coarse-grained mate-
rial was directed to the froth flotation
unit where the contaminants were
removed. The "cleaned" material was
dewatered by means of a cyclone and
a dewatering unit. The clean sand
(treated soil) was used as backfill at
the site. Twelve samples were col-
lected for off-site analysis and con-
Performance Data Assessment
sisted of daily split samples that were
combined into weekly composite
samples. The results of the weekly
samples are presented in Appendix C,
Table C-2, and summarized in Table 6.
Sludge Cake - This sampling point
represents the concentration of
metals in the sludge cake. After
screening and separation, the fine-
grained material was filtered. The filter
(sludge) cake was disposed off site as
a nonhazardous waste. Samples of
the filter cake were analyzed on site
using XRF for chromium, copper, and
nickel, and off site for TCLP metals.
No results from the TCLP analysis are
contained in the references available
at this time.
A review of the treatment performance data in
Table 6 indicates that the process oversize
and clean sand from the soil washing unit met
the cleanup levels established for this applica-
tion. As shown in Table 6, the average concen-
trations of beryllium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc in the clean sand and process oversize
were at least an order of magnitude lower
than the cleanup levels. Cadmium, mercury,
selenium, and silver were not detected in any
process oversize samples; and arsenic,
mercury, selenium, and silver were not de-
tected in any clean sand samples.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
41
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 12 of 23
| TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)l
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
The data in Table 6 show that chromium,
copper, and nickel were concentrated in the
sludge cake, with individual contaminants mea-
sured at levels greater than 2,000 mg/kg.
Performance Data Completeness
The available performance data characterize
constituent concentrations in the untreated
soil, process oversize, clean sand, and sludge
cake residual. Data are not available for
matching specific operating conditions with
treatment performance.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
ART, Inc., was under contract to the PRPs to
construct and operate the soil washing
treatment at the site. ART used several sub-
contractors to assist in the application,
including activities associated with excavation,
construction, and materials handling. [7, 12]
Cost Data Quality
Performance Data Quality
The CLP SOW for Inorganic Analysis includes
analysis of initial and continuing calibration
checks, duplicates, matrix spike, and reagent
blanks. No exceptions to the QA/QC protocol
were noted by the vendor. [7]
Treatment System Cost
Approximately $7.7 million were expended on
the soil washing remediation at KOP, including
all off-site disposal costs. [12]
No information is presented in the references
available at this time to describe the items
included in the $7.7 million value. Therefore,
a cost breakdown using the interagency Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS) is not provided in
this report.
The cost data shown above were provided by
the Project Coordinator for the PRPs, and are
provided in the Remedial Action Report for
this application. A detailed breakdown of the
cost elements is not available at this time.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED I
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
Actual costs for the soil washing treatment
application, including off-site disposal
costs, at the King of Prussia site were
approximately $7,700,000. No
information is available at this time on
the components of this total cost.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
The soil washing application achieved
the soil cleanup levels for the 11
metals. The process oversize (>2
inches) and clean sand were redepos-
ited on site.
The average concentrations of five
contaminants (beryllium, copper, lead.
nickel, and zinc) in the clean sand and
process oversize were reduced to
levels at least an order of magnitude
less than the cleanup levels.
Chromium, copper, and nickel were
concentrated in the sludge cake, with
individual contaminants measured at
u s ENV|RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
42
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 13 of 23
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned (cont.)
levels greater than 2,000 mg/kg. The
sludge cake was also analyzed by
TCLP, and, based on these results.
disposed off site as a nonhazardous
waste.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
The treatability study accurately
predicted that soil washing would
meet the soil cleanup goals at this
site.
A demonstration run was completed
using hazardous waste transported
from the US. to the Netherlands. The
logistics of importing and exporting
hazardous waste between the US.
and the Netherlands was coordinated
through the US. EPA's RCRA Enforce-
ment Division and the Dutch equiva-
lent. VROM.
The success of the demonstration run
in treating the KOP soils expedited the
design schedule of the full-scale unit
by over one year.
The results of the demonstration run
provided information needed to
modify the design and operation of
the full-scale unit. These process
modifications included:
— Increasing the bed length and
redesigning the spray headers on
the wet screen unit to prevent
bypassing or short-circuiting of the
feed soil;
— Using an alternate frother to
reduce frothing;
— Load balancing to the
hydrocyclones; and
— Selecting filtration-aided polymers
to produce the densest sludge
cake possible.
Selective excavation with the aid of
XRF reduced the amount of soil for
soil washing processing by a factor of
2.
The development and use of site
matrix calibration standards generated
reliable on-site XRF data that corre-
lated well with the off-site confirma-
tory results.
At the beginning of the pilot run, the
polymers were not concentrating the
suspended solids quickly enough
before the sludge entered the belt
filter press, resulting in a sludge cake
that was too wet and difficult to
manage. The piping between the
lamella clarifiers and belt filter press
was lengthened, which extended the
reaction time of the polymer with the
sludge. This modification produced a
more manageable sludge with an
increased percent density solids.
Characterization of the contaminated
soils during the treatability study
showed that soils from lagoon 4 were
not amenable to soil washing since
they consisted primarily of synthetic
precipitate materials with a fines
concentration of >90 percent. This
material was excavated and disposed
off site.
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
£ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
3 Technology Innovation Office
43
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 14 of 23
REFERENCES
1. US. EPA. Superfund Record of Decision,
King of Prussia, New Jersey, September
1990.
2. Remedial Action Plan (Proposed), ERM,
Inc. (undated).
3. Besch, ]., "Soils Take a Bath at Superfund
Site", Soils, November 22, 1993.
4. Mann, M.J., "Innovation in Soil Washing/
Soil Flushing Technologies", Alternative
Remedial Technologies, Inc., Tampa,
Florida, Presented at the HWAC 8th
Annual Meeting.
5. Soil Washing Treatability Study Report for
the King of Prussia Site, Winslow Town-
ship, New Jersey. ART, July 10, 1992.
6. Soil Washing Demonstration Run for the
King of Prussia Technical Site, Alternative
Remedial Technologies, Inc., December
14, 1992.
7. Site Operations Plan, The King of Prussia
Technical Corporation Site, Winslow
Township, New Jersey. Alternative Reme-
dial Technologies, Inc., July 26, 1993.
8. Statement of Qualifications and Experi-
ence Soil Wash System, Alternative
Remedial Technologies, Inc., Tampa, FL,
(undated).
9. Mann, M.J., "Full-Scale Soil Washing at the
King of Prussia (NJ) Technical Corporation
Superfund Site." Alternative Remedial
Technologies, Inc., (Conference Paper),
(undated).
10. Telephone conversation with M. Mann of
Alternative Remedial Technologies, Inc.,
March 15, 1994.
11. NPL Public Assistance Database (NPL
PAD); King of Prussia New Jersey; EPA ID#
NJD980505341. March 1992.
12. U.S. EPA, Remedial Action Report: Soil
Washing Remediation, King of Prussia
Technical Corporation Site, Camden
County, New Jersey, July 1994.
13. Comments received from John Gorin, RPM
for the King of Prussia Superfund Site, on
the draft cost and performance report.
Soil Washing at the King of Prussia Techni-
cal Corporation Superfund Site, October
1994.
14. Comments received from Jill Besch, ART,
Inc., on the draft cost and performance
report, Soil Washing at the King of Prussia
Technical Corporation Superfund Site,
January 1995.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
44
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 15 of 23
I APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Identifying Information
King of Prussia Superfund Site
Winslow Township, New Jersey
Historical Activity at Site - SIC Codes:
Historical Activity at Site - Management Practices:
Site Contaminants:
Type of Action:
Did the ROD/Action Memorandum include a
contingency on treatability study results?
CERCLIS*: NJD980505341
ROD Date: 28 September 1990
4953 Sanitary Services-Refuse Systems
Waste processing facility
Metals, primarily chromium, copper, and nickel
Remedial
No
Treatability Study Information
Type of Treatability Study:
Duration of Treatability Study:
Media Treated:
Quantity Treated:
Treatment Technology:
Target Contaminants of Concern:
Conducted before the ROD was signed:
Additional treatability studies conducted:
Technology selected for full-scale application:
Laboratory screening, bench-scale testing, and
pilot-scale testing
January 15, 1992 to March 27, 1992
Soil (ex situ)
188kg
Soil washing
Chromium, copper, and nickel
No
None identified at this time
Yes
Treatability Study Strategy
Number of Runs:
Key Operating Parameters Varied:
A minimum of 1 test was conducted for each unit of
the soil washing system, with additional tests
performed where necessary. The entire system was
run 3 times during the process simulation tests.
Hydrocyclone Test: cut point
Flotation Test: surfactant concentration, pH, retention
time, pretreatment
Fines/Sludge Handling Test: polymer
Treatability Study Results
Range of Concentrations of Metals in Soils Treated
During Pilot-Scale (Process Simulation) Runs:
Cu: 62 ppm to 1 ,500 ppm
Ni: 18 ppm to 86 ppm
Cr: 1 3 ppm to 1 30 ppm
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
45
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 16 of 23
I APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatability Study Objectives
The treatability study on the King of Prussia
Technical Corporation Superfund site soil
consisted of the following three steps:
• Laboratory screening;
• Bench-scale testing; and
• Pilot-scale testing.
The laboratory screening step was performed
to characterize the soil and to collect enough
information to make a soil washing feasibility
Treatability Study Test Description [5]
determination. The bench-scale testing step
was performed to select and optimize the
appropriate treatment unit operations for the
separation and removal of target metals from
the coarse-grained and fine-grained source
fractions. The pilot-scale testing step was
performed to determine the system operating
conditions, equipment lists, utility, chemical,
and personnel requirements, and to refine the
capital and operating cost estimates for the
full-scale operation. [5]
Soil was collected from eleven locations at the
KOP site in January 1992. One 5-gallon bucket
of soil/sediment was collected, packed and
shipped to the Heidemij Reststoffendiensten
treatability lab located in the Moerdijk, Neth-
erlands for treatability testing. [5]
Laboratory Screening: Soil characterization
efforts included the chemical analyses of the
initial (influent) soil samples for chromium,
copper, nickel, mercury, and silver. These
metals were analyzed using the Dutch equiva-
lent to SW-846 7000 series methods. Each
influent soil was physically screened/sieved to
define the particle size distribution. Each
fraction was analyzed for chromium, copper,
and nickel to determine contaminant concen-
trations. Scanning electron microscopy was
performed to determine the physical form of
the contaminants.
Bench-Scale Testing: Tests were performed
on hydrocycloning, flotation, gravity separa-
tion, and sludge management by coagulation,
thickening, and dewatering unit operations
using soil from lagoons 1 and 6.
The hydrocycloning operation test involved
processing the soil through a 5" hydrocyclone
test unit at different cut points and screening/
sieving the underflow and overflow fractions.
The flotation tests involved selecting a suitable
surfactant and concentration and retention
time for this unit operation. One sample of
the sludge band soil following wet screening
was used for the flotation studies, which
included varying surfactant concentrations,
pH, retention time, and pretreatment
(attritioning scrubbing).
The gravity separation operation test involved
the use of a standard lab separator/shaking
table to divide a wet-screened sample of the
sludge band soil and lagoon composite soil to
promote additional source separation.
The sludge operation test involved four
organic polymers at four dosage concentra-
tions on the overflow (fines and water) from
the hydrocycloning test.
Pilot-Scale Testing: For this test, each of the
optimum unit operations evaluated in the
previous steps were combined into a batch
feed process system. The system consisted of
a vibrating screen, three hydrocyclones, a
froth flotation cell, and a spiral concentrator.
Three process simulation test runs were
designed and conducted for the lagoon 1 soil,
lagoon 6 soil, and the sludge band soil. The
sand and sludge generated from the simula-
tion runs were collected and analyzed. The
sludge cake was further subjected to a TCLP
analysis for chromium.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
46
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 23
[APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatability Study Performance Data
im
Laboratory Screening Step: The particle size
distribution curves in Figure A-1 developed
during the laboratory screening show the
relative amounts of coarse and fine-grained
sized materials in the soil and sludge tested.
The concentrations of metals in each size
fraction of the lagoon composite sample is
shown in Table A-l. These results indicate that
lagoons 1 and 6 and the
sludge band area contained
natiye soil material that
might be amenable to soil
washing treatment; how-
ever, lagoon 4 consisted
exclusively of non-soil
material with a high fines
content and would not likely
be amenable to soil washing
treatment. Only soil from
lagoons 1 and 6 and the
sludge band area were
further subjected to bench-
scale testing. [5]
microns. Also, for the flotation studies, a
surfactant concentration of 240 gr/ton and a
naturally-occurring pH with pretreatment by
attrition scrubbing would provide the best
flotation results. For the gravity separation
tests, the results indicated that gravity separa-
tion would not be effective for treatment of
KOP soils, because poor separation occurred
ITT
• 100
- 90
80
70 s
60 *
"I
40 i
30 •
20
10
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Bench-Scale Testing: The
results from the bench-scale
test indicated that, for the
hydrocycloning operation, a cut point for the
KOP soil washing unit would be set at 40
Table A-1. Particle Site Distribution and Contaminant Concentrations [5]
Lagoon Composite Sample
• Llooonl
• Ligoon4
* Ligoon6
* SkxIgtBind
Size Fractions
(microns)
>40,000
10,000 to 40,000
4,000 to 1 0.OOO
2,000 to 4,000
1 ,000 to 2,000
500 to 1 ,000
250 to 500
1 25 to 250
63 to 1 25
38 to 63
20 to 38
<20
TOTAL
Distribution
(%)
0.7
3.8
2.4
2.5
7.4
12.3
12.7
7.8
7.1
10.8
2.5
29.9
100
Concentration
Cu
18,000
1 8,000
9,400
6,100
2,200
2,600
7,600
1 3,000
12,000
16,000
12,000
9,215*
Nl
3,900
3.2OO
1,700
1,300
450
560
1,600
2,900
2,700
3,800
3,400
2,227*
(ppm)
Cr
1.600
1,700
1,300
1,500
560
710
1,700
2,500
2,500
4,200
4,400
2,407*
Figure A-l. Particle Size Distribution Curves
and no shifts in contaminant concentrations
were observed. Also, for the sludge
operation, Mogul FL-5009 would lead
to the best pre-settling performance
and Mogul XH-1990 would lead to the
best dewatering performance. A filter
cake with a dry solids concentration of
52% was produced with a plate and
frame filter press during the bench-
scale test. [5]
Pilot-Scale Testing: The mass balance/
recovery results from the pilot-scale
testing indicate that the process
simulation equipment treated the KOP
soils to meet the target cleanup goals.
The sludge from each process simula-
tion run did not exceed the chromium
TCLP limit; therefore, the sludge would
not be considered a RCRA hazardous
waste. [5]
'Calculated
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
47
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 18 of 23
I APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatability Study Observations and Lessons Learned
The concentrations of metals in soils
treated during the pilot-scale (process
simulation) runs ranged from 62 to
1,500 ppm for copper; 18 to 86 ppm
for nickel; and 13 to 130 ppm for
chromium.
From the laboratory screening step, it
was concluded that material from
lagoons 1 and 6 contained native soil
material that might be amenable to
soil washing treatment, but that
lagoon 4 did not contain native soil
material and would not be amenable
to soil washing.
From the bench-scale flotation step,
the acid consumption was very high
so pH adjustment would not be
performed in the pilot-scale tests.
Also, no flotation occurred after 10
minutes, even though retention times
were varied.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
48
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 19 of 23
I APPENDIX B—DEMONSTRATION RUN RESULTS
Demonstration Run Objectives
A demonstration run using soil from the King
of Prussia (KOP) Technical Corporation Super-
fund site was performed to confirm the
findings of the treatability study and to expand
upon the operating parameters relating to full-
scale operations. Also, a successful demon-
Demonstration Run Description
stration run would reinforce the selection and
application of the ROD-specified remedy, and
thereby potentially streamline the review by
EPA and hasten actual construction of the full-
scale unit. [6]
Soil was selectively excavated from the KOP
site in May 1992, in accordance with an EPA-
approved excavation plan. The goal of the
selective excavation was to excavate soils for
the demonstration run that were representa-
tive of site conditions and also be biased high,
with respect to the level of contamination, to
confirm the ability of the treatment system to
achieve the treatment standards. Approxi-
mately 164 short tons of soil were excavated
from areas in and around lagoons 1 and 6, the
swale and sludge band. An on-site x-ray
fluorescence (XRF) instrument was used to
screen targeted soils for excavation and to
quantitatively determine the concentrations of
copper, chromium, and nickel in the excavated
soil. [6]
The excavated soil was placed into 200 1 -ton
super sacks. A composite sample of soil from
each sack was analyzed with the XRF to
ensure that the soil contained at least one
metal above the ROD cleanup requirements.
The sacks were then properly labelled for
shipment of hazardous waste and transported
to the Port of Newark, New Jersey. The sacks
were loaded onto a ship of the Mediterranean
Lines, transported to the Port of Rotterdam,
and ultimately trucked to the Heidemij
Restoffendiensten soil washing facility in
Moerdijk, Netherlands for the demonstration
run. The soil was screened and blended at the
facility on July 18, 1992 and processed
through the unit on July 22, 1992. The dura-
tion of the demonstration run was seven
hours. The process residuals were returned to
the United States on October 20, 1994, again
through the Port of Newark. The oversize and
product were returned to the KOP site as
clean material and staged for restoration of
the site, while the sludge cake was disposed
at the GSX Pinewood Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facility.
Pre-processing Activities: The contents of each
of the 200 super sacks were screened at 4 cm
using a Grizzly vibrating bar to remove the gross
oversize, which was weighed, combined, staged,
and bagged for transport back to the U.S. The
screened material was carefully blended and
mixed to create a single feed pile.
Feeding: The feed pile was loaded into an apron
feeder using a front-end loader. The feed rate was
controlled as the material was fed to the feeder
conveyor and into the first process unit.
Screening: The feed soils were screened to 2 mm
using a vibrating wet screen. Oversize material
was removed via conveyor, staged, and rebagged
for return to the site. The soil/slurry underflow
from the wet screening was then pumped to
separation unit.
Separation: The underflow was processed
through a 10" Mozley hydrocyclone, with subse-
quent processing of the fines and water and the
coarse-grained material through separate 5"
Mozley hydrocyclones. All three hydrocyclones
were adjusted at a cut point of 40 microns. The
underflow (coarse-grained material) from the
separation unit was further processed through a
froth flotation device while the fines were man-
aged through a sludge dewatering unit.
froth Flotation: The sand treatment train consists
of a contact scrubber, where the surfactant is
added, a froth flotation cell where treatment
occurs, and a sand dewatering screen. The froth
was further directed to the Lamella clarifiers. The
sand was dewatered on an oscillating sand
dewatering screen. The dewatered sand was
moved by conveyor belt to a staging area where it
was weighed and bagged.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
49
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 2O of 23
I APPENDIX B—DEMONSTRATION RUN RESULTS (CONT.)
Demonstration Run Description (cont.)
Sludge Dewatering: The fines and water from
the separation unit are processed through a
flocculation unit, where coagulant was added
and thickened on the Lamella clarifiers. The
solids were dropped into the bottom hopper
and the sludge was pumped to a belt filter
press. The sludge was dewatered and moved
to a staging area where it was weighed and
bagged. During this demonstration run, 14
feed pile samples, 6 process oversize samples, 1
pre-flotation product sample, 22 sand product
samples, 6 sludge cake samples (for total metals)
and 2 sludge cake samples (for TCLP metals) were
collected. The samples and split samples were
analyzed primarily for chromium, copper, and
nickel using CLP protocols by D.C. Griffith labora-
tory located in the Netherlands, and by IEA
laboratory in North Carolina.
Demonstration Run Results
The results of the feed pile are presented in
Table B-l; those of the clean sand product in
Table B-2; and the sludge cake results are
presented in Tables B-3 and B-4. These results
indicate that the demonstration run was
successful in meeting the stated objectives of
treating the KOP soils to ROD-required levels
with the soil washing unit configuration as
recommended in the treatability study report.
Table B-1. Process Feed Material [6]
King of Prussia Technical Site Demonstration Run
Moerdijk, The Netherlands
July 22, 1992
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Average
DCC
790
745
705
705
910
815
855
710
735
770
Cr
IEA
872
759
982
1,080
675
870
Cu
DCG
1,600
1,600
1,300
1,400
1,850
1,900
1,500
1,250
1,250
1,500
IEA
1,470
1,080
2,170
1,310
1,1 10
1,430
Nl
DCG
433
415
408
420
660
473
460
393
435
460
IEA
409
357
639
368
378
430
Dry Solids
(%)
83.5
83
85.5
85
82
85
83.5
86
86
84.4
Per the agreed plan, all discrete process materials were mixed into a feed blend pile. Results of this
activity were captured on video tape.
Efficiency of the blending operation and feed to the plant was measured via a series of nine (9) radial
hollow stem auger borings, analyzed for contaminant metals chromium, copper, and nickel. In addition,
five (5) samples were split for CLP analysis by IEA Laboratories in the United States.
Analysis of the nine samples by D.C. Griffith (DCG) showed good consistency with averages and ranges for
each metal. CLP analysis by IEA on five split samples showed similar consistency and close agreement to
the results generated by the Dutch laboratory. From these data, it was concluded that the feed pile was
sufficiently blended to introduce a consistent feed to the process.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
50
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 21 of 23
| APPENDIX B—DEMONSTRATION RUN RESULTS (CONT.)
Table B-2. Product Sand [6]
King of Prussia Technical Site Demonstration Run
Moerdi/k, The Netherlands
July 22, 1992
(allmg/kg)
Sample
1 -0900
£-0930
3- 1000
4-1030
5-1100
6 - 11 30
7 - 1 200
8 - 1 230
9- 13OO
10-1330
11 - 1400
12- 1430
13-1 500
14- 1530
15- 1600
16- 1630
Average
Treatment
Requirement
Cr
DCG IEA
98
250 266
185
130 97
115
155 161
76
1 50 1 29
140
140 183
235
185
205
220 195
205
1 70 1 70
483
Cu
DCG IEA
No sample taken,
195
465 668
370
270 187
240
315 353
145
305 258
280
31 0 428
520
455
465
445 429
430
350 390
3,571
Nl
DCG 1EA
sand not discharging
41
105 119
73
53 43
46
67 77
33
63 66
54
65 98
120
87
97
91 99
89
70 80
1,935
Dry Solids
(%)
9O
81
83
84
84
83
84
84
84
84
81
83
86
83
83
84
Table B-3. Sludge Cake Results [6]
King of Prussia Technical Site Demonstration Run
Moerdfjk, The Netherlands
July 22, 1992
(allmg/kg)
Cr
Sample
1
2
3
4
Average
DCG
4.400
4,400
4,700
5,500
4,750
IEA
4,470
4,760
4,615
Cu
DCG
7,300
7,400
8,100
9,300
8,030
IEA
7,330
7,950
7,640
Nl
DCG
2,300
2,300
2,700
3,200
2,630
IEA
2,360
2,670
2,515
Diy Solids
<*)
44
46
46
44
45
This table tabulates the results of the produced sludge cake. The sludge cake contains the treated
contaminants and will be disposed at an appropriate off-site facility.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
51
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 22 of 23
I APPENDIX B—DEMONSTRATION RUN RESULTS (CONT.)
Table B-4. Sludge Cake Results—TCLP Metals [6]
King of Prussia Technical Site Demonstration Run
Moerdijk, The Netherlands
July 22, 1992
IEA Analyses Only
TCLP Metal
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
Selenium
silver
Regulatory
Standard
5
100
1
5
0.2
5
1
5
Results
Sample Number (mg/L)
I
<0.61
<14
-------
King of Prussia Technical Corporation Superfund Site—Page 23 of 23
I APPENDIX C—FULL-SCALE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Table C-l. KOP Production Composites
Process Oversize [12]
Constituent
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
ROD Cleanup
Level (mg/kg) 7/2
190
485
107
483
3,571
500
1
1.935
4
5
3.8OO
0.43 B
S.3
036U
120
230
9.6
0.09 U
72
0.36 U
0.72 U
29
7/8
0.34 U
3
0.36 U
98
190
3 1
O.IOU
72
0.34 U
072U
28
7/16
0.32 U
3,1
057U
110
250
3.4
0.09 U
79
0.32 U
0.76 U
34
Date Sampled (week of) (mg/kg)
• *• *••
7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/27 9/10
0.36 U
2.7
047U
81
ISO
35
O.IOU
58
0.36 U
063U
26
0.39 U
2.7
045 U
92
170
3.1
0 10U
58
0.39 U
060U
27
0.45 B
6.8
0.59 U
210
380
6,2
0.09 U
120
039U
079U
69
0.82 B
7.4
0.57 B
210
330
4,5
O.IOU
97
020U
0.60 U
50
0.50 B
7,2
0.80 U
220
420
6.9
0.08 U
(20
0.20 U
0.60 U
71
0.98
9,6
0.80 U
280
520
14
O.IOU
150
0.40 U
0.60 U
76
9/24
1.4B
11
0.80 U
310
545
12
O.IOU
ISO
0.40 U
0.60 U
68
IO/»
0.76 B
7.3
0.80 U
200
580
8,3
O.IOU
no
0.40 U
0.80 U
59
10/11
0.66 B
4,5
0.97 B
130
320
5.6
O.IOU
77
0.40 U
0.60 U
39
* Last IEA Result
**First ITCorp Result
* * "Beginning of Two Week Composite
Table C-2. KOP Production Composites
Clean Sand [12]
Constituent
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
ROD Cleanup
Level (mg/kg) 7/2
190
485
107
483
3,571
500
1
1,935
4
5
3,800
036U
2.8
036U
73
ISO
6.1
0.08 U
32
0.36 U
0.73 U
16
7/8
037U
1.8
0.34 U
58
100
3.9
0.09 U
28
0.37 U
0.08 U
15
7/16
0.34 U
1.5
049U
63
100
3.3
0.09 U
30
0.34 U
0.65 U
17
Date Sampled (week of) (mg/kg)
• *• ** •
7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/27 9/10
0.33 U
0.93
0.53 U
38
61
3.3
0.08 U
20
0.33 U
0.71 U
II
0.36 U
0.96
055U
37
52
2.6
0.09 U
IS
0.36 U
0.73 U
94
036U
1.7
0.54 U
62
85
2.6
O.IOU
27
0.36 U
0.71 U
17
0.39 B
3.1
0.76 U
94
140
3.4
O.IOU
36
0.20 U
037 U
23
0.20 U
2.1
0.80 U
61
1 10
3.5
O.IOU
32
0.20 U
0.60 U
18
022B
2.6
0.80 U
70
158
4.3
O.IOU
38
0.2
0.60 U
22
9/24
0.36 B
2.3
0.95 B
63
150
3.4
O.IOU
27
0.40 U
0,59 U
19
10/8
0.24 B
1.9
0.80 U
57
ISO
3.4
O.IOU
23
0.40 U
0.60 U
15
10/11
0.20 B
1.8
0.80 U
44
100
3.6
0 10U
21
0.40 U
0.60 U
12
"Last IEA Result
**First ITCorp Result
* * "Beginning of Two Wsek Composite
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
53
-------
Thermal Desorption at the
McKin Company Superfund Site
Gray, Maine
54
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the McKin Company Superfund Site
Gray, Maine
Site Name:
McKin Company Superfund Site
Location:
Gray, Maine
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics; Benzene, Toluene,
Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX);
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
- Excavated soil contained up to 3,310 mg/kg
TCE, 130 mg/kg Ethylbenzene, and
35 mg/kg Toluene
Period of Operation:
July 1986 to April 1987
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Canonic Environmental
800 Canonic Drive
Porter, IN 46304
(219) 926-8651
SIC Code:
4953E (Refuse Systems - Sand and
Gravel Pit Disposal)
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
Rotary kiln desorber 7 feet in diameter and
28 feet long
- Soil heated to 250-400°F and a residence
time of 6 minutes
- Offgases treated using HEPA filter,
baghouse, scrubber, and carbon adsorption
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
- ROD Date: 7/22/85
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
Sheila Eckman
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.,
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-5784
Waste Source:
Disposal Pit
Purpose/Significance of Application:
This treatment application is notable
for being one of the earliest full-scale
applications of thermal desorption to
remediate halogenated volatile organic
compounds at a Superfund site.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
11,500 cubic yards
- No information available on matrix characteristics
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil performance standard of 0.1 mg/kg for TCE, with retreatment as necessary
- Performance standards of 1 mg/kg for individual aromatic organic compounds, 1 mg/kg for individual PAHs, and 10 mg/kg
for total PAHs
Results:
- All cleanup goals achieved
- 11,500 tons of soil treated within 10-month period
- Ambient air concentrations for VOCs were less than 2 ppm above background
Cost Factors:
- Total Cost - $2,900,000 (including salaries and wages, rental, supplies, subcontracts, fuel, and other professional services)
55
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the McKin Company Superfund Site
Gray, Maine (Continued)
Description:
The McKin Company (McKin), in Gray, Maine, was a former waste collection, transfer, storage, and disposal facility. Soil at
McKin was contaminated with halogenated VOCs and petroleum products, including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and aromatic compounds. During the remedial investigation at McKin, soil contamination levels were measured as
high as 1,500 mg/kg for trichloroethylene (TCE), 49 mg/kg for methylene chloride, and 21 mg/kg for xylenes. The ROD
identified several areas at McKin that required on-site thermal desorption treatment for contaminated soil. These areas were
grouped into a "VOC-Contaminated Area" and a "Petroleum-Contaminated Area." The treatment performance standard,
stipulated in the ROD, required treatment of TCE in the soil to a concentration of 0.1 mg/kg. In addition to the TCE
requirement, treatment performance standards for PAHs and aromatic organics were specified for the petroleum-contaminated
area. Ambient air monitoring was required during the application.
The thermal desorption system included a rotary kiln desorber with offgases treated using a filter, baghouse, scrubber, and
carbon adsorption. Thermal desorption of approximately 11,000 cubic yards of soil was completed at McKin between July
1986 and April 1987. This treatment application is notable for being one of the earliest full-scale applications of thermal
desorption to remediate halogenated volatile organic compounds at a Superfund site. Treatment performance and air
monitoring data collected during this application indicated that all performance standards and monitoring requirements were
achieved through use of the thermal desorption technology.
The total cost for this application was $2,900,000. According to the vendor, this cost included rental supplies, labor,
subcontracts, fuel and other professional services, and estimated that over 80% of the cost was associated with the treatment
of the contaminated soil. A pilot-scale treatability study indicated that thermal desorption would be effective in treating soils
at the McKin site.
56
-------
McKln Company Superfund Site—Page 1 of 12
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!
This report presents cost and performance
data for a thermal desorption treatment
application at the McKin Company Superfund
site (McKin) located in Gray, Maine. McKin is a
former waste collection, transfer, storage, and
disposal facility. Soil at McKin was contami-
nated with halogenated volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and petroleum products,
including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and aromatic compounds. During the
remedial investigation at McKin, soil contami-
nation levels were measured as high as 1,500
mg/kg for trichloroethene (TCE), 49 mg/kg for
methylene chloride, and 21 mg/kg forxylenes.
A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in July
1995 and specified thermal desorption for
treatment of contaminated soil at McKin. The
ROD identified several areas at McKin that
required treatment. These areas were grouped
into a "VOC-contaminated area" and a
"petroleum-contaminated area." The treat-
ment performance standard stipulated in the
ROD required treatment of TCE in the soil to a
concentration of 0.1 mg/kg. In addition to the
TCE requirement, treatment performance
standards for PAHs and aromatic organics
were specified for the petroleum-contami-
nated area. Ambient air monitoring was
required during the application. Thermal
desorption of approximately 11,000 cubic
yards of soil was completed at McKin be-
tween July 1986 and April 1987.
