Installation Restoration and
Hazardous Waste Control Technologies 1992 Edition
Participating Agencies:
U.S. AIR FORCE
• Civil Engineering Support Agency
U.S. NAVY
• Civil Engineering Laboratory
• Energy and Environmental Support Activity
• Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
Division Detachment, Annapolis
• Command, Control, and Ocean Surveillance
Center
U.S.ARMY
• Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
• Waterways Experiment Station
• Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
•
•
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Published by
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Prepared by
The National Institute for Petroleum and
Energy Research
-------
INSTALLATION RESTORATION
AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
1992 Edition
Report Number CETHA-TS-CR-92053
Prepared for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
by
Michael P. Madden and William I. Johnson
IIT Research Institute
The National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research
P.O. Box 2128, Bartlesville, OK 74005
November 1992
-------
Cover Photographs: (1) sodium sulfide - ferrous sulfate pilot plant at
NAS Pensacola, FL and (2) windrow composting conducted at Umatilla
Army Depot Activity, Hermiston, OR.
Distribution limited to U.S. Government Agencies only. Other requests
for this document must be referred to: Commander, USATHAMA, Attn:
CETHA-TS-D, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401.
The use of trade names in this document does not constitute an official
endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. This
document may not be cited for purposes of advertisement.
-------
UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification of This Page
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
la. Report Security Classification
UNCLASSIFIED
2a. Security Classification Authority
2b. Declassification/Downgrading Schedule
4. Performing Organization Report Number(s)
6a. Name of Performing Organization 6b. Office
National Institute for Petroleum and Symbol
Energy Research
6c. Address (City, State, Zip Code)
P.O. Box 2128 (220 N.W. Virginia Avenue)
Bartlesville, OK 74005
8a. Name of Funding/Sponsoring 8b. Office
Organization Symbol
USATHAMA CETHA-TS-D
8c. Address (City, State, Zip Code)
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
Ib. Restrictive Markings
3. Distribution/ Availability of Report
U.S. Government Agencies Only - Other requests for
this document must be referred to USATHAMA,
CETHA-TS-D
5. Monitoring Organization Report Number(s)
CETHA-TS-CR-92053
7a. Name of Monitoring Organization
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency (USATHAMA)
7b. Address (City, State, Zip Code)
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
9. Procurement Instrument Identification Number
MIPR4291 (18 Jul 91), MIPR 1232 (3 Dec 91)
10. Source of Funding Numbers
11. Title
Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies - 1992 Edition
12. Personal Authors)
Michael P. Madden and William I. Johnson
13a. Type of Report 13b. Time Covered
Final FromJul91 ToNov92
14. Date of Report 15. Page Count
November 1992 388
16. Supplementary Notation
17. COSATI Codes 18. Subject Terms
Installation Restoration, Waste Minimization, Hazardous Waste Control,
Groundwater Treatment, Soil Treatment, Recovery or Reuse of Energetics,
Waste Management
19. Abstract
The purpose of this document is to provide a reference of pertinent and current treatment technologies to
public and private sector program managers dealing with installation restoration and hazardous waste control
technologies. This is an updated version of the handbook entitled Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste
Control Technologies - 1990 Edition, by M.P. Madden and W.I. Johnson, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TS-CR-
90067, August 1990.
Information contained in this handbook was obtained through personal interviews with Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Environmental Protection Agency personnel directly involved in research, development, and
implementation of new and effective methods to accomplish the following: restoration of contaminated soil,
groundwater, and structures; and minimization of the generation of hazardous waste materials.
Each technical note summarizes a specific technology in one of three categories: installation restoration,
hazardous waste control, and analytical methods and instrumentation development. The summaries include the
purpose for developing the technology; where the technology is applicable; a brief description of the technology;
advantages and limitations with respect to environmental impact, costs, and ease of operation; capital and
operating costs; availability of required equipment; current status of development; references including reports,
journal articles, and patents; photographs and drawings; and points of contact for additional information.
20. Distribution/Availability of Abstract
Same as Report
22a. Name of Responsible Official
Edward Engbert
21. Abstract Security Classification
UNCLASSIFIED
22b. Telephone
410-671-1564, 2054
Security Classification of This Page
UNCLASSIFIED
1U
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Description of Technical Notes 1
Technical Notes 9
Installation Restoration 11
Hazardous Waste Control Technologies 187
Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development 311
TABLES
1. Organizations That Supplied Information for the 1992 Edition of
Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies 2
2. Organization of the Technical Notes 3
3. List of Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies 4
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
VI
-------
INSTALLATION RESTORATION AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
1992 Edition
Introduction
Both the Department of Defense (DOD) and private industries face the increasingly difficult
and costly task of disposing of hazardous wastes. Alternatives to traditional waste disposal
methods, while eliminating the wastes or at least rendering them nontoxic, can be expensive.
Sites contaminated in the past by the use of methods formerly considered acceptable, such as
impoundments and lagoons, must now be restored properly in order to protect the public health.
The purpose of this document is to provide a reference of pertinent and current treatment
technologies to public and private sector program managers dealing with installation restoration
and hazardous waste control technologies. This is the third edition of this handbook. The second
edition was published in 1990 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency Report CETHA-TS-CR-90067, August 1990).
The information contained in this handbook was obtained through personal interviews with
Army, Navy, Air Force, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency personnel directly involved
in research, development, and implementation of new and effective methods to accomplish the
following: restoration of contaminated soil, groundwater, and structures; and minimization of
the generation of hazardous waste materials.
The organizations that supplied information for this updated edition are identified in table 1.
Acronyms in the table will be used throughout this report to identify the organizations from which
the information was obtained. This document represents a starting point in the review of
available waste treatment technologies and should not be regarded as a sole source of information.
It does not represent all treatment technologies nor all technology demonstrations performed by
these organizations.
Description of Technical Notes
Each technical note summarizes a specific technology. The summaries include the purpose of
developing the technology; in what cases the technology is applicable; a description of the
technology; advantages and limitations of the technology with respect to environmental impact,
costs, ease of operation, and byproducts relative to alternative technologies; capital and operating
costs associated with implementing the technology; availability of equipment required; the
current status of development; references including reports, journal articles, and patents;
photographs and drawings if available; and points of contact for additional technical
information. The technologies included in this report are organized according to the categories in
table 2.
The technologies listed in table 3 are included in this handbook. Although each technology is
associated with a specific category, many of the technologies have multiple applications within
each category. For example, although "In Situ Biodegradation" is listed as a method of restoring
groundwater, it is a method used to restore soils also.
-------
TABLE 1. Organizations That Supplied Information for the 1992 Edition of Installation
Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies.
AFCESA
USAWES
USATHAMA
USACERL
NCEL
NEESA
NAVSWC DET
NCCOSC
EPA/EMSL
EPA/RREL
U.S. Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency at Tyndall Air Force Base,
Panama City, FL
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg,
MS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency at the
Edgewood Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories in Champaign, IL
U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory in Port Hueneme, CA
U.S. Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity in Port Hueneme, CA
U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment,
Annapolis in Annapolis, MD
U.S. Naval Command, Control, and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E
Division in San Diego, CA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Systems Monitoring
Laboratory in Las Vegas, NV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory in Cincinnati, OH
-------
TABLE 2. Organization of Technical Notes
Category
Sub-Category
I. Installation Restoration
II. Hazardous Waste Control Technologies
III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation
Development
a. Groundwater treatment
b. Soil treatment
c. Structural treatment
a.
b.
f.
g.
h.
Recovery and reuse of energetics
Minimization or treatment of munition
production and/or handling waste streams
Minimization or treatment of metal
finishing wastes
Minimization or treatment of other liquid
wastes
Minimization or treatment of other solid
wastes
Minimization or treatment of gases
Management Strategies
Risk Assessment
-------
TABLE 3. List of Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies. The
asterisk indicates technologies that are established and ready for implementation.
Page
INSTALLATION RESTORATION
Groundwater Treatment
1 la Aboveground Biological Treatment of Trichloroelthylene-
Contaminated Groundwater 11
2 la Permeable Barriers - Impermeable to Contaminants 13
3 la Compatibility Testing of Soil Bentonite Slurry Walls With
Contaminated Groundwater and Leachates 15
4 la Solvent Extraction (CF Systems) 17
5 la Xanthate Treatment for Heavy Metals in Groundwater 19
6 la* Activated Carbon Adsorption 21
7 la* Air Stripping, Counter Current 23
8 la* Air Stripping, Rotary 25
9 la* Menu-Based Personal Computer Design Programs for Air Strippers 29
10 la* Biological Aqueous Treatment System 31
11 la* Dewatering/Recharge Well and Trench Rehabilitation at
Superfund Sites 33
12 la* French Drain 35
13 la* Advanced Oxidation Processes 37
14 la* Ultraviolet/Ozone/Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation 39
15 la* Ultraviolet Oxidation (ULTROX) 41
Groundwater and Soil Treatment
16 lab Electrokinetics (EK) 45
17 lab Microbial Consortia Development and Application 47
18 lab On-Site Bioremediation of Unleaded Gasoline Spills 49
19 lab Biological Treatment for Groundwater Remediation 51
20 lab In Situ Biotreatment of Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants 53
21 lab In Situ Biotreatment of Organics and Explosives 57
22 lab* Catalytic Oxidation Unit 61
23 lab* Solvent Extraction 63
24 lab* Groundwater and Soil Vapor Recovery System 67
25 lab* Integrated Vapor Extraction and Steam Vacuum Stripping 69
Soil Treatment
26 Ib White Rot Fungus 71
27 Ib Biodegradation of Lube Oil Contaminated Soils 73
28 Ib Composting of Explosives Contaminated Soils 75
29 Ib Composting of Propellants 70,
30 Ib Physical Separation of Organic Contaminated Soil gj
31 Ib Physical Separation for Explosives Contaminated Soils gg
32 Ib Physical Separation for Heavy Metals Contaminated Soils gg
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Page
33 Ib Extraction of Metals From Contaminated Soils 87
34 Ib Chemical Extraction of Explosives Compounds 89
35 Ib Soil Washing System 91
36 Ib Debris Washing System 93
37 Ib In Situ Bioventing 95
38 Ib Unsaturated Zone In Situ Bioreclamation 97
39 Ib Radio Frequency (RF) Thermal Soil Decontamination 101
40 Ib Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP) 103
41 Ib Slurry Bioreactor for Explosives Contaminated Soils 107
42 Ib Bioslurry Reactors for Treatment of Contaminated Soils 109
43 Ib Plasma Arc Technology for Thermal Destruction of
Hazardous Waste Ill
44 Ib* Low Temperature Thermal Desorption 115
45 Ib* Protocol for Evaluation of Solidification/Stabilization Processes 119
46 Ib* Stabilization/Solidification 121
47 Ib* Stabilization/Solidification (Chemfix) 123
48 Ib* Stabilization/Solidification (Deep Soil Mixing) 127
49 Ib* Stabilization/Solidification (IM-TECH) 131
50 Ib* Stabilization/Solidification (SOLIDITECH) 133
51 Ib* Biodecontamination of Fuel Oil Spills 137
52 Ib* Bioremediation in Cold Regions 139
53 Ib* Surface Pile Bioremediation of Fuel in Soil 141
54 Ib* Extraction of Oily Wastes 143
55 Ib* In Situ Soil Venting Guidance Manual 145
56 Ib* In Situ Soil Venting 147
57 Ib* In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction 151
58 Ib* In Situ Steam/Air Stripping 155
59 Ib* In Situ Vitrification 157
60 Ib* In Situ Carbon Regeneration 159
61 Ib* Incineration of Explosives Contaminated Soil 161
62 Ib* Infrared Thermal Destruction (SHIRCO) 163
63 Ib* Thermal Destruction (Pyretron) 167
64 Ib* Circulating Bed Combustor 169
Structural Treatment
65 Ic Biotechnical Slope Protection 171
66 Ic Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated Structures 173
67 Ic Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated Equipment 175
68 Ic Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated
Underground Piping 177
69 Ic Hot Gas Decontamination of Chemical-Agent-Contaminated Facilities... 179
70 Ic* Dredging and Dredged Material Management 181
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Page
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Recovery and Reuse of Energetics
71 Ha Use of Waste Explosives and Propellants as Supplemental Fuel in
Industrial Boilers 185
72 Ila Propellant Recovery and Reuse 189
Minimization or Treatment of Munition Production and/or
Handling Waste Streams
73 Hb Treatment of Ball Powder Production Wastewater 191
74 lib Upflow Anaerobic Granular Activated Carbon (GAG) Bioreactors 193
75 lib Wet Air Oxidation of TNT Redwater 195
76 lib Super Critical Water Oxidation 197
77 lib* Pink Water Treatment 199
Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
78 lie Non-cyanide Electroplating 20"
79 lie Non-cyanide Metal Stripper Replacement Program 203
80 lie Sodium Sulfide/Ferrous Sulfate Treatment Process for Metals
Recovery 205
81 He Spray-casting to Replace Electroplating 207
82 lie Membrane Microfiltration 209
83 He* Electrolytic Recovery of Metal/Cyanide Wastewater 213
84 lie* Hard Chrome Plating 217
85 He* Electrodialysis of Chromic Acid Plating Solution 219
86 He* Ion Vapor Deposition (IVD) Substitution of Aluminum for Cadmium 222
87 lie* Recycle Spent Abrasives in Asphaltic Concrete 99S
Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
88 lid Reclamation and Reprocessing of Spent Solvents 227
89 lid Biodegradable Solvents 229
90 lid Biodegradation of Phenolic Paint Strippers 231
91 lid Sodium Nitrite Wastewater Treatment 233
92 lid Citric Acid Wastewater Treatment 237
93 lid Hazardous Oily Bilge Water Waste Treatment 239
94 lid Recycling of Hydroblasting Wastewater 241
95 lid* Filtration of Paint Stripping Baths 245
96 lid* Conversion of Paint Booth Filtration from Wet to Dry 247
97 lid* Plastic Media Blasting 249
98 lid* Tactical vehicle maintenance 251
-------
TABLES, (continued)
Page
Minimization or Treatment of Other Solid Wastes
99 He Abrasive Grit Recycling 253
100 He Coatings Removal Using Ultra High Pressure Water With
Garnet Abrasive 257
101 He Cryogenic Removal and Sizing of Class 1.1 Solid Propellant 259
102 lie Biodegradation Using White Rot Fungus for PCP-Treated Wood 261
103 He Small Arms Range Management 263
104 He Disposal of Oxygen Breathing Apparatus Canisters 265
Minimization or Treatment of Gases
105 Ilf Low NOX Burner Retrofits 267
106 Ilf NOX Emission Control for Jet Engine Test Cells 269
107 Ilf Catalytic Decontamination of Air Streams 271
108 Ilf Treatment of Contaminated Off Gases 273
Management Strategies
109 Ilg Asbestos Survey and Assessment Prioritization System 275
110 Ilg Enhanced Landfill Cover 277
111 Ilg In Situ Capping of Contaminated Soil 279
112 Ilg* Asbestos Management Program Videotapes 281
113 Ilg* Hazardous Waste Minimization Surveys 283
114 Ilg* Hazardous Waste Minimization Assessment 285
115 Ilg* Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMID) 287
116 Ilg* Hazardous Waste Management Information System (HWMIS) 289
117 Ilg* Hazardous Material & Hazardous Waste Bar Code Tracking System 291
118 Ilg* Economic Analysis Model for Hazardous Waste Minimization
Capital Investment 293
119 Ilg* Life-cycle Cost Analysis for Solvent Management Options 295
120 Ilg* Storage Tank Management System 297
Risk Assessment
121 Ilh Ecological Risk Assessment Methodology 299
122 Ilh Environmental Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sediments 303
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND
INSTRUMENTATION DEVELOPMENT
123 III Field Preparation Techniques 305
124 III Analytical Methods to Monitor Remediation 307
125 III Glow Discharge Mass Spectrometry (GDMS) 309
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Page
126 III Leach Testing of Hazardous Waste 311
127 III Laboratory and Field Bioindicator Systems 313
128 III Benthic Flux Sampling Device 317
129 in Fiber Optic Sensors 319
130 III High Resolution Fourier Transform (FT IR) for Environmental
Monitoring 321
131 III Detection of Explosives and Related Compounds by Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy 323
132 III Transportable Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) 325
133 III Volatile Organic Compound Monitor 327
134 III Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS) 329
135 III TerraTrog 331
136 III Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Detector for Cone Penetrometer System 335
137 III Environmental Geophysics - Site Characterization 337
138 III Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer Interfaced to an Automated
Positioning System for In Situ Determination of Hazardous Metallic
Compounds 339
139 III Portable Synchronous UV-Vis Spectrofluorometer with Fiber-optic
Probe for In Situ Detection of Hazardous Organic Compounds 341
140 III UV-Vis Luminescence Spectrometry for In Situ Field Screening and
Monitoring of Hazardous Waste Sites 343
141 III Portable Electromagnetic Sensor for Detection of Underground Storage
Tanks 345
142 III Soil Gas Sampling for Detection of Subsurface Organic
Contamination 347
143 III Groundwater Model Assessment 349
144 III Acoustic Surveying in Toxic Water 351
145 III Chronic Sublethal Sediment Bioassays 353
146 III Contaminant Dispersion Model 355
147 III* Quality Assurance (QA) Program 357
148 III* Standard Analytical Reference Materials (SARMS) 359
149 III* Analytical Method for Aromatic Compounds and Biodegradation
Byproducts 361
150 III* Determination of Explosives in Environmental Samples 363
151 III* Field Portable Instrumentation - X-Ray Fluorescence 365
152 III* Exterior Leak Detection for Underground Storage Tanks 367
153 III* Portable Asbestos Microscope 371
154 III* Geostatistical Environmental Assessment Software 373
155 III* Geophysics Advisor Expert System 375
156 III* Geophysical Techniques 377
157 III* X-Ray Fluorescence Field Method for Screening Inorganic
Contaminants at Hazardous Waste sites 387
-------
TECHNICAL NOTES
-------
This page intentionally left blank
10
-------
1. ABOVEGROUND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF
TRICHLOROETHYLENE-CONTAMINATEDGROUNDWATER
Category: I.a. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose: To destroy trichloroethylene (TCE) in groundwater using aerobic biodegradation.
