Seminar on the Use of Treatability Guidelines in Site Remediation


vvEPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
              Office oLResearch and
              Development
              Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/K-92/003
July 1992
           Technology Transfer
Seminar on the Use of
Treatability Guidelines  in
Site Remediation

-------

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                            Page

1.0    GENERIC GUIDELINES	               1.1
      References	1-21

2.0    SOILWASHING	                   2_.,
      References	'.'.'.'.'.'.	2-17

3.0    AEROBIC BIODEGRADATION	                3..,
      References	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.	3-14

4.0    SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION  	                4..,
      References	'.'.'.'.'.'.	4-16

5.0    CHEMICAL DEHALOGENATION	                  5..,
      References	'.'.'.'.'.	5-22

6.0    SOLVENT EXTRACTION	                    6_.,
      References	'.'.'.'.'.'.•'.'.	6-28

7.0    THERMAL DESORPTION	               7_.,
      References	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.	7-26
                                                         Printed on Recycled Paper

-------

-------
GENERIC GUIDELINES

-------

-------
 GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING
 TREATABILITY STUDIES
 UNDER CERCLA
  Presentation Outline

  1.0  Introduction

  2.0  Overview of Treatability
      Studies

  3.0  Protocol for Conducting
      Treatability Studies
B
Purpose of Treatability Studies

 • To Aid in Selection, Design,
   and Implement ion of
   Appropriate Remedial
   Technologies as Defined by
   Section 121(b) of CERCLA
                             1-1

-------
Audiences for the
Guidance Document
* Remedial Project Managers (RPMs)
• On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs)
* Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
• Consultants/Contractors
• Technology Vendors
RI/FS Process Connections
with Treatability Studies

 * Two Important Aspects of the Rl Process
  Are:
    M Site Characterization
    « Treatability Studies
 * Both Can Provide Data to Address the First
  Seven RI/FS Evaluation Criteria Directly
B


Treatability Study Determination

Ravtow
Existing -
SHeData

Soarch Utetatureto
•*• Determlno Data Needs
j
| Identify Data Gaps |
(Manigcirwnt Decision Factors |x^ J

DetiBed Analysis
of AIUmallvM
t


Conduct
- TrsatabllHy
Study


^VDataX.
No / AdequateX,^
•*— <_ to Evaluate y
\AHematlve /
Y*s\ ' /
	 	 ^s
                                       1-2

-------
   Management Decision Factors

   9 State and Community
     Acceptance
   • Scheduling Constraints
   * Presumptive Remedies
   II Additional Site or
     Technological Data
 Treatability Study Scoping

 ® Treatability Studies Produce Both
   Qualitative and Quantitative Data on
   One or More Technologies, as Applied
   to a Specific Site
 » Treatability Studies Should Be Started
   as Early as Possible So Their Results
   Can Be Most Usefully Applied
B
 Treatability Studies Tiers and
 Corresponding Test Levels

€> Remedy Screening - Bench Tests
^ Remedy Selection - Bench- to
  Full-Scale Tests
  Remedial Design/Remedial Action ~
  Full-Scale Tests
                                     1-3

-------
The Role of Treatability Studies in
the RI/FS and RD/RA Processes
•StOr-
'•=?'
MtMC&y MLTCTtOM I
ggjffpy,, I
Flow Diagram
of the
Tiered Approach
|RDlRATre«UbllltYSIuiH
-------
Remedy-Selection
Treatability
Studies
Flow Diagram of the
Tiered Approach
Flow Diagram
of the
Tiered Approach
RD/RA Treatability Studies
B
Treatability Study Tiers

1. Technology Prescreening and
Treatability Study Scoping
2. Remedy Screening
3. Remedy Selection
4. Remedial Design/Remedial
Action (RD/RA)
1-5
-------
1. Technology Prescreening and
Treatability Study Scoping

* Initiate as Soon as Possible
* Search Literature and Data Bases
* Consult Technology Experts
* Identify Treatability Study Sources
• Develop Preliminary Data Quality
Objectives and Work Plan/Assignment
Literature Search/Expert Judgment

0 Reports and Documents
if Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies
» Superf und Treatability Clearinghouse
Abstracts
lithe Superf und Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles
li Summary of Treatment Technology
Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil
B
Literature Search/Expert Judgment

* Electronic Data Bases
H RREL Treatability Data Base
• OSWER Electronic Bulletin Board
System (BBS)
m Computerized On-Llne Information
System (COLIS)
W Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC)
1-6
-------
Literature Search/Expert Judgment

» EPA Personnel Consultations
Through EPA RPM
M Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory Ground-Water Fate and
Transport Technical Support Center
Ada, Oklahoma
M Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Engineering Technical Support Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
2. Remedy Screening

* Study Scale: Bench
• Data Generated: Qualitative
^ Process Type: Batch
II Waste Stream Volume: Small
B
2. Remedy Screening (com.)

• Number of Replicates:
Single/Duplicate
• Time Required: Days
m Cost Range: $10,000-$50,000
1-7
-------
3. Remedy Selection
* Study Scale: Bench-Full
* Data Generated: Quantitative
• Process Type: Batch or
Continuous
* Waste Stream Volume: Medium
to Large
3. Remedy Selection (cent.)

• Number of Replicates:
Duplicate/Triplicate
• Time Required: Days/Months
* Cost Range: $50,0004250,000
B
4. Remedial Design/
Remedial Action
9 Study Scale: Full
* Data Generated: Quantitative
• Process Type: Batch or
Continuous
* Waste Stream Volume: Large
1-8
-------
4. Remedial Design/
Remedial Action (con*.)

II Number of Replicates:
Duplicate/Triplicate
« Time Required: Weeks/Months
II Cost Range: $250,OQO-$1,000,000
Treatability Study
Test Objectives

• Site Cleanup Goals Are
the Best - But They Are
Not Always Available
B
In the Absence of Cleanup Goals

<& Levels That Provide Overall Protection of
Human Health and the Environment
$ Levels That Are in Compliance with ARARs
^ Levels That Ensure a Reduction of Waste
Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
® Levels Acceptable for Delisting of the Waste
f» Levels Set by the State or Region for a
Similar Site
1-9
-------
Special Considerations
Discussed in the Guide

• Innovative Treatment
Technologies
• Treatment Trains
* In Situ Treatment
Technologies
Special Considerations
Discussed in the Guide

• Generic vs. Vendor Treatability
Studies
• PRP-Led Pre-ROD Treatability
Studies
• Treatability Study Funding
B
Protocol for Conducting Treatability
Studies Has 11 Elements

1. Establishing Data Quality
Objectives
2. Identifying Sources for
Treatability Studies
3. Issuing the Work Assignment
4. Preparing the Work Plan
1-10
-------
Protocol for Conducting Treatability
Studies Has 11 Elements (com.)

5. Preparing the Sampling and Analysis
Plan
6. Preparing the Health and Safety Plan
7. Conducting Community Relations
Activities
8. Complying with Regulatory
Requirements
Protocol for Conducting Treatability
Studies Has 11 Elements (cont.)

9. Executing the Study
10. Analyzing and Interpreting the
Data
11. Reporting the Results
B
1. Establishing Data Quality
Objectives (DQOs)

t> Precision, Accuracy,
Representativeness, Completeness,
and Comparability (PARCC)
«t Remedy Screening - Qualitative
^ Remedy Selection - Quantitative
Remedial Design/Remedial Action -
Quantitative
1-11
-------
2. Identifying Sources for
Treatabllity Studies
* ln-House vs. Contractors or Vendors
• Remedy Screening - Simple and Usually
Generic
* Remedy Selection - More Complex and
Sometimes Vendor-Specific
* Remedy Design/Remedial Action - More
Complex and Usually Vendor-Specific

3. Issuing the Work Assignment

1. Background
2. Test Objectives
3. Approach
4. Reporting Requirements
5. Schedule and Level of Effort
B
4. Preparing the Work Plan
Involves 15 Components

1. Project Description
2. Remedial Technology Description
3. Treatability Test Objectives
4. Experimental Design and Procedures
5. Equipment and Materials
1-12
-------
4. Preparing the Work Plan
Involves 15 Components (com.)

6. Sampling and Analysis Plan
7. Data Management
8. Data Analysis and Interpretation
9. Health and Safety
10. Residuals Management
4. Preparing the Work Plan
Involves 15 Components (com.)

11. Community Relations
12. Reports
13. Schedule
14. Management and Staff ing
15. Budget
B
5. Preparing the Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP)
® SAP = Field Sampling Plan (FSP) +
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP)
® Remedy Screening - Least Stringent
€> Remedy Selection - Moderately
Stringent
<®> Remedial Design/Remedial Action -
Highly Stringent
1-13
-------
6. Preparing the Health and Safety
Plan (HSP) with 10 Components
1. Hazard Analysis
2. Employee Training
3. Personal Protective Equipment
4. Medical Surveillance
5. Personnel and Environmental
Monitoring
6. Preparing the Health and Safety Plan
(HSP) with 10 Components (Cont.)
6. Site Control Measures
7. Decontamination Procedures
8, Emergency Response Plan
9. Confined-Space Entry
Procedures
10. Spill Containment Program
B
6. Preparing the Health and
Safety Plan
* Remedy Screening - Relatively Minor
• Remedy Selection - Skin, Eye, and
Usually Respiratory Protection
* Remedial Design/Remedial Action -
Skin, Eye, Respiratory Protection;
Decontamination and Emergency
Procedures
1-14
-------
7. Conducting Community
Relations Activities
* Remedy Screening - Low Profile/Few Activities
» Remedy Selection -
m Offslte: Generally Not Controversial and
Low Prof lie/Few Activities
M Onslte: May Be Controversial and
High Profile/Significant Activities
& Remedial Design/Remedial Action - Low
Profile/Few Activities
8. Complying with Regulatory
Requirements

II Onsite
• Offsite
0 Residuals Management
B
8. Complying with Regulatory Requirements:
Regulatory Requirements for Onsite and Offslte Testing
I Comply wHi Fidlty Bnqulinnwil»|
1,15
-------
8. Complying with Regulatory Requirements:
Determinations of Onsite Testing

* Volume of Waste
* Test Duration
• Site Accessibility
* Availability of Mobile Laboratory or
Treatment Unit and Onsite Utilities
0 State and Community Acceptance
9. Executing the Treatability
Study

* Field Sample Waste Streams for
Characterization and Testing
* Conduct Treatability Tests
• Analyze Samples of Treated
Waste and Residuals
B
10. Analyzing and Interpreting
the Data

* Pre-ROD Data Interpretation
* Post-ROD Data Interpretation
1-16
-------
10. Analyzing and Interpreting the
Data-Pre-ROD Interpretation
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
3. Implementability
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume
10. Analyzing and Interpreting the
Data-Pre-ROD interpretation (cent.)

5. Short-Term Effectiveness
6. Cost
7. Long-Term Effectiveness *
8. State Acceptance
9. Community Acceptance
B
10. Analyzing and Interpreting the
Data-Post-ROD Interpretation

H Depends on the Use of the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action Data
^ Prequalrfying Vendors or Processes
or
& Implementing the Most Appropriate
Remedies Prescribed in a Contingency ROD
or
& Supporting the Preparation of Detailed
Design Specifications
1-17
-------
11. Reporting the Results

* All Treatablllty Reports Are Submitted to the
RREL Treatablllty Data Base Repository,
Organized by the Office of Research and
Development
Contact:
Mr. Glenn Schaul
RREL Treatablllty Data Base, U.S. EPA
ORD Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
11. Reporting the Results:
Treatability Report Format

* Introduction
* Conclusions and Recommendations
© Treatability Study Approach
* Results and Discussion
• References and Appendices
B
11. Reporting the Results:
Treatability Report Format

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Site Description
1.2 Waste Stream Description
1.3 Treatment Technology Description
1.4 Previous Treatability Studies at the
Site
1-18
-------
11. Reporting the Results:
Treatabiiity Report Format (cont.)

2.0 Conclusions and
Recommendations
2.1 Conclusions
2.2 Recommendations
11. Reporting the Results:
Treatabiiity Report Format (cont.)

3.0 Treatabiiity Study Approach
3.1 Test Objectives and Rationale
3.2 Experimental Design and Procedures
3.3 Equipment and Materials
3.4 Sampling and Analysis
3.5 Data Management
3.6 Derivatives from the Work Plan
B
11. Reporting the Results:
Treatabiiity Report Format (cont.)

4.0 Results and Discussion
4.1 Data Analysis and Interpretation
4.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
4.3 Costs/Schedules for Performing
the Treatabiiity Study
4.4 Key Contacts
1-19
-------
11. Reporting the Results:
Treatability Report Format (cont.)

References and Appendices
* References
* Appendices
-Data Summaries
-Standard Operating Procedures
1-20
-------
REFERENCES FOR GENERIC TREATABILITY GUIDE
1.
2.
3.

10.

11.

12.

13.
Cochran, W. G. and G. M. Cox. 1957. Experimental Designs. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health/Occupational Safety and Health
Administration/U.S. Coast Guard/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985.
Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities.
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 85-115.

Natrella, M. G. 1966. Experimental Statistics. National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Scheffe, H. 1959. The Analysis of Variance. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. The Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Interim Guidelines and Specifications for
Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans. QAMS-005/80.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. 3rd
ed. SW-846.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities. Development Process. EPA/540/G-87/003, OSWER Directive
9355.0-07B.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. A Compendium of Superfund Field
Operations Methods. EPA/540/P-87/001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/004,
OSWER Directive 9355.3-01.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Community Relations in Superfund: A
Handbook. Interim Version. EPA/540/G-88/002, OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. A Management Review of the Superfund
Program. Prepared for William K. Reilly, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Treatability Studies Contractor Work
Assignments. Memo from Henry L. Longest, II, Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, to Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I through X, July 12. OSWER
Directive 9380.3-01.
1-21
-------
-------
SOIL WASHING
-------
-------
GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING
TREATABILITY STUDIES
UNDER CERCLA:
SOIL WASHING
Presentation Outline
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Description of Soil Washing
3.0 Preliminary Screening
4.0 Technology Limitations
5.0 The Use of Treatability Studies in Remedy
Evaluation
6.0 Sampling and Analysis Plans
7.0 Interpretation of Results
8.0 Remedy Evaluation Treatability Study Work Plans
9.0 References
B
Overview Description
of Soii Washing
0 Excavate Soil
II Pretreat Soil to Remove Large
Objects and Soil Clods
II Wash Soil with Fluid(s) to
Remove Contaminants (Usually
Water)
2-1
-------
SOU
B
Measures of Effectiveness
of Soil Washing

• Removal of Contaminants
into Fluid
and/or
• Concentrating Contaminants
into a Portion of the Soil Volume
2-2
-------
Current Use
of Soil Washing
Widespread in Europe;
Limited in the U.S.