Treatment performance and air monitoring
data collected during this application indi-
cated that all performance standards and
monitoring requirements were achieved
through use of the thermal desorption tech-
nology. This treatment application is notable
for being one of the earliest full-scale applica-
tions of thermal desorption to remediate
halogenated VOCs at a Superfund site.
Prior to completing the full-scale treatment
application of thermal desorption at McKin, a
pilot-scale treatability study was conducted
from February to May 1986. The results of this
treatability study indicated that thermal
desorption achieved the TCE performance
standard of 0.1 mg/kg. As a result of this
treatability study, specific changes were
incorporated into the design and operation of
the full-scale remediation system.
The vendor stated that $2,900,000 were
expended for the remediation of soils at
McKin, including costs for salaries and wages,
rental, supplies, subcontracts, fuel, and other
professional services.
I SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
McKin Company Superfund Site
Gray, Maine
CERCLIS # MED980524078
ROD Date: 07/22/85
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with Applica-
tion? Yes (see Appendix A)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? No
Operating Period: July 1986 to April 1987
Quantity of Soil Treated During Application:
11,500 cubic yards
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
57
-------
McKin Company Superfund Site—Page 2 of 12
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Waste Collection,
Transfer, Storage, and Disposal Facility
Corresponding SIC Code:
4953E (Refuse Systems-Sand and Gravel Pit
Disposal)
Waste Management Practice that
Contributed to Contamination: Disposal Pit
Site History: The McKin Company Superfund
site (McKin) is located on the west side of
Mayhall Road between Route 115 and
Pownall Road in Gray, Maine, 15 miles north
of Portland, Maine, as shown on Figure 1. This
site was reportedly used as a sand and gravel
pit prior to its purchase in 1963 by the McKin
Company. From 1964 to 1978, the McKin
Company operated a tank cleaning and waste
removal business. The McKin site was used to
collect, store, dispose, and transfer petroleum
and industrial chemical waste until operations
ceased in the late seventies. The site included
22 above-ground storage tanks, an asphalt-
lined lagoon used for storage of wastes, and
an incinerator. The incinerator was used to
treat wastes from an oil tanker and was
operated from about 1970 until 1973. [2]
In addition, wastes were discharged to the
ground and buried on site. Between 1972
and 1977, 100,000 to 200,000 gallons of
liquid waste were processed on site each
year. A site plan for McKin is shown in
Figure 2. [2]
Reports of groundwater and soil contami-
nation began in 1973, when residents in
East Gray reported odors in well waters
and discoloration of laundry. Based on
these reports, numerous investigations
and activities were completed by the
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (MDEP), the Town of Gray, and
EPA. A Remedial Action Master Plan
(RAMP) was prepared by EPA in April
1983. The RAMP recommended collecting
appropriate data, developing a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS), and
implementing some Initial Remedial Measures
(IRMs). [2]
In June 1983, the MDEP entered into a
Cooperative Agreement with EPA to imple-
ment the IRMs and develop the RI/FS. A ROD,
signed in July 1983, required removal of the
liquid wastes from the storage tanks. [2]
As a result of the remedial investigation,
completed in February 1985, several areas of
soil contaminated were identified. These areas
were grouped into a "VOC-contaminated area"
and a "petroleum-contaminated area." [2]
Regulatory Context: A ROD signed on July
22, 1985, required on-site thermal desorption
treatment for soils in the VOC-contaminated
area and the petroleum-contaminated area.
The treatment performance standard stipu-
lated in the ROD required treatment of TCE in
the soil to a concentration of 0.1 mg/kg. In
addition to the TCE requirement, treatment
performance standards for PAHs and aromatic
organics were specified for the petroleum-
contaminated area.
Figure 1. McKin Site, Gray, Maine [2]
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
58
-------
McKin Company Superfund Site—Page 3 of 12
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
EPA stipulated that prior to its use as a full-
scale remedy for soil contamination
at McKin, a pilot-scale study using
thermal desorption was required to
determine the effectiveness of treat-
ment for soils at McKin and the impact
on ambient air quality. [2]
Remedy Selection: Several alternative
technologies were considered for the
treatment of contaminated soils at the
McKin site, including capping,
landfilling, thermal desorption, and
incineration. Thermal desorption was
selected as a cost-effective alternative
technology for remediation of soil from
both contaminated areas at McKin.
MONITORING
WELL (TYP)
UNIDENTIFIED PIP
DEBRIS (HOSING)
55 GAL DRUMS
GATE
VERTICAL TANK (TYP)
CHAIN LINK
FENCE
• BOTTOM OF SLOPE
HOP OF SLOPE
Figure 2. McKin Site Plan, Gray, Maine [2]
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: PRP Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Sheila Eckman
US. EPA, Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617)573-5784
Treatment Vendor:
Canonie Environmental
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, Indiana 46304
(219)926-8651
(contact not available)
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Soil (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: Halogenated
volatile organic compounds; and Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
59
-------
McKin Company Superfund Site—Page 4 of 12
I MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization (cont.)
Excavated soil treated in this application
contained up to 3,310 mg/kg of TCE. [4] RI
results indicated concentrations as high as
1,500 mg/kg for TCE, 49 mg/kg for methylene
chloride, and 21 mg/kg forxylenes. [2]
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost
or performance for this technology are listed
below; the values for these parameters are not
provided in the available references:
• Soil classification
• Clay content and/or particle size
distribution
Moisture content
Oil and Grease or Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Bulk density
Lower explosive limit
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Type:
Thermal Desorption
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Types;
Pretreatment (Solids): Screening,; Mixing;
Post-treatment (Air): Baghouse, Scrubber;
Post-treatment (Water): Carbon Adsorption
Thermal Desorption Treatment System Description and Operation
The thermal desorption treatment system
used at McKin, shown in Figure 3, consisted of
pretreatment processes for screening and
mixing, a cylindrical desorber, and an air
treatment system.
Excavation and Pretreatment
Contaminated soil at McKin was excavated
using buckets and augered steel cylinder
caissons. The caissons were used to prevent
collapse of excavation holes and reduce
vaporization of organic contaminants from the
soil. Excavated soil and debris were separated
by screening the soil with a coarse grate.
Petroleum-contaminated soils, which had a
tendency to agglomerate or "ball up" in the
desorber, were mixed with clean makeup soil
prior to treatment to minimize this agglomera-
tion. [4]
Thermal Desorber
The thermal desorber used at McKin was a
rotating cylindrical drum 7 feet in diameter
and 28 feet in length. Mixing and aeration
were accomplished through use of longitudi-
nal flights within the cylinder and rotation of
the cylinder, at speeds of approximately 6
revolutions per minute. Forced hot air, gener-
ated by an oil burner, was used to heat the soil
in the cylinder. To increase the residence time
of soil in the cylinder, soil was treated with
several passes through the cylinder. Soil was
heated to an exit temperature of 250 to 400°F
with a residence time of 6 minutes (2 minutes
per pass and three passes through unit). [5]
A bucket elevator and chute system were used
to transport treated soil to the head of the
desorber or to a cement mixer. Treatment
residuals (fines) were transported, using a
series of augers, from a baghouse to a slurry
box, and from the slurry box to a cement
mixer. The cement mixer was used to increase
the stability of the material prior to
redisposition into excavation holes on site. [4]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
60
-------
McKin Company Superfund Site—Page 5 of 12
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Thermal Desorption Treatment System Description and Operation (cont.)
AMBIENT AIR
CLEAN MAKEUP SOIL
DESORBER EXHAUST HEPA J „...,,-. .S
(CYLINDRICAL DRUM) fGAS FILTER1 BAGHOUSE
REDEPOSITION OF
STABILIZED MATRIX
Figure 3. Thermal Desorption
Treatment System Used at McKin [4]
Air Treatment System
The air treatment system used at McKin
consisted of a HEPA filter, a baghouse, a
scrubber, and a vapor-phase carbon adsorp-
tion system, in series. The system was de-
signed to remove particulates and organic
vapors from the desorber exhaust gases. The
HEPA filter was used to remove smoky
particulates (smokey particulates were identi-
fied during the pilot-scale study). The
baghouse, which consisted of an enclosed
series of six banks of fine-mesh synthetic
fabric filters, was used to remove particulates.
Baghouse fines were transported via augers to
the slurry box. The countercurrent flow scrub-
ber, a 10-foot tall cylindrical tower with a 6-
foot diameter, filled with plastic packing
media, was used to condition the air, remove
water soluble chemicals, and remove most
remaining particulates. Scrubber water was
regenerated in a liquid phase carbon adsorp-
tion unit and recycled to the scrubber. Scrub-
ber exhaust was treated using a vapor phase
carbon adsorption unit, consisting of 15 tons
of activated carbon. Scrubber exhaust entered
through the bottom of the bed and then was
exhausted to ambient air. [4]
Residuals
Residual solids (fines and treated soil) were
mixed with cement and water and redepos-
ited into the excavated caisson holes from the
original on-site excavation. Additional residu-
als generated during this treatment application
included 38 drums of spent HEPA filters, 29
drums of spent baghouse bags, and 42 drums
of used Personal Protection Equipment (PPE)
which were incinerated at Trade Waste Incin-
eration of Sauget, IL. Spent vapor-phase
carbon was regenerated by Calgon Carbon in
Neville Island, PA and Columbus, OH. Be-
tween 1986 and 1987, 45,000 pounds of
carbon were regenerated. An analysis of the
spent carbon for total chlorinated compounds
indicated concentrations of less than 1%. One
thousand pounds of spent liquid-phase carbon
were regenerated in 1987 by Adsorption
Systems in Millburn, NJ. [4]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Tecnno|°gV Innovation Office
61
-------
McKin Company Supertund Site—Page 6 of 12
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Table 1 presents the major operating parameters affecting cost or performance for this technol-
ogy and the values measured for each during this treatment application.
Table 1. Operating Parameters [3, 4]
Parameter
Air Flow Rate
Residence Time per Pass
Number of Passes
Total Residence Time
System Throughput
Temperature of Soil Exiting
Heating Chamber
Value
1 5.000 acfm
1 mtnut.es
3
6 minutes
8 to 9 cubic yards/batch
250 to 400°F
Measurement Method
—
_
—
—
—
Sensor at soil discharge chute
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 . Timeline [I, 3]
Start Date
1964
1979
July 1983
September 1983
July 1985
23 August 1985
February 1986
7 July 1986
July 1986
March 1987
June 1987
End Date
1978
1987
—
~
—
—
April 1986
—
February 1987
April 1987
—
Activity
Tank cleaning and waste collection, transfer, storage, and disposal
operations conducted at McKin
Interim remedial measures implemented
First ROD signed
McKin added to National Priorities List
Second ROD signed
Administrative order signed for conducting pilot-scale test
Pilot-scale study of thermal desorption conducted
Administrative order signed for conducting full-scale treatment
Full-scale treatment of VOC-contaminated area soils using thermal
desorption
Full-scale treatment of petroleum-contaminated area soils using thermal
desorption
Site demobilization
[TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
The 1985 ROD identified a performance
standard for TCE in soil of 0.1 mg/kg averaged
over a treatment volume. Samples of treated
soil were required to be collected at the mid-
point of each batch and analyzed for TCE. If
the average concentration of TCE contained in
these samples exceeded the performance
standard, the soil treated that day was re-
quired to be retreated until the daily average
concentration of TCE met the performance
standard. [3]
For metal contaminants detected in soils at
the McKin site, the ROD indicated that extrac-
tion procedure (EP) toxicity standards or
results from solute fate and transport model-
ing would be protective of public health via
groundwater contamination exposures. [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
62
-------
McKln Company Superfund Site—Page 7 of 12
[TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Cleanup Goals/Standards (cont.)
Additional treatment performance standards
for aromatic organic compounds and poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were specified
in a contractor's report for the petroleum-area
soils. [3] Performance standards for treatment
of soil from the petroleum-contaminated
areas at McKin were specified as 1 mg/kg for
individual aromatic organic compounds, 1 mg/
kg for individual PAHs, and 10 mg/kg for total
PAH constituents. Samples were collected and
analyzed for these additional parameters in a
manner similar to that described above for
TCE. The cleanup goals set for this application
were technology-based. The vendor was given
six weeks to demonstrate the technology's
Treatment Performance Data [3]
performance in treating site soils to the
specified levels.
Volatile organic compounds, including TCE,
were required to be analyzed on site using
EPA Method 8010/8020. Semivolatile organic
compounds were required to be analyzed
using EPA Method 8270. Ten percent of the
samples were required to be analyzed off site
for confirmatory analyses. [3]
Continuous air monitoring was required for
organic vapors near site activities and public
notification was required if downwind organic
vapors at the site perimeter were greater than
2 ppm above background. [5]
Analytical data for VOCs and PAHs in soil
measured during this application are shown in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Ambient air
monitoring at the site perimeter indicated that
TCE was present at levels ranging from less
Table 3. VOC Data [3]
Constituent
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
trans- 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Maximum Untreated
Soil Concentration
(ms/kg)
30
320
6.1
120
19
3,310
Range of Treated
Soil Concentrations
(ma'kg)
Not analyzed
ND (0.02)
ND (0.02)
ND (0.02)
ND (0.02)
ND (0.02) to 0.04
than 0.002 up to 0.01 ppm, less than the 2
ppm above background action level. Air
samples were collected using carbon and
Tenax tube (charcoal tube) sampling, and
desorbed using a NIOSH carbon disulfide
procedure. [3]
Table 4. PAH Data [3]
N/A = Not applicable
ND = Not detected. Number in parenthesis is the detection limit.
Constituent
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Fluoranthrene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Range of Treated Soil
Concentrations (mg/kg)*
ND (0.66)
ND (Q.J7) to 0.975
ND (0. 1 7) to 0.42
ND (0.17) to 0.495
ND (0.33) to 0.38
ND (0.66)
ND (0.66)
ND (0.33) to 2.5
ND (0.33) to 0.76
ND = Not detected. Number in parenthesis is the
detection limit.
*From Table 8 of Reference [3]; covers period from
3/16/87-4/17/87.
Performance Data Assessment
Soil sampling results for both VOC- and
petroleum-contaminated areas indicate that
the TCE performance standard was achieved
during this application. Retreatment of soil
was required only once during the full-scale
remediation, on January 9, 1987. It was
determined that a portion of the baghouse
dust transfer chute was plugged at that time,
with roots and debris, and inhibited the
treatment of dust at that location. The transfer
chute was cleaned and no subsequent
retreatment was required.
The results shown in Table 3 indicate treat-
ment of soil to levels below the reported
detection limit for six chlorinated aliphatics.
U.S. ENVlRONMENTALPROTECTlON AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
63
-------
McKin Company Superfund Site—Page 8 of 12
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment (cont.)
The results for PAHs shown in Table 4 indicate
treatment to levels less than 1 mg/kg, with
one exception. The one exception, phenan-
threne, was detected at levels ranging from
0.8 to 2.5 mg/kg during the last two weeks of
treatment for petroleum-contaminated area
Performance Data Quality
soils. The average concentration of phenan-
threne measured during the application was
0.92 mg/kg, and this value was accepted by
EPA and MDEP as indicative of a successful
application.
Soil samples were analyzed on site using
SW-846 analytical methods, and 10% of the
samples were analyzed off site for confirma-
Performance Data Completeness
tory purposes. No exceptions to established
data quality objectives were identified by the
vendor for this application.
Data from this application are available for
characterizing treated soil concentrations and
for comparing these performance results with
operating conditions.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
contracted with Canonic Environmental to
complete this treatment application. [3] No
Treatment System Cost
information is available at this time on the
competitive nature of the procurement
process.
The vendor stated that $2,900,000 were
expended for the full-scale remediation of
soils at McKin, including costs for salaries and
wages, rental, supplies, subcontracts, fuel,
and other professional services. This value
does not include costs for mobilization, site
characterization, pilot-scale treatability study,
waste material disposal, site closure, and
demobilization. Table 5 shows a cost break-
down for the treatment of VOC - and petro-
leum contaminated soils, as provided by the
vendor. [3]
No additional information is presented in the
references to fully describe the items included
in each cost element shown Table 5. There-
fore, a cost breakdown using the interagency
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is not
provided in this report.
Table 5. Cost Breakdown Provided By Vendor [3]
Cost Elements
Salaries and Wages
Rental
Supplies
Subcontracts
Fuel
Other Professional Services
TOTAL
Cost Breakdown for Treatment of
VOC-Contaminated Area Soils
$405,450
$596,250
$453,150
$620,100
$47,700
$262,350
$2,385,000
Cost Breakdown for Treatment of
Petroleum-Contaminated Area Soils
$88,910
$130,880
$93,370
$135,980
$10,460
$57,530
$517,130
U S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
64
-------
McKin Company Superfund Site—Page 9 of 12
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Cost Data Quality
The costs shown in Table 5 were provided by
the vendor in a site closeout report prepared
for the PRPs. Limited information is available
on the specific elements included in the total
cost value.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED!
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The vendor stated that $2,900,000
were expended for the full-scale
remediation of soils at McKin. The
total cost value includes costs for
salaries and wages, rental, supplies,
subcontracts, fuel, and other profes-
sional services. Over 80% of the costs
were for treatment of VOC-contami-
nated soils
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
Thermal desorption reduced concen-
trations of TCE in soil from levels as
high as 3,310 mg/kg to less than the
0.1 mg/kg treatment performance
standard for this application.
Thermal desorption reduced concen-
trations of other volatile and semi-
volatile organic contaminants from
levels as high as 320 mg/kg to levels
less than 1 mg/kg in this application
with one exception for phenanthrene.
Full-scale thermal desorption treat-
ment of 11,500 tons of soil from the
VOC- and petroleum-contaminated
areas at McKin was completed within
a 10-month period.
Ambient air concentrations for TCE,
ranged from less than 0.002 to 0.01
ppm.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
The pilot-scale treatability study
accurately predicted that thermal
desorption would be effective in
treating soils at the McKin site and
achieving the performance standard
for the application.
The following improvements to the
design and operation of the full-scale
remediation system were made based
on the results of the pilot-scale
treatability study:
— Fugitive dust emissions were
controlled by enclosing materials
handling processes;
— Temperature, residence time, and
air flow were optimized for TCE
removal efficiency;
— Wetting procedures were deter-
mined to be ineffective and
difficult to utilize in the system;
— Addition of a HEPA filter to the
exhaust gas treatment system
reduced smoke particulates; and
— The mixing of clean soil and
petroleum contaminated soil
eliminated agglomeration of the
petroleum contaminated soil in
the thermal desorption unit.
The treatability study indicated that at
temperatures below 250°F, there was
not a significant reduction of TCE in
the soil, and at temperatures above
350°F, the soil behaved as a viscous
fluid on the conveyor bed and reacted
violently with water during wetting.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
65
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Reme-
dial Response. SuperfundRecordof
Decision: McKin Site, ME. EPA/ROD/R01 -
83/003, Washington, D.C., July 1983.
2. U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Reme-
dial Response. Superfund Record of
Decision: McKin Site, ME (Second Reme-
dial Action, 07/22/85). EPA/ROD/R01-85/
009, Washington, D.C., July 1985.
3. Canonie Environmental. Report, Soil
Remediation and Site Closure - McKin
Superfund Site, Gray, Maine. Prepared for:
Potentially Responsible Parties. Project
84-130. July, 1987.
4. Webster, David. "Hazardous Waste
Management, Pilot Study of Enclosed
Thermal Soil Aeration for Removal of
McKin Company Superfund Site—Page 10 of 12
Volatile Organic Contamination at the
McKin Superfund Site". In: Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association. Volume
36, No. 10. U.S. EPA Waste Management
Division, Boston, MA. October 1986.
5. Webster, David M., "Pilot Study of En-
closed Thermal Soil Aeration for Removal
of Volatile Organic Contamination at the
McKin Superfund Site", presented at
Engineering Foundation Conference on
Alternative Technologies for Hazardous
Waste Management; Henniker, New
Hampshire, June 16-20, 1986.
6. NPL Public Assistance Database (NPL
PAD); McKin Company, Maine; EPA ID #
MED980524078; March 1992.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
66
-------
McKin Company Superfund Site—Page 11 of 12
I APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
Treatability Study Objectives
A pilot-scale treatability study was conducted
from February through May 1986 by Canonic
Environmental to determine the effectiveness
of soil treatment at McKin and to assess the
Treatability Study Test Description
impact of treatment on ambient air quality.
Approximately 400 cubic yards of soil from
the VOC and petroleum areas at McKin were
used for the study.
The pilot-scale study consisted of four phases
of tests in which operating parameters were
varied and the treatment apparatus modified
to optimize the system. A 100-foot crane,
equipped with a kelly bar caisson rig and a
digging bucket, was used for soil excavation. A
front end loader equipped with a removable
plastic cover was used to transfer contami-
nated soil to the treatment apparatus.
The soil treatment apparatus consisted of a
rotating materials dryer fed by a conveyor
belt. The dryer rotated at approximately six
revolutions per minute at drying temperatures
ranging from 150°F to 380°F. To enhance
volatilization of contaminants, an oil burner
produced hot air which was blown into the
drying drum at flow rates between 7,500 and
15,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm). Pre- and
post-treatment soil samples were analyzed for
VOCs to determine if sufficient contaminant
reduction had been achieved from aeration.
After aeration in the dryer, treated soils were
stabilized with a lean mixture of cement and
redeposited into the excavation cavity.
The system also treated the resulting air
exhaust from the dryer. Exhaust air was first
vented through a baghouse which removed
particulates. The collected particulates were
then treated in a heated screw conveyor,
which returned the treated particulates to the
treated soil. Next, the exhaust traveled
through an air scrubber to remove water
soluble contaminants and remaining particles.
Lastly, the exhaust was vented to a vapor
phase carbon adsorption bed which removed
VOCs.
Operating conditions were varied during each
of the four phases of the pilot study. The first
phase varied soil volume, dryer temperature,
dry flue gas temperature, dryer air flow, soil
wetting procedures for dust control, and
baghouse operation. Phase Two focused on
dryer temperature and air flow. Drying tem-
perature was varied between 150°F and
325°F, and dryer airflow was set at 15,000
cfm. Furthermore, during Phase Two, soils
were recirculated through the dryer 4 or 5
times. The purpose of Phase Three was to
determine if desired treatment levels could be
achieved in repeated runs, under full-day
operation. During the second half of this
phase, dryer temperatures were kept roughly
constant, between 290°F and 310°F, and dryer
airflow was set at 15,000 cfm. Soil volume
was set at 3 cubic yards per run and residence
time in the dryer was set at approximately 6
minutes for the three passes through the
dryer. For Phase Four, the dust control and soil
handling systems were modified. The con-
veyor belt was replaced with a bucket con-
veyor recirculation system. Also, treated soils
were placed directly into the cement mixer
truck, skipping the stockpiling step.
Site air was monitored throughout the study
for any possible decline in ambient air quality
caused by thee excavation and aeration of
contaminated soils. Organic vapors and
particulates were measured at various loca-
tions around the site perimeter and within the
site to detect any danger to public health
resulting from the treatment.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
67
-------
McKin Company Superfund Site—Page 12 of 12
I APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatabtlity Study Performance Data
The treatability study results showed that the
thermal desorption system was effective in
reducing TCE concentrations in the treated soil
to less than 0.1 mg/kg using the higher tem-
peratures and the maximum airflow tested.
Fugitive particulate emissions could be con-
trolled by enclosing much of the system. TCE
concentrations in ambient air measured during
the pilot-scale treatment did not exceed
background levels. The study also determined
that additional volatile organic contaminants
such as BTEX could be treated with the same
operating parameters as those used to
optimize TCE removal efficiency.
The treatability study established a correlation
with increased dryer temperatures (from
150°F to 380°F) and increased airflow (up to
15,000 cfm) with higher removal efficiencies
of TCE. Higher removal efficiencies of TCE
were also achieved by treating soils with
multiple passes through the unit, thus increas-
ing residence time. An optimum temperature
of 300°F was determined on the basis that
below 250°F there was not a significant
reduction of TCE concentrations, and above
350°F the soil behaved as a viscous fluid on
the conveyor bed and reacted violently with
water during wetting.
During the treatability study, fugitive particu-
late emissions from transporting soils on belt
conveyors within the treatment system were
found to impede cycle times. Prior to the full-
scale remediation, the conveyors were
replaced with enclosed transport systems,
using a bucket and chute system and augers
to reduce fugitive particulate emissions.
Wetting procedures were initially used, but
were discontinued during the pilot-scale
treatability test due to a lack of effectiveness
in reducing emissions, interference with GC
analysis of treated soils, and added difficulty
in materials handling. Bluish smoke was
observed during the pilot-scale treatability
study, and was subsequently controlled by
installing a HEPA filter at the dryer exhaust.
Treatability Study Lessons Learned
The pilot-scale treatability study
indicated that thermal desorption
would be effective in treating soils at
the McKin site and achieving the
performance standards for this appli-
cation.
The following improvements to the
design and operation of the full-scale
remediation system were made based
on the results of the pilot-scale
treatability study:
— Fugitive dust emissions were
controlled by enclosing materials
handling processes;
Temperature, residence time, and
air flow were optimized for TCE
removal efficiency;
Wetting procedures were deter-
mined to be ineffective and
difficult to utilize in the system;
Addition of a HEPA filter to the
exhaust gas treatment system
reduced smoke particulates; and
The mixing of clean soil and
petroleum contaminated soil
eliminated agglomeration of the
petroleum contaminated soil in
the thermal desorption unit.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
68
-------
Thermal Desorption at the
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site
Waukegan, Illinois
69
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site
Waukegan, Illinois
Site Name:
Outboard Marine Corporation
Superfund Site
Location:
Waukegan, Illinois
Contaminants:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
- PCB concentrations in material feed to
thermal desorber ranged from 2,400 to
23,000 mg/kg PCBs
Period of Operation:
January 1992 to June 1992
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Joseph Hutton
SoilTech ATP System, Inc.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
(219) 926-8651
SIC Code:
3363 (Aluminum Die-Casting)
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
- Rotary kiln desorber with proprietary sand
seals
- Retort zone temperature 1,207°F
- Preheat and retort zone residence time 30-
40 minutes
- Air emissions controlled using cyclones,
baghouse, scrubbers, fractionator,
condenser, gas-oil-water separator, and
carbon adsorption
- Water treated on site using sand filtration,
Klensorb® filtration, ultraviolet oxidation,
cartridge filtration, and carbon adsorption
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
-ROD Date: 3/31/89
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
Bill Bolen - RPM
(Cindy Nolan - former RPM)
U.S. EPA, Region 5
77 West Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-6316
Waste Source:
Other: Discharge to Sewer/Surface
Water; Surface Disposal Area
Purpose/Significance of Application:
This application was an early
application of SoilTech's ATP system
for treating soil and sediment at a
Superfund Site contaminated with
PCBs.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil and Sediment
- 12,755 tons treated
- 12.9% moisture; pH of 8.59
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil and Sediment - PCBs: 97% removal by mass
- Air - PCBs: Destruction and Removal Efficiency (ORE) of 99.9999%, Dioxins/Furans: 30 ng/dscm
Results:
Soil and Sediment - Achieved PCB cleanup goal for soil and sediment; average PCB removal efficiency of 99.98%; PCB
concentrations in treated soil ranged from 0.4 mg/kg to 8.9 mg/kg; most samples less than 2 mg/kg
Air - Stack gas requirements met for PCBs; stack gas requirements met for dioxins/furans after system modifications
Cost Factors:
- $2,474,000 - Actual total costs for cost elements directly associated with treatment (including solids preparation and
handling, startup/testing/permits, operation, capital equipment, and demobilization)
- $900,000 for before-treatment costs (including mobilization and preparatory work, and monitoring, sampling, testing, and
analysis)
70
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site
Waukegan, Illinois (Continued)
Description:
Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC), located on Lake Michigan, performed marine product manufacturing operations at the
site. Contamination of the soil and sediments at the site resulted from the discharge of hydraulic fluid containing PCBs
through floor drains which discharged to several areas at the site and into Waukegan Harbor. An estimated 700,000 pounds
of PCBs were discharged to the OMC site and 300,000 pounds of PCBs were discharged to Waukegan Harbor. Based on a
1989 Consent Decree and Record of Decision, remedial activities selected for the site included excavation, stockpiling, and
treatment of soil and sediment contaminated with PCBs. A cleanup goal for PCBs in soil and sediment of 97% removal was
specified in the 1989 ROD.
SoilTech's mobile Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP) system was selected for treating the PCB-contaminated soil and
sediment at OMC. The ATP system was operated at the site from January 23, 1992 until June 23, 1992. During this time,
12,755 tons of PCB-contaminated soils and sediments were treated. The ATP system met the cleanup goal for PCBs in soil
and sediment by achieving an average removal efficiency of 99.98% for total PCB concentrations. PCBs in treated soil
ranged from 0.4 to 8.9 mg/kg. The PCB ORE of 99.9999% and total dioxin and furan stack emission requirements of 30
ng/dscm were met during the cleanup.
During the proof-of-process period (January 23 until March 5), the DRE for PCBs was not met, and EPA shut the system
down. From March 5 until May 30, SoilTech made modifications to the system, and the stack gas emissions requirements
were met during the remainder of the soil cleanup. An EPA SITE Demonstration was conducted at the OMC site in June
1992. During this demonstration, 255 tons of soil and sediment were treated. The total cost for the full-scale application of
thermal desorption at the OMC site was $2,474,000.
71
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 1 of 20
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
This report presents cost and performance
data for a thermal desorption treatment
application at the Outboard Marine Corpora-
tion (OMC) Superfund Site, located in
Waukegan, Illinois. OMC performed marine
product manufacturing operations at the site.
Hydraulic fluid containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) was discharged through floor
drains, resulting in the contamination of soil in
several areas of the site and contamination of
sediment in nearby Waukegan Harbor.
Based on a 1989 Consent Decree and Record
of Decision, the remedial activities selected
for the site included excavation, stockpiling,
and treatment of PCB-contaminated soil and
sediment. The specified cleanup goals for the
site for PCBs was 97 percent removal by mass
in treated soil and sediment. In addition, a
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of
99.9999% for PCBs and a limit of 30 nano-
grams per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm)
for dioxins and furans were required for stack
gas emissions.
SoilTech's mobile Anaerobic Thermal Proces-
sor (ATP) system was selected for treating the
PCB-contaminated soil and sediment at OMC.
The SoilTech ATP system included a feed
system, the ATP unit (rotary kiln thermal
desorber), a vapor recovery system, a flue gas
treatment system, and a tailings handling
system. Wastewater from the vapor recovery
system was treated in an on-site wastewater
treatment system and then discharged to a
sanitary sewer. Most of the PCBs desorbed
from the contaminated soil and sediment
were contained in oil from the vapor recovery
system. Approximately 50,000 gallons of oil
were generated during full-scale cleanup and
were disposed off site. The treated soil and
sediment were placed into containment cells
constructed on site.
The ATP system was operated at the OMC
site from January 22, 1992 until June 23, 1992
and was used to treat approximately 12,700
tons of PCB-contaminated soil and sediment.
The ATP system met the cleanup goal for
PCBs in soil and sediment by achieving an
average removal efficiency of 99.98 percent
for total PCBs. PCB concentrations in the
treated soil ranged from 0.4 to 8.9 mg/kg. The
PCB DRE of 99.9999% and total dioxin and
furan stack emission requirements of 30 ng/
dscm were met during the full-scale cleanup.
During the proof-of-process period (January
23 until March 5), the DRE for PCBs was not
met, and EPA shut the system down. From
March 5 until May 30, SoilTech made modifi-
cations to the ATP system, and the stack gas
emissions requirements were met during the
remainder of the soil cleanup.
A SITE Demonstration was conducted at the
OMC site during June 1992. During this
demonstration, 255 tons of soil and sediment
were treated.