Application: The technology is applicable to the removal of short chain (Ci and Cz) chlorinated
aliphatic hydrocarbons from water. It can be used as an above-ground - pump and
treat - method of treating contaminated groundwater. Other applications can
include in situ decontamination or the removal of similar compounds from any water
stream.
Description: Methane and aromatic-compound degrading bacteria co-metabolize short-chain,
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. An enzyme, a non-specific oxygenase that
metabolizes methane or aromatics, attacks TCE. However, the bacteria cannot use
TCE as food but must have methane as a carbon source. The reaction can take place
in a bioreactor or in situ. A mixture of oxygen and methane or aromatics is passed
through the reactor or reaction zone to sustain the microbial population. The
contaminated water is allowed to percolate down through the bed. The packing
material used can be soil, but care must be taken to avoid plugging. Approximately
80% destruction of TCE has been achieved. Complete biodegradation may be
achieved with lengthening of the reactor columns. No hazardous intermediate
compounds are created with this process. Flow rate for contaminated water in the
process is 2 to 3 L/min with a retention time of 20 to 50 minutes in the reactor,
depending upon the packing material used.
Advantages: This method eliminates, rather than disposes of, toxic compounds. The chlorinated
compounds are converted to organic chlorides, water, and carbon dioxide. Indigenous
bacteria are utilized for the degradation.
Limitations: With the present reactors only 80% degradation is achieved; however, work by others
shows promise of improved reactor performance.
Cost: Based on research to date, cost estimates will be reported in the final technical report
(ESL-TR-90-03) to be published in late FY92. This is a developing technology,
therefore all cost information will be refined with application experience.
Availability: A follow-on field study is being conducted with the DOE Oak Ridge National
Laboratory to compare the effectiveness of the methanotrophic system to a
pseudomonas-b&sed system which co-metabolizes TCE in the presence of some
aromatic compounds. This comparative field study began during the fall of 1991 and
will continue through 1992. Commercial applications equipment is available if key
technical issues can be resolved.
Status: Field pilot testing was conducted at Tinker AFB, OK during FY 89. WES is currently
developing an aerobic bioreactor that can be used for treating TCE-contaminated
groundwaters using aromatic or aliphatic compound based degradation pathways.
WES is currently developing a bioslurry system for treating chlorinated solvents.
This system will include a process gas recirculation system that will allow volatile co-
metabolites and target contaminants to remain within the system.
11
-------
References: Palumbo, A.V., P.A. Boerman, G.W. Strandberg, T.L. Donaldson, S.E. Herkes, and W.
Eng, Effects of Diverse Organic Contaminants on Trichloroethylene
Degradation by Methanotrophic Bacteria and Methane-Wiling Consortia,
Proceedings, In Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation: An International Symposium, San
Diego, CA, March 19-21,1991.
Allen, B.R., K.R. Anderson, and R.A. Ashworth. Use of Methanotrophs in an
Above-Ground Reactor to Treat Groundwater Contaminated With
Trichloroethylene. Presented at the Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic
Chemicals in Groundwater Conference, Houston, TX, Nov 9-11,1988.
Fliermans, C.B., et al. Mineralization of Trichloroethylene by Heterotrophic
Enrichment Cultures. Appl. & Env. Microbiology, 54:1709-1714,1988
Little, C.D. Trichloroethylene Biodegradation by a Methane-Oxidizing
Bacterium. Appl. & Env. Microbiology, 54:951-956,1988.
Wilson, J.T. and B.H. Wilson. Biotransformation of Trichloroethylene in Soil.
Appl & Env. Microbiology, 49(l):242-3,1985.
Wilson, B.H. and M.V. White. A Fixed-Film Bioreactor to Treat
Trichloroethylene-Laden Waters From Interdiction Wells. Presented at the
6th National Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water
Monitoring, Ohio State University, May 1986.
Contact: Capt. Catherine M. Vogel
HQAFCESA/RDVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-4628/2942
Mark E. Zappi or Douglas Gunnison
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-2856
12
-------
PERMEABLE BARRIERS - IMPERMEABLE TO CONTAMINANTS
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment.
Purpose: The removal of contaminants from shallow aquifers.
Application: This technology is applicable to benzene, methytertiarybutylether (MTBE), gasoline
spills, heavy metals (in laboratory experiments), and benzene/ toluene/xylene (BTX)
spills in soils that have contaminated shallow groundwater, i.e., depths < 50 ft.
Description: This technology is applicable only through excavation and fill. A trench
perpendicular to the flow of water is excavated across the shallow aquifer to the
lower confining bed. A barrier that is designed specifically for the particular
contaminant in the groundwater is placed in the trench as fill, e.g., activated carbon,
sand/clay mixture, etc. Contaminants are filtered out of the groundwater without
pump and treat because the barrier is permeable to water, allowing flow, and
impermeable to the contaminant. The contaminant is absorbed by the impermeable
barrier concentrating the contaminant. Life of the impermeable barrier is dependent
upon the concentration of the contaminant. The impermeable barrier is disposed of
when it has absorbed all of the contaminant possible.
Advantages: This technology eliminates pump and treat technology for decontamination of an
aquifer. This is a low maintenance system that is user friendly because an on site
operator for the process is not needed. In situ bioremediation can be utilized in
association with the filter media for destruction of contaminants.
Limitations: The process is intrusive, penetrating an aquifer to the lower confining bed. Since this
is a intrusive process, the aquifer and contaminants may contaminate lower
Cost:
confining beds while excavating the trench through the aquifer.
Not available, site specific.
Availability: Not commercially available.
Status: Laboratory testing phase occurred at CERL from 1989 to present. Full-scale
implementation occurred in Albuquerque, NM 1989 - 1992.
References: Not available.
Contact: Richard Scholze or Erica May
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-3491, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
13
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
14
-------
3. COMPATIBILITY TESTING OF SOIL BENTONITE SLURRY WALLS
WITH CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATERS AND LEACHATES
Category: I.a. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose: To test the efficiency of bentonite slurry walls as a barrier to the flow and spread of
contaminants in groundwater.
Application: Compatibility testing is desirable when chemical barrier installation is planned as a
chemical-control measure to prevent contaminants from spreading through
groundwater transport and/or leachate generation.
Description: The interactions of solutes found in leachates and contaminated groundwaters from
uncontrolled landfills with components of a soil-bentonite (SB) slurry wall are
capable of causing swelling or shrinking of the SB material which alters the
hydraulic conductivity of the slurry wall. To determine properly the possible effects
that chemical constituents may have on the hydraulic conductivity of SB materials,
compatibility testing is performed on the SB materials using site groundwater
samples as permeants in permeameters. Triaxial and rigid wall permeameters have
been used in compatibility testing. Elevated hydraulic gradients (< 50 psi) are used
to complete testing within a reasonable amount of time. Typically, 1 pore volume of
uncontaminated water is pumped through the permeameters before contaminated
water is used as a permeant. Then at least 2 pore volumes of contaminated permeant
are pumped before testing is considered complete.
Advantages: Proper evaluation of groundwater/barrier compatibility could ensure proper
contaminant containment on site and possibly improve design of a full-scale
containment wall.
Limitations: None known.
Cost: Cost will vary with test conditions and sponsor requirements.
Status: WES has evaluated the compatibility of contaminated groundwater with SB slurry
walls and contaminants in Basin F liquid at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA),
Denver, CO. WES is presently evaluating the compatibility of contaminated
groundwater from the Ninth Avenue Dump Superfund Site with two SB slurry wall
backfill mixtures.
References: Zappi, M.E., R.A Shafer, and D.D. Adrian, Compatibility of Ninth Avenue
Superfund Site Ground Water With Two Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall Backfill
Mixtures, WES Report No. EL-90-9, 1990.
Zappi, M.E., D.D. Adrian, and R.R. Shafer. Compatibility of Soil-Bentonite
Slurry Wall Backfill Mixtures with Contaminated Groundwater. Proc. 1989
Superfund Conference, Washington, DC, Nov 1989.
Miller, S.P. Geotechnical Containment Alternatives for Industrial Waste
Basin F, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado: A Quantitative
Evaluation. USAE Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report GL-79-23, Sep
1979.
15
-------
Contact: Jesse Oldham, or Mark E. Zappi
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3903 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-3111
16
-------
4. SOLVENT EXTRACTION (CF SYSTEMS)
Category: I.a. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose:
Application:
To extract (separate) contaminants from the media in which they are contained.
This technology can be applied to waste containing carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,
benzene, naphthalene, gasoline, vinyl acetate, furfural, butyric and higher organic
acids, dichloroethane, oils and greases, xylene, toluene, methyl acetate, acetone,
propanol and higher alcohols, phenol, heptane, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and
other complex organic compounds. This is a specific application of the general
category of solvent extraction techniques described in technical note #23.
Description: This technology uses supercritical fluid as a solvent to extract organics from
wastewater or contaminated sludges and soils. Carbon dioxide is the fluid used for
aqueous solutions, while propane and/or butane are used for sediment, sludges and
soils (semisolids). Contaminated solids, slurries, or wastewaters are fed into the
extractor (see figure 4). Supercritical fluid (or solvent) is also fed to the extractor,
making nonreactive contact with the waste. Typically, the process separates more
than 99% of the organics from the waste feed. Following phase separation of the
solvent, organics and treated water are removed from the extractor while the mixture
of solvent and organics passes to the separator through a valve where pressure is
partially reduced. In the separator, the solvent is vaporized and recycled as fresh
solvent. The organics are drawn off from the separator and either reused or disposed.
The extractor design is different for contaminated wastewaters and semisolids. For
wastewaters, a trayed-tower contactor is used; for semisolids, a series of extractor/
decanters operating counter-currently is used.
Advantages. Extraction efficiencies of 90 to 98% were achieved on sediments containing between
350 and 2,575 ppm PCBs. PCB concentrations were as low as 8 ppm in the treated
sediment. In the laboratory, extraction efficiencies of 99.95 % have been obtained for
volatile and semivolatile organics in aqueous and semisolid wastes.
Limitations The use of treated sediment as feed to the next pass caused cross-contamination in
the system. Operating problems included solids being retained in the system
hardware and foaming in receiving tanks.
Costs: Projected costs for PCB cleanups are estimated at approximately $150 to $450 per
ton, including material handling and pre and post-treatment costs. These costs are
highly sensitive to the utilization factor and job size, which may result in lower costs
for large cleanups.
Status: The pilot-scale system was tested on PCB-laden sediments from the New Bedford
(MA) Harbor Superfund site during September 1988. PCB concentrations in the
harbor ranged from 300 to 2,500 ppm. The technology was demonstrated
concurrently with dredging studies managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Contaminated sediments were treated by the CF System Pit Cleanup Unit, using a
liquefied propane and butane mixture as the extraction solvent.
17
-------
References:
Contact:
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-89/013, Nov
1989, pp. 25-26.
Mark Bricka or John Cullinane, Jr.
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone:601-634-3700
Richard Valentinetti
U.S.EPA(RD-681)
401M. Street, SW
Washington, D. C. 20460
202-382-2611
Contaminated
Sediment
Extractor
Separator
Compressor
Organ ics
Clean
Sediment
Figure 4. Solvent extraction unit process diagram (CF Systems).
18
-------
5. XANTHATE TREATMENT FOR HEAVY METALS IN GROUNDWATER
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment.
Purpose: To reduce the concentration of metals contained in metal-contaminated ground waters
and to reduce the volume of metal-contaminated sludges that require disposal as a
hazardous waste.
Application: Xanthate precipitation is a process that can remove metals from metal-contaminated
groundwaters through precipitation, much like conventional hydroxide or sulfide
precipitation processes. Xanthate precipitation offers several advantages over
hydroxide precipitation as described in the advantages section below. Xanthate
precipitation can be directly substituted for hydroxide precipitation if solid feeding or
slurrying processing equipment is available.
Description: Xanthate is added to the contaminated groundwaters in aboveground treatment
systems in which the xanthate combines with metals to form insoluble metal
complexes. The insoluble complexes settle out of the liquid, thus removing the
metals. The resulting sludge can be dewatered and generally is sent to a RCRA
landfill for disposal as a hazardous waste. The sludge is reported to be more easily
dewatered than conventional hydroxide or sulfide sludges. Recent research indicates
that a mixture of metals in solution can be complexed with xanthate. The complexed
metals can then be segregated and retrieved into relatively pure metal solutions that
can be recycled. This may eliminate the need to dispose of hazardous residue.
Advantages: Xanthate precipitation processes offer many advantages over conventional
precipitation processes: (1) unlike hydroxide complexes which are amphoteric (form
complexes soluble at both low and high pH) xanthates, like sulfide metal complexes,
show little variation in solubility with pH; (2) xanthates work well in the presence of
chelating and complexing agents such as EDTA; (3) xanthates reduce the possibility
of hazardous hydrogen sulfide releases which may occur with sulfide precipitation
processes; and (4) xanthate metal contaminated sludges may be recycled.
Limitations: Xanthates are unstable at normal temperatures and may decompose which may
render the xanthates ineffective for metal removal. These problems are overcome by:
(1) producing fresh xanthate material on site, (2) storing xanthate at low
temperatures prior to use, and (3) cross-linking the xanthate to decrease the degree
of decomposition at room temperature.
Cost:
As with all waste treatment processes, costs vary greatly depending on the
application and configuration. Xanthate precipitation processes are reported to be in
the cost range of sulfide precipitation processes.
Availability: Starch xanthate is commercially available but currently is not utilized on a wide
scale.
Status: Laboratory testing and bench-scale testing of the sludge recycling processes have
been investigated in detail for synthetic metal wastes along with surveys of the
effectiveness of currently utilized commercial applications.
19
-------
References: Bricka, R.M., Investigation of the Performance of Solidified Cellulose and
Starch Xanthate Heavy Metals Sludges, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical
Report, EL-88-5, Feb 1988.
Contact: Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3700
20
-------
6. ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose: Removal of organic and explosive contaminants from wastewater and contaminated
groundwater.
Application: Activated carbon is suited for removal of low-to-medium concentrations of organic
contaminants from waste streams. Activated carbon systems are also used as
polishing units for the removal of trace organics from effluents of other treatment
systems.
Description: Carbon adsorption is a phase-separation process that uses the electrophysical
attraction of contaminants in the fluid phase to adsorption sites on the surface of the
activated carbon. Carbon adsorption technology has been used for removing organic
contaminants from contaminated wastewaters and air streams in a variety of
configurations. Some configurations include fixed and pulse-bed columns that
incorporate granular activated carbon (GAG) for removing contaminants from waste
streams. Activated carbon is also used in powdered form (PAC) in activated sludge
biological reactors for removing refractory compounds in the aeration tank and
reducing off-gassing of volatile compounds during aeration. A schematic diagram is
given in figure 6.