Used at 16 Superfund Sites
Considerations for Determining
the Appropriate Treatability
Study Level
il Literature
II Expert Judgment
II Site Characteristics
B
Prescreening
Determination

il If the Prescreening Results
are only Marginally
Favorable, then Usually
Proceed to Screening Tests
2-3
-------
Prescreening
Factors
Soil Characteristics
Contaminant
Characteristics and
Distribution
Soil Washing
Technical Limitations
Factors that Hinder Cost-Effective Soil
Washing:
• Inappropriate Soil Particle
Distribution for the Contamination
* Inappropriate Contaminants)
• Inappropriate Process Modifications
B
Inappropriate Soil Particle
Distribution

* High Percentage of Silt, Clay, or
Organic Matter
Mi High Humic Content Impairs
Contaminant Separation
2-4
-------
inappropriate Contaminant(s)

High Concentration of Low Solubility
Metals
Hydrophobic Organic Compounds,
Compounds with High Estimated Aqueous
Distribution Coefficients (K d)
m e.g., K .for PCBs is >10,000, which is
High °
m e.g., Kd for TCE is 3, which is Low
Inappropriate Process

Modifications

^ Too Many Additives to Address Multiple
Contaminants Present On Site
-------
Grain Size Distribution

0 Soils with Relatively High
Percentages of Sand and
Gravel (i.e., Soils with
Particles >2 mm) Are More
Amenable to Soil Washing
Particle Size Terminology
B
COBBU3
0 RAVEL
C84TM
FkM
SAND
Coarw
Itodlum
Fine
SILT or CLAY
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Clay Content
* The Higher the Percentage
of Clay and Silt (i.e., Soil
Particles with < 0.25 mm) in
the Contaminated Soils, the
Lower the Removal
Efficiency of Soil Washing
2-6
-------
Cation Exchange
Capacity (CEC)
> Soil Washing is Most Effective
for Soils with Relatively Low
CEC's (i.e., with CEC's of Less
than 50 to 100 meq/kg)
Contaminant
Characteristics
il Water Solubility
It Miscability
* Reactivity with Wash Fluid
• Volatility and Density
B
Speciation of
Metal Contaminants
* Metal Contaminants Have Different
Species with Different Properties
Examples of Forms of Metal
Compounds with Different Properties
m Oxides
M Hydroxides
m Nitrates
m Phosphates
SI Chlorides
M Sulfates
2-7
-------
Remedy Screening
• Existing Information is Often Sufficient
to Skip Remedy Screening
• Tiiis Stage Usually Employs Simple Lab
Tests
• Typically, Indicator Contaminants Are
Selected to Avoid the Necessity of
Testing All Contaminants Present On
Site
Jar Tests
in Remedy Screening
B
* These Simple Tests Permit Chemical
Analyses of the 3 Separated Layers:
Id Hoatablts Lay«r
It West* Water Layer
IN Solids Layer
* Settling Speed Provides a Rough
Indicator of Particle Size Distribution
Jar Test Variables
• Using Different Dispersing Agents
* Using Sequential Washing
Processes
* Heating Wash Water
* Adjusting the pH of the Wash Water
• Rinsing Cycle After Washing
2-8
-------
Remedy Selection
Key question: How Much Soil Requires
Treatment to Meet the Clean-Up Goal(s)?
Requires more Precision in Weighing,
Mixing, and Particle Size Assessment
than the Jar Testing in Remedy Screening
Wash Water and Particles are Analyzed
Quantitatively
Remedy Selection
Technical Aspects
m Soil to Wash Water Ratio
& Standard: 1:3
* Wash Time Duration
S Standard: 30 minutes
® Use of a Rinse Process
& Rinse Water: Wash Water Ratio
€» Type of Sieve
& Gilson Wet Sieve or RO Tap Sieve
B
Sampling & Analysis
Plan (SAP)

9 Field Sampling
Plan (FSP)
* Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPjP)
2-9
-------
Remedy Selection
Interpretation of Results
»If Soil Washing Removes ;> 50% of
Contaminants, then Soil Washing Should
Continue Along the Remedy Evaluation
Process
»If i 90 Percent Reductions In-Bulk
Contamination are Observed, then
Remedy Design Tests are Warranted
Remedy Selection
Interpretation of Results

* If PCBs and Dioxins are Present, Test
Only for PCBs During Remedy Screening
Due to the Extremely High Cost of
Assessing Levels of Dioxin
* If an Oily Layer Floats During Jar Tests,
this Indicates the Presence of an
Insoluble Organic Layer
B
Soil Washing Treatability Study
Work Plan Elements

«15 Elements in Any Treatability Work
Plan
• 4 Elements that are Significantly
Different from Generic Treatability
Studies and Have Not Been Discussed
Earlier in this Presentation
2-10
-------
4 Treatability Study
Work Plan Elements
1. Experimental Design
2. Schedule
3. Management and Staffing
4. Budget
Experimental Design:
Remedy Screening
B
Most Important Factor is
Particle Size Distribution
Particle Size Distribution
Determination

Usually with a Series of 5 Sieves:
* Prescreening
1.3" Diameter Sieve
2. #4 Sieve (4.750 mm)
% Screening
3. #10 Sieve (2.000 mm)
4. #40 Sieve (0.425 mm)
5. #200 Sieve (0.070 mm)
2-11
-------
Ideal Soil for
Soil Washing
• Soil Where Only 10-15
Percent of its Particles
is Less than 0.07 mm
Soil Characterization Procedure
Sample
Soil

Blend
Spa
Screen
at 1/4"

Split
B
HK2SI21

Test Protocol for Contaminated
Soil Washing

son to
T.it
Program

Scrion
Mmh
| Reganls I
,-mu, T |^ Screen .MOM Ctean

Scrub Mesh Product
1 «JCOU 1
-------
Remedy Selection
m Need to Establish
1. Percentage Contaminant
Removal Achievable
2. Particle Size Separation
3. Contaminant Distribution in Soil
Remedy Selection
Remedy Selection Outputs, Using
Jar Tests from Remedy Screening
to Approximate
1. Wash Time
2. Wash Water to Soil Ratio
3. Rinse Water to Wash Water Ratio
8
Example Project Schedule for a Treatabillty Study
TASK

T»k1
Worlt Plan Preparation
Tasks
SAP, HSP.&CRP
Preparation
T«ik3
TniUblHtySUdy
Exscution
Tuk4
Data Analysis &
Interpretation
Task:
Report Preparation
Tasks
Residuals Management
2-13
-------
1L,
SHKiS

Organization Chart

Contract Work
Assignment Manager
•ftepoftlo EPA Remedial
Project Uanager
>3uperv!a« Overall Project

i
Lab Technicians
•CseojieTreaubllity
S«JJ',»1
•Csacuk) Stmpl*
CoBecHon and Analyale

QA Manager
-OvorMa Quall^
Auurtne* Program
-Prapan AppRcabto
3«tkxi> of Report
oind Work Plan

1
Geologist
•OvereeeTreatablllty
Study Execution
•Overaee Stmpla
CodceUon
-Pnpira ApplciNo
S*ed«nB of Ftoportand
WoritPlin

Chemist
•OVWMO Sampto
Collection Proeeduree
and Analyale
-Prepare AppHcable
Section of Report and
WoricPlan

Major Cost Elements Associated with
Remedy Selection Soil Washing Studies
COST ELEMENT

Initial Data Review
Work Plan Preparation
Hold Sample Collection
Held Sample Chemical Analysis
Laboratory Setup/Materials
COST RANGE
(thousands of dollars)

1 - 10
1 - 5
1 - 10
5 - 25
5 - 25
TroatabHity Test Chemical Analysis 5 - 20
Data Presentation/Report 2-5
TOTALCOSTRANGE
20 -100
B
Cost Components of Remedy
Design Field Test of Soil Washing

1. Planning
2. Excavation
3. Design and Construction
4. Analytical Support
5. Management
2-14
-------
Cost Components of Remedy Design
Field Test of Soil Washing

6. Supplies
7. Lease or Rental of Remedy
Design Unit
8. Labor
9. Implementation of Demonstration
Cost Components of Remedy Design
Field Test of Soil Washing

10. Decontamination and Return of
Remedy Design Unit
11. Site Closure
12. Laboratory Testing
13. Report Preparation
B
Cost Components of
Full-Scale Soil Washing

1. Soil Excavation
2. Soil Transport
3. Soil Storage
4. Contaminant Containment
5. Soil Pretreatment
2-15
-------
Cost Components of
Full-Scale Soil Washing
6. Management of Soil
Pretreatment Residuals
7. Wash Water Supply
8. Additive Supply
9. Soil Washing Facility
10. Temporary Soil Storage
Cost Components of
Full-Scale Soil Washing
B
11. Wash Water Treatment Facility
12. Management of Used Wash Water
13. Further Management of
Contaminated Soil Fraction
14. Further Management of Water
Treatment Sludge
Cost Components of
Full-Scale Soil Washing
15. Permitting and Legal Services
16. Engineering Design
17. Maintenance During Operation
18. Contingencies
2-16
-------
REFERENCES FOR SOIL WASHING
1, American Society for Testing and Materials. 1987. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
November.

2. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and
Mineralogical Properties Including Statistics of Measurement and Sampling.

3. Assink, J.W. and W. Van den Brink. 1985. Extractive Methods for Soil Decontamination:
A General Survey and Review of Operational Treatment Installations. In: Proceedings from
the First International TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil. Ultrecht, Netherlands.

4. Bevington, P.R. 1969. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.

5. Brookes, C.J., I.G. Bettefley, and S.M. Loxston. 1979. Fundamentals of Mathematics and
Statistics for Students of Chemistry and Allied Subjects. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,
Great Britain.

6. Hites, R.A. and SJ. Eisenreich. 1987. Sources and Fates of Aquatic Pollutants. American
Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.

7. Kleinbaum. D.G. and L.L. Kupper. 1978. Applied Regression Analysis and Other
Multivariable Methods. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts.

8. Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1990. Handbook of Chemical Property
Estimation Methods, Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds. American Chemical
Society, Washington, D.C.

9. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Manual of Analytical
Methods. 1984. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Engineering Bulletin: Soil Washing.
EPA/540/2-90/017.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction
Agents: State-of-the-Art Review. EPA/600/2-89/034.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA. Interim Final. EPA/540/2-89/058

13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. Lead Battery Site Treatability Studies,
Project Summary.

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989d. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of
Cleanup Standards. Volume 1: Soils and Solid Media. EPA/730/ 2-89/042.
2-17
-------
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989e. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Data at
RCRA Facilities, Interim Final.

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA Interim .Final. EPA/540/G-89/004,
OSWER-9335.3-01.

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment
of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004.

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities. EPA/540/G-87/00 1. OSWER Directive 9355.0-7B.

19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Land Disposal Restrictions Program (BOAT). EPA/530-SW-87011.

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987c. Preparation Aid for HWERL's Category III
Quality Assurance Project Plans.

21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987d. Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An
Overview. OSWER Directive 9380.3-02FS.

22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. 3rd
Ed., SW846.

23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's
Guide. EPA/600/4-84/043.

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA/600/4-79/020.
2-18
-------
AEROBIC BIODEGRADATION
-------
-------
GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING
TREATABILITY STUDIES
UNDER CERCLA:
AEROBIC BIODEGRADATION,
REMEDY SCREENING
Interim Guidance
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Description of Aerobic Biodegradation
m In Situ Bioremedlation
^ Solid-Phase Bioremediation
& Slurry-Phase Bioremediation (Liquids/Solids
Treatment)
m Composting
Remedy Screening
Remedy Selection
B
Aerobic Biodegradation at
Superfund Sites

• 22 Superfund Sites as of 1989
M Matrices: Groundwater, Soils,
Sludges, and Sediments
M Pollutants: VOCs, Phenols,
Creosotes, PAHs, and BTEX
3-1
-------
Aerobic Biodegradation
Processes

# In Situ
® Land Treatment
0 Slurry-Phase
41 Composting
important Bioremediation
Design Considerations

«> Contaminant Characteristics
€- Contaminant Bioavailability
41 Indigenous Microbial
Population
B
Important Bioremediation
Design Considerations

* Hydrogeology
* Temperature
• Nutrients
*pH
3-2
-------
Sources of Innoculum
m Indigenous Microbes
• Waste Water Sludge Microbes
0 Microbes Specifically Cultured
for the Site
• Proprietary Microbes from
Vendors
MWWOWWMWWK
In Situ Bioremediation

Soil is Treated in Place by
Providing Optimal Subsurface
Environmental Conditions for
the Microbial Destruction of
Pollutants
B
In Situ Bioremediation
3-3
-------
Land Treatment
* Cutivates Microbial Populations
in Excavated Soils in Staging
Areas to Destroy Pollutants
* Uses Conventional Farming
Techniques to Provide Optimal
Moisture, Nutrition, and Oxygen
Levels
Land Treatment
/~
fi
Plastic Film
MteroorgBntema (optional)
Spray H«adw« and Nozzles
Uachxt*
Cot;*ctfon
Sy*tcm
B
Abiotic Removal Mechanisms
Associated with Land Treatment

0 Volatilization
4i Leaching
e Photo-Decomposition
3-4
-------
Slurry Phase
€ Excavated Soil is Slurried in a
Reactor with Large Quantities of
Water to Maximize Contact Between
Soil, Microorganisms, and Nutrients
» Nutrients, pH Adjusters, Surfactants,
Microorganisms, and Electron
Acceptors Can Be Added to the
Water
Above-Ground Slurry-Phase
Screened Soil

_J
rtered
lids
Water Recycle |

MM) MHM
Tf1
L
Nutrient!
Aeration
Microorj
««
t
anisms, etc.
Volatile
Compound
Treatment
Dewatering
Slurry Bioreactor
B
Slurry-Phase in a Lagoon
3-5
-------
Composting

* Soil is Incubated in Relatively Large
Piles with Appropriate Amendments
Added (Including: Nutrients,
Moisture, Microorganisms, or Bulking
Agents)
* Aeration is Achieved Either by:
• Pushing or Pulling Air through the Pile
m Mechanical Mixing

Basic Types of
Composting
B
* Open Windrow
• Static Windrow
€» In-Vessel (Reactor)
© Soil Heaping
!!D Soil Heaping
VfequMn
Covtr
Son \
A,
Nutrients
Aeration
Microorganisms
.Plastic Piping
3-6
-------
Open Windrow Composting
Windrow
Mobile Composter
Static Compost Pile
Bulking Agent and Contaminated Soil
Porous Base: Wood
LChips or Compost
B
Composted
Contaminated
Soil
Perforated Nonperforated
Pipe Pipe
Filter Pile of
Composted
Material
Comparisons of Bioremediation Technologies
Environmental and
Operational
Controls
Land Requirements

Co«t

Treatment Duration

Volatile Lo**es

KEY: UghorOpHmil
Slurry Land
Phase Treatment Composting In-SHu
LoworUlnlnul
3-7
-------
Goals for Treatability Studies

* Site Specific Potential for
Bioremedlation
* Design Data for Sequential Studies
or Full-Scale Implementation
• Process Optimization
Reactor Requirements

* One Large Reactor
16 Subsampling with Time

* Multiple Reactors
• Sacrifice Reactors with Time
B
Controls
Necessary to Assess
Abiotic Losses
3-8
-------
Tiered Approach
• Remedy Screening
* Remedy Selection
• Remedial Design/
Remedial Action
Remedy Screening Objectives

II Optimize Conditions to
Determine if Pollutants
are Biodegradable
* Not Designed to Mimic
Field Conditions
B
Key Features of
Experimental Designs

• Reactor Type and Number
• Controls
• Analyses
3-9
-------

Remedy Screening
Reactor Types

• Shake Flask
0 Soil Slurry Reactors
0 Plate Counts
Questions to Be Answered in
Remedy Screening

* Is Aerobic Biodegradation
Feasible?
* Are Further Treatability
Studies Warranted?
B
Remedy Screening Techniques

* Literature Review
$ Microbial Population
Assessment
0 Soil Slurry Flask Tests
a-io
-------
Abiotic Losses
Volatilization
Sorption
Photo Decomposition
Leaching
Sterilization Techniques for
Controls in Remedy Screening

• Formaldehyde
* Metal Salts
B
Management and Staffing for
Remedy Screening
Coiitnuitot or Work Assignment auaiiy Assurance
Manager Manager
• Report to EPA Remedial Prelect Manager "*~ • ovurawaalltyAwn.ic.
• Supervise overall prolecl • P™p«««wiic«bl.««cilon.

*
Project Manager Chemist
• O-*™- Tr-utlllty Study •locution • Ovno* Sumpta Coltoalon nd Anilytf.
SSS^p^1*"c"°'"OIR
iab Technician
• RMformTrwtaUHty study
• Swnpto OotlMllon and Antfyifs

3-11
-------
Major Cost Elements Associated with Aerobic
Biological Remedy Screening Treatability Studies
COST ELEMENT
COST RANGE
(thousands of dollars)
Work Plan Preparation 1 - 5
SAP Preparation 1 - 5
Sample Collection 3- 15
Laboratory Setup/Materials 2-10
Trtatabllity Test Chemical Analysis 4-20
Data Presentation/Report 1-5
TOTALCOST RANGE
12-60
Remedy Screening Success

* A 20 Percent Contaminant
Reduction Due to Aerobic
Biodegradation
* Alternatives Measures
* Toxicity Reduction
m Presence of Healthy Microbial
Population
B
Remedy Selection
Success
• Cleanup Goals for the
Site Are Achieved
Within Desired
Timeframe
3-12
-------
Remedy Selection Goals

IP Determine the Effects of:
m Nutrient Loadings
M Soil Volume Loadings
m Microbial Innoculation on the Rate
of Biodegradation
II Provide Scale-Up Data
Remedial Design/
Remedial Action

0 Produce Data to Support
Final Full-Scale Remedial
Design/Remedial Action
and Cost Figures
B
3-13
-------
REFERENCES FOR AEROBIC BIOREMEDIATION
1. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1987. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

2. Box, G.E.P., W.G. Hunter, and J.S. Hunter. 1978. Statistics for Experimenters, John Wiley,
New York.

3. Gibson, D.T. 1984. Microbial Degradation of Organic Compounds. Microbiology Series,
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

4. Kukor, JJ. and R. H. Olsen. 1989. Diversity of Toluene Degradation Following Long-Term
Exposure to BTEX In Situ. In: Biotechnology and Biodegradation. Daphne Kanely, A.
Chakrabarty, and G. Omenn, eds. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas, pp. 405-421.