The remediation of contaminated soils and
sediments at OMC was completed at a cost
of $2,474,000 for activities directly attributed
to treatment (corresponding to $190/ton of
soil and sediment treated) and $900,000 for
be fore-treatment activities.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
72
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 2 of 20
I SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site
Waukegan, Illinois
CERCLIS #: ILD000802827
ROD Date: 31 March 1989
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated with
Application? Yes (see Appendix A and
Reference 6)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? Yes (see Reference 5)
Operation Period: 1 /22/9Z to 6/23/92
Quantity of Material Treated During
Application: 12,755 tons of soil and sediment
Background
Historical Activity that Generated Contami-
nation at the Site: Aluminum die-casting,
machining
Corresponding SIC Code: 3363 (Aluminum
Die-Castings)
Waste Management Practice that Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Discharge to Sewer/
Surface Water, Surface Disposal Area
Site History: The Outboard Marine Corpora-
tion (OMC) Superfund Site is located in
Waukegan, Illinois on the western shore of
Lake Michigan, approximately 10 miles south
of the Wisconsin border, as shown in Figure 1.
OMC, a marine products manufacturer, used
hydraulic fluid containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) as a lubricant for its alumi-
num casting and machining operations from
1961 to 1972. During these operations,
hydraulic fluid was discharged through floor
drains to an oil receptor system. The oil
receptor system subsequently discharged to
several areas at the site. It is estimated that
approximately 700,000 pounds of PCBs were
discharged to the OMC site and approxi-
mately 300,000 pounds of PCBs were dis-
charged to Waukegan Harbor. The main areas
of PCB contamination at the site, shown in
Figure 2, are: Slip No. 3, a parking lot, the
North Ditch, the Oval Lagoon, the Crescent
Ditch, and Waukegan Harbor. [2, 3, 4, 5, and
12]
Regulatory Context: A Record of Decision
(ROD) was signed in 1984 and engineering
design work began in 1984. However, this
work was suspended in late 1985 due to
litigation between OMC and EPA concerning
EPA's access to OMC property. In 1989, EPA
and OMC negotiated a consent decree, and
the 1984 ROD was amended in March 1989
to add a requirement for treatment of the
contaminated soil and sediment on site. While
the amended ROD did not require a specific
treatment technology, the ROD did specify a
treatment performance goal of 97 percent
removal of PCBs.
Outboard Marine Corp
Superfund Site
Waukegdti, Illinois
Figure I. Site Location
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
73
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 3 of 20
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
The following remedial actions were specified:
• Excavation and treatment of Slip No. 3
sediment with PCB concentrations
greater than 500 ppm;
• Dredging of sediment in the Upper
Harbor with PCB concentrations
exceeding 50 ppm and placement of
the dredged sediment in the Slip No. 3
containment cell for future treatment;
• Removal and treatment of soil and
sediment in the Crescent Ditch and
Oval Lagoon areas with PCB concen-
trations greater than 10,000 ppm;
• Construction of a containment cell at
Slip No. 3;
• Construction of a new slip to replace
Slip No. 3;
• Construction of a west containment
cell to hold treated solids;
• Construction of an east containment
cell in the parking lot area;
• Construction of a temporary on-site
wastewater treatment facility for
treatment of dredged water and a
permanent wastewater treatment
facility for treatment of containment
cell wastewater;
• Capping of all containment cells; and
• Groundwater monitoring around the
containment cells.
Figure 2 shows the areas at the site where PCB
concentrations were between 50 and 500
ppm and areas where PCB concentrations
exceeded 500 ppm.
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: PRP Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Bill Bolen (HSRL-6J)
(Cindy Nolan-former RPM)
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 West Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-6316
Treatment System Vendor:
Joseph Hutton
Operations Manager
SoilTech ATP Systems
800 Canonic Drive
Porter, IN 46304
(219)926-8651
Construction Manager:
Kevin Brissett
Canonie Environmental Services
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46034
(219)926-8651
/ OMC Plan! No 1 []
f-LT—-—^
Figure 2. OMC Site Before Remedial Action
(adapted from [4])
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
74
-------
Outboard Mai me Corporation Superfund Site—Page 4 of 20
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the Treatment System: Soil (ex situ), sediment (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: PCBs
The ROD specified excavation and treatment
of soils from the Crescent Ditch and Oval
Lagoon areas with PCB concentrations in
excess of 10,000 ppm and sediments from
Slip 3 with PCB concentrations grater than
500 ppm. The concentration of PCBs in the
soil/sediment feed to the ATP unit (measured in
daily composite samples collected from the feed
conveyor to the ATP unit) ranged from 2,400 to
23,000 mg/kg. PCBs were measured in untreated
soil/sediment samples using EPA Method 8080.
[4, 5,9, 10, and 13]
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost measured values are presented in Table 1.
or performance for this technology and their
Table 1. Matrix Characteristics* [1,5]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Bulk Density
Moisture Content
pH
Total Organic Carbon
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Chloride
Extractable Organic Hal ides
Particle Size Distribution
<4.75 mm
<4.75 mm > 2 mm
< 2 mm > 0.425 mm
<0.425 mm > 0.075 mm
<0.075 mm > 0.005 mm
<0.005 mm
Lower Explosive Limit
Value
Sand
1.87g/cm3
1 2.9%
8.59
16,000 ppm
3,033 ppm
303 ppm
1 ,900 ppm
5.55%
2.93%
7.60%
68.69%
7.88%
5.67%
Not Available
Measurement Method
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
—
"The values presented in the table above are the average results for the three composite
samples of the contaminated feed collected during the three test runs of the SITE Demonstra-
tion (conducted in June 1992).
These values are representative of 255 of the 12,755 tons of soil arid sediment treated at
OMC and are the only data available at this time. The methods used to measure these
parameters were not identified in available leferences.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
75
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 5 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Type
Thermal desorption
Supplemental Treatment Technology Types [5,11]
Post-treatment (air): The ATP system used
at the OMC site included two off gas treat-
ment systems. The flue gas treatment system
designed to treat gases from the combustion
zone of the ATP unit included the following
technologies:
• Cyclone;
• Quench;
• Baghouse; and
• Carbon adsorption.
The vapor recovery system designed to treat
vapors from the preheat and retort zones of
the ATP unit consisted of the following tech-
nologies:
• Cyclone;
• Condenser; and
• Gas-oil-water separators.
Post-treatment (water): The condensed
water from the vapor recovery system was
discharged to an on-site wastewater treat-
ment system utilizing sand filtration,
Klensorb® filtration, ultraviolet oxidation,
cartridge filtration (0.5 microns), and acti-
vated carbon filtration.
SoilTech ATP Thermal Desorption Technology Description and Operation
The SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor
(ATP), shown in Figure 3, is a mobile treatment
system consisting of six main process units,
including a soil pretreatment system, a feed
system, an anaerobic thermal processor unit,
a vapor recovery system, a flue gas treatment
system, and a tailings handling system. [5]
The feed system consists of two feed hoppers
and a conveyor belt. One feed hopper con-
tains the contaminated soil and the other
contains clean sand. The sand is fed to the
ATP unit during system startup and shutdown
periods, serving as a heat carrier. Sand was
also fed during upset conditions. [5]
The ATP unit is a rotary kiln which contains
four separate internal zones, separated using
proprietary sand seals. As shown in figure 4,
these include the preheat, retort, combustion,
and cooling zones. The feed enters the
preheat zone where it is heated and mixed,
vaporizing water, volatile organics, and some
semivolatile organics. The solids then enter
the retort zone where they are further heated,
causing vaporization of heavy oils and some
thermal cracking of hydrocarbons, resulting in
the formation of coked solids and decontami-
nated solids. The solids from the retort zone
then enter the combustion zone where coked
solids are combusted. A portion of the decon-
taminated solids are recycled to the retort
zone via a recycle channel. The recycling of
these solids helps to maintain an elevated
temperature in the retort zone. The decon-
taminated solids remaining in the combustion
zone enter the cooling zone where they are
cooled to an appropriate exit temperature. [5]
The vapor recovery system consists of two
parallel systems. One system condenses
water and vapors from the preheat zone of
the ATP unit and consists of a cyclone, a
condenser, and a gas-oil-water separator. The
other system condenses water and vapors
from the retort zone and consists of two
cyclones, a scrubber, a fractionator, a con-
denser, and a gas-oil-water separator. Oil
from the vapor recovery system containing
PCBs is discharged to a storage tank for off-
site disposal. During the full-scale treatment
of 12,755 tons of soil and sediment at OMC,
approximately 50,000 gallons of oil containing
PCBs were collected and disposed off site. [5]
Condensed water from the vapor recovery
system was treated in an on-site wastewater
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
76
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 6 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
SoilTech ATP Thermal Desorption Technology Description and
Operation (cont.)
WirttOlltnk
Figure 3. ATP Schematic f/J
treatment system, which consisted of the
following treatment processes:
Sand filtration;
Klensorb® filtration;
Ultraviolet oxidation;
Cartridge filtration; and
Carbon adsorption.
The wastewater from this system was dis-
charged to a sanitary sewer. [11, 12]
Effluent testing following mobilization of the
ATP unit to the site identified the presence of
phenols, acetone, and other breakdown
products. The wastewater system was modi-
fied to reduce phenol and acetone to levels
acceptable for discharge to the sanitary sewer.
[3]
The flue gas treatment system consists of a
cyclone with fines conveyor, flue gas quencher
chamber, baghouse with dust conveyor, acid
gas scrubber, and activated carbon unit. This
system removes particulates and trace hydro-
carbons from the flue gas exiting the combus-
tion zone of the ATP. Fines from the baghouse
and cyclone are mixed with the treated solids
exiting the ATP unit. The treated flue gas is
released to the atmosphere. [5]
During the proof-of-process period (January
22, 1992 to March 5, 1992), the ATP system
did not meet the stack gas emission require-
ment of 99.9999 percent ORE for PCBs. The
ATP system was shut down on March 5, 1992
and the following modifications were made to
the flue gas treatment system:
• The carbon bed depth in the stack was
increased to 24 inches;
• The scrubber was converted to an
adsorption unit by adding two new
carbon beds to the scrubber; and
• Activated carbon beds were installed
in the vapor return lines for the
preheat and retort zones.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
77
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 7 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
SoilTech ATP Thermal Desorption Technology Description and
Operation (cont.)
DISCHARGE
AND HYDROCARBON
VAPORS FLOW >. _
^X
|
COOLING ZONE
PREHEAT ZONE
COMdUSTION ZONE —
FLUE GAS "" "~~~^ /
- /
//J RETORT ZONE
\A
X """"^
/
/
* \
\
1
/
SEAL
FEED
\
EVOLVED STEAM "V \/.
AND ORGANICS > [/
\ t/
1 ,
' V
,—-~-
_/
^
N
—
t
v
t ^
-•*- AND STEAM
. VAPORS FLOW
- AUXILIARY
BURNERS
SPENT SAND
TREATED SOLIDS
KILN END SEALS (TYP.)
HOT SAND RECYCLE
COKED SAND
COMBUSTION
AIR FLOW
Figure 4. Simplified Sectional Diagram
Showing the Four Internal Zones [5]
In early May, SoilTech discovered a gap in the
flue gas carbon bed seal, which allowed an
estimated 70% of the flue gas stream to
bypass the carbon bed. This problem was
corrected prior to the stack gas testing on
May 12. The PCB ORE of 99.9999% was
achieved during the remainder of this applica-
tion. [12]
The tailings (treated solids) handling system
was used to cool and remove treated solids
from the ATP. The treated solids exiting the
ATP were quenched with process and scrub-
ber water and transported to storage piles
using belt and screw conveyors. [5]
The primary innovative features of the ATP
unit are the four internal zones and the use of
proprietary sand seals at each end of the
retort zone which are designed to maintain an
oxygen-free environment in the retort zone.
The oxygen-free environment in the retort
zone helps to prevent the oxidation of hydro-
carbons and coke. [5]
A SITE Demonstration was conducted at the
OMC site in June 1992. The purpose of the
SITE demonstration was to obtain information
on the performance and cost of the technol-
ogy and to assess its effectiveness at the
OMC site. During the three test runs of the
demonstration, 255 tons of soil and sediment
were treated. [1]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
78
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 8 of 20
• TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [5,12]
The major operating parameters affecting cost or
performance for this technology and the values
measured for each during this treatment applica-
tion are presented in Table 2.
The average preheat and retort zone off-gas flow
rates measured during the SITE Demonstration
were 211 and 88 actual cubic feed per minute
(acfm), respectively. The average stack gas flow
rate during the SITE Demonstration was 6,580
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm).
Table 2, Operating Parameters* [5, 12]
Parameter
Value
Measurement Method
Operating Pressure
Preheat and Retort Zone Residence
Time
Preheat Zone Temperature
Retort Zone Temperature
Combustion Zone Temperature
Cooling Zone Temperature
System Throughput
Negative pressure Pressure to electrical transducer
30 to 40 minutes Engineering design calculations
Thermocouples in preheat zone
Thermocouples In retort zone
851°F
1,207'F
1,339°F
764°F
Thermocouples in combustion
zone
Thermocouples on cooling zone
8.31 tons per hour Weight of treated solids
measured using a truck scale
*The values presented in the table above are the average results for the three test runs of the SITE
Demonstration conducted in June 1992. They are based on the operating conditions used for
treating 255 of the 12,755 tons of soil and sediment at OMC. [5, 12]
Timeline
The timeline for this application is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Timeline [I, 2, 4, 5, 9, 1O, 11, and 12]
Start Date
1961
May 15. 1984
March 31, 1989
1989
November 1991
January 22, 1992
February 24, 1992
March i, 1992
March 5, 1992
Match 17, 1992
March 19, 1992
April 6, 1992
April 17, 1992
May 12, 1992
May 30, 1992
|une 16, 1992
June 20, 1992
End D*te
1972
—
-
—
January 1 992
February 24, 1992
February 29, 1992
March 5, 1992
March 17, 1992
March 18. 1992
April 9, 1992
AprB 16, 1992
May 12, 1992
May f4, 1992
June 15, 1992
June 19, 1992
June 23, 1992
Acttvtty
OMC used hydraulic fluid that contained PCBs in its
manufacturing operations.
ROD signed.
Consent Decree signed and ROD amended requiring on-site
treatment rather than off- site disposal of contaminated soil and
sediment.
Site construction activities initiated, including stodq*« of soil
and sediment for treatment.
SoilTech ATP system assembled and shakedown of system
conducted
Contaminated soil and sediment treated using the ATP system
(30-day proof-of-process period).
ATP system shutdown for maintenance.
System restarted but shut down 5 «feys later fcy EPA due to
nonattatomen* of stack gas emission standards,
ATP system modified.
Stack, gas testing conducted.
ATP system modified.
Stack gas testing conducted.
ATP system modified.
Stack gas testing conducted. Emissions standards met.
ATP system restarted and operated continuously.
SITE Demonstration conducted.
Treatment of soil and sediment using the ATP system
completed.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
79
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 9 of 20
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Requirements [4, 5, and 12]
The 1989 ROD specified a cleanup goal for
PCBs in soil and sediment of 97 percent
removal by mass. Stack gas emission require-
ments were specified in the Consent Decree
for PCBs (99.9999 percent destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) for PCBs). A stack
gas emission requirement for dioxins and
furans of 30 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter (ng/dscm) was also specified by
EPA.
Additional Information on Goals [5, 9, 10, 11, and 12]
The 1989 ROD stated that sediment from Slip
No. 3 and Waukegan Harbor with PCB con-
centrations exceeding 500 ppm and soil and
sediment from the Crescent Ditch and Oval
Lagoon areas with PCB concentrations ex-
ceeding 10,000 ppm required on-site treat-
ment.
Treatment Performance Data [9, 10, 11, and 12]
Table 4 summarizes the analytical results for
PCBs in untreated soil/sediment and treated
soil/sediment during the treatment application
at OMC. Appendix B contains PCB analytical
results for each day samples were collected.
Table 5 shows stack gas results for the PCB
DRE and total dioxin and furan concentration
during the proof-of-process and modifications
period (samples collected from 1 -28-92 to
4-10-92). Table 6 shows stack gas results for
the PCB DRE and total dioxin and furan
concentration after the process modifications
were completed (samples collected from 5/
12/92 to 6/16/92). Appendix B contains the
results for each stack gas test conducted at
OMC.
Table 4. PCB Analytical Results [9, 1O, 11]
Untreated
Soil/Sediment
Treated Soil/Sediment
PCB Removal
Efficiency
Range
2,400 to 23,000
mg/kg
0.4 to 8.9 mg/kg
99.91 to >99.99%
Average
1 0,484 mg/kg
2. 2 mg/kg
99.98%
Number of Data
Points
75
75
N/A
N/A - Not applicable.
Table 5. Stack Cas Results During Proof-of-Process Period
(Samples taken between 1/28/92 and 4/10/92) [10,11]
PCB DRE
Total Dioxin/Furan
Concentration
Range
99.568 to 99.99968%
1 9,66 to 1 ,037 ng/dscm at 7% O2
Number of Data Points
10
10
Table 6. Stack Cas Results After Process Modifications Completed
(Samples taken between 5/12/92 and 6/16/92) [10,11]
PCB DRE
Total Dioxin/Furan
Concentration
Range
99.99991 to 99.99999%
NA
Number of Data Points
8
0
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
NA - Not analyzed.
80
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 10 of 20
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data [9,10,11,12] (cont.)
During the SITE Demonstration conducted at
the OMC site in June 1992, stack gas emis-
sions were analyzed for individual dioxins and
furans during three test runs. The results,
shown in Table 7, indicate that only TCDF was
present at detectable levels. [5]
The PCB results for untreated soil/sediment
and treated soil/sediment presented in Table 4
are for composite samples collected each day
the system was operated. Soil/sediment and
stack gas samples were analyzed for PCBs
using EPA Method 8080. Stack gas samples
were analyzed for dioxins and furans using
EPA Method 8280. [5, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13]
Table 7. Dioxin and Furan Stack Gas Emissions Measured During the SITE Demonstration [5]
Compound
Average Dioxin and Furan Concentrations
in Stack Gas Emissions (ng/dscm)
Tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD)
Tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDF)
Pentachlorlnated dibenzofurans (PeCDF)
Hexachlorlnated dibenzofurans (HxCDF)
TOTAL
<0.029
0.0787
<0.022
<0.018
0.0787*
"Total stack gas concentration of 0.0787 ng/dscm is equivalent to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentra-
tion of zero.
Performance Data Assessment
As shown in Table 4 and Appendix B, the
SoilTech ATP system achieved the cleanup
goal of 97% removal by mass of PCBs in soil
and sediment, achieving an average PCB
removal efficiency of 99.98%. Treated soil PCB
concentrations ranged from 0.4 to 8.9 mg/kg.
The PCB DRE requirement was achieved for
stack gas emissions after the process modifi-
cations described above were made in early
May 1992.
As shown in Table 5 and Appendix B, the
concentration of total dioxins and furans in the
stack gas was less than the stack gas emission
Performance Data Completeness
Paired untreated and treated soil and sedi-
ment concentrations were obtained for each
day of operation of the ATP system at the
OMC site. Daily values for operating param-
eters, however, are not available.
requirement of 30 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter (ng/dscm) in 3 of the 10 stack gas
tests conducted prior to completing the process
modifications described above. The concentra-
tions of total dioxins and furans measured near
the conclusion of the modifications period
(4/10/92) was 24.7 ng/dscm. Total dioxins and
furans were not analyzed in subsequent stack gas
tests. The concentration of total dioxins and furans
in the stack gas during the three test runs con-
ducted during the SITE Demonstration on
June 16, 1992 was 0.0787 ng/dscm.
Performance Data Quality
EPA SW-846 methods were used for analysis
of the soil samples and stack gas emissions in
this application. No exceptions to the QA/QC
requirements were noted in the available
reference.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
81
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 11 of 20
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for
this site selected Canonic Environmental
Services to provide the engineering design and
construction services for the OMC/Waukegan
Harbor project through a competitive procure-
Treatment System Cost
ment procedure. Canoine subcontracted
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. to treat the PCB-
contaminated soil/sediment using the SoilTech
ATP system.
SoilTech was contracted to remediate the soils
and sediments at OMC for $700,000 in fixed
costs and $185 per ton of material processed.
These costs did not include utilities, site
preparation, excavation of contaminated soil,
or disposal of PCB condensate produced. [14]
Tables 8 and 9 present the actual costs for the
thermal desorption application at OMC. In
order to standardize reporting of costs across
projects, costs are shown in Tables 8 and 9
according to the format for an interagency
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS
specifies 9 before-treatment cost elements, 5
after-treatment cost elements, and 12 cost
elements that provide a detailed breakdown
of costs directly associated with treatment.
Tables 8 and 9 present the cost elements
exactly as they appear in the WBS, along with
the specific activities, as provided by EPA in
the Draft Applications Analysis
Report.
addition, Table 9 shows a total of $900,000
for before-treatment costs. There were no
costs in this application for the following
elements in the WBS: Liquid Preparation and
Handling, Vapor/Gas Preparation and Han-
dling, Pads/Foundations/Spill Control, Training,
Operation (Long Term - Over 3 Years), Dis-
mantling, Site Work, Surface Water Collection
and Control, Air Pollution/Gas Collection and
Control, Solids Collection and Containment,
Liquids/Sediments/Sludges Collection and
Containment, Drums/Tanks/Structures/ Miscel-
laneous Demolition and Removal, Decontami-
nation and Decommissioning, Disposal (Other
than Commercial), Disposal (Commercial),
Site Restoration, and Demobilization.
Tables. Costs Directly Associated with Treatment [5]
In preparing the Applications
Analysis Report, EPA obtained
actual cost data from SoilTech for
treating 12,755 tons of soil at
OMC. [5]
The cost data in Table 8 show a
total of $2,474,000 for cost
elements directly associated with
treatment of 12,755 tons of soil
(i.e., excluding before and after
treatment cost elements). This
total treatment cost corresponds
to $ 190 per ton of soil treated. In
Cost Elements
Solids Preparation and Handling
- residuals and waste handling and transporting
Startup/Testing/Permits
- permitting and regulatory
- startup
Operation (Short Term - Up to 3 years)
- labor
- supplies and consumables
- utilities
- equipment repair and replacement
Cost of Ownership
• capital equipment
Demobilization
TOTAL DIRECT TREATMENT COSTS
Cost (dollars)
186,000
188,000
158,000
854,000
139,000
65,000
133,000
361,000
390,000
2,474,000
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
82
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 12 of 20
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
Table 9. Before-li-eatment Cost Elements [5]
Cost Element*
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
- transport of ATP unit to site
- Initial setup
- Installing fence around location for ATP unit
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing and Analysis
- effluent monitoring
- analytical services
TOTAL BEFORE TREATMENT COSTS
Co»t» (dollar*)
655,000
207,000
38,000
900,000
Cost Data Quality
Treatment cost information shown in Table 8
represents actual costs for this application,
Vendor Input
and include costs for seven specific elements
in the WBS.
According to the treatment vendor, in general,
the costs for treatment using the SoilTech ATP
system vary depending on the character of the
waste material, with treatment costs ranging
from $ 150 to $250 per ton for a 10-ton per
hour ATP System. The factors identified by the
vendor that affect costs include:
• Moisture content of feed material;
• Particle size;
• Hydrocarbon content;
• Material handling characteristics; and
• Chemical characteristics.
Vendor estimates for mobilization and demo-
bilization costs for a 10-ton per hour system
range from $700,000 to $1.5 million. [12]
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The actual cost for activities directly
related to treatment was $2,474,000
which corresponds to $ 190 per ton of
soil treated.
A total of $900,000 was expended in
this application for before-treatment
activities, including mobilization and
preparatory work and monitoring,
sampling, testing, and analysis.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
The ATP system achieved an average
mass removal efficiency of 99.98
percent for PCBs during the full-scale
cleanup; this was much higher than
the PCB soil/sediment cleanup goal of
97 percent removal. Treated soil PCB
concentrations ranged from 0.4 to 8.9
mg/kg.
The PCB ORE and total dioxin and
furan stack gas emission requirements
of 99.9999% ORE and 30 ng/dscm,
respectively, were met after making
several modifications to the flue gas
treatment system.
The majority of PCBs accumulated in
the vapor scrubber oils. Approximately
50,000 gallons of oil were generated
during full-scale cleanup and were
disposed off site.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
83
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 13 of 20
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
Bench-scale treatability study results
were an accurate predictor of full-
scale PCB removal and indicated that
a thermal treatment system removed
more than 99% of a PCB congener
from the soil/sediment at OMC.
Pilot study testing of effluent was
limited to PCBs and total suspended
solids (TSS). Discharged water was
subject to a limit of 1 part-per-billion
(ppb) for PCBs. Effluent testing
following mobilization of the ATP unit
to the site identified the presence of
contaminants including phenols and
acetone. The wastewater system was
modified to reduce phenol and
acetone levels to acceptable levels for
discharge to a POTW. PCB levels were
less than the 1 ppb limit.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
84
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 14 of 20
REFERENCES
1. PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Results from the SITE Demonstration
of the SoilTech ATP Process at the
OMC site in Waukegan, Illinois;
Volume I - Draft Report. Chicago,
Illinois. September 16, 1992.
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Public Affairs,
Region 5. "OMC Cleanup Begins -
Outboard Marine Corporation/
Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site Fact
Sheet." Chicago, IL. September 1991.
3. Comments on Draft Report from
Cindy Nolan, RPM, Received Novem-
ber 29, 1994.
4. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Superfund
Record of Decision: Outboard Marine
(Amendment), IL. EPA/ROD/R05-89/
096, Washington, D.C., March 31,
1989.
5. US. EPA. Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory. Draft Applications Analysis
Report for the SoilTech Anaerobic
Thermal Processor at the Wide Beach
Development and Waukegan Harbor
Superfund Sites. Cincinnati, OH. May
1993.
6. SoilTech, Inc. TreatabilityStudy
Report, Taciuk Processor, (undated)
7. Letter dated March 30, 1992 to Walt
Kovalick from Henry Longest and
response to letter dated April 7, 1992.
8. SoilTech Briefing Package for TIO, April
18, 1992.
9. Canonic Environmental. "Table 3 - First
Quarter 1992 Summary of ATP
System Modifications." (undated).
10. Canonie Environmental. "Table 4 - Rrst
Quarter 1992 PCB Analyses - Soils."
(undated).
11. Canonie Environmental. Quarterly
Progress Report. April 1992 Through
June 1992. (undated).
12. Hutton, J. and Shanks, R. "Thermal
Desorption of PCB-Contaminated
Waste at the Waukegan Harbor
Superfund Site." Remediation. Spring
1994.
13. Canonie Environmental. Draft Treat-
ment Design and Operations Plan
Remedial Action - Soil Treatment,
Waukegan Harbor Site, Waukegan,
Illinois. February 1990.
14. Hutton, J.H. and Shanks, R. "Thermal
Desorption of PCB-Contaminated
Waste at the Waukegan Harbor
Superfund Site." USEPA Fourth Forum
on Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies: Domestic
and International. San Francisco,
California. November 16-19, 1992.
15. Comments on Draft Report from
SoilTech, Received January 18, 1995.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
85
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 15 of 20
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS |
Treatability Study Objectives [6]
Determine the effectiveness of a
thermal treatment system for treating
different matrices containing polychlo-
rinated biphenyls (PCBs) at the
Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC)
Superfund Site.
Assess the affect of varying process
operating conditions, including
residence time and type of feed
material, on the treatment effective-
ness and concentration of PCBs in the
treatment residuals.
Determine if PCBs break down during
the treatment process.
Determine if the char and ash residu-
als contain dioxins.
Obtain data needed to evaluate the
operation of a thermal treatment
system to be used for a full-scale
remediation of the OMC site.
Treatability Study Test Description
System Description: The bench-scale system,
shown in Figure A-1, consisted of a 1 2-inch by
12-inch rotary kiln, a hot vapor condenser, a
condensed liquid collector, a gas filter, a gas
compressor, and a gas sample bomb. Material
was fed into the kiln through a 4-inch port,
and treated solids were withdrawn through
the same port. Vapors from the Win were
condensed and collected. Condensed vapors
were separated into water, oil, and sludge
subfractions. Non-condensible gasses were
filtered, measured, and collected. Treatment
residuals included treated solids (char and
ash), water, oil, and gasses.
Feed Material: The PCB-contaminated
material (feed material) used in the treatability
study included organic silt (muck) and sand
that were collected from a soil boring at the
site (the Crescent Ditch area near a former
outfall). The muck was an oily sediment,
containing leaves and other decomposing
material, with a high water content. The sand
was fine, of uniform size, with a high water
content. The sand was used as the feed
material for Run No. 2; the muck was used at
the feed material for Run No. 1; and muck
mixed with clean sand was used as the feed
.ROTARY KILN
1 FEED AND
DISCHARGE
GTC'* TROM A80VF-
GAS FLOW RATE
OIL LTVEL RISE RATE
TEST DRUM PRESSURE
CONDFNSFfl DlSfH/iM,F
PRESSURE.
% Qy IN OFF GAS ulPTION
OTHERS AS HFQUihETi
VARIABLE
SPEED
ELECTRIC
DRIVE
Figure A-1 - Bench-Scale Treatability Test System [6]
Note: Not to scale.
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
86
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 16 of 20
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatabillty Study Test Description (cont.)
material for Run Nos. 3 and 4, as described
below.
Test Runs: The study consisted of four test
runs. For each run (batch) treated, two residual
fractions of volatilized liquids were collected;
one fraction (referred to as the retort water)
was collected at a kiln temperature of ap-
proximately 375-500°F; the second fraction
(referred to as the retort oil) was collected at
a kiln temperature of approximately 650-
1,116°F. These fractions were subdivided for
chemical analysis into oil, water, and sludge
subfractions. The test runs were conducted
under the following conditions, as summa-
rized in Table A-1.
• Run No. 1: The feed consisted of
Crescent Ditch muck. The rotary kiln
was preheated to 300°F and the
temperature in the kiln was increased
stepwise to a maximum kiln tempera-
ture of 1,116°F. The total residence
time for the run was 117 minutes.
Run No. 2: The feed consisted of
Crescent Ditch sand. For this run, the
rotary kiln was not preheated. Upon
addition of the sand, the temperature
was increased stepwise to a maxi-
mum kiln temperature of 1,085°F. The
total residence time for the run was
118 minutes.
Run No. 3: The test conditions for Run
No. 3 were the same as used in Run
No. 1 except the feed consisted of a
mixture of clean sand and Crescent
Ditch muck at a ratio of 2.2:1 of
sandrmuck. In this run, the rotary kiln
was not preheated, the maximum kiln
temperature was 1,088°F, and the
residence time was increased to 171
minutes.
Run No. 4: The test conditions for Run
No. 4 were the same as for Run No. 3
except the maximum kiln temperature
was 1,059°F, and the residence time
was 90 minutes.
Table A-1. Test Conditions [6]
Parameter
Feed Material
Mass of Feed Material (grams)
Rotational Speed of Kiln (rpm)
Maximum Temperature of
Heating Chamber (°F)
Residence Time (min)
Run No. 1
Muck
1,212.0
3.5
1,116
1 17
Run No. 2
Sand
3,711.7
3.5
1,085
1 18
Run No. 3
Muck and
Clean Sand
3.49O.1
3.5
1,088
171
Run No. 4
Muck and
Clean Sand
827.8
3.5
1,059
90
Treatabillty Study Performance Data and Analysis
Treatment Performance Data: Feed materials
and solid and liquid residuals were collected
and analyzed for PCB 1242 (gaseous residuals
were not analyzed). Table A-2 shows the
concentration of PCB 1242 in the untreated
feed materials and treated solids, and the
calculated percent removal, for the four test
runs. PCB 1242 was analyzed for in the feed
material for Run Nos. 1 and 2 only (feed
materials were analyzed twice for PCB 1242
in these runs), and the treated solids from Run
Nos. 1, 2, and 3 only; the reason for not
analyzing untreated feed from Run Nos. 3 and
4, or treated solids from Run No. 4, is not
available at this time.