Advantages: Activated carbon treatment is capable of removing a large variety of contaminants
from water and air. The waste streams can vary in terms of contaminant
concentrations without affecting performance.
Limitations:
Cost:
Availability:
Status:
References:
Disposal of spent carbon is required.
Costs are estimated to be between $0.10 and $0.40 per gallon.
The technology is commercially available.
WES has evaluated PAC addition to an activated sludge bioreactor for treatment of
contaminated groundwater and has generated several adsorption isotherms for
evaluation of the applications potential of GAG for a variety of organic compounds.
Also, WES has performed pilot GAG column studies for removal of n-
nitrosodimethylamine, diisopropylmethylphosphonate, chloroform, and RDX from
contaminated waters.
Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and C.L. Teeter, DRAFT - Treatability of
Contaminated Groundwater from the Lang Superfund Site, USAE Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1992.
Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francingues, Biological Treatment of
Contaminated Groundwater, 1991 HMCRI Superfund Conference, Washington,
D.C., 1991.
Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, B.C. Fleming, and N.R. Francingues, Treatability of
Ninth Avenue Superfund Site Groundwater, WES Report EL-91-8, 1991.
21
-------
Faust, S.D. and O.M. Aly. Adsorption Processes for Water Treatment.
Butterworths Publishers, 1987.
Thompson, D.W. et al. North Boundary Contaminant Treatment System
Performance Report. Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, CA, Dec 1985.
Contact: Beth Fleming
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Atto: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3943
Feed Water
Regenerated/Makup
Activated Carbon
Backwash
Effluent
Backwash
Feed —
Adsorber 1
Spent Carbon
Regenerated/Makeup
Activated Carbon
Adsorber 2
Backwash
Effluent
Backwash
Feed
Treated Effluent
IX] Valve Open
H Valve Closed
Figure 6 Schematic diagram of an activated carbon treatment system.
22
-------
AIR STRIPPING, COUNTER CURRENT
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose: To extract volatile contaminants from groundwater.
Application: Air stripping is applicable for removing volatile contaminants from contaminated
wastewaters. Air purifying equipment may be required depending on air pollution
criteria imposed by state and federal regulatory agencies.
Description: Air stripping is a phase-change technology that removes, or strips, volatile
contaminants from the aqueous phase into the gas, or air, phase. Air stripping is
typically configured with wastewater flowing downward and air flowing counter-
currently upward through a packed column (see figure 7). Air stripping utilizes the
difference in volatility of the carrier fluid and contaminants in solution to strip the
contaminants into the gaseous phase. These differences are typically characterized
by the relative differences in Henry's Law constants. Process design variables
include column height, packing type, and air-to-water flow rate.
Advantages:
Limitations:
Cost:
Air stripping is a cost-effective method for removing volatile contaminants from
aqueous solutions.
Only volatile contaminants can be removed by air stripping. Air pollution abatement
equipment may be required.
Capital and operating costs will depend upon the contaminant to be removed and on
the volume of contaminated water to be treated.
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: WES is using bench-scale air stripping units for evaluating air stripping as a
treatment technology for removing volatile organic contaminants in groundwater for
the Ninth Avenue Dump Superfund Site in Gary, Indiana. The Omaha District is the
project sponsor in conjunction with EPA Region V. WES is also supporting the
Program Manager at Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) in evaluating and optimizing
existing air stripping equipment currently operating at RMA
References: Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, B.C. Fleming, and N.R. Francingues, Treatability of
Ninth Avenue Superfund Site Groundwater, USAE Waterways Experiment
Station Report EL-91-8, 1991
Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, B.C. Fleming, and N.R. Francingues, Treatability of
Ninth Avenue Superfund Site Groundwater, USAE Waterways Experiment
Station Report EL-91-8,1991
Elliott, M.G. and E.G. Marchand. USAF Air Stripping and Emissions Control
Research. Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic
and Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr 1990.
23
-------
Contact
Hand, D.W. et al. Design and Evaluation of an Air Stripping Tower for
Removing VOCs from Groundwater. J. American Water Works Association, Sep
1986.
Lenzo, F.C. Air Stripping of VOCs from Groundwater: Decontaminating
Polluted Water. Presented at the 49th Annual Conference of the Indiana Water
Pollution Control Association, Aug 1986.
Beth Fleming or Norman Francingues
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3943
LIQUID
DISTRIBUTOR
PACKING
SUPPORT
PLATE
VAPOR + AIR OUT
LIQUID
INLET
REDISTRIBUTOR
AIR INLET
F
LIQUID OUTLET
Figure 7. Schematic diagram of a typical counter-current air stripping unit.
24
-------
8. AIR STRIPPING, ROTARY
Category: I.a. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose: The extraction of volatile contaminants from groundwater.
Application: Air stripping is applicable for removing volatile contaminants from water.
Description: A rotary air stripper is a vapor and liquid contactor which uses centrifugal force to
push contaminated water through packing material while air is pushed counter
current to the flow of water (see figure 8). The centrifugal force results in a high
mass transfer rate of the contaminant from the water to the air. The main advantage
of the rotary air stripper is the reduction in the height of the stripping equipment.
Large, tall towers are inherent in conventional packed-column air stripping.
The first tests with a rotary air stripper were conducted at a contaminated site at a
U.S. Coast Guard Station at Traverse City, MI. In these tests, a 100-gpm rotary air
stripper showed removal of the contaminant as a function of the liquid to gas ratio
and the speed (rpm) of the spinning rotor. The data showed the removal efficiency
increased with an increase in the gas-to-liquid ratio up to a value of about 30
(volume/volume). Above this value, minimal increases in removal efficiencies were
realized with increased gas-to-liquid ratios. A similar phenomenon was observed
when assessing the effect of the rotor speed on the removal efficiency. Increasing the
rotation above approximately 600 rpm produced minimal changes in the removal
efficiency. In all the tests, high removal efficiencies (> 99 %) were achieved with the
highly volatile contaminants (such as trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene),
while relatively low removal efficiencies were observed for the less volatile
contaminants (such as 1,2- dichloroethane). In the tests at Traverse City, only one
size and type of packed rotor was used and only influent and effluent data could be
taken. Because of these restrictions, a limited amount of mass transfer data could be
obtained. In the field-testing of rotary air stripping at Eglin AFB, FL, three different
sizes of rotors and two different types of packing materials, along with an internal
sampling mechanism were used. The sizes included 9, 12, and 15-inch sponge and a
wire gauze. Using the different packed rotors, data were obtained to develop and
compare equations for predicting the mass transfer pressure drops and power
consumption of the rotary air stripper. The equations can be used to design the size,
rotating speed, air-to-water ratios, and energy necessary for a rotary air stripper to
meet site specific performance requirements.
The initial expectations of the rotary air stripper were that it would be less
susceptible to fouling of the packing by hardness precipitation or biological growth
due to the high shear forces. This was found not to be valid during testing at Eglin
AFB. Signs of plugging due to mineral deposits were observed in the rotors; however,
it should be emphasized that the groundwater at Eglin AFB has a very high iron
content (approximately 9 ppm) and may not provide opportunity for a fair evaluation
of the device.
Advantages: The main advantage of the rotary air stripper is the reduction in the height of the
stripping equipment enabling its placement in more confined places.
25
-------
Limitations: Plugging due to mineral deposits was observed in the rotors; however, it should be
emphasized that the groundwater at Eglin AFB has a very high iron content
(approximately 9 ppm) and may hot provide opportunity for a fair evaluation of the
machine. Only volatile contaminants can be removed by air stripping. Air pollution
abatement equipment may be required.
Cost:
$1.10 per gallon at a rate of 500 gallons per minute.
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: Successful field tests have been conducted at Eglin AFB and at the US Coast Guard
Station at Traverse City, MI.
References: Wilson, J.H., R.M. Counce, A.J. Lucero, H.L. Jennings, and S.P. Singh, Air
Stripping and Emissions Control Technologies: Field Testing of Counter
Current Packings, Rotary Air Stripping, Catalytic Oxidation, and
Adsorption Materials, ESL TR 90-51, Nov. 1991.
Elliott, M.G. and E.G. Marchand. USAF Air Stripping and Emissions Control
Research. Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic
and Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr 1990.
Singh, S.P. Air Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Groundwater:
An Evaluation of a Centrifugal Vapor-Liquid Contactor. University of
Tennessee Dissertation, Knoxville, TN, Aug 1989.
Dietrich, C., D. Treichler, and J. Armstrong, An Evaluation of Rotary Air
Stripping for Removal of Volatile Organics from Groundwater. U.S. Air Force
Environmental and Service Center Report ESL-TR-86-46, Feb 1987.
Contact: Capt. Edward G. Marchand
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6023
26
-------
INFLUENT AIR
EFFLUENT AIR
t .
ROTATING PACKING
EFFLUENT WATER
INFLUENT WATER
X-VALVE
-*- DIRECTION OF n.OW
Figure 8 Schematic diagrams of the rotary air stripping unit (top) and system flow (below).
27
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
28
-------
9. MENU BASED PERSONAL COMPUTER DESIGN PROGRAM FOR
AIR STRIPPERS
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose:
Application:
To facilitate the design of air stripper systems using a computer.
This personal computer (PC) design program can be used to design air stripper units
for treatment of water contaminated by volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Description: The computer data base contains 114 different chemicals that are known
contaminants of groundwater. It also has a selection of 57 materials used as packing
for air stripping columns. The computer program also contains design data for flow
rates and design optimization of air stripper systems for contaminants listed in the
data base. A minimum of 640 K RAM and a CGA, VGA, or EGA card are necessary to
run the program on an IBM or IBM compatible PC.
Advantages:
Limitations:
Cost:
Availability:
Status:
References:
Contact:
The program provides a fast method for designing air stripper columns for
remediation of contaminated groundwater.
The program is not a true expert system, i.e., it is best used by experts and not by
persons unfamiliar with vapor-liquid mass transfer operations.
Part of the public domain.
For software availability, the point of contact is listed below.
The software is completed and ready for distribution.
Dzonbak, David A, ASDC: A Microcomputer-Based Program for Air Stripper
Design and Costing, AFESL Report ESL-TR 91-40,1991.
Capt. Edward G. Marchand
HQ AFCESA/RAV
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6023
29
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
30
-------
10. BIOLOGICAL AQUEOUS TREATMENT SYSTEM
Category: I. a. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose:
Application:
Decontamination of groundwater, wastewaters, lagoons, and process waters.
This technology is applicable to a wide variety of wastewaters, including
groundwater, lagoons, and process water. Contaminants amenable to treatment
include pentachlorophenol, creosote components, gasoline and fuel oil components,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, phenolics, and solvents. Other potential target waste
streams include coal tar residues and organic pesticides.
Description: This patented biological treatment system is effective for treating contaminated
groundwater and process water. The system uses an amended microbial mixture;
i.e., a microbial population indigenous to the wastewater to which a specific
microorganism has been added. This system removes the target contaminants as
well as the naturally occurring background organics.
Water enters a mix tank, where the pH is adjusted and inorganic nutrients are
added. If necessary, the water is heated to an optimum temperature, using a heat
exchanger to minimize energy costs. The water then flows to the reactor, where the
contaminants are biodegraded.
The microorganisms that perform the degradation are immobilized in a three-cell,
submerged, fixed-film bioreactor. Each cell is filled with a highly porous packing
material to which the microbes adhere. For aerobic conditions, air is supplied by fine
bubble membrane diffusers mounted at the bottom of each cell. The system may also
operate under anaerobic conditions.
As the water flows through the bioreactor, the contaminants are degraded to carbon
dioxide, water, and chloride ion. The resulting effluent may be discharged to a
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or may be reused on site. In some cases,
discharge with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
may be possible.
Advantages: Pentachlorophenol (PGP) is reduced to less than 1 ppm at all flow rates. Removal
percentage was as high as 97% at the lowest flow rate.
Limitations: NPDES permits may be needed in some cases for discharges.
Cost: Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: In 1986-87, a 9-month pilot field test was successfully performed at a wood
preserving facility. Since that time, several other demonstrations and commercial
installations have been completed. The SITE demonstration of the technology took
place from July 24 to September 1, 1989 at the MacGillis and Gibbs Superfund Site
in New Brighton, MN. The system was operated continuously for 6 weeks at three
different flow rates.
31
-------
References: Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation
Technologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/8-91/009,
May 1991, pg. 12.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 24-25.
Contact: Mary K Stinson
U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908-321-6683
32
-------
11, DEWATERING/RECHARGE WELL AND TRENCH
REHABILITATION AT SUPERFUND SITES
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose: To rehabilitate groundwater well systems by remediating plugging due to various
factors such as microbes, particulates, and precipitates.
Application: Well rehabilitation has been used in the petroleum industry to rejuvenate shallow
wells (much of the initial research on well rejuvenation was done by the petroleum
industry). Well rehabilitation can be applied to any groundwater well, whether it is a
dewatering or a recharge well, in which marked reductions of system flow capacity
have been observed. These processes may be used to renovate water supply wells
furnishing clean water as well as those remediating contaminated water.
Description: Many environmental remediation scenarios used at Superfund sites involve the use
of dewatering and/or injection wells. Both treated and untreated groundwaters may
contain enough electron acceptors or nutrient sources to support significant
microbiological populations within the well screen and packing, substantially
reducing the flow capacity of the well. Significant microbiological growth also can
occur in an aquifer immediately surrounding a well with significant reductions in
population densities radially outward from the well. The reduction of well capacity
due to excessive microbial growth is termed biofouling. Although biofouling is the
most common form of well capacity reduction, other factors such as particulate
clogging, cementation, metal oxide precipitation, air binding, and decreased aquifer
permeability can reduce well capacity. Well rehabilitation methods exist that can
return well capacity to design capacity. Common well rehabilitation methods are air
and block surging. Specially designed well cleaning methods are available for
addressing biofouling as well as other well clogging factors. These well rehabilitation
methods use combinations of disinfecting solutions, high temperatures and pressures,
and extreme surging to return fouled wells to their original capacity. Well
rehabilitation can be coupled with process modifications to prevent or reduce the
frequency of further well rehabilitation.
Advantages: Cost effective over drilling new wells.
Limitations:
Cost:
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status:
Wells never recover to 100% capacity.
The cost is site specific, varying from $1,000 to $5,000 per well.
References:
WES has evaluated several well rehabilitation methods for rejuvenating Corps of
Engineers Districts' pressure relief wells around hydraulic structures. Research is
underway to improve the recharge capacity of the North Boundary Treatment
System at Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) under sponsorship from the office of the
Program Manager (PM).
Zappi, M.E., N.R. Francingues, and D.D. Adrian. An Evaluation of Operational
Factors Contributing to Reduced Recharge Capacity of the North Boundary
33
-------
Treatment System, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado.
Draft Report, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, 1990.
Zappi, M.E., N.R. Francingues, and D.D. Adrian, Reduction of Effluent Recharge
Capacity at the North Boundary Treatment System, Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, Commerce City Colorado, HMCRI Hazardous Waste and materials
Conference, St. Louis, MO, 1990.
Leach, R.E. and M.M. Taylor. Proceedings of REMR Workshop on Research
Priorities for Drainage System and Relief Well Problems. USAE Waterways
Experiment Station, 1989.
Contact: Douglas Gunnison or Roy Leach
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-636-3111
34
-------
12. FRENCH DRAIN
Category: I.a. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose: To remove floating free product from shallow groundwater.
Application: The method is applicable for fuels and other chlorinated or non-chlorinated
hydrocarbons. The method is being used to remediate Moffett Trenches and crash
crew pits at the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Tustin, CA The soils should not
be highly contaminated. Rocks are not a problem except as they impact the digging
of trenches. The method works best in low-permeability soils where extraction wells
will not work.
Description: Excavation of the site is not required. Trenches are dug, generally using a back hoe;
however, a chain trencher could be used as well. Slotted PVC pipe is installed in the
trenches which are then backfilled with gravel and topped with clay material. The
pipes drain to a central manifold for collection. Waste fuel is collected in tanks,
pumped into trucks, and hauled away for recycling. To prevent contamination of the
underlying high permeability aquifer at MCAS Tustin, CA, special precaution was
taken so that trenches were not cut through the boundary between the upper, low-
permeability clay layer and the lower, high-permeability aquifer.
Advantages: This method is more cost effective than excavation/treatment. Air emissions are
lower than if the site were excavated. As compared with slurry wall containment, the
contaminants are removed rather than immobilized. Once installed, the system is
entirely below ground, and the surface can be used.