5. Lentner, M. and T. D. Bishop. 1986. Experimental Design and Analysis. Valley Book
Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.

6. Loehr, R.C. 1986. Land Treatment as a Waste Management Technology: An Overview.
Land Treatment: A Hazardous Waste Management Alternative. R.C. Loehr et al., eds.,
Center for Research in Water Resources, The University of Texas at Austin, pp. 7-17.

7. Marinucci, A.C. and R. Bartha. 1979. Apparatus for Monitoring the Mineralization of
Volatile 14C-Labeled Compounds. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
38(5):1020-1022.

8. Munnecke, D.M., L.M. Johnson, H.W. Talbot, and S. Barik. 1982. Microbial Metabolism
and Enzymology of Selected Pesticides. In: Biodegradation and Detoxification of
Environmental Pollutants. A.M. Chakrabarty, ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton,, Florida.

9. Odeh, R.E. and M. Fox., 1975. Sample Size Choice, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

10. Pramer, D. and R. Bartha. 1972. Preparation and Processing of Soil Samples for
Biodegradation Studies. Environmental Letters, 2(4):217-224.

11. Fitter, P. and J. Chudoba. 1990. Biodegradability of Organic Substances In the Aquatic
Environment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

12. Reineke, W. and H. J. Knackmuss. 1988. Microbial Degradation of Haloaromatics. Ann.
Rev. Microbial., 42:263-287.

13. Ross, D. 1990. Application of Biological Processes to the Cleanup of Hazardous Wastes.
Presented at The 17th Environmental Symposium: Environmental Compliance and
Enforcement at DOD Installations in the 1990's, Atlanta, Georgia.

14. Sims, R.C. 1988. Treatment Potential for 56 EPA Listed Hazardous Chemicals in Soil. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/6-88/001.
3-14
-------
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation, Remedy Screening, Interim Guidance,
EPA/540/2-91/013A.

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. Preparation Aids for the Development of
Category IV Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA1600/8-91/006.

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Engineering Bulletin: Slurry Biodegradation.
EPA/540/2-90/016.

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA, Interim Final. EPA/540/2-89/058.

19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. ROD Annual Report: FY 1989.
EPA/540/8-90/006.

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An
Overview. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive 9380.3-02FS.

21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment
of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004.

22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. A Compendium of Technologies Used in the
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/625/8-87/014. ^

23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986a. Microbiological Decomposition of
Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds. EPA 600/2-86/090.

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986b. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
3rd Ed., SW846.

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Test Method: The Determination of Inorganic
Anions in Water by Ion Chromatography - Method 300.0. EPA-600/4-84/017.

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA/600/479/020.

27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. N.D. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Biodegradation
Treatment. EPA/540/0-00/000, unpublished. '

28. 40 CFR, Section 796.3400.
3-15
-------
-------
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
-------
-------
GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING
TREATABILITY STUDIES
UNDER CERCLA:
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Interim Guidance
Presentation Outline
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Description of Soil Vapor Extraction
3.0 Preliminary Screening
. 4.0 The Use of Treatability Studies in Remedy Evaluation
5.0 Sampling and Analysis Plan
6.0 Interpretation of Results
7.0 Treatability Study Work Plan
8.0 Summary and References
B
Dense Non-Aqueous Jl|3$S Light Non-Aqueous
Phase Liquid N» ill Phase Ltauid |Groundwater
4-1
-------
Advection Processes
Air Flow
Adiotbad Orginla Oramlol DI«M^od In Water
B
Diffusion Processes
• Vapor Flow Vapor Diffusion
Strongly Adt«rb*d Orgtnlea
4-2
-------
Thirteen Physicochemical-Phase Loci
Sou Partldaior Rock

UquU Coinamkunl (Owhmu)

Dtaaolvad ContamttiHil
i 1 SoH Ak MM contuninuit Vapors
U Sorbad on Sou or
£; Wluaad kilo UUaal Grin.

UobK* CoHoUal Partlctoe and 9o«
#b Sorted
Oontamlnanki
Conceptual Model Used for
the Numerical Modeling
Tin dirkor raglont are dHfut Ion domlniled, while iha
lighter region !• convection domlnatod
B
Generic Soil Vapor Extraction System
Ex
V
\
Extract]
AlrVontor
ki|«ctlonWel
\ '
JM
*.
J
Watar

!KV
MI Wall
AlrV
ki|«ctl
i
«

^ Vacuum j ^ Vapor .^ clean Air
Blower rreatment
[~ PmrM Rnslrf
Vapor-
Llquld
finparator
] ^ UquM n- Clean Witor
" Treatment
xi Wen < »- Process Residual
Ll^P8""01^ ^P- Ground Surface

Tabte
4-3
-------
Effectiveness of SVE
Demonstrated Effectiveness for:
• Halogenated Volatiles
• Nonhalogenated Volatiles
• Some Nonhalogenated
Semivolatiles
Effectiveness of SVE
Potential Effectiveness for:
• Some Halogenated
Semivolatiles
• Reactive Reducers
B
Effectiveness of SVE

Experts Assume Ineffective for:
• Inorganic Compounds
• Reactive Oxidizers
• Certain Organic Compounds,
Including PCBs, Pesticides, Dioxins,
Furans, Organic Cyanides, and
Organic Corrosives
4-4
-------
Preliminary Screening Factors

• Contaminant
• Soil
• Site
Preliminary Screening Factors
Contaminant
B
CHARACTERISTIC
POTENTIAL
IMPACT
REMEDY
PHASE
TYPE
VAPOR PRESSURE AND
HENRY'S LAW
CONSTANT

DENSITY & WATER
SOLUBILITY
SVE Suitability
SVE Design

Volatilization
Tendency to
Screening, Selection,
and Design

Screening
Screening
Preliminary Screening
Soil
POTENTIAL
CHARACTERISTIC IMPACT
AIR
PERMEABILITY

HUMIC
CONTENT

CLAY CONTENT
REMEDY
PHASE
Movement through Soil Selection

Contaminant Volatilization Selection
SorptionofVOCs
Water Table Modification
Structural Support Screening &
Air Movement through Soil Selection
Need for Air Permeability Tests
4-5
-------

Preliminary Screening
Soil (continued)
POTENTIAL
CHARACTERISTIC IMPACT
MOISTURE Air Movement through Soil
CONTENT Attracts VOCs
Wnter Table Modification
TEMPERATURE Contaminant Vapor Pressure
pH Material* Selection

REMEDY
PHASE
Screening,
Selection, and
Design
Screening,
Selection, and
Design
Selection &
Design
Preliminary Screening Factors
Site
CHARACTERISTIC
POTENTIAL
IMPACT
DISTRIBUTION AND
QUANTITY OF
CONTAMINANTS
REMEDY
PHASE
Cost
Definition of Contamination
of NAPL Pools
Pilot-Scale Verification
Selection
SOIL CONDITIONS AND Contaminant Removal Rates Selection
CHARACTERISTICS
B
Preliminary Screening Factors
Site (continued)
POTENTIAL
CHARACTERISTIC IMPACT
REMEDY
PHASE
ROCK Well Design and Placement Selection
FORMATION SVE Design
HETEROGENEITY Need for Air Permeability Tests
Need for Riot-Scale Verification

BURIED DEBRIS Contaminant Removal Rates Screening
Need for Air Permeability Teats
Need for Pilot-Scale Verification
4-6
-------
Extraction Well Construction Details
H<
Concrete Cap ^_
,.— %&%%
2"-4"Pla8«cPlpe —
10" Auger Hole -*•
Slotted
Well Screen
,v— • •-•***"
""'"" Gro
f
I
i
UK
tat

d
te
zz
J)
3t
1
I
W
r •=?=. Valve
I>i<] i_». pipe to Blower
z%
* Cement Benlonite Grout
• Bentonite Pellets
• Coarse Sand
ater Table
Genera! Sequence of Events During RI/FS for SVE
Evaluation
of
Alternatives
Perform
Remedy
Screening
Column
Tests

Refine
Math
Model

4 —
Perform
Remedy
Selection
Column
Tests

Perform
Remedy
Selection
Pilot Test

Run Air
Permeability
Tests
\

Run Math
Model

B
Treatability Flow Chart
Soil Type
4-7
-------
Treatablllly Flow Chart
Vapor Pressure
>&5 mm HB and
<10 mm Kg
with Sandy or
< Final
S*Uc!loo on th»
Eviluitfon of AHtmntlvss
Treatablilly Flow Chart
Remedy Screening Column Test
>MK Reduction In
Soil Concentration
B
>80% Reduction In
Soil Concentration
and Cleanup
imedy\Targets Not Met
Screening
Column
•
«80% Reduction In
Soil Concentration*
Treatablllty Flow Chart
Remedy Selection Column Test
ArtMitandEatlmaltd
AkPem«»billty
H Cleanup Targets
Ar* Met and Estimated
Air Permeability
H Cleanup
Targets Are Not Met
4-8
-------
Treatability Flow Chart
Air Permeability Tests
. (Commence
Air \ HK>10-« em 2 jFea8jbnftv
Permeability) g,,| study
! Evaluation of
Alternatives
HK<1o-1°cm2
Treatability Flow Chart
Mathematical Modeling
B
6.0 Interpretation
SVE Is Evaluated During the Remedy Selection
Phase as Follows:

• Bench-Scale Column Tests Are Performed
To Establish Whether SVE Can Meet Site
Performance Goals

• Following Successful Column Tests for
Remedy Selection, Field Air Permeability
Tests Are Conducted To Check SVE
Implementability
4-9
-------
6.0 Interpretation (continued)

SVE Is Evaluated During the Remedy Selection
Phase as Follows:

• Column Tests for Remedy Selection and Field
Air Permeability Tests Are Supplemented with
Mathematical Modeling

• If Warranted, Pilot-Scale Testing for Remedy
Selection Is Performed
Hypothetical Column Test Data

1,0
oj
OttjJl

w
0*0

&
V
A
\
«\
•A

£>t
]"-q

» V

*^
"i

v
><.

^
^
4 }
^1

»,
y
"

s
* ^
>r
T

gg9*»

*
X^

»•

ft
• ••.
4

~^%

K
•••OB
Tim* — ^«
C(o)«(ni!k«KCOfilaniininlconcenlr«(on tlen pon
5000
4000
3000 Number of
Pore Volume
2000 *"Ch'"fl"
1000
0
bjmiround
B
Column Test Advantages

1. Accelerates the SVE process To Permit
Evaluation of Maximum Contaminant Removal
Potential
2. Gives Order of Magnitude Information on the
Partition Coefficients Needed for Mathematical
Modeling.
3. Order of Magnitude Air Permeability
Measurements May Be Obtained with
"Undisturbed" Samples.
4-10
-------
Column Test Limitations
1. Stripping Air Always Has Good Access to the
Contaminants throughout the Column. Air Flow to
Different Zones Varies Widely in the Field.
2. Diffusional Processes Are Not Properly Modeled.
3. More Accurate Air Permeability Results Must
Be Obtained through Field Air Permeability
Measurements.
4. Standard Procedures Must Be Formulated and
Validated Against Field Data (preliminary draft
stage)
Diagram of Typical Column Test Apparatus
Soil
Column
;Vent
Air
Vacuum Pump
M V«lvo to Control Bow
GAC Qrinulir AcdviBd Carbon Bad
B
i Vapor/
GAC j^—i Liquid
| Separator
'Drain
Field Air Permeability Test Advantages

1. Provides the Most Accurate Air Permeability
Measurements.
2. Permits Measurements of the Air Permeability
of Several Geological Strata.
3. Measures the Radius of Influence in the Vicinity
of the Testing Point
4. When Coupled with Analytical Measurements, Gives
Information about Initial Contaminant Removal Rates.
5. Provides Information for Designing a Pilot-Scale Test.
4-11
-------
Field Air Permeability Test Limitations

1. May Give Low Air Permeability Measurements in Soil
Zones Whore Significant Water Removal May Later
Take Place during the Operation of the SVE System.
2. Do-88 Not Show the Location of NAPL Pools.
3. Requires a Health and Safety Plan and May Require
Special Protective Equipment.
4. May Require an Air Permit on Superfund Sites.
5. Cannot Be Used To Measure Air Permeabilities In a
Saturated Zone that Will Be Dewatered Prior to
Application of the Technology.
Schematic for Typical Air Permeability Test
Vacuum
SoKOM
Sampling/
PrMiura
MonKotIng
Protx*
Vapor
Treatment
Unit
B
Soil Gas
Sampling/
Pressure
Monitoring
Probes
. ViporFtow
SMnptoProfc
Counselor
Con(«miri»f »d Soil
(TV MI
Mathematical Modeling Advantages

1. Provides Order of Magnitude Estimates of SVE
Cleanup Times.
2. A Prediction of a Lengthy Cleanup Time Based
on Mathematical Modeling Is Indicative that the
SVE Process Is Not Applicable.

3. Provides Sensitivity Analyses for Critical
Variables such as Air Permeability, Radius of
Influence, Partition Coefficients, and Vacuum
Applied.
4-12
-------
Mathematical Modeling Limitations

1. Most Models Underestimate the Time Required
for Cleanup. Prediction of a Short Cleanup
Time Does Not Indicate that SVE Will Be
Successful.
2. Different Models Must Be Used To Simulate
Various Field Conditions. These Models Must
Be Applied Carefully.
3. There Are Limited Field Data Available for
Validation of the Mathematical Models.
Factors Affecting SVE Treatment Costs

Extraction Well Factors
• Well Design
• Number of Wells
• Depth of Wells
• Passive (Inlet) vs. Air Injection Wells
• Surface Seals
B
Factors Affecting SVE Treatment Costs

Treatment Factors
€* Vapor/Liquid Separation
^ Offgas Treatment
0 Liquid (Water) Treatment
4-13
-------
Factors Affecting SVE Treatment Costs

Other Factors
0 Water Table Depression Pumps
0 Operating Costs

SVE System
COMPONENT
AFFECTED
ViELLSf>ACtN3/
LOCATION

HUMBEftCF
WELLS
DErrH OF WEILS

1 SVE Component Selection
Factors
COMPONENT
SELECTION FACTORS
Radius of Influence

Extent of Contamination
Ooptfl lo Inifxrmoibl* Layar
Leciton ol Centimlninu

DATA REQUIRED
Preisura Proilas
UntammcilMadgllng
Contaminant Distributions
Depth to Bedrock
Depth to Wan-Tibia
Contaminant Distributions

mEfeissi ^"
ota! SVE Component Selection
SVE System Factors (continued)
COMPONENT
AFFECTED
PASSIVE (INLET)
OH AIR
INJECTION
WELL
VACUUM PUMP
OH BLOWER

SURFACE
SEALS

COMPONENT
SELECTION FACTORS
Air Flow Distributions

Vacuum Level and
Air-Flow Rate

Air-Flow Distributions

Surface Water Infiltration

DATA REQUIRED
Air Permeability Tests
PltotTests
Mathematical Modeling

Air Permeability Tests
Pilot Tests
Number of Vapor Extraction Wells
Air Permeability Tests
Pilot Tests
Mathematical Modeling, or
Air-Flow Patterns Rainfall
Permeability of Surface Soils
4-14
-------
Pivotal SVE Component Selection
Treatment Factors
COMPONENT
AFFECTED
VAPOR/LIQUID
SEPARATOR
OFFGAS
TREATMENT

LIQUID
(WATER)
TREATMENT

COMPONENT
SELECTION FACTORS
Liquid (Water) Removal
Rates
Contaminant Removal
Rates
Contaminant Identities
Moisture Content After
Vapor/Liquid Separator
Site Water Removal Rates
Treatabiltty Factors

DATA REQUIRED
Moisture Content
Vapor Flowrates
Air Permeability Tests
Pilot Tests
Moisture Content During Pilot
Tests

Site Hydrological Behavior
Moisture Content in Offgass
Contaminant Concentrations in
Water
Inorganic Chemistry Tests
[ Pivotal SVE Component Selection
Other Factors
COMPONENT
AFFECTED
COMPONENT
SELECTION FACTORS
DATA REQUIRED
WATER Depth to Water Table
TABLE Depth of Contaminants
DEPRESSION Water Infiltration Rates
PUMPS
OPERATING
COSTS
Size ol SVE System
Cleanup Time
Analytical Costs
Residual Disposal Costs
Depth to Water Table
Site Hydrological
Behavior
All of the Above, Plus
Cleanup Time
Predictions
B
SVE Remedy Evaluation Test Elements
and Their Relative Costs

RELD AIR
PERMEABILITY
COST ELEMENT TEST
Plan Preparation*
Mobilization/Demobilization
SVE Vendor Equipment
Materials
Utilities
Sampling and Monitoring
Analyses
Realduals Management
Analysis Report Preparation
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST

InehjdM Woric, Subcontnetor, Sampling &
Aiulyita, and HMHh ft Safety Plans
InUqHMtlon ud Syium Efflctoney Arulym
$

$
••1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$30,000-
$50,000

BENCH-SCALE
COLUMN
TEST(S)"
$

^
$
$
$
$
$
$50.000-
$100,000

PILOT-
SCALE FIELD
TEST"
•

ss
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
S
£$100,000

4-15
-------
REFERENCES FOR SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
1. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1987. Annual 9. Book of ASTM Standards.

2. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and
Microbiological Properties. 2nd Ed.

3. Baehr, A.L., G.E. Hoag, and M.C. Marley. 1989. Removing Volatile Contaminants from the
Unsaturated Zone by Inducing Advective Air Phase Transport. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, Vol. 4.

4. Bennedsen, MB., J.D. Hartley, and J.P. Scott. 1987. Use of Vapor Extraction Systems for
In Situ Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil; Presented at Hazardous
Controls Research Institute Conference.

5. Danko, J. 1989. Applicability and Limitations of Soil Vapor Extraction for Sites
Contaminated with Volatile Organic Compounds. Presented at the Soil Vapor Extraction
Technology Workshop on Soil Vacuum Extraction, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey, June 28-29.

6. DePaoli. D.W., S.E. Herbes, Capt. M.G. Elliot, USAF. 1989. Performance of In Situ Soil
Venting System at Jet Fuel Spill Site. Presented at the Soil Vapor Extraction, Technology
Workshop on Soil Vacuum Extraction, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey, June 28-29.

7. DiGiulio, D.C., J.S. Cho, R.R. DuPont, and M.W. Kemblowski. 1990. Corjducting Field
Tests for Evaluation of Soil Vacuum Extraction Application. Proceedings of Fourth National
Outdoor Action conference on Aquifer Restoration, Groundwater Monitoring, and
Geophysical Methods, NWWA, Las Vegas, Nevada.

8. Gannon, K., D J. Wilson, A.N. Clarke, R.D. Mutch, Jr., and J.H. Clarke.. 1989. Soil Cleanup
by In Situ Aeration. II. Effects of Impermeable Caps, Soil Permeability, and Evaporative
Cooling. Separation Science and Technology, 24 (ll):831-862.

9. Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, and E. J. Coleman. 1987. Enhanced Bioreclamation Soil
Venting and Groundwater Extraction: A Cost-Effectiveness and Feasibility Comparison.
Proceedings of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals ,in Groundwater:
Prevention, Detection, and Restoration, Houston, Texas. , ,

10. Hoag, G.E. 1989. Soil Vapor Extraction Research Developments. 1989. Presented at the Soil
Vapor Extraction Technology Workshop on Soil Vacuum Extraction, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey, June
28-29.

11. Hutzler, NJ., J.S. Gierke, and B.E. Murphy. 1990. Vaporizing VOCs. Civil Engineering,
60(4):57-60.
4-16
-------
12.
13.
14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Johnson, P.C., M.W. Kemblowski, J.D. Colthart, D.L. Byers, and C.C. Stanley. 1989. A
Practical Approach to Design, Operation, and Monitoring of In Situ Soil Venting Systems.
Presented at the Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Workshop on Soil Vacuum Extraction^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory Edison'
New Jersey, June 28-29.

Marley, M.C., S.D. Richter, B.L. Cliff, and P.E. Nangeroni. 1989. Design of Soil Vapor
Extraction Systems—A Scientific Approach. Presented at the Soil Vapor Extraction
Technology Workshop on Soil Vacuum Extraction. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey, June 28-29.

McCoy & Associates. 1985. Hazardous Waste Consultant. 3(2).

Mutch, R.D. and DJ. Wilson. 1990. Soil Cleanup by In Situ Aeration. IV. Anisotropic
Permeabilities. Separation Science and Technology, 25(1): 1-29.

Oma, K.H., DJ. Wilson, and R.D. Mutch, Jr. 1990. In Situ Vapor Stripping: The
Importance of Nonequilibrium Effects in Predicting Cleanup Time and Cost. Eckenfelder,
Inc., Nashville, Tennessee.

Ostendorf, D.W. and D.H. Kampbell. 1989. Biodegradation of Hydrocarbon Vapors in the
Unsaturated Zone. Presented at the Workshop on Soil Vacuum Extraction. Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, April 27-28.

Payne, F.C., C.P. Cubbage, G.L. Kilmer, and L.H. Fish. 1986. In Situ Removal of Purgeable
Organic Compounds from Vadose Zone Soils. In: Proceedings of the 41st Purdue University
Industrial Waste Conference, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp. 365-369.

Trowbridge, B.E. andR.E. Malot. 1990. Soil Remediation and Free Product Removal Using
In Situ Vacuum Extraction with Catalytic Oxidation. 1990. In: Proceedings, 4th National
Outdoor Action Conference of Aquifer Restoration, Groundwater Monitoring and
Geophysical Methods, Las Vegas, Nevada May 11-17, p. 559.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor
Extraction Treatment. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati Ohio
EPA/540/2-91/006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology:
Reference Handbook. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
EPA/540/2-91/003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Assessing UST Corrective Action
Technologies: Site Assessment and Selection of Unsaturated Zone Treatment Technologies.
1990. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600/2-90/011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors.
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/540/ 2-90/003a.
4-17
-------
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990c. ROD Annual Report: FY, 1989. Office of -
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/890/006.

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990d. State of Technology Review:: Soil Vapor
Extraction System Technology. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600/2-89-024. . • .. •-•'.-

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA, Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
D.C. EPA/540/2-89/058.

27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Soil Vapor Extraction YOG Control
Technology Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina EPA/450/4-89017.

28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. Technology Evaluation Report: SITE
Program Demonstration Test, Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System, Groveland,
Massachusetts, Volume 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineer-
ing Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/540/5-89/ 003a.

29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989d. Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction
System, Applications Analysis Report. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio. EPA/540/A5-89/003.

30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989e. Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An
Overview. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., OSWER
Directive 9380.3-02FS.il.

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/ 540/G-89/004.

32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment
of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
D.C. EPA/540/2-88/004.

33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities. OSWER Directive 9355.0-7B. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response and Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/G87/003.

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. 3rd
Ed., Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. SW-846.

35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Operable Unit Feasibility Study, Region V.
Verona Well Field—Thomas Solvent Company, Battle Creek, Michigan.

36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Interim Guidelines and Specifications for
Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans. Office of Monitoring Systems and Quality
Assurance, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio. QAMS-005/80.
4-18
-------
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
U.S* Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Recovery of Landfill Gas at Mountain View.
Engineering Site Study. Solid Waste Management Office, Cincinnati Ohio
EPA/530/SW-587d or NHS PB-267 373.

Valsiraj, KT., LJ. Thibodeaux. 1988. Equilibrium Adsorption of Chemical Vapors on Surface
Soils, Landfills, and Landfarms—A Review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 19:79-99.

Wilson, D J. 1990. Soil Cleanup by In Situ Aeration. V. Vapor Stripping from Fractured
Bedrock. Separation Science and Technology, 25(3):243-262.

Wilson, DJ., A.N. Clarke, and J.H. Clarke. 1988. Soil Cleanup by In Situ Aeration. I.
Mathematical Modeling. Separation Science and Technology, 23(10 11):991-1037.

Wilson, DJ., A.N. Clarke, andR.D. Mutch, Jr. 1989. Soil Cleanup by In Situ Aeration. IJJ.
Passive Vent Wells, Recontamination, and Removal of Underlying Nonaqueous Phase
Liquid. Separation Science and Technology, 24 (12):939-979.
42. 40 CFR 286; Appendix I; 51 FR 40643, November 1986.
4-19
-------
-------
CHEMICAL DEHALOGENATION
-------
-------
GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING
TREATABILITY STUDIES
UNDER CERCLA

Chemical Dehalogenation
Presentation Outline

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Description of Chemical Dehalogenation
3.0 Technological Limitations
4.0 The Use of Treatability Studies in Remedy
Evaluation
5.0 Treatability Study Work Plan
6.0 Data Interpretation
7.0 References
B
Chemical Dehalogenation

Can Be Applied to:
• Soils
• Sediments
• Sludges
5-1
-------
The Chemical Dehalogenation
Process Requires:

1. That a Chemical Reagent Be Applied
Directly to the Contaminated Material
and
2. When the Reagent Reacts with the
Contaminant, that it Remove One or More
Halogen Atoms from the Contaminant
Molecule
The Chemical Dehalogenation
Process Involves B

Reactions between Reagents and
Contaminant That Are Either:
1. Substitution Reactions
or
2. Elimination Reactions
Dehalogenation Is Applicable to
Soils Contaminated By:

• Halogenated Aromatic Contaminants
• PCBs m Halogenated
m PCDDs Herbicides
M PCDFs W Organochlorine
II Chlorobenzenes Pesticides
m Chlorinated
Phenols
5-2
-------
Dehalogenation Is Applicable to
Soils Contaminated By:

• Certain Halogenated Aliphatics
m Ethylene m Chloroform
Dibromide m Dichloromethane
m Carbon
Terachloride
Dehalogenation as a Portion of a
Treatment Train

If Non-Halogenated Volatiles, Semi-Volatiles,
or Metals Are Present on a Site, then
Dehalogenation May Be Used in Conjunction
with Other Technologies such as:
® Thermal Desorption

-------
Dehalogenation Vendors

Dehalogenation Processes Are Largely
Proprietary. Four Rrms that Offer Full-Scale
Dehalogenatlon Services:
€> Gaison Remediation Corp.
* Soil Tech
9 Chemical Waste Management
* SDTX Technologies
Superfund Sites at Which
Dehalogenation Was Selected in the ROD
* 1985 - Wide Beach Development;
Brant, NY
• 1987 - Re-Solve; N. Dartmouth, MA
* 1988 - Sol Lynn/Transformers;
Houston, TX
»1990 - Myers Property; Hunterton
County, NJ
B
Current Developments

Presently, a Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
(BCD) Technology Is under Development to
Address:
* Chlorophenols
€» Chlorinated Herbicides (e.g., SHvex)
* Organochlorine Pesticides (e.g., Dledrin)
* DIoxIns and Furans
«PCBs
5-4
-------
Parameters Needed to
Prescreen Dehaiogenatfon

• Effectiveness
f! Implementability
0 Cost
Effectiveness Data to
Screen Dehalogenation

® Contaminated Media Type
m Volume of Contaminated Media
*l Contaminant Type
Contaminant Concentration
i? Previous Dehalogenation
Applications to Analogous Wastes
B
Impiementabiiity Data to
Evaluate Dehalogenation

* Availability of the Process
• Administrative Requirements
(e.g., Permits)
• Accessibility to the Site
5-5
-------
Cost Data to
Evaluate Dehalogenation

* Capital vs. Operation and
Maintenance Costs
• Past Experience
9 Engineering Judgment
Dehalogenation Performance Factors

• Soil Type Is Not Critical In Using Dehalogenation
• Effectiveness of Dehalogenation Process
Depends on Thorough Mixing of Contaminated
Material with Reagent
• Requires Excavation
H In Situ Treatments Usually Fail
41 Optimization Factors
M Soil Temperature
W Reaction Duration
W Reagent Ratio
B
Technical Limitations of Dehaiogenation

* Quantity of Reagent May Be Prohibitive
41 Energy Requirements May Be Prohibitive
• Treated Soil and Residuals May Require
Extensive Post Treatment
* Uncharacterized Process Byproducts May
Present Hazards
* Safety Hazards (Exposures, Explosions, and
Fires) are Ever Present
5-6
-------
Application of Tiered Approach
to Dehalogenation Treatability
Studies
* Literature Survey
• Remedy Screening
II Remedy Selection
• Remedial Design/Remedial
Action
Literature Review
Purpose:
m Identify Potentially Applicable
Dehalogenation Processes
m Obtain Existing Information on
Performance with Similar
Characteristics, Compounds,
Concentrations, and Site Conditions
Objective: Determine Treatability Data Needs
B
Remedy Screening
Purpose: Determine Feasibility for
Application to Site's Contaminants/Matrix
Objective: Achieve >90 Percent Reduction in
Contamination
Parameters Investigated: None, Testing is
Conducted Under Severe Conditions
Data Generated: Contaminant
Concentrations Before and After Treatment
5-7
-------
Remedy-Selection Testing

* Purpose: Generate Performance
and Cost Data for Detailed
Analysis of Alternatives
* Objective: Meet Site Cleanup
Criteria for Target Contarninant(s)
Remedy-Selection Testing (cont.>

Parameters Investigated:
• Temperature
* Reaction Time
• Reaction Formulation and Loading
• Process-Specific Parameters
* Multiple Sample Types Representing
Site Chemical/Physical Variability
B
Remedy-Selection Testing (cont.)

Data Generated:
0 Relationship between Process
Parameters and Contaminant
Concentrations
4> Characterizations of Product(s) and
Residual(s)
« Capital and Operating and
Maintenance Cost Estimates
5-8
-------
Remedial Design/
Remedial Action Testing

H Purpose: Produce Scale-Up,
Design, and Cost Data for
implementation of Remedy
m Objective: Optimize Process
Remedial Design/
Remedial Action Testing
Parameters Investigated:
® Feed Rates (Continuous Processes)
0 Number of Treatment Cycles (Batch
Processes)
$ Mixing Rates
% Heating Rates
* Other Equipment-Specific Parameters
B
Remedial Design/
Remedial Action Testing
Data Generated:
® Materials-Handling Characteristics
• Reagent Recycling and Recovery
Efficiency
i* Energy and Chemical Usage
* Treatment Train Performance
* Residuals Treatment Performance
5-9
-------
Dehalogenation Treatability
Study Work Plan

* 15 Standard Elements in All
Treatability Studies
0 7 of the 15 Elements Have Specific
Components for Dehalogenation
Treatability Studies that Have Not
Been Discussed Yet
Seven Dehalogenation-Specific
Work Plan Elements
tt Test Objectives
0 Experimental Design and
Procedures
• Equipment and Materials
0 Sampling and Analysis
B
Seven Dehalogenation-Specific
Work Plan Elements

* Residuals Management
* Schedule
0 Budget
5-10
-------
Test Objectives
Test Objectives Consist of
Meeting Quantitative
Performance Goals
or
Making a Qualitative Engineering
Assessment of the Process
Test Objectives:
Remedy Screening

• Focus on the Degree of
Reduction in Toxicity Achieved
as a Determinant of Feasibility
m Generally Above 90% for
Target Contaminants
B
Test Objectives:
Remedy Selection

€» Generally Corresponds to the Site's
Filial Remediation Goals
m Chemical-Specific Health-Based
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
M Reasonable Land-Use
M Standard Exposure Pathways
5-11
-------
Experimental Design and
Procedures
* Remedy-Screening Treatability Studies
Should Be Done under Severe
Conditions to Avoid False Screen-Outs,
Including:
ii Excess Reagent
K High Temperatures
Ii Extended Reaction Times
Experimental Design and Procedures

• Remedy Selection Design Requires
Special Considerations:
M Generating Sufficient Treated Product
W Performing a Mass Balance
• Assessing Reagent Recovery,
Residuals Treatment, and Soil Pre-
and Post-Treatment(s)
B
Equipment and Materials

• Remedy-Screening Studies Performed in a
Batch System Using Off-the-Shelf
Laboratory Glassware and Bench-Scale
Equipment
• Remedy-Selection Studies Performed Using
Bench-Scale and Occasionally Pilot-Scale
Equipment
* RD/RA Studies Performed with Full-Scale
Trailer-Mounted Equipment
5-12
-------
Example Chemical Dehalogenation Bench-Scale Reactor
Tampwalum
Control Unit
Sampling and Analysis
Available Remedial Investigation Data

