&EPA
Innovative Site
Remediation
Technology
Thermal Destruction
Volume 7
-------
INNOVATIVE SITE
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
One of an Eight- Volume Series
Edited by
William C. Anderson, P.E., DEE
Executive Director, American Academy of Environmental Engineers
1994
Prepared by WASTECH®, a multiorganization cooperative project managed
by the American Academy of Environmental Engineers® with grant assistance
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of
Defense, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
The following organizations participated in the preparation and review of
this volume:
faf Air & Waste Management ^v* American Society of
~^se- Association i"ffis Mechanical Engineers
P.O. Box 2861 345 East 47th Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15230 New York, NY 10017
American Academy of r W/Mj Hazardous Waste Action
Environmental Engineers® JEST Coalition
130 Holiday Court, Suite 100 1015 15th Street, N.W., Suite 802
Annapolis, MD 21401 Washington, D.C. 20005
Water Environment
Federation
601 Wythe Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Published under license from the American Academy of Environmental
Engineers®. © Copyright 1994 by the American Academy of Environmental
Engineers®.
-------
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Innovative site remediation technology/ edited by William C. Anderson
128p. 15.24 x 22.86cm.
Includes bibliographic references.
Contents: — [2] Chemical treatment -- [3] Soil washing/soil flushing
— [4] Stabilization/solidification -- ,"6] Thermal desorption — [7] Thermal destruction
1. Soil remediation. I. Anderson, William, C., 1943-
II. American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
TD878.I55 1994 628.5'5 93-20786
ISBN 1-883767-02-4 (v. 2) ISBN 1-883767-06-7 (v. 6)
ISBN 1-883767-03-2 (v. 3) ISBN 1-883767-07-5 (v. 7)
ISBN 1-883767-04-0 (v. 4)
Copyright 1994 by American Academy of Environmental Engineers. All Rights Reserved.
Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States
Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any
form or means, or stored in a database 01 retrieval system, without the prior written
permission of the American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
The material presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with
generally recognized engineering principles and practices and is for general
information only. This information should not be used without first securing
competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific applica-
tion.
The contents of this publication are not intended to be and should not be
construed as a standard of the American Academy of Environmental Engineers or of
any of the associated organizations rrentioned in this publication and are not
intended for use as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations,
statutes, or any other legal document
No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process,
or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty
thereof by the American Academy of Environmental Engineers or any such
associated organization.
Neither the American Academy o" Environmental Engineers nor any of such
associated organizations or authors makes any representation or warranty of any
kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, suitability, or utility ot
any information published herein and neither the American Academy of Environ-
mental Engineers nor any such associated organization or author shall be responsible
for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information.
Book design by Lori Imhoff
Printed in the United States of America
WASTECH and the American Academy of Environmental Engineers are trademarks of the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers registered with the U S Patent and Trademark Office
-------
CONTRIBUTORS
N
This monograph was prepared under the supervision of the WASTECH®
Steering Committee. The manuscript for the monograph was written by a task
group of experts in thermal destruction and was, in turn, subjected to two peer
reviews. One review was conducted under the auspices of the Steering Committee
and the second by professional and technical organizations having substantial
interest in the subject.
PRINCIPAL AUTHORS
Richard S. Magee, Sc.D., P.E., DEE, Task Group Chair
Executive Director
Hazardous Substance Management Research Center
New Jersey Institute of Technology
James Cudahy, P.E.
President
Focus Environmental, Inc.
Clyde R. Dempsey, P.E.
Chief, Thermal Destruction Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John R. Ehrenfeld, Ph.D.
Senior Research Associate
Center for Technology, Policy, and
Industrial Development
Program Coordinator
Hazardous Substances Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
REVIEWERS
The panel that reviewed the monograph under the auspices of the Project
Steering Committee was composed of:
Francis W. Holm, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist & Principal Deputy
Chemical Demilitarization Center
Science Applications International, Corp.
Dennis Miller, A.M.
Science Advisor
U.S. Department of Energy
Michael Modell, Sc.D.
Modell Development Corp.
William A. Wallace, Chair
CH2M Hill
Ty P. Daniel, P.E.
Chemical Engineer
CH2M Hill
Greg Peterson, P.E.
Director of Technology Transfer
CH2M Hill
Suman Singh, Ph.D.
Group Leader
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Robert G. Wilbourn
Manager of Process Development
International Technology Corporation
David Wilson
Senior Environmental Associate
Dow Chemical Company
-------
STEERING COMMITTEE
Frederick G. Pohland, Ph.D., P.E., DEE
Chair
Weidlein Professor of Environmental
Engineering
University of Pittsburgh
William C. Anderson, P.E., DEE
Project Manager
Executive Director
American Academy of Environmental
Engineers
Paul L. Busch, Ph.D., P.E., DEE
President and CEO
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Representing, American Academy of
Environmental Engineers
Richard A. Conway, P.E., DEE
Senior Corporate Fellow
Union Carbide Corporation
Chair, Environmental Engineering
Committee
EPA Science Advisory Board
Timothy B. Holbrook, P.E.
Engineering Manager
Groundwater Technology, Inc.
Representing, Air & Waste Management
Association
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director, Technology Innovation Offic;
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Joseph F. Lagnese, Jr., P.E., DEE
Private Consultant
Representing, Water Environment
Federation
Peter B. Lederman, Ph.D., P.E., DEE, P.P.
Center for Env. Engineering & Science
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Representing, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers
Raymond C. Loehr, Ph.D., P.E., DEE
H.M. Alharthy Centennial Chair and
Professor
Civil Engineering Department
University of Texas
James A. Marsh
Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Environmental Technology
Timothy Oppelt
Director, Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
George Pierce, Ph.D.
Editor in Chief
Journal of Microbiology
Manager, Bioremediation Technology Dev.
American Cyanamid Company
Representing the Society of Industrial
Microbiology
H. Gerard Schwartz, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., DEE
Senior Vice President
Sverdrup Corporation
Representing, American Society of Civil
Engineers
Claire H. Sink
Acting Director
Division of Technical Innovation
Office of Technical Integration
Environmental Education Development
U.S. Department of Energy
Peter W. Tunnicliffe, P.E., DEE
Senior Vice President
Camp Dresser & McKee, Incorporated
Representing, Hazardous Waste Action
Coaliiion
Charles O. Velzy, P.E., DEE
Private Consultant
Representing, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers
William A. Wallace
Vice President, Hazardous Waste
Management
CH2M Hill
Representing, Hazardous Waste Action
Coalition
Walter J. Weber, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., DEE
Earnest Boyce Distinguished Professor
University of Michigan
IV
-------
REVIEWING ORGANIZATIONS
The following organizations contributed to the monograph's review and
acceptance by the professional community. The review process employed by each
organization is described in its acceptance statement. Individual reviewers are, or
are not, listed according to the instructions of each organization.
Air & Waste Management
Association
The Air & Waste Management
Association is a nonprofit technical and
educational organization with more than
14,000 members in more than fifty
countries. Founded in 1907, the
Association provides a neutral forum
where all viewpoints of an environmen-
tal management issue (technical,
scientific, economic, social, political,
and public health) receive equal
consideration.
This worldwide network represents
many disciplines: physical and social
sciences, health and medicine, engineer-
ing, law, and management. The
Association serves its membership by
promoting environmental responsibility
and providing technical and managerial
leadership in the fields of air and waste
management. Dedication to these
objectives enables the Association to
work towards its goal: a cleaner
environment.
Qualified reviewers were recruited
from the Waste Group of the Technical
Council. It was determined that the
monograph is technically sound and
publication is endorsed.
The reviewer was:
Paul Lear
OHM Remediation Services, Corp.
American Society of
Mechanical Engineers
Founded in 1880, the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) is a nonprofit educational and
technical organization, having at the
date of publication of this document
approximately 116,400 members, in-
cluding 19,200 students. Members
work in industry, government,
academia, and consulting. The Society
has thirty-seven technical divisions,
four institutes, and three interdiscipli-
nary programs which conduct more than
thirty national and international confer-
ences each year.
This document was reviewed by
vrlunteer members of the Monograph
Review Committee of the Solid Waste
Processing Division and the Research
Committee on Industrial and Municipal
Waste, each with technical expertise
and interest in the field covered by the
document. Although, as indicated on
the reverse of the title page of this docu-
ment, neither ASME nor any of its
Divisions or Committees endorses or
recommends, or makes any representa-
tion or warranty with respect to, this
document, those Divisions and Commit-
tees which conducted a review believe,
based upon such review, that this docu-
ment and the findings expressed are
technically sound.
-------
Hazardous Waste Action
Coalition
The Hazardous Waste Action Coali-
tion (HWAC) is an association dedi-
cated to promoting an understanding of
the state of the hazardous waste practice
and related business issues. Our mem-
ber firms are engineering and science
firms that employ nearly 75,000 of this
country's engineers, scientists, geolo-
gists, hydrogeologists, toxicologists,
chemists, biologists, and others who
solve hazardous waste problems as a
professional service. HWAC is pleased
to endorse the monograph as technically
sound.
The lead reviewer was:
James D. Knauss, Ph.D.
Shield Environmental
Associates, Inc.
Water Environment
Federation
The Water Environment Federa-
tion is a nonprofit, educational orga-
nization composed of member and
affiliated associations throughout the
world. Since 1928, the Federation
has represented water quality spe-
cialists including engineers, scien-
tists, government officials, industrial
and municipal treatment plant opera-
tors, chemists, students, academic
and equipment manufacturers, and
distributors.
Qualified reviewers were re-
cruited from the Federation's Hazard-
ous Wastes and Industrial Wastes
Committees. A list of their names,
titles, and business affiliations can be
found below. It has been determined
that the document is technically
sound and publication is endorsed.
The reviewers were:
Gomes Ganapathi*
Remedial Technology Manager
Bechtel National, Inc.
Delmar H. Prah
Project Engineer
Argonne National Laboratory
Michael R. Foresman
Director, Remedial Projects
Monsanto Company
Robert C. Williams
Director of the Division of Health
Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
*WEF lead reviewer
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The WASTECH® project was conducted under a cooperative agreement
between the American Academy of Environmental Engineers* and the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The substantial assistance of the staff of the Technology Innovation
Office was invaluable.
Financial support was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers®.
This multiorganization effort involving a large number of diverse profes-
sionals and substantial effort in coordinating meetings, facilitating communica-
tions, and editing and preparing multiple drafts was made possible by a
dedicated staff provided by the American Academy of Environmental Engi-
neers® consisting of:
Paul F. Peters
Assistant Project Manager & Managing Editor
Karen M. Tiemens
Editor
Susan C. Richards
Project Staff Assistant
J. Samnii Olmo
Project Administrative Manager
Yolanda Y. Moulden
Staff Assistant
I. Patricia Violette
Staff Assistant
VII
-------
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTRIBUTORS ill
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1
1.1 Thermal Destruction 1.1
1.2 Development of the Monograph 1.4
1.2.1 Background 1.4
1.2.2 Process 1.5
1.3 Purpose 1.6
1.4 Objectives 1.6
1.5 Scope 1.7
1.6 Limitations 1.7
1.7 Organization 1.8
2.0 PROCESS SUMMARY 2.1
2.1 Catalytic Oxidation 2.1
2.1.1 Process Identification and Description 2.1
2.1.2 Potential Applications 2.2
2.1.3 Process Evaluation 2.2
2.1.4 Limitations 2.3
2.1.5 Comparative Cost Data 2.4
IX
-------
Table of Contents
2.1.6 Technology Prognosis 2.4
2.2 RCBI System 2.5
2.2.1 Process Identification and Description 2.5
2.2.2 Potential Applications 2.6
2.2.3 Process Evaluation 2.6
2.2.4 Limitations 2.7
2.2.5 Comparative Cost Data 2.8
2.2.6 Technology Prognosis 2.8
2.3 ECO LOGIC Process 2.9
2.3.1 Process Identification and Description 2.9
2.3.2 Potential Applications 2.9
2.3.3 Process Evaluation 2.10
2.3.4 Limitations 2.11
2.3.5 Comparative Cost Data 2.11
2.3.6 Technology Prognosis 2.12
2.4 HRD Flame Reactor Process 2.12
2.4.1 Process Identification and Description 2.12
2.4.2 Potential Applications 2.13
2.4.3 Process Evaluation 2.13
2.4.4 Limitations 2.14
2.4.5 Comparative Cost Data 2.14
2.4.6 Technology Prognosis 2.14
3.0 PROCESS IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION 3.1
3.1 Catalytic Oxidation 3.1
3.1.1 Process Description 3.1
3.1.2 Operational Considerations 3.3
3.1.3 Cost Data 3.3
-------
Table of Contents
3.2 RCBI System 3.4
3.2.1 Process Description 3.4
3.2.2 Application Engineering 3.10
3.2.3 Status of Development 3.10
3.2.4 Environmental Impact 3.11
3.2.5 Pre-and Posttreatment Requirements 3.12
3.2.6 Special Health and Safety Considerations 3.13
3.2.7 Design Data and Unit Sizing 3.13
3.2.8 Operational Requirements and Considerations 3.14
3.2.9 Unique Planning and Management Needs 3.15
3.2.10 Comparative Cost Data - Process Costs 3.15
3.2.11 Nonprocess Cost Elements 3.19
3.3 ECO LOGIC Process 3.19
3.3.1 Process Description 3.19
3.3.2 Scientific Basis 3.25
3.3.3 Operational Considerations 3.27
3.3.4 Cost Data 3.28
3.4 HRD Flame Reactor Process 3.28
3.4.1 Process Description 3.28
3.4.2 Operational Considerations 3.31
3.4.3 Cost Data 3.32
4.0 POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS 4.1
4.1 Catalytic Oxidation 4.1
4.2 RCBI System 4.2
4.3 ECO LOGIC Process 4.3
4.4 HRD Flame Reactor System 4.4
xi
-------
Table of Contents
5.0 PROCESS EVALUATION 5.1
5.1 Catalytic Oxidation 5.1
5.1.1 HDCatOxTM 5.1
5.1.2 ARI International 5.2
5.2 RCBI System 5.5
5.2.1 System Performance 5.5
5.2.2 Process By-products 5.7
5.2.3 Key Operational Aspects 5.7
5.3 ECO LOGIC Process 5.8
5.4 HRD Flame Reactor System 5.15
5.4.1 US EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program with Secondary Lead Soda Slag 5.15
5.4.2 Soil Treatment Tests 5.20
5.4.3 Destruction Removal Efficiency Test with Carbon
Tetrachloride 5.27
6.0 LIMITATIONS 6.1
6.1 Catalytic Oxidation 6.1
6.2 RCBI System 6.1
6.2.1 Reliability of Performance 6.1
6.2.2 Waste Matrix 6.2
6.2.3 Soil Carry-Over 6.2
6.2.4 Volatile Metal Emissions 6.2
6.2.5 Risk Considerations; 6.2
6.2.6 Process Needs 6.2
6.3 ECO LOGIC Process 6.3
6.4 HRD Flame Reactor System 6.4
XII
-------
Table of Contents
7.0 TECHNOLOGY PROGNOSIS 7.1
7.1 Catalytic Oxidation 7.1
7.2 RCBI System 7.1
7.3 ECO LOGIC Process 7.2
7.4 HRD Flame Reactor System 7.3
Appendices
A. Other Promising Technologies A. 1
Supercritical Water Oxidation A. 1
Soil Detoxification Using Solar Energy A.2
Fluidized Bed Cyclonic Agglomerating Incinerator A.3
Hybrid Fluidized Bed System A.4
Entrained-Bed Gasification A.5
Metallurgical-Based Treatment Processes A.6
Molten Salt Oxidation (MSO) Process A.7
B. List of References B.I
C. Technology Contacts C.I
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1.1 Summary of technologies considered 1.2
3.1 Estimated air emission levels from mobile RCBI system 3.11
3.2 RCBI design data 3.13
3.3 RCBI calculated mass - energy balance 3.14
3.4 Process cost estimates for the RCBI 3.16
4.1 Examples of metal industry wastes amenable to flame
reactor processing 4.4
5.1 RCBI pilot test results 5.6
5.2 Analytical results summary 5.9
5.3 Mass balance data 5.11
5.4 Particle size distribution of secondary lead soda slag 5.16
5.5 Characterization of prepared secondary lead soda slag 5.17
5.6 EPA SITE demonstration with secondary lead soda slag
average composition of solids as analyzed by HRD and
EPA (weight %) 5.18
5.7 Recovery rates for EPA SITE demonstration test 5.19
5.8 Average TCLP results for EPA SITE demonstration test 5.20
5.9 Processing fee for flame reactor processing of secondary
lead soda slag 5.21
5.10 Particle size distribution of dried and crushed soil 5.22
5.11 Soil test operating conditions 5.22
5.12 Treatability test on lead-contaminated soil from C&R
battery average composition of solids as analyzed by
HRD and EPA (weight %) 5.23
xiv
-------
List of Tables
Table Title Page
5.13 Recovery rates for soil treatability test 5.24
5.14 Average TCLP results for soil treatability test 5.25
5.15 Processing fee for flame reactor processing of lead-
contaminated soil 5.26
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
3.1 Catalytic oxidation unit flow chart 3.2
3.2 Schematic flow diagram of the RCBI 3.5
3.3 Stages of cascading vs. RCBI rotational speed 3.7
3.4 Rotary cascading bed incinerator 3.8
3.5 Thermo-chemical reduction reactor 3.21
3.6 Process schematic 3.22
3.7 Thermo-chemical reduction reactions 3.26
3.8 HRD flame reactor gas fired process flow diagram 3.30
XVI
-------
Chapter 1
1
INTRODUCTION
This monograph on thermal destruction is one of a series of eight on
innovative site and waste remediation technologies that is the culmination
of a multiorganization effort involving more than 100 experts over a two-
year period. It provides the experienced, practicing professional guidance
on the application of innovative processes considered ready for full-scale
application. Other monographs in this series address bioremediation, chemi-
cal treatment, solvent/chemical extraction, stabilization/solidification, soil
flushing/soil washing, thermal desorption, and vacuum vapor extraction.
This document was originally prepared in 1992 and represents the status
of the addressed technologies at that time. For some technologies, addi-
tional testing and development has occurred during the two-year peer re-
view and revision process and this additional information is not reflected in
this monograph. However, all eight monographs will be periodically re-
viewed and updated to make them as current as possible.
/./ Thermal Destruction
Thermal destruction, as considered in this monograph, is an ex situ pro-
cess that thermally destroys organic contaminants. Generally, thermal de-
struction is a mature technology employing a variety of combustion cham-
bers, but in waste-site remediation applications, rotary kilns are most com-
mon. Innovation in this area has occurred in the form of modifications and
improvements to existing systems.
Thermal processes that destroy organic contaminants by oxidation, py-
rolysis, hydrogenation, and reduction were considered. Initially twenty-
seven candidate technologies were identified from various sources. They
1.1
-------
Introduction
are listed in table 1.1 which also summarizes their final disposition as deter-
mined by the Thermal Destruction Task Group. The Huber/Thagard Fluid-
Wall Reactor was dropped because it was determined to no longer be an
active technology. Three technologies (Infrared Furnace, Rotary Kiln and
Wet Air Oxidation) were dropped because it was determined that these were
not innovative and were commercially available. Microwave treatment was
dropped due to insufficient data.
Several of the other technologies overlapped with one of the other eight
monographs and in many cases ii: was determined by a Steering Committee
that it would be more appropriate to address these technologies in these
other monographs. UV Oxidation and High Energy Electron Beam were
Table 1.1
Summary of Technologies Considered
Description
Disposition
1 Huber/Thagard Fluid-Well Reactor
2 Infrared Furnace
3 Rotary Kiln
4 Wet Air Oxidation
5 Microwave Treatment
6 UV Oxidation
7 High Energy Electron Beam
8 TACIUK Process
9 Thermal Dynamics Corp. (TGI)
10 High Temperature Alloy Drum Dryer
11 Thermal Augmented Vapor Extracti on
12 PYROKIN Thermal Encapsulation Process
13 Vitrification
14 Classification
15 B&W Cyclone Furnace
16 RETECH PLASMA
17 Soil Detoxification Using Solar Energy
18 Fluidized Bed Cyclonic Agglomerai ing Incinerator
19 Hybrid Fluidized Bed System
20 Entramed-Bed Gasification
21 Metallurgical-Based Treatment Proi ess
22 Molten Salt Oxidation (MSO) Process
23 Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCV/O)
24 Catalytic Oxidation
25 Rotary Cascading Bed Incineration System
26 ECO LOGIC Process
27 HRD Flame Reactor Process
Dropped, Inactive
Dropped, Commercially Available
Dropped, Commercially Available
Dropped, Commercially Available
Dropped, Insufficient Data
Referred to Chemical Treatment
Referred to Chemical Treatment
Referred to Thermal Desorption
Referred to Thermal Desorption
Referred to Thermal Desorption
Referred to Vacuum Vapor Extraction
Referred to Stabilization'Sohdification
Referred to Stabilization'Sohdification
Referred to Stabihzatioa'Sohdification
Referred to Stabihzatioa'Sohdification
Referred to Stabihzatioa'Sohdification
Insuffic
Insuffic
ent Data, Tech to Watch
ent Data, Tech to Watch
Insuffic
Insuffic
Insuffic
Insuffic ent Data, Tech to Watch
Insuffic ent Data, Tech to Watch
ent Data, Tech. to Watch
ent Data, Tech to Watch
ent Data, Tech to Watch
Assessed
Assessed
Assessed
Assessed
1.2
-------
Chapter 1
referred to the Chemical Treatment Task Group and Thermal Augmented
Vapor Extraction was referred to the Vacuum Vapor Extraction Task
Group.
Many of the thermal-based innovations have been developed for pur-
poses other than destruction. In general, these can be classified as removal
(desorption) or immobilization (vitrification) processes. While some de-
struction of organic contaminants does occur with these systems, destruc-
tion is not their primary goal. As a result, three of the candidate technolo-
gies (TACIUK Process, Thermal Dynamics Corp. (TGI), and High Tem-
perature Alloy Drum Dryer) were referred to the Thermal Desorption Task
Group, and five of the candidate technologies (PYROKIN Thermal Encap-
sulation Process, Vitrification, Classification, B&W Cyclone Furnace, and
RETECH PLASMA) were referred to the Stabilization/Solidification Task
Group.
Several of the candidate technologies were determined to be promising
technologies under development that could not be assessed at this time be-
cause of insufficient data, but significant testing and evaluation are sched-
uled in the near future. They may then be seen also as potential candidate
remediation technologies. These technologies - Soil Detoxification Using
Solar Energy, Fluidized Bed Cyclonic Agglomerating Incinerator, Hybrid
Fluidized Bed System, Entrained-Bed Gasification, Metallurgical-Based
Treatment Processes, Molten Salt Oxidation Process, and Supercritical Wa-
ter Oxidation (SCWO) - are not addressed in the text of the monograph, but
are briefly described in Appendix A.
The following technologies were judged to be sufficiently developed to
warrant inclusion in this monograph:
• Catalytic Oxidation;
• Rotary Cascading Bed Incineration System; and
• ECO LOGIC Process.
In addition, the Horsehead Research Development Company, Inc.,
(HRD) Flame Reactor Process, a high temperature metal recovery process,
is also addressed. While the principal use of this technology is in the pro-
cessing of materials contaminated with significant recoverable metal con-
stituents, its high processing temperature should be effective also in de-
stroying organic contaminants. Further, the technology is sufficiently de-
veloped to be a potential candidate for remediating some sites.
1.3
-------
Introduction
1.2 Development of the Monograph
1.2.1 Background
Acting upon its commitment to develop innovative treatment technolo-
gies for the remediation of hazardous waste sites and contaminated soils
and ground water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
established the Technology Innovation Office (TIO) in the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response in March, 1990. The mission assigned TIO
was to foster greater use of innovative technologies.
In October of that same year, TIO, in conjunction with the National Ad-
visory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), con-
vened a workshop for representatives of consulting engineering firms, pro-
fessional societies, research organizations, and state agencies involved in
remediation. The workshop focused on defining the barriers that were im-
peding the application of innovative technologies in site remediation
projects. One of the major impediments identified was the lack of reliable
data on the performance, design parameters, and costs of innovative pro-
cesses.
The need for reliable information led TIO to approach the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers®. The Academy is a long-standing,
multidisciplinary environmental engineering professional society with
wide-ranging affiliations with the remediation and waste treatment profes-
sional communities. By June 1991, an agreement in principle (later formal-
ized as a Cooperative Agreement) was reached. The Academy would man-
age a project to develop monographs describing the state of available inno-
vative remediation technologies. Financial support would be provided by
the EPA, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), and the Academy. The goal of both TIO and the Academy was to
develop monographs providing reliable data that would be broadly recog-
nized and accepted by the professional community, thereby eliminating, or
at least minimizing, this impediment to the use of innovative technologies.
The Academy's strategy for achieving the goal was founded on a
multiorganization effort, WASTECH® (pronounced Waste Tech), which
joined in partnership the Air & Waste Management Association, the Ameri-
can Institute of Chemical Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Hazardous Waste
1.4
-------
Chapter 1
Action Coalition, the Society for Industrial Microbiology, and the Water
Environment Federation, together with the Academy, EPA, DOD, and
DOE. A Steering Committee composed of highly respected representatives
of these organizations having expertise in remediation technology formu-
lated the specific project objectives and process for developing the mono-
graphs (See page iv. for a listing of Steering Committee members).