Limitations: A low-permeability zone below the contamination is necessary; otherwise, wells are
required.
Costs: At Tustin, for a system of 3,500 ft of trench at a depth of 20 ft, the pre-
implementation investigation required $500,000, the engineering design required
$75,000, and total construction costs were $1.5 million.
Availability: Technical details are available from NEESA
Status: A system was installed at MCAS Tustin and is expected to operate for at least 30
years.
References: Technology transfer package in draft form should be available from NEESA in FY91.
Construction contract No. N62474-C-8658 available from NEESA
Steve Eikenberry, Project Mgr. Predesign Study - Moffett Trenches and Crash
Crew Pits, MCAS Tustin, CA, Vol. III. NEESA Report 17-008, December 1986.
E.B. Luecker, Engineer in Charge. Confirmation Study - Moffett Trenches and
Crash Crew Pits, MCAS Tustin, CA, Vols. I and II. NEESA Report 17-008,
September 1986.
35
-------
Contact: Tim Anderson
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, Code 112E
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-4840
36
-------
13. ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESSES
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose: To remove organic contaminants from groundwater.
Application: The method is applicable to organic compounds, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons
and other solvents and fuels, in groundwater or other water. The waste is destroyed.
Description: The method utilizes ultraviolet (UV) light, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide in various
combinations depending on the waste. A staged approach is followed: total organic
compounds (TOG), carbonyls, and organic acids are tracked by gas chromatography.
The process can be optimized to reduce waste and cost. TOG levels in the laboratory
are reduced from 30 to 50 ppm to below 1 ppm. In pilot-plant studies, TOCs are
reduced from 30 ppm to less than 0.1 ppm. A flow schematic for the pilot plant is
shown in figure 13.
Advantages: The method is clean, i.e., no harmful byproducts are produced other than very small
quantities of iron during pretreatment.
Limitations: The method is not applicable for highly concentrated waste streams having TOCs
greater than about 100 ppm.
Costs: Exact cost information is not available. The costs will depend on the waste and its
concentration.
Availability: Equipment is commercially available.
Status: Laboratory testing was conducted at the University of Illinois, Champaign, in FY90.
Field-pilot studies were conducted at Lakehurst NAEC in FY91.
References: Peyton, Gary R. and Andy Law. Initial Feasibility Report: Investigation of
Photochemical Oxidative Techniques for Treatment of Contaminated
Groundwater. NCEL Technical Memorandum TM-71-90-9, Sep 1990.
A pilot-plant report will be available in FY92.
Contact: Dr. Andy Law
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory,
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1650, Autovon 551-1650
37
-------
Mixed
Media
Filter
KOHto
pH = 8 - 9
Oxidation
Basin
Feed Water
Tank
Tube
Settler
H2SO4 topH = 3-4
U V Lamps
^3
H202
Stage 1
Reactor
Stage 2
Reactor
Stage 3
Reactor
§ £
3J 3
0) Q)
I
o>
"0 O
ii
Figure 13. Flow schematic of advanced oxidation process pilot plant, Lakehurst Naval Air
Engineering Center.
38
-------
14. ULTRAVIOLET/OZONE/HYDROGEN PEROXIDE OXIDATION
Category: I.a. Groundwater treatment
Il.b. Minimization or Treatment of Munition Production and/or Handling Waste
Streams
Il.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Waste
Purpose: To remove organic contaminants from groundwater and liquid waste streams.
Application: Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation is suitable for a wide variety of wastewaters containing
low to high concentrations of organic compounds. UV oxidation is capable of
destroying many organic compounds that are traditionally very difficult to treat. In-
line treatment of organic pollutants by the UV oxidation process may be used for
liquid waste minimization before organics become pollutants in groundwater (see also
technical notes #13 and #15).
Description: UV/Ozone/Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation, also known as UV oxidation, is a
destruction process that oxidizes organic constituents in wastewaters by the addition
of strong oxidizers and irradiation with intense UV light. The oxidation reactions are
catalyzed by UV light, while ozone (Oa ) and/or hydrogen peroxide (H2 02 ) are
commonly used together or separately as oxidizing agents. The final products of
oxidation are carbon dioxide and water. The main advantage of UV oxidation is that
since the process is a destruction process, no contaminants or waste streams are
released during oxidation of the contaminants. UV oxidation processes can be
configured in batch or continuous flow modes. Design and operational parameters
include: contact or retention time, oxidizer influent dosages, pH, temperature, UV
lamp intensity, and various catalysts. Destruction of contaminants using UV
oxidation meets or exceeds detection limits.
Advantages: The UV oxidation process is a destruction technology for difficult-to-treat
contaminants. This process will treat a larger variety of contaminants than some
other processes.
Limitations: The UV oxidation process has the potential for production of hazardous intermediate
compounds if the system is not properly operated. Pretreatment of contaminated
material may be necessary, depending on the chemistry of the water. Off gasses may
be a pollution problem when 03 is used for oxidation.
Cost: Costs will vary with run time and oxidizer dosage; however, costs generally run
between $0.10/1,000 gal to $10.00/1,000 gal.
Availability: The technology is commercially available. The technology described in technical note
#15, "Ultraviolet/Oxidation (ULTROX)," is one of the commercially available systems
in the general category of UV oxidation.
Status: WES has performed several treatability studies using chemical oxidation, including:
(a) UV/hydrogen peroxide oxidation of four contaminated waters from Rocky
Mountain Arsenal; (b) photolysis of n-nitrosodimethylamine-contaminated ground-
water; (c) UV/hydrogen peroxide oxidation of contaminated groundwater from the
Lang Superfund Site; (d) UV/ozone oxidation of Well 118 groundwater from Rocky
Mountain Arsenal; (e) UV/ozone and UV/hydrogen peroxide oxidation of RDX-
39
-------
References:
Contact:
contaminated ground water from Piccatiny Arsenal; (f) ozone/hydrogen peroxide
(peroxone), UV/ozone, and UV/hydrogen peroxide oxidation of diisopropylmethyl-
phosphonate (DIMP)-contaminated groundwater from Rocky Mountain Arsenal; (g)
ozone/hydrogen peroxide (peroxone), UV/ozone, and UV/hydrogen peroxide oxidation
of diisopropyl-methylphosphonate (DIMP), aromatic hydrocarbon, and chlorinated
solvent-contaminated groundwater from Rocky Mountain Arsenal in support of the
Feasibility Study; and (h) WES is currently performing research on chemical
oxidation of TNT- and RDX- contaminated groundwaters under the Army's
Environmental Quality and Technology Program.
Zappi, M.E., E.G. Fleming, and M.J. Cullinane. Treatment of Contaminated
Groundwater Using Chemical Oxidation. 1992 ASCE Water Forum Conference,
Baltimore, MD, 1992
Zappi, M.E. and B.C. Fleming, Treatability of Contaminated Groundwater
from the Lang Superfund Site, Draft WES Report, USAE Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1991.
Zappi, M.E. et al. Treatability Study of Four Contaminated Waters at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado, Using Oxidation with Ultra-
Violet Radiation Catalyzation. Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental
Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-
TR-90055, Apr 1990.
Buhts, R., P. Malone, and D. Thompson. Evaluation of Ultra-Violet/Ozone
Treatment of Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Groundwater. USAE
Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report No. Y-78-1,1978.
Christman, P.L. and A.M. Collins. Treatment of Organic Contaminated
Groundwater by Using Ultraviolet Light and Hydrogen Peroxide. Proc. 14th
Annual Army Environmental Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr 1990.
Scholze, Jr., R.J., S.W. Maloney, and R. Buhts, Removal of Halocarbons from
Contaminated Groundwater: UV/Ozone Technology - A Pilot Study.
Presented at the Water Pollution Control Federation, Kansas City, 1985.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 44-45.
Mark E. Zappi
Environmental Engineering Division
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
3903 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-2856
Steve Maloney
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign', IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511,800-USA-CERL
40
-------
15. ULTRAVIOLET OXIDATION (ULTROX)
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment
Purpose: To destroy toxic organic compounds, especially chlorinated hydrocarbons, in water.
Application: Contaminated groundwater, industrial wastewaters, and leachates containing
explosives, halogenated solvents, phenol, pentachlorophenol, pesticides,
polychlorinated byphenyls (PCB), and other organic compounds are suitable for this
treatment process.
Description: This ultraviolet (UV) radiation/oxidation process uses UV radiation, ozone (63 ), and
hydrogen peroxide (H2 62) to destroy toxic organic compounds, especially chlorinated
hydrocarbons, in water. The process oxidizes compounds that are toxic or refractory
(resistant to biological oxidation) in concentrations of parts per million or parts per
billion. The ULTROX system consists of a reactor module, an air compressor/ozone
generator module, and a hydrogen peroxide feed system (see figure 15). It is skid-
mounted and portable and enables on site treatment of a wide variety of liquid
wastes, such as industrial wastewater, groundwater, and leachate. The reactor size
is determined from the expected wastewater flow rate and the necessary hydraulic
retention time to treat the contaminated water. The approximate UV intensity and
Oa and H£ C>2 dose are determined from pilot-scale studies. Influent to the reactor
is simultaneously exposed to UV radiation, Os , and H2 Oz to oxidize the organic
compounds. Off-gas from the reactor passes through an Os destruction
(Decompozon) unit, which reduces ozone levels before air venting. The Decompozon
unit also destroys gaseous volatile organic compounds (VOC) stripped off in the
reactor. Effluent from the reactor is suitable for recharge of an aquifer or discharge
to surface waters. Contaminated groundwater treated by the ULTROX system met
regulatory standards. Removal efficiencies for total VOCs were about 90 %. For
some compounds, removal from the water phase was due to both chemical oxidation
and stripping. The Decompozon unit reduced ozone to less than 0.1 ppm (OSHA
standards), with efficiencies greater than 99.99%. VOCs present in the air within the
treatment system, at approximately 0.1 to 0.5 ppm, were not detected after passing
through the Decompozon unit. Very low total organic carbon (TOO removal was
found, because the organic carbon associated with VOCs was < 2 % of the TOC. The
TOG data was not adequate to conclude if complete oxidation of VOCs occurred in the
system. The average electrical energy consumption was about 11 kW/hour of
operation. This system is one of the commercially available systems in the general
category of UV oxidation (see note #14).
Advantages: Contaminated groundwater treated by the ULTROX system met regulatory
standards. Removal efficiencies for trichloroethylene were about 99%. The
Decompozon unit reduced ozone to less than 0.1 ppm (OSHA standards), with
efficiencies greater than 99.99% (see also advantages in note #14). Treatment
residuals, such as spent carbon, sludge, etc., are not generated by this process as they
are by carbon adsorption or biological treatment processes.
Limitations: Removal efficiencies for 1,1-DCA and 1,1,1-TCA were about 58 and 85%, respectively.
Removal efficiencies for total VOCs were about 90%.
Cost*
Costs will vary with run time and oxidizer dosage.
41
-------
Availability: This technology is commercially available.
Status:
References:
Contact:
A field-scale demonstration was completed in March 1989 at a hazardous waste site
in San Jose, CA. The test program was designed to evaluate the performance of the
ULTROX System at several combinations of five operating parameters: (1) influent
pH, (2) retention time, (3) Os dose, (4) H2 02 dose, and (5) UV radiation intensity.
WES has evaluated this technology at several sites. Results indicate that UV/ozone
is an attractive alternative to air stripping and activated carbon adsorption.
Zappi, M.E., E.G. Fleming, and M.J. Cullinane. Treatment of Contaminated
Groundwater Using Chemical Oxidation. 1992 ASCE Water Forum Conference,
Baltimore, MD, 1992
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/5-90/0006, Nov
1990, pp. 98-99.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/5-89/013, Nov 1989, pp.
81&82.
Mark E. Zappi
Environmental Engineering Division
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-2856
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7665
42
-------
Treated Oil Gas
Water Chiller.
Reactor Off Gu
Catalytic Ozone Decomposer — *
TREATED
EFFLUENT
TO DISCHARGE
Hydrogen Peroxide
Irom Feed Tank
Figure 15. Isometric view of ULTROX system.
43
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
44
-------
16. ELECTROKINETICS (EK)
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment
I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To treat or assist in treating organic- and inorganic-contaminated soils in situ and as
a barrier system to control contaminated aquifers.
Application: This technology may be used as an in situ means of removing heavy metals, organic
compounds and explosives from contaminated soils. Also, WES is evaluating using
electrokinetics (EK) as a means of introducing additives required for establishing
biologically active zones in relatively tight soils during in situ bioremediation
activities.
Description: This technology was essentially developed during World War II by the Germans to
stabilize Norwegian railroad beds. It has been used since by geotechnical engineers
as a means of dewatering fine-grained soils or stabilizing banks.
The technology involves installation of an anode and cathode within the soil matrix to
be treated. An electrical potential across the two electrodes is initiated. The voltage
potential across the target area can cause several processes to be initiated depending
on the soil matrix, including: (1) movement of water through soil systems at rates
much faster than obtainable using hydraulic heads, (2) removal of contaminants
through the pore water or water films at a rate much faster than the water phase,
and (3) development of an acid front that moves through the treatment zone.
Advantages: EK can be applied in-situ, i.e., without excavation of the soils. Preliminary studies
indicate that this technology can be performed in both saturated and unsaturated
soils.
Limitations: Being an innovative technology in terms of site remediation, little performance,
design, and cost information is available. Also, there is little information on how low
a level of contamination can be attained using this technology.
Cost:
At a recent DOE working group meeting, remediation costs for this technology were
estimated in the $45/yd3 range. Actual cost estimates are not yet available, but pilot
and bench studies should produce more accurate cost estimates.
Availability: EK technology is commercially available on a limited scale in the United States; the
European Community apparently has more established vendors with some
application experience.
Status: During the DOE EK Workshop, it was reported that the Russians are using this
technology to move radioactive species downward into clay lenses as a means of
eliminating mobility. To date they reportedly have remediated several thousand
square kilometers using EK. There are three commercial vendors of the technology
within the U.S with limited field experience. EK has been used on the pilot scale
successfully to remediate heavy metals-contaminated soils and to form hydraulic
barriers. WES is currently investigating the potential uses of EK for site
remediation.
45
-------
References: Loo, W.W, Electrochemical Treatment of Metals and Organic Compounds in
Soil, Sludges, and Groundwater. 1991 HMCRI Hazardous Materials
Control/Superfund Conference, Washington, DC, 1991.
Acar, Y.B., Hamed, J., and Gale, R.J., Electrokinetic Soil Processing: An
emerging Technology in Waste Remediation. Proc. from the Hazmat 90
Conference, June 5-7, 1990.
Contact: Mark E. Zappi or R. Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-2856 or 3700
46
-------
17. MICROBIAL CONSORTIA DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION
Category:
Purpose:
I.a. Groundwater Treatment
I.b. Soil Treatment
Existing biotreatment procedures for removal of hazardous organic contaminants
from soils and groundwater rely on native populations which take time to grow in
response to treatment conditions or on addition of exotic microorganisms that have
poor to nonexistent survival in foreign soils and waters. A technology to rapidly
isolate, characterize, and add effective native microorganisms in large numbers to the
soil or water to be treated is needed.
Application: This procedure is applicable to all hazardous organic contaminants for which
effective microorganisms can be isolated.
Description: Organisms are isolated from the soil or water to be treated using elective culture
methods specific for the compound(s) to be degraded.
The organisms are characterized as to physiological properties and their ability to
form desirable (not toxic) intermediate and final products and by-products. The
organisms are then grown in large quantities and added to bench-scale systems to
determine their effectiveness before using at the pilot and/or demonstration scale.
This procedure is applicable to restoration methods that involve either in situ
biotreatment or excavation, biotreatment, and disposal technologies. WES or other
outside agencies/contractors will often be required to obtain microbial isolates
effective in removing the contaminant. Once this has been achieved, the actual
treatment may often be performed by site personnel. Alternatively, outside
contractors may be utilized. The specific soil type, presence of drums or other objects,
and the time required are all site-specific and must be addressed on a case-by-case
basis. If the correct microorganisms are obtained, the contaminant will ultimately be
converted to carbon dioxide or methane and water, plus nitrate or nitrogen gas, if
nitrogen containing compounds are present.