Table A-3 shows the concentrations of PCB
1242 in the liquid residuals (oil, water, and
sludge), and the volume of liquid residuals, for
the first two test runs. Data for liquid residuals
from the latter two test runs are not available
at this time.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
87
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 20
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatability Study Performance Data and Analysis (cont.)
Table A-2. Treatment Performance Data [6]
Untreated Feed
Run No.
1
2
3
4
Analyst* 1
61,335
26,437
NA
NA
Analysis 2
16,866
28,900
—
—
Percent Removal
Treated Solids (%)
ND (0.1)
ND(O.t)
ND (0.1)
NA
>99
>99
NA
NA
ND = Not detected. Number in parentheses is the reported detection limit.
NA = Not available.
Table A-3. Liquid Residuals Analytical Data and Volume Measured [6]
Fraction
Retort Water
Oil
Water
Sludge
Retort Oil
Oil
Water
Run No.l
PCB 1242
Concentration (mg/L)
50,877
70
5,492
235,308
16
Fraction Volume
(ml)
4
602.9
8.1
86.3
44.3
Run No.
PCB 1242
Concentration (mg/L)
68,861
114
10,223
959,170
12
2
Fraction
Volumes (ml)
24
502.4
trace
49.3
32.1
The char and ash from Run No. 1 were
analyzed for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the char and
ash products from Run No. 1 was less than
the reported detection limit of 0.3 ng/g.
Performance Data Assessment: The perfor-
mance data comparing PCB concentrations in
untreated feed and treated solids (Table 2)
shows that the thermal treatment system
removed more than 99% of PCB 1242 and
achieved a concentration in the treated solids
of less than the analytical detection limit (0.1
mg/kg) for both muck and sand feed materi-
als.
Varying feed material (muck and sand) did not
appear to affect the treatment performance
achieved by the thermal desorption system,
but did affect the concentration of PCB 1242
in the liquid residuals. Treatment of sand
generated higher concentrations of PCB 1242
in the retort water and oil than treatment of
muck. Insufficient data were collected to
determine whether residence time affected
treatment effectiveness or concentration of
PCBs in the treatment residuals. Insufficient
data were collected to assess the effective-
ness of treating mixtures of muck and clean
sand.
To determine if PCBs break down during the
treatment process, the mass of PCB 1242 fed
to the treatment system was compared with
the mass of PCB 1242 exiting the system. This
calculation, shown below in Table A-4, pro-
vides inconclusive information concerning the
potential breakdown of PCBs.
Table A-4 shows that the mass of PCB 1242
entering and exiting the system compared
well for Run No. 1 (20.5 gm entering and 20.6
gm exiting), and not as well for Run No. 2
(107.3 gm entering and 49.1 gm exiting).
Although different materials were fed to the
system in the two runs (muck and sand),
which may account for the variation in results,
it seems more likely that the variation in
results is due to uncertainties concerning
analytical accuracy, potential losses of PCBs in
gas streams or as coatings on collection lines
or because of lack of homogeneity in samples
of feed material. Dilutions of up to 30,000 to
1 were used to quantitate the PCB concentra-
tions in feed materials and treatment residu-
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
88
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 18 of 20
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatability Study Performance Data and Analysis (cont.)
Table /4-4. Calculated Mass of PCB 1242 in Run Nos. 1 and 2 *
Run No. 1
Feed Material
Retort Water
Oil
Water
Sludge
Retort Oil
Oil
Water
Run No. 2
Feed Material
Retort Water
Oil
Water
Sludge
Retort Oil
Oil
Water
Quantity of Material
l,212.9gm
4mL
602.9 ml
8.1 mL
86.3 mL
44.3 mL
3,711. 7 gm
24 mL
502.4 mL
trace
49.3 mL
32.1 mL
PCS 1 242 Mass of PCB 1242
Concentration (gm)
1 6,866 mg/l
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 19 of 20
APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Observations and Lessons Learned
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
Performance Observations and Lessons
Learned
• Treatment performance data indicated
that the thermal treatment system
removed more than 99% of PCB
1242, and achieved a concentration in
the treated solids of less than the
analytical detection limit (0.1 mg/kg)
for both muck and sand feed materi-
als.
• Preliminary results were inconclusive
in showing whether PCBs break down
during treatment.
• The char and ash residuals did not
contain detectable levels of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
APPENDIX B—ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PCB Analytical Results Untreated and Treated Soil/Sediment [10, 11]
The water and oil residuals produced
during treatment contained PCBs, and
the oil contained the highest concen-
trations of PCBs.
Analytical limitations regarding sam-
pling dilution and lack of homogeneity
limited the usefulness of this study.
Because mixed clean sand/contami-
nated media feed materials were not
tested in this study, information useful
for scale-up under these conditions
was not obtained during this study.
Untreated
Soil/Sediment
Sample Concentration(a)
Date (mglig)
01/22/92
01/23/93
01/24/92
01/25/92
01/26/92
01/27/92
01/28/92
01/29/92
01/30/92
01/31/92
02/01/92
02/02/92
02/03/92
02/04/92
02/05/92
02/06/92
02/07/92
02/08/92
02/09/92
02/10/92
02/11/92
1 1 ,000
23,000
15,000
13.000
8,500
9,600
9,600
2,400
9,600
12,000
13,000
8,600
14,000
15,000
10,000
J 2,000
12,000
10,000
12,000
14.00O
14,000
Treated
Soil/Sediment
Concentratlon(a)
C"8*8>
22
2.2
4.5
5.9
7.4
89
1.2
1.5
3.9
5.9
3.7
1.6
3.5
2.1
2.5
1.5
1 5
2
1.8
1 2
2.3
PCB Removal
Efficiency (%)
99.98
99.99
9997
99.95
99.91
99.91
9999
99.94
99.96
99.95
99.97
99.98
99.98
99.99
9998
99.99
9999
99.98
99.99
99.99
99.98
Untreated
Soil/Sediment
Sample Concentration)*)
Date (mg'kg)
02/12/92
02/13/92
02/14/92
02/1 5/92
02/16/92
02/1 7/92
02/18/92
02/19/92
02/20/92
02/21/92
02/22/92
02/23/92
02/24/92
02/29/92
03/01/92
03/02/92
03/03/92
03/04/92
03/05/92
03/17/92
03/18/92
12.000
13,000
14,000
13.000
1 1 ,OOO
9.200
9,000
9,500
10,000
11.000
7.3OO
6,900
7,300
7,500
7,900
6,400
8,100
6,600
6,300
9,900
10,000
Treated
SoWSedbnent
Concentration^)
(mrfkg)
3.9
2.4
2.9
3.8
2.1
4.J
1.4
1.5
2.5
2.2
1.3
1.8
1.6
0.99
0.86
0.43
0.51
o.ei
0.53
1.4
3.8
PCB Removal
Efficiency (%)
99.97
99.98
99.98
99.97
99.98
99,96
99.98
99.98
99.98
99.98
99.98
99.97
99.98
99,99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99,99
99.99
99.99
99.96
. U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'S Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
8 Technology Innovation Office
90
-------
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund Site—Page 20 of ZO
APPENDIX B—ANALYTICAL RESULTS (CONT.) I
PCB Analytical Results Untreated and Treated Soil/Sediment
(continued)
Untreated
SolVSadlnwnt
Sample Concentr«tion(a)
D«t« (mtfka)
04/08/92
04/09/92
04/10/92
04/12/92
04/13/92
04/14/92
04/15/92
04/KV92
05/12/92
OS/13/92
05/14/92
05/30/92
05/31/92
06/01/92
06/02/92
06/03/92
06/04/92
06/05/92
06/06/92
06/07/92
06/08/92
06/09/92
06/10/92
06/11/92
06/12/92
06/15/92
06/16/92
06/17/92
06/18/92
06/19/92
06/20/92
06/21/92
06/22/92
9,200
8,600
9,000
8,700
1 1 ,000
14,000
14,000
21,000
5,400
10,000
1 1 ,000
12,000
9,200
12,000
12,000
10,000
9,200
11,000
10,000
9,400
8,000
8,900
1 1 ,000
9,700
9,700
10,000
10,000
8,600
10,000
11,000
9.900
9,800
8,800
Treated
Son/Sediment
Concentration!*)
<«***
1.5
1
1.1
1.4
093
2.3
1.3
1,2
0.95
2
1.2
0.69
0.57
0.72
1.3
0.82
04
O.43
7.1
3.1
1.3
1.1
1.8
0.61
1.4
1.6
0.71
1
1.7
075
2.6
4.8
5
PCB Removal
Efficiency (%>
99.98
99.99
99.99
99.98
99.99
99.98
99.99
99.99
99.98
99.98
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
9999
99.99
99.99
99.99
9993
99.97
9998
99.99
99.98
99.99
99.99
99.98
9999
99.99
99.98
99.99
99.97
99.95
99.94
Stack Cas Test Results [11]
Stack CM Test
Date
01/28/92
02/04/92
02/10/92
02/18/92
03/04/92
03/05/92
03/05/92
03/17/92
04/09/92
04/10/92
05/12/92
05/13/92
05/13/92
05/14/92
06/02/92
06/02/92
06/09/92
06/16/92
PCB ORE (X)
99.9925
99.9568
99.9708
99.9944
99.9962
99.9985
99.9992
99.99944
99.99768
99.99968
99.99991
99.99997
99.99997
99.99998
99.99994
99.99991
99.99997
99.99999
Total Dtoxin/Furan
Concentration
(nS/d»cm«t7%01 )
1 ,037.00
19.66
661 .60
289.80
109.40
71.43
31.84
13.74
77.8
24.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Analyzed.
(a)Untreated and treated soil/sediment concentrations are
based on composites generated from 8:00 AM on the
corresponding date to 8:00 AM the next morning.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
91
-------
In Situ Vitrification at the
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site
Grand Ledge, Michigan
(Interim Report)
92
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan
Site Name:
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site
Location:
Grand Ledge, Michigan
Contaminants:
Pesticides, Heavy Metals, Phthalates,
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs),
and Dioxins
- Pesticides - up to 340 mg/kg for DDT
- Heavy metals - up to 34 mg/kg for mercury
- Dioxin - up to 1.13 ug/kg
Period of Operation:
May 1993 to May 1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup (interim
results)
Vendor:
James E. Hanson
Geosafe Corporation
2950 George Washington Way
Richland, WA 99352
(509) 375-0710
SIC Code:
2879 (Agricultural Chemicals, Not
Elsewhere Classified)
Technology:
In Situ Vitrification
- 9 melt cells; each cell 26 feet by 26 feet
with cells installed in a 16-foot deep
treatment trench
- Air emissions control system - offgas
collection, hood, water scrubber, and
thermal oxidizer
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA (Removal Action) and
State: Michigan
- Action Memo Date: 9/21/90
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
Len Zintak, OSC
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-4246
Waste Source:
Other: Discharge to sewer/surface
water (floor drains, septic tank, leach
field)
Purpose/Significance of Application:
First application of full-scale in situ
vitrification at a Superfund site to treat
soils and sediments contaminated with
pesticides, heavy metals, and dioxins.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 3,000 cubic yards
- Silty clay with high moisture content
- Soil reported to be difficult to work with under very wet and very dry
conditions
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil cleanup standards and standards for offgases established for four constituents. Soil cleanup/offgas standards were -
chlordane (1 mg/kg / 25 Ibs/hr); DDT (4 mg/kg / 0.01 Ibs/hr); dieldrin (0.08 mg/kg / 0.00028 Ibs/hr); mercury (12 mg/kg /
0.00059 Ibs/hr)
- Offgas standards based on State ARARs
Results:
- Specific performance data for soils were not available at the time of this report
- According to the vendor, near-surface vitrified materials had "acceptable" levels of pesticides and mercury
- Additional samples will not be taken until after the melt has cooled (estimated May 1995)
- Data on air emissions indicates offgases met the state air emissions standards
Cost Factors:
- Cost objectives were $800,000 for vitrification activities; approximately $800,000 for before-treatment activities
(mobilization, site administration and preparation, sampling and analysis, and site configuration); and $90,000 for after-
treatment activities (backfill and restoration, drainage structures, and demobilization)
93
-------
Case Study Abstract
In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, Michigan (Continued)
Description:
A full-scale soil remediation system using in situ vitrification (ISV) was conducted at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Superfund site (Parsons). Soils and sediments at the site were contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, PAHs,
and dioxins as a result of former agricultural chemical manufacturing processes. Dioxin levels in soil at the site were reported
as high as 1.13 ug/kg. Maximum levels of other contaminants in the soil range from 0.99 mg/kg for phenanthrene to
340 mg/kg for DDT. Soil cleanup requirements were established for four constituents (chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, and
mercury). In addition, the offgases from the ISV unit were required to meet state air requirements for these constituents
during operation.
The ISV system used at Parsons included 9 melt cells and an air emissions control system. Contaminated soil was excavated
and staged at the site due to the shallow nature of the contamination. The melt cells were installed in a treatment trench.
Eight melts were completed from June 1993 to May 1994. The melts ranged in duration from 10 to 19.5 days and consumed
between 559,000 and 1,100,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per melt. Several operational problems were encountered during
this period including fires and equipment problems. These problems were addressed through modifications to equipment and
operating practices.
Because the melt requires approximately one year to cool before samples of the subsurface can be collected, data on the
performance of the ISV will not be available until after May 1995. According to the vendor, initial results of samples taken
from the surface indicate that near-surface vitrified materials contained acceptable levels of pesticides and mercury. Data on
typical air emissions indicates that stack gas emissions were in compliance with state standards during operation. The cost
ceiling identified in the action memorandum for this application was $1,763,000.
94
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 1 of 14
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance
data for an in situ vitrification (ISV) treatment
application at the Parsons Chemical/ETM
Enterprises Superfund Site (Parsons) in Grand
Ledge, Michigan. The Parsons site is a former
agricultural chemicals mixing, manufacturing,
and packaging facility. Soils and sediments at
the Parsons site were contaminated with
pesticides, heavy metals, and dioxins.
ISV treatment of approximately 3,000 yds3 of
contaminated soils and sediments at the
Parsons site, consisting of eight melts, was
completed from May 1993 to May 1994; this
was notable for being the first full-scale
application of ISV treatment at a Superfund
site.
The melts are expected to cool by May 1995,
at which time additional samples of vitrified
soils are planned to be collected. Preliminary
results for surface soil samples and stack gas
emissions measured during the SITE Demon-
stration, and results for typical stack gas
emissions provided by the vendor, met the
soil cleanup standards and off-gas State
ARARs for this application. The stack gas
emissions for chlordane and 4,4'-DDT were
several orders of magnitude lower than the
ARARs. A volume reduction of approximately
30% for the test soil was achieved in this
application, based on the results from analy-
ses of soil dry density.
The cleanup contractor's cost ceiling for the
ISV treatment application at Parson's was
$1,763,000, including $800,000 for vitrifica-
tion, which corresponds to $270 in costs for
vitrification per cubic yard of soil treated. The
estimated before-treatment costs for this
application of $800,000 were high because of
the need to excavate and stage the wastes
prior to treatment.
I SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Identifying Information:
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Grand Ledge, Michigan
CERCLIS # MID980476907
Action Memorandum Date: 21 September
1990
Treatment Application:
Background
Type of Action: Removal
Treatability Study associated with applica-
tion? Information not available at this time
EPA SITE Demonstration Program test
associated with application? Yes (see
Reference 41)
Period of operation: 5/93 - 5/94
Quantity of material treated during applica-
tion: 3,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils
and sediments (5,400 tons) [41]
Historical Activity that Generated
Contamination at the Site: Mixing, manufac-
turing, and packaging of agricultural chemicals
Corresponding SIC Code: 2879 (Agricultural
Chemicals - not elsewhere classified)
Waste Management Practice that
Contributed to Contamination: Manufactur-
ing process
Site History: The Parsons site, located near
Grand Ledge, Michigan, as shown in figure 1,
is a former agricultural chemicals mixing,
manufacturing, and packaging facility. Materi-
als handled during Parsons' operation in-
cluded pesticides, herbicides, solvents, and
mercury-based compounds. Parsons occupied
the property from April 1945 until 1979. The
site is presently owned by ETM Enterprises, a
manufacturer of fiberglass. [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
95
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 2 of 14
I SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Figure 1. Site Location
Wash water from Parsons' operations was
discharged through floor drains to a catch
basin leading to the county drain system. The
county drain system flows to an unnamed
creek which ultimately empties into the Grand
River. In 1979 and 1980 the Michigan Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (MDNR) collected
sediment samples from the unnamed creek
and a ditch located on the north boundary of
the site. Elevated levels of lead, mercury,
arsenic, and pesticides, including dichloro-di-
phenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and chlordane
were detected in the samples. A hydrogeo-
logical investigation, performed during 1980,
identified a septic tank and leach field system
as the source of contamination. The septic
tank and leach field were subsequently
excavated in 1983.
Parsons was included in the Tier 3 dioxin
screening under the National Dioxin Study
conducted in 1984. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD) was detected in the
ditch sediments at the site at a concentration
of 1.13 ppb at the surface and 0.56 ppb 18
inches below the surface. [2, 27]
Regulatory Context: An action memorandum,
dated September 21, 1990, was approved by
EPA to conduct a removal action at the
Parsons site. The removal actions proposed
for the site included [2]:
• Developing and implementing a site
safety plan and security measures;
• Implementing a site air monitoring
program;
• Characterizing, excavating, and staging
all contaminated soils to facilitate the
ISV process;
• Conducting a study to confirm that
contaminated soils have been re-
moved to acceptable levels;
• Treating on-site waste in a staging
area utilizing ISV; and
• Completing site restoration in excava-
tion and treatment areas.
Cleanup requirements for the site were
established for near-surface vitrified materials
and air emissions, as discussed below under
cleanup goals and standards. [25]
Remedy Selection: Several options were
considered for cleanup of the Parsons site,
including ISV, incineration, and stabilization.
ISV was selected as the remedy because this
technology was determined to reduce volume
by 20 to 30%, decrease the toxicity to near
zero, and permanently immobilize the hazard-
ous substances on the site. ISV was also
identified as less expensive than on-site
incineration. [2]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
96
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 3 of 14
SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: Fund Lead
Oversight: EPA
On-Scene Coordinator:
Len Zintak
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312)886-4246
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Treatment System Vendor:
James E. Hansen
Geosafe Corporation
2950 George Washington Way
Richland.WA 99352
(509) 375-0710
Type of Matrix processed through the
treatment system: Soil (in situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant groups: Pesticides,
heavy metals; and dioxin
The maximum concentrations measured in the
soil at Parsons for specific contaminants are
shown in Table 1. [27]
Table 1. Maximum Contaminant Concentrations in Soil [27]
Maximum
Concentrations In Soil
Contaminant
g-BHC (Lindane)
Bls(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlordane
4,4-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan sulfate
Fluoranthene
Hexachlorobenzene
Mercury
Methoxychlor
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
Ztnc
78000
28000
6400
89000
48000
37000
340000
87000
1300
1200
2600
34000
850
1100
990
1400
1.13
150000
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
97
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 4 of 14
MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost measured values are presented in Table 2.
or performance for this technology and their
Table 2. Matrix Characteristics [4, 11]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content anchor Particle Size
Distribution
Moisture Content
Soil Dry Density
Value
Silty Clay
Not Available
Not Available
1 .48 tons^yd3
Measurement Procedure
Not Available
-
-
Not Available
The soil at Parsons was reported to be difficult
to work with under very wet and very dry
conditions. Wet conditions caused the soil to
become highly fluid and exhibit a noticeable
sulfurous odor. Under dry conditions, the soil
became concrete-like. The soil also had a very
high moisture content, and the soil moisture
contained a high level of dissolved solids. [25]
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Supplemental Treatment Technology:
In Situ Vitrification
Post-treatment (air) using quench, scrubber,
and thermal oxidizer
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation
In situ vitrification (ISV) is an immobilization
technology designed to treat media contami-
nated with organic, inorganic, and radioactive
contaminants. The primary residual generated
by ISV is the vitrified soil product. Secondary
residuals generated by ISV include air emis-
sions, scrubber liquor, carbon filters, and used
hood panels. [41]
System Description
The ISV system used at Parsons consisted of 9
melt cells, as shown in Figure 2, an air emis-
sions control system, and associated equip-
ment. The melt cells were installed in a 16-
foot deep treatment trench; each cell was 26
feet by 26 feet square. The trench was de-
signed with a cobble wall and drain system to
direct perched water that flowed into the site
around the melt cells. [25]
The air emissions control system used at
Parsons consisted of an off-gas collection
hood, a quencher, a water scrubber, and a
thermal oxidizer. The thermal oxidizer was
added midway through the project to help
control stack gas odors. [25]
Associated equipment used at the Parsons
site included electrical transformers, capacitor
tanks, natural gas metering equipment, and
thermocouples and other monitoring equip-
ment. [13]
The following technology description is an
excerpt from the SITE Technology Capsule
[41]:
"The ISV Technology [used at Parsons] oper-
ates by means of four graphite electrodes,
arranged in a square and inserted a short
distance into the soil to be treated. A sche-
matic of the Geosafe process is presented in
Figure 3.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
98
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 5 of 14
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation (cont.)
Intercept trench
(installed mid-project)
Perched water Ji *
Cobble wall with now direction j^
drain
\
J
"J
ji
1
5
;
^
•:
•,
.1
,\
C:V
1
underneath ^\^
\r „ s\
9
h— -
7
5
: "".;.
<•
•••,
i
1
\ *
*
.Vi
?
8
—
6
^_
-^»-^
^^
4
3
2
1
v.-.!-.VV
j ^ S
I ^
I, '.
}• :•
?• ?•
i, j.
S '•.
'. *.
^> Concrete Ji
!T walls S
i. ;;
A V
J. j:
f — - 26'X26' ?!
[• melt cell Ji
j (typ) J
t >t
*. V
i ^
i' V
i'. V
\':\
i /»•••••
Pumping sumps
Figure 2. Plan View of Treatment Cells [25]
"ISV uses electrical current to heat (melt) and
vitrify the treatment material in place. A
pattern of electrically conductive graphite
containing glass frit is placed on the soil in
paths between the electrodes. When power is
fed to the electrodes, the graphite and glass
frit conducts the current through the soil,
heating the surrounding area and melting
directly adjacent soil.
"Molten soils are electrically conductive and
can continue to carry the current which heats
and melts soil downward and outward. The
electrodes are allowed to progress down into
the soil as it becomes molten, continuing the
melting process to the desired treatment
depth. One setting of four electrodes is
referred to as a "melt." Performance of each
melt occurs at an average rate of approxi-
mately three to four tons/hr.
"When all of the soil within a treatment
setting becomes molten, the power to the
electrodes is discontinued and the molten
mass begins to cool. The electrodes are
cut near the surface and allowed to settle
into the molten soil to become part of the
melt. Inorganic contaminants in the soil
are generally incorporated into the molten
soil which solidifies into a monolithic
vitrified mass similar in characteristics to
volcanic obsidian. The vitrified soil is
dense and hard, and significantly reduces
the possibility of leaching from the mass
over the long term.
"The organic contaminants in the soil
undergoing treatment are pyrolyzed
(heated to decomposition temperature
without oxygen) and are generally re-
duced to simple gases. The gases move
to the surface through the dry zone
immediately adjacent to the melt, and
through the melt itself. Gases at the
surface are collected under a stainless
steel hood placed over the treatment area
and then treated in an off-gas treatment
system. The off-gas treatment system
comprises a quencher, a scrubber, a
demister, high efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters, and activated carbon adsorp-
tion to process the off-gas before releasing
the cleaned gas through a stack. A thermal
oxidizer can be used following the off-gas
treatment system to polish the off-gas before
release to the atmosphere. A thermal oxidizer
was utilized during the SITE Demonstration at
the Parsons site."
System Operation
Eight melts were completed at the Parsons
site from June 1993 to May 1994. As shown
on Table 3, these melts ranged in duration
from 10 to 19.5 days, and consumed from
559,200 to 1.100,000 kilowatt-hours of
electricity per melt. The melts are expected to
cool for approximately one year (i.e., until
May 1995). [10-24]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
$ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
S Technology Innovation Office
99
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 6 of 14
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation (cont.)
Off-gas hood
Scrubber water How
OH-gas treatment system
Utility or
diesel
generated
power
To atmosphere
(II necessary)
Figure 3. Oeosafe In Situ Vitrification Process [41]
Table 3. Operational Data [10-24]
Melt*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cell*
1 and part of 2
2 and part of 3
part of 3, 4 and 7
7 and part of 4, 5,
and 8
5 and part of 4, 6,
and 8
8 and part of 5, 7,
and 9
6 and part of 5, 8,
and 9
9 and part of 6
and 8
Soil Treated"
(cubic yards)
300
330
621
672
655
377
575
426
Duration of Melt
(days)
19.5
14
16.7
16
16
10
14
1KB
Power Consumed
(kilowatt-hours)
1,100,000
934,000
1,018,000
996,000
1 ,084,800
559,200
836,985
640,800
Natural Gas
Consumed In
Thermal Oxldizer
(cubic feet)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,100,000
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
N/A - Not applicable; thermal oxldizer not installed until after Melt #4 complete.
'Quantities shown are Geosafe estimates of contaminated and clean soil treated; total quantity of soil
treated greater than 3,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil because treatment of clean soil occurred In this
application.
**S1TE Demonstration Program test.
(J s ENV|RON|viENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
100
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 7 of 14
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation (cont.)
Electrode
Clean fiU (soil)
Concrete wall
Figure 4. Side View of Typical ISV Treatment C
The SITE Technology Capsule provides the
following description of system operation at
Parsons [41]:
"At the Parsons site, the original soil contami-
nation was relatively shallow, five feet or less,
and located in three main areas. To increase
the economic viability of treatment at this site,
the contaminated soil was excavated and
consolidated into a series of nine treatment
cells. The cell walls were built using concrete,
cobble, and particle board as shown in Figure
4. The cells were constructed by trenching an
area of the site, installing particle board and
concrete forms, and pouring concrete into the
forms to create the nine cell settings. A one-
foot layer of cobble was placed in the bottom
of each cell, and approximately two feet of
cobble was used to surround the exterior of
the cell forms. The use of cobble at the sides
was intended as a means to retard melting out
into adjacent clean soil. The bottom cobble
was used to provide a drainage pathway for
water that was known to be present on-site;
the resultant flow of water was directed to a
drainage trench. After construction, the cells
were filled with contaminated soil from the
site, and topped with a layer of clean soil.
"During the treatment of the first few cells,
problems with the cell design were observed.
The intense heat that was melting the soil was
also thermally decomposing the particle board
forms. Analysis of water samples collected
from the diversion system surrounding the
cells identified volatiles (benzene), phenolics,
and epoxies that were released by this de-
composition. The cobble outside of the cells
created porous paths in the vicinity of treat-
ment, thereby increasing the likelihood of
vapors escaping the area outside the hood
and causing irregular melt shapes.
"Geosafe responded by excavating the area
outside of the remaining treatment cells and
removing the particle board forms. A refrac-
tory ceramic material with insulating and
reflective properties was placed adjacent to
the exterior of the concrete cell walls. This
helped to control the melt shape, limit fugitive
vapor emissions, and restrict the melt energy
inside the cell boundaries It should be
noted that the use of cobble in treatment cell
construction was unique to the Parsons site
where the configuration and flow of the on-
site groundwater dictated its application.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
101
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 8 of 14
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
In Situ Vitrification System Description and Operation (cont.)
"Utility requirements for this technology
include electricity, natural gas (if a thermal
oxidizer is used), and water. As expected,
electricity is a major consideration when
implementing ISV. Total power to the elec-
trodes during treatment is approximately three
MW; the voltage applied to each of the two
phases during steady state processing aver-
ages around 600 volts while the current for
each phase averages approximately 2,500
amps."
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting cost values measured for each are presented in
or performance for this technology and the Table 4.
Table 4. Operating Parameters [10-24]
Parameter
Soil Treated
Melt Duration
Power Consumption
Value
300-672 cubic yards per melt
10-19.5 days per melt
559,200- 1 , 1 00,000 kWh/melt
Measurement Procedure
Vendor estimate
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 5.
Tables. Timeline [I, 10-26]
Start Date
3/89
9/90
10/90
3/91
5/93
6/93
9/93
11/93
1/94
2/94
3/94
5/94
End Date
-
-
4/91
-
6/93
9/93
11/93
12/93
-
5/94
4/94
expected '95
Activity
Parsons added to NPL
Action memorandum signed
Site preparation work completed (excavation and staging of 3,000
cubic yards into ISV treatment cells)
Operational acceptance test terminated due to fire
Mobilization of equipment and personnel to site
ISV treatment conducted
ISV treatment suspended for 9 weeks pending discussions about
scrubber solution disposition, stack gas odors, groundwater
disposition, and melt shape
ISV treatment continued
Thermal oxidizer installed to control stack gas odors
ISV treatment continued
SITE Demonstration Program test (Melt #6)
Decontamination, dismantling, and demobilization conducted
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
102
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 9 of 14
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
Cleanup requirements were established for soils remaining on site and for off-gasses from the
1SV unit, as shown below in Table 6.
Table 6. Cleanup Requirements [25, 28]
Contaminant
Chlordane
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Mercury
Soil CleanupStandards
(m»*g)
1
4
0.08
12
Off-Gas State ARAR
(Ibs/hr)
25
O.01
0.00028
0.00059
Treatment Performance Data
Although final treatment performance data are
not yet available, preliminary data for this
application include results from total waste
analysis and TCLP analysis of vitrified soil for
pesticides and metals, and from analyses of
stack gas emissions. Table 7 shows selected
results from the SITE Demonstration for
vitrified soil and stack emissions in melt #6.
During the SITE Demonstration, three samples
of vitrified soil were collected from the surface
of Cell 8, and analyzed for pesticides and
metals (total and TCLP). Stack gas emissions
were also tested for total hydrocarbons (THC)
and carbon monoxide (CO). During the SITE
Demonstration, THC and CO were each
measured at less than 10 ppmv. [41 ]
Table 8 shows typical stack gas emission
performance data as reported by the vendor.
Additional samples of vitrified soil are planned
to be collected after the melts cool (expected
by May 1995).
Table 7. Selected Results from the SITE Demonstration Program for Melt #6 [41]
Contaminant
Chlordane
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Before-Treatment Soil
Total ftiafts)
<80
2,400-23,100
1,210-8,330
8,380-10,1 00
37,400-47,600
<50,000
2,220-4,760
TCIP
(PS/I)
)
<1.38
<0.28
<0.28
<0.269
2.081-3.718
< 3.891
12.9-17.7
Mass (Ibs/hr)
<0.00001 1
< 0.0000022
<0.0000022
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 10 of 14
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment
The treatment performance data in Table 7
shows that the surface soil samples and stack
gas emissions measured during the SITE
Demonstration met the soil cleanup standards
and off-gas State ARARs for this application.
In addition, the typical stack gas emission
data provided by the vendor, as shown in
Table 8, show compliance with the State
ARARs. The data in Table 8 show that the
stack gas emissions for chlordane and 4,4'-
DDT were several orders of magnitude lower
than the ARARs.
The data in Table 7 show a reduction in total
waste analysis concentrations from levels as
high as 23,100 A'g/kg to levels less than
11 jug/kg for chlordane, 4,4'-DDT, and dieldrin
in surface soil samples. Concentrations of
metals in a TCLP extract are shown to be
reduced from as high as 21,000 jL/g/L to levels
less than 5,000 jug/L.
Additional data from the SITE Demonstration
show a volume reduction of approximately
30% for the test soil, based on the results
from analyses of soil dry density.
Performance Data Completeness
Limited data are available at this time to
characterize the results of the ISV application
at Parsons. Data available at this time are for
stack gas emissions, and for surface soil
samples collected during the SITE Demonstra-
tion. Additional sampling of the vitrified soil is
planned for after the melt cools (approxi-
mately May 1995).
