Innovative Treatment Technologies Overview and Guide To Information Sources


            United States         Office of Solid Waste and     EPA/540/9-91/002 ^ •'
            Environmental Protection     Emergency Response       October 1991
            Agency           Washington, DC 20460
<>EPA      Innovative Treatment
            Technologies
            Overview and Guide to
            Information Sources

-------
                                EPA/540/9-91/002
                                  October 1991
INNOVATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES:
OVERVIEW AND GUIDE TO
INFORMATION SOURCES
         Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
             Technology Innovation Office
               Washington, D.C 20460
                 October 1991
                       U.S. Environmental^Protcction .' ~;:nc\f
                       Region 5, Library (P!..-•! '• '
                       77 West Jackson l-?c;: '    .  ,./,
                       Chicago, IL 6061)-;c,.,.
                               Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                        NOTICE


       The preparation of this guide has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  It has been subject to the Agency's review and it has been approved for publication as
an EPA document.  Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an
endorsement or recommendation  for use.
                                           11

-------
FOREWORD
This document was originally prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Technology Innovation Office to support a training module on innovative treatment technologies
which was presented at the On Scene Coordinator (OSC)/Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Training
Academy. It represents an effort to gather, under one cover, a wide variety of existing technical
guidance and information that describes the status and capabilities of selected technologies.

EPA recognizes that the manual is not comprehensive; some technologies were omitted due
largely to practical considerations. For example, solidification/stabilization technologies were not
included in this version of the guide and may be included in future update. Although incineration
technologies are established technologies by the definition used in this manual, they are included to
provide the user with a benchmark for evaluating innovative treatment technologies. A revised and
expanded version of this document may be prepared in the future, based on comments we receive.

This document is intended as a reference guide to assist site project managers, consulting
engineers, responsible parties, and owner/operators in their efforts to identify current literature on
innovative treatment technologies and to support the overall decision making process for hazardous
waste site remediation or corrective action.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director, Technology Innovation Office
111

-------
                                        ABSTRACT

       This document is a compilation of information on innovative treatment technologies now
being used in the Superfund program.  It provides a broad overview of innovative treatment
technologies to assist site managers in their initial evaluation of innovative treatment technologies.
The material is focussed on a limited number of technologies, primarily those that treat organic
contamination. The technologies discussed include:

                            Incineration
                            Thermal Desorption
                            Soil Washing
                            Solvent Extraction
                            Dechlorination
                            Bioremediation
                            Vacuum Extraction
                            In situ Vitrification
                            Ground Water Treatment

       For each category of treatment, the document provides a brief description of the physical,
chemical, and biological processes used by the technologies in that category. Summaries of the
status, applications, strengths, and weaknesses of the technologies follow the descriptions.  Where
the information is available, the document includes facts on the characteristics of the waste or
sites that may affect the performance of the technology.  Also included, where available, are
overview reference materials such as technical bulletins, journal articles, engineering references
and a list and summary of information on remedial and  removal sites where these technologies
have been selected. The contacts who  are listed as responsible for these sites are EPA, State,  and
contractor personnel who have experience with issues related to the application of these
technologies at specific sites.
                                             IV

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS



Section                                                                     Page



Notice	  ii



Foreword	  Hi



Abstract	  iv



Abbreviations	  vi



Acknowledgements	  vii





1.0    INTRODUCTION	  1-1



2.0    INCINERATION	  2-1



3.0    THERMAL  DESORPTION  	  3-1



4.0    SOIL WASHING	  4-1



5.0    CHEMICAL EXTRACTION	  5-1



6.0    DECHLORINATION	  6-1



7.0    BIOREMEDIATION 	  7-1



8.0    VACUUM EXTRACTION  	  8-1



9.0    IN SITU VITRIFICATION  	  9-1



10.0   GROUNDWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES	   10-1



11.0   APPENDICES	   11-1



12.0   BIBLIOGRAPHY  	   12-1
Note:  More detailed table of contents may be found at the beginning of each section.

-------
                                     Abbreviations
APC         air pollution control
A PEG        alkaline metal hydroxide/polyethylene glycol
ATEG        alkaline metal hydroxide/tetraethylene glycol
ATTIC       alternative treatment technology information center
BCD         base catalyzed decomposition
BEST        basic extractive sludge treatment
BOD         biological oxygen demand
BTEX        benzene, toluene, ethlybenzene, xylene
BTU         british thermal units
CERCLA     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
cm/s         centimeters per second
COD         chemical oxygen demand
cy           cubic yard
DCA         dichloroethane
DCE         dichloroethene
DOE         Department of Energy
DRE         destruction and removal efficiency
EPA         Environmental Protection Agency
FY          fiscal year
ISV          in situ vitrification
KPEG        potassium hydroxide/polyethylene glycol
Kw-hr/yd3   kilowatt hours per cubic yard
NAPL        nonaqueous phase liquids
NCP         National Contingency Plan
NPL         National Priorities List
ORD         Office of Research and Development
OSC         on scene coordinator
OSWER      Office of Solid  Waste and Emergency Response
PAH         polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB         polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE         perchloroethylene
PCP         pentachlorophenol
PIC          product of incomplete combustion
ppb          parts per billion
ppm         parts per million
PRP         potentially responsible party
RCRA       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROD         Record of decision
RPM         remedial project manager
RSKERL     Robert S. Kerr  Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK (U.S. EPA)
SARA        Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE         Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation program
START      Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team
SVOC        semivolatile organic compounds
TCA         trichloroethane
TCE         trichloroethylene
TEA         triethylamine
TIO         Technology Innovation Office
TOC         total organic carbon
USATHAMA United States Army Toxics and Hazardous Materials Agency
USGS        United States Geological Survey
UST         underground storage tanks
VOC         volatile organic compound
                                           VI

-------
                                   Acknowledgements

       This report was prepared under the direction of John Kingscott and John Quander of the
Technology Innovation Office. The guide was compiled by PRC EMI under Contract No. 68-WO-
0034.

       The authors would like to  acknowledge the technical contributions of Dave Pepson and
Nancy Willis of PRC.  Deborah Lyne of PRC deserves special recognition for her efforts to organize,
compile, and revise this document. The authors would also like to thank our peer reviewers and
authors of the papers used in the  document, especially those prepared by  EPA's Ada, OK and
Cincinnati, OH Office of Research and Development Laboratories.
                                          vn

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                                                 Page


1.0  INTRODUCTION	   1-1

      1.1    EXHIBIT 1  - SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
           TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH FY 90	  1-2

      1.2    EXHIBIT 2  - EMERGENCY RESPONSES:  SUMMARY OF
           INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES USED FOR SOURCE CONTROL  	  1-3

      1.3    EXHIBIT 3  - EPA ACTIVITIES RELATED TO INNOVATIVE
           TECHNOLOGIES 	  1-4

      1.4    EXHIBIT 4  - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED
           SOILS	  1-8

      1.5    EXHIBIT 5  - STATUS OF SELECTED TECHNOLOGIES - SUPERFUND
           SOILS 	  1-9

      1.6    EXHIBIT 6  - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUPINGS	  1-10

      1.7    EXHIBIT 7  - INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES: SEMI-
           ANNUAL STATUS REPORT-SUMMARY STATISTICS	  1-13

-------
                                  1.0  INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

       With the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund, Congress made a commitment to protecting human
health and the environment from uncontrolled hazardous wastes.  At that time, the nation was
just beginning to understand the scope and complexity of this challenge.  The number of national
priority sites now exceeds 1,200, and the number of uncontrolled sites that may need to be
addressed by state and federal programs may range from 130,000 to 425,000, as estimated by the
U.S. General Accounting Office.

       In the early years of the Superfund program, the primary method for handling hazardous
waste was land disposal, which can be cost effective in the short run but can create greater long-
term problems and costs. When CERCLA was amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA),  an emphasis was placed on achieving long-term effectiveness
and permanence of remedies at Superfund sites. The revised National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan promulgated in March  1990, provides a regulatory
framework for implementing this concept and emphasizes the  use of "permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable."

       The universe of Superfund sites comprises a broad array of physical, chemical, and
environmental conditions that  need varying types of remediation. Cleanup efforts are no longer
dominated by a few technologies; rather, a growing number of innovative technologies are being
explored by state and Federal  agencies, and private parties.  Exhibits 1 and  2 portray the extent
to which some of these technologies are planned for use as remedial source controls (Exhibit  1)
and emergency response actions (Exhibit 2) at Superfund sites. The use of innovative
technologies offers the potential for cost-effective, long-term  solutions to hazardous waste
cleanup and may be the key to implementing both the CERCLA and Resource  Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) programs successfully.

       The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has  taken initiatives in policy,
technical, and  informational arenas to foster the exploration and application of new remediation
techniques.  A summary of some of these is provided in Exhibit 3. In addition, EPA  has
established the Technology Innovation Office (TIO), whose primary goals are (1) to develop a
strategy for addressing the regulatory, institutional, and informational impediments that constrain
                                           1-1

-------
  1.1
EXHIBIT 1 - SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THROUGH FY 90
 OJ
  >
                                                         en
                                                         O)

 o
 E  o
 E.C
    •^ w
 ..  0)
 2  o>
 o  c
—  o
 Q)
 E
 0
cc
                                                         CO


                                                         CD
                                                         JO

                                                         (1)
                                                         5.
                                                         0)
                                                         CO
                                 1-2

-------
1.3          EXHIBIT 3 - EPA ACTIVITIES RELATED TO INNOVATIVE
            TECHNOLOGIES
    Policy
       SARA/NCP
       Superfund Management Review (90-Day Study)
       Use of Treatment Technologies for Superfund Remedies
       (OSWER Directive No. 9355.0-26)
       Furthering the Use of Innovative Treatment Technologies in OSWER Programs*
       (OSWER Directive No. 9380.0-17 FS)

    Information Management
       Bibliographies *
       ATTIC; Hazardous Waste Collection *
       Treatment Vendor Directory (planned) *
       Market Assessment (planned) *
       Program Exhibit for Major National/International Conferences
       Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report

    Technical
       SITE Program *
       START Program
       Bioremediation Field Initiative
       Treatability Study Initiative*
       Engineering Forums
       Other ORD Programs
       -  Small Business Innovative Research Grants
       -  Base Research Programs
       -  Hazardous Substance Research Centers
    * See appendices to this manual for further information on these items.
                                            1-4

-------
the use of new technologies and (2) to work closely with Agency and state staff, private parties,
and commercial vendors in implementing this strategy.