« Spatial Distribution of Target Contaminants
* Contaminant Levels that Limit Testing and
Disposal Options (e.g., Dioxins and PCBs)
% Non-Target Contaminants that May Interfere
with Extraction and Analysis of Target
Contaminants (e.g., Certain Solvents)
B
Sampling and Analysis
General Considerations
Reactive Species
Soil Type
Soil Moisture Content
Particle Size Distribution
5-13
-------
Sampling and Analysis
Remedy Screening
* Single Analyses Are Usually Sufficient
41 Limited to Target Contaminants
• Includes Soil and Other Treatment Fractions
(Used Reagent, Rinse Water, Condensate, and
Absorbent Traps)
• EPA or ASTM Methods Are Recommended
(Although Vendor Modified Methods May Be
Necessary)
Sampling and Analysis
Remedy Selection
41 This Tier Requires Duplicate or Triplicate
Tests
* Selection of Other Halogenated
Contaminants for Additional Tests By
Assessing:
• Likely Products from Chemical Reactions
m. Relative Toxicity of Byproducts
if Residuals Management Inhibitors
B
Sampling and Analysis
Pretreatment Waste
Characterization Factors

* Moisture (May Dilute Reagent)
*pH
9 Buffering Capacity
* Particle Size Distribution
5-14
-------
Residuals Management
Includes Managing Six Types of Residuals

1. Waste Not Used in Testing
Procedures
2. Treated Waste
3. Treatment Residual (Spent
Reagent and Condensate)
Residuals Management

4. Laboratory Samples and
Extracts
5. Used Containers
6. Contaminated Protective
Clothing and Debris
B
Residuals Management
Considerations

9 Types and Quantities
m impact on Schedule
m Impact on Cost
* Responsibilities of Parties
Involved (i.e., PRPs, EPA, and
Testing Facility)
5-15
-------
Example Project Schedule for a Two-Tiered
Chemfical Dehalogenatton Treatabillty Study
TfwubtMy study
TMtt
f»m IKsort

TMll
VMM from FrcjKtSkrt
Applicability of Cost Elements
to Treatabillty Study Tiers
COST
ELEMENT
Labor
Testing
Equipment and
Rental
Health and Safety
Analytical
Services
REMEDY REMEDY
SCREENING SCREENING
$5 S$
$ $$
$$ $$
$$ S$
REMEDY
DESIGN
$$
$$
$$
$$
_ .
B
^™"'3^ Applicability of Cost Elements
to Treatability Study Tiers
COST
ELEMENT
Reagents
Permitting and
Regulatory
Sample
Transportation
Residual
Management
REMEDY REMEDY,,
SCREENING SCREENING
$ $
$ $$
$ $
$ $
REMEDY
DESIGN
$$
$$
$$
$$

5-16
-------
Applicability of Cost Elements
to Treatabllity Study Tiers
COST
ELEMENT
Site Preparation
Utilities
Mobilization/
Demobilization
Air Emission and
Effluent Treatment
Decontamination of
Equipment
REMEDY
SCREENING
0
0
0
0
0
REMEDY
SCREENING
0
$
$
$
$
REMEDY
DESIGN
$$
$$
$$
$$
$s
nml,***,.,,,:*.^,*^*.***,*., ««»li.iiii ...,0.. torn*. >,r*.*,M:nt,l»»*vm
Budget-Analytical
Cost Considerations
Number of Analyses
Chemical and Physical Properties
Measured
Analytical Test Duration
Specialty Analyses (e.g., Dioxins)
B
Data Interpretation
Long-Term Effectiveness
and Permanence

What Is the Magnitude of Residual Risk?
m Target Contaminant Concentrations in
Treated Product and Residuals
* Presence of Byproducts
* Bioassay Results on Treated Product
5-17
-------
Data Interpretation
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility,
and Volume

What Is the Reduction in Toxicity?
* Percent Reduction in Target
Contaminant Concentrations
* Bioassay Results Comparison Before
and After Treatment
Data Interpretation
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility,
and Volume

What Is the Irreversibility of the
Dehaiogenation?
41 Materials Balance Data, with Target
Contaminant Concentrations in
Treated Product and Residuals
B
Date Interpretation
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility,

and Volume

What Are the Risk Types and Quantities Posed by
Treatment Residuals?
* Target Contaminant Concentrations In Treatment
Residuals
* Presence of Byproducts In Treatment Residuals
* Bioassay Results on Treatment Residuals
• Treatment Residuals Volume
5-18
-------
Data Interpretation
Short-Term Effectiveness

How Are the Community and Workers
Protected During Remedial Actions?
m Physical and Chemical Properties of
Waste Matrix and Treatment Residuals
* Reagent Formulation and Material
Safety Data
Data Interpretation
Short-Term Effectiveness

How Long Will the
Remedial Response Last?
* Reaction Time/
Throughput
B
Data Interpretation
implementability

How Reliable Is the Process and What Is the
Potential for Delays?
® Reliability and Schedule Delays During
Testing
* Reaction Time and Throughput
^Physical Characteristics of Waste Matrix
0 Contaminant Variability in Untreated
Waste
5-19
-------
Data Interpretation
Cost
What Are the Direct Capital Costs
Determinants?
* Physical Characteristics of Waste Matrix
* Site Characteristics
* Reaction Time, Throughput, and
Temperature
• Reagent Usage and Recovery
Data Interpretation
Cost
What Are the Operational and Maintenance Cost
Determinants?
* Reagent Formulation, Loading, Usage, and
Recovery
* Treated Product and Treatment Residual Volume
and Characteristics
* Reaction Time, Throughput, and Temperature
41 Physical Characteristics of Waste Matrix
* Materials Handling
B
jPllw^4»«M«jw;4JI
Data Interpretation
Compliance with ARARs

What Are the Chemical-, Location-, and
Action-Specific ARAR Determinants?
• Target Contaminant Concentrations in
Treated Product and Residuals
* Bioassay Results for Treated Product
and Residuals
5-20
-------
wuwvwvwwvtwm
Data Interpretation
Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
How Are Site Risks Eliminated, Reduced, or
Controlled?
<® Target Contaminant Concentrations In
Treated Product and Residuals
<$ Byproduct Presence in Treated Product and
Residuals
®t Bioassay Results on Treated Product
and Residuals
5-21
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHEMICAL DEHALOGENATION
1. Brunelle, D J. 1982. Method for Removing Polyhalogenated Hydrocarbons From Nonpolar
Organic Solvent Solutions. U.S. Patent Number 4,351,718, September 28.

2. Brunelle, DJ. 1983. Reaction of Polychlorinated Biphenyls With Mercaptans in Non-Polar
Media: Formation of Polychlorobiphenyl Sulfides. Chemosphere, 12(2):167-181.

3. Brunelle, D J. and D.A. Singleton. 1983. Destruction/Removal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
From Non-Polar Media. Reaction of PCB with Polyethylene Glycol/KOH. Chemosphere',
12:183-196.

4. Canonie Environmental Services Corp. 1991. Soiltech ATP Dechlorination Process.
Promotional Literature.

5. DeMarini, D.M. and I.E. Simmons. 1989. Toxicological Evaluation of By-Products From
Chemically Dechlorinated 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Chemosphere, 18(11/12):2293-2301.

6. des Rosiers, P. E. 1987. Chemical Detoxification Using Potassium Polyethylene Glycolate
(KPEG) for Treating Dioxin and Furan Contaminated Pentachlorophenol, Spent Solvents,
and Polychlorinated Biphenyls Wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration, Washington, D.C.

7. Franklin Research Center. 1982. Summary Project Report Dehalogenation of PCBs Using
New Reagents Prepared From Sodium Polyethylene Glycolates—Application, to PCB Spills
and Contaminated Solids. Prepared For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. CR 806649-01-2. Report dated
February 3,1982.

8. Freeman, H.M. and R.A. Olexsey. 1986. A Review of Treatment Alternatives for Dioxin
Wastes. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 36:67-76.

9. Galson Research Corporation. 1987. Treatability Test for APEG Dechlorination of PCBs
in Resolve Site Soil. Prepared for Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.

10. Galson Research Corporation. 1988. Laboratory Testing Results: KPEG Treatment of New
Bedford Soil. Prepared under Contract No. 68-01-7250.

11. Galson Remediation Corporation. 1990. Quality Assurance Program Plan. Laboratory
Treatability Testing of the APEG-PLUS™ Treatment System for PCB-Contaminated
Material.

12. Galson Remediation Corporation. Undated. Galson 's APEG-PLUS™ Treatment System
Equipment and Job Description. Promotional Literature.

13. Howard, KJ. and A.E. Sidwell. 1982. Chemical Detoxification of Toxic Chlorinated
Aromatic Compounds. U.S. Patent Number 4,327,027, April 27.
5-22
-------
14.
15.

16.

17.

18..

19.

20.

21.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
laconianni, F.J. 1984-1985. Destruction of PCBs—Environmental Applications of Alkali
Metal Polyethylene Glycolate Complexes. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. Cooperative
Agreement: CR 810068. Franklin Research Center, Philadelphia. Reports dated August 3
1984, and May 31, 1985.

Kim, B.C. and R.F. Olfenbuttel. 1990. Demonstration of BCDP Process at USNPWC Site
in Guam. Presented at the EPA Technology Transfer Conference on the BCD Process,
Cincinnati, Ohio, April 30.

Klee, A., C. Rogers, and T. Tieman. 1984. Report on the Feasibility of APEG
Detoxification of Dioxin-Contaminated Soils. EPA 600/2-84-071.

Kernel, A. and C. Rogers. 1985. PCB Destruction: A Novel Dehalogenation Reagent.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 12:171-176.

Maron, D.M. and B.N. Ames. 1983. Mutat Res., 113:173-215.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1985. Briefing on Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Waste.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, May.

Novosad, C.F. et al. 1987. Decontamination of a Small PCB Soil Site by the Galson APEG
Process. Preprint Extended Abstract, 194th National Meeting of the American Chemical
Society, August 30 - September 4, 27(2):435-437.

PEI Associates, Inc. 1988, Quality Assurance Project Plan for.Alternative Treatment
Technology Evaluations of CERCLA Soils and Debris. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3389, Work Assignment No. 1-10.

PEI Associates, Inc. 1989. Comprehensive Report on the KPEG Process for Treating
Chlorinated Wastes. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3413, Work Assignment No. 1-2, and the U.S. Navy under Interagency
Agreement IAG RW 17933209. , •

Peterson, R.L. 1985. Method for Reducing Content of Halogenated Aromatics in
Hydrocarbon Solutions. U.S . Patent Number 4,532,028, July 30.

Peterson, R.L. 1986. Method for Decontaminating Soil. U.S. Patent Number 4,574,013,
March 4.

Peterson, R.L., E. Milicic, and CJ. Rogers. 1985. Chemical Destruction/Detoxification of
Chlorinated Dioxins in Soils. In: Proceedings of Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous
Waste, the Eleventh Annual Research Symposium, September. EPA/600/9^85/028.

Porcella, D.B. 1983. Protocol for Bioassessment of Hazardous Waste Sites
EPA-600/2-83-054. .

Pytlewski, L.L. 1979. A Study of the Novel Reaction of Molten Sodium and Solvent With
PCBs. EPA Grant No. R806659010. Franklin Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
5-23
-------
31.

32.

33.
28. Radimsky, J. and A. Shah. 1985. Evaluation of Emerging Technologies for the Destruction
of Hazardous Waste. EPA Cooperative Agreement R-808908. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, January.

29. Rogers, CJ. 1987. Field Validation of the KPEG Process to Destroy PCBs, PCDDs, and
PCDFs in Contaminated Waste. Preprint Extended Abstract, 194th National Meeting of the
American Chemical Society, August 30-September 4, 27(2):433-434.

30. Tiernan, T.O. et al. 1987. Laboratory Studies of the Degradation of Toxic Chlorinated
Compounds Contained in Hazardous Chemical Waste Mixtures and Contaminated Soils
Using a Potassium Hydroxide/Polyethylene Glycol Reagent. Preprint Extended Abstract,
194th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, August 30 - September 4,
27(2):438-440.

Tung, K.K. et al. 1990. A New Method for Testing Soil and Sediment Samples. In:
Proceedings from the Eleventh Annual SETAC Conference, November.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Guidance on Remedial Actions for
Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination. EPA/540/G-90/007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. Region IV Standard Operating Procedure
for Toxicity Testing Hazardous Waste Assessments. Draft prepared by the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division, Athens,
Georgia.

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990c. Superfund LDR Guide #6A (2nd Edition):
Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions. EPA/9347.306FS.

35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990d. Superfund LDR Guide #6B:; Obtaining a
Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Removal Actions. EPA/9347.3-06BFS.

36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990e. Superfund LDR Guide #8: Compliance with
Third Requirements under the LDRs. EPA/9347.3-06BFS.

37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual: Part II. Clean Air Act and Other Environmental Statutes and State Requirements.
EPA/540/G-89/009. OSWER Directive 9234.102.

38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA. Interim Final. EPA/540/2-89/058.

39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. Superfund LDR Guide #1: Overview of
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions. EPA/9347.3-01FS.

40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989d. Superfund LDR Guide #2: Complying with
the California List Restrictions Under Land Disposal Restrictions. EPA/9347.3-02FS.

41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989e. Superfund LDR Guide #3: Treatment
Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements Under Land Disposal Restrictions.
EPA/9347.3-03FS.
5-24
-------
42.

43.

44.

45.
46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989f. Superfund LDR Guide #4: Complying with
the Hammer Restrictions under Land Disposal Restrictions. EPA/9347.3-04FS.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989g. Superfund LDR Guide #5: Determining
When Land Disposal Restrictions are Applicable to CERCLA Response Actions
EPA/9347.3-05FS.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989h. Superfund LDR Guide #7: Determining
When Land Disposal Restrictions Are Applicable to CERCLA Response Actions. EPA/
9347.3-07FS.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989L Treatability Studies Contractor Work
Assignments. Memo From Henry L. Longest, II, Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response to Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I through X. July 12 OSWER
Directive 9380.3-01.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual: Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/004
OSWER Directive 9355.3-01.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. A Compendium of Superfund Field
Operations Methods. EPA/540/P87/001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste 3rd
ed. SW-846.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual
EPA/600/8-87/049. OSWER Directive 9355.0-10.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Interim Guidelines and Specifications for
Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans. QAMS-005/80.

Vorum, M. 1991. SoilTech ATP System: Commercial Success at Thermal Treatment and
Dechlorination of PCBs. Presented to Colorado Hazardous Waste Management Society
1991 Conference, October 3-4, 1991.