Performance Data Quality
Soil sampling and analysis for the SITE Dem-
onstration was conducted following EPA SW-
846 analytical methods. No exceptions to the
methods were noted in the available refer-
ences. The SITE Technology Capsule, however,
identified a possibility that other, non-EPA ap-
proved, methods may provide more accurate
determinations for metals in vitrified materials.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
EPA contracted with Geosafe Corporation to
construct and operate the ISV system at the
site. Geosafe used several subcontractors to
implement specific aspects of the operation.
Treatment System Cost
Information about the competitive nature of
the procurement process is not available at
this time. [10]
Although final cost information is not yet
available, preliminary treatment system cost
information is available from EPA, as pre-
sented in Tables 9-12. An action memoran-
dum identified cost ceilings for this application
totalling $3,466,967, including $1,763,000
for the cleanup contractor, as shown in Table
9. [1 ] In negotiating the contract with
Geosafe, EPA established objectives for nine
cost elements, as shown in Tables 10-12. The
delivery order for Geosafe specified a ceiling value
of $1,690,305. The reason for the discrepancy
between the $1,763,000 and $1,690,305 values
is not available at this time. [24]
In order to standardize reporting of costs among
projects, costs are shown in Tables 10-12 accord-
ing to the format for an interagency Work Break-
down Structure (WBS). The WBS specifies 9
before-treatment cost elements, 5 after-treatment
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ft Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
a Technology Innovation Office
104
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 11 of 14
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
cost elements, and 12 cost elements that
appear in the WBS, along with the specific
provide a detailed breakdown of costs directly activities, and unit cost and number of units of
associated with treatment. Tables 10, 11, and the activity (where appropriate), as provided
12 present the cost elements exactly as they ir> the Contract Negotiation Cost Objectives.
[31]
Table 9. Cost Ceilings Shown in Action Memorandum [1]
Cleanup Contractor
Contingency (15%)
Subtotal
TAT
Extramural subtotal
Extramural Contingency
Total for Extramural Costs
U.S. EPA Direct Costs
EPA Indirect Costs
TOTAL for Intramural Costs
TOTAL for Removal Project
$1,763,000
$264,450
$2,027,450
$716,000
$2,743,450
$411,517
$3,154,967
$ 1 20,000
$192,000
$312,000
3,466,967
Table 10. Before-Treatment Cost Elements [Adapted from 31 ]
Cost Element
Cost Objective
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
- Mobilization
- Site Administration
- Site Preparation
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis
.Soil
- Class
-Air
. Water
Site Work
- Uncontamlnated Soil
- Contaminated Soil
$ 150,000
$220,000
$4,000
$80,000
$10,000
$130,000
$25,000
$80,000
$100,000
Table 11. Treatment Cost Elements [31]
Cost Element
Operation (short-term - up to 3 years)
- Vitrification
Cost Objective
$800,000
*. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office IQC
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 12 of 14
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost (cont.)
Table 12. After-Treatment Cost Dements [Adapted from 31]
Cost Element
Site Restoration
- Backfill and Grade
- Seeding
- Drainage Structures
Demobilization
Cost Objective
$80,000
$4,500
$2,500
$77,000
Cost Data Quality
Limited data are available at this time to
assess the cost for this treatment application.
The cost data shown in this report were
Vendor Input
provided by EPA as contract negotiation cost
objectives.
The vendor stated that the costs for the
application at Parsons were unusually high,
and expects that the costs for future applica-
tions will be lower. Key factors affecting costs
for ISV include: [41]
Cost of the local price of electricity;
Depth of processing;
Soil moisture content; and
Treatment volume.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The cleanup contractor's cost ceiling
for the ISV treatment application at
Parsons was $1,763,000, including
$800,000 for vitrification operations,
which corresponds to $270 in costs
for vitrification per cubic yard of soil
treated.
The before-treatment costs for this
application of $800,000 were high
because of the need to excavate and
stage the wastes prior to treatment.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
The surface soil samples and stack gas
emissions measured during the SITE
Demonstration, and the typical stack
gas emission results provided by the
vendor, met the soil cleanup stan-
dards and emissions standards for this
application.
Typical stack gas emissions for chlor-
dane and 4,4'-DDT were several
orders of magnitude lower than the
ARARs.
Based on the results of the SITE
demonstration:
1. The total waste analysis concen-
trations in surface soil samples
were reduced from levels as high
as 23,100 /L/g/kg to levels less than
11 jug/kg for chlordane, 4,4'-DDT,
and dieldrin.
2. Concentrations of metals in a
TCLP extract of surface soil
samples were reduced from as
high as 21,000 jL/g/L to levels less
than5,000/Jg/L.
3. A volume reduction of approxi-
mately 30% for the test soil was
achieved in this application, based
on the results from analyses of
soil dry density.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
106
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 1 3 of 14
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
• Additional sampling of the vitrified soil
is planned for after the melt cools
(approximately May 1995).
REFERENCES
1. Memorandum, Ceiling Increase
Request for the Parsons Chemical/
ETM Site, Leonard N. Zintak, Jr. to
Valdas V. Adamkus, February 1, 1994.
2. Memorandum, Request for an Exemp-
tion for the $2 million Limit and
Approval for a Removal Action at the
Parsons/ETM Enterprises Site, Valdas
Adamkus to Don R. Clay, September
21, 1990.
3. Amended Action Memorandum,
Request for 12-Month Exemption for
the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Site, Leonard N. Zintak to David A.
Ullrich, August 9, 1991.
4. Memorandum, Time Extension for
Contract #68-SO-5001 for the Par-
sons Chemical/ETM Site, Leonard N.
Zintak, Jr. to Robert Oumelle, August
23,1991.
5. Action Memorandum, Request for
Removal Action at the ETM Enter-
prises Site, Edward C. Burk to Mary A.
Gack, February 2, 1989.
6. Action Memorandum, Request for
Removal Action at Parsons/ETM
Enterprises Site, Edward C. Burk, Jr. to
Basil G. Constantelos, undated.
7. Amendment of Solicitation/Modifica-
tion of Contract, U.S. EPA to Geosafe
Corp., August 30, 1991.
8. Memorandum, Comment on Issues
Related to Parsons Contract Exten-
sion, Jim Hansen to Len Zintak, August
23,1991.
9. Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises
Project Quarterly Status Report #3,
James E. Hansen to Len Zintak, May
29, 1992.
10. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep #6,
Januarys, 1991.
11. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep #7,
January 21, 1991.
12. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep #8,
February 13, 1991.
13. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep #9,
June 16, 1993.
14. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#1 1, June 17, 1993.
15. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#12, August 6, 1993.
16. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#13, August 10, 1993.
1 7. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#14, August 21, 1993.
18. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#15, September 9, 1993.
19. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#16, September 18, 1993.
20. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#17, October 7, 1993.
21. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#18, November 24, 1993.
22. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#19, February 25, 1994.
23. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#20, March 27, 1994.
24. Len Zintak, OSC, EPA Region V, Polrep
#21, May 22, 1994.
25. In Situ Vitrification Technology Update.
Geosafe Corporation, August 1994.
'. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Tjl Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
107
-------
Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site—Page 14 of 14
REFERENCES (CONT.)
26. NPL Public Assistance Database,
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc., Michi-
gan, March 1992.
27. Health Assessment for Parsons
Chemical Works, Inc., Grand Ledge,
Eaton County, Michigan, December 2,
1989.
28. Synopsis of Michigan ARARs for the
ETM/Parsons Chemical Vitrification
Project, October 27, 1989.
29. Superfund Fact Sheet Parsons/ETM
Enterprises Oneida Township. Grand
Ledge. Michigan. US. EPA, April 1989.
30. EPA News Release, October 11, 1990.
31. Memorandum, Geosafe Corporation
Proposal Negotiation Cost Objectives,
Robert J. Bowden to Lucille Martinez,
July 6, 1990.
32. Memorandum, Geosafe Contract,
Marianne Duffer to File.
33. Site Assessment for Parsons Chemical
Works, Weston-Sper Technical Assis-
tance Team, September 1988.
34. IT Corporation, ERCS Program Man-
agement Office, CERCLA Off-Site
Disposal Report, Parsons Chemicals,
IT Corporation, March 17, 1993.
35. Report on Phase I Hydrogeologic
Investigation, ETM Enterprises, Inc.,
Keck Consulting Services, Inc., Febru-
ary 16, 1981.
36. Order for Supplies or Services, EPA to
Geosafe Corporation, September 29,
1990.
37. Attachment F, United States Patent,
March 15, 1983.
38. In-Situ Vitrification of PCB-Contami-
nated Soils, Final Report, October
1986.
39. In Situ Vitrification of Dioxin-Contami-
nated Soils, Battelle Pacific Northwest
Lab, April 1987.
40. Geosafe Corporation Negotiation
Objectives (undated).
41. SITE Technology Capsule: Geosafe
Corporation In Situ Vitrification Tech-
nology. US. EPA/ORD, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA 540/R-94/520a, November 1994.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
108
-------
Thermal Desorption at the
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site
Reading, Ohio
109
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site
Reading, Ohio
Site Name:
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site
Location:
Reading, Ohio
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Aliphatics, Pesticides, Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Metals
- VOCs up to0.14ppm
- SVOCs up to 130 ppm
- 4,4'-DDT ranging from 0.11 ppm to 8.2
ppm
- Lead ranging from 26 ppm to 1,100 ppm
Period of Operation:
November 1993 to March 1994
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Joseph Hutton
SoilTech ATP System, Inc.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
(219) 926-8651
SIC Code:
4953W - Waste Management; Refuse
Systems (Waste Processing Facility,
Miscellaneous)
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
- Rotary kiln desorber with proprietary sand
seals
- Retort zone temperature 1,009.9-1,034.1°F
- Air emissions controlled using cyclones,
baghouse, scrubbers, fractionator,
condenser, and gas-oil-water separator
- Water treated on site using oil/water
separation, hydrogen peroxide oxidation,
sand filtration, and carbon adsorption
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA
-ROD Date: 3/30/90
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
Tom Alcamo
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA - Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-7278
Waste Source:
Storage-Drums/Containers; Waste
Treatment Plant
Purpose/Significance of Application:
This application is notable for treating
soils with a wide range of pH and
moisture conditions.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- Approximately 12,800 tons treated
12-25% moisture; pH of 1-2 for some feed soils
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil - Numeric cleanup goals identified for 11 constituents, including PAHs, pesticides, dioxin, benzene, and chlorinated
aliphatics; cleanup goals ranged from 0.99 to 3,244 ug/kg
- Air - Total Dioxins/Furans: <30 mg/dscm, particulates: 0.015 gr/dscf, and four other stack gas emission parameters
Results:
Soil - Cleanup goals for all constituents were met in all soil piles tested; 6 of 11 constituents removed to levels at or below
detection limit
Air - Stack gas requirements met for dioxin/furan emissions and particulates
Cost Factors:
No data available
110
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site
Reading, Ohio (Continued)
Description:
Pristine, Inc. performed liquid waste disposal operations at the site from 1974 to 1981. Spills and on-site disposal of treated
wastes led to soil contamination. Soils at the Pristine site were contaminated with volatile and semivolatile organics,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and metals. The soils also contained greater than 2% of elemental
sulfur. This application was notable for treating soil with a wide range of pH and moisture conditions.
SoilTech's 10 ton/hr mobile Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP) system was used for treating the contaminated soil at the
Pristine site. The SoilTech ATP system included a feed system, the ATP unit (rotary kiln thermal desorber), a vapor recovery
system, a flue gas treatment system, and a tailings handling system. Wastewater from the vapor recovery system was treated
in an on-site wastewater treatment system. The ATP system was operated at the Pristine site from November 1, 1993 until
March 4, 1994 and was used to treat approximately 12,800 tons of contaminated soil.
The ATP System treated contaminants in soil to levels below the cleanup goals. Levels of 6 of the 11 target constituents
were reduced to concentrations at or below the reported detection limits. All stack gas air emission performance standards
were met in this application, with occasional spikes of THC over the 20 ppm performance standard. Average throughput was
approximately 6.5 tons/hr, and average on-line availability was approximately 62 percent.
Ill
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 1 of 1 7
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!
This report presents cost and performance
data for a thermal desorption treatment
application at the Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site,
located in Reading, Ohio. Pristine, Inc. per-
formed liquid waste disposal operations at the
site from 1974 to 1981 and operated as a
sulfuric acid manufacturing facility prior to
1974. As a result of spills and on-site disposal
of wastes, soils at the Pristine site became
contaminated with volatile and semivolatile
organics, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), pesticides, and inorganic metals. The
soils also contained high levels of elemental
sulfur (greater than 2%).
SoilTech's 10 ton/hr mobile Anaerobic Thermal
Processor (ATP) system was used for treating
contaminated soil at the Pristine site. The ATP
system included a feed system, the ATP unit
(rotary kiln thermal desorber), a vapor recov-
ery system, a flue gas treatment system, and a
tailings handling system. Wastewater from the
vapor recovery system was treated in an on-
site wastewater treatment system.
The ATP system was operated at the site
from November 1, 1993 until March 4,
1994 and was used to treat approxi-
mately 12,800 tons of contaminated soil.
The ATP System treated contaminants in
soil to levels below the cleanup goals.
Levels of six of the 11 target constituents
were reduced to concentrations at or
below the reported detection limits. All
stack gas air emission performance
standards were met in this application.
Average throughput was approximately
6.5 tons/hr, and average on-line availabil-
ity was approximately 62 percent, in this
application. This application was notable
for treating soil with a wide range of pH
and moisture conditions. Treated soil was
backfilled on site.
No information on treatment system cost
was available at the time of this report.
SITE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Identifying information
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site
Reading, Ohio
CERCLIS#: OHD076773712
ROD Date: 30 March 1990
Treatment Application
Background
Type of Action: Remedial
Treatability Study Associated With Applica-
tion? No
EPA SITE Program Test Associated With
Application? No
Period of Operation: November 1993 to
March 1994
Quantity of Material Treated During Appli-
cation: Approximately 12,800 tons of soil
Historical Activity that Generated Contami-
nation at the Site: Liquid waste storage,
disposal, and treatment operations
Corresponding SIC Code: 4953 W - Waste
Management; Refuse Systems (Waste Pro-
cessing Facility, miscellaneous)
Waste Management Practice that Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Storage - Drums/
Containers; Waste Treatment Plant
Site History: Pristine, Inc., a former liquid
waste disposal facility that operated from
1974 to 1981, is located on a 3-acre site in
Reading, Ohio, as shown in Figure 1. Prior to
1974, the Pristine site was the location of a
sulfuric acid manufacturing facility. Between
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
112
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 2 of 17
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Pristine, Inc
Supcrlund Silc
Reading, Ohio
figure 1. Site Location [I]
1974 and 1981. the Pristine facility accepted
a variety of bulk and drummed liquid waste
products, including acids, solvents, pesticides,
and PCBs. The types of wastes stored at
Pristine are shown in Table 1. These wastes
were treated by acid neutralization or incin-
eration, and disposed on site. In December
1977, the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency modified Pristine's operating permit to
require that Pristine reduce the amount of
waste maintained at the site to the equivalent
of no more than 2,000 drums. [1,2, and 3]
In 1979, an on-site inspection of Pristine's
facilities by the Ohio EPA found 13 bulk
storage tanks that each contained from 500 to
10,000 gallons of liquid waste material and as
many as 10,000 drums on site. As a result of
state enforcement actions, which cited
Pristine's failure to comply with the terms of
its waste incinerator operating permit and
violations of water pollution control regula-
tions, Pristine, Inc. ceased disposal activities
at the site in 1981. Samples taken on and
near the Pristine site during Remedial Investi-
gation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) indicated that
soils and sediment at the site were contami-
nated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds,
including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), pesticides, compounds, and inorganic
metals. [1,2]
Regulatory Context: A Record of Decision
(ROD) was signed in December 1987 and
amended in 1990. An Explanation of Signifi-
cant Differences (ESD) amended the 1990
ROD and specified thermal desorption to
remediate site soils. Thermal desorption was
selected based on its ability to remove PAHs
and pesticides from the site soil. [4,5,6]
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: PRP Lead
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Mr. Tom Alcamo
USEPA Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312)886-7278
Vendor:
Mr. Thomas J. Froman
Project Engineer
Canonie Environmental Services Corp. (prime
contractor)
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
(219)926-8651
Mr. Joseph H. Hutton
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. (subcontractor)
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
(219)926-8651
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
113
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 3 of 1 7
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
Table I. Jfttes of Wastes Stored at Pristine [3]
Acid-contaminated soil
Neutralized add sludge
DDT and other pesticides
Contaminated soap, cosmetics, corn syrup, and fatty
adds
Dimethyl sulfate
Hydrazlne
Flammable solvents
Cyanide wastes
Chlorinated solvent sludge
Sulfurlc and nitric acid
PCB-contaminated solvents
Ink solvent
Neutralized acid
PCB-contaminated soybean oil
Sulfurlc add sludge
Chrome wastes
Scrubber process wastes
Sodium
Adlpoyl chloride
Kepone
Acetomethoxane (originally listed as dioxin)
Inorganic peroxides
Tetrahydrofuran
Amines
Biological waste
Pharmaceutical waste
Freons
Adhesives
Mer cap tans
Alcohols
Cadmium and plating waste
Phenolic plastics and resins
Phosphorus
Picric add
Laboratory packs
I MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix processed through the
treatment system:
Soil (ex situ), sediment (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant groups:
Volatiles, semivolatiles (primarily polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons), pesticides, metals,
and sulfur.
To characterize soils for thermal desorption,
composite samples were collected from
twelve separate areas across the Pristine site.
Concentrations of volatile organics ranged
from non-detect to 140 parts per billion (ppb),
semivolatile organics ranged from non-detect
to 130 ppm, lead ranged from 26 parts per
million (ppm) to 1,100 ppm, and 4,4'-DDT
ranged from 11O ppb to 8,200 ppb. Samples
analyzed for PCBs were all non-detect. One
composite sample was collected from the
area near the former waste incinerator and
analyzed for dioxins and furans. Laboratory
analytical results for this sample indicated that
concentrations of furans ranged from 26.7
parts per trillion to 722 parts per trillion, and
concentrations dioxins ranged from 3.0 parts
per trillion to 792 parts per trillion. [9]
The soil was also determined to contain sulfur
in excess of 2% by weight. [20]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
114
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 4 of 1 7
| MATRIX DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Contaminant Characterization (cont.)
Table 2 presents the concentrations of 17
contaminants in the untreated soil that was
fed to the desorber during the three-day
proof-of-process test. [16, 20]
Table 2. Feed Soil Concentrations ft 6,20]
Constituent
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Aldrin
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
2,3,7,8-TCDD (equivalent)
Benzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichtoroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Number of
Samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4 '
3
3
3
3
3
3
Minimum
Concentration (//g/kg)
530 J
420 J
980
290 J
790
ND (380)
290 J
ND (460)
3,200
160]
9.93 E-04
ND(6)
3]
5)
ND (6)
11
ND(6)
,' '"'"" ^'IWftwwh' '"'•'
Concentration fylg/kg}
1,100
750
1,900
440
890
ND (770)
370 J
ND (2,300)
4,800
ND (2,300)
1 .06 E-02
ND (6)
ND (6)
8
ND (6)
70
6
J - Result is an estimated value below the reporting limit.
ND - Not detected (detection limit shown in parentheses).
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Table 3 presents the major matrix characteristics affecting cost or performance for this applica-
tion.
Table 3. Matrix Characteristics [9, 2OJ
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size Distribution
Bulk Density
Lower Explosive Limit
Moisture Content
pH
Oil and Crease or Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Value
Silty clays with some sand
Not available
53-104lbs/ft3
Not available
15-20%
1 -2 for some feed soils
Not available
Measurement Procedure
Not available
_
Not available
„
Not available
Not available
—
U S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
115
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 5 of 1 7
[TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology
Thermal desorption
Supplemental Treatment Technology
Post-treatment (air) - cyclone, quench,
baghouse, carbon adsorption, condenser, and
gas-oil-water separators.
Post-treatment (water) - oil/water separation
(using a gravity separator, a coalescing plate
system, an oleophilic membrane packing, and
a dissolved air flotation system), hydrogen
peroxide oxidation, sand filtration, and acti-
vated carbon filtration.
SoilTech ATP Thermal Desorption System Description and Operation
System Description
The SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor,
shown in Figure 2, is a mobile treatment
system consisting of six main process units,
including a soil pretreatment system, a feed
system, an anaerobic thermal processor unit,
a vapor recovery system, a flue gas treatment
system, a tailings handling system, and a
wastewater treatment system. [14, 17, 20]
The feed system consists of two feed hoppers
and a conveyor belt. One feed hopper con-
tains the contaminated soil and the other
contains clean sand. The sand is fed to the
ATP unit during system startup and shutdown
periods, and acts as a heat carrier. [14, 18]
The ATP unit is a rotary kiln which contains
four separate internal zones separated using
proprietary sand seals. As shown in Figure 3,
these include the preheat, retort, combustion,
and cooling zones. The feed enters the
preheat zone where it is heated to approxi-
mately 450°F and mixed, vaporizing water,
volatile organics, and some semivolatile
organics. The solids then enter the retort zone
where they are heated to a target temperature
range of 950 to 1,200°F, causing vaporization
of heavy oils and some thermal cracking of
hydrocarbons, resulting in the formation of
coked solids and decontaminated solids. The
solids from the retort zone then enter the
combustion zone where coked solids are
combusted. A portion of the decontaminated
solids are recycled to the retort zone via a
recycle channel. The recycling of these solids
helps to maintain an elevated temperature in
the retort zone. The decontaminated solids
remaining in the combustion zone enter the
cooling zone where they are cooled to a
specified exit temperature. [14, 18]
The vapor recovery system consists of two
parallel systems. One system condenses
water and vapors from the preheat zone of
the ATP unit and consists of a cyclone, a
condenser, and a gas-oil-water separator. The
other system condenses water and vapors
from the retort zone and consists of two
cyclones, a scrubber, a fractionator, a con-
denser, and a gas-oil-water separator. Con-
densed water from the vapor recovery system
is treated in an on-site wastewater treatment
system which consists of the following pro-
cesses:
• Oil/water separation (using a gravity
separator, a coalescing plate system,
an oleophilic membrane packing, and
a dissolved air flotation system);
• Hydrogen peroxide oxidation;
• Sand filtration; and
• Carbon adsorption.
The flue gas treatment system consists of a
cyclone with fines conveyor, flue gas quencher
chamber, baghouse with dust conveyor, acid
gas scrubber, and activated carbon unit. This
system removes particulates and trace hydro-
carbons from the flue gas exiting the combus-
tion zone of the ATP Fines from the baghouse
and cyclone are mixed with the treated solids
exiting the ATP unit. The treated flue gas is
released to the atmosphere. [14, 18]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
116
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 6 of 1 7
(TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Walt Mill*
. ATP Schema tic [19]
SAND SEAL
LOW TEMP. STEAM
AND HYDROCARBON
VAPORS FLOW >.
FEED
TREATED SOLIDS
KILN END SEALS (TYP.)
COMBUSTION ZONE
• FLUE GAS
HYDROCARBON
-•- AND STEAM
VAPORS FLOW
Figures. Simplified Sectional Diagram Showing the Four Internal Zones [14]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 117
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 7 of 1 7
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
SolITech ATP Thermal Desorption System Description and Operation (cont.)
The tailings (treated solids) handling system is
used to cool and remove treated solids from
the ATP. The treated solids exiting the ATP are
quenched with process and scrubber water
and transported to storage piles using belt and
screw conveyors. [14, 18]
Treated soil was backfilled on site. The soil
was placed in trenches that were used for a
soil vapor extraction system. The vendor
stated that this area will be capped. [21, 22]
The primary innovative features of this ATP
unit are the four internal zones and the use of
proprietary sand seals at each end of the
retort zone which are designed to maintain an
oxygen-free environment in the retort zone.
The oxygen-free environment in the retort
zone helps to prevent the oxidation of hydro-
carbons and coke. [14, 18]
System Operation
SoilTech conducted a proof-of-process
performance test prior to full-scale operation
to demonstrate compliance with soil treat-
ment cleanup goals and stack gas emission
performance standards, four test runs (sam-
pling windows) were completed during the
proof-of-process test. [20]
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) control was a particular
concern in this application because of con-
cerns with SO2 emissions and the impact of
SO2 on corrosion of process equipment and
on the pH of aqueous condensate streams.
Several SO2 control methods were used
during the proof-of-process and full-scale
operations, including lime (calcium oxide)
addition, caustic solution, desorption, recov-
ery of elemental sulfur under anaerobic
conditions, and wet scrubbing of ATP flue
gasses. [20]
During full-scale operation of the ATP system,
12,839 tons of soil and sediment were
treated. Average throughput was approxi-
mately 6.5 tons/hr, and average on-line
availability was approximately 62 percent. The
wastewater from this system was treated and
discharged to a sanitary sewer. [1 7,20]
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance [14,20]
Table 4 lists the major operating parameters
affecting cost or performance for this technol-
ogy. Values measured for these parameters
during the proof-of-process period are in-
cluded in this table. Automatic waste feed
shutoff controls
were used for key
operating param-
eters, including
retort and combus-
tion zone tempera-
tures and preheat,
retort, and combus-
tion zone pressures.
The data collected
during the proof-of-
process period
indicated that the
ATP system met all
established performance criteria for flue gas
stack emissions and for treated soil. Based on
these results, EPA approved the continued
operation of the ATP system at these target
operating conditions.
Table 4. Operating Parameters [14, 20]
Parameter
Preheat and Retort Zone Residence
Time
Preheat Zone Temperature
Retort Zone Temperature
Combustion Zone Temperature
Cooling Zone Temperature
System Throughput
Preheat Zone Pressure
Retort Zone Pressure
Combustion Zone Pressure
Stack Gas Exit Temperature
Stack Gas Flow Rate
Value
Approximately 5 minutes
41 1 9-446 IT
1 ,009 9- 1 ,034. 1 °F
1,386.0-1, 41 2.0°F
623 8-688 8°F
7.84-IOtons/hf
-010 inches water column
-0. 1 2 inches water column
-0.08 inches water column
I35°F
8.2OO acfm @ 45O°F
Measurement Procedure
Engineering design calculations
Thermocouples In preheat zone
Thermocouples In retort zone
Thermocouples in combustion zone
Thermocouples in cooling zone
Weight of untreated solids nwMured
using a truck scale
Pressure to electrical transducer
Pressure to electrical transducer
Pressure to electrical transducer
Thermocouples In stack-
Orifice Plate Flowmeter
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
118
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 8 of 17
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
The timeline for this application is presented in Table 5.
Tables. Timeline[4, S, 14]
Start Date
12/82
—
12/87
3/90
11/93
11/93
End Date
—
'87
—
—
3/94
11/93
Activity
Pristine added to National Priorites List
IWF5 conducted
ROD signed
ROD amended
Thermal desorption completed
Three day proof-of-process test conducted
(TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
An Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD), which amended the 1990 ROD, identi-
fied the cleanup goals shown in Table 6 for
treatment of on-site soils and sediments at
the site.
Table 6. Cleanup Goals [6]
Constituent
Cleanup Goal (pg/kg)
Total Carcinogenic PAHs*
Aldrin
DDT
Dieldrin
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Equivalent)**
Benzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethane
1,000
15
487
6
0.990
116
2,043
19
285
3,244
175
"Total Carcinogenic PAHs are defined as the total of benzo(a)anthracene, benz(a)pyrene,
benz(b)fluoranthene, benz(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and
indeno(t ,2,3-cd)pyrene.
""Cleanup goal for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Equivalent) taken from Treated Soil Analytical Results.
[16]
While the ROD and ESD did not specify stack
gas emission standards, standards for stack
gas emissions were established for the proof-
of-process period during project planning.
Table 7 lists performance standards for stack
gas emissions. In addition, a Destruction and
Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% was
required to be demonstrated for PAHs and
pesticides in this application. [20]
u-s- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
119
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 9 of 1 7
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Cleanup Goals/Standards (cont.)
Table 7. Proof-of-Process Tests Stack Gas Emissions Performance Standards [20]
Parameter
Performance Standard
Particulates
Opacity
Total Dioxin and Furan Emissions
Hydrogen Chloride
Total Hydrocarbons (THC)
Sulfur Dioxide
0.015 grains per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf) corrected to 7% oxygen
<20%
<30 nanograms (ng)/dscm @ 7% O2
£4 Ibs/hr
<20 ppm corrected to 7% O2
16.6 gm/sec
Treatment Performance Data [16, ZO]
Table 8 summarizes the results of the analysis
of treated soil from 40 of the 44 piles. Data on
the minimum and maximum constituent
concentrations are presented; data on analysis
by soil pile is included in Appendix A. Sam-
pling was performed between November 1,
1993 and March 4, 1994. No data were
reported for four of the piles (nos. 34-37).
Tables. Treatment Performance Data [16]
Contituent
Benz.o(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluroanthene
Benzo(k)fluroanthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Total Carcinogenic PAHs
Aldnn
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
2,3,7 ,8-TCDD
(equivalent)
Benzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethane
Number Soil
Piles Analyzed
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Cleanup Goal
(MS/kg)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
1000
15
487
6
0.99
116
2043
19
285
3244
175
Minimum
Concentration
(MS/kg)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND (370)
ND
ND (4.3)
ND (8.6)
ND (4.0)
0.000028
ND(5)
ND{5)
ND (5)
ND(5)
ND (5)
ND(5)
Maximum
Concentration
(M5/*g)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND (400)
ND
ND (4.9)
9.6
4.8
0.0123
9
9
ND (6)
ND(6)
ND(6)
ND(6)
ND - Not detected (detection limit shown in parentheses).
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Wasfe and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
120
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 10 of 1 7
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Performance standards and analytical results
for selected parameters in stack gas emissions
during the proof-of-process tests as presented
in Table 9. Air modelling using the ICST-2
model, was conducted to assess ground level
concentrations of specific metals and other
compounds.
Table 9. Stack Gas Emissions Results from Proof-of-Process Tests [2O].
Parameter
Performance
Analytical Results
Particulates
Opacity
Total Dloxin and Furan
Emission
Hydrogen Chloride
Total Hydrocarbons (THC)
Sulfer Dioxide
0.015 grains per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf) corrected to 7% oxygen
<20%
<30 nanograms (ng)/dscm @ 7% O2
<4 Ibs/hr
<20 ppm corrected to 7% QZ
16.6 gm/sec
<0.00078 gr/dscf @ 7%
0.26 ng/dscm @7% O2 (window
no.l); 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent =
0.013 ng/dscm @ 7% O2
0.00851 - O.O144 Ibs/hr
5.6 - 8.8 ppm (occasional spikes
over 20 ppm*)
<1 gm/sec
"Waste feed to the ATP was discontinued when THC concentrations exceeded 20 ppm. THC spikes
(above 20 ppm) were attributed by the vendor to burner malfunction causing uncombusted propane fuel
to be emitted from the stack
To assess compliance with the 99.99% ORE for
PAHs and pesticides during the proof-of-
process period, surrogate organic compounds
were added to the feed soil in window num-
bers 2, 3, and 4 of the proof-of-process test.
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene was used as a surro-
gate to represent PAHs, and chloromethyl-
benzene (benzyl chloride) was used as a
surrogate for pesticides. The results of the
testing showed a 99.99% (four-nines) ORE for
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene in windows 2 and 3
(six-nines in window 4) and 99.999% (five-
nines) ORE for benzyl chloride in windows 2,
3, and 4.
Performance Data Assessment
A review of the treatment performance data in
Table 8 indicates that the cleanup goals for all
constituents were met for the 40 piles of
treated soil that were analyzed. The perfor-
mance data show that the technology re-
moved six of the 1 1 targeted constituents to
levels at or below the detection limit. Only
4,4'-DDT, dieldrin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (equivalent),
benzene, and chloroform remained in the
treated soil above the detection limit, at
maximum concentration levels of 4.8 to 9.6
For the seven PAH constituents analyzed, this
technology was effective in removing these
constituents to the reported detection limit
(400jL/g/kg).