By the end of 1991, the Steering Committee had organized the Project.
Preparation of the monographs began in earnest in January, 1992.
1.2.2 Process
The Steering Committee decided upon the technologies, or technological
areas, to be covered by each monograph, the general scope of the series and
the process for development, and appointed a task group composed of five
or more experts to write a manuscript for each monograph. The task groups
were appointed with a view to balancing the interests of the groups princi-
pally concerned with the application of innovative site and waste
remediation technologies - industry, consulting engineers, research, aca-
deme, and government.
The Steering Committee called upon the task groups to examine and
analyze all pertinent information available within the Project's financial and
time constraints. This included, but was not limited to, the comprehensive
data base on remediation technologies compiled by EPA, the store of infor-
mation possessed by the task groups' members and that of other experts
willing to voluntarily contribute their knowledge, and information supplied
by process vendors.
To develop broad, consensus-based monographs, the Steering Committee
prescribed a two-fold peer review of the first drafts. One review was con-
ducted by the Steering Committee itself, employing panels consisting of
two members of the Committee supplemented by at least four other experts
(See Reviewers, page iii, for the panel that reviewed this monograph). Si-
multaneous with the Steering Committee's review, each of the professional
and technical organizations represented in the Project reviewed those mono-
graphs in which it has substantial interest and competence relating to the
technologies being addressed. Aided by a symposium sponsored by the
Academy in October 1992, persons having interest in the technologies were
encouraged to participate in the organizations' review.
1.5
-------
Introduction
Once both reviews were complete, the Chair of the Steering Committee's
review panel organized all the review comments into a integrated docu-
ment. These review comments were considered by the Task Group, appro-
priate adjustments were made and a second draft published. The: second
draft was accepted by the Steering committee and participating organiza-
tions. The statements of the organizations that formally reviewed this
monograph are presented under Reviewing Organizations on page v.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this monograph is to further the use of innovative thermal
destruction site remediation and waste processing technologies, i.e., tech-
nologies not commonly applied, where their use can provide better, more
cost-effective performance than conventional methods. To this end, the
monograph documents the current state of the technology for a number of
innovative thermal destruction processes.
1.4 Objectives
The monograph's principal objective is to furnish guidance for experi-
enced, practicing professionals and users' project managers. The mono-
graph is intended, therefore, not to be prescriptive, but supportive. It is in-
tended to aid experienced professionals in applying their judgment in decid-
ing whether and how to apply the technologies addressed under the particu-
lar circumstances confronted.
In addition, the monograph is intended to inform regulatory agency per-
sonnel and the public about the conditions under which the processes it
addresses are potentially applicable.
1.6
-------
Chapter 1
7.5 Scope
The monograph addresses innovative thermal destruction technologies
which are not yet conventional that have been sufficiently developed so that
they can be used in full-scale applications. It addresses all such technologies
for which sufficient data were available to the Thermal Destruction Task
Group to describe and explain the technology and assess its effectiveness,
limitations, and potential applications. Laboratory- and pilot-scale technolo-
gies were addressed, as appropriate.
The monograph's primary focus is site remediation and waste treatment.
To the extent the information provided can also be applied to production
waste streams, it will provide the profession and users this additional ben-
efit. The monograph considers all waste matrices to which thermal destruc-
tion processes can be reasonably applied such as soils, liquids, sediments,
sludges and gases.
Application of site remediation and waste treatment technology is site
specific and involves consideration of a number of matters besides alterna-
tive technologies. Among them are the following that are addressed only to
the extent essential to understand the applications and limitations of the
technologies described:
• site investigations and assessments;
• planning, management, specifications, and procurement; and
• regulatory requirements.
7.6 Limitations
The information presented in this monograph has been prepared in accor-
dance with generally recognized engineering principles and practices and is
for general information only. This information should not be used for de-
sign or operation evaluations with respect to any specific application.
Readers are cautioned that the information presented is that which was
generally available during the period when the monograph was prepared.
Development of innovative site remediation and waste treatment technolo-
1.7
-------
Introduction
gies is ongoing. Accordingly, postpublication information may amplify,
alter, or render obsolete the information about the processes addressed.
This monograph is not intended to be and should not be construed as a
standard of any of the organizations associated with the WASTECH®
Project; nor does reference in this publication to any specific method, prod-
uct, process, or service constitute or imply an endorsement, recommenda-
tion, or warranty thereof.
1.7 Organization
This monograph and others in the series are organized under a uniform
outline intended to facilitate cross reference among them and comparison
of the technologies they address. Chapter 2, Process Summary, provides an
overview of all material presented. Chapter 3, Process Identification and
Description, provides comprehensive information on the processes ad-
dressed. Each process is analyzed in turn. The analysis includes, to the ex-
tent information and data are available, a description of the process (what it
does and how it does it), its scientific basis, status of development, environ-
mental effects, pre- and posttreatraent requirements, health and safety con-
siderations, design data, operatioral considerations, and comparative cost
data. Also addressed are process-unique planning and management require-
ments and process variations.
Chapter 4, Potential Applications, Chapter 5, Process Evaluation, and
Chapter 6, Limitations, provide a synthesis of available information and
informed judgments on the processes. Each of these chapters addresses the
processes in the same order as they are described in Chapter 3. Technology
Prognosis, Chapter 7, identifies aspects of each of the processes needing
further research and demonstration before full-scale application can be con-
sidered.
1.8
-------
Chapter 2
2
PROCESS SUMMARY
i.
2.1 Catalytic Oxidation
2.1.1 Process Identification and Description
Catalytic oxidation of organic compounds is an established technology
that has been employed in industry for decades. However, until recently,
oxidation catalysts have been subjected to poisoning by halogens, certain
metals, participates, phosphorus, and sulfur compounds. One effect of this
poisoning has been to limit catalytic oxidation applications to non-haloge-
nated contaminated air streams. Recently, new catalysts have been devel-
oped which are not poisoned by chlorinated organic compounds and can
achieve high destruction efficiencies. These advances have resulted in the
design of catalytic oxidation units to treat air flows contaminated with halo-
genated organic compounds.
Catalytic oxidation units for treatment of halogenated organic com-
pounds (both volatile and semivolatile) typically consist of a preheater (usu-
ally gas or electric) to elevate the air-stream temperature to the catalyst
temperature, a catalytic reactor, a shell and tube heat exchanger (to recover
a portion of the heat in the reactor exit gas), and a scrubber (to remove halo-
gens and hydrogen halides from the oxidation products before their release
to the atmosphere). The halogenated organic compounds in the air stream
.are destroyed by contact with a catalyst maintained at a controlled tempera-
ture.
1. This chapter is a summary of Chapters 3.0 through 7.0. Sources are cited, where
appropriate, in those chapters — Ed.
2.1
-------
Process Summary
In a vapor extraction application, a vacuum pump/compressor draws the
well vapor through a manifold and pumps the gas to the catalytic: oxidation
unit. In a contaminated groundwater application, the groundwater is
pumped to the surface, the contaminant is air stripped from the water, and
the air and organic contaminated stream is directed through the catalytic
oxidation unit.
2.1.2 Potential Applications
Catalytic oxidation has long been used for emission control of organic
compounds from a number of industrial sources as well as those removed
through soil venting or air stripping from groundwater. It is more economi-
cal, in some circumstances, than alternative processes - adsorption of or-
ganic compounds on a solid such as activated carbon, selective
condensation of organic compounds, and thermal oxidation. Low concen-
trations and small amounts of contaminant favor carbon adsorption; higher
concentrations and larger amounts of comaminant favor catalytic oxidation.
Until recently, there were no commercially-available processes for applying
catalytic oxidation to control air emissions of halogenated organic com-
pounds.
Field experience with chlorinated organic compounds has been generally
positive, although one study showed that a decrease in contaminant destruc-
tion efficiency occurred with operating time. The efficiency loss was attrib-
uted to the attrition of the fluidized bed of catalyst granules. In another
instance, failures of system components resulted in short shutdowns for
replacement/repairs. Typical of the component failures was corrosion of
the Inconel sheath of a thermocouple that measured the temperature of the
vapor in the hydrogen chloride neutralizer following the catalytic reactor.
2.1.3 Process Evaluation
A commercial prototype of the HD CatOx™ system as a unit of a soil
vapor extraction system has been operating successfully since mid-1990.
The unit has a gas throughput capacity of 7.4 mYmin (260 standard ftVmin)
and is designed to handle concentrations as high as 2,500 ppmv trichloroet-
hylene (TCE). The compact system is designed for continuous operation
with process and safety controls to maintain conditions that comply with the
Permit to Operate.
2.2
-------
Chapter 2
Operation of the soil vapor extraction system at the design rate of 6 m3/
min (200 standard ft3/min) has resulted in a steady decline in the concentra-
tion of TCE in the vapor feed to the HD CatOx™ from about 3,500 ppmv to
about 500 ppmv after 400 days of on-stream operation. The total amount of
TCE removed by vapor extraction during this period is more than 18,150 kg
(40,000 Ib) demonstrating the commercial applicability of the catalytic
oxidation unit for this chemical.
The developer supplied the following operating data at the design rate of
6 mVmin (200 standard ftVmin): preheater energy requirements, 28KW;
catalytic reactor destruction removal efficiency (DRE), 97%; and scrubber
performance, >95% hydrogen chloride removal.
Evaluation of a TCE catalytic oxidation unit designed to treat 34 m3/min
(1,200 standard ftVmin) at Wurtsmith Air Force Base with a feed stream
containing 11 to 12 ppmv TCE stripped from groundwater showed a 97.3 to
99.1% TCE destruction efficiency when it was operated at the vendor-rec-
ommended catalyst bed temperature of 370°C (700°F) with >19 cm (7.5 in.)
depth of catalyst. The unit includes a natural-gas flame preheater to elevate
the air-stream temperature to the catalyst bed temperature. Benzene and
toluene were the products of incomplete combustion (PICs) most often
observed in unit emissions and in the highest concentrations (up to 0.35
ppmv and 0.87 ppmv, respectively).
2.1.4 Limitations
As of mid-1992, catalytic oxidation of halogenated organic compounds
had been field-demonstrated on TCE only. Operation appeared to be eco-
nomical when the feed stream had a relatively high TCE concentration and/
or the amount of TCE to be destroyed was large.
With chlorinated organic compounds, it is important to know the daily
emission limits for hydrogen chloride. Regulations across the U.S. vary
with respect to this acidic gas, and acid-gas neutralization following cata-
lytic oxidation may or may not be required. This factor has a significant
impact on the cost-competitiveness of the process.
A potential disadvantage of catalytic oxidizers is that the catalyst may be
deactivated, or poisoned, by various volatile materials. For example, chlori-
nated organic compounds deactivate the platinum-based catalysts com-
monly used in conjunction with vapor extraction of gasoline-contaminated
2.3
-------
Process Summary
soils. It is unclear whether appropriate catalysts are commercially available
to treat all chlorinated organic compounds that might be encountered in
waste site remediation. Development and selection of suitable catalysts can
be time-consuming with uncertain results.
2.1.5 Comparative Cost Data
Catalytic oxidation is cost competitive with other processes, such as
carbon adsorption, when there are high concentrations and large amounts of
the contaminant. Compared to thermal oxidation, it has lower fuel costs,
and generally lower capital costs. However, due to lower operating tem-
peratures, variable feed concentrations, and other factors, materials of con-
struction of associated ducts and vents for catalytic oxidation systems may
require special care in selection and operation when compared to thermal
oxidation.
Air emission controls can have a significant impact on economic viabil-
ity when compared to carbon adsoiption. The amount of VOCs in the con-
taminated source and local emissions control limits must be defined, and an
appropriate emissions control system must be designed to arrive at the total
system cost. Test data for a 6 mVmin (200 standard ftVmin) organic carbon
contaminated stream based on TCI! removal suggest that catalytic oxidation
is more cost-effective, than carbon adsorption when (1) the contaminant is
more than 3,630 kg (8,000 Ib) and the hydrogen chloride can be vented or
(2) the contaminant is more than 7,260 kg (16,000 Ib) and the hydrogen
chloride must be removed by a neutralizer/scrubber.
2.1.6 Technology Prognosis
Performance and economic results of recent demonstrations have shown
the effectiveness of catalytic oxidation in treating selected halogenated
organic compounds in soil and groundwater remediation. It is anticipated
that development of new catalysts will expand the range of halogenated
organic compounds that can be effectively treated by catalytic oxidation.
2.4
-------
Chapter 2
2.2 Rotary Cascading Bed Incineration
(RCBI) System
2.2.1 Process Identification and Description
The Rotary Cascading Bed technology as addressed here is principally
that of a mobile high-temperature incineration system. Although there are
presently no RCBI systems being used as mobile incinerators, the technol-
ogy is in operation in fixed systems and should be transferable.
The RCBI system develops highly turbulent gas and solids mixing condi-
tions for the efficient combustion of solid and liquid fuels and wastes. Key
to this efficiency are a relatively high rotation speed for the cylindrical com-
bustion chamber, lifters attached to the inside of the chamber, and internal
recycling of the bed material at a higher rate from the back end of the cham-
ber to the feed end.
The RCBI rotates at 10 to 15 rev/min, compared to less than 1 rev/min
rotation of a typical high-temperature rotary kiln incinerator. The signifi-
cantly higher rotation rate develops centrifugal forces that result in the bed
material being carried up by the lifters (metal plates attached to the RCBFs
inner liner parallel to the cylinder axis) above the angle of repose. At some
point, the bed material falls off the lifters and cascades through the hot gas
space. The degree of cascading for a particular bed material is determined
by the rotational speed of the cylinder. Bed recycling is achieved through
the use of solids transport chutes forming an Archimedean Spiral that
pumps the hot bed solids from the exit end of the RCBI on the outside to the
feed end where the hot solids are mixed with the incoming waste solids.
A high degree of turbulence and contact between the solids and the com-
bustion gas, cascading across the entire diameter of the cylinder, is achieved
by adjusting the rotational speed of the RCBI. The cascading of the bed
material results in a highly turbulent atmosphere in which the waste, the
recycled bed material, any liquid or solid auxiliary fuel, combustion air, and
combustion gas are intimately mixed. The cascading solids also transfer
momentum to the combustion gas, causing a turbulent swirling motion that
also induces mixing of the gas. The high degree of turbulence results in the
RCBI achieving the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) ORE performance standard of 99.99%, at 760° to 870°C (1,400° to
1,600°F) without an afterburner. The reported ORE of 99.99% for the tests
2.5
-------
Process Summary
reported on herein (see Subsection 5.2.1) should not be interpreted to imply
this performance would result for all conditions.
2.2.2 Potential Applications
The RCBI technology is applicable at sites contaminated with volatile
organics and semivolatile organics, sites with lightly contaminated soils and
sludges, and complex sites containing organic tars, contaminated soils,
sludges, and debris. It can also be used for sites with large quantities of
drummed wastes, provided the drums are shredded to less than two inches
on a side, if fed to the RCBI, or emptied before the contents are fed to the
RCBI. In the latter case, cleaning and compacting the drums will be re-
quired, and the resulting drum wash water must be fed to the RCBI or oth-
erwise managed.
2.2.3 Process Evaluation
The RCBI technology, under development since 1981, has been tested at
the pilot- and full-scale level on numerous types of fuels and wastes. It has
been applied in testing and treating wastes in the following major areas:
• as a waste-to-energy boiler; and
• as a fixed hazardous waste incinerator for low Btu soils, sludges
and other wastes.
Table 5.1 (on page 5.6) summarizes data resulting from the first pilot
demonstration of the Pedco RCBI. The results of subsequent tests, of RCBI
systems are detailed in Section 5.2.
The environmental impact of the RCBI will be similar to that of other
high-temperature incinerators. Based on test results summarized in Chapter
5.0, the RCBI should meet or exceed all applicable RCRA and air regula-
tory requirements. The only water usage with a mobile RCBI will be for
evaporative cooling of the combustion gas prior to the fabric filter and for
treated soil cooling and rehumidification. The process has no aqueous ef-
fluents, because the RCBI uses in-bed neutralization, with the introduction
of appropriate neutralizing chemicals with the wastefeed, and a dry fabric
filter for paniculate and metal emission control. There are two solid dis-
charges resulting from the treatment of contaminated soils and sludges re-
quiring land disposal - the treated bottom soil and/or ash from the RCBI
and the fabric filter residue.
2.6
-------
Chapter 2
The RCBI typically will have no major process by-products other than
the RCBI and fabric filter ash, and, based on testing with carbon tetrachlo-
ride and high sulfur coal, potential operational advantages over other mo-
bile incineration systems are as follows:
• lower capital equipment requirements than for a conventional
rotary kiln incinerator because no afterburner is required;
• low fuel usage per unit of soil because of the excellent mixing in
the RCBI, and no afterburner fuel requirements;
• neutralization of hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide can be
accomplished in bed using low cost limestone, without the need
for a wet scrubber;
• high in-bed sulfur dioxide removal efficiencies of 90% or higher
are achieved based on tests burning high sulfur coal (S at 2.10 to
5.60%); and
• NOx emission concentrations are low due to lower normal oper-
ating temperatures and have been measured in the range of 60 to
100 ppmv for contaminated soils.
2.2.4 Limitations
Because of the RCBFs relatively high rotational speed, it is more com-
plicated and difficult to operate than a standard high-temperature rotary kiln
incinerator. Selecting the appropriate rotational speed of the RCBI and the
correct amount of bed material for the waste being processed is important to
successful operation. Plugging of hot, treated soil recirculation lines is a
potential problem. Additional development may reduce the amount of op-
eration attention required for RCBIs comparable to that required for rotary
kiln incinerators.
Design of the air pollution control and residue handling equipment must
account for a comparatively high degree of entrained soil in the combustion
gas created by the highly turbulent, fluidized nature of the RCBI bed mate-
rial. Also, highly volatile metal emissions such as mercury may present a
problem because the RCBI design does not include a wet scrubber. To
control emissions of highly volatile mercury, the air pollution control sys-
tems would need to be modified.
In waste feed handling, wet, sticky clays are typically the worst problem
2.7
-------
Process Summary
as is the case for all treatment technologies. They generally are sihredded
and/or dried. Extensive reduction of the sizes of soils may be required to
optimize heat and mass transfer. The RCBI requires soil pretreatment to a
maximum dimension of 5 cm (2 in.), a requirement that is easily met with
commercially-available shredding equipment.
2.2.5 Comparative Cost Data
Two estimates of process costs for the RCBI are summarized in table 3.4
(on page 3.16) for an 18.2 tonne/hr (20 ton/hr) RCBI, one at a 9,090 tonne
(10,000 ton) site and the other at a 45,450 tonne (50,000 ton) site. Pedco
has estimated the capital cost for a mobile RCBI with this capacity to be
$3,000,000 in June, 1992 dollars. Mobilization and demobilization is esti-
mated to cost $500,000, and operation and maintenance estimated costs are
$26.20/tonne ($23.82/ton) for the 10,000 ton site and $19.16/tonne ($17.42/
ton) for the 50,000 ton site.
2.2.6 Technology Prognosis
The RCBI has been under development since 1981 with both pilot- and
full-scale tests. The technology could benefit from further development in
the following areas:
• exploration of the bed recycle rates as a function of the kind of
soil or sludge. Values of 25 to 100 times the feed rate are typi-
cally used for coal fuels. High-inert content wastes, such as
soils, should be in the range of about 5 to 10 times;
• soil residual and DRE data at different operating conditions for
low-vapor pressure constituents, such as polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs) and dioxins;
• soil entrainment rates and the treated soil distribution between
the RCBI bottom ash and the air pollution control (APC) equip-
ment relative to sizing of the soil and ash handling equipment;
• optimal limestone to chlorine ratio to achieve 99% hydrogen
chloride removal;
• NOx emissions at different RCBI temperatures;
• volatile metal emission rates during the treatment of soils; and
2.8
-------
Chapter 2
residual organics present in the solids collected by the fabric
filter.
2.3 ECO LOGIC Process
2.3.1 Process Identification and Description
The ECO LOGIC process, which is particularly suitable for wastes that
are primarily aqueous, such as harbor sediments, landfill leachates, and
lagoon sludges, is based on the gas-phase thermo-chemical reaction of hy-
drogen with organic and chlorinated organic compounds at elevated tem-
peratures. At 850°C (1,560°F) or higher, hydrogen reacts with organic
compounds to produce smaller, lighter hydrocarbons. In the case of chlori-
nated organic compounds, such as PCBs, the products of the reaction are
primarily methane and hydrogen chloride. This reaction is enhanced by the
presence of water.
Seven principal reduction reactions occur simultaneously to varying
degrees and at various rates. The most efficient and fastest reactions are the
dechlorination of chlorinated organics and the reduction of multi-ring (poly-
nuclear hydrocarbons) structures to form benzene. The reduction of ben-
zene to ethylene and the reduction of ethylene to methane occur at roughly
the same rate and conversion efficiency, approximately 99%. The end re-
sult is that about 99% of the organic material put into the process is con-
verted to methane.
The ECO LOGIC process uses hydrogen to produce a reducing atmo-
sphere devoid of free oxygen, thus reducing the possibility of dioxin or
furan formation. The ECO LOGIC process operates in a hydrogen-rich,
oxygen-free environment. Other nonchlorinated hazardous organic con-
taminants, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are also reduced by
the ECO LOGIC process to smaller, lighter hydrocarbons, primarily meth-
ane and ethylene.
2.3.2 Potential Applications
The process is applicable to contaminated soils, sludges, sediments, wa-
ter, and oils. Chemical reactions that occur in the hydrogen reduction pro-
2.9
-------
Process Summary
cess are enhanced by the presence of water. If water is not in the waste,
steam is added to the process. Soil typically has a high enough moisture
content to meet the water requirements.
2.3.3 Process Evaluation
ECO LOGIC has conducted destruction tests using a demonstration-scale
reactor that is 2 m (2.2 yd) in diameter and 3 m (3.3 yd) in height and is
mounted on a 15 m (16.4 yd) drop-deck trailer. A scrubber system and
recirculation gas heating system are also mounted on the trailer, as well as
the electrical control center. A second trailer holds a propane steam genera-
tor and waste preheating vessel. The boiler also accepts a small portion of
the scrubbed dechlorinated recirculation gas as fuel. The processing rate for
the demonstration unit is 250 to 300 kg/hr (550 to 660 Ib/hr) of harbor sedi-
ment.
The pilot-scale testing consisted of twelve characterization tests and
three performance tests conducted in 1991, processing harbor sediment
contaminated with coal tar. The tests are discussed in Section 5.3. Follow-
ing are highlights of the results, from tests conducted under methods and
conditions described in Section 5,3:
• With best-case assumptions, DREs ranged from 99.9999% to
99.99999% and with worst-case assumptions, 99.9% to 99.99%;
• In all twelve characterization tests, the only major organic con-
taminants measured were naphthalene and chlorobenzene. Both
PAH and chlorobenzene emission levels were below ambient air
quality guidelines, and blank-correcting would have reduced
most of the measured values to zero. Chlorophenols. PCBs, and
dioxins were not detected;
• The grit and slag that was produced was virtually free of organic
contamination and contained only the inorganic and metallic
components of the harbor sediment;
• The decant water from each characterization test was tested for
organic compounds and found to be virtually free of organic
contamination. In all cases, the decant water was acceptable for
disposal at the municipal wastewater treatment plant;
• Although the scrubber sludge (a minor by-product) produced
was suitable for landfilling, the analytical costs to prove suitabil-
2.10
-------
Chapter 2
ity make it more economical to recycle this small effluent stream
back into the waste input. However, at some point, the increase
in mass of the solids will pose a limit to its recycle;
• The emissions of metallic compounds from the stack were
higher than the organic emissions and exceeded ambient air
quality guidelines. This suggests that a more "state-of-the-art"
particulate device may be required; and
• Analysis of the organic emissions during a performance test in
which PCB-spiked waste was processed demonstrated that the
process is suitable for destruction of PCB-contaminated mate-
rial. The PCB concentrations (110 to 215 ppm) resulted in a
range of DREs of 99.999% to 99.9999%. There were no detect-
able concentrations of PCBs found in the boiler stack gas, the
reactor grit, the scrubber decant water, or the scrubber sludge.
Further, there were no detectable stack emissions of other chlori-
nated compounds, such as dioxins, furans, or chlorophenols.
2.3.4 Limitations
Based upon the demonstration tests, it appears materials handling prob-
lems will be the most prevalent problems, including, for example, grit
blockages at the reactor bottom exit. An additional concern when decon-
taminating soils is the preparation of the feed, e.g., screening or crushing
the feed to dimensions of <2.5 cm (1 in.).
2.3.5 Comparative Cost Data
To project the processing costs for a full-scale (100 tonne/day (110 ton/
day)) unit, the operating costs (Canadian $) for the pilot-scale destructor
processing Hamilton Harbor sediment during the three performance tests
were used. Under conditions and assumptions set forth in Section 5.3, the
waste destruction is estimated to be approximately $325/tonne (US $2507
ton) in the first year of operation.