This procedure can be applied to waste treatment. However, the amount of waste
reduction, the level of contaminants in the waste, and the final disposition of the
waste are all dependent on the biotreatment system in which the microorganisms are
utilized. Any instrumentation involved is associated with the specific biotreatment
system in which the microbial isolates are utilized. Specific risk assessment
strategies applied are dependent on the biotreatment system in which the microbial
isolates are utilized.
Advantages: Biotreatment systems using microbial isolates specific for the contaminant and the
soil/water being treated will be more effective than other biotreatment systems. This
should result in a significant increase in treatment effectiveness, shorter retention
times, and reduced costs. The exact amount of such cost reductions are not available
at present.
Limitations: The method will not work for soils and waters that have received levels of waste that
have been so concentrated as to kill off all native microbial populations.
47
-------
Cost: Cost will be site specific.
Availability: Personnel will have to be trained in implementation of the procedures, once routine
practices have been developed.
Status: Conceptual phase at the USAE Waterways Experiment Station Vicksburg, MS.
References: Journal articles and symposia proceedings will be produced over the next 2 years.
Contact: Doug Gunnison, Dr. Judith C. Pennington, John Marcev, or Ms. Cynthia B. Pierce.
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-3873
48
-------
18. ON SITE BIOREMEDIATION OF UNLEADED GASOLINE SPILLS
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment
I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To remediate unleaded gasoline spills
Application: The process is applicable to aromatic fuel components in groundwater and soil.
Description: The process entails aerobic and anaerobic bioremediation. The demonstration at
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA, utilized four pilot-scale reactors at the site
and indigenous microbial species: one aerobic and three anaerobic (methanogenic,
nitrate reducing, and sulfate reducing). Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus,
and hydrogen peroxide in the aerobic case, are added. The reactors, loaded with a
volume of about 84 L of contaminated zone soil, are made of stainless steel having a
diameter of 12 inches and are operated in an upward flow mode (see figure 18).
Advantages: The method is inexpensive and not labor intensive. Excavation is not required.
Aromatic components in the aerobic reactor effluent were reduced to 10% of influent
concentrations.
Limitations: Only aromatics were degraded. The concentration is limited, i.e., no free product can
be introduced to the reactor.
Cost: Process costs have not been determined.
Availability: Technical information is available from the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory.
Status: Pilot-scale testing is in progress at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, CA
References: Huxley, M.P. et al. Anaerobic and Aerobic Degradation of Aromatic
Hydrocarbons Using In-Situ Bioreactors at an Unleaded Gasoline Spill Site.
Proc. 18th Environmental Symposium and Exhibition, Feb 1992.
Contact: Mary Pat Huxley and Carmen Lebron
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1615, 16; Autovon 551-1615,16
49
-------
REACTOR
HEAD
TEFLON
OftSKET
SAMPLE
GALLERY
CLEANOUT
PUUQ
Figure 18a. Schematic diagram of bioreactor.
PRESUREyVACUUM
OAGE
OA8 SAMPLE PORT
3-UAV VALUE
GAS SAMPLE
COLLECTOR
INFLUENT
SAMPLING
PORT
INFLUENT
VALVE
SAMPLE
QALLERV
Figure ISb. Modifications made to bioreactor design.
50
-------
19. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
Category: La. Groundwater treatment
I.b. Soils treatment
Purpose: To remove organic contaminants from groundwater, surface water, and soils.
Application: Biological treatment is suitable for moderately to highly contaminated organic
wastewater. Biological treatment has been used in small research capacities for
heavy metals removal and reclamation. Biological treatment can be a very cost-
effective process which offers a high degree of flexibility.
Description: Biological treatment technologies incorporate acclimated bacteria that use
contaminant in wastewater as their food source. Biological treatment can be
implemented in a variety of flow configurations and microbiological systems.
Biotreatment can be operated in anaerobic and aerobic conditions, depending on
microbial type and treatment requirements. Aerobic treatment is usually more
successful in degrading complex organic compounds. Activated sludge is the most
common form of aerobic biological treatment in which large microbial populations are
kept in suspension in an aeration tank by means of diffused air bubbling through the
tank (see figure 19). The success of any biological treatment technology is dependent
on the ability of the microbial populations to use the contaminants of concern in the
wastewater as a food source. The feasibility of biotreatment, along with bacteria
acclimation rates, nutrient addition rates, and process design biological kinetic
constants are typically determined in bench-scale treatability tests. Biological
treatment ultimately results in destruction of organic contaminants. Contaminants
are destroyed at or below detection limits. Time necessary for complete destruction
of organic contaminants is site specific. Contaminated media may be excavated,
pumped, or dredged for remediation in a bioreactor that is designed for site-specific
contaminant conditions. Personnel will need training similar to that provided for
those working at municipal sewage disposal plants.
Advantages: This is a destruction process that is cost effective and flexible, since contaminants
serve as food for microbes.
Limitations: Some contaminants are not biodegradable. Some contaminants are incompletely
degraded, forming intermediate compounds that may pose environmental problems.
Some contaminants may need to be biodegraded in several stages by different
microbes.
Cost:
Capital costs are estimated to be $6.3 million for a 1,000-gal/d unit. Operation and
maintenance costs are estimated to be $0.0165/gal.
Availability: Process is commercially available.
Status: Bench-scale pilot testing has been conducted at WES. WES also has performed field
studies concerning intermittent loading of bioreactors. Treatability studies have
been performed using biological processes for treatment of contaminated
groundwater from numerous military and Superfund sites. WES is currently
developing a zero-head bioreactor for treatment of volatile organic compounds.
51
-------
References: Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and C.L. Teeter, Treatability of Contaminated
Groundwater From The Lang Superfund Site, Draft Report, USAE Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1992.
Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, B.C. Flemming, and N.R. Francingues. Treatability of
Ninth Avenue Superfund Site Groundwater. WES Report No. EL-91-8, USAE
Waterways Experiment Station, 1991.
Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francingues, Biological Treatment of
contaminated Groundwater, HMCRI Superfund Conference, Washington DC.,
1991.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and
Reuse. McGraw-Hill Publishers, 1979.
Contact: Mark E. Zappi
Environmental Engineering Division
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-2856
Screened and
Degritted Raw
Wastewater
Aeration
Unit
Return Sludge
Effluent
Excess Sludge
Figure 19. Schematic diagram of an activated sludge treatment system.
52
-------
20. IN SITU BIOTREATMENT OF PETROLEUM, OILS, AND
LUBRICANTS
Category: La. Groundwater Treatment
I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To remove petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) from contaminated soil and
groundwater.
Application: This process is best for treating fuels with high aromatic content, such as gasoline
and other soluble organic components of POL. It is not recommended for in situ
treatment of hydrophobic fuel components having soil concentrations greater than
0.05 % or highly viscous hydrocarbons.
Description: Aerobic Treatment - At locations where fuel contamination levels are low (less
then 0.01% for JP-5), contaminants are water soluble. As a follow-up to soil venting,
nutrients and an oxygen source can be injected with water into the zone of
contamination (see figure 20). Groundwater pumped down-gradient from the
injection wells can serve as the water source, thus providing a controlled, closed loop
for groundwater flow. The groundwater is usually treated and clarified prior to
reinjection into the subsurface at locations up gradient of the recovery wells.
Reinjection methods include use of surface spray irrigation, shallow infiltration
galleries with large exposed surface area, or large-diameter injection wells. Permit
requirements for injection frequently include meeting drinking water quality
standards. Oxygen sources for aerobic in situ biodegradation include phosphate-
stabilized hydrogen peroxide (H2 02 ) and air or pure oxygen sparging of
groundwater. Air sparging saturates water with only about 10 ppm of oxygen
compared with up to 5 and 50 times this concentration when pure oxygen and H^ 02
are used, respectively. H2 02 is toxic at less than 100 ppm to some microorganisms,
and stabilized hydrogen peroxide seems to be susceptible to rapid microbial
breakdown. Point-source addition of H2 O2 also may cause precipitation of iron
oxides or slimy bacterial growth that can plug injection zones. Surfactant compounds
produced by microorganisms can help to emulsify and remove poorly soluble
contaminants from the contaminated soil profile. The addition of synthetic
surfactants to the soil should increase availability of contaminants to the soil
microorganisms, but some can be toxic while others provide a preferential food
source, inhibiting biodegradation of the contaminant. More research is needed on
both synthetic and natural surfactant use in bioremediation. In situ aerobic
bioremediation of fuels and chlorinated VOCs is also being investigated through
bioventing (see note #37). Similar to soil venting but controlled at much slower rates
of air injection and vacuum, it stimulates biodegradation in both vadose and
saturated zones.
Anaerobic Processes - Research is being conducted concerning the mechanisms by
which anaerobic microbes can be coaxed into performing more rapid degradation of
fuels. Recent data have shown that most fuel components are biodegradable under
anaerobic conditions, when nitrate, carbon dioxide, or other oxidized substrates are
used as oxygen sources for microbial respiration instead of molecular oxygen. These
compounds provide a stable source of oxygen and nitrogen to the subsurface. Nitrate
is considerably more stable than hydrogen peroxide in groundwater, and its
horizontal flow with the groundwater could serve as a means to supply nitrogen and
53
-------
oxygen to the areas of subsurface contamination. This process will be field tested by
the Navy shortly.
Mixed or Sequential Processes - Many highly chlorinated toxic contaminants,
such as perchloroethylene (PCE) and higher chlorinated polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), appear to be degraded only under anaerobic conditions. The limiting step in
the biodegradation, removal of chlorine atoms, is performed through reductive
dechlorination. The lower chlorinated molecules that result are only slowly
dechlorinated and degraded further. Anaerobic degradation of thichloroethylene
(TCE) often promotes the accumulation of vinyl chloride, a carcinogen. Vinyl chloride
and other organic compounds containing low percentages of chlorination tend to be
degraded most rapidly under aerobic conditions, through oxidative enzyme processes.
Therefore, highly chlorinated toxic organics may be biodegraded at accelerated rates
by using serial or batch treatment techniques. The first step may be an anaerobic
process, followed by aerobic conditions that support the degrading microbial
population.
Advantages: Aerobic - soluble contaminants can be flushed through unsaturated soil and
biodegraded in situ; groundwater can be treated simultaneously. Anaerobic - labor-
intensive oxygen injection is avoided; nutrients and oxygen source can be added in
situ simultaneously. Mixed processes - highly chlorinated organic compounds in
water or extracted vapor may be biodegraded at rapid rates through aerobic-
anaerobic processes.
Limitations: Inability to supply sufficient oxygen to groundwater for aerobic biodegradation. H2
02 breaks down rapidly in soils. High concentrations of hydrocarbons prevent
contact between microbes and contaminants and water does not penetrate water-
immiscible hydrocarbons effectively. Aerobic processes require highly permeable
(sandy) soils or reworking of the soils to increase permeability.
Cost Costs will depend upon local conditions and specific applications.
Availability: Technical information regarding implementation is available from WES or NCEL.
Status: Bench-scale pilot testing has been conducted by Battelle - large soil columns 1 ft. x 3
ft. comparing hydrogen peroxide treatment with soil venting. The anaerobic system
was field-tested at DFSP Charleston, SC, and NWS Seal Beach, CA, in FY90 and
FY91. WES is currently evaluating the feasibility of treating hydrocarbons at an
Army installation using in situ biotreatment.
References: Zappi, M.E. et al. An Assessment of the Applications Potential of In Situ
Biotreatment for Remediation of Saturated Aquifers. 15th Annual Army
Environmental R&D Symposium, Williamsburg, VA, 1991.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/5-90/006 Nov
1990, pp. 40-41.
Hoeppel R.E. Biodegradation for On-Site Remediation of Contaminated
Soils and Groundwater at Navy Sites. The Military Engineer, 81(530), Aug 1989.
54
-------
Contact: Naomi P. Barkley
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7854
Mark Zappi or Douglas Gunnison
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-ES-A
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-2856
Ron Hoeppel
Navil Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division,
Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-1655, Autovon 551-1655
GrourWwaler
reinfection wells
Fuel oil
coiieciion
trench
Spray
irrigation
Groundwater
treatment
Impervious layer
Regional aqurter
Figure 20. In situ bioreclamation of fuel oil contaminated soil and groundwater (Hoeppel, 1989).
55
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
56
-------
21. IN-SITU BIOTREATMENT OF ORGANICS AND EXPLOSIVES
Category:
Purpose:
La.
I.b.
Groundwater Treatment
Soil Treatment
To reclaim in situ soil and groundwater contaminated with fuel, fuel oil, or other
organic compounds.
Application: In situ biodegradation (ISB) is applicable to treatment of soils or sediments
contaminated with organic compounds known to be susceptible to biodegradation. In
some cases, it may be desirable to use laboratory testing procedures to establish the
potential for ISB of organic compounds that are more refractory (recalcitrant) in
nature. Applications could include fuel spills, leaky storage tanks, and fire training
pits. The method probably is not applicable to waste disposal pits.
Description: ISB involves enhancement of environmental conditions that facilitate biodegradation
of organic contaminants by native or exotic soil or sediment microorganisms. Aerobic
degradation is normally the most efficient means by which microorganisms break
down organic contaminants. Direct exposure to the atmosphere is one means to
provide aerobic conditions for ISB, and this can be attained by procedures that
improve exposure to the atmosphere and improve drainage. For flooded or poorly
drained soils or subsurface soils, it may not always be possible to provide direct
exposure to atmospheric oxygen. In such situations, ISB can be enhanced by
providing alternate electron acceptors, such as nitrate or hydrogen peroxide, to the
system (see figure 21). The efficiency of ISB enhancement procedures can be tested
in laboratory reactors before scale-up for field application is carried out.
Nutrients (especially nitrogen and phosphorus), soil-conditioning chemicals, and
hydrogen peroxide can be introduced through infiltration wells, ditches, or soil
surface irrigation. Another source of oxygen for aerobic biodegradation may be fresh
air introduced during the process of soil venting for remediation of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from the soil. Pumping wells remove excess fluids or
contaminated groundwater. Contaminated water can be treated on the surface or
reinjected for treatment in the soil. Monitoring wells must be placed within and
surrounding the site. Increased fluid throughput might be accomplished by surface
spray irrigation techniques. Although every pound of hydrocarbon contaminant
requires about 10 pounds of molecular oxygen for complete degradation, in practice,
more oxygen will be required to satisfy other demands, such as oxidation of iron.
Advantages: In practice, ISB is an enhancement of the natural biodegradation process.
Excavation is not required. The resulting products are not toxic. Contaminant
concentrations are reported to have been reduced by bacteria to less than 1 ppm (see
references). Theoretically, treatment of soil contaminants in situ can be
accomplished faster than the long-term flushing required for surface-based water
treatment. Therefore, ISB is a cost-effective technology.
Limitations: Some site conditions may inhibit application of ISB technology. Excessive time may
be required for biodegradation. High calcium, magnesium, or iron concentrations in
the soils, and plugging and loss of soil permeability limit the effectiveness of the
method. Currently, the method is limited primarily to sandy soils having a hydraulic
57
-------
Cost-
conductivity of at least 0.0001 cm/s. Some mobilization of heavy metals, especially
antimony, can occur. Metal sulfides might be released due to sulfide oxidation.
The applicability is site-specific. Laboratory tests on the target soil and
contaminants should be conducted prior to using the method in the field. A pilot test,
consisting of at least one injection and one production well, conducted before
implementation is recommended. The method requires considerable oxygen. Daily
maintenance might be necessary if hydrogen peroxide is in the lines and pumps and
if special materials are not used.
The cost varies depending on site-specific conditions.
Availability: The method is still under development, but with some commercial availability.
Status: The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) currently is assisting the US Navy in
evaluation of anaerobic ISB for cleanup of a gasoline spill from an underground tank
located in a wetland area. Demonstration units of both the controlled oxidation-
reduction potential-pH and percolation column reactors will be running at WES
during May and June 1990. The method was implemented at Eglin AFB, FL,
starting in November 1986. Full-scale implementation began in early summer of
1987. The site contained about 20,000 to 30,000 gallons of fuel. After 15 months of
operation at this site, it was concluded that using hydrogen peroxide as an oxygen
source for biodegradation has limitations which could restrict its successful
application to relatively few Air Force sites. Many vendors report success stories
from other reclamation projects. A large-scale pilot field test was conducted at Kelly
Air Force Base, Texas, from May 1985 to February 1986. The test area was 2,800 ft2
of a backfilled waste-disposal pit. The site was contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, and heavy metals. To stimulate aerobic
biodegradation, hydrogen peroxide was injected. Ammonium chloride and potassium
phosphate were injected to condition the groundwater and provide nutrients to the
indigenous bacteria. Trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene were degraded to
dichloroethylene. Degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons was indicated.