PURPOSE

This document has been prepared by TIO for use in training sessions and seminars with
On Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Regional Project Managers (RPMs), and state project managers.
The document contains summary information on selected technologies to assist site managers in
their initial evaluation of innovative treatment technologies. In this focussed effort, the material
was selected to provide information on a limited number of innovative treatment technologies
with particular emphasis on those technologies that are applicable to organic contamination. It is
not intended or planned to be an exhaustive review of innovative treatment technologies nor is it
intended to be a complete reference on any one technology.

This document is primarily intended to provide site managers with a broad overview of
innovative treatment technologies and several categories of treatment have not been included.
Most notably, the manual does not provide information on technologies to immobilize
contaminants (solidification/stabilization) and flush contaminants from the soil in place (in situ
soil flushing). Although the focus of the document is source control, a chapter is included for
ground water remediation. Based on comments from users of the document and future
developments in technology, summaries of these and other technologies may be added in future
editions of the document.

The document provides information on several types of technology organized into nine
categories of hazardous waste treatment, as follows:

1. INCINERATION
Rotary kiln
Infrared
Circulating fluidized bed
2. THERMAL DESORPTION
Directly heated desorbers
Indirectly heated desorbers
In situ steam extraction
3. SOIL WASHING
4. SOLVENT EXTRACTION
5. DECHLORINATION
1-5

-------
6. BIOREMEDIATION
Slurry phase bioremediation
Contained solid phase bioremediation
Land treatment
In situ
7. VACUUM EXTRACTION
8. IN SITU VITRIFICATION
9. GROUND WATER TREATMENT
Pump and treat
In situ treatment

For each category of treatment, this document provides a brief description of the
physical, chemical, and biological processes used by the technologies in that category. Summaries
of the status, applications, strengths, and weaknesses of the technologies follow the descriptions.
Where the information is available, the document includes facts on the characteristics of the
waste or site that may affect the performance of the technology. Also included, where available,
are overview reference materials such as technical bulletins, journal articles, engineering
references, and a list and summary of Records of Decision (RODs) for sites where the technology
has been selected. The contacts who are listed as responsible for these sites are EPA, State, and
contractor personnel who have experience with issues related to the application of these
technologies at specific sites.

The innovative treatment technologies discussed in this guide may be used with traditional
or other innovative technologies in treatment "trains." Technologies may be combined to separate
the contaminated material prior to further treatment or to address multiple contaminants within
the medium. Several innovative technologies provide separation or pre-processing prior to
detoxification of the hazardous constituents. Based on the RODs signed from 1982 to 1990, the
remedies selected at sites included combinations of the innovative technologies described in this
guide. These sites are:
Resolve, MA

Pinette's Salvage Yard, ME
Ewan Property, NJ
Myers Property, NJ
Wide Beach, NY

American Creosote Works, FL
Coleman Evans Wood,
Preserving, FL
Thermal desorption followed by
dechlorination
Solvent extraction and incineration
Soil washing and solvent extraction
Dechlorination and soil washing
Thermal desorption followed by
dechlorination
Soil washing and bioremediation

Soil washing and bioremediation
1-6

-------
Cabot/Koppers, FL - Soil washing and bioremediation
Jadco Hughes, NC - Vacuum extraction followed by in situ
flushing
Moss American, WI - Soil washing followed by bioremediation
Sand Creek, CO - Soil washing followed by incineration

DEFINITIONS

In reading this manual, it will be helpful to understand several key terms. The phrase
"alternative technology" was originally derived from the concept of an alternative to land disposal
for hazardous source material (i.e., soil, sludge, and solid waste, as opposed to ground water).
Treatment technologies, in general, utilize chemical, biological, or physical processes that reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes. Exhibit 4 shows mechanisms used in many of the
technologies discussed in this document.

Although official definitions do not exist to distinguish among different stages of
development status for alternative treatment technologies, the following functional definitions are
generally accepted:

• Available (or Existing) Technology. A technology, such as rotary kiln
incineration and conventional solidification/stabilization, that is fully proven in
routine commercial use and for which sufficient performance and cost information
are available.
• Innovative Technology. A treatment technology for which cost or performance
information is incomplete, thus hindering routine use at hazardous waste sites. An
innovative technology may require additional full-scale field testing before it is
considered proven and ready for commercialization and routine use.
• Emerging Technology. Those technologies that require additional laboratory or
pilot-scale testing to document the technical viability of the process.

Although this document is entitled "Innovative Treatment Technologies," the technologies
discussed may fall into any of these development stages. However, the focus of this document is
technologies which have at least been chosen for remediation. Examples of treatment
technologies that fall into these groups are included in Exhibit 5. Exhibit 6 shows examples of
the types of terms used in RODs grouped according to the technology being applied.
1-7

-------
1.4
EXHIBIT 4 - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS
  Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Soils
      Ex Situ
                         Destruction/ _
                         Detoxification
                         Separation/
                         Recovery
                         Immobilization
                                   Incineration
                                   Dechlori nation
                                   Biroremedation
                                   Thermal Desorption
                                   Soil Washing
                                   Solvent Extraction
                                   SoUdiflcaNon/Stabilization
       In Situ
                         Destruction
               Separation
                         Immobilization—
Bioremediation
Vitrification

Vacuum Extraction
Steam Extraction
In situ Soil Rushing

Solidification/Stabilization
Vitrification
                                1-8

-------
1.5
    EXHIBIT 5 - STATUS OF SELECTED TECHNOLOGIES - SUPERFUND

    SOILS
  t
                  T5
                  Q
           25
            «*> >
           UJ <
  T3
  0)

  O
  0)

  0)
     V*
                            O

                            3

                          c o
                         31
     o
     o
     «
       8
  O

  CO

O
(D
I
"5
I
                     u>
o


UJ
Chosen for
remediation
                             o
                      o

                    2E
                    
                           in  O
                 ~  „. ~  u Sj  u
                 •fe   8
                               •5
                                 co —
.if g.s c «=
•D 2*0 ? =  C
             *c
             O

     .ii?
     O  w w  o
       £ £  o
               c-2   .
                    £
                            o

                            
                 O
                 O

                 is
             o.£ 2 o
          o  5
          03  &.
            _O


            "S
             C
          2^
          'to Q
                 B5

                                         TJ


                                         I
                                         Q)

                                         §-
                                         to

                                         O
                                                               o
                                                               O


                                                               I
                                                               ,»~
                                                               Q)
                                                               o
                                                               10


                                                               Q)
                                                         8
                                                         o
                                                         c

                                                         o
                                          D
                                                               D


                                                               1


                                                               I
                                                               (D
                                                         -5
                              1-9

-------
   1.6
EXHIBIT 6 - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUPINGS
                There are several terms that are used in practice to refer to the same
         technology for source control. The following is a list of terms that have been used
         primarily in RODs to describe source control technologies. The list is an attempt
         to classify these technologies and provide cursory information on their status.  (A)
         indicates "Available Technologies."  (I) indicates "Innovative Technologies."
1   On-/Off-site Incineration  (A)

      Rotary Kiln
      Cement Kiln
                                      6   In Situ Soil Flushing  (I)
                                      7   Soil Washing  (I)
2   Innovative Thermal Destruction  (I)

      In Situ Vitrification
      Infrared Incineration
3   Immobilization  (A)

      Solidification
      Stabilization
      Solidification & Stabilization
      Fixation
                                      8   Chemical Extraction  (I)

                                            Critical Fluid Extraction
                                            Solvent Extraction
                                            Hydrometallurgical Treatment
                                            Chemical Extraction
                                      9   Chemical Destruction  (I)

                                            Chemical Dechlorination
                                            KPEG Dechlorination
4   Vacuum Extraction  (I)

      Soil Venting
      Vacuum Extraction
      Vapor Extraction
      Vacuum/Vapor Extraction
      In situ Volatilization
5   Bioremediation   (I)

      In Situ Bioremediation
      In Situ Lagoon Bioremediation
      Slurry-Phase Bioremediation
        (Tank Bioremediation)
      Solid Phase Bioremediation - Land Farming
      Solid Phase Bioremediation - Land Application
      Solid Phase Bioremediation - Land Treatment
      On-site Bioremediation - Type Not Specified
      Bioremediation (Not Otherwise Specified)
                                      10  Thermal Desorption  (I)

                                            Enhanced Volatilization
                                            Low Temperature Thermal Treatment
                                            Thermal Aeration
                                            Thermally Enhanced Volatilization
                                            Low Temperature Thermal Stripping
                                            Low Temperature Vaporization
                                            Low Temperature Thermal Extraction
                                            Low Temperature Thermal Aeration
                                            Low Temperature Incineration
                                            Thermal Distillation
                                            In Situ Steam Stripping
                                            In Situ Hot Air Stripping

                                      11  Other/Not Specified Treatment  (I)

                                            Soil Aeration
                                            Chemical Neutralization
                                              1-10

-------
The information in this manual was gathered from several sources and is intended to give
its readers a broad overview of select technologies that may be applied at hazardous waste sites.
The manual is designed for frequent updating to provide information which is as current as
possible. The materials contained herein should be supplemented by further information-
gathering and treatability studies during the remedy selection process when these technologies are
being considered at a site.

OSCs/RPMs need up-to-date information on innovative treatment technologies because of
the rapid developments in this field. To ensure the most complete and up-to-date information is
used in the decision-making process, technology experts should be consulted during the process.
The document entitled, "Technical Support Services for Superfund Site Remediation, EPA/540-
8-90/01 1," included as an appendix to this guide (Exhibit 11.10) is a good starting point for
additional information. Exhibit 11.12, "Selecting Innovative Treatment Technologies: A
Practitioner's Guide," discusses other sources of information on innovative technologies. The
paper highlights the following EPA reference guides to technical experts:

Ground Water Research: Technical Assistance Directory EPA/600/9-89/048
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Technical
Assistance Directory CERI-88-84
ORD Topical Directory EPA/600/9-86/006
Technical Support Services for Superfund Site Remediation, EPA/540/8-90/011, October
1990. (Exhibit 11.10 of this guide)

A significant source of information in this document manual was the Innovative
Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report which was first released by the Technology
Innovative Office (TIO) in January, 1991 and updated in September. This report provides
information on National Priorities List (NPL) sites and emergency response sites where EPA has
selected or used innovative treatment technologies. The information contained in the report
serves several purposes: (1) to track the progress of innovative technology use; (2) to provide
market information to technology vendors; and (3) to facilitate communication among innovative
technology users. This report will be updated and distributed biannually. In several sections of
this manual you will see tables excerpted from the September 1991 status report. In Exhibit 7
and Section 11.13 there are several summary statistics and charts that have been derived from the
contents of the status report to give an overall view of the progress and status of innovative
treatment technologies. To get on the mailing list for future updates of this document call
Ms. Dana Mun of PRC, at (703) 556-2783. To receive a copy of the most recent report, you may
call EPA/ORD Publication at (513) 569-7562 and request document number EPA/540/2-91/002.