A review of the stack gas emissions sampling
results, presented in Table 9, show that during
the proof-of-process tests, all stack gas
emissions performance standards were met.
Occasional THC spikes were measured at
levels greater than the performance standard
of 20 ppm. The vendor attributed these THC
spikes to burner malfunction which caused
uncombusted propane fuel to be emitted from
the stack.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
121
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 11 of 17
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Completeness
Treatment performance data are available for for assessing the concentrations in feed soil
assessing the concentrations of individual and stack gas air emissions from the proof-of-
constituents in 40 of 44 soil piles treated, and process test.
Performance Data Quality
Project specifications were prepared for this
application by Conestoga-Rovers Associates
(CRA). The remedial action was monitored by
CRA for the PRPs.
Soil samples were analyzed using SW-846
Methods 8270, 8080. 8290, and 8240. No
exceptions to the QA/QC objectives were
noted by the vendor for this application.
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
The PRPs contracted with Canonic Environ-
mental Services Corp. to thermally treat soil
and sediment at this site. Canonic contracted
with SoilTech to perform the thermal treat-
ment portion of the project. Conestoga-
Treatment System Cost
Rovers Associates was selected by the PRPs to
monitor the remedial action. [20] No addi-
tional information is available on the competi-
tive nature of the procurement process.
No information was available on treatment system cost at the time of this report's preparation.
Vendor Input
According to the treatment vendor, in general,
the costs for treatment using the SoilTech ATP
system vary depending on the character of the
waste material, with treatment costs ranging
from $ 150 to $250 per ton for a 10 ton/hr
ATP system. The factors identified by the
vendor that affect costs include:
• Moisture content of feed material;
• Particle size;
• Hydrocarbon content;
• Material handling characteristics; and
• Chemical characteristics.
Vendor estimates for mobilization and demo-
bilization costs for a 10-ton per hour system
range from $700,000 to $1.5 million. [17]
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
Thermal desorption using the ATP
system was effective in treating
contaminants in soil at the Pristine site
to levels below the cleanup goals. In
addition, levels of six of the 11
targeted constituents were reduced to
concentrations at or below the re-
ported detection limits.
Thermal desorption using the ATP
system was also effective in reducing
levels of seven additional constituents
to the reported detection limit of 400
All stack gas air emission performance
standards were met in this applica-
tion, including standards for particu-
lates, opacity, dioxins and furans,
hydrogen chloride, THC, and SO2.
Surrogate compounds were used to
verify compliance for a 99.99% ORE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
122
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 12 of 1 7
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
for PAHs and pesticides (1,2,3-
trichlorobenzene for PAHs and
chloromethylbenzene for pesticides).
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
Occasional THC spikes were mea-
sured at levels greater than the
performance standard; the vendor
attributed these spikes to burner
malfunction.
Because SO2 control was a particular
concern in this application, several
methods were used to control SO,
during this application, including
chemical addition and wet scrubbing.
REFERENCES
1. Feasibility Study Completed for the
Pristine, Inc. Site. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Public
Affairs, Region 5, November 1987.
2. Pristine, Inc. Source unknown.
3. Remedial Investigation Followup Work
Plan for Pristine. Inc., Reading. Ohio.
Ecology and Environment, Inc., TDD
R05-8607-01, September 1986.
4. Superfund Record of Decision. Pris-
tine. OH. First Remedial Action - Final.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA/ROD/R05-88/060, December
1987.
5. Superfund Record of Decision, Pris-
tine. OH. First Remedial Action
(Amendment) - Final. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, EPA/ROD/
R05-90/1 32, March 1990.
6. Explanation of Significant Differences
for the Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site.
undated.
7. Pristine. Inc.. Ohio. NPL Publications
Assistance Database, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region 5,
EPA ID #OHD076773712, March
1992.
8. Draft Proposed Plan. Pristine. Inc.
Superfund Site. Reading. Ohio. U.S.
Environmental Protection, February
1989.
9. Final Design Report. Thermal Treat-
ment of Soil and Sediment (One
Hundred Percent Design) Pristine. Inc.
Site. Pristine. Ohio. Conestoga-Rovers
8. Associates, Ref. No. 3250 (25), July
1993.
10. Performance of Remedial Response
Activities at Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites (REM II). U.S. EPA Con-
tract No. 68-01 -6939. Final Remedial
Investigation Report. Pristine, Inc. Site.
Reading. Ohio. Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc., et. al., REM II Document
No. 11 5-RIL-RT-CMKQ-l. July 1986.
11. Soil Excavation and Handling Plan.
Pristine. Inc.. Reading. Ohio. Canonic
Environmental Services Corp., 92-
171-03, August 1993.
12. Health and Safety Plan. Pristine. Inc..
Reading. Ohio. Canonic Environmental
Services Corp., 92-1 71-03, August
1993.
13. Treated Soil Handling. Sampling, and
Analysis Plan. Pristine. Inc.. Reading.
Ohio. Canonie Environmental Services
Corp., 92-171-03, September 1993.
14. SoilTech ATP System Proof of Process.
Pristine. Inc. Site. Reading. Ohio.
Canonie Environmental Services Corp.,
92-171-03, February 1994.
15. Letter from U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region 5, to Pristine
Trustees. May 4, 1993.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
123
-------
REFERENCES (CONT.)
16. Treated Soil Analytical Results. Letters
from Canonic Environmental Services
Corp. to Conestoga-Rovers & Associ-
ates Limited, December 1993 through
March 1994.
17. Button, J. and Shanks, R. "Thermal
Desorption of PCB-Contaminated
Waste at the Waukegan Harbor
Superfund Site." Remediation. Spring
1994.
18. U.S. EPA. Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory. Draft Applications Analysis
Report for the SoilTech Anaerobic
Thermal Processor at the Wide Beach
Development and Waukegan Harbor
Superfund Sites. Cincinnati, OH. May
1993.
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 13 of 17
19. PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Results from the SITE Demonstration
of the SoilTech ATP Process at the
OMC Site in Waukegan. Illinois:
Volume I - Draft Report. Chicago,
Illinois. September 16, 1994.
20. Hutton, J.H., and A.]. Trentini, "Ther-
mal Desorption of Polynuclear Aro-
matic Hydrocarbons and Pesticides
Contaminated Soils at an Ohio
Superfund Site: A Case Study," 94-
FA155.05, undated.
21. Comments on Draft Report from
SoilTech, Received February 16, 1995.
22. Personal communication, Tom
Alcamo, RPM, to ]im Cummings, EPA/
TIO, February 14, 1995.
Analysis Preparation
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
124
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 14 of 1 7
I APPENDIX A
I!
* -e
5
<« 01
II
I
(0 .
5
8
<
•s
a a
II
li
Si,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office 125
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 15 of 1 7
I APPENDIX A (CONT.)
I
I
U) ^p
II
* C
H T>
il
I
l!
1
1
I
It
llf
il
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office J26
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 16 of 1 7
I APPENDIX A (CONT.)
55"
li
!i
I?
?•£
o> ra
II
S £
I
•5
I
i
11
if
13
il
I
ff
iii
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
127
-------
Pristine, Inc. Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 1 7
I APPENDIX A (CONT.)
•5 =
£ c
II
li
22
22
22
22
22
2222
22
22
22
222
22
22222
ll
Pill
Ma-~
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
128
-------
Thermal Desorption at the
T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company Superfund Site
Albany, Georgia
129
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company
Superfund Site, Albany, Georgia
Site Name:
T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company
Superfund Site
Location:
Albany, Georgia
Contaminants:
Halogenated Organic Pesticides
- Dieldrin, toxaphene, DDT, lindane
Period of Operation:
July 1993 to October 1993
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Mark Fieri
Williams Environmental Services, Inc.
2076 West Park Place
Stone Mountain, GA 30087
(404) 498-2020
SIC Code:
2879 (Pesticides and Agricultural
Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified)
Technology:
Thermal Desorption
- Rotary dryer desorber
- Temperature of soil exiting heating chamber
ranged from 833 to 1,080°F
- Soil residence time 15 minutes
- Offgases - routed through a baghouse, a
water quenching unit, a reheater, and a
vapor phase carbon adsorption bed
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA (Removal Action) and
State: Georgia
- Unilateral Administrative
Order - 3/92
- PRP Lead
Point of Contact:
R. Donald Rigger
On-Scene Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3931
Waste Source:
Manufacturing Process
Purpose/Significance of Application:
First full-scale application of thermal
desorption under the Superfund
program to remediate soil
contaminated with a mixture of
organochlorine pesticides.
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 4,300 tons
- Bulk density - 125.8 to 129.7 lbs/ft3; moisture content - 13 to 19%; pH - 5.7 to
6.2; particle size distribution - up to 2.38 mm; TOC - 0.2 to 0.23 mg/kg
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
Cleanup goals identified in March 1992 Unilateral Administrative Order and October 1992 Treatability Variance for proof-of-
process performance test and full-scale treatment
- Total OCL pesticides < 100 mg/kg and 4 constituents (DDT, toxaphene, BHC-alpha, BHC-beta) > 90% measured reduction
in concentration; air emissions - stack gas total hydrocarbons < 100 ppmv
- Additional air emissions limits during proof-of-process test - Georgia Guideline for Ambient Impact Assessment of Toxic
Air Pollutant Emissions
Results:
- The cleanup goals for soil were met for both total OCL pesticides and individual constituents
- Air emission standards were achieved during both the proof-of-process test and during the full-scale remediation
- Average OCL pesticides concentration in treated soil was 0.51 mg/kg
- Average removal efficiencies for individual constituents were greater than 98%
130
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption at the T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company
Superfund Site, Albany, Georgia (Continued)
Cost Factors:
- Estimated Total Treatment Cost - $849,996 (including solids preparation and handling, mobilization, startup, system
operation, and demobilization)
- Estimated Before-Treatment Costs - $252,582 (including mobilization and preparatory work, monitoring, sampling, testing,
and analysis, including the treatability study)
Description:
The T H Agriculture & Nutrition (THAN) Company Superfund site in Albany, Georgia was used from the 1950s to 1982 for
pesticide formulation and storage. As a result of these operations, soils at the site were contaminated with pesticides,
primarily organochlorine (OCL) pesticides and the site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1989. In March
1992, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to THAN for removal of contaminated soil and debris. Contaminated
soil with concentrations of OCL pesticides greater than 1,000 mg/kg was excavated and stockpiled.
Thermal desorption was used at THAN to treat approximately 4,300 tons of stockpiled soil contaminated with OCL pesticides.
The thermal desorption unit consisted of a rotary kiln thermal desorber operated at 833 to 1,080°F (soil exit temperature) and
a 15-minute residence time. An interlock (waste feed cutoff) process control system was used in this application to maintain
operation of the unit within allowable limits. The system was operated from July to October 1993. Thermal desorption
achieved the specified cleanup levels for OCL pesticides and air emission rates. Total OCL pesticide concentrations in the
treated soil ranged from 0.009 to 4.2 mg/kg with an average concentration of 0.5 mg/kg. Average removal efficiencies for the
four target OCL pesticides were greater than 98%.
The total estimated treatment cost for this application was approximately $850,000. The proof-of-process performance test
results provided information on operating conditions and air emissions that were used for the full-scale treatment application.
In addition, the bench-scale treatability study provided data to support a treatability variance request by THAN, approved by
EPA in October 1992, to place treated soils on site.
131
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 1 of 17
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)
This report presents cost and performance
data for a thermal desorption treatment
application at the T H Agriculture &. Nutrition
(THAN) Company Superfund site in Albany,
Georgia. Stockpiled soil contaminated with
organochlorine (OCL) pesticides was treated
as part of a removal action. This project is
notable for being the first full-scale thermal
desorption treatment application of soil
containing a mixture of OCL pesticides at a
Superfund site. In addition, an interlock
process control system was used to monitor
process parameters.
The THAN site, used from the 1950s to 1982
for pesticide formulation and storage, was
placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in
1989. In March 1992, EPA issued a Unilateral
Administrative Order (UAO) to THAN for a soil
and debris removal action at the site. An
estimated 4,300 tons of soil with concentra-
tions of total OCL pesticides equal to or
greater than 1,000 mg/kg was excavated and
stockpiled at the site. Initially, the stockpiled
soil was to be transported to an off-site
incinerator for treatment. However, because
the actual volume of stockpiled soil was over
four times the initial estimate of 1,000 tons,
on-site thermal desorption, with subsequent
placement of treated soils on-site, was used.
The UAO established a treatment goal of less
than 100 mg/kg for total OCL pesticides in the
treated subsurface soil. A Treatability Variance
(TV), received in October 1992, allowed the
treated soil to be placed on site after treat-
ment and required a minimum reduction of
90% in concentration of specific OCL pesti-
cides. Air emission limitations for the thermal
desorber stack gas were established through
negotiation with EPA.
The full-scale thermal desorption system
operated from July to October 1993 and was
used to treat approximately 4,300 tons of
contaminated soil. Total OCL pesticide
concentrations in the treated soil at THAN
ranged from 0.009 to 4.2 mg/kg during the
full-scale operation, with an average concen-
tration of 0.5065 mg/kg. Average removal
efficiencies achieved for the four target OCL
pesticides were greater than 98 percent.
Prior to full-scale operation, a process shake-
down and proof-of-process performance test
were conducted to verify the effectiveness of
the operating conditions. In addition, a
shakedown pretest was conducted to evaluate
the materials handling portion of the system.
Based on a petition for reimbursement, the
cost for thermal desorption at THAN was
approximately $1.1 million, including approxi-
mately $850,000 in costs directly attributed
to treatment activities (corresponding to
$200/ton of soil treated).
I SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Super-
fund Site
Albany, Georgia
Action Memorandum Date: Not available
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Removal
Treatability Study Associated with Applica-
tion? Yes (See Appendix A)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? No
Duration of Action: March 1992 - February
1994
Period of Operation: July to October 1993
Quantity of Soil Treated During Application:
4,318 tons
. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
tj Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
8 Technology Innovation Office
132
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 2 of 1 7
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background
Historical Activity that Generated Contami-
nation at the Site: Agricultural Pesticides
Formulation and Storage
Corresponding SIC Code: 2879 (Pesticides
and Agricultural Chemicals, Not Elsewhere
Classified)
Waste Management Practice that Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Manufacturing
process
Site History: The 7-acre T H Agriculture &.
Nutrition Company (THAN) facility is located
in Albany, Georgia, as shown in Figure 1. From
the mid-1950s until 1967, the site was used
by other companies for the storage and
formulation of pesticides. Typical activities for
formulating pesticides included preparation of
dry and liquid formulations, and blending
pesticides with solvents. THAN purchased the
site in 1967 and continued pesticide formula-
tion operations until 1978. The site was used
by THAN as a storage and distribution center
until 1982. [3]
In 1982, the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (GEPD) determined that the soil and
groundwater at the site were contaminated
primarily with OCL pesticides and solvents as
a result of site activities. The site was placed
on the National Priorities List (NPL) in March
1989. [3]
Regulatory Context: In response to a UAO
issued by EPA in March 1992 for a soil and
debris removal action, THAN excavated soil
from areas where a 50 mg/kg concentration in
surface soils and 100 mg/kg concentration in
subsurface soils of total OCLs was exceeded.
A total of 29,000 tons of contaminated soil
and debris were excavated from these areas.
Approximately 4,300 tons of excavated soil
was stockpiled on site for further treatment.
Initially the stockpiled soil was to be trans-
ported to an off-site incinerator for treatment.
However, because the actual volume of
stockpiled soil was over four times greater
than the initial estimate of 1,000 tons, on-site
thermal desorption, with subsequent place-
ment of treated soils on-site, was used. The
stockpiled soil was identified as containing
listed hazardous wastes with RCRA waste
codes P037 (dieldrin), PI 23 (toxaphene),
U061 (DDT and metabolites), U129 (lindane),
and U239 (xylenes). The remaining 24,700
tons were disposed off-site. [3]
Figure I. Site Location
A TV, received from EPA Region 4 on October
27, 1992, set treatment standards for on-site
thermal desorption of the stockpiled soils and
approved a plan to place and cover thermally
treated soils on site with a minimum of 2 feet
of clean soil. In addition, air emissions limits
were established for the thermal desorber
stack gas. [3]
Prior to approval of the full-scale remediation
work plan, THAN was required to show proof-
of-process in a performance test. A shake-
down pretest was performed to evaluate the
materials handling portion of the system. The
proof-of-process performance test was run in
July 1993. Based on the proof-of-process
performance test results, EPA Region 4
provided the required approval to conduct
full-scale treatment activities in August 1993.
Full-scale treatment activities began in August
1993 and concluded in October 1993.
Demobilization of the unit was completed in
January 1994. [4, 8, 9]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
133
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrldon Company Superfund Site—Page 3 of 1 7
SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: PRP Lead
Oversight: EPA
On-Scene Coordinator:
R. Donald Rigger
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-3931
Contractor:
Mark Fieri
Project Manager
Williams Environmental Services, Inc.
2076 West Park Place
Stone Mountain, Georgia 30087
(404) 498-2020
Project Oversight:
William L. Troxler, P.E.
Focus Environmental, Inc.
9050 Executive Park Drive, Suite A-202
Knoxville, Tennessee 37923
(615)694-7517
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the Treatment System: Soil (ex situ)
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: Halogenated
Organic Pesticides
THAN conducted an RI between December
1990 and September 1991 including soil,
groundwater, and other media sampling.
Constituents identified at the site included
organochlorine (OCL) pesticides, organophos-
phorus (OP) pesticides, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated herbicides
(CHs), volatile and semivolatile organics, as
well as inorganics. [3] The OCL pesticide
constituents were analyzed using EPA Method
8080.
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
Listed below in Table 1 are the major matrix
characteristics affecting cost or performance,
and the values measured for each.
Specific particle size distribution data were
measured for the stockpiled soil and are
Tablet. Matrix Characteristics [13]
provided below in Table 2. The soil was
described as containing large clumps of clay.
The impact of high clay content material on
the system operation is discussed in the
Thermal Desorption System Description and
Operation section of this report.
Parameter
Soil Classification
Clay Content and/or Particle Size
Distribution
Bulk Density
Lower Explosive Limit
Moisture Content
f»H
Total Organic Carbon (TOG)
Oil and Create or Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Value
Not Provided
See Table 2
125.8 to 129.7
lbs/ft3
Not Available
1 3 to 19%
5.7 to 6.2
0.2 to 0.23%
Not Available
Measurement
Method
Not Available
ASTM D2216
ASA #9
Not Available
Table 2. Particle Size Distribution of Stockpiled Soil [13]
Particle Size (millimeters)
0 - 0.074
0.074-0.149
0.149-0.297
0.297 - 0.590
0.590- 1.19
1,19-Z>38
Distribution (percent)
0.8 - 1 .2
5.6 - 8,0
18.4-20.4
21.2-22.0
12.2- 12.4
3<5.8 - 41 .0
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
134
-------
T H Agriculture ,
V
Mixing
Chamber
Treated Solids
Figure 2. Williams Environmental Services, Inc.
Thermal Desorption Unit, TPU #1 Used at THAN Facility. Albany. Georgia [8]
jf*
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
135
-------
T H ^riculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 5 of 1 7
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Thermal Desorption Treatment System Description and Operation (cont.)
Table 3. Interlock System Cutoff Conditions [9]
Interlock System Process Parameter
Cutoff Condition
Type of Monitoring and/or Cutoff
Minimum Desorber Exit Gas Temperature
Maximum Desorber Exit Gas Temperature
Maximum Soil Feed Rate
Minimum Treated Soil Exit Temperature
Minimum Quench Recycle Liquid Pressure
Maximum Quench Exit Gas Temperature
Minimum Baghouse Differential Pressure
Power Failure
Maximum Stack Gas Total Hydrocarbons
250°F
S10°F
7.8 tons/hour
875°F
5 psi
200°F
1 -inch water column
100 ppmv
1 -minute time delay
Instantaneous, vent opens, automatic
waste feed shutoff
20-minute rolling average
20-minute delay
5-minute time delay
Instantaneous, vent opens, automatic
waste feed shutoff
Instantaneous
Instantaneous, vent opens
20-minute rolling average
A process change was made prior to full-scale
treatment activities based on automatic
cutoffs during the proof-of-process perfor-
mance test. Insufficient fan capacity triggered
several cutoffs based on the maximum rotary
dryer pressure of 0.00 inches of water; the fan
was replaced prior to conducting full-scale
treatment activities.
The TPU #1 feed system consisted of a
shaker screen, a conveyor belt, and an auto-
mated load cell that was connected to the
interlock system. The shaker screen removed
clay clumps and other material greater than
3/4 inch in size from the soil stockpile. These
clay clumps were crushed using a front-end
loader and re-introduced into the desorber.
The TPU #1 soil treatment unit consisted of a
countercurrent flow rotary dryer, a propane-
fired burner unit, a primary mover unit, and a
soil quench system. The desorber was a
direct-fired, rotating, inclined cylindrical drum
5 feet in diameter and 22 feet in length, and
was constructed from a combination of
carbon steel and stainless steel. The primary
burner was rated at 21,000,000 Btu/hr and
fired with propane in air. A centrifugal fan
maintained a negative pressure through the
desorber with an average flow of 15,056
actual cubic feet per minute (acfm). The
burner gas enhanced the volatilization and
transport of organic contaminants from the
soil. Desorption was enhanced by the drum's
rotation as well as internal flights that lifted
and spilled soils in the heated regime of the
dryer. Actual soil exit temperatures during the
performance test were measured between
833 and 1,085°F. Treated soils exited at the
burner end of the unit via a screw conveyor
where they were mixed with fines from the
baghouse and quenched with process water
to suppress dust emissions. A negative
pressure was maintained throughout the
transport system to capture vapors from the
quenching process. The screw conveyor
discharged the treated solids to a stacking
conveyor for stockpiling. The treated soil was
deposited on site.
The TPU #1 exhaust gas treatment system
consisted of a baghouse, a quench chamber, a
mixing chamber, a reheater, an induced draft
fan, and a vapor-phase carbon adsorption
system. The off-gases were fed into a pulse
jet baghouse, which consisted of an enclosed
series of fine-mesh cloth filters to remove
particulates. The baghouse operated at
temperatures up to 500°F and a maximum air-
to-cloth ratio of 5:1. The baghouse fines were
discharged from the hoppers via a conveyor
system to the treated soils transport unit. The
baghouse off-gases were then quenched by
flash evaporation of water in a quench cham-
ber, which cooled the gas to the adiabatic
saturation temperature of 165°F. The exhaust
gas from the quench unit was passed through
a demister, and then cooled to 140°F by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
136
-------
T H Agriculture
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 7 of 1 7
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
A timeline for this application is shown in Table 5.
TableS. Timeline [8]
Start Date
End Date
Activity
Mid-1950s
October 1982
July 1984
Mar* 1989
March 1992
April 1992
June 1992
October 1992
July 1993
August 1993
January 1994
1982
1989
September 1984
October 1993
Pesticide formulating and storage operations conducted at site.
GEPD conducted Initial site visits and Identified soil and groundwater
contamination. THAN conducted studies to evaluate the nature and
extent of contamination.
Removed and disposed of 10,400 tons of soil and debris at a
hazardous waste landfill.
THAN placed on National Priorities List.
EPA Issed a Unilateral Administrative Order for removal action.
Disposal of 24,700 tons of soil and debris at a hazardous waste landflll.
Bench-scale treatabillty study for thermal desorption.
Treatablllty Variance granted.
Full-scale Proof-of-Process Performance Test.
Full-scale treatment activity.
Demobilization completed.
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals/Standards
Cleanup goals for the thermal desorption
application at THAN were identified in a
March 1992 UAO. An October 1992 TV
provided additional treatment requirements
for the soil, and negotiations with EPA estab-
lished air emission standards for the project.
The treatment requirements for both the
proof-of-process performance test and full-
scale treatment activities are shown below in
Table 6. [9, 1 1, 12] The constituents included
in the parameter "Total OCL Pesticides"
include aldrin, alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-
BHC, lindane, chlordane, DDT, ODD, DDE,
dieldrin, endosulfan I, endosulfan II, endrin,
and toxaphene. [3]
Table 6, Treatment Requirements [9, 11, 12]
Constituent/Parameter Soil Cleanup Goal
Source
Required During
Proof -of -Performance
Test
Required During
Full-Scale Treatment
Activity
4,4'-DDT
Toxaphene
BHC-alpha
BHC-beta
Total OCL Pesticides
>90% measured
reduction in
concentration
>90% measured
reduction in
concentration
>90% measured
reduction in
concentration
>90% measured
reduction in
concentration
< 100 mg/kg
Treatability Variance
Treatability Variance
Treatability Variance
Treatability Variance
Unilateral Administrative
Order and Treatability
Variance
s
S
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
138
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 8 of 1 7
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Cleanup Goals/Standards (Cont.) _^___
Air emission standards for stack gas THC, HCI, and particulates were established in negotiations
with EPA, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Air Emission Standards [8]
Constituent/Parameter
Stack Gas Total
Hydrocarbons
HCI Mass Emission Rate
Stack Gas Particulates
Toxaphene
4,4'-DDT
Air Emission
Standards
1 00 ppmv
<4 Ibs/hr
<0.08 gr/dscf
As shown on
Figure 3
As shown on
Figure 4
Source
Negotiations with EPA
Negotiations with EPA
Negotiations with EPA
Georgia Guideline for
Ambient Impact
Assessment of Toxic Air
Pollutant Emissions
Georgia Guideline for
Ambient Impact
Assessment of Toxic Air
Pollutant Emissions
Required During Required During
Proof-of-Performance Full-Scale Treatment
Test Activity
•/ S
(operating
parameter)
/
/
,
,
Additional Information on Goals [3, 9]
Soil cleanup goals were developed in two
stages. A goal of 100 mg/kg for total OCL
pesticides on a dry-weight basis was first
provided in the UAO. Additional goals for
measured reductions in concentration of
target constituents were then developed for a
TV based on Superfund LDR Guide #6B -
Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Vari-
ance for Removal Actions (Directive 9347.3-
06BFS). Soil cleanup goals required to be
demonstrated during the proof-of-process
performance test and full-scale treatability
activity included a minimum reduction of 90%
in concentration of BHC (alpha and beta),
4,4'-DDT, and toxaphene; and less than 100
mg/kg total OCL pesticides in the treated soil.
Since the stockpile had been characterized
and 90% reduction had been achieved during
the performance test, no feed samples were
required for collection or analysis during the
full-scale operation, provided that the system
operated within the proposed operating
conditions agreed upon by THAN and EPA.
Air emission standards were developed
through negotiations with EPA. Stack gas
particulates and HCI emission rate limits were
based on requirements in 40 CFR Part 264.343
(which provides standards for incinerator emis-
sions). A THC emission limit of 100 ppmv based
on a 60-minute rolling average was developed by
EPA using the following assumptions:
1. Feed soil containing approximately 1 %
total organic material, such as humic
materials;
2. A stack gas flow rate of 56,420 Ibs/hr (dry
basis), or 1,947 mols/hr; and
3. The APC system achieving a removal
efficiency of between 93% and 96% for
non-methane hydrocarbons.
Air emissions standards for toxaphene and DDT
were developed based on compliance with
Georgia's Guidelines for Ambient Impact Assess-
ment of Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions. The at-
tached graphs (Figures 3 and 4) showing accept-
able ambient concentrations for toxaphene and
DDT were developed based on site-specific air
emission modeling conducted at the THAN site.
The concentrations shown on the graphs are a
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
139
-------
T H Agriculture 8>. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 9 of 1 7
[TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Additional Information on Goals [3, 9] (Cont.)
function of THAN's operating schedule and air
pollution control equipment removal effi-
ciency. For example, at the maximum operat-
ing schedule of 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, the required removal efficiency shown
on Figure 3 for toxaphene is 96 percent.
1.8E-O3
1.6E-03
1.4E-O3
Acceptable
Ambient 1.0E-03
Concentration
(mg/m3)
B.OE-04
AAC Concentration vs. Operating Schedule
8 hours/dav. S davayweek
12 houre/day, 5 daye/weak
un/day, 7 days/week
24 hour»/day, S daya/waak
24 hour»/day, 7 daya/waak
— TOXAPHENE
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
Required Toxaphene Removal Efficiency In APCE System
AAC Concentration vs. Operating Schedule
Accaptabla
Amblant
Concentration
(mg/m3)
8 hours/day. 5 day»/weak
12 hpura/day, S daya/week
12 nouns/day, 7 dayjB/weak.
24 hours/day. S days/week
hounWday. 7 daya/waak
90 91 92 93 94 95 98 97 98 99 100
Required DDT Removal Efficiency In APCE System
Figures. Toxaphene AAC Values vs. Operating Schedule
Figure 4. DDT AAC Values vs. Operating Schedule
Treatment Performance Data [8]
Performance data for the thermal desorption
treatment application at THAN include proof-
of-process performance test data results and
full-scale treatment activity data results. These
data are presented in the following tables.
Soil data were obtained during the proof-of-
process performance test by collecting pro-
cess samples of untreated and treated soil.
One composite sample was collected per run,
consisting of grab samples collected at ap-
proximately 15-minute intervals during treat-
ment operations. The samples were collected
using procedures in EPA SW-846, "Test Meth-
ods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods." Each composite sample
was analyzed using EPA Method 8080 for OCL
pesticides.
Data presented in Table 8 represent the
averages of the four composite samples
collected during the four runs conducted
during proof-of-process performance test.
Air emissions data for stack gas OCL pesti-
cides from the proof-of-process performance
test were obtained through sampling activities
conducted using EPA's Modified Method 5
Sampling Train. Stack gas particulates and HCI
were measured using EPA's Method 5 Sam-
pling Train, and stack gas total hydrocarbon
concentrations were monitored with a con-
tinuous emission monitoring (CEM) system
using EPA Method 25A. Data were collected
during each of the four runs from the proof-
of-process performance test, and are pre-
sented in Table 9.
Soil data were obtained during the full-scale
treatment activities by collecting and
compositing samples of treated soils and are
presented in Table 10. A total of 18 composite
samples were collected and analyzed for OCL
pesticides using EPA Method 8080.
Average untreated soil concentrations pre-
sented in Table 10 are values from the proof-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
140
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 10 of 1 7
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 8. Proof-of-Process Performance Test Soil Data [8]
Cofutrtueirt/Parameter
Aldrin
BHC-alpha
BHC-beta
BHC-delta
Undone (BHC -gamma)
Chkxdane-alpha
Chlordane-gamma
DfeMrin
4,4'-DDD
4.4--DDE
4,4'-DDT
Endosulfan
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Toxaphene
Total OCt Pesticides
Cleanup Goal
N/A
>90% measured
reduction in
concentration
>90% measured
reduction in
concentration
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
>90% measured
reduction in
concentration
N/A
N/A
N/A
>9O% measured
reduction in
concentration
<100rng'kg
Average Untreated Average Treated Soil
Soil Concentration Concentration^) Range of Percent
(mgOtg) (ms/kg) Removal (%)
Not available(a)
1.9
4.5
Not available(a)
Not available (a)
Not availabJe(a)
Not available(a)
Not availaHefa)
Not available(a)
9.48
212.6
9.33
Not available(a)
Not availaWe(a}
257.7
Not available
<0.017
92,6tt»99.7
>92.4 to 99.81
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
0.0 to 98.98(d)
>99.6 to >99.99
Not available
Not available
Not available
>97.0 to 99.72
Not available
Average
Percent
Removal (%)(c)
>98.64
97,64
97.89
>98.28
>98.50
>98.50
>98.50
>98.34
>98.50
Not available(d)
99.89
>99.65
>98.64
>98.64
98.98
Not available
N/A = Not Applicable.
(a)An average of the four proof-of-process samples was not calculated because one or more of the constituents was "not
detected" in the untreated soil sample.
(b)Concentrations represent the average value of treated soil composite samples.