Biodegradation of these compounds by indigenous bacteria had been demonstrated in
laboratory-scale microcosms under anaerobic and aerobic conditions, respectively;
however, the site was not ideal for this method. Injection wells became clogged from
precipitation of calcium phosphate, which reduced their injection capacity by 90%.
This test showed that design of hydraulic delivery systems and compatibility of
injection chemicals with soil minerals are as important to successful treatment as is
enhancement of bacteria.
WES, under the Army's Environmental Quality and Technology, is investigating
innovative methods of applying additives required to stimulate in situ biotreatment
into potential treatment zones. WES is also developing bench-scale evaluation
protocol that can be used to asses the feasibility of in situ biotreatment. WES is
providing the USEPA and the USAE Omaha District with some technical review
support during the remediation of a Superfund Site. Finally, WES is evaluating the
feasibility of in situ biotreatment for remediation of a BTEX (benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene) spill at an Army installation.
The U.S. Air Force is sponsoring research in nitrate enhancement for the in situ
biodegradation of fuel compounds. This research is being conducted at the U.S. EPA
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory. Column studies will be
completed m January 1992 to quantify the effect of nitrate enhancement on BTEX
58
-------
biodegradation. This will be followed by a pilot-scale field study at an Air Force JP-4
fuel contamination site in mid 1992.
References: Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and M.J. Cullinane, An Assessment of the
Applications Potential of In-Situ Biotreatment for Remediation of Saturated
Aquifers, 15th Annual Army Environmental Research and Development
Symposium, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1991.
Hutchinson, S.R. and J.T. Wilson, Laboratory and Field Studies on BTEX
Biodegradation in a Fuel-Contaminated Aquifer under Denitrifying
Conditions, Proceedings, In Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation: An International
Symposium, San Diego, CA, March 19-21,1991.
Biodegradation of Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons by Aquifer Microorganisms
Using Oxygen, Nitrate, on Nitrous Oxide as the Terminal Electron Acceptor,
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 57: 2403-2407, 1991.
Spain, J. C., J.D. Milligan, D.C. Downey, and J.K. Slaughter, Excessive Bacterial
Decomposition of H2 O2 During Enhanced Biodegradation, Ground Water
Vol. 27, No. 2 , Mar-Apr 1989.
Borow, H.S. Bioremediation of Pesticides and Chlorinated Phenolic
Herbicides - Above Ground and In Situ - Case Studies. Proc. Superfund '89,
Washington, DC, Nov 1989.
Gunnison, D. and C.B. Price. Investigation of the Feasibility of Using In Situ
Biodegradation To Treat Gasoline-Contaminated Subsurface Soils at the
U.S. Naval Weapons Station Fuel Storage Facility, Seal Beach, California.
Interim Report, Waterways Experiment Station, Sep 1989.
Downey, D.C., R.E. Hinchee, M.S. Westray, J.K. Slaughter, Combined Biological
and Physical Treatment of A Jet Fuel-Contaminated Aquifer. USAFESC,
Tyndall, AFB, 1989.
Hoeppel, R.E. Biodegradation for On-Site Remediation of Contaminated
Soils and Groundwater at Navy Sites. The Military Engineer, 81(530), Aug 1989.
Hokanson, L.D., 1988 Technology Update - Bioremediation of Fuel Spills.
AFESC, Tyndall AFB, FL, Jul 1988
Wetzel, et al., In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly AFB, Vol. 2: Field
Test Results and Cost Model, Final Report, AFESC Report ESL-TR-85-52 Vol. 2,
Jul 1987
Wetzel, et al., In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly AFB, Vol. 3;
Appendices. Final Report, AFESC Report ESL-TR 85-52 Vol. 3, Jul 1987
Hinchee, R. A., D. C. Downey, and E. J. Coleman, Enhanced Bioreclamation, Soil
Venting and Groundwater Extraction: A Cost Effectiveness Comparison,
presented at the Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Groundwater: Prevention, Detection, and Restoration Conference and Exposition,
Sponsored by the Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers (a Division of
59
-------
the National Water Well Association) and the American Petroleum Institute,
Houston, Texas, Nov 1987.
Wetzel, et al., In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly AFB, Vol. 1: Site
Characterization, Lab Studies, and Treatment System Design and
Installation. AFESC Report ESL-TR-85-52 Vol. 1, Apr 1986.
Contact: Ron Hoeppel
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division,
Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1655, Autovon 551-1655
Douglas Gunnison or Mark Zappi
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-ES-A
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-3873
Capt. Catherine Vogel
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
904-283-2942
Microbes, nutrients
oxygen source
Biological
Treatment
Bloreaclor
Makeup
water
Recharge
Recovery
Figure 21. Schematic diagram of an in situ bioredamation process (Ecova Corporation).
60
-------
22. CATALYTIC OXIDATION UNIT
Category:
Purpose:
Application:
Description:
La.
I.b.
Groundwater Treatment
Soil treatment
Oxidation of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or other organic groundwater and/or
soil contaminants by incineration using a catalyst bed.
This technology can be utilized for oxidation of VOCs, soil vapor extraction, or
groundwater cleanup.
Contaminated groundwater is pumped to the surface and contacted counter-currently
with air in two packed columns (see notes #7 and f 8) to transfer the VOCs from the
water to the air. Following contact with the water, the air exiting from the first
packed column contains most of the volatile compounds that were in the
groundwater. This contaminated air stream is treated by a catalytic oxidation unit,
also known as a catalytic incinerator, to destroy the VOCs and is then released to the
atmosphere. Water samples normally ranging from -400 to 600 ug/L corresponds to
~7 to 11 ug/L in the air exiting from the first packed column.
The catalytic oxidation unit destroys the VOCs in the air stream by contact with a
fluidized bed of catalyst granules at a controlled temperature. Prior to contacting the
bed of catalyst, the air stream is preheated to the bed temperature with an auxiliary
natural gas flame. The oxidation unit is normally operated at a bed temperature of
370° C and treats 0.57 m3 air/second (1,200 std ft3 /min).
The catalyst granules in the fluidized-bed incinerator are composed of an aluminum
oxide support impregnated with chromium. Because the granules constantly grate
against each other, they are normally attrited, and the catalyst bed must be
periodically replenished. The pressure drop across the catalyst bed was 124 Pa (0.5
in. H£ O) after 4 months of operating time. According to the manufacturer, a
pressure drop of 1-in. H2 O corresponds to a 1-in. depth of catalyst in the bed.
Advantages: A catalytic oxidation unit is preferred over a thermal incinerator because it operates
at a lower temperature than the thermal incinerator to obtain high destruction
efficiencies and is more economical to operate. Contaminants are destroyed on site
rather than being transferred to another media as occurs with air stripping and
carbon sorption of contaminants. Catalyst life may be as long as 2 years as
continuous abrasion occurs when in use.
Limitations: High concentrations of organics will melt the catalyst. Products of incomplete
combustion (PICs) have been found in preheater effluent and/or the stack effluent
that were not combustion products and were not in the feed stream. PICs may be
present as a result of: (1) compounds originally present in the feed stream to the
incinerator but not previously identified through analysis, (2) compounds introduced
through the auxiliary natural gas used to preheat the feed stream to the temperature
of the catalyst bed, and (3) compounds that are actual combustion byproducts of the
organic compounds in the incinerator feed stream. Compounds identified as PICs
included benzene, toluene, 2-butanone, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, ethylbenzene,
methylene chloride, and chloroform. Benzene and toluene are the most common PIC
61
-------
compounds found in the preheater effluent and stack effluent in the highest
concentrations.
Cost Cost varies for unit size. A 1,200 ft3 /min unit will cost about $110,000 installed.
Operating cost will be $0.40/1000 gallons of H2 0 treated at a rate of 185 gal/min.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: Currently in use at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, MI at a trichloroethylene (TCE) spill
site. Full-scale implementation was October 1989 to present.
References: Hylton, T.C., Evaluation of the TCE Catalytic Oxidation Unit at Wurtsmith
Air Force Base, for Air Force Engineering and Services Center Report ESL TR 91-
43, 1991.
Contact: Capt. Edward G. Marchand
HQ AFCESA/RAV
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6023
62
-------
Category:
Purpose:
I.a.
I.b.
23. SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Groundwater treatment
Soil Treatment
Solvent extraction is potentially effective in treating oily sludges and soils
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCS), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH), and pesticides by separating the sludges into three fractions:
oil, water, and solids. As the fractions separate, contaminants are partitioned into
specific phases.
Application: This process can be used to remove most hydrocarbons or oily contaminants in
sludges or soils, including PCBs, PAHs and pesticides (table 23). Performance can be
influenced by the presence of detergents and emulsifiers, low pH materials, and
reactivity of the organics with the solvent. Solvent extraction (SE) is suitable for
treating wastes containing high levels of organics. SE may offer a lower cost
alternative than traditional thermal destruction technologies (see also note #4).
Table 23. Specific Wastes Capable of Treatment by Solvent Extraction
RCRA Listed Hazardous Wastes
Creosote-Saturated Sludge
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Float
Slop Oil Emulsion Solids
Heat Exchanger Bundle Cleaning Sludge
API Separator Sludge
Leaded Tank Bottoms
Non-Listed Hazardous Wastes
Primary Oil/Solids/Water Separation Sludges
Secondary Oil/Solids/Water Separation Sludges
Bio-Sludges
Cooling Tower Sludges
HF Alkylation Sludges
Waste FCC Catalyst
Spent Catalyst
Stratford Unit Solution
Tank Bottoms
Treated Clays
Description: Secondary or tertiary amines [usually triethylamine (TEA)] are used to separate
organics from soil and sludges. The technology is based on the fact that TEA is
completely soluble in water at temperatures below 20°C. Because TEA is flammable
in the presence of oxygen, the treatment system must be sealed from the atmosphere
and operated under a nitrogen blanket. Prior to treatment, it is necessary to raise
the pH of the waste material above 10, creating an environment in which TEA will be
conserved effectively for recycling through the process. Pretreatment also includes
screening the contaminated feed solids to remove cobbles and debris to effect smooth
flow through the process.
The process begins by mixing and agitating the cold solvent and waste in a
washer/dryer. The washer/dryer is a horizontal steam-jacketed vessel with rotating
63
-------
paddles. Hydrocarbons and water in the waste simultaneously dissolve in cold TEA,
creating a homogeneous mixture. As the solvent breaks the oil-water-solid emulsions
in the waste, the solids are released and allowed to settle by gravity. The solvent
mixture is decanted, and fine particles are released and allowed to settle by gravity.
The solvent mixture is decanted and fine particles are removed by centrifuging. The
resulting dry solids have been cleansed of hydrocarbons but contain most of the
original waste's heavy metals; thus, further treatment may be required prior to
disposal.
The solvent mixture from the washer/dryer unit (containing the organics and water
extracted from the waste is heated. As the temperature of the solvent increases, the
water separates from the organics and solvent. The organics-solvent fraction is
decanted and sent to a stripping column, where the solvent is recovered for recycle,
and the organics are discharged for recycling or disposal. The water phase is passed
to a second stripping column, where residual solvent is recovered for recycling.
Advantages: The recovery of oils and organics from the contaminated material, if saleable, will
help defer the cost of remediation. The technology is modular, allowing for on site
treatment. Based on the results of many bench-scale treatability tests, the process
significantly reduces the hydrocarbon concentration in the solids. Other advantages
of the technology include the production of dry solids, the recovery and reuse of soil,
and waste volume reduction. By removing contaminants, the process reduces the
overall toxicity of the solids and water streams. It also concentrates the
contaminants into a smaller volume, allowing efficient final treatment and disposal.
Limitations:
Cost:
Availability:
Status:
References:
TEA is flammable. Large pieces of contaminated solids (rocks or soils that have been
consolidated or cemented by contaminants) must be reduced in size.
Cost will vary depending on the contaminant and the media. If sold, this material
can help defer the cost of remediation.
Commercially available.
WES is assisting the EPA evaluate SE technology as a best demonstrated available
technology (BAT). A demonstration unit was operated at WES Vicksburg during May
1989. Wastes evaluated included listed wastes K049 and K051.
A pilot-scale system was tested by EPA on PCB-laden sediments from the New
Bedford (MA) Harbor Superfund site during September 1988. PCB concentrations in
the harbor ranged from 300 ppm to 2,500 ppm.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA/540/5-90/006 Nov
1990, pp. 78-79.
Sandrin, J.A., D.W. Hall, and R.E. McBride. Case Study of the Bench-Scale
Solvent Extraction Feasibility Testing of Contaminated Soils and Sludges
0raOIflfth,e Arrowhead Reining Superfund Site, Minnesota. Proc. Superfund
89, Washington, DC, Nov 1989.
Sudell, Gerard W., Evaluation of the BEST Solvent Extraction Sludge
mpnt Te'h"°logy Twenty-Four Hour Test, Site Technology Profile,
Report No. EPA/600/Z-88/051, USEPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH 1988
64
-------
Contact: Mark Bricka or Danny Averette Laurel Stanley or Mark Meckes
USAE Waterways Experiment Station U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Attn: CEWES-EE-S Laboratory
3909 Halls Ferry Road 26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Cincinnati, Oh 45268
Phone: 601-636-3111 513-569-7863
65
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
66
-------
24. GROUNDWATER AND SOIL VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM
Category:
La.
I.b.
Groundwater Treatment
Soil Treatment
Purpose: To remove fuel contamination from saturated and unsaturated groundwater zones.
Application: The method is applicable for remediation of gasoline and other fuel leak sites.
Description: This technology is a combination of groundwater treatment and soil vapor extraction
technologies. The commercial unit is designed to handle groundwater flow rates of
up to 10 gal/min. The equipment is called spray aeration vacuum extraction (SAVE)
system and it consists of the following three components: (1) treatment of
groundwater by vacuum and temperature enhanced spray aeration, (2) extraction of
soil vapors from vadose zone, and (3) an internal combustion engine that drives a
vacuum pump for vapor extraction and a water pump that recirculates water in the
spray chamber through nozzles. The hydrocarbons removed from groundwater and
soil are used as fuel for the internal combustion engine and are oxidized during
combustion. The engine can also drive a small air compressor to provide air for a
low-capacity groundwater pump. The groundwater is treated in a spray aeration
chamber that is operated under a vacuum of about 10 inches of Hg and at about 80°
to 90° F. The combined action of low pressure and slightly higher temperature
enhances the volatilization and hence removal of contaminants from groundwater. A
portion of the engine coolant is recirculated through a heat exchanger to heat the
groundwater to the operating temperature. During the demonstration project at a
gasoline-contaminated site, the removal efficiencies in terms of benzene, toluene,
ethyl benzene, xylene (BTEX) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline,
ranged from 80% to 90% at 2 to 8 gal/min flow rates. The lower efficiencies were
observed at higher flow rates. The treated groundwater generally requires final
polishing by carbon adsorption (see note #1) to meet local discharge limitation. The
inlet of die vacuum pump is connected to the vapor extraction well and to the spray
chamber. The negative pressure at the well draws subsurface contamination through
the vacuum pump to the engine and is utilized as fuel. The radius of influence for
vapor extraction depends on the permeability of the subsurface. At this site, due to
high permeability of the silty sand, the radius was in excess of 80 ft. The exhaust
gases from the engine pass through a dual catalytic converter before discharge to
meet local air regulations. Depending on the concentration of hydrocarbons in the
extracted vapors, supplemental fuel, such as propane or natural gas, may be
necessary to operate the engine. No supplemental fuel was required during the
demonstration study as the recovered vapors had high enough hydrocarbon
concentrations to sustain the engine. The vapor extraction technique requires wells
that are screened in the vadose zone or vapor extraction trenches with slotted pipes.
The efficiency of the vapor extraction system depends on the site-specific conditions,
and detailed site characterization is needed prior to installation.
Advantages: The unit provides both groundwater and soil vapor extraction and treatment. This
mobile unit is relatively easy to install at the site provided the monitoring wells are
already in place. External power may not be needed if the vapors have high
hydrocarbon concentrations. The operators need special training.
67
-------
Limitations: This commercial unit can handle relatively low flow rates and is suitable for
relatively small sites. Generally, the treated water will require additional polishing
to meet discharge requirements. Depending on the groundwater characteristics, a
pretreatment system to remove free product or suspended solids may be needed. The
unit may require permits from local air pollution control districts. The
contamination must be amenable to destruction in an internal combustion engine.