Since the higher the organic and water content the lower the throughput,
the cost of destruction is more or less proportional to the throughput. Com-
pared with incineration, processing of wastes having high-Btu (organic)
content requires more hydrogen, and, therefore, costs more to process than a
watery waste with a low-Btu content.
2.11
-------
Process Summary
2.3.6 Technology Prognosis
Material handling problems that surfaced during the Hamilton Harbor
demonstration have been addressed and possibly solved. A commercial-
scale system has not been built, and additional problems may be encoun-
tered during the SITE program demonstration. A full-scale system was to
be operational by 1993. (See Appendix C for Technology Contact).
2A Horseheod Resource Development
Company, Inc., (HRD) Flame Reactor
Process
2.4.1 Process Identification and Description
High-temperature metal recovery (HTMR) is becoming an option for
treating hazardous materials, including soils. The HTMR processes extract
the metal contaminants from the substrate material. The separated metals
are typically recovered in a form that can be recycled and then recovered.
Metal values will sometimes offset a portion of the treatment costs. The
HRD Flame Reactor process is a HTMR technology developed by
Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., for the treatment of
wastes and residues that contain toxic levels of leachable metals.
The Flame Reactor process is based on the use of a two-stage water-
jacketed steel reactor vessel divided into a burner stage (fuel combustion)
and a reactor stage (oxide reduction). A flow diagram of the HRD's Flame
Reactor facility at Monaca, Pennsylvania, is shown in figure 3.8 (on page
3.30). The process is described in Subsection 3.4.1.
Accurate metering of the fuel, combustion air, and feedstock are neces-
sary to maintain sufficient reducing reactor conditions to allow volatile
metals, e.g. zinc and cadmium, to be readily extracted from the waste as
metallic vapors, while condensable metals, e.g. copper, are separated from
the molten slag as a molten alloy.
2.12
-------
Chapter 2
2.4.2 Potential Applications
The HRD Flame Reactor technology is suited for the treatment of slud-
ges, slags, and metal contaminated soils, and/or recovery of metal contami-
nants therefrom. This technology, therefore, competes with other
high-temperature thermal vitrification processes that encapsulate contami-
nants, with the potential for material recovery and reuse.
The extremely high-processing temperature makes the Flame Reactor
technology suitable for organics destruction and vitrification. The real
strength of the technology, however, lies in processing materials with metal
constituents that can be recovered in a concentrated form suitable for recy-
cling to the secondary metals market. Even at very low metal concentra-
tions, the Flame Reactor can render a material nonhazardous by
immobilizing the metals in a vitrified slag. In order for the metal oxide
product to be sufficiently enriched for recycling, however, the total concen-
tration of volatile metals, such as cadmium, lead, and zinc, should be at
least 5%. Similarly, condensable metals, such as copper, nickel, and cobalt,
should total 5% or more in the feed in order to yield a molten metal alloy
product. The slag must be molten at 1,400° to 1,500°C (2,550° to 2,730°F),
preferably with a viscosity of 2 poise or less. If necessary, fluxing agents
can be blended with the feed prior to processing.
2.4.3 Process Evaluation
Section 5.4 summarizes three large-scale tests conducted to evaluate the
HRD Flame Reactor process for treating contaminated soils. The contami-
nated matrices were secondary lead soda slag, lead-contaminated soil, and
electric arc furnace dust spiked with carbon tetrachloride. These tests have
demonstrated the ability of the Flame Reactor process to recover metal for
recycling, produce a nonhazardous vitrified slag, and destroy organic con-
taminants.
The tests also revealed that the reactor feed should be fine and dry
enough to allow trouble-free pneumatic injection into the reactor. Heat
transfer rates and reaction rates are reduced as moisture and particle size
increase. Therefore, nominal feed specifications for the Flame Reactor are
a particle size distribution of 80% less than 75 urn (200 mesh) and a total
water content (including chemically-bound water) of 5%.
2.13
-------
Process Summary
2.4.4 Limitations
The major limitations of the HRD Flame Reactor process have to do with
the kinds and physical characteristics of the waste, including limits on the
feed. For example, at least 5% of the feed should be volatile metals in order
that the metal oxide product is sufficiently enriched for recycling, and con-
densable metals should total 5% or more of the feed in order to yield a mol-
ten metal alloy product. Other limitations include crushing of feed to less
than 4.75 mm (3/16 in.) and pre-drying for moisture content above 15% (it
is desirable that feed moisture be <5%)
2.4.5 Comparative Cost Data
Estimated commercial processing costs, resulting from demonstration
tests and assumptions discussed in Section 3.4.3, ranged from $2,35/tonne
($215/ton) for secondary lead soda slag to $250/tonne ($228/ton) for con-
taminated soil.
Sampling, monitoring, and analysis requirements for organic compounds,
however, will be higher than those for materials that contain only toxic
metals, and the costs of organic analyses could significantly affect process-
ing costs, depending on the compounds involved.
2.4.6 Technology Prognosis
Although the Flame Reactor process if well-suited for the treatment of
metal-bearing wastes, the process is unlikely to be economically competi-
tive with lower temperature alternative processes for treatment of organic
contaminated soils with low metal content. Horsehead Resource Develop-
ment Company, Inc., is pursuing opportunities to apply the Flame Reactor
technology to treatment of metal-bearing wastes contaminated with organic
compounds. Several wastes are under review for process testing, At the
present, there are no plans to construct a mobile plant. Although there is
considerable interest within HRD and elsewhere, a specific business oppor-
tunity must be identified before the large capital investment required can be
justified.
2.14
-------
Chapter 3
3
PROCESS IDENTIFICATION AND
DESCRIPTION
3.1 Catalytic Oxidation
3.1.1 Process Description
Catalytic oxidation is a process that may be used to destroy organic va-
pors extracted from contaminated soils through soil venting and from con-
taminated water through air stripping, preventing their discharge into the
atmosphere. Soil venting is an effective means for removing volatile or-
ganic contaminants (VOCs) from the vadose zone, and air stripping is effec-
tive in removing them from groundwater. Most states require the use of an
emissions control device, however, to prevent discharge of the extracted
vapors into the ambient air. In addition to catalytic oxidation, other treat-
ment processes are selective condensation of organic compounds, adsorp-
tion of organic compounds (on a solid such as activated carbon) and thermal
oxidation.
Catalytic oxidation units for the destruction of halogenated organic com-
pounds typically consist of a preheater (usually gas or electric) to elevate
the air-stream temperature to the catalyst temperature (<450°C (840°F)), a
catalytic reactor, a shell and tube heat exchanger to recover a portion (ap-
proximately 50%) of the heat in the reactor exit gas, and a scrubber to re-
move halogens and hydrogen halides from oxidation products before their
release to the atmosphere (see figure 3.1 on page 3.2). In the simplest sys-
tem, only the preheater and catalytic reactor would be necessary; however,
the use of the heat exchanger improves treatment economics and the scrub-
3.1
-------
Process Identification and Description
Figure 3.1
Catalytic Oxidation Unit Flow Chart
COMPONENT
Heat Recovery
Preheater
Catalytic Reactor
AIR-STREAM
1
Scrubber
PROCESS
A heat exchanger recovers approximately
50% of the heat in the reactor exit gas.
Gas or electric heaters raise gas
temperature to catalyst temperature.
Catalyst converts contaminant to
C02, H2O, and hydrogen hahdes
Scrubber removes halogens and hydrogen
holides from oxidation products.
EXIT GAS MEETING
PERMIT CONDITIONS
her may be required to meet regulatory requirements governing acid-gas
emissions.
The feed stream to the catalytic oxidation unit is typically generated by
either vacuum extraction or air stripping. In vapor extraction, a vacuum/
compressor pump draws the well vapor through the manifold and pumps the
gas to the catalytic oxidation unit. In air stripping, contaminated groundwa-
ter is pumped to the surface, the contaminant is air-stripped from the water,
and the air-contaminant stream is directed toward the catalytic oxidation
unit.
3.2
-------
Chapter 3
3.1.2 Operational Considerations
Field experience with catalytic oxidation units treating trichloroethylene
(TCE) has been generally positive, although one study showed that a de-
crease in contaminant destruction efficiency occurred with operating time.
This was attributed to attrition of catalyst granules in the fluidized bed
(Hylton 1992). In another instance, a few "learning curve" failures of sys-
tem components resulted in short shutdowns (Buck, Hauck, and Abdun-Nor
1992). Typical of the component failures was corrosion of the Inconel
sheath of a thermocouple that measured the temperature of the vapor in the
hydrogen chloride neutralizer following the catalytic reactor. Repairs con-
sisted of a minor redesign of the neutralizer system and substitution of a
sheath better able to withstand the corrosive and erosive effects of the two-
phase flow of vapor and a liquid condensate containing hydrogen chloride.
3.1.3 Cost Data
The amount (weight) and type of the organic compounds in the contami-
nated source must be known before the most economical emissions control
system can be selected. Other parameters, of course, such as the local emis-
sions control limits, must also be defined. With chlorinated organic com-
pounds, it is important to know the daily emission limits for hydrogen
chloride; local regulations across the U.S. vary with respect to this acidic
gas. Generally the upper limit is 1.8 kg/hr (4 Ib/hr) without acid-gas con-
trol; some jurisdictions limit hydrogen chloride emissions to levels set by
the best available control technology (BACT). Thus, the catalytic oxidation
of chlorinated organic compounds may or may not be required to include
acid-gas neutralization. The effect of requiring acid-gas neutralization on
the overall economics is large.
Guidelines on economics for three emissions control systems - adsorp-
tion by activated carbon, catalytic oxidation without hydrogen chloride
neutralization, and catalytic oxidation with hydrogen chloride neutralization
- have been presented by Buck, Hauck, and Abdun-Nor (1992) for a cata-
lytic oxidation unit (5.7 m3/min (200 standard ftVmin) with a gas-fired
preheater). Total emissions control costs included capital, utility costs, and,
for systems with hydrogen chloride neutralization, the cost of operating the
neutralization system. Favored at sites with small amounts of contaminant
because of lower capital costs, carbon adsorption becomes noncompetitive
at sites with larger total contaminant volumes.
3.3
-------
Process Identification and Description
For TCE, a suggested rule of thumb is that carbon adsorption is favored
economically (1) where the contaminant is less than 3,630 kg (8,000 Ib) and
where hydrogen chloride produced by catalytic oxidation can be vented and
(2) where the contaminant volume is up to 7,260 kg (16,000 Ib), if the prod-
uct hydrogen chloride must be removed by a neutralizer/scrubber. If the
contaminant reaches 40,000 Ib, the project total emissions control costs with
carbon adsorption ($400,000) approximately double that of either catalytic
oxidation case ($150,000 without scrubbing and $210,000 with a neutral-
izer/scrubber). Similar economic comparisons may be made for other halo-
genated organic compounds provided the basic carbon adsorption data,
catalysts, and catalytic oxidation kinetics are available.
3.2 Rotary Cascading Bed Incineration
System (RCBI)
3.2.1 Process Description
The Rotary Cascading Bed Incinerator (RCBI) System is an innovative,
high-temperature thermal destruction system that has the capability for high
throughput and low-cost in treating low organic-content soils and sludges.
The RCBI was developed and patented by Pedco Incorporated (Pedco) of
Cincinnati, Ohio. A full-scale RCBI was installed and is being operated as
a fixed commercial hazardous waste: incinerator in Deer Park, Texas, by
Rollins Environmental Services (Falcone 1991). Called the Rollins Rotary
Reactor (Rollins RR), the unit was developed under an agreement with
Pedco.
The rotary cascading bed technology is addressed here primarily as a
mobile, high-temperature incineration system for the treatment of contami-
nated soils from Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites, although there are no RCBI's currently
being used as mobile incinerators for the treatment of contaminated soils.
Contaminated soils are, however, being tieated by the Rollins RR, and the
technology should be transferable for use in mobile systems.
3.4
-------
Chapter 3
The RCBI System uses a rapidly rotating cylindrical chamber to develop
highly turbulent gas and solids mixing conditions in order to effect efficient
combustion of solid and liquid fuels and wastes. These mixing conditions
are obtained by (1) rotating the cylindrical combustion chamber at a high
speed, (2) using lifters attached to the inside of the cylinder, and (3) incor-
porating a high rate of recycling of the bed material from the back end of
the RCBI to the feed end. A schematic flow diagram of the RCBI System
as it would be used to treat contaminated soils and sludges from CERCLA
sites is shown in figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2
Schematic Flow Diagram of the RCBI
Water
Key process design considerations include: rotation, bed recycling, ther-
mal performance, waste feed systems, auxiliary fuels, bed neutralization, air
pollution control (APC) equipment, and treated soil handling.
Rotation. The Pedco RCBI rotates at 10 to 15 rev/min, as compared to
less than 1 rev/min for a typical high-temperature rotary kiln incinerator.
The significantly higher rotational speed develops centrifugal forces that
3.5
-------
Process Identification and Description
result in bed material being carried up by the lifters above the angle of re-
pose. The lifters are metallic plates attached to the inner liner of the RCBI
parallel to the axis of the cylinder. At some point in the rotation, bed mate-
rial falls off the lifters in a trajectoiy through the gas space. The degree of
cascading of a particular bed material is determined by the rotational speed
of the cylinder. In order to obtain optimal contact and turbulence between
the solids and the combustion gas, cascading across the entire diameter is
effected by adjusting the rotational speed of the RCBI. Figure 3.3 (on page
3.7) depicts the cross-sectional area of an RCBI showing the effect of
changes in the speed of rotation on the cascading of bed material (Reed
1984).
The Rollins RR is reported to have a rotational speed of 2 to 5 rev/min,
depending on the characteristics of the waste materials being processed
(Falcone 1991).
Bed Recycling. The bed is recycled through use of solids transport
chutes forming an Archimedean Spiral, which pumps the hot bed solids
from the exit end of the RCBI, on the outside of the RCBI to the feed end
(Seibel and Long 1990). A diagram of the Pedco RCBI, which includes the
solids recirculation chute, is shown in figure 3.4 (on page 3.8) (Re;ed 1984).
The solid-waste feed is dropped onlo this hot recycled bed to condition the
feed and to transfer heat from the hottest part of the combustion zone to the
feed end. This conditioning quickly dries the feed and minimizes sticking
of wet soils or sludges on the RCBI walls (Reed 1984). Recycle rates are a
function of the waste being fed and may range from 25 to 100 times for
high Btu coals, to 5 to 10 times the waste-feed rate for high inert materials,
such as contaminated soils (Seibel and Long 1990; Reed 1993).
Thermal Performance. Design features effect a cascading action of the
recycled bed material and the waste feed. The cascading bed results in a
highly stirred, turbulent atmosphere in the RCBI in which the waste, the
recycled bed material, any liquid or solid auxiliary fuel, combustion air, and
combustion gases are thoroughly mixed. Cascading solids transfer momen-
tum to the combustion gas, causing a swirling motion that also induces
mixing of the gas (Seibel and Long 1991). Approximately 30% of the sol-
ids are always suspended in the hot combustion gas (Seibel and Long
1990). This results in a high heat transfer rate to the waste solids similar to
that obtained in a pneumatic bubbling fluidized bed incinerator.
3.6
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.3
Stages of Cascading
vs.
RCBI Rotational Speed
KILN ACTION
Rotational Speed
Too Low
MAXIMUM CASCADING
Optimum Rotational Speed
INTERMEDIATE CASCADING
NO CASCADING
Rotational Speed
Too High
Courtesy Pedco, Inc
The high degree of turbulence results in the Resource, Conservation, and
Recovery Act (RCRA) destruction removal efficiency (DRE) standard per-
formance of 99.99% without the use of the burner in the secondary cham-
ber. Efficiencies of >99.998% were obtained without an afterburner for
carbon tetrachloride during a trial burn with the Rollins RR (Falcone 1992).
Waste Feed Systems. The soil preparation and feed systems currently
used by mobile incineration systems for the feeding of wet sticky clays and
3.7
-------
Process Identification and Description
I
(5
o
CO 03
= 8
o
o
o
c:
g3_
kSL__
3.8
-------
Chapter 3
other soils will be also required for feeding the RCBI. Sludge wastes are
fed to the Rollins RR through use of a positive displacement pump that
discharges to a nonatomizing lance that, in turn, feeds the sludge directly
into the combustion chamber (Falcone 1991). Solid wastes are fed by an
overhead clamshell crane that discharges the solids to a shredder. The
shredded solids are discharged to enclosed screw conveyors that feed the
solids directly to the rotary reactor. Liquid wastes are pumped directly to
the rotary reactor (Falcone 1991).
Auxiliary Fuels. Because of the highly turbulent action of the cascading
bed materials, liquid wastes or fuels do not require atomization. Liquids
may be fed through a pipe or a screw feeder (Reed 1984). For low Btu
content soils and sludges, low-cost solid fuels such as coal may be used as
auxiliary fuels. Rollins uses either natural gas, fuel oil, or shredded wood
pallets as auxiliary fuel for the full-scale system. Rollins has also found
that the rotary reactor can operate at temperatures as low as 790°C
(1,450°F), and low excess air levels while still producing complete thermal
destruction and, thereby, save auxiliary fuel (Falcone 1991).
Bed Neutralization. Acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and sulfur
dioxide, generated by the combustion of chlorine and sulfur containing
organics, are effectively neutralized by the addition of limestone to the
waste feed. Rollins found that the efficiencies of this in-bed neutralization
process have been as high as those achieved with traditional wet scrubbing
processes (Falcone 1991). Pedco realized similar high efficiencies with a
pilot boiler during the combustion of chlorinated materials and high-sulfur
coals (sulfur content ranging from 2.10 to 5.60%). Sulfur dioxide removals
of 90% were obtained with a calcium-to-sulfur ratio of 1:2 (Seibel and Long
1990). Pedco uses limestone screenings, a low-cost product from the lime
industry, for in-bed neutralization.
Air Pollution Control (APC) Equipment. Because of the excellent in-bed
neutralization capability, the RCBI can use a relatively simple baghouse for
paniculate, metals, and acid-gas control. For the treatment of contaminated
soils with low concentration levels of chlorinated compounds, this results in
a system without any aqueous effluents, since wet scrubbing is not neces-
sary to obtain the 99% hydrogen chloride removal performance standard
required by RCRA regulations. The hot, dusty baghouse residue can be
mixed with the RCBI bottom ash or treated separately if it has high concen-
trations of the US EPA regulated metals.
3.9
-------
Process Identification and Description
Treated Soil Handling. The treated soil and/or ash leaving the: RCBI is
hot and dusty and is typically cooled and rehumidified by water sprays or
by mixing in a pug mill-type device with water. The baghouse residue can,
in some cases, be mixed with the treated soil and/or ash from the RCBI
before it is cooled with water.
3.2.2 Application Engineering
The basic concepts underlying the RCBI derive from the fields of low-
temperature solids drying, granulation, and calcining (Reed 1984). Rotary
dryers have been used for many years in the asphalt industry for (he drying
of aggregate. These aggregate dryers operate at solids temperatures of
about 260° to 315°C (500° to 600°F) and, because of this low temperature,
can use rotary dryers fabricated of steel without a refractory lining. They
use lifters and a high rotational speed to produce mechanical fluidization
and cascade the wet aggregate into the rotating dryer. A burner fires auxil-
iary fuel through this "veil" of wet aggregate thereby producing a high heat-
transfer rate between the wet solids and the hot combustion gas. The
innovation of the RCBI System lies in the conversion of the low-tempera-
ture aggregate dryer system to a high-temperature incineration system ca-
pable of rotating at high speeds and operating at solids temperatures of 425°
to 540°C (800° to 1,000°F) higher than the traditional aggregate dryer de-
sign.
3.2.3 Status of Development
The rotary cascading bed combustion technology, under development
since 1981, has been tested at the pilot- and full-scale level on numerous
kinds of fuels and wastes. It has been applied in testing and treating wastes
in the following major areas:
• as a waste-to-energy boiler (Seibel and Long 1991), and
• as a fixed, hazardous waste incinerator for low Btu soils, slud-
ges, and other wastes (Falcone 1991, Reed 1984).
Pedco is currently developing the RCBI in the waste-to-energy area
(Seibel and Long 1991), and Rollins, in the hazardous waste incineration
area. The Rollins RR has been used to incinerate contaminated soils, slud-
ges, wastewater, and liquid wastes (Falcone 1991).
3.10
-------
Chapter 3
3.2.4 Environmental Impact
The environmental impact of the RCBI on air, water, and land is ex-
pected to be similar to that of other high-temperature incinerators.
Air. Test data for the Rollins RR indicates the RCBI should meet or
exceed all applicable RCRA and air regulatory requirements. Estimates of
the major air emissions of the RCBI based on data from the full-scale
Rollins RR (Falcone 1991; Alliance Technologies 1989) are shown in table
3.1. These estimates indicate that the volume of air emissions is expected
to be equal to or even lower than emissions from other high-temperature
mobile incinerators. The particulate emission data are based on typical
fabric filter operation at 22.5 to 45 nig/normal m3 (0.01 to 0.02 grains/dry
standard ft3), corrected to 7% oxygen. No specific US EPA regulated met-
als' emissions data exist for the RCBI.
Table 3.1
Estimated Air Emission Levels From Mobile RCBI System
Emission Parameter
RCRA ORE (Percent)
Total Hydrocarbon (As
Methane)
Carbon Monoxide
Particulate (gr/dscf @ 7
Percent Oxygen)
Hydrogen Chloride
Sulfur Dioxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Stack Concentration Range
(ppmv-Ory)
5-20
10-45
001-0.02
5-15
5-25
60-100
Removal Efficiency
(Percent)
>9999
—
—
—
>99
>90
—
Falcone 1991,1992
Water. The only use of water in a mobile RCBI is for evaporative cool-
ing of the combustion gas (before its passage to the fabric filter), cooling
treated soil, and rehumidification. Because the RCBI uses in-bed neutral-
ization and a dry fabric filter for particulate and metal emission control, the
3.11
-------
Process Identification and Description
process has no aqueous effluents. Total water usage for an 18.2 tonne/hr
(20 ton/hr) mobile RCBI will be about 285 L/min (75 gal/min).
Soils and Sludges. Incident to the treatment of contaminated soils and
sludges, two solid discharges require land disposal. One is the treated bot-
tom soil and/or ash from the RCBI, and the other, the fabric filter residue.
During a CERCLA cleanup, specific organic and metal residual require-
ments would need to be achieved for both of these solid discharges. Data
from the full-scale Rollins RR indicate that the RCBI will produce treated
soil residual values similar to those of current high-temperature mobile
incinerators. The Rollins RR has consistently produced a treated soil with
residual organic levels below detection levels.
3.2.5 Pre- and Posttreatment Requirements
Contaminated soil pretreatmert generally falls into two areas:
• pretreatment to facilitate waste feed handling; and
• pretreatment to optimize the thermal treatment.
Feed pretreatment to facilitate waste feed handling is required for all
mobile incineration systems. Wet, sticky clays typically presenl. the worst
problem. They are generally macerated and/or dried.
The feed pretreatment applied to optimize thermal treatment depends on
the equipment used. Metal shards from shredded drums, for example,
should not typically be fed to a fhiidized bed. The need to exten sively re-
duce the size of the feed in order lo optimize heat and mass transfer can
pose a serious processing problem. The RCBI requires soil pretreatment to
maximum dimensions of 5 cm (2 in.) (Long 1989). This is easily done with
commercially-available shredding equipment. The full-scale Rollins RR
uses a hydraulically-driven, low-speed, high-shear shredder.
The limestone used in the RCBI for in-bed neutralization of acid gases
during the combustion of fuels must be crushed to a 1 cm (<3/8 in.) particle
size (Seibel and Long 1990). Treated soil and/or ash from the RCBI will be
hot and dusty and will require the addition of water for cooling and dust
control. This is a common procedure for hot, treated soils in the thermal
remediation industry.
3.12
-------
Chapter 3
Table 3.2
RCBI Design Data
RCBI Design RCBI Value
RCBI SIZING AND CAPACITY
Soil Capacity 18.2 tonne/hr (20 ton/hr)
Soil Moisture 20 Percent
RCBI DESIGN PARAMETERS
Temperature Of Operation Combustion Gas At 815 °C (1,500-F)
Soil At 760 - 815°C (1,400-1,500'F)
Excess Air Level 20% Minimum
Rotational Speed 10-16 rpm
AUXILIARY FUEL CANDIDATES Natural Gas Or Propane
Fuel Oil
Coal
Wood
Waste Liquids
LIME REQUIREMENT 1.2-15 Times Stoichiometnc
APC SYSTEM Hot Cyclone And Fabric Filter
UTILITY USAGE Fue!-47.5 Gl/hr (45 MM Btu/hr)
Electncal-400 kW
Water-285 L/min (75 gal/mm)
TRANSPORTATION Three Trailers With RCBI, APC And Control Room
Reed 1992
3.2.6 Special Health and Safety Considerations
Operation of a mobile RCBI will pose the same health and safety consid-
erations as those applicable to mobile incinerators generally. A CERCLA
site cleanup always requires a Health and Safety Plan. Handling of hot
treated soil, fabric filter residue, and hot rotating equipment are three areas
commonly addressed in site cleanup Health and Safety Plans.