(c)Average of the four percent removals calculated for each sample collected during four proof-of-performance test runs.
(d)Analytlcal results indicated that 4,4'-DDE concentration increased in Run #3. Therefore, the percent removal shown as
0.0% for Run #3, and an average percent removal was not calculated.
Table 9. Proof-of-Process Performance Test Air Emissions Data [8, 14]
Constituent/Parameter
Stack Gas Total
Hydrocarbons
HO Mass Emission Rate
Stack Gas Participates
Toxaphene(a)
4,4'-DDT(a)
Air Emission
Standard
1 00 ppmv
<4 Jbs/hr
<0.08 gr/dscf
l.ASugftn*
2.96jug/mJ
Average Emission Rate or
Concentration
1 1 .9 ppmv
0.121bs/hr
0.0006 gr/dscf
0.045 ^g/m 3
ND
Range of Emission Rates
or Concentrations
2.9 to 35.5 ppmv
0.12toO,mbs/hr
0.0005 to 0.0007 gr/dscf
Not available
Not available
ND = Not Detected.
(a) Allowable Ambient Air Concentrations were developed based on Georgia's Guidelines for Ambient Impact
Assessment of Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions. Stack emissions calculated from the measured ambient concentra-
tions oftoxaphene and 4,4'-DDT were all ND.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
141
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 11 of 1 7
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (cont.)
Table 10. Full-Scale Treatment Activity Soil Performance Data [8]
Constituent/Parameter
Aldrin
BHC-alpha
BHC-beta
BHC-delta
Llndane (BHC -gamma)
Chlordane-alpha
Chlordane-gamma
Dleldrln
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Endosulfan
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Toxaphene
Total OCL Pesticides
Soli Cleanup Goal
N/A
90% measured
reduction In
concentration
90% measured
reduction In
concentration
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
90% measured
reduction in
concentration
N/A
N/A
N/A
90% measured
reduction in
concentration
<:lOOmg/Kg
Average Untreated
Soli
Concentration^) Average Treated Soil Range of Percent
(mgfk&) Concentration {mg/kg) Removal (%)(c)
Not available(b)
1.9
4.5
Not avallable(b)
Not avallable(b)
Not avallable(b)
Not avallable(b)
Not available (b)
Not available(b)
9.48
212.6
9.33
Not available(b)
Not available(b)
257.7
Not available
<0.0365
<0.0399
<0,0383
<0.0376
<0.0365
<0.0365
<0.0365
<0.0703
<0.0703
<0.4413
<00710
< 0.0365
<0 0703
<0.0703
<3 6456
0.5065
Not available
>91,19to>99.96
>96.Z2 to >99.98
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
>99.85 to >99.99
Not available
Not available
Not available
>93.40 to >99.97
Not available
Average
Percent
Removal (%)(c)
Not available
>98.97
>99.57
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
>97.67
>99.98
>99.80
Not available
Not available
>99.29
Not available
N/A = Not Applicable.
(a)Untreated soil concentrations shown were measured during the proof-of-process performance test (see Table 8),
because sampling and analysis of untreated soil was not required during full-scale treatment activities.
(b)An average of the four proof-of-process performance test samples was not provided because one or more of the
concentrations was "not detected "
(cj Percent removal calculations used one-half (0.5) of the detection limit. Data used for these calculations are presented
in Appendix B.
of-process performance test. Sampling and
analysis of untreated soil was not required
during full-scale treatment activities, as
specified in EPA's letter of approval following
the proof-of-process performance test.
Treated soil concentrations shown in Table 3
represent the average concentration of the 18
samples collected. Average percent removal
was calculated by averaging the 18 separate
values for percent removal of that constituent.
The average treated soil concentration of total
OCL pesticides of 0.5065 mg/kg represents
the average of concentrations that ranged
from 0.009 mg/kg to 4.2 mg/kg.
A complete data set for the 18 samples
collected and analyzed during the full-scale
treatment activity is provided in Appendix B.
Air emissions data, other than monitoring of
THC in stack gas, were not required to be
collected during the full-scale treatment
activities. Because THAN met the treatment
and emission standards during the proof-of-
process performance test, EPA was satisfied
that the established operating parameters
would ensure attainment of the additional air
emission goals during full-scale treatment
activities.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
142
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 1 2 of 1 7
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Performance Data Assessment
The cleanup goal of 100 mg/kg total OCL
pesticides in treated soils at the THAN site
was achieved by the thermal desorption
system. The average total OCL pesticides
concentration in the treated soil was 0.5065
mg/kg during the full-scale treatment activi-
ties.
Average removal efficiencies measured during
full-scale treatment activities of the thermal
desorption system (averaged from 18 com-
posite sample results) were greater than
98.97% for BHC-alpha, 99.57% for BHC-beta,
99.98% for 4,4'-DDT, and 99.29% for tox-
Performance Data Completeness
aphene. The individual sample removal
efficiencies ranged from 91.19% to 99.99%.
The treatment goal of 90% reduction of
concentration established in the TV was
achieved for the specified constituents.
The proof-of-process performance test results
indicated that air emissions from the thermal
desorption system achieved the air emission
standards for particulate concentrations and
HCI emission rates, Acceptable Ambient
Concentrations for 4,4'-DDT and toxaphene
developed from Georgia's Air Toxics Guide-
lines, and EPA-approved THC concentrations
in the stack gas.
Performance data available from the thermal
desorption treatment application at the THAN
facility include soil performance test data from
the proof-of-process performance test and
the full-scale treatment activities, and air
emissions data from the proof-of-process
performance test. These data characterize the
Performance Data Quality
treated soil matrix for OCL pesticides from
the full-scale treatment activities. In the
proof-of-process performance test, constitu-
ent concentrations for OCL pesticides in
untreated soil are matched with treated soil
concentrations, and linked to specific operat-
ing conditions.
All samples were analyzed using EPA-ap-
proved methods and data validation proce-
dures. A QA/QC review was performed by
Woodward-Clyde consultants for THAN and
by Roy F. Weston, Inc for EPA. The results of
this review indicated no technical data quality
concerns. One deviation from EPA Method
8080 was noted; a wide-bore GC column was
used instead of a packed GC column.
A single-point calibration was first conducted
on toxaphene but was then reported with
good agreement for a five-point calibration.
TREATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
Eight vendors were contacted by THAN
regarding the thermal desorption project.
THAN evaluated the cost estimates provided
by each vendor for mobilization/demobiliza-
tion and per ton treatment, and also evalu-
ated the vendor's treatability study experi-
ence, the vendor's experience treating hazard-
ous waste (rather than petroleum contamina-
tion), vendor availability, equipment types,
and anticipated processing rates. Based on
this assessment, THAN contracted with
Williams Environmental and prepared the
detailed work plans for the project.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
143
-------
T H Agriculture 8. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 13 of 1 7
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment System Cost
Treatment system costs were obtained from a
Petition for Reimbursement submitted by
THAN to EPA, as shown below in Tables 11
and 12. In order to standardize reporting of
costs across projects, costs are shown in
Tables 11 and 12 according to the format for
an interagency Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS). No costs were reported for the
following elements in the WBS: liquid prepara-
tion and handling; training; cost of ownership;
dismantling; site work; surface water collec-
tion and control; groundwater collection and
control; air pollution/gas collection and
control; solids collection and containment;
liquids/sediments/ sludges collection and
containment; drums/tanks/structures/miscella-
neous demolition and removal; decontamina-
tion and decommissioning; disposal (other
than commercial); disposal (commercial); site
restoration; or demobilization (other than
treatment unit).
Table /1. Treatment Cost Elements [15]
Cost Elements (Directly Associated with Treatment)
Solids Preparation and Handling (equipment retrofit)
Vapor/Gas Preparation and Handling (equipment purchase, puffs)
Pads/Foundations/Spill Control (asphalt pad)
Mobilization/Set Up (mobilization)
Startup/Testing/Permits (performance test)
Operation (short-term; up to 3 years) (soil processing, air monitoring services,
thermal treatment oversight, final report)
Demobilization (demobilization)
TOTAL TREATMENT COST
Cost Actual or Estimated
(dollars) ((A) or (!))•
30,000
4,885
26,373
50,000
30,000
698,738
10,000
849,996
I
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Average Cost per Ton: $849,996 + 4,318 tons = $200/ton of soil treated
*Cost data were submitted by THAN in a Petition for Reimbursement, and have not been evaluated by EPA as of June
IS, 1994.
Table 12. Before -Treatment Cost Elements [15]
Cost Elements
Mobilization and Preparatory Work (Focus1 and Williams' work plan
preparation, modeling)
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis (treatability study; Enseco
engineering; untreated sol!, treated soil, process water analyses, and puff air
sample analyses; and respirable dust analyses)
Cost
(dollars)
148,263
104,319
Actual or Estimated
((A) or (E))*
E
E
"Cost data were submitted by THAN in a Petition for Reimbursement, and have not been evaluated by EPA as of June 15,
1994.
Cost Data Quality
An assessment of cost data quality has not
been completed to date. Cost data were
submitted by THAN in a Petition for Reim-
bursement, and have not been evaluated by
EPA Region 4 as of June 15,1994.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
144
-------
T H /\griculture Jk Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 14 of 1 7
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
Based on a petition for reimburse-
ment, the cost for thermal desorption
at THAN was approximately $1.1
million, including approximately
$850,000 for activities directly
attributed to treatment of 4,318 tons
of soil.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
The cleanup goal of 100 mg/kg total
OCL pesticides in treated soils at the
THAN site was achieved by the
thermal desorption treatment system.
The average total OCL pesticides
concentration in the treated soil was
0.5065 mg/kg during the full-scale
treatment activities.
Average removal efficiencies mea-
sured during full-scale treatment
activities of the thermal desorption
system (averaged from 18 composite
sample results) were greater than
98.97% for BHC-alpha, 99.57% for
BHC-beta, 99.98% for 4,4'-DDT, and
99.29% for toxaphene. The individual
sample removal efficiencies ranged
from 91.19% to 99.99%. The cleanup
goal of 90% reduction of concentra-
tion established in the TV was
achieved for the specified constitu-
ents.
The proof-of-process performance
test results indicated that air emis-
sions from the thermal desorption
system achieved the air emission
standards for particulate concentra-
tions and HCI emission rates, Accept-
able Ambient Concentrations for 4,4'-
DDT and toxaphene developed from
Georgia's Air Toxics Guidelines, and
EPA-approved THC concentrations in
the stack gas.
The proof-of-process performance
test successfully demonstrated that
certain operating conditions (e.g.,
system throughput and soil exit
temperature) would meet the soil
treatment goals and air emission
standards established for treating soil
from the THAN site. Sufficient data
were collected during the test to gain
EPA's approval to conduct full-scale
treatment activities.
The bench-scale treatability study
accurately predicted a removal
efficiency of greater than 90% with
effective removal of decomposition
products.
The bench-scale treatability study
provided data required to support a
treatability variance request submitted
by THAN to EPA Region IV The
Treatability Variance, approved by EPA
Region IV in October 1992, allowed
THAN to place the treated soils on
site. The treatability study also pro-
vided necessary data to select the
thermal desorption temperature used
in the full-scale treatment application.
REFERENCES
1. Troxler, W.L., and et al. "Treatment of
Pesticide-Contaminated Soils with Ther-
mal Desorption Technologies". In: AWMA
Journal. Focus Environmental, Knoxville,
TN. Vol. 43, December 1993.
2. Williams Environmental Services, Inc.
Treatability Study for Pesticide Contami-
nated Soils from THAN. Prepared for
THAN. Submitted to USEPA Region IV
Stone Mountain, GA. August 1992.
3. Williams Environmental Services, Inc.
Thermal Desorption Work Plan THAN
Facility. Albany, GA. Prepared for THAN.
Stone Mountain, GA. July 1993.
^«
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
145
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 1 5 of I 7
REFERENCES (CONT.)
4. Focus Environmental, Inc. Interim Perfor-
mance Test Report THAN Facility, Albany,
CA. Prepared for THAN. August 1993.
5. Williams Environmental Services, Inc. Use
of Thermal Desorption for Treating Pesti-
cide Contaminated Soils. Prepared for
THAN. Submitted to USEPA Region IV.
Stone Mountain, GA. July 1992.
6. Focus Environmental, Inc. Presentation
Materials for the THAN Site, Public
Meeting, Albany, GA. February 1993.
7. Troxler, W.L. Thermal Desorption Treat-
ment of Pesticide Contaminated Soils,
Project Initiation Meeting. Focus Environ-
mental, Inc. Knoxville, TN. June 1992.
8. Focus Environmental, Inc. Appendix I,
Removal Action Report - Thermal Desorp-
tion, TH Agriculture and Nutrition Com-
pany Facility, Albany, GA. Knoxville, TN.
February 1994.
Analysis Preparation
9. U.S. EPA. Letter from Don Rigger to John R
deary, RE. Approval of Full-Scale Thermal
Treatment at THAN Facility. August 12,
1993.
10. Personal communication with William
Troxler, 3/24/94.
11. U.S. EPA. Unilateral Administrative Order
for Removal Response Activities. Prepared
for activities at THAN facility. March 1992.
12. U.S. EPA. Treatability Variance for THAN
Facility. October 1992.
13. Data sets provided by John P. Cleary, RE.
from THAN, November 22, 1994.
14. Data provided by Steve Goh, Focus
Environmental, January 17, 1995.
15. Cost Breakdown for Thermal Desorption,
Albany, Georgia, provided by Don Rigger,
June 15, 1994.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
| APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS [2]
Treatability Study Objectives
Treatability Study Duration:
6/11/92 to 6/12/92
The purpose of the bench-scale treatability
test was to determine the feasibility of treating
OCL pesticide-contaminated soils from the
THAN site using thermal desorption (i.e.,
Treatability Study Test Description
achieving greater than 90% removal) and to
evaluate the effects of varying temperature
and residence time on pesticide removal
efficiency to determine optimum operating
range.
The test was conducted by Williams Environ-
mental Services at Deep South Laboratories in
Homewood, Alabama. Contaminated soils
from the THAN site (100 grams per batch)
were treated in static trays at various resi-
dence times and temperatures. The trays were
shallow pans. The pans were placed in a
muffle furnace with nitrogen used as a purge
gas to eliminate organic vapor saturation in
the furnace. Fifteen OCL pesticides and two
OP pesticides were targeted for analysis in
determining the treatment removal effective-
ness of thermal desorption using soils from
the THAN site.
The ranges selected for the operating param-
eters used were based on known operating
parameter limits of the rotary dryer and the
physical characteristics (boiling point and
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
146
-------
T H Agriculture (k Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 16 of 1 7
I APPENDIX A—TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS (CONT.)
Treatability Study Test Description (cont.)
volatility) of the OCL pesticides present in the
THAN site soils. The following temperatures
were tested: 500°F, 700°F, and 900°F. An initial
temperature of 212°F was used to simulate
the entrance of the soil into the rotary dryer,
where the water in the soils are first vapor-
ized. The temperature was then increased at a
rate equivalent to the temperature gradient
present in the rotary dryer. Residence times of
36 and 51 minutes were selected on the basis
of the rotary dryer's normal operating range of
15 to 45 minutes.
Test Temperature (°F)
500
700
900
Pesticide Removal Efficiency
36-Mlnute Residence Tlme(a) 5 1 -Minute
>86.85
>99.89
>99.91
(%)
Residence Tlme(a)
>90.28
> 99.90
>99.91
(ajResidence time at target soil treatment temperature was six minutes for both scenarios. [8,9]
Treatability Study Performance Data
At a residence time of 36 minutes, pesticide
removal efficiencies were greater than 99% at
700°F and 900°F. At 500°F, the pesticide
removal efficiency was less than 90%. How-
ever, at a residence time of 51 minutes,
pesticide removal efficiencies greater than
90% were achieved at all three test tempera-
tures. Removal efficiencies were greater than
99% at 700°F and 900°F and greater than 90%
at 500°F. At a temperature of 500°F, concen-
trations of 4,4'-DDE were greater in the post-
treatment soils than in the pre-treatment soils.
The vendor attributed this increase to thermal
decomposition of 4,4'-DDT. It was determined
that at the higher temperatures this additional
decomposition product was removed as well.
Treatability Study Lessons Learned
The treatability test showed that thermal
desorption was feasible for treatment of
pesticide-contaminated soils at the THAN
site. These results were further validated in
the full-scale remediation where the cleanup
goals were met using thermal desorption.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
147
-------
T H Agriculture &. Nutrition Company Superfund Site—Page 1 7 of 1 7
I APPENDIX B—FULL-SCALE TREATMENT ACTIVITY SOIL DATA [8]
Sample ID
817-TS-P
829-TS-P-l
830-TS-P
902-TS-P-l
906-TS-P-l
909-TS-P-1
9I3-TS-P-1
915-TS-P-l
9I7-TS-P-1
1 005-TS-P2
I006~tS-Pl
1020-TS-P1
No. of Sample
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Standard
Deviation
flUMn
{«*»#
<6,8
«5.8
<34
<6,8
<68
<68
<3.4
<1 7
<6.8
<340
<68
18
«S.8
13
<34
30
<68
<68
6.1
2.4
<6.8
<340
<68
18
03
27
<66
19
O30
O30
<6.6
2.1
<660
O30
<3.3
18
<3.3
<7I.O
27
1496
««**
<.,
<66
03
<130
<130
<6.6
<3.3
<660
<13O
<3.3
18
<3.3
<70.3
<660
149.8
In**-
ulfaot
<6,8
<6.8
<34
<6.8
<68
<68
<3.4
<1.7
<6.8
<340
<68
fc>.
<66
03
O30
-------
Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation at the
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site
Brant, New York
149
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation at the Wide Beach Development
Superfund Site, Brant, New York
Site Name:
Wide Beach Development Superfund
Site
Location:
Brant, New York
Contaminants:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
- Stockpiled soil contained 10 to 5,000 tng/kg
PCBs
- Material feed to thermal desorber contained
11 to 68 mg/kg PCBs
Period of Operation:
October 1990 to September 1991
Cleanup Type:
Full-scale cleanup
Vendor:
Joseph Hutton
SoilTech ATP System, Inc.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
(219) 926-8651
SIC Code:
Not applicable
Technology:
Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation
- Rotary kiln desorber with proprietary sand
seals
- Retort zone temperature 1,160°F
- Preheat and retort zone residence time 30-40
minutes
- Alkaline polyethylene glycol (APEG)
sprayed onto contaminated soil to
dechlorinate PCBs
- Air emissions controlled using cyclones,
baghouse, scrubbers, fractionator, condenser,
gas-oil-water separator, and carbon
adsorption
- Water treated on site using filtration,
oxidation, settling, air stripping, and carbon
adsorption
Cleanup Authority:
CERCLA and State: New York
(per interagency agreement
between EPA and USAGE)
-ROD Date: 9/30/85
- Fund Lead
Point of Contact:
Herb King (RPM)
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-1129
Joe Salvatore
USAGE c/o 914 TAG, Bldg. 322
Niagara Falls Int'l. Airport
Niagara Falls, NY 14304
(716) 297-8531
Waste Source:
Road Oiling - Application of PCB-
containing waste oils to the roadways
for dust control
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Soil
- 42,000 tons treated
- 18.3% moisture; 12.8% clay; 30.3% silt; pH of 7.7
Purpose/Significance of
Application:
The Wide Beach project is notable
for being the first full-scale treat-
ment application using SoilTech's
ATP system in conjunction with
APEG dechlorination to treat soil at a
Superfund Site contaminated with
PCBs.
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Soil - PCBs: 2 mg/kg
- Air - PCBs: 3.33 x lO'5 Ibs/hr, PEG: 4.16 x IO'5 Ibs/hr, particulates: 0.05 gr/dscf
150
-------
Case Study Abstract
Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation at the Wide Beach Development
Superfund Site, Brant, New York (Continued)
Results:
- Soil - PCB concentrations reduced from up to 68 to less than 2 mg/kg
- Air - Stack gas requirements met for PCBs, PEG, and particulates; dioxin/furan emissions equivalent to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD
concentration of 0.707 ng/dscm
Cost Factors:
- Actual total costs for cost elements directly associated with treatment - $11,600,000 (including solids preparation and
handling, startup, equipment, and operation)
- Before-treatment costs - $908,000 (including mobilization/preparatory work, monitoring)
- After-treatment costs - $3,400,000 (disposal)
Description:
Contamination of soil at the Wide Beach Development Superfund site (Wide Beach) resulted from the spraying of waste oil
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) over the roadways in the community to control dust. In response to a 1985
Record of Decision and a 1988 interagency agreement between EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE),
SoilTech's mobile anaerobic thermal processor (ATP) system was used in conjunction with alkaline polyethylene glycol
(APEG) dechlorination from October 1990 to September 1991 to treat contaminated soil at Wide Beach. Approximately
42,000 tons of stockpiled soil contaminated with PCBs, mainly Arochlor 1254, at concentrations ranging from 10 to 5,000
mg/kg, were treated at Wide Beach. The USAGE specified that the concentration of PCBs in soil treated at Wide Beach
should not exceed 2 mg/kg. The Wide Beach project is notable for using full-scale treatment application using SoilTech's
ATP system in conjunction with APEG dechlorination to treat soil at a Superfund Site contaminated with PCBs.
During the full-scale treatment of soils at Wide Beach, samples of untreated soil were occasionally collected from the feed
conveyor of the ATP system. The concentrations of PCBs measured in these samples ranged from 11 to 68 mg/kg, with an
average PCB concentration of 24 mg/kg. Samples of the treated soil were collected either from the treated solids staging
area or the tailings conveyor of the ATP system. The concentrations of PCBs measured in these samples were generally less
than or near the detection limit (approximately 0.5 mg/kg) and all samples were below the 2 mg/kg cleanup level during the
treatment application. A lack of structural integrity in the treated soils led to a need for off-site disposal.
The cost for this full-scale application was $11,600,000, for costs directly associated with treatment. The level of
dechlorination achieved by the ATP/APEG process was measured during a demonstration test conducted prior to full-scale
operation of the system. The demonstration test results indicated that the ATP/APEG process dechlorinated 76 percent of
the PCBs that entered the ATP system during the test. However, this figure does not account for dechlorination from
recycling residual oil through the system. In addition, an EPA SITE Demonstration was conducted during the full-scale
operation in May of 1991. The SITE Demonstration results indicated that 98 percent of the PCBs that entered the ATP
system were dechlorinated.
151
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 1 of 1 7
COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents cost and performance
data for a thermal desorption/dehalogenation
treatment application at the Wide Beach
Development Superfund site (Wide Beach) in
Brant, New York. Contamination of soil at the
Wide Beach site resulted from the spraying of
waste oil containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) over the roadways in the community to
control dust. A Record of Decision (ROD),
signed in 1985, required excavation, stockpil-
ing, and treatment of soil from areas including
roadways, drainage ditches, and residential
yards where concentrations of PCBs were
greater than 10 mg/kg. In response to the
ROD and a 1988 interagency agreement
between EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), SoilTech's mobile anaero-
bic thermal processor (ATP) system was used
in conjunction with alkaline polyethylene
glycol (APEG) dechlorination to treat contami-
nated soil at this site. The USACE specified
that the concentration of PCBs in soil treated
at Wide Beach should not exceed 2 mg/kg.
The system was operated from October 1990
to September 1991. Approximately 42,000
tons of stockpiled soil contaminated with
PCBs, mainly Arochlor 1254, at concentra-
tions ranging from 10 to 5,000 mg/kg, were
treated. The Wide Beach project is notable for
being the first full-scale treatment application
using SoilTech's ATP system in conjunction
with APEG dechlorination to treat soil at a Super-
fund site contaminated with PCBs.
The SoilTech ATP system used at Wide Beach
consisted of a feed system, the ATP unit (a rotary
kiln thermal desorber), a vapor recovery system, a
flue gas treatment system, a tailings handling
system, and a module for preparing reagents used
for the APEG dechlorination process. Wastewater
from the vapor recovery system was treated on-
site and then disposed of at an off-site treatment
facility. Waste oil from the vapor recovery system
containing PCBs was dechlorinated using APEG
and then recycled as carrier oil in the vapor
recovery system. An EPA SITE Demonstration,
conducted during the full-scale operation in May
of 1991, indicated that 98 percent of the PCBs
that entered the ATP system were dechlorinated.
The thermal description system at Wide Beach
achieved the specified soil cleanup standards.
Concentration of PCBs in treated soil samples
were generally at or below the reported detection
limit of 0.5 mg/kg. However, treated soils could
not be used as backfill, because they were not as
cohesive as the excavated soil, and were disposed
of off site as nonhazardous waste.
The costs for the treatment application at Wide
Beach, excluding costs for construction of a
concrete pad for the ATP unit and for off-site
disposal of the treated soil, were $11,600,000.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
152
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 2 of 17
I SITE INFORMATION
Identifying Information
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site,
Brant, New York
CERCLIS #: NY0980652259
ROD Date: September 30, 1985
Treatment Application
Type of Action: Remedial
Demonstration Test Associated with
Application? Yes (see Appendix A and
Reference 4)
EPA SITE Program Test Associated with
Application? Yes (see Reference 9)
Period of Operation: October 1990 to
September 1991
Quantity of Soil Treated During Application:
42,000 tons
Background
Historical Activity That Generated Contami-
nation at the Site: Spraying of waste oil over
roadways for dust control. [7]
Corresponding SIC Codes: Not applicable
Waste Management Practice that Contrib-
uted to Contamination: Road Oiling -
Application of PCB-containing waste oils to
the roadways for dust control.
Site History: The Wide Beach Development
Superfund Site (Wide Beach) is a 55 acre,
lake-side community located in Brant, New
York, as shown on Figure 1. From 1964 until
1978, waste oil containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) was applied to the roadways
in the community to control dust. Soil from
the roadways was excavated during the
installation of a 1 -mile sanitary sewer trench in
the community during 1980. Excavated soil
was used as fill in several residential yards. [7]
An Erie County Department of Environment
and Planning investigation of an odor com-
plaint led to the discovery of 19 drums in a
wooded area in the Wide Beach Development
community. Two of the drums contained
waste oil contaminated with PCBs. Further
investigation revealed that PCBs were present
in soil from roadways and residential yards, in
vacuum cleaner dust from residential homes,
and in water from residential wells. The Wide
Beach Development site was placed on the
National Priorities List in September 1983. [7]
Wide Bedcli Development
Superfimd Site
Brant, New YoiV
Figure I. Site Location
A remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) was conducted from 1984 to 1985.
[18] The RI/FS results indicated that:
• PCBs (mainly Arochlor 1254) were the
major contaminants;
• The highest PCB concentrations were
detected in soils from the roadways,
drainage ditches, driveways, and front
yards;
• Concentrations of PCBs in water from
residential wells were in the parts per
billion range or less;
• PCBs were transported mostly by
surface water:
• Contaminated soils would act as a
long-term source of PCBs; and
• Human exposure to PCBs was pos-
sible through ingestion of contami-
nated vegetation and/or soil, inhala-
tion, and dermal absorption.
Based on these results, EPA implemented a
removal action, which was conducted from
June to July 1985. The removal action in-
cluded paving roadways, drainage ditches,
and driveways, shampooing and vacuuming
rugs, replacing air conditioner and furnace
filters in residential homes, and installing
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
153
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 3 of 1 7
I SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Background (cont.)
participate filters in residential wells to prevent
further exposure of the public to PCBs. [7]
Long-term remedial measures were subse-
quently specified in a 1985 Record of Deci-
sion (ROD). Remedial measures were con-
ducted from 1986 until 1991.
Several activities took place relative to the
implementation of the ROD requirement of
chemical treatment for contaminated soil at
Wide Beach.
From May 1986 to February 1989, Ebasco
Services, Inc., and Galson Research Corpora-
tion conducted bench- and pilot-scale
treatability studies to determine the suitability
of potassium polyethylene glycol (KPEG)
dechlorination as a chemical treatment
process. These studies were completed using
a batch process, including blending of con-
taminated soil with KPEG for at least 12 hours,
centrifugation of the mixture to recover the
dechlorination reagents, and then washing of
the soil. [8]
In December 1988, EPA and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) signed an
interagency agreement for the procurement of
a remedial action (RA) contractor and man-
agement and administration of the RA con-
tract by the USACE. The RA contract devel-
oped by the USACE specified that all exca-
vated soils must be treated using a chemical
treatment process. Additionally, the contract
specified that the concentration of PCBs in
soil treated with this process should not be
greater than 2 mg/kg and specified that all
work be performed in conformance with
applicable Federal, State, and local require-
ments. [8]
In October 1989, Kimmins Thermal Corpora-
tion (Kimmins) was awarded the RA contract
for the Wide Beach site. Kimmins subse-
quently submitted a Value Engineering Change
Proposal in February 1990 suggesting the use
of a continuous process consisting of treat-
ment of soil using SoilTech's Anaerobic Ther-
mal Process (ATP) combined with EPA's APEG
dechlorination process, instead of the batch
KPEG process, for remediating soil at the Wide
Beach site. The ATP/APEG process was
preferred by Kimmins because the APEG
process could be accelerated by the combina-
tion of vigorous mixing and higher tempera-
tures in the ATP unit. This process was sub-
jected to a demonstration test in September
1990 and stack gas testing on October 4 and
5, 1990. Based on the results of these tests
the ATP/APEG process was found to be
acceptable to EPA and the USACE. The soil
remediation at the Wide Beach site using the
ATP/APEG process was conducted from
October 1990 to September 1991. [8]
Regulatory Context: The September 1985
ROD identified the following long-term
remedial measures for the site [7]:
• Excavation and chemical treatment of
contaminated soil from roadways,
drainage ditches, driveways, yards,
and wetlands containing PCB concen-
trations greater than 10 mg/kg;
• Sampling for PCBs in soils from
residential yards, sewage in a lift
station near the site, and sediments in
disconnected septic systems to
accurately define the extent of PCB
contamination;
• Pilot-scale testing to determine an
effective treatment scheme for
chemically treating the PCB-contami-
nated soils;
• Backfilling the treated soil into the
excavated areas;
• Treatment of water from the sewer
trench;
• Construction of a hydraulic barrier at
the end of the sewer trench;
• Disposal of contaminated asphaltic
material and reuse of uncontaminated
asphaltic material for repaving road-
ways and driveways; and
• Repaving roadways and driveways.
U S.ENV1RONMENTALPROTECT1ON AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
154
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 4 of 1 7
• SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)
Site Logistics/Contacts
Site Management: Fund - Lead (remedial
design activities)
USAGE - Lead (Contract Administration)
Oversight: EPA
Remedial Project Manager:
Herb King
USEPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1129
U.S. Army Point of Contact:
Joe Salvatore (primary contact for this applica-
tion)
USAGE
c/o 914 TAG, Building 322
Niagara Falls International Airport
Niagara Falls, NY 14304
(716) 297-8531
Treatment Vendor:
Joseph Hutton
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.
800 Canonic Drive
Porter, IN 46304
(219)926-8651
MATRIX DESCRIPTION
Matrix identification
Type of Matrix Processed Through the
Treatment System: Soil (ex situ)
Matrix Characteristics Affecting
Treatment Cost or Performance [9]
The major matrix characteristics affecting cost or
performance for this technology and their mea-
sured values are presented in Table 1.
Table I. Matrix Characteristics[9,28]
Parameter
Soil Classification
Bulk Density*
Clay Content
Silt Content
Moisture Content
pH«
Particle Size Distribution'
(cumulative % by weight finer)
4.75 mm
2.0 mm
0.425 mm
0.075 mm
0.005 mm
Lower Explosive Limit
Oil and Grease or Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Value
Silt/Loam
2.10 g/cm
12.8%
30.3%
18.3%
7.7
85.9
76.2
68.0
48.6
18.8
Not Available
Not Available
Measurement Procedure*
Not Reported
Not Reported
ASTMD-42 1/422
ASTM D-421/422
ASTM D-21 1 6
Not Reported
Not Reported
_
—
"These values are the average results for three composite samples of the contaminated feed collected during the three
test runs of the SITE Demonstration conducted in May 1991. These values are from the SITE Demonstration only, during
which 104 of the 42,000 tons of contaminated soil from \Mde Beach were tested.