Costs:
Capital costs are about $70,000 excluding wells and pretreatment.
Availability: The unit is commercially available.
Status: Full-scale implementation was demonstrated at CBC, Port Hueneme, CA, in FY91.
References: A technical report providing details about the performance of this system at a
gasoline leak site is under preparation.
Contact: Tanwir Chaudhry
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1609, Autovon 551-1609
68
-------
25. INTEGRATED VAPOR EXTRACTION AND
STEAM VACUUM STRIPPING
Category:
Purpose:
Application:
La. Groundwater Treatment
I.b. Soil Treatment
To remove volatile organic compounds (VOC) and chlorinated hydrocarbons from
groundwater and soil.
This technology removes VOCs, including chlorinated hydrocarbons, in groundwater
and soil. Sites with contaminated groundwater and soils containing trichloro-
ethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), and other VOCs are suitable for this on site
treatment process. It is capable of effectively removing over 90 of the 110 volatile
compounds listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII.
Description: The integrated system simultaneously treats groundwater and soil contaminated
with VOCs. The integrated system consists of two basic processes: a moderate
vacuum stripping tower that uses low-pressure steam to treat contaminated
groundwater; and a soil gas vapor extraction/reinjection (SVE) process to treat
contaminated soil. The two processes form a closed-loop system that provides
simultaneous in situ remediation of contaminated groundwater and soil with no air
emission.
It is a high efficiency, counter-current stripping technology. A single-stage unit will
typically reduce up to 99.99% of VOCs from water. The SVE system uses a vacuum
to treat a VOC-contaminated soil mass, inducing a flow of air through the soil and
removing vapor phase VOCs with the extracted soil gas. The soil gas is then treated
by carbon beds to remove additional VOCs and reinjected into the ground. The
integrated systems share a granulated activated carbon (GAG) unit (figure 25). Non-
condensable vapor from the system is combined with the vapor from the SVE
compressor and decontaminated by the GAG unit. Byproducts of the system are a
free-phase recyclable product and treated water. Mineral-regenerable carbon will
require disposal after approximately 3 years.
A key component of the closed-loop system is a vent header unit designed to collect
the non condensable gases extracted from the ground water or air that may leak into
the portion of the process operating below atmospheric pressure. Further, the steam
used to regenerate the carbon beds is condensed and treated in the system.
Advantages: The integrated system is capable of treating VOCs from soil vapor extraction and
contaminated groundwater simultaneously. Contaminated steam used in the process
is condensed and processed by the integrated system. VOCs and chlorinated
hydrocarbons in groundwater and soil are processed in this system.
Limitations: Twenty of the volatile compounds listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII are not
removed from the pollution stream. Leaking into the portion of the process operating
below atmospheric pressure can occur.
Cost: Not vailable.
Availability: Commercially available.
69
-------
Status: The integrated system is currently being used at the Lockheed Aeronautical Systems
Company in Burbank, CA. At this site, the system is treating groundwater
contaminated with as much as 2,200 ppb of TCE and 11,000 ppb PCE and soil gas
with a total VOC concentration of 6,000 ppm. Contaminated groundwater is being
treated at a rate of up to 1,200 gpm, while soil gas is removed and treated at a rate of
300 ft3/min. The system occupies approximately 4,000 ft2.
A SITE demonstration project was evaluated as part of the ongoing remediation
effort at the San Fernando Valley Ground-Water Basin Superfund site in Burbank,
CA, in September 1990.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 22-23.
Contact: Norma Lewis and Gordon Evans
U.S. EPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7665 and 513-569-7684
Noacoodenablci ^
Figure 25. Zero air emissions integrated AquaDetox/SVE sys
tern.
70
-------
26. WHITE ROT FUNGUS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To bioremediate soil contaminated with ordnance compounds, specifically TNT and
RDX
Application: The method is applicable for decontaminating ordnance-contaminated soil.
Description: Two different treatment systems, both of which will utilize white rot fungus, will be
tested on site: (a) in situ, and (b) bioreactor. The in situ system, will consist of a IO-
meter square plot on site, mixed with soil nutrient, fungus, and any amendments
required. The bioreactor study will consist of three 10 ft3 reactors filled with soil
from the site and mixed with nutrients, fungus, and any amendments required.
Excavation is not required for the in situ method. The restoration process will
require approximately 2.5 months. The ultimate fate of the contaminants is CO2 .
Restoration can be conducted by site personnel and contractors.
Advantages: The method is low in cost and environmentally friendly.
Limitations: Limitations are not known.
Costs: The costs are estimated at $75/yd3 .
Availability: The technology is not available off the shelf, but it is not difficult to implement.
Status: Bench-scale studies have been conducted at Utah State University from June 1990 to
the present. A field-pilot test is planned for Site D, SUBASE Bangor, ME, starting in
FY92.
References: Lebron, C.A. Ordnance Bioremediation - Initial Feasibility Report, Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Jun 1990.
Contact: Carmen A. Lebron
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1616, Autovon 551-1616
71
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
72
-------
27. BIODEGRADATION OF LUBE OIL CONTAMINATED SOILS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To remove used motor oil from contaminated soil by enhancing natural
biodegradation.
Application: The method is applicable for oil spills at maintenance facilities, air strips, along
roadways and streets, and parking lots. Although research on the method has been
directed to degradation of used lubrication oil, it should be applicable to almost any
nonfunctionalized aliphatic hydrocarbon.
Description: The soil to be treated must be disked. The inoculant and nutrients are applied
during disking, and the site is covered with plastic sheeting. The nutrients in the
pilot studies have consisted of sodium acetate, minerals (potassium, magnesium,
ammonium, phosphate, and sulfate ions), and Tween 80, a surfactant. The plastic
sheet must have holes to allow transport of air.
Advantages: The method is simple and can be carried out by facilities personnel. It is a
destructive technique. Indigenous microorganisms enhanced by laboratory selection
are used for the degradation. Microorganisms that have been naturally exposed and
that metabolize the hydrocarbons are collected. Those microorganisms that exhibit
the highest level of survival and metabolism in the presence of the waste oil are
returned to the contaminated site. The enhanced microbe population degrades the
waste oil faster than the natural population, but since these organisms are located at
the site originally, nothing unnatural is introduced to the environment.
Limitations: Not much is known about the products of the biodegradation. The effects of heavy
metals, often present in used lube oils, are not known. Aerobic biodegradation can
remove about 60 % of the waste oil. More work will be required to determine if
anaerobic degradation can be used for the remaining 40 %. Weather is important -
extremes in temperature, either hot or cold, can limit the growth and metabolism of
the microorganisms. The proper soil moisture content is important as well. Because
of these restrictions of weather and moisture, the site being restored must be covered.
As described, the method is limited to the depth at which the microbes are applied
through disking the soil.
Costs:
Costs are estimated at between $50 and $150/yd3.
Availability: Commercial systems are available.
Status: Small-scale pilot testing (1 to 10 drums) has been conducted at U.S. Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. Noticeable reduction in
contaminant concentrations are evident after 4 to 6 weeks. Pilot plots consist of
plastic tubs containing 8 kg of contaminated soil placed outside and covered with
plastic. Flask tests were conducted initially to identify optimum conditions.
WES has completed a bench-scale evaluation of mechanisms responsible for
degradation of heavy petroleum hydrocarbons in a landfarming biotreatment system.
WES has also performed both bench- and pilot-scale bioslurry studies for treating
petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soils.
73
-------
References: Gunnison, D., Evaluation of the Potential use of Microorganisms in the
Cleanup of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Spills in Soils, WES Technical Report, EL-
91-13, 1991.
Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francingues. Development of a
Laboratory Method for Evaluation of Bioslurry Treatment Systems.
Presented at the 1991 Superfund Conference, Washington, DC, 1991.
Donnelly, J.A. and W.J. Mikucki. Used Motor Oil Digestion by Soil
Microorganisms, Presented to the American Society for Microbiologists, Atlanta,
Mar 1987.
Brown, L.R. Oil-Degrading Microorganisms. Chemical Engineering Progress,
83(10):35-40, Oct 1987.
Contact: Walter Mikucki Mark Zappi or Douglas Gunnison
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Construction Engineering Research Attn: CEWES-EE-S
Laboratories 3909 Halls Ferry Road
P.O. Box 9005 Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Champaign, IL 61826-9005 601-636-2856
217-352 6511, 800-USA-CERL
74
-------
28. COMPOSTING OF EXPLOSIVES CONTAMINATED SOILS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To decontaminate soils and sediments contaminated with TNT, HMX, and RDX,
through the biodegradation process of composting.
Application: The composting process may be applied to soils and lagoon sediments contaminated
with explosives and propellents.
Description: Composting is a controlled biological process by which biodegradable hazardous
materials are converted by microorganisms to innocuous, stabilized byproducts. In
most cases, this is achieved by the use of indigenous microorganisms. Research and
development efforts have demonstrated that aerobic, thermophilic composting is able
to reduce the concentration of explosives (TNT, RDX, and HMX) and associated
toxicity to acceptable levels. Explosives-contaminated soils are excavated and mixed
with bulking agents and organic amendments such as animal and vegetative wastes.
Maximum degradation efficiency is controlled by maintaining moisture content, pH,
oxygenation, temperature, and the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio. There are three process
designs used in composting: aerated static piles, windrowing (see figure 28), and
mechanically agitated in-vessel composting.
Advantages: The process is a low-cost alternative technique for the remediation of explosives-
contaminated soils. The process is more publicly acceptable than incineration, and
the product is agriculturally enriched.
Limitations: Substantial space is required for composting; excavation of contaminated soil is
required; composting results in a volumetric increase in material due to amendment
material; and heavy metals are not treated by this method.
Cost:
Costs will vary with the amount of soil to be treated, availability of amendments, and
the type of process design employed.
Availability: All materials and equipment used for composting are commercially available, and a
treatability protocol is being developed.
Status: The first full-scale remediation using composting to remediate explosives-
contaminated soils is being proposed for the remediation of Umatilla Depot Activity's
washout lagoons, a current national priority list site. A field pilot scale
demonstration was conducted at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant from
December 1987 to July 1988. A composting optimization field study to compare two
systems has been completed at the Umatilla Army Depot Activity (UMDA),
Hermiston, OR. The study confirmed the conclusions from previous pilot-scale field
demonstrations that composting is an effective remediation technology for
decontaminating explosives-contaminated soils. Since the results indicated that
mixing and amendment selection are important process parameters in achieving
more rapid and thorough explosives destruction, a pilot-scale field demonstration to
obtain windrow process design information is scheduled.
WES is currently developing a bench protocol to evaluate compost treatment of
explosives-contaminated soils.
75
-------
References: Williams, R.T. and P.J. Marks. Optimization of Composting for Explosives
Contaminated Soils. USATHAMA Report CETHA-TS-CR-91053, Nov 1991.
Griest, W.H. et al. Characterization of Explosives Processing Wastes Due to
Composting, USABRDL Report (number to be assigned), Nov 1991.
Williams, R.T. and C.A Myler. Bioremediation Using Composting, Biocycle, Nov
1990.
Unkefer, P.J., J.L. Banners, C.J. Unkefer, and J.F. Kramer. Microbial Culturing
of Explosives Degradation. Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium,
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr
1990.
Greist, W.H. et al. Toxicological and Chemical Characterization of
Composted Explosives Processing Waste. Proc. 14th Annual Army
Environmental Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr 1990.
Montemagno, C.D. and R.L. Irvine. Feasibility of Biodegrading TNT
Contaminated Soils. Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, U.S.
Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr
1990.
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks. Field Demonstration -
Composting of Propellents Contaminated Sediments at the Badger Army
Ammunition Plant (BAAP). USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-89061, Mar
1989.
Procedure for the Workshop on Composting of Explosives Contaminated
Soils, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TS-CR-89276, Oct 1989.
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks. Field Demonstration -
Composting of Explosives - Contaminated Sediments at the Louisiana Army
Ammunition Plant. USATHAMA. Report AMXTH-IR-TE-88242, Sep 1988.
Contacts: Capt. Kevin Keehan
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-
5401
410-671-2054
John Cullinane and Judith Pennington
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-636-3111
76
-------
Figure 28 Photograph of windrow composting conducted at Umatilla Army Depot Activity,
Hermiston, OR.
77
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
78
-------
29. COMPOSTING OF PROPELLANTS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Il.b. Minimization or Treatment of Munition Production and/or Handling Waste
Streams
Purpose: To develop composting as an environmentally acceptable method to dispose of waste
nitrocellulose (NC) fines and to remediate soils contaminated with NC-based
propellants.
Applications The method is applicable for treatment of NC from wastewater streams resulting
from the manufacture of NC and soils contaminated with NC by previous
manufacturing operations.
Description: Composting is initiated by mixing biodegradable organic contaminants (NC in this
case) with organic carbon sources and bulking agents, which are added to enhance
the porosity of the mixture to be decomposed. In static pile composting, an aeration
system (a network of a perforated pipe underlying the compost pile) is utilized to
increase process control (see note #28). Test facilities were constructed of a concrete
pads with runoff collection systems and sumps, covered by a roof to protect the piles
from weather. Bulking agents and carbon sources consisted of horse manure, alfalfa,
straw, and horse feed. Baled straw was used to contain the piles. After mixing the
compost was transported to the composting pads. Blowers were used to pull air
through the piles to promote aeration and remove excess heat. As an example of the
decomposition efficiency, the initial concentration in the piles was about 3,600 mg
NC/kg compost; after 152 days, the concentration in the pile maintained at 55° C was
54 mg/kg.
Advantages: The process is a low-cost alternative technique for the remediation of explosives-
contaminated soils. The process is more publicly acceptable than incineration and
the product is agriculturally enriched.
Limitations: Substantial space is required for composting; excavation of contaminated soil is
required; composting results in a volumetric increase in material due to amendment
material; and heavy metals are not treated by this method.
Costs:
Exact cost information is not available. Costs will be site-specific.
Availability: All materials and equipment used for composting are commercially available, and a
treatability protocol is being developed.
Status: The field-scale demonstration was conducted at Badger Army Ammunition Plant
(BAAP) in Sauk County, WI, in 1988 and 1989.
References: Final Technical Report, Engineering/Cost Evaluation of Options for
Removal/Disposal of NC Fines. U.S. Army Report DAAK11-85-D-0008, 1987.
Final Technical Report, Field Demonstration - Composting of Propellants
Contaminated Sediments at the Badger Army Ammunition Plant (BAAP).
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-89061.
79
-------
Contact: Capt. Kevin Keehan
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2054
80
-------
30. PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATED SOIL
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To separate organic-contaminated soil (usually fines) from less coarse material.
Application: This technology may be used on organic-contaminated soil as a pretreatment prior to
application of disposal technology (incineration, biodegradation, solvent extraction,
low temperature treatment, etc.).
Description: Organic chemicals are known to associate with the small particle-size fraction of
contaminated soils. Existing mining equipment can be adapted to separate the
relatively cleaner coarse-size fraction of the soil from the highly contaminated fine
fraction of the soil. Thus, the use of such equipment can reduce the volume of
materials requiring additional processing and thus reduce treatment cost.
Advantages: Off the shelf equipment is available that can treat high volumes of soil at relatively
low costs. If the technology is applicable to the waste, it can greatly reduce treatment
costs. The non-contaminated fraction of soil, free of contaminants, thus may offer the
potential for backfilling on site.
Limitations: The contaminants must partition into some fraction of the soil, usually the fines.
Wet-soil processing can generate a wastewater that will require treatment. This
process is only a pretreatment method and must be used in conjunction with other
soil treatment methods.
Cost: Costs depend upon specific applications, but are estimated to range between $30 and
$200 per ton.
Availability: While the technology has been used extensively for the processing and mining of
minerals, it is relatively unproven for contaminated soils. Treatability testing is
required prior to its application.
Status: Physical separation has been demonstrated in a variety of pilot studies, but generally
applied to soils contaminated with radionuclides and metals. Bench-scale feasibility
studies for explosive-contaminated materials have been initiated at the USAE
Waterways Experiment Station.
References: None available.
Contact: R. Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-3700
81
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
82
-------
31. PHYSICAL SEPARATION FOR
EXPLOSIVES CONTAMINATED SOILS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To provide a pretreatment method that reduces the volume of soil that will require
additional treatment such as biological remediation or incineration. This technique
simply removes the contaminated fraction of soil from the non-contaminated fraction.