3.2.7 Design Data and Unit Sizing
Pedco developed a design for a RCBI with a capacity of 18.2 tonne/hr
(20 ton/hr) of contaminated soil containing 20% moisture. The system has
an inside diameter of 2.74 m (9.0 ft) and a length of 15.24 m (50.0 ft). The
design and sizing parameters are summarized in table 3.2 (Long 1989). A
mass-energy balance is shown in table 3.^ (on page 3.14).
3.13
-------
Process Identification and Description
Table 3.3
RCBI Calculated Mass-Energy Balance
Component
Mass And Energy into RCBI at 15.6'C (60"F)
KG/HR KJ/KG
GJ/HR
Contaminated Soil
Auxiliary Fuel
Combustion Air
Air Humidity
TOTAL
18,181.8
1,095.6
19,328 9
174.0
38,780 2
181.5
42,706.4
0.0
2,460.0
3.300
46789
0.000
0.428
50.517
Component
Mass And Energy out of RCBI at 815 6'C (1,500'F)
KG/HR KJ/KG
GJ/HR
Combustion Gas
Carbon Dioxide
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Water \fcpor
Paniculate
COMBUSTION GAS TOTALS
Treated Soil
Radiation Loss
TO1AL
3,931 5
750.6
4,9180
4,816.5
2,872.7
i'7,289 3
11,490.9
28,7802
876.4
815.1
8778
4,1265
9024
902.4
3.446
0.612
13.095
19.875
2.5')2
39 670
10.3(59
0.528
50517
BASIS: 18.2 Metric Tons Per Hour (20 TPH) of Soil At 20% Moisture And 1 % Organic, Incinerated At 20% Excess Air
Focus Environmental Mass - Energy Balance Calculations
The Rollins RR has successfully treated soils with moisture contents
ranging from 10 to 40% and with heating values from 800 to 5,800 kj/kg
(350 to 2,500 Btu/lb). It has successfully treated sludges with moisture
content ranging from 30 to 50% and heating values from 2,300 to 18,600 kj/
kg (1,000 to 8,000 Btu/lb). In addition, the unit successfully incinerated
wastewater and organic liquids (Falcone 1991). The Rollins RR has oper-
ated at temperatures ranging from 650° to 870°C (1,200° to 1,600°F) and at
excess air levels from 20 to 70%.
3.2.8 Operational Requirements and Considerations
The mobile RCBI will require two operators per shift and will operate
continuously for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Continuous operation
3.14
-------
Chapter 3
will require four labor shifts or 8 people. Soil feed preparation and han-
dling and treated soil handling will require two more operators per shift.
Operation of an RCBI designed to process a contaminated soil having a
moisture content of 20% would have to operate at about 50% of rated
throughput capacity to process a contaminated soil with moisture content of
50%.
3.2.9 Unique Planning and Management Needs
The RCBI, used as a mobile incinerator for CERCLA site remediation,
would have no unique planning and management needs. Planning and man-
agement needs would be essentially the same as those required for mobile
rotary kilns and fluidized bed incinerators. The use of lime for in-bed neu-
tralization of acid gases would require special lime storage and handling
facilities.
3.2.10 Comparative Cost Data - Process Costs
Two estimates of process costs were made for the 18.2 tonne/hr (20 ton/
hr) RCBI. One is for operations at a 9,090 tonne (10,000 ton) site and the
other, for operations at a 45,450 tonne (50,000 ton) site. For these esti-
mates, the soil at each site is assumed to contain 20% moisture and to be
contaminated with 1% organic constituents having an average chlorine
content of 50% by weight.
Estimates of operating costs are presented in table 3.4 (on page 3.16).
Elements of those costs and estimated capital cost are discussed below.
(Nonprocess cost elements are set forth in Section 3.2.11.)
Labor. The estimate covers the cost of one skilled and one unskilled
operator per shift required for direct operations. Other labor costs, for soil
feed preparation and handling, hot treated soil handling, and analytical ser-
vices, were not included. For a four-shift operation, 8 operators at an aver-
age cost of $30,000/yr/person and one supervisor at $60,000/year, the total
labor cost will be $300,000/year with an operating factor of 80%. Assum-
ing one month each for mobilization and demobilization, the 18.2 tonne/hr
(20 ton/hr) RCBI would process a 9,090 tonne (10,000 ton) site in about 2.9
months at a labor cost of about $71,400. The estimated processing time and
labor cost for the 45,450 tonne (50,000 ton) site is 6.3 months and about
$157,000.
3.15
-------
Process Identification and Description
Table 3.4
Process Cost Estimates for the RCBI
Process Cost Estimate or a 9,090 Tonne (10,000 Ton) Site
Capital Cost (1992 ) $3,000,000
Process Operating Costs
Cost in $
$/Tonne
Process Cost Estimate for a 45,450 Tonne (50,000 Ton) Site
Capital Ccst (1992 ) $3,000,000
Reference see Section 32 10 of text
SAbn
Labor
Auxiliary Fuel
Power
Neutralization
Maintenance
OPERATING COSTS-SUB TOTAL
Capital Recovery
Mobilization/Demobilization
TOTAL PROCESS COSTS
71,400
110,900
12,500
550
42,850
238,200
130,300
500,000
868,500
7.85
12.20
1.38
0.06
471
26.20
14.33
55.00
96.00
7 14
11.09
1.25
0.06
4.28
23.82
1303
50.00
87.00
Process Operating Costs
Labor
Auxiliary Fuel
Power
Neutralization
Maintenance
OPERATING COSTS-SUB TOTAL
Capital Recovery
Mobilization/Demobilization
TOTAL PROCESS COSTS
Cost in $
157,000
554,400
62,500
2,750
94,200
870,850
286,550
500,000
1,657,400
$/Tonne
3.45
12.20
138
006
2.07
1916
6.30
1100
36.00
$/Ton
3.14
11.09
125
0.06
1.88
1742
5.73
10.00
33.00
Auxiliary Fuel. The amount and cost of auxiliary fuel will depend on the
kind of fuel used and the heat content of the contaminated soil. For a soil
with 20% moisture and 1% organic contamination, the RCBI will generate
about 46.8 Gj/hr (44.4 MM Btu/hr) using auxiliary fuel. For natural gas
costing $4.74/Gj ($5/MM Btu), the RCBI auxiliary fuel cost, based on the
mass and energy balance calculations summarized in table 3.3 (on page
3.14), will be $110,900 for the smaller site and $554,400 for the larger site.
Electrical Power. Pedco has estimated that the RCBI requires 400 kw
(Long 1989). At $.05/kw hr, the estimated cost of electricity for (he RCBI
3.16
-------
Chapter 3
is $12,500 for the 9,090 tonne (10,000 ton) site and $62,500 for the 45,450
tonne (50,000 ton) site.
Neutralization. For a contaminated soil containing 1% of organic mate-
rial that is 50% organic chlorine, it is estimated that an 18.2 tonne/hr (20
ton/hr) RCBI will need 5.5 kg (11 Ib) of limestone/tonne of soil at 40%
excess limestone for in-bed neutralization. At $1 I/tonne ($10/ton) for lime-
stone screenings, the estimated cost for neutralization of the smaller site
will be $550 and, about $2,750 for the larger.
Maintenance. In the chemical industry, the annual cost of maintenance
of process equipment is typically about 4% of the equipment capital cost.
Because of its high rotational speed and innovative nature, however, annual
cost of maintenance of the RCBI has been estimated to be 6% of capital
cost. This results in an estimated maintenance cost of $42,900 at the
smaller site and, $94,200 at the larger.
Capital Recovery. The basis for the estimate of capital recovery is a
12% interest cost and a 10-year equipment life. This results in a capital
recovery factor of 18.25%/yr, or a cost of $130,300 for the smaller site and,
$286,600 for the larger.
Mobilization and Demobilization. The estimated cost to mobilize and
start-up the RCBI and to demobilize the unit is about $500,000.
Capital Cost. Pedco estimated the capital cost for a mobile RCBI with a
capacity of 18.2 tonne/hr (20 ton/hr) to be $3,000,000 in June, 1992 dollars
(Reed 1992). The estimate contemplates a unit consisting of the following
components (Long 1989):
• A trailer-mounted RCBI with hydraulic drive system, feeding
chutes, gas burner for start-up and for supplemental fueling, rear
breeching, cooling system, built-in traveling supports, alignment
provisions for the trunnions, ash removal, and recycling system.
The RCBI will be supplied with the instrumentation required for
control and for monitoring, including thermocouples, pressure
sensors, sampling tubes and tachometers;
• A trailer-mounted fabric filter with induced draft fan; dust col-
lection, removal, and recycling system; and stack. The fabric
filter and stack will be equipped with appropriate instrumenta-
tion for control and monitoring;
3.17
-------
Process Identification and Descr ption
• A trailer-mounted, winterized control and monitoring room
equipped with instrumentation that controls the RCBI, the fabric
filter, the induced draft fan, and the evaporative cooliing system.
It will include a control panel equipped with recorders with
alarms to keep a permanent record of all major operating param-
eters. This trailer will also contain the monitoring rack with
continuous monitors for carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hy-
drocarbons, hydrogen chloride, O2, NOx, and sulfur dioxide.
Sampling ports will be provided for sampling the gas stream for
the presence of other contaminants; and
• A truck or trailer to handle the ducting for connecting the RCBI
to the fabric filter, the piping required for the cooling system,
feeder chutes, the stack, spare parts, the electrical cabling, in-
strumentation wiring, and other necessary parts required to set
up and operate the unit.
The Pedco capital estimate also includes the following engineering and
permitting-related costs (Long 1989):
• three persons for 4 months' start-up and training;
• ten sets of RCBI operating manuals; and
• one person for permitting support for the RCBI's first project.
Additional field and consulting engineering costs are included in the
amount of $675/day plus expenses for each person.
The estimate does not include the following capital items:
• office trailers;
• diesel generator to supply electricity to the system if power is
not available;
• shredder pretreatment and feed system for the contaminated soil;
• cooling system for the hot treated soil and fabric filter residue;
• treated soil and ash stoiage and handling;
• lime or limestone storage and feed handling system; and
• decontamination facilities.
Although additional costs accrue (see Section 3.2.11), the technology-
dependent process cost estimates for the RCBI presented here can be used
3.18
-------
Chapter 3
in comparing the cost of its operation with that of other systems. The com-
parisons, of course, must address the same kinds of wastes at sites of similar
size under the same cost basis.
3.2.11 Nonprocess Cost Elements
Following are nonprocess cost elements, not included in the estimates set
forth in Section 3.2.10, that commonly accrue in a Superfund remediation
project:
• site preparation;
• soil excavation and pretreatment;
• treated soil and process residues disposition;
• nonprocess labor - clerks, soil excavation and health and safety
personnel, site supervisors, etc.;
• contractor profit;
• treated soil and process-related analyses; and
• demonstration tests for state and federal regulatory agencies.
These costs are basically independent of the technology, and in many
cases their total will be significantly higher than the process costs. For
example, a typical Superfund project may require 50 people on site, with
only 8 operators and one supervisor being directly related to the operation
of the process. Soil excavation, pretreatment, and disposition after treat-
ment can be expensive, particularly for wet soils and sediments that require
mechanical dewatering and/or drying.
3.3 ECO LOGIC Process
3.3.1 Process Description
The ECO LOGIC process is suitable for treating many kinds of wastes
and hazardous waste matrices, including contaminated soil. It is particu-
larly suitable for wastes that are primarily aqueous, such as harbor sedi-
ments, landfill leachates, and lagoon sludges.
3.19
-------
Process Identification and Descristion
The presence of water in the waste acts to prevent C12 formation and aids
in the destruction process, since water itself can act as a reducing, agent to
help dismantle the contaminant molecules. For example, water contami-
nated with 0.1% (1,000 mg/L) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can be
readily processed.
Research and development has focused on bench-scale testing of surro-
gate compounds, development of a larger lab-scale destructor (1 kg/hr (2.2
lb/hr)) for testing actual waste samples, and construction of a mobile full-
scale unit (250 to 300 kg/hr (550 to 660 lb/hr)) for materials and component
testing.
ECO LOGIC set up a demonstration facility for processing pofyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and PCB-contaminated harbor sediments in
Hamilton, Ontario, and conducted destruction tests during the spring of
1991. The demonstration-scale reactor, 2 m (6.6 ft) in diameter and 3 m
(9.8 ft) in height, is mounted on a 15 m (49 ft) drop-deck trailer. A scrub-
ber system and recirculation gas heating system are also mounted on the
trailer, as well as the electrical control center. A second trailer holds a pro-
pane-fired steam generator and waste preheating vessel. The boiler accepts
a small portion of the scrubbed dechlorinated recirculation gas as fuel. The
processing rate for the demonstration unit is 250 to 300 kg/hr (550 to 660
lb/hr).
Figure 3.5 (on page 3.21) is a schematic of the reactor where the destruc-
tion of the waste occurs. The various input streams are injected through
several ports mounted tangentially near the top of the reactor. Special
nozzles are used to atomize liquid wastes in order to accelerate liquid va-
porization. The gas mixture swirls around a central ceramic-coated steel
tube, and is heated by 18 vertical silicon carbide electric heating elements.
By the time it reaches the bottom of the reactor, the gas mixture has reached
a temperature of at least 850°C (1,560°F). Some particulate initially present
in the waste drops out of the reactor bottom and is collected in a grit box.
Finer particulate entrained in the gas stream flows up the ceramic tube, into
the exit elbow and through the retention zone. The process reactions take
place from the bottom of the ceramic tube upwards, and take less than one
second to complete.
Figure 3.6 (on page 3.22) is a process schematic of the entire pilot-scale
system, including the reactor. Most of the components of the pilol-scale
system are mounted on two standard drop-deck highway trailers. Hydrogen
3.20
-------
Chapter 3
Figure 3.5
Thermo-Chemical Reduction Reactor
TO SCRUBBER -
Waste Injection Ports
Reactor Steel Wall
Fibreboard Insulation
Refractory Lining
Electnc Heating Elements
Ceramic-Coated Central Steel Tube
T
TO GRIT BOX
Courtesy ECO LOGIC
3.21
-------
Process Identification and Description
and recirculated product gas are preheated in the recirculation gas heater,
which consists of two propane-fired single-ended radiant tube heaters. The
recirculation gas flowrate varies with the waste type and concentration, up
to a maximum of 95% of the product gas. Nitrogen is used to purge the
entire assembly prior to waste processing and following the discontinuation
of processing.
Several feed systems are available for various types of wastes, depending
on whether watery waste, oil waste, or solid waste is being processed. Wa-
Figure 3.6
Process Schematic:
PG
B Boiler
C Compressor
CIMS Chemical lonization
Mass Spectrometer
CS Caustic Soda
DW Decant Water
EC Evaporative Cooler
G Gnt Collection Box
GB Gas Booster Fan
HX Heat Exchanger
OW Oil Waste
P Propane
PG Product Gas
QT Quench Tank
R Reactor
RG Recirculation Gas
RGH Recirculation Gas
Heater
S Scrubber
SBV Sequencing Batch
Vaporizer
SL Sludge Tank
ST Scrubber Tank
SW Solid Waste
TDU Thermal Desorption
Unit
TTS Tube Trailer Storage
V Vaporizer
SF Supplementary Fuel WW Watei-y Waste
Courtesy ECO LOGIC
3.22
-------
Chapter 3
tery waste is preheated in a vaporizer using steam from a boiler. The con-
taminated steam from the vaporizer is metered into the reactor at a rate
determined by the process control system. Hot contaminated liquid exits
the bottom of the vaporizer at a controlled flowrate and enters the reactor
through an atomizing nozzle. Oil waste can be metered directly from drums
into the same line using a peristaltic pump.
Solid wastes such as soil or decanted sediment are decontaminated in a
thermal desorption unit (TDU) with the contaminants being sent to the reac-
tor through a separate port. The internal workings of the TDU are designed
to vaporize all water and organic contaminants in the waste soil/sediment
while mechanically working the solids into as fine a mixture as possible.
The water vapor and organic contaminants are swept into the reactor by a
sidestream of scrubbed recirculation gas.
Solids, such as contaminated electrical equipment, can be thoroughly
desorbed using the sequencing batch vaporizer (SBV) chambers. These
chambers take advantage of the reheated recirculation gas stream to heat the
equipment and carry contaminants into the reactor. The hydrogen atmo-
sphere is nonreactive with most metals, minimizing potential problems of
metal oxide formation.
The SBV can also be used for vaporization of drummed solid chemical
wastes, such as hexachlorobenzene. Significant stockpiles of "hex wastes"
exist and are still being generated as byproducts of chlorinated solvent pro-
duction. Advantages of vaporizing hex wastes directly from the drum in-
clude decreases in worker exposures and fugitive emissions from drum
transfer operations, cleaning of the drums in place, and segregation of inor-
ganic contaminants into the existing drums. The SBV has been tested at
lab-scale with hex waste samples and PCB-contaminated electrical equip-
ment.
The product gas leaving the reactor is scrubbed in a caustic scrubber to
remove water, heat, fine particulates, and hydrogen chloride. The scrubber
water is recirculated from the scrubber tank to sprayers in the first leg of the
scrubber and to a polypropylene media bed in the second leg. Sodium hy-
droxide is added periodically to maintain a scrubber water pH of 9. The
heat adsorbed by the scrubber water is removed by a plate-plate heat ex-
changer and evaporative cooler. By the end of the second leg, the product
gas temperature has been cooled to approximately 35°C (95°F). It is drawn
out of the scrubber by a gas booster fan.
3.23
-------
Process Identification and Description
The dirty scrubber water from the two scrubber legs returns to the scrub-
ber through a drop-tube that extends well below the water surface:. This
acts as a seal against air infiltration and as an emergency pressure: relief
mechanism. One-half of the scrubber tank is partitioned and covered to
prevent any gas release if a short-term pressure surge forces gas out of the
bottom of this tube. A check valve allows the gas to re-enter the system
once the pressure returns to normal. The system normally operates within
10 inches water gauge (0.36 psi) of atmospheric pressure.
As waste is processed through the system, water condenses in the scrub-
ber tank and overflows to a sludge settling tank and then to a decant water
tank. The scrubber tank is agitated with a mixer to prevent sludge sedimen-
tation. Decant water is the only liquid effluent, and, after pH balancing, has
been found suitable for sewer disposal where pilot testing has been con-
ducted. The amount of effluent is equal to the amount of water in the in-
coming waste stream, so on-site waste water treatment is not a costly option
if required. The minor amount of sludge produced can be diverted to the
solid waste stream being processed through the TDU which would result in
a slight increase in the decontaminated solids discharged from the TDU.
The cooled and scrubbed product gas is a clean, dry mixture of hydrogen,
methane, carbon monoxide, and other light hydrocarbons. As indicated
earlier, most of the gas is reheated and recirculated back into the reactor, in
order to maintain a high concentration of hydrogen in the reactor. A
sidestream is drawn off for on-line sampling. Sidestreams can also go to
the TDU as a sweep gas, to the SBV as sweep gas, or to a compressor for
storage in a tube trailer. Storage of the product gas under pressure: permits
the analysis of large batches of gas prior to using the gas as fuel and allows
the operation of the system in a "stackless" mode. Potential applications for
the stored product gas include heating the TDU, steam reformation for opti-
mum hydrogen recovery, and steam/electricity generation.
Throughout waste processing operations, the product gas is sampled
continuously using the chemical ionization mass spectrometer (CIMS).
This analyzer is capable of accurately monitoring up to 10 organic com-
pounds every few seconds at concentrations ranging from percent levels
down to ppb levels. It is used as part of the ECO LOGIC Process to moni-
tor the concentrations of certain compounds indicative of the process de-
struction efficiency. The compounds selected for monitoring depend on the
waste being processed. For example, during PCB processing,
3.24
-------
Chapter 3
monochlorobenzene is typically monitored as an indicator of destruction
efficiency. Low levels of this volatile compound indicate that destruction
of the PCBs is proceeding to completion. An increase in the
monochlorobenzene concentration triggers an alarm in the process control
system, and the exceedance of a preset threshold is used to automatically
curtail waste input. The CIMS also provides a continuous record of the
quality of the product gas being compressed and stored.
The process equipment described above was installed at Hamilton Har-
bor on two 15-m (39 ft) drop-deck trailers. A process control trailer con-
taining the on-line mass spectrometer, process control system, and other
analysis equipment was located near the two process trailers. The footprint
for the entire process was only 20 m by 60 m (66 ft by 195 ft). The equip-
ment was completely self-contained with its own power generator and water
supply.
3.3.2 Scientific Basis
The ECO LOGIC process is based on the gas-phase, thermo-chemical
reaction of hydrogen with organic and chlorinated organic compounds at
elevated temperatures. At 850°C (1,560°F) or higher, hydrogen reacts with
organic compounds in a process known as reduction to produce smaller,
lighter hydrocarbons. In the case of chlorinated organic compounds, such
as PCBs, the products of the reaction are primarily methane and hydrogen
chloride. This reaction is enhanced by the presence of water.
Figure 3.7 (on page 3.26) shows seven principal reduction reactions that
are reported to occur in the ECO LOGIC process. The first is the dechlori-
nation and dismantling of a PCB molecule to produce hydrogen chloride
and benzene. The second reaction is the dechlorination of the dioxin mol-
ecule. The third reaction is the reduction of a PAH compound, phenan-
threne, to produce benzene and ethylene. The fourth is the reduction of a
benzene molecule to produce methane, and the fifth is the reduction of eth-
ylene to produce methane. The sixth reaction is the reduction of straight-
chain hydrocarbons to produce methane. The seventh reaction is a "water
shift reaction" and is not a reduction reaction, although it occurs only in a
reducing atmosphere. In this reaction, methane and water combine to form
carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
3.25
-------
Process Identification and Description
Figure 3.7
Thermo-Chemical Reduction Reactions
y-Q + 5 H2 > 2 O + 4 HCl
CI
PCB molecule & hydrogen react to produce benzene & hydrogen chlonde.
•2 f 2 + 4 HC1 + 2 H2O
Dioxin molecule & hydrogen reac to produce benzene, hydrogen chloride & water.
2 O +C2H4
PAH molecule & hydrogen react to produce benzene & ethylene,
Benzene & hydrogen react to prod ice methane.
C2H4 + 2H2
Ethylene & hydrogen react to produce methane.
Hydrocarbons & hydrogen react to produce methane.
CO + 3R,
2
Methane & water react to produce carbon monoxide & hydrogen.
Courtesy ECO LOGIC
All of these reactions occur simultaneously in the ECO LOGIC process,
although to varying degrees and at various rates. The most efficient and
fastest reactions are the dechlorination of chlorinated organics and the re-
duction of multi-ring structures to form benzene. The reduction of benzene
to ethylene and the reduction of ethylene to methane occur at roughly the
same rate and conversion efficiency, approximately 99%. Straight-chain
compounds convert to methane at a higher rate. The result is that about
99% of the organic material input to the process is converted to methane.
The back reaction from methane in combination with water to form car-
bon monoxide and hydrogen is much less efficient (20 to 30%), but, none-
theless, very useful. Since hydrogen is one of the main costs of operation,
3.26
-------
Chapter 3
reactions that generate hydrogen help reduce the overall cost of the process.
Unfortunately, this reaction and the conversion of ethylene to methane are
both endothermic, so there is an increased energy cost, which partially off-
sets the savings on hydrogen. Another hydrogen-producing reaction is the
breakdown of methane to form carbon and hydrogen. This occurs to a lim-
ited extent, depending on the amount of excess hydrogen in the reducing
atmosphere and the reaction temperature.
The ECO LOGIC process uses hydrogen to produce a reducing atmo-
sphere devoid of free oxygen, thus reducing the possibility of dioxin or
furan formation. Other nonchlorinated hazardous organic contaminants,
such as PAHs, are also reduced by the ECO LOGIC process to smaller,
lighter hydrocarbons, primarily methane and ethylene.
The process lends itself to continuous monitoring of the destruction effi-
ciency, because of the tendency of the reaction to produce lighter, more
volatile gases. An on-line mass spectrometer process gas analyzer system
can measure key organic compounds on a continuous basis and be inte-
grated into the process control system. Specifically, destruction efficiencies
can be measured very quickly by continuously monitoring chemical inter-
mediate products such as chlorobenzene and benzene concentrations. The
information from the mass spectrometer is sent to the process controller so
that an increase in chlorobenzene or benzene concentration (signaling a
decrease in PCB or PAH destruction efficiency) halts the input of waste and
alerts the operator.
3.3.3 Operational Considerations
Throughout the demonstration testing phase of the Hamilton Harbor
Project, modifications were made in an effort to increase the throughput and
reliability of the system. The majority of problems encountered were re-
lated to materials handling, including:
• plugging problems at the bottom of the waste vaporizer vessel
and at the Turbotak nozzle at the reactor inlet;
• erosion in the piping system, flow measurement and flow con-
trol elements;
• pressure control problems in the reactor;
• process gas release due to reactor overpressure;
3.27
-------
Process Identification and Description
• grit exiting the reactor plugging the system; and
• build-up slag material around the glo-bar (silicon carbide heat-
ing element) causing glo-bar breakage during cooling.