Woodyard, J.P. and JJ. King. 1987. Recent Technology Developments for PCB Destruction
and Oil Recycling. Presented at the DOE Oak Ridge Model Conference, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
5-25
-------
-------
SOL VENT EXTRACTION
-------
-------
GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING
TREATABILITY STUDIES
UNDER CERCLA:
SOLVENT EXTRACTION

Interim Guidance
mewowmwcHt
Presentation Outline
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Description of Solvent Extraction (SE)
3.0 Preliminary Screening
4.0 Goals
5.0 Experimental Design
6.0 Sampling and Analysis
7.0 Data Analysis and Interpretation
8.0 Scheduling, Management, and Budgeting
9.0 Summary and References
B
Solvent Extraction
A Process that Uses Solvent(s) to
Remove Hazardous Contaminants
from:
^ Soils m Ground Water*
* Sludges m Surface Water*
« Sediments
•Possible, but uncommon.
6-1
-------
Solvent Extraction
Is Based on the Contaminant's Higher
Affinity for the Chosen Solvent than
the Contaminated Material
Solvent Extraction Process

<0 An Ex Situ Process
H Soils Are Excavated
II Liquids Are Pumped
* Contaminated Material Removal
Usually Requires Pretreatment and
Posttreatment for SE to Work
Efficiently
B
Solvent Extraction:
Pretreatment
Pretreatment Is Done to:
1. Optimize SE Performance
2. Protect Equipment
3. Increase the Variety of
Equipment That Can Be
Used
6-2
-------
Solvent Extraction:
Pretreatment
Pretreatment Decision Depends on:
1. Waste Characteristics
2. Whether SE Process is Batch or
Continuous
3. Extraction Process
4. Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
Solids Pretreatment
«8 Solid-Liquid
Separation Removes
Water, Which Can
Impair Some SE
Processes
& Screening
Contaminated Material
Protects Equipment
from Larger Debris
» This Type of
Pramutment Include*
CUulncition «nd
Rotation Processes
B
& SIxe Reduction
Eliminates Debris and
Increases Surface Area
to Enhance Mixing
« Too Much Reduction
(L*,, Too Many Fines)
Can Create Separation
Problems
Solvent Extraction

Liquid Pretreatment
& Liquid Pretreatment Is Used to Enhance
Pumping, Separate Constituents (Usually
Solids), or Chemically Condition Waste
m Pumping Enhancement Is Done with Either Water or
Solvent
<$> Constituent Separation Techniques Include:
^ Rltering
& Screening
6-3
-------
Solvent Extraction
Liquids Pretreatment

* Chemical Conditioning (e.g., pH
Adjustment) Depends on:
• Waste Characteristics
m Buffering Capacity of Waste Matrix
• Treatment Equipment
M Construction Materials
TTI
Types of Solvent
Extraction (SE)
B
1. Standard SE
2. Near Critical Fluid/Liquified
GasSE
3. Critical Solution
Temperature SE (CST)
Standard Solvent Extraction

Solvents Used for Standard Solvent
SE Include:
« Alkanes
0 Ketones
€» Alcohols
4» Other Solvents at Ambient
Temperatures
6-4
-------
Standard Solvent
Extraction Process
4 Basic Steps:
1. Extraction
2. Separation
3. Desorption
4. Solvent Recovery
Schematic of a Standard
Solvent Extraction Process
B
Contamlnatod
(pmlTMtnwnt
maybe
noceanry)
f 1

Extraction
m

-+
Separation
(optional)

Deco
Medl
Rule
Contaminated
Solvent
numlnabd
1 WU*

Solvent

1
dean
Solvent
1 ^Concentrated
DojofpMon
(3)
Solvent
• Decontaminated
Media
Standard Solvent Extraction Process
Extraction

<§= Contaminated Media Are Mixed With
Solvent
m Pretreatment of Contaminated Media Is
Sometimes Necessary to Enhance Mixing
• Solvent Type and Contact Time are
Selected through Treatability Studies
6-5
-------
Standard Solvent Extraction Process
Separation
* This Optional Stage Includes Decanting
the Liquid Phase from the Solid Phase
• The Liquid Phase Will Contain
X Solvent
M Fines
it Contaminants
* Usually, the Solid Phase Will Contain Water
Standard Solvent Extraction Process
Desorption ^_

• This Step Separates Any Residual Solvent from
the Decontaminated Material Through Either
H Vapor or Steam Stripping
• IndlrtetHMtlna
* The Resulting Solvent Is Placed Back In the
Extractor for Recycling
• The Resulting Solvent-Free Decontaminated
Material Is Returned to the Site, Treated, or
Disposed Of
B
Standard Solvent Extraction Process
Solvent Recovery

• This Step Involves Solvent Recovery
Through Distillation
• Distillate Is Sent to the Extractor for
Reuse
M Still Bottoms, with Concentrated
Contaminants Require Further Treatment
6-6
-------
Standard Solvent Extraction Process

Post Treatment

& Solvent Extraction Products Requiring
Further Management
M Concentrated Contaminants
m Fines (Silts and Clays)
M Separated Water
M Side-Streams, Including Spent Solvents,
Spent Activated Carbon, and Air Emissions
Standard Solvent Extraction Process

Post Treatment

& Typical Extraction Solvents Are Volatile or
Biodegradable
SS Air Monitoring Is Used to Detect Problems
<® The Presence of Metals or Other Inorganic
Compounds Indicates a Need for Further
Treatment
®> Water from Solvent Extraction Processes
Usually Is Adequately Treated at Standard
Wastewater Treatment Plants
B
Variations on Standard
Solvent Extraction
% Several Vendors Have Adapted SE to
Different Site Situations, Such as
Processes With
m Lower Energy Requirements
M Mixing and Distillation Enhancements
M Specific Solvents
M Extraction Enhancements
6-7
-------
Near-Critical Fluid/Liquified Gas

Solvent Extraction
* Often Termed Near-Critical Liquid (NCL)
Solvent Extraction
• Similar to Standard Solvent Extraction, Except
That It Uses Solvents Near Their
Thermodynamlc Critical Point
X Themtodynamlc Critical Point l» the Combination of
Temperature and Pressure Whore Liquid and Gas Phase
Am In Equilibrium
* Exhibiting the DHf uifty and Viscosity of a Gas and
the Solvent Qualities of a Liquid.
Thermodynamlc Critical Point for Water
Phase Diagram for Water
CRITICAL
POINT
TMnpwatura (%)
Tc.374
B
Properties of NCL
Solvent Extraction
Penetrates Like a Gas and Removes
Contaminants Like a Liquid
Operated at Elevated Pressure
Address Solids and Liquids
May Be a Continuous or Batch
Process
6-8
-------
Near-Critical Fluid/Liquified Gas Solvent
Extraction Process Schematic
Contaminated
Media -•
•} !
t
Extraction
(1)

-»>

Separation
m

Deco
Medl
Resk

Contaminated
Solvent
n laminated
l Hue-

Solvent
(4)
I
Clean
Solvent
L«>. Concuntratod
Contamlnanta
Clean
DeeorpMon
(3)
Solvent
:, A — »>J
• DecontamlnalBd
Media
Examples of NCL
Solvent Extraction
B
* Only Proprietary Units Are Available
2 Vendors of NCL Units
W, CF Systems
M Sierra Environmental Services
Modifications to NCL

Solvent Extraction

$> There Are Bench-Scale Tests of This Method
Using Super-Critical Fluids (SCFs)
& SCFs Are Fluids Heated and Pressurized
beyond Their Thermodynamic Equilibrium
® 3 SCF Methods under Exploration:
1. Uses SCFs to Regenerate Spent Granular Activated Carbon
2. Uses SCFs to Simultaneously Remove and Oxidize
Contaminants
3. Uses Norrtoxte SCFs (e.g., Carbon Dioxide) to Remove
Organic Contaminants
6-9
-------
Critical Solution Temperature (CST)

Solvent Extraction

* Employs Solvent* with Extraction Capabilities That Are
Enhanced under Monamblent Temperatures
• CST Solvent Extractions Are Liquid-Liquid Systems
(Usually • Chemical Solvent and Water) Where the Mutual
Solubilities of Each Solvent Increase as They Approach
tht CST (I*., Both Solvents are Miscible In Each Other.)
* Three Types of CST Solvent Extractions with Either:
« Upper Critical Solution Temperature*
• Lower Critical Solution Temperatures
91 Upper and Lowtr Critical Solution Temperatures
Upper Critical
Solution Temperature
Liquid-Liquid System
Lower Critical
Solution Temperature
Liquid-Liquid System
B
CST Solvent Extraction Schematic
6-10
-------
CST Solvent
Extraction Process
^ Contains the Same 4 Basic Steps as
Standard Solvent Extraction
• Solvent Recovery Step, However, May Be
Much More Complex
If Involves One or More Cycles of Decanting,
Stripping, and Condensing
Use of Solvent

Extraction Processes

& Promising for Organic Contaminant Removal
*> SE Has Been Used at Full-Scale for 2 Superf und
Sites
& Tulsa.OK
81 Garden CHy, GA
® SE Has Been Selected at 5 Other Super-fund Sites
for Soils Contaminated with PCBs, PCPs, PAHs,
and Other Organic Contaminants
£3 These Sites Are Located in MA, ME, N J, and TX
B
Preliminary Screening

*i Includes:
a Assessing Site-Specific
Factors
II Literature Search
• Expert Judgment
m Data Bases (e.g., RREL
Treatability Data Base)
6-11
-------
Most Important
Prescreening Parameters:

•f Contaminant Profile
II Contaminant Concentrations
Major Site Characterization Tests
for Remedy Screening
PARAMETER
DESCRIPTION OF
TEST
PURPOSE AND
COMMENTS
B
ORQAMC9
Varied
CSAIN8JZE Sieve Screening Using
ANALYSIS/ * Variety of Screen
PARTICLE SIZE Stt««
DtSTRIQUTrON
To Determine Concentration of
Tar g«t or Interfering
Constituents, Pretreatment
Needs, Extraction Medium

To Determine Volume
Reduction Potential,
Pro treatment Need*,
Solid/Liquid Separability
Major Site Characterization Tests
for Remedy Screening
PARAMETER
DESCRIPTION OFTEST
PURPOSE AND
COMMENTS
BULK DENSITY
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
Drive Cycltnder Method
Sound-Cone Method

Hydro me ler or
Pyenomeler
To Determine
Throughput Capacity In
Terms of Cubic Yards
or Tons Per Hour
6-12
-------
Major Site Characterization Tests
for Remedy Selection
PARAMETER
Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
or
Total
Recoverable
Petroleum
Hydrocarbon

Moisture
Content
DESCRIPTION OF TEST
PURPOSE AND
COMMB4TS
Combustion
Infrared
Spectrophoto meter
Drying Oven at 110 °C
In Sttu, Nuclear Method
To Determine the Presence of
Organic Matter, Adsorption
Characteristics of Soil
To Determine Pretreatment
Needs. Water May Impede
Some Extraction Processes
Contaminant
Distribution
B
Important to Assess Contaminant
Distribution for Each Soil Type
m Also "Hot Spots"
Solvent Extraction May Be
Applicable to Only Part of a Site.
Other Prescreening
Contaminant Factors for SE

* pH
w Chemical Oxygen Demand
Viscosity
6-13
-------
Other Important Contaminant
and Residual Attributes

• Vapor Pressure
• Solubility in Specified Solvents)
• Henry's Law Constant
* Partition Coefficient
* Boiling Point
Solvent Extraction Limitations

• General Limitations Are
Related to:
m Contamination Mixture or
Composition
m Media
m Process
B
Solvent Extraction
Limitations
Process Limitations:
II Number of Extraction Cycles Needed
m Ease of Recycling Solvent
Uf Presence of Complex Hydrophillic
and Hydrophobic Contaminants
n Amount of Pretreatment Required
6-14
-------
Qualities of the 3 Types off
Solvent Extraction Vary

Ability to Process Fine*
and Clay
Ability to Process Wide
Variety of Organic*
En* of Phase
Separation
Energy Required
Type of Solvent Extraction
STANDARD NCF CST
DA D
ADD
D A A
A A D
(A* Advantage D» Disadvantage)
Solvent Extraction

Treatability Study Questions

* What Contaminant Will SE Leave Behind?
0 Will Residual Contaminant Concentrations Meet
ARARs and Risk-Based Clean-Up Levels?
& What Are the Physical, Chemical, and Contamination
Differences Between Treated and Untreated Solids?
«& What Impact Will Construction and Implementation
of SE Have?
B
Solvent Extraction

implementation Questions

@ Will Solvent Residuals in Soil and Water Make
Residuals Treatment and Disposal Difficult?

& What are the Characteristics and the Volume of
the Residuals that Will Be Produced?

® Are the Process Equipment and Solvent Readily
Available?
6-15
-------
Solvent Extraction
Implementation Questions

* Can the Solvent Be Recovered and Recycled
Economically?
41 What Are the Necessary Pretreatment Steps
(Specific to the Process Equipment and
Solvent)?
* Will the Solvent Extraction System Chemicals
React with the Solutes?
Solvent Extraction
Long-Term Risk Issues

What is the Magnitude of Risk From:
tt Treatment Residuals?
M Side-Stream Residuals?
• Other Treatment Train Processes?
H Long-Term Measures (e.g., Site
Access Limitations)?
B
Solvent Extraction
Cost Advantages
SE Concentrates Contaminants,
thereby Reducing Treatment and
Disposal Costs
Reductions in Hauling, Treatment,
and Disposal Costs Usually Make
SE Cost-Effective
6-16
-------
Solvent Extraction Process Cost
Parameters Provided by Treatability Studies
* The Volume and Characteristics of Residual
Wastewater and Sludge That Require Treatment or
Disposal
® The Degree to Which Process Modifications Can
Enhance the Efficiency of the Process
<& The Degree to Which the Solvent and/or
Contaminant Can Be Recovered and Recycled
& The Solvent-to-Feed Ratio
* The Number of Extraction Stages Necessary
Remedy Screening Is Not
Always Necessary

» Prescreening Is Usually Sufficient to Initiate
Remedy Selection Tests
& If Organlcs Are Present, then Proceed with Remedy
Selection Tests for Solvent Extraction
& If Organlcs Are Not Present, then Do Not Proceed
®> Existing Information Plus Expert Judgment
Sometimes Substitute for Remedy Screening
B
Remedy Screening
May Be Necessary, if:
1. The Waste Matrix Has Not
Been Extracted
2. The Waste Matrix Contains
a Wide Variety of
Contaminants
6-17
-------
Potential Remedy
Screening Goals
1. To Confirm Solvent-Contaminant
Compatibility
2. Solvent Extraction of 50% to
70% of Contaminants
3. To Eliminate Ineffective Treatment
Technologies from Further
Consideration
jUnSlTOjfliJ4jlt juit'jiiift

Remedy Selection
Study Goals
B
1. Before and After Contaminant
Concentrations in Treated Soil,
Sludge, or Water
• Typically 90% to 99% Removal
2. Design Information
3. Full-Scale Cost Estimates
Remedy Screening
Experimental Design

* Important Physical Characteristics to
Ascertain:
X Contaminant Viscosity
K Contaminant Specific Gravity
It Soli Particle Site and Pore Size
Profiles
6-18
-------
Remedy Screening
Experimental Design

• Other Important Data
m Solvent(s) Solubility
M Solvent(s) Vapor Pressure
SSolvent(s) Henry's Law Constant
Remedy Screening
Experimental Design

$ Typical Remedy Screening Test for Soil
Includes 6 Extraction Steps Using 5 kg
Of Soil, Standard Glassware,
Centrifuge, Vacuum Filter, and
Analyses
® An Alternative, Soxhlet Extraction, Uses
Only 1 kg of Soil
B
Remedy Screening Tests
General Conditions
® Operate at Ambient Temperatures
€> Use Hydrophillic Solvents for First
Extraction
& Use Hydrophobic Solvents to Treat
Residual in Soil after the First Extraction
» Select Solvent(s) after Identifying
Contaminants
6-19
-------
Examples of
Hydrophillic Solvents

0 Acetone
41 Methanol
• Dioxane

Examples of
Hydrophobia Solvents

* Indicator Contaminants Are Selected
Based On:
if Most Highly Toxic or Prevalent Contaminant
» Most Representative of Chemical
Contaminant Groups In the Soil
0 If PCBs and Dioxins Are Present, PCB
Tests Are Usually Used
6-20
-------
Remedy Selection
Experimental Design
0 Bench-Scale Tests Generally Are
Used for Remedy Selection
« Pilot-Scale Tests Are Used to:
m Investigate Foaming Problems at
Bench-Scale
m Gain Community Acceptance
m Better Define Costs
Remedy Selection Experimental Design
Considerations

m Solvent:Feed Ratios
0 Extraction Mixing: Duration,
Intensity, and Number of Cycles
« pH, Temperature, and Pressure
^ Utility of Pre- and Post-Treatments
B
Remedy Selection Experimental Design
Benchmarks

0 Typical SolventrFeed Ratios
Range from 2:1 to 5:1
® Typical Extraction Mixing Lasts
from 10 to 30 Minutes
6-21
-------
Equipment and Materials
for Remedy Screening

1. Standard Laboratory Extraction
Equipment (e.g., Soxhlet, Separatory
Funnel, etc.).
OR
Specialized Solvent Extraction Equipment
(e.g., High-Pressure Systems for Critical
Fluids)
2. Top Loading Balance
3. Timer
Equipment and Materials
for Remedy Screening

4. Sample Jars
5. Filter or Centrifuge
6. Magnetic Stirrer
7. Jar Mills
B
II
Equipment and Materials for
Remedy Selection and Design

• Remedy Selection and Remedy Design
Tiers Require Equipment and Materials
Similar to Remedy Screening, Except at
Different Scales.
if Remedy Selection Generally Uses
Bench-Scale
H Remedy Design Uses Vendor-Specific
Pilot-Scale
6-22
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
i> SAP = Field Sampling Plan (FSP)
+ Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPjP)
• Goal Is to Collect Representative Samples
• SAPs Are Site-Specific and Include:
M Field Sampling
m Waste Characterization
» Treated Wastes and Residuals
Reid Sampling Plan (FSP)

Contains:
« Number, Type, and Location of Samples
& Sample Numbering System
® Sample Collection Equipment and Procedures
* Chain of Custody Procedures
& Packaging, Labeling, and Shipping
Procedures
B
Field Sampling Plan Questions

® Are Composite Samples Necessary?
«• Are Representative Sample Sites Identified?
® Are Soils Heterogeneous or Homogeneous?
» Are Contaminants in Sediments, Sludges or
Water?
® Are Worst-Case Samples Included?
6-23
-------
Quality Assurance
Project Plan Elements