Contaminant Characterization
Primary contaminant groups: PCBs
The concentration of PCBs measured in the
soils stockpiled for treatment ranged from
approximately 10 to 5,000 mg/kg. PCS
concentrations measured in the material fed to
the ATP unit ranged from 11 to 68 mg/kg. PCBs
were measured in the untreated (stockpiled) soil
using EPA Method 8080. [16, 19]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
155
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 5 of 1 7
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Primary Treatment Technology Type
Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation
Supplemental Treatment Technology Types [9]
Post-treatment (air): The ATP system used
at Wide Beach included two off-gas treatment
systems.
The flue gas treatment system, designed to
treat gases from the combustion zone of the
ATP unit, included the following technologies:
• Cyclone;
• Baghouse;
• Acid gas scrubber; and
• Carbon adsorption.
The vapor recovery system, designed to treat
gases from the preheat and retort zones of
the ATP unit, consisted of the following
technologies:
Cyclone;
Scrubber;
Fractionator;
Condenser; and
Gas-oil-water separator.
Post-treatment (water): The condensed
water from the vapor recovery system was
treated in an on-site wastewater treatment
system utilizing sand filtration, clay and
anthracite coal filtration, primary oxidation,
gravity settling, secondary oxidation, air
stripping, and carbon adsorption.
Add i Ctrtwn
G« U MwpUM
IiuMSokSlodvHi
Mr Fan
Figure 2. ATP Schematic [9]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
156
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 6 of 1 7
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Supplemental Treatment Technology Types [9] (cont.)
FLUE GAS
DISCHARGE
COOUNG ZONE
I COMBUSTION ZONE
• FLUE~GAS~ "*~ ~~- \
-SAND SEAL
AND HYDROCARBON
VAPORS FLOW v J
PREHEAT ZONE YA RETORT ZONE
\A
XSWD SEAi^^ y*
NT/I
/
' \
\
1
FEED
HYDROCARBON
•«- AND STEAM
VAPORS FLOW
SOLIDS
KILN END SEALS (TYP.)
Figure 3. Simplified Sectional Diagram Showing the Four Internal Zones [9]
ATP/APEG Process Description and Operation [7,9,27,28]
The SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor
mobile treatment system shown in Figure 2
consisted of six main process units including a
soil pretreatment system, a feed system, an
anaerobic thermal processor, a vapor recovery
system, a flue gas treatment system, and a
tailings handling system. In addition, the
system used at Wide Beach included a re-
agent preparation module.
APEG reagent and carrier oil solution was
sprayed onto the contaminated soil as it
entered the ATP unit. APEG reagent was
prepared in a module consisting of a reagent
storage area, reagent mixing tank, reagent and
carrier oil blending tank, and feed pumps.
Reagents were mixed and heated in the
reagent mixing tank. The reagent solution was
then blended with carrier oil in the reagent
and carrier oil blending tank.
The feed system consisted of two feed
hoppers and a conveyor belt. One feed
hopper contained the contaminated soil and
the other contained clean sand. The sand
served as a heat carrier and was fed to the
ATP unit during system startup and shutdown
periods.
The ATP unit is a rotary kiln containing four
separate internal zones - the preheat, retort,
combustion, and cooling zones (shown in
Figure 3). The feed entered the preheat zone
where it was heated and mixed, vaporizing
water, volatile organics, and some semivolatile
organics. The heated solids then entered the
retort zone where they were further heated,
causing vaporization of heavy oils and some
thermal cracking of hydrocarbons, resulting in
the formation of coked solids and decontami-
nated solids. The coked and decontaminated
solids from the retort zone then entered the
combustion zone where coked solids were
combusted. A portion of the decontaminated
solids were recycled to the retort zone via a
recycle channel. The recycling of these solids
helped to maintain an elevated temperature in
the retort zone. The decontaminated solids
remaining in the combustion zone entered the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
157
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 7 of 1 7
I TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
ATP/APEG Process Description and Operation [7,9,27,28] (cont.)
cooling zone where they were cooled to an
appropriate exit temperature.
The primary innovative features of the ATP
unit are the four internal zones and the use of
proprietary sand seals at each end of the
retort zone which are designed to maintain an
oxygen-free environment in the retort zone,
and to prevent the oxidation of hydrocarbons
and coke.
The vapor recovery system consisted of two
parallel systems. One system condensed
water and vapors from the preheat zone of
the ATP unit. This system consisted of a
cyclone, a condenser, and a gas-oil-water
separator. The other system condensed water
and vapors from the retort zone and consisted
of two cyclones, a fines conveyor, a scrubber,
a fractionator, a condenser, and a gas-oil-
water separator.
At Wide Beach, condensed water from the
vapor recovery system was treated in an on-
site wastewater pretreatment system which
consisted of the following treatment pro-
cesses: sand filtration; clay and anthracite
coal filtration; primary oxidation using sodium
hypochlorite; settling; secondary oxidation
with sodium hypochlorite; air stripping; and
carbon adsorption. The wastewater dis-
charged from this system was further treated
in an off-site commercial treatment system.
The waste oil from the vapor recovery system
containing PCBs was dechlorinated using
APEG and then recycled as carrier oil in the
vapor recovery system. At the end of the
project, waste oil remaining in the vapor
recovery system was disposed off site.
The flue gas treatment system consisted of a
cyclone, fines conveyor, baghouse, dust
conveyor, acid gas scrubber and activated
carbon unit. This system removed particulates
and trace hydrocarbons from the flue gas
exiting the combustion zone of the ATP fines
from the baghouse and cyclone were mixed
with the treated solids exiting the ATP unit.
The treated flue gas was released to the
atmosphere.
The tailings (treated solids) handling system
was used to cool and remove treated solids
from the ATP. The treated solids exiting the
ATP were quenched with process and scrub-
ber water and transported to storage piles
using belt and screw conveyors.
The ROD specified that the treated solids
were to be used to backfill the excavated
areas of the site; however, the treated solids
exhibited less cohesiveness than the exca-
vated soil and were not suitable for backfilling.
The loss of cohesion was possibly due to the
high silt and clay content and the presence of
expansive interlayered illite/smectite clay.
At Wide Beach, the ATP unit was operated
continuously (24 hours a day and 7 days a
week) excluding system down time to repair
the mechanical problems discussed below
(approximately two months) and to perform
routine maintenance (approximately three
days per month).
During the treatment application at Wide
Beach, the unit was shut down for approxi-
mately two months because the inner kiln of
the ATP unit cracked due to heat and me-
chanical stresses during operation. During that
time, the geometry and metallurgy of the
inner kiln was modified, the burner system
was redesigned to reduce heat stresses, and a
second drive system was installed to reduce
the mechanical stresses on the existing drive
system. After making these modifications, the
inner kiln did not crack again during the
remainder of the treatment application at
Wide Beach.
During treatment, problems were encountered
with steel debris interfering with the retort
zone sand seal in the ATP unit. Also, conglom-
erated soil was clogging the feed hopper. A
soil pretreatment system was added to shred
large pieces of conglomerated soil and
remove steel debris. The pretreatment system
consisted of an asphalt grinder for crushing
soil conglomerates to feed particle sizes of
less than 2 inches and a magnet for removing
steel debris from stockpiled, contaminated
soil.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
158
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 8 of 1 7
TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
ATP/APEG Process Description and Operation [7,9,27,28] (cont.)
Prior to the demonstration test conducted in
September 1990, SoilTech discovered that a
number of the filter bags in the baghouse were
torn due to excessive wear from previous
operations. During the test, SoilTech tied off
the damaged bags. SoilTech indicated that the
baghouse had adequate capacity to operate
with the damaged bags off-line. After discov-
ering that the particulate emissions had
exceeded the NYDEC air permit level during
the demonstration test, SoilTech determined
that several damaged bags had not been tied
off. SoilTech subsequently replaced all of the
filter bags in the baghouse prior to stack gas
testing requested by the USACE and con-
ducted the tests on October 4 and 5, 1990.
The average particulate emissions measured
during the October 1990 stack gas tests (0.03
gr/dscf, based on three stack gas tests) were
less than one-tenth the average particulate
emissions measured during the September
1990 stack gas tests (0.32 gr/dscf, based on
two stack gas tests).
Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance
The major operating parameters affecting
treatment cost or performance for this
technology and their values measured during
this treatment application are presented in
Table 2.
Table 2. Operating Parameters* [9,25]
Parameters
Value
Measurement Method
Operating Pressure
Preheat and Rtort Zone Residence
Time
Retort Zone Temperature
Combustion Zone Temperature
Cooling Zone Temperature
System Throughput
Negative Pressure
30 - 40 minutes
1.160F
1,293 F
434 F
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Thermocouples in the Retort
Zone
Thermocouples in the
Combustion Zone
Thermocouples in the Cooling
Zone
Not Avaialble
"The values presented in Table 2 are the average results for the three test runs of the SITE Demonstration. According to
the USACE, these values were held fairly constant during the entire course of the soil remediation at Wide Beach. [9,25]
Other parameters measured during the SITE
Demonstration were the stack gas flow rate
(5,275 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm))
and the preheat and retort zone off-gas flow
rates (203 and 109 actual cubic feet per
minute (acfm), respectively). [9]
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
159
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 9 of 1 7
• TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)
Timeline
The timeline for this application is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Timeline
Start Date
September 30, 1985
May 1986
September 7, 1990
October 4, 1990
October 1990
December 1990
May 1991
End Date
—
February 1989
September 8, 1 990
October 5, 1990
September 1991
January 1991
—
Activity
ROD signed
Treatabllity Studies of KPEG conducted
Demonstration test of the ATP/APEG process performed
Stack gas tested for particulate emissions.
Full-scale operation of the ATP/APEG process
System shut down - the inner kiln of the ATP unit cracked due to thermal
and mechanical stresses. The geometry and metallurgy of the inner kiln
was imporved to allow use of combustion zone temperature up to 1 ,500 F.
SITE Demonstration conducted
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Cleanup Goals Standards
The Remedial Action (RA) contract developed
by USAGE specified a maximum concentration
of 2 mg/kg for PCBs in treated soil and that all
remediation work be performed in conform-
ance with applicable Federal, State and local
requirements. [17]
Applicable Federal, State, and local require-
ments include air emission requirements for
stack gases. The New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) speci-
fied the following stack emission requirements
for the ATP unit used at Wide Beach [4]:
• PCBs: 3.33 x 1O5 pounds per hours
(Ib/hr);
• Polyethylene glycol (PEG): 4.16 x 105 Ib/
hr; and
• Particulates: 0.05 gr/dscf.
The ROD specified that contaminated soils from
roadways, drainage ditches, driveways, yards, and
wetlands containing more than 10 mg/kg of PCBs
were to be excavated and chemically treated.
The RA contract required a PCB cleanup level of 2
mg/kg be verified by collecting one sample from
the treated soil staging area for every 100 tons of
soil treated. These samples were collected by
inserting a stainless steel tube into the staging
pile. [17, 19]
Treatment Performance Data
Table 4 summarizes the analytical results for
PCBs (measured in an on-site laboratory using
EPA Method 8080) in untreated and treated
soil during the treatment application at Wide
Beach. [19,24]
Results for stack gas emissions of PCBs, PEG,
and particulates are presented in Appendix A.
Although no treatment standard or action level
was set for dioxins/furans in stack gas emis-
sions, these constituents were measured in
the SITE Demonstration. [28] Table 5 shows
dioxin and furan stack gas emissions mea-
sured during the SITE Demonstration. [9]
u s ENV,RONMENTALpROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
160
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 10 of 1 7
I TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)
Treatment Performance Data (Cont.)
Table 4. PCB Results [19, 24]
Range of PCB
Concentrations Number of Number of Number of Detects
(ing/kg) Data Points Detects Greater than 2 mg/kg
Untreated soil
Treated soi!
11-68 42 41
ND{0,4)~21 520 196
41
0
ND = Not detected. Number in parenthesis is the reported detection limit.
Table 5. Dioxin and Furan Stack Gas Emissions [9]
Compound
Stack Gas (ng/dscm)
Tetrachlorlnated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD)
Tetrachlortnated dlbenzofiirans (TCDF)
Pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PeCDD)
Pentachlortnated dlbenzofurans (PeCDF)
Hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HxCDD)
Hexachlorlnated dlbenzofurans (HxCDF)
Heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HpCDD)
Heptachlorinated dlbenzofurans (HpCDF)
Octacnlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (OCDD)
Octachlorlnated dlbenzofurans (OCDF)
TOTAL
0.14
4.8
0.96
0.72
0.17
0.077
0.25
0.032
2.34
0.032
9.52*
'Total stack gas concentration of 9.52 ng/dscm is equivalent to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration ofO. 707 ng/dscm.
Performance Data Assessment
The concentrations of PCBs in treated soil
samples ranged from less than the reported
detection limit (generally equal to 0.4 to 0.5
mg/kg) to 1.8 mg/kg. The concentrations of
PCBs in treated soil samples were generally
less than or equal to the detection limit of 0.4
to 0.5 mg/kg.
The level of dechlorination in the ATP unit was
measured during the demonstration test
conducted in September 1990 (see
Appendix A), and the SITE Demonstration
conducted in May 1991. The level of
dechlorination was determined by comparing
the quantity of PCBs entering the ATP system
to the quantity of PCBs discharged from the
ATP system via all effluent streams - the
treated solids, stack gas, condensed water,
and vapor scrubber oils, and assuming that the
difference in mass of PCBs is attributed to
dechlorination. During the demonstration test,
4.3 pounds of PCBs entered the system and
1.05 pounds of PCBs were discharged,
corresponding to a 76 percent dechlorination
level (i.e., 76 percent of the mass of PCBs
entering the system were dechlorinated).
However, this figure does not account for
dechlorination from the recycle of residual oil
through the system. During the SITE
Demonstration, 0.321 Ib/hr of PCBs were fed
to the ATP system and 0.00678 Ib/hr of PCBs
were discharged from the ATP system,
corresponding to a 98 percent dechlorination
level. [4, 9]
During the Demonstration Test, stack gas
emission requirements were met for PCBs,
PEG, and particulates.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
8 Technology Innovation Office
161
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page II of 1 7
(TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)I
Performance Data Completeness
The performance data are suitable for char-
acterizing the concentrations of PCBs in
untreated and treated soil, and for comparing
treatment performance with system design
Performance Data Quality
and operation. The demonstration test and
the SITE Demonstration test include paired,
representative untreated and treated soil
samples.
Approximately 10% of the treated soil
samples collected during the treatment
application at Wide Beach were split for
analysis in both the on-site laboratory and the
USAGE'S New England Division laboratory. The
on-site laboratory results generally compared
well with the USAGE results. In some in-
stances the on-site laboratory results below 1
mg/kg PCBs showed a negative bias when
compared to the USAGE laboratory results;
however, none of the data were rejected by
the USAGE. [20-23]
REATMENT SYSTEM COST
Procurement Process
EPA and the USAGE signed an interagency
agreement for the procurement of an RA
contractor. The interagency agreement speci-
fied that the USAGE would be responsible for
management and administration of the RA
contract. The USAGE retained Kimmins
Treatment Cost
Thermal Corporation to manage the remedial
construction and treatment activities at the
site. Kimmins subcontracted SoilTech, Inc., to
treat the excavated contaminated soil at Wide
Beach using the ATP/APEG dechlorination
process. [8]
Tables 6, 7, and 8 present the costs for the
Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation applica-
tion at the Wide Beach Development
Superfund Site. In order to standardize
reporting of costs across projects, costs are
shown in Tables 6,7, and 8 according to the
format for an interagency Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS). The WBS specifies 9 before-
treatment cost elements, 5 after-treatment
cost elements, and 12 cost elements that
provide a detailed breakdown of costs directly
associated with treatment. Tables 6,7, and 8
present the cost elements exactly as they
appear in the WBS, along with the specific
activities, and unit cost and number of units of
the activity, as provided by EPA in the draft
Applications Analysis Report.
In preparing the Applications Analysis Report,
EPA obtained actual cost data from Soil Tech
for treating 42,000 tons of soil at Wide Beach
[9]. As shown in Table 6, the cost data show a
total of $11,600,00 for cost elements directly
associated with treatment of the soil (i.e.,
excluding before- and after-treatment cost
elements). This total treatment cost corre-
sponds to $280 per ton of soil treated. In
addition, Tables 7 and 8 show that a total of
$908,000 for before-treatment and
$3,400,000 for after-treatment costs were
incurred. There were no costs in this applica-
tion for the following elements in the WBS:
Liquid Preparation and Handling, Vapor/Gas
Preparation and Handling, Pads/Foundations/
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
162
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 12 of 17
(TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Treatment Cost (Cont.)
Spill Control, Training, Operation (Long-term - and Containment, Drums/Tanks/Structures/
over 3 years), Site Work, Surface Water
Collection and Control, Groundwater Collec-
tion and Control, Air Pollution/Gas Collection
and Control, Solids Collection and Contain-
ment, Liquids/Sediments/Sludges Collection
Miscellaneous Demolition and Removal,
Decontamination and Decommissioning,
Disposal (Other than Commercial), Site
Restoration, and Demobilization.
Table 6. Costs Directly Associated with Treatment [9]'*
Cost Element*
Co§t (dollar*)
Solids Preparation and Handling
—residuals and waste handling and transporting
Startup/Testing/Permits
—permitting and regulatory
—startup
Operation (short-term - up to 3 years)
—labor
—supplies and consumables
—utilities
—equipment repair and replacement
Cost of Ownership
—capital equipment
Demobilization
TOTAL TREATMENT COST
736,000
200,000
133,000
3,800,000
1,194,000
913,000
1982,000
2,153,000
481,000
11,600,000
Calculated Cost per Ton of Soil Treated: $280 per ton
*Additional information on estimated costs is available in Reference 26.
Table?. Before-Treatment Cost Elements
Cost Elements
Mobilization and Preparatory Work
— transport of ATP unit to site
— initial setup
— installing infrastructure for utilities
— setup of decontamination facilities
Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and
Analysis
Cost (dollars)
588,000
320,000
Table 8. After -Treatment Cost Elements [9]
Cost Elements
Cost (dollars)
Disposal (commercial)
3,400,000 «
* Calculated from a disposal cost of $80/ton x 42, OOO tons of soil treated.
U.S.ENVIRONMENTALPROTECT1ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
163
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 1 3 of 1 7
I TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)
Cost Data Quality
Treatment cost information shown in Table 6
represents actual costs of the treatment
application and was obtained from the
Vendor Input [27,28]
treatment vendor. No qualifications to the cost
information were provided by the vendor. [9]
According to the treatment vendor, in general,
the costs for treatment using the SoilTech ATP
system vary depending on the character of the
waste material, with treatment costs ranging
from $150 to $250 per ton for a 10-ton per
hour ATP system. The factors identified by the
vendor that affect costs include:
• Moisture content of feed material;
• Particle size;
• Hydrocarbon content;
• Material handling characteristics; and
• Chemical characteristics.
Vendor estimates for mobilization and demo-
bilization costs for a 10-ton per hour system
range from $700,000 to $1.5 million. In the
three Superfund projects completed by the
SoilTech ATP System since the Wide Beach
project, no off-site disposal of treated solids
has been required. In addition, treatment
costs have been reduced by as much as 1 7%
as a result of improved process efficiency.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED!
Cost Observations and Lessons Learned
The cost for treatment of 42,000 tons
of soil at Wide Beach was
$ 11,600,000, or approximately $280/
ton. This value includes treatment
chemical costs, but does not include
costs for a concrete pad for the ATP
unit. Off-site disposal of treated soil
from Wide Beach was $80/ton.
Performance Observations and Lessons Learned
• The SoilTech ATP System achieved the
2 mg/kg cleanup level for PCBs in soil.
The concentrations of PCBs in treated
soil were generally at or below the
reported detection limit (0.5 mg/kg).
These results were consistent with
those shown in the demonstration
test.
• Treatment of 42,000 tons of soil was
completed in a one year period.
Other Observations and Lessons Learned
During the demonstration test, stack
gas emission requirements were met
for PCBs, PEG, and particulates.
The SITE Demonstration results
indicated that about 98 percent of the
PCBs were dechlorinated. This value is
greater than the level of dechlorina-
tion calculated from the demonstra-
tion test results (76 percent, see
Appendix A).
The system was shut down for about
two months when the inner kiln of the
ATP unit cracked due to mechanical
and heat stresses during operation.
The geometry and metallurgy of the
inner kiln, and the burner and drive
systems for the ATP unit were modi-
fied so that the unit could withstand
temperatures of up to 1,500° C in the
combustion zone.
A soil pretreatment system was added
to the treatment system after the
system was shut down to remove
steel debris which interfered with the
retort zone sand seal and conglomer-
ated soil lodged in the feed hopper.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC71ONAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
164
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 14 of 1 7
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)
Other Observations and Lessons Learned (Cont.)
The fiberglass woven bags used in the
flue gas treatment system baghouse
abraded when the bags were cleaned
with an air pulse system. SoilTech later
replaced the fiberglass woven bags
with stronger felted glass bags which
are more durable at higher tempera-
tures. The modified bags did not
abrade when the ATP system was later
used to treat soil and sediment at the
Outboard Marine Corporation
Superfund Site.
The treated solids could not be
backfilled at the site because they
were not as cohesive as the excavated
soil. The vendor indicated that the
loss of cohesion in the solids after
treatment was possibly due to the
high silt and clay content and the
presence of expansive illite/smectite
clay. While off-site disposal of treated
soils was necessary for this applica-
tion, no off-site disposal has been
necessary in the three Superfund
projects conducted since Wide Beach
which used the SoilTech ATP system.
The SITE Demonstration and a
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation study
indicated that the thermal and chemi-
cal treatment of soils at Wide Beach
may have adversely affected the
ability of the treated soils to support
vegetation for the following reasons:
the average concentration of
nitrogen was reduced from 733 in
the untreated soil to 40 mg/kg in
the treated solids during the SITE
Demonstration;
the treated solids contained an
elevated concentration of soluble
salts due to the addition of the
APEG reagents; and
the pH of the treated soil required
adjustment.
Additional information provided by the
RPM and Contracting Officer concern-
ing the procurement and contracting
processes at the Wide Beach Devel-
opment site (and other sites) is
provided in Reference 30. Reference
30 is available from the U.S. EPA
National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI),
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH
45242; (fax orders only) (513) 489-
8695.
REFERENCES
1. Appendix D: Pilot Study Testing Report:
KPEG Processing of Soils, Galson Reme-
diation Corp; Final Design Report, Reme-
dial Design, Ebasco Services, February
1989.
2. Lab Scale Testing Report, KPEG Processing
of Wide Beach Development Site Soil,
Galson Remediation Corp., September 30,
1988.
3. NATO/CCMS Proceedings, Wide Beach
Development Site, 2nd International
Workshop, April 1988.
4. Demonstration Test, Demonstration of the
AOSTRA-Taciuk Process System for
Dechlorination of PCB Contaminants on
Soil Using Alkaline/Polyethylene Glycol,
SoilTech, (undated).
5. Cleary, J.G. "Development of Remedial
Design for KPEG Chemical Treatment of
PCB Contaminated Soil at Wide Beach,
New York, Superfund Site", Contaminated
Soil Treatment, (undated).
6. Peterson, R.L. "APEG-Plus Dechlorination
of Dioxins, PCBs, and Pentachlorophenol
in Soils and Sludges", Galson Remediation
Corporation Company Literature, (un-
dated).
U.S. ENV1RONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
165
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 15 of 1 7
REFERENCES (CONT.)
7. Superfund Record of Decision, Wide
Beach, New York, September 1985.
8. Generaux, I.D. "Wide Beach Development
Site - Case Study", U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Kansas City District, (undated).
9. U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineers Labora-
tory. Draft Applications Analysis Report for
the SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor
at the Wide Beach Development and
Waukegan Harbor Superfund Sites..
Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1993.
10. "Turning "Dirty" Soil into "Clean" Mush",
Soils, September- October 1991.
11. SoilTech, Inc. The Tacluk Process Technol-
ogy: Thermal Remediation of Solids and
Sludges, (undated).
12. Vorum, M., and Montgomery, A. The
Taciuk Technology for Anaerobic Pyrolysis
of Solid Wastes and Sludges: Applications
in Remediation. Canonic Environmental,
Englewood, Colorado, (undated).
13. Superfund Preliminary Site Close Out
Report, Wide Beach Development Site,
EPA Region II, New York, New York,
September 30, 1992.
14. "Wide Beach Cleanup Two-Thirds Com-
plete: Soil Contains <70 PPB SoilTech
Reports." HazTech News. May 30, 1991.
page 83.
15. "Remedial Action Master Plan" NUS
Corporation, November 1983 (design
specifications).
16. Vorum, M. "Dechlorination of Polychlori-
nated Biphenyls Using the SoilTech
Anaerobic Thermal Process Unit."
SoilTech, Inc. May 14, 1991.
1 7. Remedial Action Contract, USAGE. De-
cember 1988.
18. Remedial Investigation report, 1985.
Analysis Preparation
19. Site Specific Quality Control Management
Plan (SSQMP) for the Wide Beach Devel-
opment Superfund Site. Kimmins Thermal
Corporation. September 13, 1990.
20. USAGE, New England Division. Compari-
son of Contractor vs. QA Laboratory Data.
November 6, 1990.
21. USAGE, New England Division. Compari-
son of Contractor vs. QA Laboratory Data.
January 16, 1991.
22. USAGE, New England Division. Compari-
son of Contractor vs. QA Laboratory Data.
May 13, 1991.
23. USAGE, New England Division. Compari-
son of Contractor vs. QA Laboratory Data.
June 30, 1992.
24. Wide Beach Sample Log. SoilTech, Inc.
(undated).
25. Meeting with Joe Salvatore, USAGE. April
19, 1994.
26. Remedial Work, Wide Beach Site, Town of
Brant, Erie County, New York. Proposal
Schedule.
27. Hutton, J.H. and Shanks, R. "Thermal
Desorption of PCB-Contaminated Waste
at the Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site."
USEPA Fourth Forum on Innovative Haz-
ardous Waste Treatment Technologies:
Domestic and International.
San Francisco, California. November 16-
19, 1992.
28. Comments on Draft Report from SoilTech,
Received January 18, 1995.
29. Comments on Draft Report from Herb
King, RPM. Received January 10, 1995.
30. Procuring Innovative Treatment Technolo-
gies at Remedial Sites: Regional Experi-
ences and Process Improvements; U.S.
EPA, Publication EPA 542/R-92/002, April
1992.
This case study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office. Assistance was provided by
Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-W3-0001.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
166
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 16 of 1 7
APPENDIX A—DEMONSTRATION TEST
Demonstration Test Purpose
The purpose of this test was to:
• Demonstrate that SoilTech's Anaerobic
Thermal Processor (ATP) system
combined with dechlorination chemis-
try could achieve treatment of poly-
chlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contami-
nated soil from the Wide Beach site to
a cleanup level of less than 2 mg/kg
PCBs.
• Demonstrate that the New York
Department of Environmental Conser-
vation (NYDEC) air emission standards
could be achieved by the ATP system.
Demonstration Test Description
Demonstrate that the concentrations of
metals, herbicides, semivolatile organics,
pesticides, and volatile organics measured
in the Toxicity Characteristic Leachate
Procedure (TCLP) extracts from the
treated solids are less than the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) limits.
Demonstrate that dechlorination of PCBs
is occurring during the treatment process.
Demonstrate that an average feed rate of
8 tons per hour is attainable by the ATP
system.
The treatment system used for the full-scale
remediation of soil at the Wide Beach site was
used for the demonstration test, as described
in the ATP/APEG Process Description and
Operation section of this report.
The demonstration scale test was conducted
on September 7 and 8, 1990 and consisted of
two phases. The first phase included process-
ing of approximately 62 tons of contaminated
soil through the treatment system and oc-
curred during the first ten hours of the test.
The second phase included the processing of
clean sand feed while recycling recovered oils
containing PCBs with the dechlorination
reagents. The second phase occurred during
the last 11 hours of the demonstration. The
purpose of the second phase was to collect
data which showed that dechlorination was
occurring during the treatment process by
isolating the dechlorination of PCBs contained
in the recycled water and oil.
Demonstration Test Performance Data [4]
As shown in Tables A-l and A-2, the demon-
stration scale test results indicated that the
site cleanup goal for PCBs in soil (less than 2
mg/kg) and stack gas emissions requirements
were achieved using the ATP dechlorination
treatment system.
Analyses of the TCLP extracts from the treated
solids indicated that metals, herbicides,
semivolatile organics, pesticides, and volatile
organics were not present in the extracts
above the TC limits. Additionally, total petro-
leum hydrocarbons were not detected in the
Table A-l. Removal of PCBs from Contaminated Soil [4]
Concentration of PCBs In the
Contaminated Feed Composite
Sample {mg/kg)
Concentration of PCBs In the Cleanup Goal Percent
Treated Solids Composite Sample for PCBs In Soil Removal
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (%)
25
<0.06
<2.0
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
167
-------
Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 17 of 17
APPENDIX A—DEMONSTRATION TEST (CONT.)
Demonstration Test Performance Data [4] (Cont.)
Table A-2. Stack Gas Emissions [4]
Constituent
PCB (Ib/hr)
PEG (Ib/hr)
Participates (gr/dscf)
Requirement
3.33 x 10"5
4.1 6 X ICT5
0.05
Maximum Emission Levels
1.0x1 0"5
4.0 x Iff5
0.04
treated solids (detection limit equal to 4.6
mg/Kg).
The occurrence of dechlorination was quanti-
fied by analyzing PCB material balance data
for the demonstration test. During the first
phase of the demonstration, approximately
4.3 pounds of PCBs were fed into the treat-
ment system, 0.0151 pounds were dis-
charged in the treated soils and stack emis-
sions, and 1.03 pounds accumulated in the
system (in process oil and water). The per-
centage of PCBs introduced into the treatment
system that were dechlorinated is calculated
by the following equation:
Percentage
of PCBs =
dechlorinated
PCBs
Introduced |_
(pounds)
FpCBs discharged , PCBs accumulated "1
|_ (pounds) In the system J
XI00
PCBs introduced (pounds)
Demonstration Test Lessons Learned
These results indicate that approximately 76
percent of the PCBs introduced into the
system were dechlorinated during the first
phase of the demonstration test.
During the first phase of the demonstration
test, recovered oils were commingled with oils
produced during the pretest run and reagent
fuel. This increased the volume of oil to be
recycled during the second phase. As a result,
only 20% of the recovered oils could be
recycled during the test. Consequently, the
second phase of the demonstration test could
not provide conclusive evidence of dechlori-
nation of the recycled oils.
During the first phase of the demonstration
test, 61.66 tons of contaminated soil were
treated in the ATP system in 7.62 hours. This
corresponds to an average feed rate of 8.1
tons per hour (tph). The maximum feed rate
during the first phase of the demonstration
test was 8.92 tph for approximately 1.5 hours.
The SoilTech ATP/dechlorination
system achieved the site cleanup goal
for PCBs in soil (less than 2 mg/Kg)
during the demonstration test. PCBs
were reduced from 25 mg/kg to less
than the 0.06 mg/kg reported detec-
tion limit.
Metals, herbicides, semivolatile
organics, pesticides and volatile
organics in the TCLP extracts for the
treated solids were measured at
concentrations which were less than
the TC limits.
PCB material balance data indicated
that approximately 76 percent of the
PCBs introduced into the treatment
system were dechlorinated in the first
phase of the demonstration test. This
figure underestimates the ability of the
system to dechlorinate PCBs because
it does not take into account the
recycling of residual oil through the
system.
The ATP system maintained an
average operating rate of 8.1 tph
during the first phase of the demon-
stration test.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTKDNAGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
•U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995-386-541/22007
168
------- |