Most of these problems have been recognized and addressed. In addi-
tion, the hydrogen chloride produced may cause corrosion problems in long
term operation.
3.3.4 Cost Data
The cost of destruction of wastes, discussed in the Hamilton Harbor re-
port, is based on actual test conditions and measurements and their projec-
tion to commercial scale (ELI ECO LOGIC International, Inc. 1992). For
watery wastes, such as those processed at Hamilton Harbor, the cost was
approximately $275 (Canadian) /lonne (US $250/ton). The developers
estimate the cost for processing contaminated soils would approach $210
(Canadian)/tonne (US $190/ton). The details of these cost estimates are
covered in the evaluation of the process in Section 5.3.
3.4 Horsehead Research Development
Company, Inc., (HRD) Flame Reactor
Process
3.4.1 Process Description
High temperature metal recovery (HTMR) is becoming an option for
treating hazardous materials, including soils. The HTMR process extracts
the metal contaminants from the substrate material. The separated metals
are typically recovered in a form that can be recycled, and the value of the
recovered metal sometimes offset a portion of the treatment costs.
The HRD Flame Reactor Process is a HTMR technology developed by
Horsehead Resource Development. Company, Inc., for the treatment of
wastes and residues that contain toxic levels of leachable metals. Since its
installation in 1984, HRD's Flame Reactor facility in Monaca, Pennsylva-
nia (18,145 tonne/yr (20,000 ton/yr)) has demonstrated its capability to
3.28
-------
Chapter 3
process a wide variety of metal-bearing wastes and residues, e.g., steel mill
electric arc furnace (EAF) dust, zinc plate residues, and lead smelter resi-
dues. Recently, the application of Flame Reactor technology has been ex-
tended to soil remediation in a series of process tests that included a
treatability study on lead-contaminated soil from the C&R Battery
Superfund site in Richmond, Virginia. The results of these studies are re-
ported in Sections 5.4.1 through 5.4.3.
The company is currently building a 27,215 tonne/yr (30,000 ton/yr)
Flame Reactor facility to treat steel mill EAF dust. The plant is located on
the site of the North Star Steel minimill in Beaumont, Texas. Roughly
5,450 tonne/yr (6,000 ton/yr) of metal will be recovered for recycling in-
stead of being landfilled. The plant start-up was scheduled for the first
quarter of 1993. (See Appendix C for Technology Contact).
The Flame Reactor Process is based on the use of a water-jacketed steel
reactor vessel that is divided into two stages: a burner stage (fuel combus-
tion) and a reactor stage (oxide reduction). A flow diagram of the Monaca
Flame Reactor facility is shown in figure 3.8 (on page 3.30). In the first, or
burner stage, fuel in the form of pulverized coal or coke, or natural gas, is
combusted with oxygen-enriched air (40 to 80% O2) under fuel-rich condi-
tions to produce a high-temperature (2,200° to 2,500°C (3,990° to 4,530°F))
reducing atmosphere. In the second, or reactor stage, fine dry soil is pneu-
matically injected into the hot reducing gases, causing the temperature to
decrease rapidly. The average reactor temperature is between 1,400° and
1,800°C (2,550° and 3,270°F), depending on the desired operating condi-
tions, and total gas residence time in the reactor is 100 to 500 milliseconds.
Less volatile metals, such as copper, nickel, and cobalt coalesce as a
molten alloy. The remaining components of the waste, including silicates
and metal oxides such as those of iron, form a molten slag. The reactor
feeds directly into a slag separator, or horizontal cyclone, where the process
gases and volatile compounds are separated from the molten materials. If a
molten metal alloy is formed, it is separated from the slag in a quiescent
holding unit before the slag is tapped. The slag is continuously tapped and
solidified on a noncontact, water-cooled, vibrating conveyor. The conveyor
transports the slag to a temporary collection bin, from which it is transferred
to storage.
The molten slag must be fluid enough to be readily tapped from the slag
separator. Therefore, the slag must be molten at 1,400° to 1,500°C (2,550°
3.29
-------
Process Identification and Description
to 2,730°F), preferably with a viscosity of 2 Poise, or less. Soils, because of
their siliceous composition, generally require fluxing agents to effect proper
slag fluidity. The flux can be blended with the feed prior to processing.
Volatile metals, such as zinc, lead, arsenic, and cadmium are vaporized
from the waste along with volatile alkali and halide compounds. The pro-
cess gases are drawn from the slag separator through the offgas system
where the metal vapors are postcombusted with ambient air and condensed
as metal oxides. The remaining H2 and CO are combusted to water vapor
Figure 3.8
HRD Flame Reactor G'as Fired Process Flow Diagram
Courtesy Horsehead Resource Development Company Inc
3.30
-------
Chapter 3
and carbon dioxide. The gases are subsequently cooled, and the mixed
metal oxide particulate is collected in a pulse-jet baghouse. The offgas is
discharged to the atmosphere.
The HRD two-stage reactor design separates the two major sets of oxide
smelting reactions. The exothermic carbon-oxygen reactions take place in
the first stage, while the endothermic metal oxide-carbon monoxide reac-
tions occur in the second stage.
3.4.2 Operational Considerations (Zagrocki 1992a)
Accurate metering of the fuel, combustion air, and feedstock is necessary
in order to maintain the reactor conditions sufficiently reducing to ensure
metallic zinc, cadmium, copper, etc., are formed, while leaving iron as a
reduced oxide. This control of the reducing atmosphere is essential to allow
volatile metals, e.g., zinc and cadmium, to be readily extracted from the
waste as metallic vapors, while condensable metals, e.g., copper, are sepa-
rated from the molten slag as a molten alloy. Iron is partially reduced to
FeO, which improves slag fluidity and reduces iron contamination in the
metal alloy.
The extremely high processing temperature makes the HRD Flame Reac-
tor technology suitable for organics destruction and vitrification. The real
strength of the technology, however, lies in its capacity for processing ma-
terials with metal constituents that can be recovered in a concentrated form
for recycling to the secondary metals market. The Flame Reactor process
does not require a minimum metal concentration in the feed for effective
treatment. Even at very low metal concentrations, the Flame Reactor can
render a material nonhazardous by immobilizing the non-volatile metals in
a vitrified slag. In order for the metal oxide product to be sufficiently en-
riched for recycling, however, the total concentration of volatile metals,
e.g., cadmium, lead, and zinc, should be at least 5%. Likewise, condensable
metals, such as copper, nickel, and cobalt should equal 5% or more in the
feed in order to yield a molten metal alloy product.
At a minimum, the feed should be fine and dry enough to allow trouble-
free pneumatic injection into the reactor. Moisture and particle size also
affect reactor performance, heat transfer rates and reaction rates being re-
duced as moisture and particle size increase. For this reason, a nominal
feed specification for the Flame Reactor is a particle size distribution of
3.31
-------
Process Identification and Description
80% less than 75 um (200 mesh) and a total water content (including
chemically-bound water) of 5%. The Flame Reactor, however, has success-
fully processed material which was 80% < 1,000 |jm with 15% total water.
3.4.3 Cost Data
Estimated cost data for the commercial processing of secondary lead
soda (SLS) slag have been developed based on the results of demonstration
tests and key assumptions. These estimates are presented in Section 5.4.1.
3.32
-------
Chapter 4
4
POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS
4. / Catalytic Oxidation
Catalytic oxidation is effective and potentially more economic than tradi-
tional carbon adsorption for controlling the emissions of halogenated or-
ganic compounds removed by vapor extraction from the vadose zone or by
air stripping from contaminated groundwater. The key to the economical
difference is the concentration and total amount of contaminant to be
treated. Low concentrations and small amounts of contaminant favor car-
bon adsorption; high concentrations and large amounts of contaminant fa-
vor catalytic oxidation. At very high concentrations thermal oxidation is
favored.
In most cases, both the concentration and the boiling point of the organic
compounds removed through soil venting and air stripping are so low that
condensation is economically impractical because of high capital and oper-
ating costs. The process of adsorption of the organic compounds on granu-
lar activated carbon is often used because of low capital requirements and
operating simplicity. When the quantity of the contaminant is large, how-
ever, or the organic compounds have low adsorption factors on the carbon,
the operating cost of the adsorption process makes it noncompetitive with
oxidation.
Under many conditions, thermal oxidation is the process of choice.
There is a need, however, to heat the mixture of organic compounds and air
to a temperature of about 800°C (1,500°F), and, therefore the cost of the
auxiliary fuel to sustain the desired operating temperature can be substan-
tial. Energy savings can be realized by product gas-to-feed heat exchang-
ers, but their use raises capital costs, and maintenance costs are likely to be
higher. Any corrosive substances in the oxidation products will make selec-
4.1
-------
Potential Applications
tion of proper materials of construction for heat exchangers more critical.
With chlorinated organic compounds, a combustion product is hydrogen
chloride, a strongly acidic and potentially corrosive gas. Consequently,
thermal oxidation has been infrequently employed at soil vapor extraction
projects that recover chlorinated organic compounds.
Catalytic oxidizers have long been used for emissions control of air/
organic compound mixtures. An advantage of catalytic oxidation is that it
occurs at a lower temperature than thermal oxidation. Compared with ther-
mal oxidation, energy costs are lower for two reasons, one thermodynamic
and the other, engineering. First, less fuel is required to preheat the air/
organic compound mixture to the reaction temperature, and second, it is
easier and cheaper to build a prod act-to-feed heat exchanger for the lower
operating temperature of about 450°C (840°F), typical of catalytic reactors.
A potential disadvantage of catalytic oxidizers, however, is that the catalyst
may be deactivated, or poisoned, by various volatile materials. For ex-
ample, chlorinated organic compounds deactivate the platinum-based cata-
lysts commonly used in conjunction with vapor extraction of gasoline-
contaminated soils. Thus, until recently, there were no commercially-avail-
able catalysts for applying the nominally better catalytic oxidation process
to control air emissions of halogenated organic compounds (Lesler 1989).
4.2 Rotary Cascading Bed Incinerator
(RCBI) System
The RCBI technology is applicable to almost any kind of organically
contaminated Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) site where mobile rotary kilns, rotary dryers, fluid-
ized beds, or infra-red conveyor furnaces have been used in thermal
remediations. This would include CERCLA sites contaminated \vith vola-
tile organics and semivolatile organics. The RCBI would be applicable to
sites with lightly-contaminated soils and sludges and to complex sites con-
taining organic tars, contaminated soils, sludges, and debris. For drum sites
with large quantities of drummed wastes, it might be necessary to shred the
drums to pieces less than 5 cm (2 in.) on a side, if they are to be fed to the
RCBI. An option would be to empity the drums, feed the separated wastes
4.2
-------
Chapter 4
to the RCBI, clean and compact the drums, and feed the drum wash water to
the RCBI.
4.3 ECO LOGIC Process
The ECO LOGIC Process is applicable to contaminated soils, sludges,
sediments, water, and oils. The feed rates depend on the kind of waste and
the waste characteristics. The chemical reactions that occur in the hydrogen
reduction process are enhanced by the presence of water, and if water is not
available in the waste, steam is added to the process. Soil typically has
sufficient moisture content to meet the water requirements. At the
Hamilton Harbor demonstration, slurried sediments that were 90 to 95%
water, with 5 to 10% solids, of which about 30% was organic material,
primarily coal tar, were processed. Currently, a desorption module is being
tested at the front end of the reactor. Its function is to desorb organic com-
pounds from soil so that only the soil organic content and the soil moisture
are processed through the reactor and only the inorganics pass through the
soil desorption module. This system has been tested at pilot-scale in Bay
City, Michigan, during a US EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evalu-
ation (SITE) Program demonstration in the fall of 1992, with the following
matrices and throughputs:
• contaminated soil (1000 ppm polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs)) 1.8 to 6.4 tonne/day (2 to 7 ton/day);
• contaminated water and oil 4.5 tonne/day (5 ton/day)
(4000 ppm PCBs); and
• contaminated oil (20% PCBs) and water 1.8 tonne/day (2 ton/
day).
Since the higher the organic and water contents, the lower the through-
put, the cost of destruction is more or less proportional to the throughput.
Compared with incineration, processing of wastes having high-Btu (or-
ganic) content requires more hydrogen, and therefore, costs more to process
than a watery waste with a low-Btu content. Methods of conserving and
producing hydrogen that may offset this are under investigation.
4.3
-------
Potential Applications
Table 4.1
Examples of Metal Industry Wastes Amenable
to FLAME REACTOR Processing
Type of Waste or
Residue
Air Pollution Control
Dusts
Solution Purification
Solids
Electrolysis Sludges
Slags
Leach Residues
Soils
Industry Affected
• primary metal
• secondary metal
• metal casting
• metal finishing
• primary metal
electrowinnmg
• electrorefining
• electroplating
• primary metal
electrowinning
• electrorefining
• electroplating
• primary metal
• primary metal
• primary metal
• secondary metal
• metal casting
• metal finishing
Areas of Impact
• carbon steel electric
arc furnace dusts - Pb,
Cd,Cr
• copper convener flue
dusts - Pb, Cd, As
• foundry dusts - Pb, Cd
• grinding dusts - Pb
• jarosite - Pb, Cd
• goethite - Pb, Cd
n cementation wastes -
Pb.Cd
II electroplating sludges -
Cr, Pb, Cd
n anode sludges - Pb
II lead blast furnace slag
-Pb
11 neutral leach residue -
Cd, Pb
•' landfills - various
• site remediation -
various
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Solution Piovided by
Flame Reactor
Cd, Pb, and'or As are
recovered with Zn as a
recyclable mixed oxide
Cu is recovered as an
alloy with IVi, Pb
Cr and Ni encapsulated in
slag
Cd, and/or Fb are
recovered with Zn as a
recyclable mixed oxide
Cu is recovered as an
alloy with Ni, Pb
Cd, Pb, and/or As are
recovered with Zn as a
recyclable mixed oxide
Cu is recovered as an
alloy with Ni, Pb
Ci and Ni encapsulated in
slag
Cd and Pb are recovered
with Zn as a recyclable
mixed oxide
Cd and Pb are recovered
with Zn and Ag as a
recyclable m, xed oxide
toxic metals are
encapsulated in a vitrified
slag
recovery of metals for
recycling when present in
sufficient quamtities
Courtesy Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc
4.4 Horsehead Research Development
Company, Inc., (HRD) Flame Reactor
System
The HRD Flame Reactor technology is suited to the treatment and/or
recovery and recycling of metal contaminants in sludges, slags, and soils.
This technology competes with other high-temperature thermal vitrification
processes that encapsulate contaminants with the potential for material re-
covery and reuse. Table 4.1 lists examples of metal industry wastes ame-
nable to Flame Reactor processing (Zagrocki 1992a).
4.4
-------
Chapter 5
5
PROCESS EVALUATION
5.7 Catalytic Oxidation
5.1.1 HDCatOx™
The Industrial Catalyst Group of Allied-Signal, Inc. announced the de-
velopment and commercial availability of a "Halohydrocarbon Destruction
Catalyst" (HOC) in 1989. The HDC is designed to tolerate chlorine and
other halogens and is very effective in promoting the oxidation of
halohydrocarbons at temperatures <450°C (840°F). Allied-Signal published
data on the HDC performance with a variety of halogenated solvents at
various space velocities and temperatures (Lester 1989). Using this infor-
mation, King, Buck/Catalytic designed and constructed a commercial HD
CatOx™ system for treating gases from a soil vapor extraction process. The
prototype has been operating successfully since mid-1990 in southern Cali-
fornia. The unit has a capacity of 7.4 mVmin (260 standard ftVmin) and is
designed to handle 2,500 ppmv trichloroethylene (TCE). The system was
packaged so that it would occupy one parking space on the top floor of a
multi-story parking garage. It consists of a vacuum pump/compressor, heat
exchanger, process heater, fixed-bed catalytic reactor, neutralizing scrubber,
and self-contained cooling system. It is designed for continuous operation
with process and safety controls to maintain conditions that comply with the
Permit to Operate.
Operation of the soil vapor extraction system at the design rate of 5.7 m3/
min (200 standard ftVmin) has resulted in a steady decline in the concentra-
tion of TCE in the vapor feed to the HD CatOx™, from about 3,500 ppmv
to about 500 ppmv after 400 days of on-stream operation. The total amount
5.1
-------
Process Evaluation
of TCE removed by vapor extraction during this period is more than 18,140
kg (40,000 Ib).
A permit for construction of the system was issued by the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Operating results have met
the conditions listed in the operating permit. Minimal operating data for the
unit have been made available. Data supplied by the developer, however,
indicates the following: preheater energy requirements, 28kw; catalytic
reactor Destruction Removal Effic:ency (DRE), 97%; and, scrubber perfor-
mance, 95+% hydrogen chloride removal. The prototype is priced at ap-
proximately $150,000 and is designed to treat about 115 kg (250 Ib) of
TCE/day. Daily operating costs for utilities and the caustic for hydrogen
chloride neutralization are about $200. This compares favorably with a
carbon adsorption system which had an estimated cost of $2,000/day for
regeneration charges alone (Buck, Hauck, and Abdun-Nor 1992).
5.1.2 ARI International (Hylton 1992)
Building 5000 at Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB) is the site of an effort
to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chiefly TCE, from ground-
water by air stripping with emissions control. The Air Force Engineering
and Services Center at Tyndall AFB contracted the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) to analyze and evaluate a full-scale catalytic oxidation
unit. Elements of the evaluation included obtaining data on the destruction
efficiency of the preheater and the catalytic reactor, determining whether
there were any products of incomplete combustion (PICs) in the effluent of
the preheater or the catalytic reactor, and collecting accurate utility costs for
operation of the catalytic system.
Air stripping with a catalytic oxidation system began in October 1987.
The contaminated groundwater was pumped to the surface and contacted
countercurrently with air in two packed columns in series to transfer the
VOCs from the water to the air. The air stripping system was designed to
treat 833 L/min (220 gal/min) of water; however, the system was usually
operated in the range of 568 to 643 L/min (150 to 170 gal/min).
The catalytic oxidation unit was fabricated by ARI International (ARI).
It destroys the VOCs in the air stream by bringing air in contact with a flu-
idized bed of catalyst granules at a c ontrolled temperature. The catalytic
oxidation unit includes a natural gas flame preheater to elevate the air
5.2
-------
Chapter 5
stream temperature to the catalyst bed temperature. The unit was designed
to treat 34.2 mVmin (1,200 standard fWmin), and Wurtsmith personnel
normally operated the unit at the ARI-recommended catalyst bed tempera-
ture of 370°C (700°F). The estimated concentration of TCE in the feed
stream to the unit was 11 to 12 ppmv. The catalyst granules in the fluidized
bed oxidation unit are composed of an aluminum oxide support impreg-
nated with chromium. The catalyst is normally attrited because of the con-
stant grating of the granules against each other and so the catalyst must be
periodically replenished. The depth of a full load of catalyst for this unit is
approximately 20 cm (8 in.), and the catalyst bed chamber is approximately
0.8 m2 (1 yd2) in cross section. The pressure drop across the catalyst bed is
directly proportional to the depth of the bed. According to a manufacturer's
representative, 2.5 cm (1 in.) of water pressure drop corresponds to approxi-
mately a 2.5 cm (1 in.) depth of catalyst in the bed. The pressure drop
across the catalyst bed was observed to decrease approximately 124 Pascal
(0.5 in. of water) in four months operating time because of the catalyst attri-
tion.
Four series of samples were collected from the catalytic oxidation unit
in October 1989, February 1990, August 1990, and May 1991. Samples
were collected simultaneously from the feed, preheater effluent, and stack
effluent while the unit was operated at catalyst bed temperatures ranging
from 315 to 480°C (600 to 900°F).
The major emphasis of the project was the collection of samples of
VOCs. A volatile organic sampling train (VOST) was used for collecting
these samples. (The VOST is the US EPA) Method 30 for the collection of
volatile principal organic hazardous constituents from the stack gas efflu-
ents of hazardous waste incinerators.) The sampling procedure was speci-
fied to allow the catalytic oxidation unit to attain steady-state conditions
when it was necessary to change the catalyst bed temperature. The unit was
allowed to operate one hour after reaching the desired catalyst bed tempera-
ture prior to initiating sample collection.
The results of this study indicate that the TCE catalytic oxidation unit at
Wurtsmith AFB destroys TCE with 97.3 to 99.1% destruction efficiency,
with TCE feed ranging from 13.5 to 7.8 ppmv, when operated at the ven-
dor-recommended, catalyst bed temperature of 370°C (700°F) and the unit
contains >19 cm (7.5 in.) depth of catalyst, as indicated by the pressure
drop across the catalyst bed (Hylton 1992). Benzene and toluene were the
5.3
-------
Process Evaluation
PICs observed most often and in the highest concentrations (up to 0.35
ppmv and 0.87 ppmv, respectively). The results indicate that the formation
of these compounds was not due to the oxidation of the TCE, although the
mechanism responsible for their formation was not identified. One possible
explanation offered was that methane in the natural gas reacted to form
ethyne (acetylene) which reacted to form benzene. Other PICs observed
included 1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), 2-butanone, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
ethylbenzene, chloroform, xylenes. styrenes, trichloro-fluoromethane, and
dichlorodifluoromethane. Periodic water samples taken by Wurtsmith per-
sonnel indicated that DCE was also a contaminant in the feed water to the
air strippers. Some of the compounds measured as PICs, e.g., 2-butanone
and trichlorofluoromethane, were identified in field blank samples indicat-
ing that the presence of these compounds may have been caused by con-
tamination while installing and removing the VOST traps. Another concern
about this testing was the lack of a mass balance for the chlorine atoms.
As to costs, the capital cost of an ARI fluidized bed oxidation unit with
features similar to those of the oxidation unit in Building 5000 at the
Wurtsmith AFB is approximately $83,000 for the equipment and $15,000
for installation. Wurtsmith personnel routinely monitor the monthly electri-
cal and natural gas usage in Building 5000; however, these costs are for the
whole building rather than for the catalytic oxidation unit. The building's
sole purpose is to house the air stripping columns, the oxidation unit, and
the associated equipment. The foui main electrical power users in the
building are the (1) air stripper blowers, (2) air stripper water pumps, (3)
oxidation unit blower, and (4) air compressor to operate the pneumatic con-
trols. The power requirements for the air stripper blowers and water pumps
probably overshadow the latter two users. There are two major users of
natural gas in the building. The catalytic oxidation unit uses natural gas to
preheat the feed stream to the catalyst bed temperature and the building is
heated with natural gas as needed. For the purposes of estimating costs, the
total cost of electrical and natural gas is used to determine the utility costs
for the oxidation unit, with recognition that this will result in a conservative
estimate.
Data were obtained from Wurtsmith personnel regarding the quantity of
water treated by the air strippers at this location during the same period.
Using these data and the utility cost data, the utility cost may be expressed
with respect to the quantity of water treated. The average utility cost per
5.4
-------
Chapter 5
3,800 L (1,000 gal) of water treated during this program was estimated to
range from $0.48 (FY 1989) to $0.36 (FY 1991).
5.2 Rotary Cascading Bed Incinerator
(RCBI) System
5.2.1 System Performance
The first pilot demonstration of the Pedco RCBI was conducted from
mid-1984 through 1985 at the Rollins incineration facility in Bridgeport,
New Jersey. The pilot RCBI had an inside diameter of 0.71 m (2 ft 4 in.)
and length of 5.5 m (18 ft). Tests were conducted on a high-sulfur Ohio
coal and five wastes, an emulsion sludge, an acrylic emulsion, a chlorinated
aromatic liquid waste, a floor wax, and a clarifier sludge. The coal con-
tained 4.3% sulfur. The wastes and coal were fired separately in each run at
rates from 0.17 to 1.11 Gj/hr (165,000 to 1,050,000 Btu/hr). Destruction
Removal Efficiency testing was not conducted. Table 5.1 (on page 5.6)
summarizes the pilot test results (Seibel and Long 1990).
After the pilot demonstration, Pedco designed a larger rotary cascading
bed combustor (RCBC) boiler. This unit, designed for generation of 2,270
kg (5,000 Ib) of steam per hour, was installed at the Hudepohl Brewing
Company in Cincinnati, Ohio. The boiler is similar to the RCBI design.
Incorporated in it are an internal close-coupled tube bundle for heat ex-
change followed by an external superheater, evaporator, and an economizer
(Seibel and Long 1991). The RCBC boiler has an internal diameter of 1.7
m (5.5 ft), a length of 7.6 m (25 ft), a rotational speed of 16 rev/min, and a
maximum operating temperature of 900°C (1,650°F). The unit was oper-
ated for 1,400 hours on high-sulfur coal (sulfur content ranging from 2.10 to
5.65%), and much testing was conducted on the in-bed neutralization of
sulfur dioxide. During the testing it was found that a calcium-to-sulfur ratio
of 1:2 was sufficient to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 90%. The rela-
tively low temperature of the RCBC boiler resulted in average NOx emis-
sion rates of about 0.09 kg (0.2 Ib) of NOx per MM Btu while using coal as
a fuel (Seibel and Long 1990).