1-11

-------
       For further information on this guide or other TIO initiatives, call Mr. John Quander at
FTS/398-8845 or (703) 308-8845.
                                           1-12

-------
 1.7
EXHIBIT 7 - INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES: SEMI-ANNUAL

STATUS REPORT-SUMMARY STATISTICS
                                                                (A
                                                                 >
 o


 08

18
 .. c
 C/)-C
 c o
 oo>
 o +-

f S
-SE
"
 o

(0
*—
O
h-
•o
*- o
82
I1!1
£§
o
n\
o — ..
"S"5 —
— c)1^
Q-= JS
E£o
O CO -43
OJE 2
c o>g
O)C Q-
'55 'SO
v/ n> ^^
/i\ — ^
«OQ

C C
,0)0)
'55 'w
O (D
"O Q
8
it: c
a —



Technology

a>
**•



T—







CM
T—







CD
CO






1 Vacuum Extraction

O
CNJ



T~







^f







in





o

1 Ex Situ Bioremedial

fs. CD T-
1— T— T—



CO 0 T-







0 O CM







Tt CD 00
^ "•"


i
T^
C
_ o
Thermal Desorptior
Soil Washing
In Situ Bioremediati

T—
•»—



O







CM







O)







0)
_c
CO
2
u_
*- •
CO
_c

in




o







o







m







| In Situ Vitrification

m




o







T—







Tj-







1 Solvent Extraction

m




•^







-







CO







1 Dechlorination

•«— o
^
»*
3*
Crs
^2.
•^ oo





^
6N
(0
**
0 e\|
CM




•— >v
s^
£
O Ci
^^ ^J
>*
fv.





*—•
Chemical Treatmen
TOTAL
8
c
o
«
\j
•JJS
\If
8
•^
(0
c
O)
'
•0
•o
0>
to
Q.
'o
'•£
at
T3
(0
"w"
Q
O
DC
c
o
jw
Q
«*—
O
M
•Q
t!
8
vj
a>
EC


T—
I
CJ
00
* Data derived from 1 9;






















^
o>
E
(0
Q
•»-•
CD
78
5
T3
C
1
O)
^3
'w
C
(A
O>
•D
3
O
+-
                                                                       O)
                                                                       CT>


                                                                       CO
                                                           Q)
                                                           JD


                                                           0>

                                                           Q.
                                                           O
                                                           CO
                                 1-13

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                                                      Page


2.0  INCINERATION 	  2-1

      2.1    TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION	  2-1

            2.1.1   Rotary Kiln  	  2-2
            2.1.2   Infrared  	  2-2
            2.1.3   Circulating Fluidized Bed  	  2-2

      2.2    TECHNOLOGY STATUS	  2-3

      2.3    APPLICATIONS  	  2-3

      2.4    TECHNOLOGY STRENGTHS	  2-3

      2.5    TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS	  2-3

      2.6    POTENTIAL MATERIALS HANDLING REQUIREMENTS	  2-4

      2.7    WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE  	  2-4

      2.8    EXHIBIT 1 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INCINERATION
            TECHNOLOGIES  	  2-5

      2.9    EXHIBIT 2 - WASTE CHARACTERISTIC TABLES	  2-6

      2.10   EXHIBIT 3 - BOILING POINTS OF SELECTED COMPOUNDS	  2-10

      2.11   EXHIBIT 4 - FACT SHEET: INCINERATION OF HAZARDOUS
            WASTE 	  2-12

      2.12   EXHIBIT 5 - 1990 THERMAL  REMEDIATION  INDUSTRY
            CONTRACTOR SURVEY  	  2-16

      2.13   EXHIBIT 6 - ENGINEERING BULLETIN MOBILE/TRANSPORTABLE
            INCINERATION TREATMENT	  2-21

      2.14   KEY REFERENCE  LIST - INCINERATION  	  2-28

-------
                                   2.0   INCINERATION
2.1
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
       Incineration uses high temperatures ranging from 1600 to 2200T (871 to 1204°C) to
volatize and combust (e.g., in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous wastes.
Three common incinerator designs are rotary kilns, infrared furnaces, and circulating fluidized
bed incinerators.  The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for properly operated
incinerators often exceeds the 99.99 percent requirement for hazardous waste.  All of these
designs can be operated to meet the 99.9999 percent requirement for PCBs and dioxins.
Incinerators usually have  primary and secondary combustion units to reach this efficiency.
   Solids and liquids
   containing organics
   Heat<16000F-2200°F>
                     Incineration
Treated residuals
Water from Air Pollution
Control Equipment
Treated offgases
Recovered partlculates
                             • Rotary kiln
                             > Infrared
                             1 Circulating fluidized bed
                             •Others
                                           2-1

-------
2.1.1          Rotary Kiln

       Rotary kiln incinerators are slightly inclined, refractory-lined cylinders used for the
controlled combustion of organic wastes under net oxidizing conditions (i.e., the final oxygen
concentration is significantly greater than zero.)

       Wastes and auxiliary fuel are injected into the high end of the kiln and passed though the
combustion zone as the kiln slowly rotates. Rotation of the combustion chamber creates
turbulence and improves the degree of burnout of the solids.  Retention time can vary from
minutes to an hour or more.  Wastes are oxidized to gases and inert ash. Ash is removed at the
lower end of the kiln and flue gases are passed  through a secondary combustion  zone and then
through air pollution control units.

       Residuals generated from the process include: (1) ash, (2) stack gases, and (3) brine
solution for the ash quench and wet scrubber.

2.1.2          Infrared

       Infrared thermal units use silicon carbide elements to generate thermal radiation beyond
the red end of the  visible spectrum.  Materials to be treated pass through the treatment unit on a
conveyer belt; off  gases are passed to a secondary chamber for additional thermal treatment.

       Residuals from an infrared system are the same as from a rotary kiln - ash, stack gases,
and scrubber water.

2.1.3          Circulating Fluldized Bed

       The fluidized bed incinerator consists of a refractory-lined vessel containing a bed of
inert, granular, sand-like material.  Combustion air is forced upward through the bed thereby
suspending the material.  Fluidized beds can be operated at lower temperatures than other
incinerators because  of the high  mixing energies aiding combustion.  Fluidized beds also make
use of limestone for  the capture  of acid gases, thus  eliminating the need for wet scrubbers and
one of the residual streams from the process.
                                            2-2

-------
2.2 TECHNOLOGY STATUS
A recent survey of the thermal incineration industry shows
14 active mobile cleanup vendors (nine rotary kilns, four
infrared furnaces, and one circulating fluidized bed).

Through FY 90, 55 RODs approved off-site incineration and 59 approved
on-site incineration.

There is limited capacity for off-site incineration of soils.

Rotary kiln, infrared, and circulating fluidized bed incinerators have been
successfully demonstrated and used in full scale remediation.
2.3 APPLICATIONS
• Incineration is effective in treating soils, sediments, sludges, liquids, and
gases.

• Incineration is used to treat all concentrations of organic constituents. It
becomes more competitive when high concentrations are present and other
treatments are not possible.

2.4 TECHNOLOGY STRENGTHS

• Incineration usually destroys organic contaminants in the residual soils
with an efficiency of greater than 99.9 percent.

• The treatment concentrates non-volatile metal constituents in residues.

• It may accomplish some volume reduction of soils depending on the ash
content.

2.5 TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS

• Incineration is relatively expensive compared to other technologies.

• Public resistance has been high.

• Volatile metals, including lead and arsenic, leave the combustion unit with
the flue gases and may have to be removed to avoid excessive emissions.
(See Exhibit 3). Metals can react with other elements in the feed stream
such as chlorine or sulfur, forming more volatile and toxic compounds than
the original species.

• Sodium and potassium in the wastes can attack the brick lining of the
thermal unit (refractory attack) and form a sticky paniculate which fouls
heat transfer surfaces.
2-3

-------
Acid gases must be removed when wastes are combusted which contain
halogenated, sulfonated, nitrated or phosphorus compounds.
2.6 POTENTIAL MATERIALS HANDLING REQUIREMENTS
Excavation is required.

Dewatering may be necessary to achieve acceptable soil moisture content.
(The cost of incineration increases as the moisture content increases. In
addition, infrared treatment units require more than 22 percent solids to
ensure proper conveyance.)

The material must be screened to remove oversized particles.

Size reduction may be needed to achieve the feed size required by the
equipment.

The rotary kiln has the least stringent requirement (can accept
debris up to 12 inches in diameter.)

Fluidized bed units and infrared units require the waste material to
be less than 1 to 2 inches in diameter.

The waste material may require mixing to achieve uniform feed size and
moisture content and to dilute troublesome components.

If the wastes contain a high concentration of clays and fine particles,
separation of clays and fines will minimize dust emissions and particulate
loadings to the air-pollution control equipment (rotary kiln and fluidized
bed).
2.7 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE

• See table on attached page.
2-4

-------
2.9
EXHIBIT 2 - WASTE CHARACTERISTIC TABLES
Waste Type:  Soils and Sludges
Technology:  High-Temperature Thermal Treatment - General"
    Characteristics
  Impacting Process
      Feasibility
                  Reason for Potential Impact
        Data
     Collection
    Requirements
High moisture content
Elevated levels of
halogenated organic
compounds
Presence of PCBs,
dioxins
Presence of metals
Elevated levels of
organic phosphorous
compounds
            Moisture content affects handling and
            feeding and has major impact on process
            energy requirement.

            Halogens form HC1, HBr, or HF when
            thermally treated; acid gases may attack
            refractory material and/or impact air
            emissions.

            PCBs and dioxins are required to be
            incinerated at higher temperatures and
            long residence times. Thermal systems
            may require special permits for
            incineration of these wastes.

            Metals (either pure or as oxides,
            hydroxides, or salts) that volatilize below
            2,000°F (l,093eC) (e.g., As,  Hg, Pb, Sn.)
            may vaporize during incineration.  These
            emissions are difficult to remove using
            conventional air pollution control equip-
            ment. Furthermore, elements cannot be
            broken down to nonhazardous substances
            by any treatment method. Therefore,
            thermal treatment is not useful for soils
            with heavy metals as the primary con-
            taminant.  Additionally, an  element such
            as trivalent chromium (Cr+3) can be
            oxidized to a more toxic valence state,
            hexavalent chromium (Cr+6), in combus-
            tion systems  with oxidizing  atmospheres.