* Experimental Description
6 Quality Assurance Objectives
0 Sampling Procedures
Quality Assurance
Project Plan Elements
$ Analytical Procedures
and Calibration
* Data Reduction, Validation,
and Reporting
• Quality-Control Reports
B
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Remedy Screening
At This Tier, Contaminant Concentrations
In the Solids or Water Fractions Are
Measured Before and After Treatment
» 50% to 70% Reduction Warrants Remedy
Selection Tests
• Based on Duplicate Samples
6-24
-------
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Remedy Selection
In Addition to Chemical Analyses, Many
Process Variables Are Addressed in this Tier:
® Solvent:Solids Ratio
® Number of Extraction Stages and Solvent
Sequences
& Type of Mechanical Agitation
* Extraction Temperature and Pressure
® System pH
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Full-Scale Considerations

1. Solvent Extraction Performance,
Including Design Parameters
2. Residual Contamination in Solids,
Used Solvent, and Soil Fines
3. Contaminant Concentrations in the
End Product
B
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Full-Scale Considerations
4. Risk Assessment for Worker and
Community Hazards
5. Quantity of Oversized Materials
6. Quantity of Contaminated Water from
Dewatering and Distillation Processes
6-25
-------
IBES1
Example of Pass-By-Pass PCB Concentration Plot
MEAN
re»
\
\
\
\
i
i
EXTRACTION PASS NO.
Data Analyses and Interpretation
Design Considerations

1. Material Throughput Volumes
2. Solvent Usage Per Ton Processed
3. Physical and Chemical Properties of
Each Fraction to Design Management
Systems
B
Example Organizational Chart
CONTRACT WORK
ASSIGNMENT MANAGER
•Riport to EPA ftemtdial Project Manager
•84iporvl»oOvonll Project
J_
U» TECHNICIANS
* CxKiitt
Stuilt*
*n»lr»l»
CHEMICAL EH9INEER
» Cv*rM*Tn>nbil!iy
Study Eocutfon
9 Cvtno* Sampto
CotKcHon
* Pnpara ApplleAbta
SKtkxii of ffeport md
WoricPlin
6-26
-------
Example Project Schedule for a Solvent
Extraction Treatabllity Study Program
DlURevtow
Plan Prep
Remedy Screening
laboratory Toit(i)
Remedy Selection Ten
Bench-Scale Teiu
Pllot-ScilaTnt
Rnil Report
Major Cost Elements for
Remedy Selection SE Studies
Cent Element
Cost Range
(Thousands of Dollars)
Initial Data Review 1-10
Work Plan Preparation 1-5
Field Sample Collection 1-10
Field Sample ChemlCal Analysis 4-25
Laboratory Setup/Materials/Testing 4. 25
Treatabllity Test Chemical Analysis 4-20
Data Presentation/Report/Remediation Cost Estimate 5 - 25
TOTAL COST RANGE
20-120
B
Major Cost Element Components
Pilot Scale
Analytical
Excavation
Material Handling and Transport
Pretreatment
Treatment Cost and Throughput
Residuals Management
6-27
-------
REFERENCES FOR SOLVENT EXTRACTION
1. Alderton, W.B. et al. 1990. Butane Stripping as an Effluent Treatment Technique.
Proceedings: Seventh Technical Seminar on Chemical Spills, Edmonton, Alberta, June.

2. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and
Mineralogjcal Methods. Second Ed.

3. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1987. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
November.

4. ART International Incorporated Marketing Information. 1990. LEEF1", METLEX,
METALEEP: New Technologies to Decontaminate Sediments and Soils. August.

5. Bevington, P.R. 1969. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 336 pp.

6. Blank, Z. and W. Steiner. 1990. Low Energy Extraction Process-LEEP8"1- A New Technology
to Decontaminate Soils, Sediments, and Sludges. Presented at Haztech International 90,
Houston Waste Conference, Houston, Texas, May.

7. Castellan, G.W. 1983. Physical Chemistry; Third Ed. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
Reading, Massachusetts, 943 pp.

8. GET Environmental Services, Sanivan Group. 1991. The Decontaksolv"11 System, General
Presentation. September.

9. Francis, A. W. 1963. liquid-Liquid Equilibriums. Interscience Publishers, New York, New
York, pp. 249

10. Irvin, T. R. et al. 1987. Supercritical Extraction of Contaminants from Water and Soil With
Toxicological Validation. Proceedings: Second International Conference on New Frontiers
for Hazardous Waste Management. EPA/600/9-87/018F, August.

11. Kleinbaum, D.G. and L;L, Kupper. 1978. Applied Regression Analysis and Other
Multivariable Methods* £)uxbury Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts, 556 pp.

12. Lentner, M. and T. Bishop. 1986. Experimental Design and Analysis. Valley Book Company,
Blacksburg, Virginia, 565 pp.

13. Massey, M. and S. Darian. 1989. ENSR Process for the Extractive Decontamirnation of Soils
and Sludges. Presented at the PCB Forum, International Conference for the Remediation
of PCB Contamination, Houston, Texas, August.

14. Moses, J. and R. Abrishamian. 1988. Use of Liquefied Gas Solvent Extraction in Hazardous
Waste Site Closures. Prepared for Presentation at AICHE 1988, Summer National Meeting,
Denver, Colorado, August.
6-28
-------
15.

16.

17.,

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.
Paquin, J. and D. Mourato. N.D. Soil Decontamination with Extraksol'"1. Sanivan Group
Canada, 3547 pp. r'

Ph0nix Milj0 Cleans Contaminated Soil On-Site: In Mobile Extraction Plant. N.D. Ph0nix
Milj0 Marketing Information.

Punt, M. et al. 1991. Solvent Extraction and Recovery of Petroleum Hydrocarbons from
Soil. Proceedings: 1st Annual Ground-water and Soil Remediation, RD & D Symposium-
Ottawa, Ontario, January. '

Reilly, T.R. et al. 1985. Cleanup of PCB—Contaminated Soils and Sludges by a Solvent
Extraction. Process: A Case Study. Thesis submitted to Department of Chemical
Engineering, Princeton University, May.

Saunders, M. B. 1985. Pilot Plant Studies for Solvent Extraction of Polychlorinated Biphenyl
(PCB) From Soil. Proceedings: 1985 EPRI PCB Seminar, March 1986. Seattle, Washington
October.

Terra-Kleen Corporation. 1991. Research and Development Test of the Terra-Kleen Soil
Restoration Unit: Physical Separation of PCB from Soil (PCB Destruction). Submitted to
United State Environmental Protection Agency Office of Toxic Substances, July.

Terra-Kleen Corporation. 1991. Solvent Compatibility Test and Preliminary Treatability
Study on Electrical Insulating Oil Spilled in Soil, July.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1984. National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) Manual of Analytical Methods, Third Ed., Vol. 1A. February.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. Innovative Treatment Technologies-
Semi-Annual Status Report. EPA/540/2-91/001, January.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. Preparation Aids for the Development of
Category III Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA/600/8-91/005, February 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991c. SITE Fact Sheet: Proposed Demonstration
of the Sanivan Group Extraksol Solvent Extraction Technology Pinette's Salvage Yard
Superfund Site, Washburn, Maine, March.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. CF Systems Organics Extraction Process;
New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts, Applications Analysis Report. EPA/540/A5-90/002
August. '

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. Engineering Bulletin—Solvent Extraction
Treatment. EPA/540/2-90/013, September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA, Interim Final. EPA/540/2-89/058, December.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Innovative Technology: B.E.S.T"1 Solvent
Extraction Process. OSWER Directive 9200.5-253FS, November.
6-29
-------
30 US Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of
Cleanup Standards, Volume 1: Soils and Solid Media. EPA/230/2-89/042, February.

31 US Environmental Protection Agency. 1989d. Statistical Analysis of Ground-water
Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Interim Final. EPA/530/SW-89/026, April.

32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989e. Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An
Overview. OSWER Directive 9380.3-02FS, December.

33 US Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. EPA/540/G-89/004, October.

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment
of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-28/004, September.

35 US. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities. EPA/540/G-87/004, OSWER Directive 9355.0-7B, March.

36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
Third Ed., Vol. 1A: Laboratory Manual Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, December.
f
37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's
Guide. EPA/600/484/043, May.

38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA/600/4-79/020, March.

39. Weimer, L. 1989f. The B.E.S.T.'"1 Solvent Extraction Process Applications with Hazardous
Sludges,' Soils, and Sediments. Presented at Third International Conference, New Frontiers
for Hazardous Waste Management, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September.
6-30
-------
THERMAL DESORPTION
-------
-------
GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING
TREATABILITY STUDIES
UNDER CERCLA:
THERMAL DESORPT8ON
Interim Guidance
Presentation Outline
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Description of Thermal Desorption
3.0 Preliminary Screening and Technological Limitations
4.0 The Use of Treat ability Studies In Remedy Evaluation
5.0 Test Goals and Experimental Design
6.0 Sampling and Analysis
7.0 Data Interpretation
8.0 Management and Budget
9.0 Summary and References
B
Thermal Desorption Process
«8> Thermal Desorption (TD) Is an Ex Situ Process
Involving Excavation and Processing of Waste
Materials
* TD Is a Physical Separation Process,
Not a Decomposition Process
* TD Uses Direct or Indirect Heat to Vaporize
Primarily Organic Contaminants from Soil,
Sludge, or Sediments
7-1
-------
Schematic Diagram of
Thermal Desorption
Oversized
Rejects
Advantages of Thermal
Pesorptlon
* Separates Contaminant from Medium Into an
OHgas-Stream for Subsequent Condensation
B
or Treatment
Reduces Waste Volume Requiring Treatment
Successful Organic Contamination
Removal Considerations

0 Contaminant Vapor Pressure
* Soil Characteristics
• Moisture Content
* Contaminant Thermal Properties
* Contaminant Concentrations
7-2
-------
Excavation and Pretreatment

* Excavation Is Usually Done with Back
Hoes and Belt Conveyors
<9 Pretreatment, Such as Screening,
Creates a More Homogenous Material
m Screened Objects Are Either Processed to
Enable Thermal Desorption Processing or
Are Addressed with a Different Remedial
Technology
Thermal Desorption Process
Transfer Media

» Transfer Media Containing Vaporized
Contaminants Removed byTD Include:
Is Air
M Combustion Gas
m Inert Gas
B
Offgas issues
® Thermal Desorption Process Creates
Contaminant Vapors, Water Vapor,
and Dust
» Real Time Air Monitoring Is Generally
Used to Manage Air Impacts
7-3
-------
Fugitive Air Emissions
Management Considerations
* Weather (e.g., High Winds)
• Aerodynamics (e.g., Wind Screens)
41 Extent of Active Excavation Surface Area
* Control Agents (e.g., Foams, Water,
Chemicals, or Covers)
* Site Enclosure Usage for Very Sensitive
Sites (e.g., Sites Near Population Centers)
Offgas Vapor/Liquid
Treatments

0 Carbon Adsorption
ft Catalytic or Thermal Oxidation
0 Condensation
4) Chemical Neutralization
B
Thermal Desorption Has Been Selected
for 14 Superfund Sites in 8 States
7-4
-------
Posttreatment
Since Thermal Desorption Can
Alter Physical Characteristics of
the Waste Material, a Thorough
Geotechnical Evaluation Should
Precede Back-Filling Material
into the Site
Four Types of Thermal Desorption
Units and Their Processing Capacities

Processing
Capacities (TPH)

Rotary Dryers 5-55
Thermal Screws 3-13
Vapor Extracto rs 10 - 73
Distillation Chambers 1-17
B
Rotary Dryers
This Unit Consists of Horizontal
Cylinders, with Direct or Indirect Heat,
That Move the Waste Either with an
Incline or Rotation
®> Direct Heat Method Blows Hot
Gas Over Waste Medium
<$ Indirect Heat Method Blows Hot
Gas Over the Rotary Drum Walls
7-5
-------
Waste Residency Time in
Rotary Dryers Depends on:

$ Incline Angle
• Rotation Speed
0 Turning Vane Pattern
Thermal Screw
This Unit Consists of Screw Conveyors or
Hollow Augers with Hot Oil or Steam
Circulated Through the Unit
* Unit Walls Are Also Heated
* Nitrogen or Combustion Gases Used
to Vent the Unit
B
Thermal Screw Temperature
Limitation Factors

* Heat Transfer Qualities of the
Hot Oil
* Soil Characteristics
* Speed Material Is Conveyed
Through the Unit
7-6
-------
Thermal Screw Advantages

II Simplicity of Operation
and Temperature Control
0 Reduction in Fines, or
Dust Generation
Vapor Extractor
This Unit Takes Classified Materials and
Injects Hot Gases (1,000° -1,500°F) to
Vaporize Contaminants and Fluidize the
Medium
* Blades or Rollers Are Used to
Enhance This Continuous Process
* Exit Gas Temperatures Range
Around 320°F
B
Distillation Chamber

This Unit Transports Contaminated Material
Through a Series of 3 to 5 Chambers with
Increasing Temperatures
* The Distinct Temperature in Each Chamber
Permits Segregation of Contaminants
@ Vapors Are Flushed Through the System with
Nitrogen
M The Oxygen-Free Distillation Is
Effectively Pyrolysis
7-7
-------
Preliminary Screening

9 Site-Specific Factors
0 Literature Search
* Expert Judgment
' Effectiveness of Thermal Desorption
on General Contaminant Groups
Cantamlruuit Croup*
Soil
Effectiveness
RHw
S)udg« Sodlmonts Cakes
B
Hatogenated Semlvolatlte*
Nonhatogenattd Volatile*
Nonha!6c«nated Semlvolatlles
PCBs
DkMdde&funint
VoUrtll* Mrtate
Effectiveness of Thermal Desorption
on General Contaminant Groups
Conttmlnsnt Group*
_ Orc«nloCyanltt»«
Orginlc Comxlv««
NonvcUtlto DM*!*
Aibmto*
Inorganic Cofroilvo*
kvorganlo CynntdM
Oxidlzcn
R»duc*r»
Soil
Effectiveness
Filter
Sludga Sediments Cakes
7-8
-------
Thermal Desorption Is
Effective in Separating:

H Refinery Wastes
m Coal-Tar Wastes
^ Wood-Treating Wastes
^ Creosote-Contaminated Soils
Thermal Desorption Is
Effective in Separating:
m Pesticide-Contaminated Soils
€* Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous
Wastes
^ Synthetic Rubber Processing
Wastes
@ Paint Wastes
B
Thermal Desorption May Be
Appropriate for Only Part of the Site

*t Profile the Different Contaminated
Soils
* Profile Site "Hot Spots"
0 Assess Need to Homogenize
Contaminated Material to Improve
Thermal Desorption Efficiency
7-9
-------
Prescreening Sampling
Considerations
* Surface Grab Samples May Miss Significant
Variation In Subsurface Composition, Including:
« Contaminants Levels
H Soil Classifications
ft Total Organic Carbon
* Location and Concentration of VOCs and
SVOCs Are Particularly Important
* Larger Sol) Fractions Should Be Mapped for
Possible Removal and Pretreatment
Prescreening Contaminant
Assessment Factors
• Chemical Properties
• Physical Properties
• Concentrations
• Volatilities
* Densities
B
Kay Prescr«*ning Characteristics for
Thermal Desorptlon Treatablllty Testing
Remedy Screening
DESCRIPTION
PARAMETER OF TEST
PURPOSE AND
COMMENTS
ORGANICS
METALS
Varied
ICP Atomic
Absorption
Spectroscopy
To Deltrmlna
Concentration of Target
or Interfering
Constituents,
Pretreatnwnt Needs,
and Extraction Medium
To Determine the
Potential Emission* of
Volatile Motate and
Inorganic Alkali
7-10
-------
Key Prescreenlng Characteristics For
Thermal Desorption Treatabllity Testing
Remedy Selection/Chemical
PARAMETER
DESCRIPTION OF
TEST
PURPOSE AND
COMMENTS
TOTAL ORGANIC
CARBON (TOC)
or
TOTAL
RECOVERABLE
PETROLEUM
HYDROCARBON
or
OIL* GREASE
Com burton
Infrarad
Extraction for
Sludge Samples

Extraetlan
• To Determine the Presence of
Organic Mutttr mid/or Adsorption
CharactarlsUcsofSoll
To Determine LeaehabllKy of Organic
and Inorganic Compound* In
Liquid/Solid Rmlduils
Key Prescreenlng Characteristics For
Thermal Desorptlon Treatability Testing
Remedy Selection/Physical
PARAMETER
DESCRIPTION OF
TEST
GRAIN SIZE
ANALYSIS/
PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION

MOISTURE
CONTENT

BULK DENSITY
pH
Stow Screening Using a
Variety of Scram Sizes
Drying ovan at 110*C
In Situ
Nuclear Method

Drive Cylinder Method
Sand Cone Method
Nuclear Method
Hydraulic Cement
Stabilized Waste

SollpH
PURPOSE AND
COMMENTS
B
To Determine Volume
Reduction Potential
Pretreatment Needs

To Determine Pretreatment
Needs and Medium
Processing Rate
To Estimate Total Mass of
Soil to Be Treated
Thermal Desorptlon
General Applicability

0 Soils, Sludges, and Sediments
« VOCs, SVOCs, and Other
Organics with High Boiling Points
* Generally Not Effective for
Inorganics
7-11
-------
Technical Factors Affecting
Thermal Desorption Performance
* Maximum Bed Temperature
* Total Residence Time
* Organic and Moisture Content
* Contaminant Characteristics
* Waste Medium Properties
General Expense Factors
for Thermal Desorption
i» Waste Materials with High
Organic Contamination Levels
«> Waste Materials with High
Moisture Levels
«»Very High or Low pH Levels
B
Thermal Desorption
Solids
41 Typical Thermal Desorption Systems Process
Materials with 80% Solids
* Poor Thermal Desorption May Occur with Soils
that:
» Ar« Tightly Aggregated
X Are Largely Clay
» Contain Rocks or Fragments >38 mm
• Too Many Fines from Processed or Unprocessed
Contaminated Material Can Stress Dust Control
Systems
7-12
-------
Evaluation of Thermal Desorption

Against RI/FS Criteria

» What are Pre- and Posttreatment Contaminant
Concentrations, Physical Features, and
Chemical Characteristics?
® Will Residual Contamination Meet ARARs and
Risk-Based Cleanup Levels?
® Will Treatment Create New Contaminants?
<9 What Are the Construction and Implementation
Impacts?
RI/FS Implementation Issues

» Will Ambient Releases of Volatile Contaminants
That Occur During Excavation and
Classification Require Controls?
* Is There a Need for a Blending Program to
Ensure Waste Hot Spots Can Be
Accommodated by the Thermal Desorption
System?
* Is the Water Content of the Waste/Sludge Too
High or Highly Variable?
B
RI/FS Implementation Issues

& Has the Degree of Particulate Entrainment Been
Determined, and Will the Particulate Need to Be
Recycled?
® Have the Volumes and Characteristics of
Residuals Been Approximated, and Are
Residuals Treatment and Disposal Options
Established?
7-13
-------
RI/FS Implementation issues

* What Are the Residual Risks after
Ail Remedial Action?
* Are Long-Term Controls Adequate
and Reliable?
RI/FS Cost Factors
* Ultimate Cleanup Achievable
• Volume and Characteristics of Residuals for
Treatment or Disposal
* Degree to Which Medium Pretreatment or
Process Modifications Can Enhance Thermal
Desorptlon Efficiency
* Amount of Energy Required to Heat the
Medium and Associated Fuel Costs
B
Remedy Screening Tier

41 Determines Thermal Desorption General
Applicability for All or Part of the Site
• Identifies Operating Parameters for
Investigations in Later Tiers
• Can Skip This Tier if There Are Sufficient
Existing Data
* Cost Range: $8,000 - $30,000
7-14
-------
Remedy Selection Tier

* Establishes Whether Thermal
Desorption Can Meet Site Cleanup
Goals
m Including Optimal Operating
Conditions
• Cost Range: $10,000-$100,000
Remedial Design/Remedial

Action Tier Data Generation

• Specify Equipment Type for Full-Scale
Unit
0 Determine Feasibility of Thermal
Desorption Based on Target Cleanup
Goals
* Refine Cleanup Time Estimates
« Refine Cost Predictions
B
Remedial Design/Remedial

Action Tier

<§> Possibly Unnecessary if Remedy
Selection Phase Used a Pilot-Scale
Unit for Tests
<$ Uses Vendor-Specific Equipment
H Either an Onsite Small Scale Unit or a
Mobile Unit
• Cost Range: $50,000 - $200,000
7-15
-------
JBP ' siSpif™ '™siii
Remedy Screening
Experimental Design

Several Possible Testing Systems,
Including:
• Static Tray

• Differential Bed Reactor (DBR)
Cutaway View of Static Tray
Test Oven with the Tray Insert
Interior otOvan
Chamber
Venlto
Control
Air
Device
Ovun Indicator
Thermocouple

Purge Gas
T«*t Thermocouple
Soil Thermocouple
B
Cutaway View of
Differential Bed Reactor (DBR)
Electric
Cylindrical
Fumao*
400 Mwh
SSSOTMfl*
Gu Heat Exchanger

Suction
Pyromoterfor
Gas Temperature

f~ Ceramic Block

yi Sampling Probe Port
for Gas Samples
T'
Exhaust
7-16
-------
Analytical Cost Reduction Selection
Guidance for Remedy Screening

^ 1 or 2 Low Volatility Contaminants
H1 or 2 That Are Most Toxic or Most
Prevalent
€ Representatives of Chemical Groups
» Composite or Hot-Spot Samples
* Polar Contaminants
Experimental Design
Remedy Selection Tier

Critical Factors Generated:
0 Time-at-Temperature
<® Residual Contamination Levels as a
Function of:
m Heat Input
m Bed-Mixing Characteristics
B
Remedy Selection Control
Variables

• Moisture Content of Medium
* Contaminant Concentration in Medium
% Particle Size of Medium
* Treatment Temperature or Minimum
Solids Temperature
i* Time-at-Temperature or Total
Residence Time
7-17
-------
Remedy Selection Control

Variables

* Medium Physical and Chemical
Characteristics
* Thermal Properties of, Contaminated
Medium
• Degree of Agitation (Solid/Gas Mixing)
* Purge Gas Flow, Composition, and
Temperature
Remedy Screening Equipment

» Muffle Furnace, Vapor Extractor, DBR, or
Similar Devices
* Exhaust Hood (for Control of Fugitive Dust
and Volatilized Compounds)
• Tray or Some Other Device to Hold
Contaminated Media
0 Thermocouples (to Record Medium and Gas
Temperature)
• Rotameter (to Regulate Purge Gas Flow Rate)
B
Remedy Selection Equipment

* Rotary Dryer
• Thermal Screw
* Vapor Extractor
• Distillation Chamber
* Associated Offgas Controls for Each
7-18
-------
Sampling and Analysis

Sampling Locations Should
Be Based On:
H Previous Sampling
*§> Obvious Odors
0 Residues
Required Analyses for
Remedy Selection Tier
Sample
Component
Parameter
Moisture/
Ash/Oil/Grease/
VOC/SVOC/pH Particle Size
B
Feed Stream
Treated Stream
Offgas/Condensate
Required
X = Not Required
Sampling Technique
Sources
•. EPA/OSW
ilASTM
m NIOSH
7-19
-------
Thermal Desorption
Residuals Requiring Analysis

• Treated Medium
* Condensate
* Particulate Control Dust
Thermal Desorption Residuals

* Residuals Should Be Analyzed for
Target and Created Contaminants
* Since Thermal Desorption Is
Vendor-Specific, and Encompasses a
Wide Range of Technplogies,
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Tests Are Often Necessary
B
Field Sampling Issues

* Are There Adequate Data to Determine
Sampling Locations Indicative of the More
Contaminated Areas of the Site?
* Have Soil Gas Surveys Been Conducted?
* Are the Soils Homogenous or Heterogenous?
* Are Contaminants Present in Sediments or
Sludges?
• Is Sampling of a "Worst-Case" Scenario
Warranted?
7-20
-------
Quality Assurance Project
Plan Elements

© Number of Samples (Areas) to Be Studied
® Identification of Treatment Conditions (Variables)
to Be Studied for Each Sample
& Target Compounds for Each Sample
® Number of Replicates Per Treatment Condition
* Criteria for Technology Retention or Rejection for
Each Type of Remedy Evaluation Test
Quality Control Report Elements

® Assessments of Data Quality in Terms of Precision,
Accuracy, Completeness, Method Detection Limits,
Representativeness, and Comparability
® Limitations or Constraints on the Applicability of the
Data
& Status of QA/QC Programs, Accomplishments, and
Corrective Actions
& Results of Technical Systems and Performance
Evaluation QC Audits
* Changes to the QA Project Plan
B
Remedy Screening
Key Results

i* Temperature
® Treatment Time
« Initial Contaminant Concentrations
« Treated Medium Contaminant
Concentrations
7-21
-------
Remedy Screening
Key Parameters
$ Soil Classification

• Moisture Content

* Solid/Gas Mixing
Remedy Selection

Performance Criteria

* Throughput Rate Expected for the Applicable
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Thermal
Desorptlon Device
• Material Handling System Design Requirements
(Pro- and Posttreatment)
* Air Pollution Control System Design
Requirements
* Need for Air Pollution Control Measures during
Excavation, Transport, and Feeding
B
Data Interpretation
* Remedy Screening:
Remedy Selection:
Remedial Design/
Remedial Action:
To Establish the General
Applicability of Thermal
Desorptlon to the Site

To Establish the Specific
Applicability of Thermal
Desorptlon to the Site

To Establish Support for
Post-ROD Evaluation Criteria
7-22
-------
Goals

® Address General Medium Pretreatment and
Materials Handling Requirements
» Estimate Performance and Cost Data of
Full-Scale Systems
0 Verify That Thermal Desorption Can Meet
Cleanup Levels at Normal Operating Conditions
0 Define Heat Input Requirements
® Address General Offgas Treatment and
Residuals Disposal Requirements
Remedy Selection Data

Requires Scaling Up
Using Either:
ii Past Experience
ft Computer Model
B
Example of a Scale-Up

Computer Model

^ GRI/NSF Thermal Treatment Model
m Developed by University of Utah
M Describes the Decontamination Process
for a Solid Medium in a Rotary Dryer
M Not Vendor Specific
m Used in the Remedy Selection and
RD/RA Tiers
7-23
-------
Example Project Schedule for a Solvent
Extraction Treatablltty Study Program

Organizational Chart

CONTRACTWORK Q
ASSIGNMENT MAN ACER «
*n»p«(tleCPAR«»f«cl

1
LAfl TECHNICIANS
*CZ*01M
TTMUbtllySutit**
«CracuM8tffipH
C«N*cl(oftivt4
Anitrtli

1
EN-^IRONUEHTAI/CHBIICA
ENQ1NEER
» OranoTlutiblUly Study
EiKuUon
* OVWIM Stmftl COIKCUWI
* Pnpin Appllcibn
3*toctlon* ol Roport and
W
-------
Cost Factors
Site Variability
Sites with Variable Conditions Are More
Expensive to Remediate with Thermal
Desorptlon Than Are Homogenous Sites.
The Most Influential Variables Are:
* Media
® Contaminant Type
^ Contaminant Concentrations
H Moisture
Remedy Selection Data
Needed to Estimate Full-Scale Costs

-------
REFERENCES FOR THERMAL DESORPTION
1. Abrishamian, R. 1990. Thermal Treatment of Refinery Sludges and Contaminated Soils.
Presented at American Petroleum Institute, Orlando, Florida.

2. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and
Mineralogjcal Properties Including Statistics of Measurement and Sampling.

3. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1987. Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
November.

4. Baker, G.E. 1991. Notes from the Review Meeting on the Thermal Desorption Treatability
Study Guide—Strawman. In-house files. Meeting conducted June 3-4. Cincinnati, Ohio.

5. Bevington, P.R. 1969. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 336 pp.

6. Canonic Environmental Services Corp. 1990. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration (LTTA)
Marketing Brochures, circa 1990.

7. Cudahy, J. and W. Troxler. 1990. 1990 Thermal Remediation Industry Contractor Survey.
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 40 (8):1178-1182, August.

8. Eddings, E.G. and J.S. Lightly. Fundamental Studies of Metal Behavior During Solids
Incineration. Unpublished. Submitted to Combustion Science and Technology.
V.'. 'S
9. Fox, R. et al. 1991. Thermal Treatment for the Removal of PCBs and Other Organics for
Soil. Environmental Progress, 10(1), February.

10. Hokanson, S. et al. 1990. Treatability Studies on Soil Contaminated with Heavy Metals,
Thiocyanates, Carbon Disulfate, Other Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Compounds. In:
Superfund '90 Proceedings of the llth National Conference. Sponsored by Hazardous
Materials Control Research Institute, Washington, D.C., November 26-28.

11. Ikeguchi, T. and S. Gotoh. 1988. Thermal Treatment of Contaminated Soil with Mercury.
Presented at Demonstration of Remedial Action Technologies for Contaminated Land and
Ground Water, NATO/CCMS, Second International Conference, Bilthoven, The
Netherlands.

12. Kleinbaum, D.G. and L.L. Kupper. 1978. Applied Regression Analysis and Other
Multivariable Methods. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts, 556 pp.

13. Law Environmental Onsite Engineering Report for Evaluation of the HT-5 High
Temperature Distillation System for Treatment of Contaminated Soils. 1990. Treatability
Test Results for a Simulated K051 API Separator Sludge, Vol 1: Executive Summary.

14. Lighty, J.S., G.D. Silcox, and D.W. Pershing. 1990. Investigation of Rate Processes in the
Thermal Treatment of Contaminated Soils. Final Report for the Gas Research Institute,
GRI-90/0112.
7-26
-------
15. Lighty, J.S. et al. 1988, On the Fundamentals .of Thermal Treatment for the Cleanup of
Contaminated Soils. Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Paper 88-17.5, Dallas, Texas, June 19-24.

16. Lighty, J.S. et al. Rate Limiting Processes in the Rotary-Kiln Incineration of Contaminated
Soils. Combustion Science and Technology, 74:31-39.

17. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Manual of Methods, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, February 1984.

18. Owens, W.D., G.D. Silcox, J.S. Lighty, X.X. Deng, D.W. Pershing, V.A. Cundy, C.B. Leger,
and A.L. Jakway. Thermal Analysis of Rotary Kiln Incineration: Comparison of Theory and
•Experiment. Combustion and Flame, 86:101-114.

19. Personal Communications with various EPA Regional Project Managers, April 1991.

20. Recycling Sciences International, Inc., DAVES Marketing Brochures, circa 1990.

21. Reintjes, R. and C. Schuler 1989. Seven Years Experience in Thermal Soil Treatment.
Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International, Atlanta, Georgia, June.

22. Swanstrom, C. and C.- Palmer. 1990. X*TRAXta Transportable Thermal Separator for
Organic Contaminated Solids. Presented at the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

23. T.D.I. Services, Marketing Brochures, circa 1990.

24. Troxler, W.L. et al. 1991. Guidance Document for the Application of Thermal Desorption
for Treating Petroleum-Contaminated Soils. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, October, (unpublished) .

25. U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991a. Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption
Treatment. EPA/540/2-91/008.

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. Preparation Aids for the Development of
Category III Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA/600/8-91/005, February.

27. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors.
EPA/540/290/003a.

28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. Selected Data on Innovative Treatment
Technologies: For Superfund Source Control and Groundwater Remediation, August.

29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA, Interim Final. EPA/540/2-89/058.

30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/004,
OSWER-9335.3-01. ,
7-27
-------
31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment
of CERCLA Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004.

32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988c. The Superfimd Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program Progress and Accomplishments Fiscal Year 1989, A Third Report to
Congress, EPA/540/2-88/004, Cincinnati, Ohio.

33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Data Quality Objectives .for Remedial
Response Activities. EPA/540/G-87/004, OSWER Directive 9355.0-7B.

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An
Overview. OSWER Directive 9380.3-02FS.

35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. 3rd
Ed., SW846.

36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's
Guide. EPA/600/484/043.

37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA/600/4-79/020.

38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. N.D. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of
Cleanup Standards, Volume 1: Soils and Solid Media. EPA/230/2-89/042.
!*U.S.COVERNMENTPR]hmNGOFFICE:1992 £<,e .003/1,1863
-------
-------
TJ
o>
n o
m
T3
i
o
o
CO
i
s
-• co
-05'
3- o>
< CO
V CO
CD
CO
0>
CO
O
O
>mc
co |.|r

•S 1 CL

| a
5t co
3
OB
-D W
m H
33 ^S
O ' "^

S ^
01 "O
2
a
-------