5.5
-------
Process Evaluation
TableS.l
RCBI Pilot Test Results
Waste Feed
Emulsion Sludge
Acrylic Emulsion
Chlorinated Aromatics
Floor Wax
Clanfier Sludge
Ohio Coal
Feed Rate
kg/hr (Ib/hr)
41 (90)
96(210)
7(15)
71 (157)
46(100)
18 (40)
Temp
•CfF)
870(1600)
840(1550)
860(1575)
870(1600)
870(1600)
860(1575)
Stack Gas
Constituents*
CO
THC
CO
HCL
CO
THC
CO
SO2
Cone
ppmv
2
2-40
13
33-50
5-10
5
"CO-Carbon Monoxide
THC-Total Hydrocarbons
HCL-Hydrogen Chloride
SO2-Sulfur Dioxide
Excerpted from "Development and Operating Data for the Pedco Rotary Combustion System" by W H. Long and R V
Seibel, In Power — Volume 9, the proceedings of the 1S90 Industrial Conference, St Louis Copyright 1990 American
Society of Mechanical Engineers With permission
Pedco performed another pilot program using a 4,550 kg (10,000 Ib) of
steam per hour pilot unit at the North American Rayon plant in
Elizabethton, Tennessee. The unit was tested on 23 different fuels and
wastes (Seibel and Long 1991).
The pilot work at the Rollins Bridgeport facility was carried out to de-
velop the RCBI concept, gather data for use in designing a full-scale com-
mercial unit, and to develop waste feed and ash handling designs. It was
after this development program that Rollins installed the first full- scale
commercial Rollins RR at Deer Park, Texas, in 1988 (Falcone 1991).
The Rollins RR at Deer Park is configured in parallel with a 4.4 m (14.4
ft) slagging rotary kiln. Both the slagging kiln and the RR are connected to
a joint afterburner chamber and a common air pollution control (APC) sys-
tem (Falcone 1991). The Rollins RR was tested without the afterburner in
October 1989. During this program, 8 tests were performed using carbon
tetrachloride contaminated soil. The average carbon tetrachloride DRE was
>99.998%, and the DRE range was 99.997 to >99.9991% at a combustion
temperature of about 790°C (1,450°F). Waste feed rates ranged from 2.7 to
3.8 tonne/hr (3 to 4.2 ton/hr) (Alliance Technologies Corporation 1989;
Falcone 1992).
5.6
-------
Chapter 5
Estimated emission levels from the Rollins RR of carbon monoxide,
THC, hydrogen chloride, and sulfur dioxide are shown in table 3.1 (on page
3.11) (Falcone 1991). The Rollins RR has consistently achieved
nondetectable organic levels in the treated soil (using EPA test method
8270) during 4 years of operation (Falcone 1992). The detection level of
EPA method 8270 is about 1 ppm.
5.2.2 Process By-products
The RCBI generally will have no major process by-products. In some
cases, volatile metals such as lead, cadmium, or arsenic could concentrate in
the fabric filter residue. The residue, in some instances, could be hazardous
because of the presence of these metals. This is not unique to the RCBI,
however, but could occur also in other mobile high-temperature incinera-
tors.
5.2.3 Key Operational Aspects
The RCBI, taking full credit for test data from testing with carbon tetra-
chloride and high sulfur coals, has potential operational advantages over
other mobile incineration systems in the following key operational aspects:
• lower capital equipment requirements than for a conventional
rotary kiln incinerator because no afterburner is required;
• low fuel usage per unit of soil because of the excellent mixing in
the RCBI, and no afterburner fuel requirements;
• in-bed neutralization of hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide
using low-cost limestone, without the need for a wet scrubber;
• high in-bed sulfur dioxide removal efficiencies of 90% or higher
are achieved based on tests burning high-sulfur coal; and
• low NOx emission concentrations, measured in the range of 60 to
100 ppm due to lower normal operating temperatures.
5.7
-------
Process Evaluation
5.3 ECO LOGIC Process
In the pilot-scale demonstration testing of the ECO LOGIC hazardous
waste destruction process at Hamilton Harbor, in Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada, twelve characterization tests and three performance tests were car-
ried out in May, June, and July, 1991, processing harbor sediment contami-
nated with coal tar. Funding for the program was provided by ECO
LOGIC, Environment Canada, and Environment Ontario.
After installation and system integrity tests, a surrogate waste of clean
water and diesel fuel was processed under a variety of conditions with good
results. The characterization tests were intended to test the operation of the
system within the design parameters with various feed rates and sediment
concentrations. During these short (2 to 4 hr) tests, stack emission testing
on the boiler stack was conducted to determine emission rates of organic
compounds. Concentrations of the target compounds in the waste feed and
process effluents are given in table 5.2 (on page 5.9) (ELI ECO LOGIC
International, Inc. 1992).
The polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) input to the process was calcu-
lated by two methods to arrive at a best-case and worst-case calculation of
DRE. Samples of the waste influent were analyzed for the standard priority
PAHs as well as for total organic content. The waste influent concentration
is listed as a range of ppm concentrations of PAHs and the lower end of
each range corresponds to the PAHs analyzed. The upper end of the range
represents the total organic content of the influent and is based upon the
assumption that the coal-tar contamination of the sediment was all PAHs,
but that most of the PAHs were larger molecules that are not on the stan-
dard priority list. These PAHs would be broken down into smaller ones as
they are reduced and, at some point, would pass through the priority list
phase on the way to being reduced to methane. Based on a visual inspec-
tion of the sediment, the coal-tar contamination was much higher than the
low-ppm concentrations of priority PAHs. The sediment had a gooey, oily
texture and appearance and smelled like fresh asphalt. Use of the total or-
ganic content as the PAH influent concentration provides a best-case as-
sumption of DRE, ranging from 99.9999% to 99.99999%. The worst-case
assumption, that the priority PAHs were the only ones destroyed, gives
DREs ranging from 99.9% to 99.99%.
5.8
-------
Chapter 5
Table 5.2
Analytical Results Summary
Target Waste Influent Decant Water Gnt Cone Sludge Cone. Stack Gas Destruction Removal
Run Analysis Cone.* (mg/L) Cone. (ng/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Cone, (ng/m3) Efficiency** (%)
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
CIO
Cll
C12
PI
P2
P3
P3
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PAHs
PCBs*
66-
66-
3 1 -
5.0-
3.5-
3.5-
12.1-
11.7-
11.7-
11 1 -
4.3-
3.3-
6.1 -
73-
3.1-
110
15,000
15,000
15,000
14,000
19,200
19,200
25,200
22,400
22,400
22,400
26,100
19,200
21,000
30,000
30,000
-215
24
13
26
8
31
33
18
18
39
39
87
124
483
680
423
ND
004
0.06
0.04
070
007
0 16
4.03
9.87
3.08
098
6.77
4.68
167
7.76
037
ND
1.06
0.77
0.49
0.49
0.40
0.66
0.07
0.54
1.43
0.68
1.25
180
328
561
43
ND
1 00
1 00
0.26
1.00
0.14
0.46
0.19
062
0.16
0.25
028
0.37
027
0.23
0.14
ND
99.96 -
99.92 -
99.97 -
99.98 -
9998 -
99.95 -
99.99 -
9997 -
99.99 -
99.99 -
99.98 -
99.98 -
9999 -
9999 -
9998 -
99 999 -
99.99998
99,99996
99.99999
99.99998
99.99999
99 99999
99.99999
99 99999
99 99999
99.99999
99 99999
99.99999
99 99999
99.99999
99 99999
99 9999**
tttt
Low end of range is concentration of priority pollutant PAHs, high end of range is total organic concentration
DREs correspond to these input concentrations
ORE = [(Total Input - Stack Emissions) / (Total Input)] x100
Range of PCB concentration is due to variation in analyses DREs correspond to these input
concentrations
Based on detection limits - no PCBs detected
Courtesy ECO LOGIC
The effluents consisted of boiler stack gas, reactor grit and slag, scrubber
decant water, and scrubber sludge. For each characterization test, a number
of samples were analyzed for a variety of compounds. The MM5 stack
sampling trains, which were used to measure air emissions, were analyzed
most extensively, including analysis for PAHs, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, dioxins, and furans. The grit, de-
cant water, and scrubber sludge were each analyzed for PAHs, PCBs, and
metals. The waste was analyzed for solids content, total organic content,
PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Other samples, such as lab blanks, blank train
rinsings, and prerun scrubber water, were also analyzed for quality assur-
ance/quality control (QA/QC) purposes. In all twelve characterization tests,
the only major organic contaminants measured were naphthalene and chlo-
5.9
-------
Process Evaluation
robenzene. Chlorophenols, PCBs, and dioxins were not detected. Detec-
tion limits for these tests were as follows:
PCBs in stack gas D.L. = 120 ng/DSm3
PCBs in grit D.L. = 20 ng/g
PCBs in decant water D.L. = 70 ng/L
PCBs in sludge D.L. = 50 jog/L
Dioxins in stack gas D.L. = 0.34 ng
DSm3
Furans in stack gas D.L. = 0.15 ng
DSm3
CPs in stack gas D.L. = 0.88 ug/DSm3
Both PAH and chlorobenzene emission levels were below ambient air
quality guidelines, and blank-correcting would have reduced most of the
measured values to zero.
The grit and slag was virtually free of organic contamination and con-
tained only the inorganic and metallic components of the harbor sediment.
Depending upon the metals content of the waste being processed, the grit
produced may be recyclable or suitable for landfilling.
The decant water from each characterization test was held in batches for
analysis and subsequent disposal. It was tested for organic compounds and
metals and, in all cases, was virtually free of organic contamination. In
addition, the inorganic contamination of the decant water was very low
because most of the metals in the sediment remained with the grit after
processing. The decant water represented the largest volume of effluent,
equivalent to the amount of water processed with the sediment, [n each
test, the decant water was acceptable for disposal at municipal wastewater
treatment plants.
The scrubber sludge, consisting primarily of lime, carbon, fine particu-
late, and water, was a minor by-product. The sludge resulted from the
scrubber water being recirculated over and over through the scrubber, and
some organic contamination of the sludge did occur. As experience with
the scrubber operation was gained, certain parameters were changed to
minimize the amount of sludge produced. Although the sludge produced
was suitable for a landfill, the analytical cost to prove this makes it more
economical to recycle this small effluent stream back into the waste input.
5.10
-------
Chapter 5
Table 5.3 provides mass balance data derived from bench-scale test data.
The mass balance is performed around the reactor only.
The performance tests were conducted in order to demonstrate the capa-
bility of the system to operate for longer periods (days) and to measure a
wider range of emissions during longer sampling periods. In order to test
the destruction efficiency of the process with PCB-contaminated material,
the sediment waste liquid was spiked with PCS oil in the third performance
test.
The emission measurements from the boiler stack during the perfor-
mance testing demonstrated the destruction removal efficiency of the ECO
LOGIC Process. The stack emission sampling was more extensive for the
Table 5.3
Mass Balance Data*
MASS INPUT
Organics
Inorganics
Water
Hydrogen
Lime
Total
MASS OUTPUTS
Product Gas
CO
H2
CH4
H2O
Subtotal
Decant Water
H2O
Metals & Lime
Gnt Solids
Scrubber Sludge
Total
" From Bench Scale Tests
Courtesy ECO LOGIC
Kg/min
003
0.07
090
0.003
0005
1.008
0.0018
0.0061
00027
0.0038
00144
0.876
0.0005
0.099
0.020
1.010
Ib/hr
3.96
9.24
1188
0.38
066
13304
0.238
0.806
0.357
0.502
1.903
115.63
0.07
13.07
2.64
133.31
5.11
-------
Process Evaluation
performance tests than for the characterization tests. Three stack sampling
trains were used for each test, measuring semivolatile trace organic com-
pounds, volatile organic compounds, and metals. The semivolatile (MM5)
train samples were analyzed for PAHs, PCBs, chlorobenzenes,
chlorophenols, dioxins, and furans. The volatile (VOST) train samples
were analyzed for 31 volatile compounds, and the metals train for 25 ele-
ments. In addition, continuous analyzers sampled the stack gas for oxygen,
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, water vapor, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.
The concentrations of organic contaminants, primarily naphthalene and
chlorobenzene, in the stack gas were lower than ambient air quality guide-
lines, for both the semivolatile and volatile compounds tested. The emis-
sions of metallic compounds from the stack were somewhat higher than the
organic emissions and exceeded ambient air quality guidelines.
The effluents were similar to those produced during characterization
tests. The scrubber decant water could be disposed of through the sewers,
and the scrubber sludge was suitable for landfilling. The volume of sludge
produced was about 1% of the volume of sediment processed, which makes
diverting the sludge back to the waste input stream a reasonable option.
The organic emissions during the third performance test, when the PCB-
spiked waste was processed, demonstrated, for these conditions, that the
process is suitable for destruction of PCB-contaminated material. The
analysis of the liquid influent PCB concentration was 110 ppm total PCBs.
Based on a PCB analysis of the oil used to spike the liquid influent, how-
ever, the overall input concentration (including steam) should have been
215 ppm. The difference is probably due to inadequate mixing before sam-
pling. These concentrations result in a range of DRE for PCBs of 99.999%
to 99.9999%. There were no detectable concentrations of PCBs in the
boiler stack gas, the reactor grit, the scrubber decant water, or the: scrubber
sludge. Nor were there detectable stack emissions of other chlorinated
compounds, such as dioxins, furans, or chlorophenols.
To project the processing costs for a full-scale (100 tonne/day (110 ton/
day)) unit, the operating costs (all Canadian dollars except where US dollars
are indicated (all are September, 1992 dollars)) for the Hamilton Harbor
Project pilot-scale destructor processing Hamilton Harbor sediment during
the three performance tests are used. These costs include the actual destruc-
tion costs (energy and hydrogen) and costs, such as propane, consumables,
5.12
-------
Chapter 5
and labor. Costs for analyses are included in labor and consumables, and
site security costs are included in the labor and equipment capital costs.
Costs for setting up and demobilization are not included. At Hamilton Har-
bor, the electricity was supplied by a mobile generator burning diesel fuel.
The energy costs are therefore quoted as diesel fuel costs.
The three performance tests processed an average of 0.6 tonne (0.66 ton)
of waste over a 6 hour period. Approximately 20 m3 (26 yd3)of hydrogen,
250 L (265 gal) of diesel fuel, and one bag of lime were consumed for each
performance test. These costs are directly related to the actual destruction
of the organic waste and can be linearly scaled to the waste throughput.
The resulting variable costs are:
Diesel fuel $ 160/tonne (US$120/ton)
Hydrogen $35/tonne (US $25/ton)
Caustic $5/tonne (US $3.75/ton)
TOTAL $200/tonne (US $150/ton)
Fixed costs are defined here as the costs required to operate the destruc-
tor (manpower, etc.) and are independent of the waste throughput. The
labor requirements for a 100 tonne/day (110 ton/day) unit should not be any
different than for the pilot-scale unit at Hamilton Harbor. It is assumed that
one engineer and a crew of 5 trained operators are required for a cost of
$3,600/day (US $2,960/day). Electricity required to run units such as
pumps, heaters, process equipment, and instrumentation would be generated
from diesel fuel and is estimated to be approximately double the cost of the
Hamilton Harbor project for a 100 tonne/day (110 ton/day) unit. Other
costs, such as those for propane, water, and sewerage, are also assumed to
be doubled. The parts and supplies listed are for maintenance items, such
as glo-bars. The $l,000/day (US $822/day) cost is based on the cost of
parts and maintenance borne during the Hamilton Harbor project.
The resulting fixed costs for a 100 tonne/day (110 ton/day) unit would
be:
$/day US $/day
Labor 3,600 2,960
Per diem for 6 600 495
Diesel fuel 100 82
5.13
-------
Process Evaluation
Propane 300 247
Parts, Supplies 1,000 822
Water 100 82
Sewer 100 82
TOTAL: $5,800 $4,770
The capital cost of a 100 tonne/day (110 ton/day) unit is estimated to be
$2,000,000 (US $1,645,000). If this capital cost is depreciated over a 3 year
period, the cost is $l,830/day (US $l,505/day). Estimated general insur-
ance costs are based on the capital equipment cost and are $1.25/$100/yr
(US $1.03/100/yr), or $68/day (US $55/day). Pollution liability insurance
could cost an additional $300/day (US $247/day). For a 100 tonne/day (110
ton/day) unit, the total depreciation and insurance costs would be approxi-
mately $20/tonne (US $15/ton).
The resulting cost of destruction of Hamilton Harbor type sediment,
therefore, is approximately $280/tonne (US $210/ton) if the unit operates
continuously for 365 days/yr. In the first year of operation, it is estimated
that the unit will be down approximately 30% of the time for maintenance
and design improvements. Using this figure for process availability, 25,550
tonne (28,105 ton) can be processed in one year. The resultant annual costs
are:
Variable costs = 25,550 tonne (28,100 ton) x $200/tonne
= $5,110,000 (US $4,200,000)
Fixed costs = 365 days x $5,800/day
= $2,117,000 (US $1,739,900)
Depreciation/ = 365 x $2,198/day
Insurance = $802,300 (US $659,400)
TOTAL = $8,029,300 (US $6,600,000)
The cost per tonne is calculated as $8,029,300 (US $6,600,000) divided
by 25,550 tonne (28,165 ton) which equals approximately $315/tonne
(US $230/ton). Therefore, in the first year of operation, the waste destruc-
tion cost for Hamilton Harbor type sediments is estimated to be approxi-
mately $315/tonne (US $230/ton). Design improvements currently being
tested may lower this cost somewhat.
5.14
-------
Chapter 5
The cost of soil processing with the thermal desorption unit as a front-
end predestruction processor is estimated to be as low as $255/tonne (US
$190/ton). This estimate is based on the processing of soil with a moisture
content of 30% and a total organic content of 10%. The loading to the reac-
tor would then be 40% of the soil weight processed, at a cost of $134/tonne
(US $100/ton). The remaining $120/tonne (US $90/ton) cost is made up of
$107/tonne (US $80/ton) for energy and $13/tonne (US $10/ton) for capital
cost depreciation.
5.4 Horsehead Research Development
Company, Inc., (HRD) Flame Reactor
System
Three large-scale tests have been conducted to evaluate the HRD Flame
Reactor process for treating contaminated soils and solids. Contaminated
matrices included secondary lead soda (SLS) slag, lead-contaminated soil,
and electric arc furnace (EAF) dust spiked with carbon tetrachloride. Sum-
mary descriptions of the test, test results, and cost estimates for these cases
follow.
5.4.1 US EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program with Secondary Lead Soda Slag
Test Description. In the period March 20 to 23, 1991, a US EPA SITE
demonstration test was performed to evaluate the Flame Reactor process for
hazardous waste treatment. The work was done within the guidelines de-
fined by the US EPA SITE Program with specific objectives established by
the SITE Program Managers. Complete details of the test appear in the
Applications Analysis Report and the Technical Evaluation Report (US
EPA 1992a; US EPA 1992b).
Secondary lead soda slag is a residue from the National Lead (NL) In-
dustries soda slag process for lead battery recycling. The Flame Reactor
test lot of 65 tonne (72 ton) was obtained from a stockpile of 270 to 320
tonne (300 to 350 ton) in Atlanta, Georgia. This SLS slag was generated at
a plant in Pedricktown, New Jersey, where a stockpile of 4,535 to 13,067
5.15
-------
Process Evaluation
tonne (5,000 to 15,000 ton) of SLS slag is located. Both the Atlamta and
Pedricktown locations are Superfund sites.
As received at the test site, the SLS slag averaged about 9.7% moisture
and was very coarse as shown by the particle size distribution data in table
5.4. Chunks of material larger than about 4 in., some of which were over 2
feet in cross-section, were excluded from the sample used for the data in
table 5.4. Prior to Flame Reactor processing, the SLS slag was dried to 2 to
7% moisture and crushed in a hammermill to 4.75 mm (<3/16 in). Roughly
60 tonne (65 ton) of dried and crushed SLS slag were prepared from the
initial 65 tonne (72 ton). The prepared material is characterized in table 5.5
(on page 5.17). In addition to the demonstration test, a series of sihakedown
runs were conducted to determine the operating conditions for the demon-
stration test and several runs with flux additions (silica flour) were per-
formed to improve slag characteristics.
Table 5.4
Particle Size Distribution of Secondary Lead Soda Slag
Mesh size
2 inch
1.5 inch
1 inch
0.625 inch
0 25 inch
0111 inch
% Passing
64.8
591
54.0
483
392
32.0
USEPA1992a
X-ray diffraction indicated that the principal lead, iron, and sodium com-
pounds were caracolite (Na3Pb2(SO()3Cl), hydrous iron oxides, and sodium
sulfate, respectively. Metallic iron, metallic lead, and carbon particles were
also present as artifacts of the soda slag process. Throughout the tests, the
prepared SLS slag handled well in the Flame Reactor feed system.
5.16
-------
Chapter 5
Table 5.5
Characterization of Prepared Secondary Lead Soda Slag
Parameter
Moisture (weight loss at 1 10°C)
Passing 60 mesh
Passing 100 mesh
Passing 200 mesh
Passing 325 mesh
Percent
5.2
50.9
36.4
22.9
15.2
USEPA1992a
A split of the samples taken by the US EPA subcontractors during the
demonstration tests were also analyzed by HRD. The carbon analyses were
done on a Leco carbon analyzer, chloride was determined by Volhard titra-
tion, and fluoride analysis involved distillation followed by determination
via specific ion electrode. All other analyses were done by inductively
coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP) using a dissolution procedure modified
from a U.S. Bureau of Mines method which uses a mixture of mineral acids
to dissolve the entire sample. This method does not meet the US EPA QA/
QC requirements.
The dissolution method that the US EPA chose for their ICP analyses
was Method 3050. Method 3050 did not dissolve the entire sample and is
known to cause a low bias for silicon and chromium. The relative merits of
the ICP dissolution methods used by HRD and the US EPA are discussed in
considerable detail in the Technical Evaluation Report for this project. The
averages of both sets of chemical analyses appear in table 5.6 (on page
5.18).
Results. Partitioning of the major elements to the slag and oxide prod-
ucts was calculated using a statistical-based material balance program. By
evaluating the interrelation of the data and the quality of the data points, the
material balance program calculates an internally consistent balance of the
process streams and their components (Zagrocki 1992b). The recoveries of
major elements to the oxide or slag product, as presented in table 5.7 (on
page 5.19), were taken from this material balance calculation.
5.17
-------
Process Evaluation
The product slag consistently passed Toxicity Characteristic Leachate
Procedure (TCLP) testing for leachable metals. The average TCLP results
are presented in table 5.8 (on page 5.20).
A site-specific risk analysis is required to assess the effect of the HRD
Flame Reactor stack emissions. Based on limited data, the atmospheric
emissions of metals could be a concern. Because of data limitations, how-
ever, no conclusions could be readied on metal emissions. In particular, the
Table 5.6
EFA SITE Demonstration With Secondary Lead Soda
Slag Average Composition of Solids as Analyzed by HRD and EPA
(weight %)
SLS Slag
Product Slag
Product Oxide
Element
EPA
HRD
EPA
HRD
EPA
HRD
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbon
Chlonde
Chromium
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Sulfur
Thallium
Tin
Zinc
0.60
0.037
0.52
0086
0.0001
0.041
065
15.0
246
0.0088
019
0.013
10.3
5.41
023
0075
0.00007
024
0.0073
0.28
0.0003
122
525
0.025
0.28
0.42
069
NA
NA
NA
NA
0043
0.72
14.7
264
0024
0.17
0031
108
6 10
0.26
0.074
NA
023
NA
8.10
NA
122
8.4
NA
NA
0.44
153
0.036
0.026
0.16
00001
00004
130
NA
NA
00089
034
NA
•>0.5
055
054
018
0.00001
0.24
0.0034
033
00004
155
NA
0069
0.080
0.16
1.64
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Chapter 5
Table 5.7
Recovery Rates for EPA SITE Demonstration Test
Percent Recovery
Element-
Lead
Sodium
Sulfur
Iron
Silicon
Slag
8
64
30
91
63
Oxide
92
36
44
9
37
US EPA 1992a
HRD Flame Reactor emitted lead, chromium, and arsenic at rates above the
Tier II screening limits during the SITE demonstration.
Costs. The HRD Flame Reactor system processed the SLS slag at a cost
of $l,035/tonne ($932/ton). A preliminary operating cost estimate ($2407
tonne ($215/ton)) was developed for processing the remaining Pedricktown
SLS slag stockpile at the Monaca Flame Reactor facility. The estimate is
based upon the results of the SLS slag tests and the following assumptions:
• Processing would be performed at the Monaca Flame Reactor
facility;
• De-stocking and transportation costs to Monaca would not be
included;
• The SLS slag would be crushed to 80% minus 200 mesh and
dried to <2% free moisture;
• A 25% addition of silica flux would be used to improve slag
integrity;
• The SLS slag would be fed at 2.4 tonne/hr (2.7 ton/hr) or about 3
tonne/hr (3.4 ton/hr) with flux;
• The costs would be presented on a $/tonne ($/ton) basis for pro-
cessing a 10,890/tonne (12,000 ton) lot of material; and
• Offgas scrubbing for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide would
not be required.