            During combustion processes, organic
            phosphorous compounds may  form
            phosphoric acid anhydride (P20S), which
            contributes to refractory attack and
            slagging problems.
Analysis for percent
moisture
Quantitative analysis
for organic Cl, Br,
and F
Analysis for priority
pollutant.
Analysis for heavy
metals
Analysis for
phosphorus
  Applicable to fluidized bed, infrared, rotary kiln, wet air oxidation, and pyrolytic as well as
  vitrification processes.

Source:  Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of Soils and Sludges EPA/540/2-88/004
         (1988)
                                      2-6

-------
2.9
EXHIBIT 2 - WASTE CHARACTERISTIC TABLES (continued)
Waste Type: Soils and Sludges
Technology: Rotary Kiln Incineration
    Characteristics
  Impacting Process
      Feasibility
                  Reason for Potential Impact
        Data
      Collection
    Requirements
Oversized debris such
as large rocks, tree
roots, and steel drums
Volatile metals (Hg,
Pb, Cd, Zn, Ag, Sn)
Alkali metal salts,
particularly sodium
and potassium sulfate
(NaSO«, KSO4)

Fine particle size of
soil feeds such as clay,
silts

Spherical or
cylindrical wastes

Ash fusion
temperature of waste
Heating value of
waste
            Difficult to handle and feed; may cause
            refractory loss through abrasion. Size
            reduction equipment such as shredders
            must be provided to reduce solid particle
            size.

            May result in high metals concentration
            in flue gas, thus requiring further
            treatment.

            Cause refractory attack and slagging at
            high temperatures. Slagging can impede
            solids removal from the kiln.
            Results in high paniculate loading in flue
            gases due to the turbulence in the rotary
            kiln.

            Such wastes may roll through the kiln
            before complete combustion can occur.

            Operation of the kiln at or near the waste
            ash fusion temperature can cause melting
            and agglomeration of inorganic  salts.

            Auxiliary fuel is normally required to
            incinerate wastes with a heating value of
            less than 8,000 Btu.
Size, form, quantity
of oversized debris.
Size reduction
engineering data
Soil and stack gas
analysis for subject
metals

Percent Na, K.
Soil particle size
distribution, USGS"*
soil classification

Physical inspection of
the waste

Ash fusion
temperature
Btu content
    U.S. Geological Survey.

Source: Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of Soils and Sludges EPA/540/2-88/004
        (1988)
                                      2-7

-------
 2.9
EXHIBIT 2 - WASTE CHARACTERISTIC TABLES (continued)
Waste Type:  Soils and Sludges
Technology:  Fluidized Bed Incineration
   Characteristics
  Impacting Process
      Feasibility
                  Reason for Potential Impact
        Data
     Collection
    Requirements
Feed particle size
Low-melting point
(less than 1600°F)
constituents,
particularly alkali
metal salts and
halogens (e.g., Na, Cl
compounds)
Ash content
Waste density
Presence of
chlorinated or
sulfonated wastes
            Large particle size affects feeding and
            removal of solids from the bed.  Solids
            greater than 1 inch (2.5 cm) must be
            reduced in size by shredding, crushing, or
            grinding.  (Note:  Waste-Tech fluid bed
            systems can handle up  to 3-in feed.) Fine
            particles (clays, silts) result in high
            paniculate loading in flue gases.

            Defluidization of the bed may occur at
            high temperatures  when particles begin to
            melt and become sticky.  Melting point
            reduction (eutectics) may also occur.
            Alkali metal salts greater than 5% (dry
            weight) and halogen greater than 8% (dry
            weight) contribute to such refractory
            attack, defluidization, and slagging
            problems.

            Ash contents  greater than 64% can foul
            the bed.  (Note:  Waste-Tech's continuous
            bed letdown,  screening, and reinjection
            minimize  this type of problem.)

            As waste density increases significantly,
            particle size must be decreased  for
            intimate mixing and heat transfer to
            occur.

            These wastes  require the addition of
            sorbents such as lime or sodium carbonate
            into the bed to absorb acidic gases or the
            addition of a flue gas scrubbing system as
            part of the treatment train.
Size, form, quantity
of solid material; size
reduction engineering
data; soil particle size
distribution; USGS
soil classification
Ash fusion
temperature
Ash content
Waste-bed density
comparison
Analysis for priority
pollutants
Source:  Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of Soils and Sludges EPA/540/2-88/004
         (1988)
                                       2-8

-------
2.9
EXHIBIT 2 - WASTE CHARACTERISTIC TABLES (continued)
Waste Type:  Soils and Sludges
Technology:  Infrared Thermal Treatment
   Characteristics
  Impacting Process
      Feasibility
                  Reason for Potential Impact
        Data
     Collection
    Requirements
Nonhomogeneous feed
size
Moisture content
            Nonuniform feed size requires
            pretreatment before feeding and
            conveyance through the system.  The
            largest solid particle size processible is 1
            to 2 inches.  Debris such as rocks, roots,
            and containers must be crushed or
            shredded to allow for feeding.

            Since waste material is conveyed through
            the system on a metal conveyor belt, soils
            and sludges must be firm enough (usually
            > 22% solids) to allow for proper
            conveyance.  Soils and sludges with excess
            water content (e.g., lagoon sediments)
            require  dewatering prior to feeding.
Size, form, quantity
of solid material; size
reduction engineering
data
Moisture analysis
Source:  Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of Soils and Sludges EPA/540/2-88/004
        (1988)
                                      2-9

-------
2.10          EXHIBIT 3 - BOILING POINTS OF SELECTED COMPOUNDS

                                                          Boiling Point
       Chemical Name                                 *F	CO

Bed,                                               7,052           (3,900)
Uranium and Compounds                            6,904"          (3,818)
Iron                                                4,9828          (2,750)
Fed,                                               1,238             (670)
FeCl,                                                 599             (315)
Nickel                                              4,949a          (2,732)
Chromium                                          4,842"          (2,672)
Cr02Cl,                                              243'            (117)
Chromium, hexavalent                               4,500           (2,482)
Copper                                             4,653"          (2,567)
CuCl                                               2,491            (1,366)
CuCl2                                               1,819"            (993)
Manganese and Compounds                          3,564*          (1,962)
Lead(Pb)                                           3,171"          (1,744)
PbCL                                               1,742             (950)
Barium                                             2,084           (1,140)
BaO                                                3,632           (2,000)
Zinc                                                1,665"            (907)
ZnO,                                               3,272           (1,800)
ZnCF,                                               1,350             (732)
Cadmium                                           1,409"            (765)
CdO                                          1,652-1,832       (900-1,000)
CdCL                                               1,760             (960)
SnCl,                                               1,153             (623)
Arsenic                                             1,135"            (613)
As,O,                                                 379             (193)
2,J,73-dioxin                                  932-1,500°        (500-800)
Mercury                                              675             (357)
HgCl                                                 575             (302)
Phenanthrene                                          644             (340)
SeO2                                                 603             (317)
Pentachlorophenol                                     588             (309)
Fluorene                                              559             (293)
Lindane                                              550             (288)
Polychlorinated  biphenyls                              512+           (267+)
Pyrene                                               500             (260)
DDT                                                 500             (260)
Methanol                                             360             (182)
Styrene                                               293             (145)
Xylene                                               280             (138)
Ethylbenzene                                          277             (136)

Note:   The boiling points of metals and metal compounds are of concern in the design of hazardous waste incinerators.
       Temperatures in the primary chamber of these incinerators may exceed 1800 * F, and the secondary combustion
       chamber often exceeds 2200* F. At these temperatures many of the metals and metallic compounds listed above
       will exist in the gas phase. Capture of the gaseous forms of these compounds requires expensive modifications to
       the air pollution control systems.
"      Boiling point is for the pure chemical itself and may not reflect that for the various compounds.
*      Sublimates.
e      Decomposes.
                                            2-10

-------
2.10          EXHIBIT 3 - BOILING POINTS OF SELECTED COMPOUNDS (Continued)


                                                        Boiling Point
       Chemical Name                               °F	CO

Chlorobenzene                                      270             (132)
Tetrachloroethane                               264-295         (129-146)
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane                            295             (146)
Tetrachloroethene                                   250             (121)
1,1,2-trichloroethane                                235             (113)
Toluene                                            232             (111)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)                             189              (87)
1,2-dichloroethane                                  183              (84)
Methyl ethyl ketone                                 176              (80)
Benzene                                            176              (80)
Carbon tetrachloride                                 171              (77)
1,1,1-trichloroethane                                165              (74)
Chloroform                                         142              (61)
Cis-l,2-dichloroethylene                            140              (60)
1,1-dichloroethane                                  135              (57)
Acetone                                            133              (56)
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene                           118              (48)
Methylene chloride                                  106              (41)
1,1-dichloroethene                                   90              (32)
Cyanides (for HCN)                                  80              (27)
Naphthalene                                         70              (21)
Vinyl chloride                                        7           (-13.9)
                                          2-11

-------
  2.11
EXHIBIT 4 - FACT SHEET: INCINERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
              Office of Waste Programs
              Enforcement
              Washington, D.C. 20460
             Winter 1987
             S/AT/87-2
 FACT SHEET:
 Incineration  Of
 Hazardous Waste
                                                    EPA
Introduction

   Hazardous waste is produced
as a result of current manufactur-
ing processes that supply prod-
ucts we use daily,  from food,
clothing, and shelter to recrea-
tion and  health  care products.
Hazardous waste is often a result
of mixing chemical compounds
that are produced and shipped by
a number of separate industries.
A  national survey conducted by
the  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA) in  1986 estimated
that 247 million metric tons of haz-
ardous  waste are  managed in
regulated  facilities  nationwide
each year - roughly one ton per
every man, woman and  child in
the United States.  Dealing with
hazardous waste safely, then, is a
major responsibility that rests with
each of us.  Properly managing
such waste requires close coordi-
nation  among Federal agencies,
State and local government, pri-
vate industry, and the public.

   Until the  late 1970s, land dis-
posal  was  the   cheapest and,
thus, preferred means of dispos-
ing of hazardous  waste.  Experi-
ence at some landfills since that
time, however, has demonstrated
the potential for  serious health
and environmental impacts from
improper  land disposal.  Recog-
nizing this threat to human hearth
and the environment, Congress
revised the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA)-
the law that regulates the han-
              dling of hazardous waste. Recent
              revisions to RCRA  discourage
              future land disposal of hazardous
              waste  by placing stringent limits
              on the types of wastes that  can
              be disposed of in this manner.

                 As a consequence, more  and
              more  hazardous  waste  pro-
              ducers, as well as operators  and
              owners of treatment and disposal
              facilities, are using methods other
              than  land  disposal  to  handle
              wastes. EPA also  is  seeking,
              where  appropriate, to use alter-
              natives to land disposal for deal-
              ing with  hazardous  substances
              from sites regulated under  the
              Comprehensive   Environmental
              Response,  Compensation   and
              Liability Act (CERCLA or Super-
              fund). CERCLA was reauthorized
              on October 17,  1986,  with  the
              enactment  of  the  Superfund
              Amendments   and   Reauthor-
              ization Act (SARA). EPA is hope-
              ful that many treatment tech-
              nologies  will  be demonstrated
              and available for full-scale use in
              the coming years.   The Super-
              fund Innovative Technology Eval-
              uation (SITE) program was estab-
              lished  to support such demon-
              strations.

                 Incineration is one of the avail-
              able alternative  technologies to
              treat many types of hazardous
              waste.  Incineration can destroy
              organic waste such as dioxins and
              polychlorinated  biphenyls (PCS).
Furthermore,  this  method  can
handle waste  in  many forms
including soils, drums of sludges
and solids, and liquids.  Some
types of incineration even  allow
for  recovery of energy or mate-
rials.

   Incineration has been used to
destroy hazardous  waste in the
U.S. and Europe for several dec-
ades.   EPA has  studied  and
tested  commercial  incinerators
and has conducted incineration
research for several years. Based
upon EPA's current knowledge,
well-operated incinerators safely
destroy hazardous wastes.  EPA
is continuing to study incineration
in an  effort to gather additional
data on how best  to incinerate
hazardous  waste  and minimize
the  potential for harmful emis-
sions.

What Is Hazardous Waste
Incineration And How Does
It Work?

  During hazardous waste inciner-
ation, the individual molecules of
many organic hazardous materials
are  efficiently broken down into
their basic atomic elements and
detoxified  using high tempera-
ture  heat  and flame (typically
1800°  F to 2500° F). These basic
elements   (hydrogen,  carbon,
chlorine, nitrogen, etc.)  are oxi-
dized  into safer and more stable
                                        2-12

-------
 materials such as water, carbon
 dioxide,  and  nitrogen   oxides.
 Some  inert  ash  or  residues,
 organic-free  partfculates,   and
 small  concentrations of  organic
 materials  remain.   How these
 remaining materials are captured
 is  discussed later  in  this  fact
 sheet.  Property done, high-tem-
 perature incineration is a safe, effi-
 cient,  odorless, and smokeless
 process that renders many of the
 most toxic organic wastes perm-
 anently harmless.

    Two major types of hazardous
 waste  incinerators  are   in  use
 today:  the liquid injection system,
 which is limited to burning liquid
 wastes, and the rotary kiln inciner-
 ator, which is used to bum soHds
 as well as liquids.  Other types of
 hazardous   waste  incinerators
 being used include the "fluidized
 bed incinerator and the "infrared
 incinerator.' The type of hazard-
 ous waste  incineration  chosen
 depends upon the kind of hazard-
 ous waste to be incinerated, its
 physical  state (e.g.,  liquid or
 solid),  and the way it is handled
 and stored prior to  incineration.
 Many  incinerators  in  operation
 today  combine these  types for
 more   effective   handling  and
 destruction.

 What Kinds of Hazardous
 Waste Can Be Incinerated?

    All hazardous wastes can be
 incinerated.   Incineration, how-
 ever, destroys only organic mate-
 rial (PCBs, dtoxins, etc.), not inor-
 ganic materials such as hydrochlo-
 ric acid, salts, and metals.  Wastes
that contain a mixture of materials
 including organic,  inorganic and
 metal waste may be  treated by
 incineration to  detoxify the  or-
ganic waste.

 Are Highly Toxic Wastes
 Destroyed by Incineration?

    A common misconception is
that the more toxic a chemical, the
 more difficult it is to bum.  While
 some chemicals are more easfly
 broken down through  incinera-
 tion than others, ease of thermal
 decomposition is not related to
 toxicity.   EPA  has determined
 through an extensive Incineration
 research and evaluation program
 that destruction of organic wastes
 occurs  irrespective  of  toxicity.
 This feature  is very  important
 because it means that chemicals
 ranging from pesticides to PCBs,
 benzene to dtoxin, aO break down
 under heat, provided that appro-
 priate conditions are met.
Where Are Hazardous
Waste Incinerators
Located?

    Hazardous waste incinerators
that are built and operated where
the hazardous wastes are gener-
ated  are caBed ottsjte  inciner-
ators.    They  are typically con-
structed near a chemical plant or
manufacturing site. On-site incin-
erators  also  can  be  built  at
Superfund sites if the amount of
waste that needs to be  inciner-
ated is large. In 1985 there were
235 on-site facilities that handled
90  percent  of the  hazardous
waste incinerated each year in the
Unled States.
     An off-site incinerator is also
referred to as a "commercial faci-
tty*  because  hazardous waste
shipped from a variety of gener-
ators is incinerated at a single facil-
ity. Currently, 16 commercial haz-
ardous waste incineration facilities
are  in use throughout the U.S.,
accounting   for   roughly   10
percent of the hazardous waste
incinerated.   Most commercial
facilities are currently operating at
or near fuH capacity. Because of
the  large amount  of wastes at
Superfund sites that can be incin-
erated,  commercial  incinerator
capacity will likely fall short of
needed  capacity   in  the  near
future.

   A useful innovation for destruc-
tion of hazardous waste  is the
mobile lor transportable) incinera-
tor.  These systems are hauled to
a  site on  flat bed trucks, then
assembled and  tested.   Mobile
incinerators  typically  have  a
smaller capacity than stationary,
on-site units.   Because  mobile
incinerators are  designed to be
moved, they  are usually smaller
than  most  stationary facilities.
Mobile incinerators are particularly
appropriate for Superfund  sites,
especially  when the  waste  at
those sites can be cleaned up in a
limied period of time.
    MOBILE INCINERATOR
                                               2-13

-------
 At What Rate Can An
 Incinerator Handle The
 Waste?

     The rate an incinerator can
 handle waste generally depends
 on the volume and type of hazard-
 ous waste to be  destroyed  and
 the specific conditions at a site.
 For example, hazardous wastes
 are typically  fed into the mobile
 rotary kiln incinerator at a  rate of
 10,000 pounds per hour for con-
 taminated   solids   and   7,000
 pounds per hour for liquids.  In a
 mobile  liquid injection  system,
 wastes typically can be  fed at
 1,500   gallons   (over   12,000
 pounds)  per hour. These  quan-
 tities can be compared to those of
 non-hazardous waste burned by
 many   municipal   incinerators,
 some of which handle 1,000 tons
 (2 million pounds) of waste per
 clay.

 Are All Hazardous Wastes
 Completely Destroyed
 During Incineration?

   No incinerator can destroy 100
 percent of  the hazardous waste.
 Minute  amounts  of  hazardous
 compounds are released into the
 air through the incinerator stack
 (chimney) or become mixed with
 the ash.  However, EPA requires
 that each incinerator achieve a sat-
 isfactory  performance  level. A
 standard of at least 99.99 percent
 has been set for destruction  and
 removal   of   hazardous   com-
pounds introduced  into  inciner-
ators.  For  PCBs  and  dioxins,
incinerators must demonstrate a
destruction  and  removal   effi-
ciency (ORE) of 99.9999 percent.
A 99.99 percent ORE means that
of   every  10,000  pounds  intro-
duced into  the incinerator,  at the
most, only one pound of  resid-
uals remain. For PCBs and dioxin
compounds, the higher ORE of
99.9999 percent means that one
pound of residuals  for every  mil-
lion  pounds introduced into  the
incinerator may remain. EPA has
tested incinerators and found that
they can meet or exceed these
standards if operated properly. In
addition,  EPA  believes  that,
based  on   current  knowledge,
these standards protect  human
health and the environment.

How Does EPA Know That
Performance Standards
Are Met?

    To ensure that an incinerator
can  operate  at  the  established
performance level, trial bums are
conducted.  Trial bums use sam-
ples  of  different  hazardous
wastes, such as paints, sludges,
or chemical  solvents,  that  are
expected to be burned in a partic-
ular incinerator.  The trial  bum is
designed to test the unit under
the most difficult conditions the
incinerator will experience during
normal  operations.  For each
batch of  mixed  waste,    EPA
selects up to six  of the most con-
centrated  and  most difficult-to-
incinerate compounds.  By dem-
onstrating that these compounds
are destroyed and removed to  a
99.99 percent performance level,
trial bums demonstrate the maxi-
mum performance of the incinera-
tor.  In addition, any time an incin-
erator is to bum a new waste con-
taining a more difficult-to-inciner-
ate compound than the test com-
pound, a sample of this waste is
testbumed to guarantee that it will
be  destroyed to 99.99   percent
efficiency. If it cannot be destroy-
ed to that efficiency, the waste
may not be burned at that  inciner-
ator.

   The results of the trial bum are
used to set the conditions under
which the incinerator must oper-
ate to ensure that it meets the per-
formance standard. EPA speci-
fies these conditions in the oper-
ating permit for each incinerator.
The permit outlines the maximum
allowable carbon monoxide  level
in the stack exhaust gas, the maxi-
mum  waste feed rate, the mini-
mum  combustion  temperature,
the appropriate indicator for com-
bustion gas velocity, allowable var-
iations in  incinerator system de-
sign  or   operating  procedures,
and other parameters necessary
to ensure  proper operation.  Haz-
ardous waste cannot be fed into
the incinerator unless the incinera-
tor is operating within these speci-
fied conditions. When conditions
deviate from  these  established
permit limits, the incinerator trig-
gers a waste feed cut-off system
thereby ensuring no  emission of
hazardous  waste  from   the
incinerator.

What Happens to the
Residuals Produced by
Incineration?

    Under EPA's incinerator regu-
lations, ash that is removed from
the incinerator (both at the bot-
tom of the unit and from the stack)
is always  assumed to be hazard-
ous and must be disposed of at a
RCRA-permitted facility. EPA may
be petitioned to "delist" the resi-
due to formally determine that it is
not a hazardous waste. If the resi-
due is determined (through chem-
ical analysis) to  be  non-hazard-
ous, it may  be disposed of in a
municipal  landfill.  In addition,
scrubber  water  must  meet the
Clean Water Act standards to pro-
tect public health and the environ-
ment before it  can be discharged
to a river, stream, or lake.

How Much Does
Incineration Cost?