5.19
-------
Process Evaluation
Table 5.8
Average TCLP Results for EPA SITE Demonstration Test
TCLP Metal
Arsenic
Banum
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
mg/L
0474
0.175
•:0 050
<0.060
•:0.330
•:0.010
0.033
<0.050
Regulatory Value
mg/L
5.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
USEPA19923
The estimated operating costs are summarized in table 5.9 (on page
5.21). Pretreatment labor and utility costs are included with the Flame Re-
actor cost. Overall staffing, including supervision, would number twelve
people. The pretreatment circuit would be run by a single operator 2 shifts
per day, 5 days per week. The Flarae Reactor would operate 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week. Two Flame Reactor operators would be required for
each of the four shifts, with one daylight mechanic and one supervisor for a
Flame Reactor complement of ten. Three days are estimated to be required
for start-up and shutdown of the Flame Reactor and feed preparation circuit.
Including the mechanic and supervisor, this adds up to 30 man-days. The
capital cost estimate is based on the assumption of financing at 12% interest
over ten years. It is assumed that the slag would be marketed at a value
equivalent to handling and shipping costs for no net profit or loss.
5.4.2 Soil Treatment Tests
Test Description. On November 5, 1991, 6,540 kg (14,420 Ib) of lead-
contaminated soil were excavated from the C&R Battery Superfurid site in
Richmond, Virginia, and transported to the Monaca Flame Reactor facility
for a treatability test. The test was directed by the US EPA through its
prime contractor, Versar, Inc. The purpose of the test was to evaluate high-
temperature metal recovery (HTMF.) for soil remediation.
5.20
-------
Chapter 5
Table 5.9
Processing Fee for Flame Reactor Processing of Secondary Lead Soda Slag
Cost Factors
Natural gas
Oxygen
Labor
Electricity
Flux
Matenals & supplies
Direct costs
Indirect costs
Capital & taxes
SUBTOTAL
Units $/Umt Units/ton
MCF 3.50 8.62
100 scf 025 189.3
Man-hrs 20.00 1.41
kwh 005 305.
tons 36.00 0.25
Cost/ton
$
30.15
47.31
28.16
15.25
9.00
17.28
147.15
1000
5806
21521
Product oxide shipping & recycling
Product slag handling & marketing
NET PROCESSING FEE
$21521
USEPA19923
The C&R Battery soil averaged about 13.2% moisture content. The soil
was screened to remove battery case pieces, plants, and other items larger
than about 5 cm (2 in.), dried to 0.44% moisture content in a Holoflite
dryer, and crushed to 2.4 mm (<3/32 in.) in a hammermill. The quantity of
soil prepared for the Flame Reactor process treatability test totaled 4,830 kg
(10,640 Ib). The particle size distribution of the prepared soil is given in
table 5.10 (on page 5.22).
Early in the crushing operation, it was discovered that the hammermill
screen had several large holes and was, therefore, passing coarse material.
This soil, about 1,000 kg (2,200 Ib), was put aside as a backup lot and was
used near the end of the test program. This coarse soil did not perform well
in the Flame Reactor.
The sampling and analysis plan called for six composite samples of soil,
slag, and oxide to be collected from steady-state operation. Because of the
very limited quantity of soil available for the test, a test matrix could not be
run to investigate a range of operating parameters. After start-up, operating
conditions were changed rapidly until reasonable lead extraction and slag
5.21
-------
Process Evaluation
Table 5.10
Particle Size Distribution of Dried and Crushed Soil
Mesh Opening Percent
Jim Passing
1180 93.7
600 85.2
250 68.1
150 56.0
75 387
45 25.9
Courtesy Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc
fluidity were achieved. The Flame Reactor operating conditions for the test
are summarized in table 5.11.
Results. Summaries of the chemical analysis of the major constituents in
the soil, the product oxide, and the product slag appear in table 5.12 (on
page 5.23). The distribution of the major elemental species between the
oxide and slag is shown in table 5.13 (on page 5.24). The average TCLP
leachate analyses for five of the six slag samples taken are shown in table
5.14 (on page 5.25). The sample collected when the coarse soil was being
processed yielded a TCLP lead result of 30.3 mg/L. Because the soil was
Table 5.11
Soil Test Operating Conditions
Parameter
Soil feedrate, tons per hour
Flux addition, % of soil
Natural gas, MCF per ton of soil
Oxygen, 100 scf per ton of soil
Combustion air, % oxygen
SITE
Demonstration
0.6
80
37.1
421
75
Courtesy Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc.
5.22
-------
Chapter 5
Table 5.12
Treatability Test on Lead-Contaminated Soil from C&R Battery
Average Composition of Solids as Analyzed by HRD and EPA
(weight %)
SLS Slag
Product Slag
Element
EPA
HRD
EPA
HRD
Courtesy Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc
Product Oxide
EPA
HRD
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbon
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Sulfur
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.61
0.036
0.0086
0.012
<0.0001
0.0075
1.21
NA
NA
0.005
0.012
0.042
NA
2.04
6.94
0.14
0.060
0.00002
0.0098
<0.10
0.0004
NA
<0.001
0.19
NA
0.00002
O.OOJ9
0.74
3.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.010
1.72
11.9
NA
<0.010
NA
0.034
NA
2.08
11.8
0.25
0.048
NA
NA
1.03
NA
17.8
NA
0.54
1.2
NA
NA
0.087
1 51
<0.01
0.0007
0.018
<0.0002
<0.0005
10.4
NA
NA
0.0091
0.010
0.030
NA
7.16
0.15
0.30
0.12
<0.00001
00076
<0.10
<0.001
NA
<0.0004
0.29
NA
<0 00001
0.0017
0.22
2.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.005
15.8
NA
NA
0.017
NA
0.042
NA
11.1
0.35
046
0.16
NA
NA
0.67
NA
22.0
NA
057
<0.2
NA
NA
0.30
0.77
0.093
0.051
0012
<0.0005
0086
127
NA
NA
0011
0.011
0.12
NA
3.56
927
026
0.11
0.0001
0.0072
<0.50
0.0036
NA
0.0068
068
NA
00006
00059
9.5
0.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
010
16.2
NA
2.24
0.013
NA
0.12
0.42
320
213
029
0.096
NA
NA
090
NA
536
NA
0.63
5.9
NA
NA
9.0
inadequately prepared, this result is not considered representative of Flame
Reactor performance. All other TCLP metal analyses for the sixth sample
were comparable to those listed in table 5.14 (on page 5.25). For compari-
son, TCLP analyses of the untreated soil were 122.0 to 27.0 mg/L lead and
3.04 to 2.28 mg/L cadmium.
5.23
-------
Process Evaluation
Table 5.13
Recovery Rates for Soil Treatability Test
Element
Lead
Calcium
Iron
Silicon
Courtesy Horsehead Resource Development Compi
Percent Recovery
Slag
20
67
86
79
any, Inc
Oxide
80
33
14
21
Costs. An order-of-magnitude capital and operating cost estimate was
developed for a 30,000 tonne/yr (33,000 ton/yr) Flame Reactor facility to
treat contaminated soil (table 5.1:5 on page 5.26). For this estimate, fine and
dry soil would be provided to the Flame Reactor from a soil washing pro-
cess operated at the site. The resulting $7.2 million capital and $250/tonne
($228/ton) operating cost estimates are based on the following assumptions:
• The soil pretreatment and long-term storage costs are not in-
cluded;
• A flux rate of 50% is assumed. The flux is a 3:1 mixture of
quicklime and hematite;
• Flame Reactor slag will be back-filled on the site;
• Credits for recovered metal revenues are not included;
• Utilities are available at the plant boundary line; and
• Offgas scrubbing for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide is not
required.
The commercial consumption of natural gas and oxygen for SiLS and soil
differ from the test values because:
• Feed preparation would be better in commercial operations;
• Quicklime is used in place of hydrated lime;
5.24
-------
Chapter 5
• Processing rates are increased; and
• Operating parameters are slightly different.
The biggest reason for the differences between the commercial and test
consumptions is the quantity of water fed to the reactor. Drying the waste
feed to lower levels of moisture in a commercial plant will significantly
reduce the Flame Reactor fuel consumption. For soil, using quicklime in-
stead of hydrated lime further reduces water input. While drying (or calcin-
ing in the case of lime) requires the same theoretical energy whether
performed in the Flame Reactor or a drier, the water is heated to a much
higher temperature in the Flame Reactor and the energy efficiency is lower,
i.e., heat losses are higher.
Improved particle size reduction in a commercial facility also translates
into reduced consumption, since the reaction rate improves with smaller
feed particle size. Thus, the Flame Reactor can be operated under slightly
less intensive conditions to achieve the same level of treatment.
Table 5.14
Average TCLP Results for Soil Treatability Test
Metal
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Result
mg/L
0.16
<0.06
0.14
<0.001
<0.005
<0006
0.096
<05
1.5
<0.0002
0.25
<0.010
<0.004
<0.001
<0007
3.1
Regulatory
Values
mg/L
50
100.0
—
10
5.0
—
—
50
0.2
—
10
5.0
—
—
—
Courtesy Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc
5.25
-------
Process Evaluation
Table 5.15
Processing Fee for Flame Reactor Processing of
Lead-Contaminated Soil
Cost Factors
Units
S/Unit Units/ton
Cost/ton
Natural gas MCF
Oxygen 100 scf
Labor Man-hrs
Electricity kwh
Flux tons
Materials & supplies
Direct costs
Indirect costs
Capital & taxes
SUBTOTAL
Product oxide shipping & recycling
Product slag handling & marketing
NET PROCESSING FEE
3.50 8.35
0.25 133.00
20.00 1.01
0.05 200.
36.00 0.5
29.22
33.25
2020
10.00
18.00
1745
128.12
10.00
9029
228.41
$22841
Courtesy Horsehead Resource Development Compaiy, Inc
The higher processing rates in commercial operations reduce the unit
consumption because of proportionally lower heat losses at higher through-
puts. For a particular waste feed, the heat flux depends mainly upon the
operating temperature. Therefore, for a given reactor size, the energy (fuel)
per mass of waste consumed to oi'fset heat losses decreases at higher feed
rates. In addition, as the reactor size is increased to accommodate even
larger feed rates in commercial plants, the wall surface area increases more
slowly than the reactor volume, thereby reducing the impact of heat losses.
Finally, there are some small differences in the commercial soil treat-
ment scenario. First, the flux addition is 65% instead of 80%, as used in the
treatability test. Second, the level of volatile rnetals, lead and zinc, is over
an order-of-magnitude lower than in the test run, requiring less fuel for
reduction. In addition, the commercial plant is based on (55% oxygen en-
richment compared with 80% in the test.
5.26
-------
Chapter 5
5.4.3 Destruction Removal Efficiency Test with Carbon Tetra-
chloride
Test Description. In a test, conducted in March, 1990, carbon tetrachlo-
ride was fed into a Flame Reactor simultaneously with steel mill EAF dust
in order to simulate a metal-bearing waste contaminated with hazardous
organic compounds. The purpose of the test was to demonstrate the ability
of the Flame Reactor process to destroy hazardous organic contaminants in
conjunction with the treatment of metal-bearing wastes.
The carbon tetrachloride was injected separately of the EAF dust to
avoid fouling with the pneumatic injection system. The carbon tetrachlo-
ride was introduced at the same point in the process, but through a port
offset from the solid feed by 90 degrees. The carbon tetrachloride was fed
at a rate equivalent to 5% of the total feed.
Results. The average DRE was 99.9986% and no carbon tetrachloride
was detected in either the slag or oxide products.
5.27
-------
-------
Chapter 6
6
LIMITATIONS
6.1 Catalytic Oxidation
Catalytic oxidation of halogenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
has only been field-demonstrated on trichloroethylene (TCE). Performance
results indicate that this technology can successfully destroy over 97% of
the feed stream TCE. Economics seem to be favorable when the feed
stream has a relatively high TCE concentration and/or the amount of TCE
to be destroyed is large. The application of catalytic oxidation to treat other
halogenated organic compounds and mixtures of organic compounds that
are candidates for vapor extraction or air stripping is dependent upon the
identification and commercial availability of appropriate catalysts.
6.2 Rotary Cascading Bed Incinerator
(RCBI) System
6.2.1 Reliability of Performance
Because of the RCBI's relatively high rotational speed, it is more com-
plicated than a standard high temperature rotary kiln incinerator. Pedco has
found that rotation of the rotary cascading bed at the appropriate speed with
the correct amount of bed material introduces important maintenance con-
siderations. The RCBI may require additional development before it can be
run at operating factors (availability) equivalent to the availabilities ex-
pected from traditional low rev/min, high-temperature rotary kiln incinera-
tors.
6.1
-------
Limitations
6.2.2 Waste Matrix
Large pieces of shredded drums and heavy pieces of contaminated debris
should not be fed to the RCBI.
6.2.3 Soil Carry-Over
Because of the highly turbulenl, fluidized nature of the RCBI bed mate-
rial, there will be a high degree of entrained soil in the combustion gas. It is
likely that 20% or more of the soil fed will exit the RCBI as entrained par-
ticulate. This relatively high soil carryover, compared to a high temperature
rotary kiln, will need to be considered during the design of the air pollution
control and residue handling equipment.
6.2.4 Volatile Metal Emissions
Because the RCBI design does not include a wet scrubber, mercury emis-
sions are a potential problem. In order to control emissions of highly vola-
tile mercury, if present in the soil being treated, the RCBI air pollution
control systems would have to be modified. This modification might in-
volve a wet scrubber following the system fan or dry injection of carbon in
front of the fabric filter to capture the mercury. Other volatile metals such
as arsenic, zinc, lead, and cadmium, are a potential problem which may
require application of suitable APC equipment or capacity restrictions.
6.2.5 Risk Considerations
The greatest potential risk with using of the RCBI as a mobile unit for
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) soils lies in the need for and uncertainty about the cost and
time required for needed development work. Rollins has shown that the
technology can be made to work effectively, but has kept the cost and time
frame required to develop the Rollins Rotary Reactor as a commercial unit
confidential. Pedco believes that a mobile RCBI could be built and opera-
tional within a period of one year (IReed 1992).
6.2.6 Process Needs
The process, as described by Pedco, appears to be appropriate for the
treatment of contaminated soils. A possible modification might be to posi-
6.2
-------
Chapter 6
tion a hot cyclone between the RCBI and the fabric filter to remove the
coarse fraction of the entrained soil before it reaches the fabric filter.
6.3 ECO LOGIC Process
Materials handling will probably present the most problems during op-
erations, as it did in the tests at Hamilton Harbor. Specific problems en-
countered were:
• grit blockages at the reactor bottom exit that caused interruptions
in processing of 6 to 8 hr. Modifications to correct this problem
have been completed;
• breakage of the glo-bar (silicon carbide electric heating) ele-
ments in the reactor during cooling. A new design is expected to
correct this problem; and
• small scrubber sludge recycle stream. But it is anticipated that
no problems will arise when recycling this stream even at 90
tonne/day (100 ton/day) commercial size.
Additional concerns when decontaminating soils are:
• Certain types of soils may be more difficult to decontaminate
than others;
• Feed soils must be screened or crushed to <2.5 cm (1 in.); and
• the operation of the soil desorption module.
Finally, storage and handling of hydrogen gas presents unique potential
fire and explosion hazards.
6.3
-------
Limitations
6.4 Horsehead Research Development
Company, Inc., (HRD) Flame Reactor
System
The major limitations of the Flame Reactor process have to do with the
kinds of wastes and their physical characteristics. Specifically, the follow-
ing factors may pose limitations:
• Waste must be suitable for gravity and pneumatic transport;
• Feed preparation requirements for soil include screening at 5 cm
(2 in.) to remove large rocks and plant debris, crushing to 3 mm
(
-------
Chapter 7
7
TECHNOLOGY PROGNOSIS
7.1 Catalytic Oxidation
The commercial treatment of halogenated organic compounds from soil
or groundwater remediation by catalytic oxidation is relatively new. Perfor-
mance in and economic results from recent demonstrations, discussed in
chapter 5.0, have shown the effectiveness of this technology. Catalytic
Oxidation offers a significant economic advantage over granular activated
carbon treatment in many cases. In addition, it offers the potential for hot-
gas reinjection to accelerate the contaminant removal process. It is antici-
pated that new catalyst development will expand the range of halogenated
organic compounds treated by catalytic oxidation.
7.2 Rotary Cascading Bed Incinerator
(RCBI) System
Rollins has shown that the RCBI can be developed into an effective mo-
bile soil treatment system (Falcone 1991). Although the Pedco RCBI tech-
nology is close to commercialization for soil treatment, the following as-
pects of the technology may need further development and demonstration
for full-scale operations:
• Internal recirculation rate as a function of the type of soil or
sludge needs to be explored. Pedco believes that a recirculation
of about 5 to 10 times would be appropriate for high-inert con-
tent feed materials such as soils (Reed 1993);
7.1
-------
Technology Prognosis
• Soil residual and destruction removal efficiency (DRE) data at
different operating conditions for low-vapor pressure constitu-
ents such as polychlormated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins;
• Soil entrainment rates and the treated soil distribution between
the RCBI bottom ash and the air pollution control (APC) equip-
ment relative to sizing of the soil and ash handling equipment;
• Optimal limestone-to-chlorine ratio to achieve 99% hydrogen
chloride removal;
• NOx emissions at different RCBI temperatures;
• Volatile metal emission rates during the treatment of soils; and
• Residual organics present in solids collected by the fabric filter.
Some of the data needed can probably be realistically estimated by Pedco
based on the extensive pilot data from the rotating cascading bed (RGB)
boiler program (Seibel and Long 1991). The Pedco RCBI appears to hold
the promise of being an efficient, cost-effective innovative technology for
the thermal treatment of contaminated soils.
7.3 ECO LOGIC Process
The ECO LOGIC process seems to be sufficiently developed to under-
take full-scale remediation projects, assuming that material handling prob-
lems that surfaced during the Hamilton Harbor demonstration (which have
been addressed) are solved. A commercial-scale system has not been built
and additional problems may be encountered during the Superfund Innova-
tive Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program demonstration.
7.2
-------
Chapter 7
7.4 Horsehead Research Development
Company, Inc., (HRD) Flame Reactor
System
The Flame Reactor process is well-suited to the treatment of metal-bear-
ing wastes. Most of the metals of value are recovered in a recyclable form,
and hazardous organic compounds are destroyed. The process is unlikely to
be economically competitive with lower-temperature alternative processes
for treatment of organic contaminated soils with low-metal content.
Continuous, commercial scale (1.1 to 2.7 tonne/hr (1.2 to 3.0 ton/hr)
waste feed) demonstration plant operation has been performed at the
Monaca Flame Reactor facility since 1985. Total testing time is close to
4,000 hours with about 5,445 tonne (6,000 ton) of material processed. The
materials tested include:
• Steel mill electric arc furnace (EAF) dust - about 10 sources;
• Zinc plant residues - 4 sources, 5 types;
• Lead smelter residues - 1 source, 2 types;
• Superfund wastes - 2;
• Soil - 2 sources; and
• Destruction removal efficiency test - carbon tetrachloride surro-
gate test.
A Part B permit application for K061 (EAF dust) processing at the
Monaca Flame Reactor plant was filed in December 1988. After the Part B
permit is approved, HRD will seek permit modifications to process other
wastes as might be relevant to commercial treatment opportunities.
These test programs have demonstrated the ability of the Flame Reactor
process to recover metal for recycling, produce a non-hazardous vitrified
slag, and destroy organic contaminants. The sampling, monitoring, and
analysis requirements for organic compounds, however, will be greater than
for materials that contain only toxic metals. The capital costs should not be
much higher than for similar materials without organic compounds. Or-
ganic analyses could significantly impact processing costs, however, de-
pending on the compounds involved. HRD is pursuing opportunities to
apply the Flame Reactor technology to treatment of metal-bearing wastes
7.3
-------
Technology Prognosis
contaminated with organic compounds. Several wastes are under review for
process testing.
The Flame Reactor technology is ready for use in commercial processing
and remediation. An 18,150 tonne/yr (20,000 ton/yr) demonstration facility
has operated at Monaca, Pennsylvania, since 1983. A 27,200 tonne/yr
(30,000 ton/yr) facility for EAF dust processing is being constructed in
Beaumont Texas, with start-up scheduled for the first quarter of 1993. At
the present time, there are no plans to construct a mobile plant. Although
there is considerable interest within HRD and elsewhere, a specific business
opportunity must be identified before such a capital investment can be justi-
fied.
7.4
-------
Appendix A
A
APPENDIX A
Other Promising Technologies
Following is a discussion of other promising technologies that are under
development, but could not be assessed at this time because of insufficient
data. Significant testing and evaluation are scheduled in the near future that
will likely generate adequate data for assessment, and these technologies
may also become candidates for remediation.
Supercritical Water Oxidation
Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) is the oxidation of organics, with
air or oxygen, in the presence of a high concentration of water under tem-
peratures and pressures above the critical-point values of water: 374°C and
22 MPa (705°F and 218 atm). Above the critical temperature and pressure,
the properties of water are quite different from those of the normal liquid or
atmospheric stream. For example, organic substances are completely
soluble (i.e., miscible in all proportions) in water under some supercritical
conditions, while salts are almost insoluble under others.
Supercritical water oxidation has been under development since 1980.
Over the past twelve years, the oxidation efficiency of SCWO for many
chemicals and some wastes has been studied at the laboratory and bench
scale (Tester et al. 1991). As an oxidation process, its efficiency can be
measured as the degree of destruction of organic feed materials (e.g. de-
struction removal efficiency (DRE)) or as the degree of conversion of or-
ganic carbon to carbon dioxide (e.g. DE). The DEs and DREs of SCWO
have been reported to range from 99.9% at 400° to 450°C (752° to 842°F)
with a residence time of 5 min to 99.9999% at 600° to 650°C (1,112° to
1,200°F) with a residence time of less than 1 min. Beyond the laboratory
scale, a trailer-mounted pilot plant was built by Modar and tested twice in
the field (Staszak, Malinowski, and Killiea 1987; Johnson et al. 1988). That
A.I
-------
Other Promising Technologies
pilot plant could not effectively remove solids. One of the major technical
barriers wasthe plugging of reactors by inorganic solids under supercritical
conditions (Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation 1989). In 1989,
MODEC devised a new reactor designed to avoid plugging by inorganics.
The design has been demonstrated successfully by continuous operation at
the bench scale (Modell 1992). To date, no commercial SCWO units have
been built.
The SCWO process produces aqueous, solid and gaseous effluents. The
aqueous effluent is primarily water with some dissolved alkali salts. The
gas is primarily carbon dioxide (95 to 99.95% carbon dioxide, 100 ppm N2,
50 ppm carbon monoxide, and the balance, O2). The solid is primarily ox-
ides and insoluble salts of metals (if present in the feed). Potential advan-
tages claimed for SCWO are: less expensive than incineration for treating
aqueous wastes; the process can be rapidly bottled up by emergency shut-
down procedures so as to avoid discharge of contaminated effluents during
an upset or off-specification operation; and gaseous effluents can be virtu-
ally eliminated through condensation of the carbon dioxide offgas.
There are various applications of the SCWO process under research and
development. Specifically, studies are underway to assess the process for
use in the chemical demilitarization program and a facility is being de-
signed and built for managing nonhazardous petrochemical wastes. (See
Appendix C for Technology Contact).
Soil Detoxification Using Solar Energy
It has been proposed that remediation of contaminated soil could be car-
ried out by a combination of conventional and solar technologies. This
might involve removing the contaminants from the soil using conventional
thermal desorption extraction methods and exposing them to a concentrated
solar flux. A concentrated solar flux on the order of 100 W/cm2 (645 W/
in.2) can readily be created in a solar furnace or a dish concentrator
(Glatzmaier, Mehos, and Nix 1990). Volatile contaminants from the soil
could be entrained in a carrier gas stream or condensed to a liquid and ex-
posed to the solar flux in a windowed reactor placed near the focus of the
furnace or concentrator. Semivolatile components could also be injected
directly into the solar reactor as a liquid.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has been studying solar detoxification
since 1986. The DOE-sponsored laboratory and field testing has indicated
A.2
-------
Appendix A
that photons in the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum significantly
increase rates of contaminant oxidation and allow high rates of destruction
with minimal products of incomplete combustion at relatively low tempera-
tures. Since FY 90, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(US EPA) budget has included a line item for cooperative work with DOE
in investigating the use of this technology to treat various waste streams. In
FY 91, the Department of Defense's (DOD) budget included a line item
providing $5,000,000 to research, develop, test, and evaluate a fully func-
tional solar unit.
The US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA),
DOE, and the US EPA are collaborating to evaluate this solar technology.
The US EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) in Cincin-
nati is supporting this evaluation by conducting fundamental studies and
carrying out a "Mini-Pilot" Testing Program at the site of the Solar Energy
High-Flux Facility of the DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NERL) in Golden, Colorado. This will generate data needed for the design
of a field demonstration-scale Solar Reactor System. This tri-agency effort
will culminate in a DOD field demonstration project at a DOD site expected
to be in operation by 1995. (See Appendix C for Technology Contact).