   The cost of off-site, commercial
incineration varies widely.  Many
factors influence  costs, including
concentration  of the  hazardous
waste, its physical  state  (eg.,
liquid or solid),  its potential for
burning, the  manner in which it is
fed  into  the incinerator,  and
pretreatment requirements.  The
size and  characteristics  of the
incinerator also affect costs. The
use of mobile or on-srte  inciner-
ators can, in some cases,  reduce
the costs of treating  the  more
                                             2-14

-------
 dfficuK wastes.  More experience
 with  using mobile  and  on-stto
 fadtties tor Superfund deanup is
 needed, however,  to determine
 actual costs.

 Who Regulates Hazardous
 Waste Incineration
 Facilities?

    AO off-site and on-site hazard-
 ous waste incinerators are regu-
 lated by EPA or the appropriate
 State  government  acting under
 the authorization of  EPA. Inciner-
 ation is one of the final steps in
 the "cradle to  grave" regulatory
 management system created by
 Congress under the  RCRA legisla-
 tion. "Cradle to grave" means that
 from the point at which a hazard-
 ous waste  is generated to its ulti-
 mate destruction or disposal,  it
 must be managed and monitored
 to  ensure   protection of  human
 health and the environment.

     Under RCRA, aD incineration
 fadtties except those at  Super-
 fund sites must obtain a permit to
 operate. Although a permit is not
 required for on-site incineration at
 a Superfund site, EPA  complies
 with  the   substantive  require-
 ments of  RCRA,  including the
 technical requirements pertaining
 to permitting. If hazardous waste
 from a Superfund site is sent to
 an off-site incinerator, the inciner-
 ator must comply with all  RCRA
 requirements,  including  permit-
 ting.

    To receive a permit, owners
 and operators of incinerators are
 required to submit information on
 the design, operation, and future
 closure of the facility. They also
 must submit information on the
 financial   capability  to  cover
 closure of the facility and liability
 for bodily injury or property dam-
 age to third parties.  The informa-
 tion submitted by the permit appli-
cant must specify what analyses
will be  made of all hazardous
wastes  prior to  incineration to
 ensure that the wastes are suled
 to  the  technology.    Security
 measures, such as  installation of
 a fence around the facility and
 adequate surveillance,  also are
 required.   Further, owners and
 operators must develop and fol-
 low a written inspection schedule
 to assess the overall safety of the
 facility, and they must use trained
 facility personnel.   Owners and
 operators also must prepare an
 action plan for emergency  situ-
 ations  and ensure that emer-
 gency prevention  measures are
 taken.      Finally,   up-to-date
 recordkeeping  and reporting on
 the operation of the  facility are
 required

 Who Monitors the
 Incineration Process
 During a Superfund
 Response?

    During a Superfund response,
 EPA or the State will lead the tech-
 nical activity or monitor the act-
 ivities of the State or private party
 conducting the cleanup.  Private
 firms, however, will actually con-
 duct the  cleanup activity at the
 Superfund site.  If mobile or on-
 site incineration is the  chosen
 cleanup  option,  highly  trained
 incineration engineers from com-
 mercial incineration firms win oper-
 ate the incinerator system.  EPA
 or the State, as part of their moni-
 toring of contractor  performance,
 win monitor trial bums of the incin-
 eration process, and will inspect
 incinerators at least twice a year
 (as required by RCRA) to ensure
that safety and health practices
 are being followed and wastes are
being destroyed effectively.

How Can The Public
Participate in the Process?

  EPA provides several opportun-
ities for public participation when
initiating activities at a Superfund
site. In a report called the feasibil-
ity study, EPA or the State  must
describe the options that it is con-
sidering for dealing wth  hazard-
ous wastes at the site.  One of
these options may be incineration
either at the  site (mobDe or on-
site) or at a commercial facility
located offstte.   The public will
have a minimum of three weeks to
comment  on  treatment and dis-
posal options documented by the
feasbilty study.  EPA must con-
sider  and address  these pubDc
comments before   tt   decides
which  option to use. In addition,
EPA or the State generally will
hold public meetings and issue
status reports to keep the commu-
nity advised of site activities, site
conditions, and  opportunities to
participate in meetings.   For ad-
ditional information, a Superfund
Regional  contact  is  provided
below.
  SUPERFUND CONTACT:
                                              2-15

-------
2.12
EXHIBIT 5 - 1990 THERMAL REMEDIATION INDUSTRY CONTRACTOR
SURVEY
1990 Thermal Remediation
Industry Contractor Survey
JamM J. Cudahy and William L Troxtor
Focus Environmental. Inc.
Knoxvllfc, Tenrwsa*e
The treatment of toil contaminated with orguic* and inorganics if
becoming a major industry in the United State* and Europe. The toil
cleanup biU for the United State* could run as high as $200 to $300 bHUon
over the next SO to 40 yean. European foO cleanup cost* could run MI high
at S130 billion,1
The types of sites in the United State* that wHtrecjuire toil treatment can
be broken down into the following categories

CERCLA (Superfund) Actions
RCRA Corrective Actions
RCRA datura

Underground Storage Taott
Real Estate Transfer*
Spill deaorups.

(Continued on out p«(t).
The term* mobile uid transportable
an often used interchangeably, howev-
er, thii is often misleading. For pur-
poaee of thif paper, • mobile thermal
treatment lyitem it defined u a truck,
rail, barge, or skid-mounted lyswm
which can be field erected in two weeks
or lew and requiree miniitial founda-
tions. A traruportablt thermal treat-
ment system is defined as a truck-,
rail-, barfe- or skid-mounted system
which requires more than two weeks
for field erection and requiree the con-
struction of substantial foundations.
The following types of mobile and
transportable thermal remediation
Coprnffet 1NO—Air * WMW Mm
J. Air Wast* Manage Aaaoc.
Reprinted with permission frcm the J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.
2-16

-------
                  **, in each of the* categoric*, with the ezcepaanaf the
                  er category, - •** <*ven by differ** set, of Federal
             Real Estate Transfer type regulations were ifirst urttuted m
            and have now been promulgated inanumberof other, tate*.
                        co« for the Superfund
       . Estimated costs for the industrial sector Superfund are $25 to SM
 billion and the estimated cost for the Department of Energy sites U over
 $150 billion.1 An early RCRA Corrective Action cleanup estimate u $25
 billion.' ThiM estimate may well be low, however, liace the permitting,
 cleanup and delating criteria are, till not clearly defined. The If A', RCRA
 Corrective Action cost estimate it $7.4 billion. However, the Office of
 Management and Budget feels that this estimate a low*
   The potential magnitude of the cleanup coto has resulted in the
 development and implementation of many technologies for the
 decontamination of soils. Of the available remedo/ tecboologiet, thermml
 treatment bu perhtpi had the mott field letting. The purpo* ofthu pmper
 it to focut on the full ttxle lite remedatiom which have been or are being
 conducted uting thermal procetting equipment. Projectt which btve been
 completed, mre on-going, or hmve been contracted for, through Jmnuary of
 1990 are described.
                                      mediation project* detailed ia tiu« pa-
                                      per are all full-tcale commercial clean-
                                      up* in the United State* which are ei-
                                      ther completed, on-going, or have been
                                      contracted.  The  project information
                                      wai obtained by contacting  each of the
                                      thermal remediation tervice  contrac-
                                      tor* and aiking for the following infor-
                                      mation:
                                      *  Site name/location/tize  (ton*)
                                      •  Source of contamination
                                      •  Project itatut (finished, on-going,
                                         or contracted)
                                      •  Combustion equipment type  and
                                         capacity (MM Bto/hr)
                                      •  Air pollution control   equipment
                                         typ«
                                      •  Number of unit* u*ed by contrac-
                                         tor during the project
                                      e  Treated toil indicator compound
                                      •  Concentration  of  indicator com-
                                         pound in treated toil
 equipment are currently available for
 toil decontamination:
    Rotary kiln
    Circulating bed combuitor
    Infra-red conveyor furnace
    Aiphaltkiln
    Low temperature direct fired de-
    torber
 •   Low temperature indirect find de-
   •orber
 •  Hif h temperature indirect fired de-
   torber.
  The type* of system* lilted  above
have all been u»ed or are under con-
tract to  perform full-scale site  clean-
up*. Description* of theae syttem* can
be found in Reference* 5 through 8.
     Table I. Thermal remediation industry project summary.
Project statu*
Description
No. of project*
Waste quantity (tons)
Average site sue (tons)*
No. of contractors
No. of thermal units
Finished
31
340,000
11,000
On-coing
a
370,000
46,300
Contracted
15
565,000
37,700
Total
54
1,275,000
23.600
20
40
     * Averaf • includes only project* for which site sixe information is available.
Thermal Remediation Project*

  The project* described in this paper
do not include pilot scale work. A de-
scription of some of the early pilot scale
thermal treatment work can be found
Requirement for a trial burn
Paniculate emission* during trial
burn
RCRA or TSCA permitting re-
quirement*
in Reference* 5 and 8. The thermal re-    •  Biggest problem on project
T«bl« n.  Site date.
Vendor
AET
Canonie
Canonie
Canonie
Canonie
Chemical Waste Mgt.
Ensco
Enaco
Rnsrn
Ensco
Ensco
Ensco
GDC Engineering
Harmon
Harmon
Harmon
IT Corporation
Site name
Valde*
OttatiaiGoM
Canon Bridgewater
South Kaaray
McKia
Confidential
Union Carbide
Laos Oil
Sydney Mine*
NCBC
Bridgeport Rental
Smith villa
Rubicon
Bog Creek
Confidential
PreBUas Creosote
Motto
Site location
Valdes
Kingston
Bndgewater
South Kearny
Gray
Northeast
Saadrift
Lemont
Brandon
Gulfport
Bridgeport
Canada
Geiamar
HowellTwp.

Preatias
Lamaroue
ST
AK
NH
MA
NJ
MB

TX
IL
FL
MS
NJ

LA
NJ
AL
MS
TX
Source of contamination
Crude oil spill
Solvent treatment
Solvent recycling
Sol wot recycling
Waste treatment and disposal
PCB spills
Chemical manufacturing
Waste oil
Waste oil lagoon
Herbicide storage
Used oil recycling
PCB transformer leak*
ChtmK%l •w*f»if*'>*itv«M
Paint/solvent disposal
'"rsnrlirtt tank 'te.k
Wood treatment
Styrene tar disposal pita
Project
status
Finished
Finished
Contracted
Finished
Finished
Contracted
Contracted
Finished
Finished
Finished
Ongoing
Contracted
OnatuDS!
-*M»wiiie
Ongoing
Finished
Finished
Ongoing
Site sue
(tons)

8.000
6,500
18,000
18,000
35,000

26.000
10,000
22.000
100,000
7.000
52,000
22.500
eoo
9,200
80,000
(Continued on next page).
August 1990    Volume 40. No. 8
                                                   2-17

-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Tabl* U. SiU data (continued).
Vendor
IT Corporation
IT Corporilion

IT Corporation
Kimmins
Ogden
Ogden
Ogden
0. H. Material*
O. H. Material!
0. H. Material*
0. H. Materiala
0. H. Material!
0. H. Material!
0. H. Material!
Site Reel. System*
Site Red. System*
Site Red. System!
Soil Remediation Co.
SoUtech
TDI Service*
Thermodynamics Corp
U.S. Waite Thermal Proc.
U.S. Waste Thermal Proc
U.S. Waste Thermal Proc.
V«rtac Site Contractor*
Vesta
Vesta
Vesta
V«su
V«sta
W estinghouM/Haztech
W estinghouae/Haztech
Weston
We* ton
Weston
Weston
Weston
Sit* name
Cornhuaker AAP
Louisiana AAP
c;v-« pit*
3U.OT * It*
La Sail*
Confidential
Swanson River
Stockton
Goose Bay
Gas station
Rail yard
Twin City AAP
Rail yard
Florida Steel
Rail yard
Koch Chemical
Gulf Oil
Sun Oil
Multiple sitea
Waukegan Harbor
Chevron Refinery
S. Crop Service*
G** station
Confidential
Confidential
Vertac
Nyanza
Rocky Boy
S. Crop Service*
American Crosaarm
Fort A.P. Hill
Peak Oil
La Sail*
Revenue
Letterkenny Depot
Tinker AFB
Paxton Avenue
Lauder Salvag*
Sit* location
Grand Island
Miadcn
PrnnKv
^-iOBDj
LaSail*
Sacramento
Kenai
Stockton
Goose Bay
Cocoa

New Brighton

Indian town
Cleveland

Multiple lite*
Multiple site*
Multiple site*
Waukegan
ElSegundo
Oelray Beach
Temecula

SanBemadino
Jacksonville
Ashland
Havr*
Oelray Beach
Chehali*
Bowling Green
Tampa
LaSall*
Springfield
Chambers burg
Oklahoma City
Chicago
Beards town
ST
NE
LA
TX
IL
CA
AK
CA
Canada
FL
PA
MN
PA
FL
OH
KS
FL

SC
DL
CA
FL
CA
CA
CA
AR
MA
MT
FL
WA
VA
FL
O.
IL
PA
OK
IL
IL
Sourc* of contamination
Munition* plant redwatar pita
Munition* patet rerieXir lagoon

PCS capacitor manufacturing
Town gas sit*
Oil pipeline compressor oil
Underground tank oil leak
PCB*
Petroleum tank leak
Repetitive spill*
Munition* plant
Diesel tank spill
Steel mill used oil*
Refueling station
Tank bottom*
Oil spill*
Oil spill*
Gas and oil leaks/spills
Marine motor manufacturing
APIsludgM
Crop dusting operation
Petroleum tank leak
Oil spill*
Oil spill*
Chemical nianMfaT*11^"*'
Dye manufacturing
Wood treatment
Crop dusting operation
Wood treatment
Army base
Used oil recycling
Transformer reconditioning

Army depot
Air Fore* baa*
Waste lagoon
Metal scrap salvage
Project
status
Finished
Finished
C^nntrAft^A
WQUBCIiOTl
Contracted
Contracted
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Contracted
Contracted
Contracted
Finished
Contracted
Contracted
Finished
Finished
Contracted
Finished
Contracted
Finished
Ongoing
Finished
Finished
finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Ongoing
Finished
Site sue
(tons)
45.000
100.000
">ji /vyi
J4i,UUU
69,000
22.500
80,000
16.000
4.000
1.000
1.500
2,000
1,300
18,000
1,500
700
18.000

3,000
20.000
30,000
1.800
1.000
7,500
540
6,500
1,000
1.800
1.800
900
200
7.000
30,000
1.000
500
1.000
16.000
8.500
Table III. Equipment data.
Vendor
Sit* name
No. of
unit*
Combustion equipment typ*
Thermal
capacity
(mm Btu/hr)
APC equipment typ*
AET
Canonie
Canome
Canonie
Canonie
Chemical Waste Mgt
Ensco
Ensco
Ensco
Ensco
Ensco
Ensco
GDC engineering
Harmon
Harmon
Harmon
IT Corporation
IT Corporation
IT Corporation
IT Corporation
Kimmina
Ogden
Ogden
Valdes 1
OttatiAGoes 1
Canon Bridgewatar 1
South Kearny 1
McKin 1
Confidential 1
Union Carbide 1
LensOU 1
Sydney Mine* 1
NCBC 1
Bridgeport Rental I
Smithvill* 1
Rubicon 1
Bog Creek 1
Confidential 1
Prentia* Creosote 1
Moteo 2
Cornhusker AAP 1
Louisiana AAP 1
Sikee Pit* 2
LaSall* 1
Confidential 1
Swanson River 1
Rotary kiln 20
Asphalt kiln 55
Asphalt kiln 55
Asphalt kiln 55
Asphalt kiln 55
High temperature indirect deeorber
Rotary kiln 35
Rotary bin 35
RoUrykiln 35
Rotary kiln 35
Rotary kiln 100
Rotary kiln 35
Infrared conveyor furnace
Rotary kiln 82
Low temperature direct desorber 21
Rotary kiln 82
Rotary bin 56
Rotary kiln 56
Rotary kiln 56
Rotary kiln 56
Rotary kiln 100
Circulating fluid bed 10
Circulating fluid bed 10
Baghou**, carbon, scrubber
Baghouae, carbon, scrubber
Baghou**, carbon, scrubber
Baghou**, carbon, scrubber
Condensation, carbon
Steam ejector scrubber
Steam ejector scrubber
Steam ejector scrubber
Steam ejector scrubber
Steam ejector scrubber
Steam ejector scrubber
Waterloo scrubber
Cyclone, baghoua*. packed bed
Baghou**
Cyclone, baghouse, packed bed
Hydroeonics undem scrubber
Hydrceonic* tandem scrubber
Hydroponics tandem scrubber
Hydrceonic* tandani scrubber
Baghou**, pecked bed
Baghou**
Baghouse
2-18
J. Air Wist* Manage. AMOC

-------
Table III.  Eqmpm«Dt d*t» (continued).
        Vendor
                            Site name
                                          No. of
                                           units
                            Combustion equipment type
                                 Thermal
                                 capacity
                                (mmBtu/hr)
    APCequipment type
Ofden
0. H. Material*
0. H. Material*
0. H. Material*
0. H. Material*
0. H. Materials
0. H. Mturwli
0. H. Materials
Site Reel Systems
Site Reel Systems
Site Red Systems
SoU Remediation Co.
Soil tech
TDI Service*
Thermodynamics Corp
U.S. Waite Thermal Proc.
U.S. Waete Thermal Proc.
U.S. Weste Thermal Proc.
Venae Site contractor*
Veeta
Veita
Veita
Veeta
Veeta
Westinfhouse/Haztech
WettinffhouM/Haztach
Weeton
Weston
Weiton
Wetton
Weeton
Stockton             1
GooteBay            1
Gat station           1
Railyard             1
TwintityAAP        1
Rail yard             1
Florida Steel          1
Railyard             1
Koch Chemical        1
Gulf Oil              1
Sun Oil               1
Multiple tite*         1
Weukefan Harbor     1
Chevron Refinery     1
S. Crop Service*       1
Ga* station           1
Confidential          1
Confidential
Vertac
Nyansa
Rocky Boy
S. Crop Service*
American Croeearm
Fort A.P. Hill
Peak Oil
LaSalle              1
Revenue             X
Lenerkenny Depot    1
Tinker AFB          1
Futon Avenue        1
Leuder Salvage	1
Circulating fluid bed                   10
Infrared conveyor furnace              30
Low temperature direct deeorbcr        12
Low temperature direct dnorber        20
Infrared conveyor furnace              30
Low temperature direct deeorber        20
Infrared conveyor furnace              30
Low temperature direct deeorber        20
Aiphaltkila                           47
Asphalt kiln                           25
Asphalt kiln                           28
Asphalt tin                           48
High temperature indirect deeorber      14
High temperature indirect deeorber
Roury kiln                            1
Infrared conveyor furnace              10
Infrared conveyor furnace              10
Infrared conveyor furnace              10
Rotary kiln                           35
Rotary kiln                            8
Rotary kiln                           12
Rotary kiln                           12
Rotary kiln                           12
Rotary kiln                           12
Infrared conveyor furnace              30
Infrared conveyor furnace              30
Low temperature indirect deeorber      12
Low temperature indirect deeorber      12
Low temperature indirect deeorber      12
Rotary kiln                           35
Rotary kiln                   	35
Bafhouee
Venturi. packed bed
Venturi
Cyclone, venturi
Venturi, packed bed
Cyclone, venturi
Venturi, packed bed
Cydone, vencun
Bcfhoute
Bafhouse
Baghouee
Cyclone, beghouse
Baghouse, cyclone, scrubber
Condensation, carbon
Wet scrubber
Caivert scrubber
Caivert scrubber
Caivert scrubber
Spray dryer, baghouse. scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Bafhouse
Afterburner
Bafhouee, wet scrubber
Bafhouse, packed bed
Bafhouee. packed bed	
Vendor
AET
Canonie
Canonie
Canonie
Canonie
Chemical Waste Mgt
Ensco
Ensco
Ensco
Ensco
Ensco
Ensco
GDC Eafineerinf
Harmon
Harmon
Harmon
IT Corporation
IT Corporation
IT Corporation
IT Corporation
Kimmin*
Ofden
Ofden
Ofden
0. H. Material*
0. H. Material*
0. H. Material*
0. H. Material*
0. H. Material*
0. H. Material*
Site name
Valdes
OttatiAGoee
Canon Bridf ewatar
South Kearny
McKin
Confidential
Union Carbide
Lens Oil
Sydney Mines
NCBC
Bridfeport Rental
Smithvilk
Rubicon
Bof Creek
Confidential
PrentiM Creoeou
Motto
Cornhusker AAP
Louisiana AAP
SikeePit*
LaSalle
Confidential
Swanaon Rivet
Stockton
Goose Bay
Gas station
Railyard
Twin City AAP
Railyard
Florida Steel
Indicator compound
Petroleum hydrocarbon*
Volatile organic*
Total VOC
Volatile orfanics
Trichloroethylene
PCBe