Fluidized Bed Cyclonic Agglomerating Incinerator
This two-stage system is a combination of two technologies developed
by the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) over the past several years (US
EPA 1991; Mensinger et al. 1991). The first stage is based on IGT's slop-
ing grid, fluidized-bed (SGFB) technology, which was developed as a part
of a coal gasification process. The bulk of the bed operates at a temperature
of 816° to 1,093°C (1,500° to 2,000°F), while the central spout operates at a
sufficiently higher temperature to agglomerate the ash. The mobility of
inorganic contaminants, such as metals, is reduced because of their incorpo-
ration into this glassy matrix. Additional destruction of gaseous products
leaving the first stage is achieved in a cyclonic combustor.
A 0.91-m (3 ft) diameter unit employing the SGFB technology was
tested with coal (over 10,000 hours of operation) and demonstrated that
agglomerated ash can be produced. These agglomerates were tested by the
Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity Test and were not hazardous waste
under the applicable definition. The same unit was tested with a spent
foundry sand and spent blast abrasive feeds (approximately 454 to 907 kg/
A.3
-------
Other Promising Technologies
hr (1,000 to 2,000 lb/hr)), both of which were contaminated wilh 1 to 2%
organics. In the test with the spent blast abrasive feed, it was determined
that the organic destruction exceeded 99.99% for the contaminant tributyl
tin oxide, and the reclaimed blasl abrasive was suitable for reuse under US
Navy specifications. The test with the foundry sand feed produced similar
favorable results. Bench-scale (15.2-cm diameter unit at 9.1 kg/hr
(6 in.-diameter unit at 20 lb/hr)) tests of the first stage have been successful
in determining the operating conditions necessary to achieve soil agglom-
eration. The leaching characteristics of the soil agglomerates were also
determined.
In separate testing, the cyclonic combustor has been evaluated in a 0.84
Gj/hr (0.8 MM Btu/hr) unit at a feed rate of 13.6 to 27.2 kg/hr (30 to 60 lb/
hr) of synthetic waste feed and achieved over 99.9999% ORE for CC14.
This technology was accepted into the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Emerging Technologies Program in July, 1990. As men-
tioned above, bench-scale tests hive been conducted and agglomerated soil
samples have been produced at several operating conditions. A 5.4 tonne/
day (6 ton/day) pilot plant is being built and will be used to test two soils in
a series of twelve tests. The unit was planned to be operational in 1993.
(See Appendix C for Technology Contact).
Hybrid Fluidized Bed System
The Hybrid Fluidized Bed System is a three-stage system designed to
treat soils and sludges contaminated with organic and volatile inorganic
contaminants (US EPA 1991). The first stage consists of a spouted bed that
operates with an inlet velocity of 45.7 m/sec (50 yd/sec) and a temperature
of 816° to 927°C (1,500° to 1,70C°F). Large particles are retained in this
stage until they are reduced in si2e through abrasion and grinding. System
advantages based on calculations include better heat transfer for large
clumps of dirt as compared to conventional rotary kilns and less; pressure
drop as compared to a conventional fluidized bed. Fine particles, volatile
metals, and organic compounds pass to the second stage, the fluidized bed
afterburner, where the organic compounds are further destroyed. In addi-
tion, this bed contains materials tiiat absorb metal vapors, capture fine par-
ticles, and promote the formation of less mobile metal compounds. Pro-
cessed soil is removed in the third stage, hot cyclone. Offgases are
quenched and treated in a conventional baghouse for particulate and metal
control.
A.4
-------
Appendix A
Bench-scale tests were conducted in 1989 to determine the ability of the
fluidized bed materials to capture metals (Energy & Environmental Re-
search Corp. 1992; Taylor 1992). Capture rates of the volatile metals of 85
to 95% were achieved. A 30.5-cm (12 in.) diameter pilot-scale unit was
constructed and tested in 1991 under a Small Business Innovative Research
(SBIR) grant. This system was operated in a batch mode (2.3 kg/5 min (5
lb/5 min)) and fed soil spiked with organics and metals. Greater than
99.9% removal of contaminants was achieved.
This technology was accepted into the SITE Emerging Technologies
Program in July, 1990. A Process Development Unit (61-cm diameter/
continuous at 227 kg/hr (24-in. diameter/continuous at 500 lb/hr)) was built
and mechanically tested with soil feed. The system was then modified to
convert the spouted bed from an oxidation to a gasification system and to
add an afterburner after the fabric filter. It was then tested with auto shred-
der residue feed. A US EPA Bulletin summarizing results of this test was
planned for publication in 1993. (See Appendix C for Technology Con-
tact).
Entrained-Bed Gasification
The treatment of waste by the Entrained-Bed Gasification system is an
extension of Texaco's conventional gasification technology in which or-
ganic compounds are partially oxidized to a synthesis gas containing mainly
carbon monoxide and hydrogen (US EPA 1991). It is expected that inor-
ganic components of the feed, such as metals, would be captured in a glass-
like slag. Solids in the feed must be ground and pumped in a slurry form
containing 30 to 60% liquid by weight. The slurried feed, oxygen, and
auxiliary fuel are fed to a refractory-lined pressure vessel that operates
above 20.2 x 105 Pa (20 atm) and between 1,204° and 1,538°C (2,200° and
2,800°F). The slag and synthesis gas are then cooled and separated. The
synthesis gas is further cooled and cleaned by a scrubbing system and may
be used to produce other chemicals or burned as a fuel.
Texaco's conventional gasification technology has been operated com-
mercially for over 30 years with feedstocks such as natural gas, heavy oil,
coal, and petroleum coke. In December 1988, under a grant from the Cali-
fornia Department of Health Services, Texaco demonstrated this system
using low-heating-value petroleum tank bottoms. During a 40-hr pilot run,
this material was used as a supplemental feed to a coal-fired gasifier. Car-
A.5
-------
Other Promising Technologies
bon conversion in the waste was DVCF 99%, and solid residues from the
process were found to be nonhazardous based on California Assessment
Manual limits for total and leachable materials. All residue streams were
determined to be free of trace organics and US EPA priority pollutants.
This technology was accepted into the SITE Demonstration program in
July, 1991. A demonstration with Superfund hazardous waste v/as planned
for mid-1993 at Texaco's Montebello Research Laboratory. (See Appendix
C for Technology Contact).
Metallurgical-Based Treatment Processes
This general class of waste treatment technologies is based on steel-
making and related metallurgical processes. The basic system configuration
is a refractory reactor containing a melt into which waste materials are in-
troduced and broken down. The bath can operate from about 800° to
1,800°C (1,470° to 3,270°F). The metallic constituents can be reduced to
the metal state and be poured off or tapped periodically and recovered. The
nonmetallic inorganic constituents form a slag which can also be tapped and
withdrawn separately from the metals. The more volatile metals, such as
lead, leave the reactor in the fume going overhead and can be collected,
after cooling, in a baghouse or other air pollution control device. This char-
acteristic is of particular interest \vith respect to the treatment of municipal
solid waste and contaminated soils that may have volatile heavy metals
present. The organic matter in the feed is broken down and reacts at the
high temperatures in the bath. The composition of the flue gases depends
on the oxidative conditions in the melt. Fugitive emissions from the fur-
nace can be controlled through tight seals. These processes are quite versa-
tile and can handle a large variety of wastes. The inorganic content of soils
and other wastes would end up primarily as a stable slag or aggregate. The
developers of these systems mainlain that the slag would be nonhazardous,
implying that it would pass the Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
(TCLP) or other regulatory tests.
One version of this type of process is called Sirosmelt, which has been
commercialized by an Australian company, Ausmelt, Pty. Ltd. The original
technology was invented by Dr. John Floyd in the early 1970's. The key to
the Sirosmelt technology is a patented lance that is submerged in a bath of
molten materials. Some 18 plants using the Ausmelt technology have been
designed, installed, and operated. The Ausmelt system has been tested in
A.6
-------
Appendix A
pilot- or full-scale runs on a variety of wastes, for example, tin slag reduc-
tion, lead residues, and flue dust.
The Ausmelt process has been fully demonstrated for several feedstocks
to at least a scale of about 5 tonne/hr (5.5 ton/hr). A facility to process
120,000 tonne/yr (132,280 ton/yr) of zinc plant residues being constructed
in Korea for Korea Zinc was scheduled to start up in 1993. Data on the
processing of a wide variety of waste and other feedstocks (approximately
30 different materials) have been generated in the Ausmelt pilot plant of
approximately 200 kg/hr (440 Ib/hr). The company is completing a pilot-
scale plant in Colorado and plans to run tests on soil in the near future.
A recently formed US company, Molten Metal Technology, Inc., Cam-
bridge, Mass., is currently developing a set of waste management systems
also based on steel-making and related processes. The company is con-
structing a pilot facility in New Bedford, Mass., and has been carrying out
tests at a L'Air Liquide research facility near Paris, France. The company
has formed alliances with a number of firms, including DuPont, L'Air
Liquide, Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., and AM-RE SERVICES,
Inc. (See Appendix C for Technology Contact).
Molten Salt Oxidation (MSO) Process
The MSO process utilizes a combination of chemical reactions and ther-
mal treatment to destroy waste materials. The reactor melt is composed of
ordinary salts, such as sodium carbonate, or of mixtures including potas-
sium carbonate or sodium chloride. Operating temperatures are commonly
held to 950° ± SOT (1,740° ± 120°F), but may be controlled throughout the
range 700° to 1,200°C (1,290° to 2,190°F). At operating temperature the
molten salt has a viscosity similar to water. The waste streams introduced
in the MSO process can be gaseous, liquid, solid, or slurry phase feed
stocks; however, the maximum particle size must be controlled to 3 mm (I/
8 in.) for pneumatic conveying. In general, most waste materials that are
recommended for treatment by MSO have sufficient heat release to keep the
salt bath hot and molten. A few waste streams might require the addition of
supplemental fuel, such as gas or oil.
Rockwell International has evaluated the feasibility of this process on
specific wastes, including perchloroethylene bottoms, hexachlorobenzene,
chlordane, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and simulated radioactive
A.7
-------
Other Promising Technologies
wastes. The tests were performed either at bench-scale (0.5 to 5 kg/hr (1 to
10 lb/hr)) or pilot-scale (50 to 910 kg/hr (100 to 2,000 lb/hr)) systems.
Wastes that exhibit the most compatible thermal, physical, and chemical
properties for the MSO process are offgases from other treatment systems,
energetic liquids, nonenergetic liquids, and toxic chemicals such as pesti-
cides, herbicides, PCBs, infectious waste, and chemical warfare agents. As
the fraction of inert material (ash) increases in the waste stream, the poten-
tial for using the MSO process drops. Molten salt oxidation is not viable
for inert solids such as soil, asbestos, concrete, grout, and most D & D
rubble.
The DOE may be interested in MSO as an effective treatment process for
mixed and hazardous waste; however, there are technical and implementa-
tion factors that need to be resolve.d before successful commercialization.
(See Appendix C for Technology Contact).
A.8
-------
Appendix B
B
APPENDIX B
List of References
Alliance Technologies Corporation. 1989. RES (TX) trial burn program
rotary reactor/incinerator train II. Bedford, Mass. Oct.
Buck, F.A.M., C.W. Hauck, and G. Abdun-Nor. 1992. Soil vapor extraction
and catalytic destruction of trichloroethylene. Paper presented at
HAZMACOM '92. Long Beach, Calif. April 2.
Energy and Environmental Research Corp. 1992. Program review for EPA
cooperative agreement No. CR816832. Cincinnati. March 10.
ELI ECO LOGIC International, Inc. 1992. Pilot-scale demonstration of
contaminated harbor sediment treatment process. Final Report. Rockwood,
Ontario. March 31.
Falcone, P.W. 1991. Incineration of low Btu hazardous waste using a rotary
reactor. In Proc. University of California Incineration Conference. Knox-
ville, Tenn. May.
Falcone, P.W. 1992. Telephone conversation with J. Cudahy. June 8.
Glatzmaier, G.C., M.S. Mehos, and R.G. Nix. 1990. Solar destruction of
hazardous chemicals. Paper presented at 7990 ASME International Solar
Energy Conference. Golden, Colo.
Hylton, T.D. 1992. Final report on the performance evaluation of the TCE
catalytic oxidation unit at Wurtsmith AFB. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Martin
Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. Jan.
Johnston, J.B., R.E. Hannah, V.L. Cunningham, B.P. Daggy, F.J. Sturm,
and R.M. Kelly. 1988. Destruction of pharmaceutical and
biopharmaceutical wastes by the modar supercritical water oxidation pro-
cess. Biotech. 6:1423-7.
B.I
-------
List of References
Lester, G.R. 1989. Catalytic destruction of hazardous halogenatcd organic
materials. Paper presented at Air & Waste Man. Assn. 82nd Annual Meeting
& Exposition. Anaheim, Calif. June 25-30.
Long, W.H. 1989. Letter from Pedco to confidential client. Nov. 10.
Mensinger, M.C., A. Rehmat, B.Ci. Bryan, F.S. Lau, T.L. Shearer, and P.A.
Duggan. 1991. Experimental development of a two-stage fluidized-bed/
cyclonic agglomerating incinerator. In Proc. 1991 Incineration Conference,
603-612. Knoxville, Tenn. May 13-17.
Modell, M. 1992. Assessment and development of an industrial wet oxida-
tion system for burning waste and low-grade fuels. Final Report for work
performed under Phase IIB of Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-
90ID12915. Washington, D.C.
Reed, W.A. 1984. Hazardous waste/sludge incineration in a Pedco rotary
reactor. Paper presented at 1984 Chem Pro Show. Cincinnati. Sept.
Reed, W.A. 1992. Telephone conversation with J. Cudahy. June 11.
Reed, W.A. 1993. Telephone conversation with J. Cudahy. July 30.
Seibel, R.V. and W.H. Long. 1990. Development and operating data for the
Pedco rotary combustion system. Presented at Industrial Power Conference.
St. Louis. Oct.
Seibel, R.V. and W.H. Long. 1991. Industrial/municipal energy and waste
management program. Paper presented at Purdue Industrial Fuels Confer-
ence. W. Lafayette, Ind. Oct.
Staszak, C.N., K.C. Malinowski, and W.R. Killilea. 1987. The pilot-scale
demonstration of the MODAR oxidation process for the destruction of haz-
ardous organic waste materials. Environmental Progress 6(1): 39-43.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1989. Assessment and devel-
opment of an industrial wet oxidation system for burning waste and low-
grade fuels. Final Report. DOE/ID/12711-1. Idaho Falls, Id.
Taylor, Gene. 1992. Telephone conversation with Energy and Environmen-
tal Research Corp. Irvine, Calif. April 17.
B.2
-------
Appendix B
Tester, J.W., H.R. Holgate, F.J. Armellini, P.A. Webley, W.R. Killilea, G.T.
Hong, and H.E. Earner. 1991. Supercritical water oxidation technology: a
review of process development and fundamental research. Draft paper pre-
sented at ACS Symposium Series on Emerging Technologies for Hazardous
Waste Management, Atlanta. Oct. 1-3.
US EPA. 1991. The superfund innovative technology evaluation program:
technology profiles. 4th ed. EPA/540/5-91/008. Washington, D.C. Nov.
US EPA. 1992a. Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. Flame
reactor technology: applications analysis report. EPA/540/A5-91/005.
Washington, D.C. May.
US EPA. 1992b. Horsehea d Resource Development Company, Inc. Flame
reactor technology: technology evaluation report. Volume I - Report, Vol-
ume II - Appendices. EPA/540/5-91/005. Washington, D.C. June.
Zagrocki, R.J. 1992a. High-temperature recovery of lead from hazardous
wastes via the HRD flame reactor. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of
the Society for Mining, Metal, and Explor. Inc. Phoenix. Feb. 24-27.
Zagrocki, R.J. 1992b. Letter to Richard S. Magee. June 1.
B.3
-------
-------
Appendix C
C
APPENDIX C
Technology Contacts
Catalytic Oxidation
Carl Hauck
King, Buck & Associates, Inc.
2384 San Diego Avenue, Suite 2
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone:619-299-8431
Fax: 619-299-8437
William Sheffer
ARI International Division
ARI Technologies, Inc.
600 N. First Bank Drive
Palatine, IL 60067
Phone: 708-359-7810
Fax: 708-359-3700
Keith J. Herbert
Allied Signal, Inc.
P.O. Box 580970
Tulsa, OK 7415 8-0970
Phone: 918-266-1400
Fax: 918-272-4314
Denise Viola
Englehard Corporation
101 Wood Avenue
Iselin, NJ 08830
Phone: 908-205-5039
Wilson Chu
Johnson Matthey-Catalytic Systems
Division
Wayne, PA 19087
Phone: 215-971-3100
Fax: 215-293-1284
Rotary Cascading Bed
Incineration System
Lee Reed
Pedco Inc.
216 East 9th Street, 5th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: 513-784-0033
Fax: 513-241-7958
ECO LOGIC Process
EPA Project Manager:
Gordon M. Evans
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7684
C.I
-------
List of References
Technology Developer Contact:
Jim Nash
Business Development Manager
ECO LOGIC International, Inc.
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, Ontario NOB 2KO
Canada
Phone: 519-856-9591
Fax: 519-856-9235
HRD Flame Reactor Process
EPA Project Manager:
Donald A. Oberacker
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Risk Reduction Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone:513-569-7510
Fax: 513-569-7549
Technology Developer Contact:
John F. Pusateri
Director, Flame Reactor Operations
and Development
Horsehead Resource Development
Company, Inc.
300 Franfort Road
Monaca, PA 15961-2295
Phone: 412-773-2279
Fax: 412-773-2217
Supercritical Water
Oxidation
Michael Modell
MODEC
39 Loving Drive
Framingham, MA 01701
Phone: 508-820-9213
Fax: 508-626-9318
William Killilea
MODAR, Inc.
14 Tech Circle
Natick,MA01760
Phone: 508-655-7741
Fax: 617-965-2920
Mike Spritzer
General Atomics
P.O. Box 85608
San Diego, CA 92186-9786
Phone: 619-455-2337
Fax: 619-455-4111
Soil Detoxification Using
Solar Energy
EPA Project Manager:
C. C. Lee
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone:513-569-7520
Fax: 513-569-7549
C.2
-------
Appendix C
DOE Contact:
Mark Bohn, Tri-Agency Project
Technical Coordinator
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, CO 80401-3393
Phone: 303-231-7000 ext. 1755
DOD Contact:
Ron Jackson
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency
Attn: CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21010-5401
Phone:301-671-1562
Fluidized Bed Cyclonic
Agglomerating Incinerator
EPA Project Manager:
Teri Richardson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7949
Fax: 513-569-7620
Technology Developer Contact:
Michael Mensinger
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 South State Street
Chicago, IL 60616-3896
Phone: 312-949-3730
Fax: 312-949-3700
Hybrid Fluidized Bed System
EPA Project Manager:
Teri Richardson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7949
Fax: 513-569-7620
Technology Developer Contact:
Richard Koppang
Energy and Environmental Research
Corporation
18 Mason Street
Irvine, C A 92718
Phone: 714-859-8851
Entrained-Bed Gasification
EPA Project Manager:
Marta Richards
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7783
Fax: 513-569-7549
C.3
-------
List of References
Technology Developer Contact:
Richard Zang
Texaco Syngas Inc.
2000 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10650
Phone: 914-253-4047
Metallurgical-Base
Treatment Processes
Victor Gatto
Molten Metal Technology, Inc.
950 Winter Street
Waltham,MA02154
Phone: 617-487-7613
Fax: 617-487-7870
J. Alan Smith
Ausmelt Technology Corporation
1331 17th Street, Suite Ml03
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-295-2216
Fax: 303-295-7605
Molten Salt Oxidation
Process
Richard Gay
Rocketdyne Division
Rockwell International Corp.
6633 Canoga Avenue
CanogaPark,CA91303
Phone:818-586-6110
C.4
-------
THE WASTECH® MONOGRAPH SERIES ON
INNOVATIVE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY
WASTECH® is a multiorganization effort which joins in partnership the Air and
Waste Management Association, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the
American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
the Hazardous Waste Action Coalition, the Society for Industrial Microbiology, and the
Water Environment Federation, together with the American Academy of Environmental
Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Defense
and the U.S. Department of Energy.
A Steering Committee composed of highly respected members of each participating
organization with expertise in remediation technology formulated and guided the
project with project management and support provided by the Academy. Each
monograph was prepared by a task group of five or more recognized experts. Their
initial manuscript was subjected to an extensive peer review prior to publication. This
1994 series includes:
Vol 1 - BIOREMEDIATION
The Pnncipal Authors include: Calvin H. Ward,
Ph.D., Chair, Professor & Chair of Environmental
Science & Engineering, Rice University; Raymond C.
Loehr, Ph.D., P.E., DEE, Civil Engineering, University
of Texas; Robert Morris, Ph.D., Technical Director,
Eckenfelder, Inc.; Evan Nyer, Vice President, Techni-
cal Resources, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Michael
Piotrowski, Ph.D., Jim Spain, Chief, Environmental
Biotechnology, AFESC A/RAVC; John Wilson, Ph.D..
Process & Systems Research Division, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
Vol 2 - CHEMICAL TREATMENT
The Pnncipal Authors include: Leo Weitzman,
Ph.D., Chair, President, LVW Associates, Inc.; Kim-
berly Gray, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Civil Engi-
neering & Geological Sciences; Robert W. Peters,
Ph.D., P.E., DEE, Environmental Systems Engineer,
Argonne National Laboratory, Charles Rogers, Ph.D.,
Senior Research Scientist, USEPA Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory; John Verbicky, Ph.D.,
Chemfab Corporation
Vol 3 - SOIL FLUSHING/SOIL WASHING
The Pnncipal Authors include: Michael J. Mann,
P.E., Chair, President, Alternative Remedial Tech-
nologies, Inc.; Donald Dahlstrom, Ph.D., Department
of Chemical Engmeenng, University of Utah; Patricia
Esposito, PAK/TEEM, Inc.; Lome Everett, Ph.D.,
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.; Greg Peterson, P.E., Director
of Technology Transfer, CH2M Hill, Inc.; Richard P.
Traver, P.E., General Manager, Bergmann USA
Vol 4 - STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION
The Principal Authors include Peter Colombo,
Chair, Manager, Waste Management Research & De-
velopment, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Edward
Barth. P.E., Environmental Engineer, Office of Re-
search & Development, U S Environmental Protection
Agency, Paul L. Bishop, Ph.D., P.E., DEE, William
Thorns Professor, Department of Civil & Environmen-
tal Engmeenng, University of Cincinnati, Jim Buelt,
Staff Engineer, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory;
Jesse R. Connor, Senior Research Scientist, Clemson
Technical Center, Inc
Vol S - SOLVENT/CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
The Pnncipal Authors include: James R. Donnelly,
Chair, Director of Environmental Services &
Technologies, Davy Environmental, Robert C. Ahlert,
Ph.D., P.E., DEE, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers
University; Richard J. Ayen, Ph.D., Director of
Chemical Processing, Chemical Waste Management,
Inc ; Sharon R. Just, Environmental Engineer, Engmeenng-
Science, Inc.; MarkMeckes, Physical Scientist, USEPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
Vol 6 - THERMAL DESORPTION
The Principal Authors include' JoAnn Lighty,Ph.D.,
Chair, Assistant Professor of Chemical and Fuel Engi-
neering, University of Utah; Martha Choroszy-
Marshall, Program Manager, Thermal Treatment,
CIB A-GEIGY; Michael Cosmos, Project Director, Roy
F Weston, Inc.; Vic Cundy, Ph.D., Professor of Me-
chanical Engineering, Louisiana State Umversity.and
Paul DePercin, Chemical Engineer, U S Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.
Vol 7 - THERMAL DESTRUCTION
The Principal Authors include Richard S. Magee,
Sc.D., P.E., DEE, Chair, Executive Director, Hazard-
ous Substance Management Research Center, New Jer-
sey Institute of Technology; James Cudahy, President,
Focus Environmental, Inc , Clyde R, Dempsey, P.E.,
Chief, Thermal Destruction Branch, Office of Research
and Development, U S Environmental Protection
Agency; John R. Ehrenfeld, Ph.D., Senior Research
Associate, Center for Technology, Policy, & Industrial
Development, Program Coordinator, Hazardous Sub-
stances Management, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology; Francis W. Holm, Ph.D., Senior Scientist &
Principal Deputy, Chemical Demilitenzation Center,
SAIC, Dennis Miller, Ph.D., Science Advisor. U S.
Department of Energy; Michael Model), Modell De-
velopment Corp
Vol 8 - VACUUM VAPOR EXTRACTION
Paul Johnson, Ph.D., Chair, Research Engineer,
Shell Development, Arthur Baehr, Ph.D., U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Water Resources Division, Richard A.
Brown, Ph.D., Vice President, Groundwater Technol-
ogy; Robert Hinchee, Ph.D., Research Leader, Battelle;
George Hoag, Ph.D., Director, University of Connecti-
cut, Environmental Research Institute.
The monographs can be purchased for $49.95 per volume or $349.65 for the entire series (includes shipping
and handling) from the American Academy of Environmental Engineers*, 130 Holiday Court, Suite 100,
Annapolis, MD, 21401; phone 410-266-3311, FAX 410-266-7653. MC & VISA accepted.
U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE' 1995—386-703
------- |