Hydrocarbon*
Hydrocarbon*
Dioxin
PCB*
PCBe


Petroleum hydrocarbon*
PAH*
PCB*
Trinitrotoluene
Trinitrotoluene
Total PNA*
PCB*

PCB*
Total hydrocarbon*
PCB*
Rtnttn*) tolut nt lyttnt
Dieeeloil
PCBe
Dieeeloil
PCB*
Contaminant
concentration
in treated soil
(mf/kf)

<0.2
<0.1

<0.1
<2.0

<5.0
<5.0
<15PPT




<100
<2

<1J
<1.3
<100
<2.0

<0.1
<1

<0.1
<100
<2
<100
<2
Trial
bun
required

Ye*
No
No
Ye*

Ye*
Ye*
No
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Yee
No
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*

Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*

No

Ye*
Paniculate
emission*
(GR/DSCF
• 7%0,)

<0.03


<0.03


.006

.017



0.015

0.011

0.0017

.
Auguai 1990     VcXunw 40, No. 8
                                                        2-19

-------
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Thermal RenMdaUon Industry
InfammUon

Important findings from the con-
tractor survey an lummarized below;
• In general, the major problem in
the Thermal Remediation Industry
has been material* handling for dif-
ferent type* of soils and complex
waste*.
• Modified asphalt kiln* are being
used throughout the country aa
fixed regional treatment centers for
gasoline and oil contaminated soila
from gasoline stations, under-
ground storage tank cleanups, and
oil spills. These units are typically
permitted under air permits. Early
asphalt Iriln installations did not
include secondary combustion
chambers. Recent installations,
however, are incorporating this de-
sign feature.
• Ensco, Vesta and Harmon have in-
stalled oxygen augmented burners
on their rotary kilns. Ensco is using
this technology at the Bridgeport
site, Vesta in Canada and Harmon
at the Bog Creek site.
Ogden Environmental Services has
obtained approval from California
Summary

Table I presents a summary of the
current project status of the thermal
remediation industry. Data in Table I
shows that at least 39 full-scale thermal
remediation projects have) been com-
pleted or are in progress by 15 contrac-
tors. The estimated quantity of materi-
al that has or will be processed during
these 39 projects it approximately
700,000 tons. There are an additional
15 contracted thermal remediation
projects which will process an estimat-
ed quantity of 565,000 tons of contami-
nated material The total of all projects
is close to 1,300,000 tons.
Summaries of the contractor survey
information are included in Tables n
through IV. While these tables are con-
sidered to be a fairly complete compila-
tion of the full-scale U.S. thermal re-
mediation project* through January
1990, it is possible that additional work
has been done which is not included.
While the use of thermal equipment
to decontaminate soils is presently one
of the highest cost cleanup options, it
produces a soil with the lowest organic
residuals and therefore the least future
liability. As the Land Ban Restrictions
require more types of waste to be treat-
ed and as cleanup criteria become more
stringent, it is expected that thermal
remediation will be used more exten-
2. "Committee reports Federal Facility
Bills expanding EPA/state power* at
wtate aitet," Environment Reporter
Current Development*. August 19,1988,
J. 683-
. Stanley, "Hazardous Waata Manage-
ment Industry-Growing Pains," Werth-
eia Schroeder and Company, Inc. Publi-
cation, New York. NY. April 7,1988.
4. "OMB suspends review of three more
EPA rubs, indicating impasa* in discus-
aions with agency," Environment Re-
porter Current Development*, June 23,
1989, p. 466.
5. J. J. Cudahy, "Supeifund lit* remedia-
tion with thermal treatment," paper pre-
sented at Second National Symposium
on the Leading Edge of Incineration,
Waahington, D.C., September 20,1987.
8. A. C. Cnu, "Thermal Treatment, Hat-
mat World, August 1989, pp. 50-56.
7. J. J. Cudahy, A. R. Eicher, "Thermal re-
mediation industry; markets, technol-
ogies, and companies," Pollut. Eng. 21:
76(1989).
8. S. G. Decicco, W. L. Trailer. "Mobil*
thermal treatment ayitems," Chapter in
Standard Handbook of Hazardoui
Watte Treatment and Ditpotal, Harry
M. Freeman, Editor, first edition. New
York. McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp.
8-179-*-194.
to operate its mobile circulating sludges.
bed combustor (CBC) as a fixed re-
gional thermal treatment facility
for oil contaminated soils. The
CBC will be kept at Stockton, Cali- R*J«ejr»nce*
fornia where it is currently reme- L £ John§on '-^^n $uri
dialing a site contaminated with rope'* underground woes,"
fueloiL 96:47(1989).
Table IV. Performance data (continued).
Vendor Site name
O. H. Material* Rail yard
Sit* Reel. System* Koch Chemical
Sit* Reel. Systems Gulf Oil
Sit* Reel Systems Sun Oil
Soil Remediation Co. Multiple sites
Soiltech W*uk*gan Harbor
TDI Service* Chevron Refinery
Thermodynamics Corp S. Crop Service*
U.S. Wast* Thermal Proc, Gas station
U.S. Wast* Thermal Proc. Confidential
U.S. Waate Thermal Proc. Confidential
Vertac Sit* Contractor! Vertac
Vest* Nyanz*
Veeta Rocky Boy
Vesta S. Crop Services
Vest* American Crotaarm
Vetta Fort A. P. Hill
Wettinghoue/Haztech Peak Oil
Westinghoue/Haztech La Sail*
Weston Revenue
Weston Letterkenny Depot
Weston Tinker AFB
Wetton Pazton Avenue
Wetton Lauder Salvage
Indicator compound
Petroleum hydrocarbon*
Toluene, sylen*
Benzene, toluene, xylene
Petroleum hydrocarbon*
PCB*
Pentachloropbefloi
Total hydrocarbons
Total hydrocarbon*
Total hydrocarbon
Dioxina
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
DDT
Dioxin.
Dioxin
PCB*
PCB.
PAHs
Benzene, toluene, xylene
Trichloroethylen*
RCRA constituent*
PCBs
r*c* for Eu-
Chem. Eng.
Cont*min*nt
concentration
in treated toil
(mg/kg)
<50
<0.1
<50
BOAT
0.003
<10
<\0
<0.2
<0.001
<0.001
<1
<2
<0.33
<1
<2
The author* are with Focus Envi-
ronmental Inc., 9050 Executive Park
Drive, Suite A-202, KnoxviU*. TN
37923. This paper waa submitted for,
peer review on February 23, 1990.
The revised manuscript waa received
May 14, 1990.

ParticuUt*
Trial emissions
burn (GR/DSCF RCRA TSCA
required 0 7% 0?) pennit permit
Yes 0.039 No No
No No No
No No
Ye* No No
No No No
Ye* 0.035 No No
No 0.008 No No
No No No
No No No
Yes
-------
2.13
EXHIBIT 0 - ENGINEERING BULLE1IN MOBILE/ iKAINifUKi
INCINERATION TREATMENT
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
&EPA
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, DC 20460
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati. OH 45268
Superfund
EPA/540/2-90/014
September 1990
Engineering Bulletin
Mobile/Transportable
Incineration Treatment
Purpose

Section 121(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to select remedies
that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in which
treatment "permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants as a principal element" The Engineering Bulletins
are a series of documents that summarize the latest information
available on selected treatment and site remediation
technologies and related issues. They provide summaries of
and references for the latest information to help remedial
project managers, on-scene coordinators, contractors, and
other site cleanup managers understand the type of data and
site characteristics needed to evaluate a technology for potential
applicability to their Superfund or other hazardous waste site.
Those documents that describe individual treatment
technologies focus on remedial investigation scoping needs.
Addenda will be issued periodically to update the original
bulletins.
Abstract

Incineration treats organic contaminants in solids and
liquids by subjecting them to temperatures typically greater
than 1000'F in the presence of oxygen, which causes the
volatilization, combustion, and destruction of these compounds.
This bulletin describes mobile/transportable incineration systems
that can be moved to and subsequently removed from Superfund
and other hazardous waste sites. It does not address other
thermal processes that operate at lower temperatures or those
that operate at very high temperatures, such as a plasma arc.
It is applicable to a wide range of organic wastes and is generally
not used in treating inorganics and metals. Mobile/transportable
incinerators exhibit essentially the same environmental
performance as their stationary counterparts. To date, 49 of the
95 records of decision (RODs) designating thermal remedies at
Superfund sites have selected onsite incineration as an integral
part of a preferred treatment alternative. There are 22
commercial-scale units in operation [5]*. This bulletin provides
information on the technology applicability, the types of residuals
resulting from the use of the technology, the latest performance
data, site requirements, the status of the technology, and
where to go for further information.
Technology Applicability

Mobile/transportable incineration has been shown to be
effective in treating soils, sediments, sludges, and liquids
containing primarily organic contaminants such as halogenated
and non halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles, porychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, dioxins/furans, organic cyanides,
and organic corrosives. The process is applicable for the
thermal treatment of a wide range of specific Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes and other
hazardous waste matrices that include pesticides and herbicides,
spent halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents, chlonnated
phenol and chlorinated benzene manufacturing wastes, wood
preservation and wastewater sludge, organic chemicals
production residues, pesticides production residues, explosives
manufacturing wastes, petroleum refining wastes, coke industry
wastes, and organic chemicals residues [1 ] [2] [4] [6 through 11 ]
[13].

Information on the physical and chemical characteristics of
the waste matrix is necessary to assess the matrix's impact on
waste preparation, handling, and feeding; incinerator type,
performance, size, and cost; air pollution control (ARC) type
and size; and residue handling. Key physical parameters
include waste matrix physical characteristics (type of matrix,
physical form, handling properties, and particle size), moisture
content, and heating value. Key chemical parameters include
the type and concentration of organic compounds including
PCBs and dioxins, inorganics (metals), halogens, sulfur, and
phosphorous.

The effectiveness of mobile/transportable incineration on
general contaminant groups for various matrices is shown in
Table 1 [7. p. 9]. Examples of constituents within contaminant
groups are provided in Reference 7, 'Technology Screening
Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges." This table
• [reference number, page number)
2-21
-------
EftocHvwwtt ol Incineration on General Contaminant
Groups for SoU, Sediment. Sludge, and Uquld
Contaminant Croups

w
§
6

§
f
-

Keatllvt
Halogenated volatiles
Halogenated semivolatfles
Nonhalogenated volatiles
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
PCBs
Pesticides (halogenated)
Dioxins/Furaru
Organic cyanides
Organic corrosives
Volatile metals
Nonvolatile metals
Asbestos
Radioactive materials
Inorganic corrosives
Inorganic cyanides
Oxidizers
Reducers
tell/
Sediment Sludge Uquld