Application: Physical separation is a process that is applicable to the treatment of explosives-
contaminated wet or dry soils, sludges, sediments, and other solid wastes. It can be
applied to discrete contaminant particles or adsorbed onto soil particles. To be
useful, the contaminant must preferentially associate with some fraction of the soil,
e.g., smaller particles. This selective partitioning of contaminants commonly occurs
with both organics and metals.
Description: Organic chemicals are known to associate with the small particle-size fraction of
contaminated soils. Existing mining equipment can be adapted to separate the
relatively cleaner coarse size fraction of the soil from the highly contaminated fine
fraction of the soil. Thus, the use of such equipment can reduce the volume of
materials requiring additional processing and thus reduce treatment cost.
Advantages: Off the shelf equipment is available which can treat high volumes of soil at relatively
low costs. If the technology is applicable to the waste, it can greatly reduce treatment
costs. The non-contaminated fraction of soil, free of contaminants, thus may offer the
potential for backfilling on site.
Limitations: The contaminants must partition into some fraction of the soil, usually the fines.
Wet-soil processing can generate a wastewater that will require treatment. This
process is only a pretreatment method and must be used in conjunction with other
soil treatment methods.
Cost:
Costs depend upon specific applications, but are estimated to range between $30 and
$200 per ton.
Availability: While the technology has been used extensively for the processing and mining of
minerals, it is relatively unproven for contaminated soils. Treatability testing is
required prior to its application.
Status: Physical separation has been demonstrated in a variety of pilot studies, but generally
applied to soils contaminated with radionuclides and metals. Bench-scale feasibility
studies for explosive-contaminated materials have been initiated at the USAE
Waterways Experiment Station.
References: Plans of study for the physical separation of soils contaminated with explosives, as
well as arsenic and mercury, have been prepared and initiated at the USAE
Waterways Experiment Station (see point of contact below).
83
-------
Contact: Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3700
84
-------
32. PHYSICAL SEPARATION FOR HEAVY METAL
CONTAMINATED SOILS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To provide a pretreatment method to reduce the volume of soil requiring additional
treatment such as solidification or extraction technologies. This technique simply
removes the metal-contaminated fraction of soil from the non-contaminated (clean)
fraction.
Application: Physical separation is a process that is applicable to the treatment of metal-
contaminated wet or dry soils, sludges, sediments, and other solid wastes. It can be
applied to discrete contaminant particles or contaminants adsorbed onto soil
particles. To be useful, the contaminant must preferentially associate with some
fraction of the soil, e.g., the smaller particles. This selective partitioning of
contaminants commonly occurs with both organics and metals.
Description: Heavy metal contaminates typically associate with the small particle-size fraction of
contaminated soils. Existing mining equipment can be adapted to separate the
relatively cleaner coarse size fraction of the soil from the highly contaminated fine
fraction of the soil. Thus, the use of such equipment can reduce the volume of
materials requiring additional processing and thus reduce treatment cost.
Advantages: Off the shelf equipment is available which can treat high volumes of soil at relatively
low costs. If the technology is applicable to the waste, it can greatly reduce treatment
costs. The non-contaminated fraction of soil, free of contaminants, thus may offer the
potential for backfilling on site.
Limitations: The contaminants must partition into some fraction of the soil, usually the fines.
Wet-soil processing can generate a wastewater which will require treatment. This
process is only a pretreatment method and must be used in conjunction with other
soil treatment methods.
Cost:
Costs depend upon specific applications, but are estimated to range between $30
$200 per ton.
Availability: While the technology has been used extensively for the processing and mining of
minerals, it is relatively unproven for contaminated soils. Treatability testing is
required prior to its application.
Status: Physical separation has been demonstrated in a variety of pilot studies, but generally
applied to soils contaminated with radionuclides and metals. Bench-scale feasibility
studies for explosive-contaminated material have been initiated at the USAE
Waterways Experiment Station.
References: Plans of study for the physical separation of soils contaminated with arsenic,
mercury, and explosives have been prepared and initiated at the USAE Waterways
Experiment Station.
85
-------
Contact: Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3700
86
-------
33. EXTRACTION OF METALS FROM CONTAMINATED SOILS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment.
Purpose: Metal extraction technologies can be utilized to remove the metals from
contaminated soils so that the treated soil may be backfilled. This will avoid long
term problems associated with immobilization technologies such as
solidification/stabilization where the metals are not removed from the waste and thus
may pose environmental threats. In addition, many metals remediation activities
involve dig-and-haul disposal techniques, which simply transfer the contamination
problem from one area to another and in many cases require RCRA landfill disposal.
Metal extraction technologies will avoid such problems.
Application: This technology may be applicable to any metal-contaminated soil.
Description: Many factors such as pH, oxidation/reduction potential, metal species, ionic strength,
etc., are known to effect the solubility of metals. By changing such parameters,
metals may be extracted from the soils. The most frequently utilized technique is
acid soil washing. With this technique the metals are removed from the soil into an
acid solution that requires additional treatment.
Advantages: This technology will remove the metal contamination from the soil. This may reduce
the requirement of RCRA land disposal and will reduce the long-term possibility of
contaminant migration.
This technology has not been utilized in the field on a wide scale.
On the order of $100/yd3 .
Limitations:
Cost:
Availability: The technology is currently commercially available.
Status:
Laboratory and bench-scale testing are currently being conducted to determine the
effectiveness of the process for lead-, mercury-, and arsenic-contaminated soils. Field
evaluation of this technique is currently being conducted at the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal.
References: Plan of Study for Extraction of Arsenic and Mercury From Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Soil by USAE Waterways Experiment Station.
Nunno, T.J., et al, Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund
Applications, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-88/003, Sep
1988.
Contact: Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3700
87
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
-------
34. CHEMICAL EXTRACTION OF EXPLOSIVES COMPOUNDS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To treat or facilitate treatment of explosives-contaminated soils.
Application: This technology can be used in conjunction with soil washing or bioslurry treatment
systems.
Description: Chemical extraction involves extraction of explosives compounds from soils using
some type of extraction fluid (see notes #4 and #23). Candidate extraction fluids
include solvents, surfactants, acids and bases, and water. The success of an
extraction system is judged based on the fluid's ability to increase desorption rate
and total mass of explosive compound extracted from the soil.
Advantages: Chemical extraction can reduce treatment times in a bioslurry reactor (see note #43)
by increasing the availability of the compound to the microbial populations.
Chemical extraction may also represent an economic means of remediating mid- to
low-level explosive-contaminated soils.
Limitations: The addition of an extraction fluid such as a surfactant will increase treatment costs.
Also, in terms of usage with a bioslurry reactor, the extraction fluid must be
compatible with the microbial populations.
Cost: Will vary with extraction fluid type and required dosages.
Availability: Several candidate extraction fluids are commercially available; however, using these
fluids as a means of extracting explosive compounds has been done on a very limited
scale.
Status: WES has evaluated extraction of TNT from soils using aqueous solutions of acetone
and various commercial surfactants. Currently, WES is evaluating the addition of an
extraction fluid in a bioslurry reactor to increase TNT degradation rate. A treatment
system for TNT-laden acetone/water solution is under development at WES.
References: Pennington, J.C. and W. H. Patrick, Jr., Adsorption and Desorption of 2,4,6-
Trinitrotoluene by Soil. J. Environmental Quality, 19(3):559-567,1990.
Sikka, H.C., S. Banerjee, E.J. Pack, and H.T. Appleton, Environmental Fate of
RDX and TNT. U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command Report
TR-81538,1980.
Contact: Dr. Judith Pennington and Mark E. Zappi
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-2802 and 2856
89
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
90
-------
35. SOIL WASHING SYSTEM
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: Decontamination of soils contaminated with hazardous chemicals, hazardous
substances, or hazardous materials.
Application: This technology was initially developed to clean soils contaminated with wood
preserving wastes such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and pentachlorophenol
(PCP). The technology is also applicable to soils contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), various industrial
chemicals, and metals.
Description: This soil washing system (BIOTROL) is a patented, water-based, volume reduction
process for treating excavated soil. Soil washing systems are offered by other
vendors. Soil washing is applicable to contaminants concentrated in the fine-size
fraction of soil (silt, clay, and soil organic matter) and contaminants associated with
the coarse soil fraction (sand and gravel), primarily surfacial. The objective of the
process is to concentrate the contaminants in a smaller volume of material separate
from a washed-soil product. The goal is that the soil product will meet appropriate
cleanup standards. After debris is removed, soil is mixed with water and subjected to
various unit operations common to the mineral processing industry. Process steps
can include mixing trommels, pug mills, vibrating screens, froth flotation cells,
attrition scrubbing machines, hydrocyclones, screw classifiers, and various
dewatering operations. The core of the process is a multi-stage, counter-current,
intensive scrubbing circuit with interstage classification. The scrubbing action
disintegrates soil aggregates, freeing contaminant fine particles from the coarser
sand and gravel. In addition, surfacial contamination is removed from the coarse
fraction by the abrasive scouring action of the particles themselves. Contaminants
may also be solubilized as dictated by solubility characteristics or partition
coefficients. In many cases water alone is sufficient to achieve the desired level of
contaminant removal while minimizing cost. The efficiency of soil washing can be
improved using surfactants, detergents, chelating agents, pH adjustment, or heat.
The volume of material requiring additional treatment or disposal is reduced
significantly by separating the washed, coarser soil components from the process
water and contaminated fine particles (figure 35). The contaminated residual
products can be treated by other methods. Process water is normally recycled after
biological or physical treatment. Options for the contaminated fines can include off-
site disposal, incineration, stabilization, or biological treatment.
Advantages: In the BIOTROL SITE demonstration, PCP and PAH levels in the washed soil were
reduced by about 90%.
Limitations: Additional treatment and/or disposal off-site is required.
Cost: Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: The SITE demonstration of the BIOTROL soil washing technology took place from
September 25 to October 27, 1989 at the MacGillis & Gibbs Superfund site in New
91
-------
Brighton, MN. A pilot-scale unit with a treatment capacity of 500 pounds per hour
was operated 24 hours per day during the demonstration. Feed for the first phase of
the demonstration (2 days) consisted of soil contaminated with 170 ppm PCP and 240
ppm total PAHs. During the second phase (7 days), soil containing 980 ppm PCP and
340 ppm total PAHs was fed to the system.
Contaminated process water from soil washing was treated biologically in a fixed film
reactor and recycled. A portion of the contaminated fines generated during soil
washing was treated biologically in a three-stage, pilot-scale reactor system.
References: Engineering Bulletin Soil Washing Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report EPA/540/2-90/017, Sep 1990.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov.
1990, pp. 26-27.
Contact: Mary K Stinson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, New Jersey 08837
908-321-6683
Excavate
Contaminated
Soil
Make-Up Water
'CD
Contaminated
Water
Contaminated
Fines
Options
• Off-Site Disposal
• Incineration
• Stabilization
• Biological Treatment
Figure 35 Bwtrol Soil Washing System Process Flowsheet
92
-------
36. DEBRIS WASHING SYSTEM
Category:
Purpose:
I.b. Soil Treatment
Decontamination of debris (metallic, masonry, or other solid debris) by a portable
washing process.
Application: The Debris Washing System (DWS) can be applied on site to various types of debris
(metallic, masonry, or other solid debris) that is contaminated with hazardous
chemicals such as pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, and other metals.
Description: This technology was developed to decontaminate debris currently found at Superfund
sites throughout the country. The DWS was demonstrated under the innovative
program and will be commercialized. The DWS consists of 300-gallon spray and
wash tanks, surfactant and rinse water holding tanks, and an oil/water separator.
The decontamination solution treatment system includes a diatomaceous earth filter,
an activated carbon column, and an ion exchange column. Other required equipment
includes pumps, stirrer motor, tank heater, metal debris basket, and particulate
filters (figure 36). The DWS unit is transported on a 49-foot semitrailer. At the
treatment site, the DWS unit is assembled on a 25 by 24 foot concrete pad and
enclosed in a temporary shelter. A basket of debris is placed in the spray tank with a
forklift, where it is sprayed with an aqueous detergent solution. An array of high
pressure water jets blast contaminants and dirt from the debris. Detergent solution
is continually recycled through a filter system that cleans the liquid. The wash and
rinse tanks are supplied with water at 140° F and 60 psig. The contaminated wash
solution is collected and treated prior to discharge. An integral part of the technology
is treatment of the process detergent solution and rinse water to reduce the
contaminant concentration to allowable discharge levels. Process water treatment
consists of particulate filtration, activated carbon adsorption and ion exchange.
Approximately 1,000 gallons of liquid are used during the decontamination process.
Advantages: The equipment for application of this technology is portable. Debris washed by this
process can be declassified and sold by the EPA. Detergents used in cleaning debris
are recycled.
Limitations: Contaminants washed from debris must be disposed of after cleaning the detergents.
Cost: Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: The first pilot-scale testing was performed at the Region V Carter Industrial
Superfund site in Detroit, MI. Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) reduction averaged 58
% in batch 1 and 81% in batch 2. Design changes were made and tested on the unit
prior to additional field testing.
Field testing occurred using the upgraded pilot-scale DWS unit at a Region IV PCB-
contaminated Superfund site in Hopkinsville, KY, during December 1989. The
results were promising. PCB levels on the surfaces of metallic transformer casings
were reduced to less than or equal to 10 micrograms PCB/100 cm2. All 75
93
-------
contaminated transformer casings on site were decontaminated to U.S. EPA
acceptable cleanup criteria, and sold by Region 4 to a scrap metal dealer.
The unit was also field tested at another Superfund site in Region IV, the Shaver's
Farm site in Walker County, GA. The contaminants of concern were Dicamba and
benzonitrile. Fifty-five gallon drums cut into sections were placed in the DWS and
carried through the decontamination process.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 76-77, 80-81,
EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov 1990.
Contact: Naomi Barkley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7854
Figure 36. Schematic of the pilot-scale Debris Washing System.
94
-------
37. IN SITU BIOVENTING
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To destroy fuel contamination in soil.
Application: The process may be applied to fuels and biodegradable organics (see also notes #56
and #57).
Description: This technology can be applied to the cleanup of unsaturated soils contaminated with
petroleum hydrocarbons. Soil venting is effective for the physical removal of volatile
hydrocarbons from unsaturated soils. This technology also provides oxygen for the
biological degradation of hydrocarbons in contaminated soil. Common strains of soil
bacteria are capable of biodegrading hydrocarbon contaminants. Treatment of the off
gas from a soil venting system can contribute up to 50 % of the overall cost of the
remediation system. Through the optimization of the venting air flow rates, the
proportion of hydrocarbon removal attributed to in situ biodegradation can be greatly
increased. This approach may eliminate the need for off gas treatment, thereby
reducing overall site remediation costs.
Advantages: Reduction of volatile emissions to the air during soil venting. Therefore, air pollution
controls are not necessary. No soil excavation is required.
Limitations: Low-permeability, tight soils limit the use of bioventing.
Cost: Costs for this technology range from $12-$15/yd^ of soil assuming off gas treatment
will not be required.
Availability: Soil venting technology is commercially available. Nutrient and moisture controls
are site specific.
Status: Bench-scale and field pilot-scale testing has been successfully conducted at Tyndall
AFB, FL. A pilot-scale feasibility test of bioventing began in August 1991 to
determine the applicability of this technology in a sub-arctic environment. The U.S.
EPA is co-funding this effort to allow the Air Force to investigate soil warming
techniques to enhance biodegradation rates. In addition to this study, a full-scale
bioventing demonstration will begin in early 1992 at an Air Force base in the
northern U.S. Technical issues that will be studied during this demonstration
include well placement optimization, air sparging wells for air injection, and soil
warming.
In addition to these research projects, the Air Force has implemented a 50-site
bioventing initiative. The goal of this effort is to screen 50 Air Force JP-4 jet fuel
contamination sites to determine if bioventing offers a feasible treatment alternative.
If the screening tests yield positive results, a bioventing system will be installed and
long term monitoring will be initiated.
References: Dupont, R.R., W.J. Doucette, and R.E. Hinchee, Assessment of In Situ
Bioremediation Potential and the Application of Bioventing at a Fuel-
Contaminated Site, Proceedings, In Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation: An
International Symposium, San Diego, CA, March 19-21, 1991.
95
-------
Miller, R.N., R.E. Hinchee, and C.M. Vogel, A Field Scale Investigation of
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Biodegradation in the Vadose Zone Enhanced by
Soil Venting at Tyndall AFB, FL, Proceedings: In Situ and On Site
Bioreclamation, An International Symposium, San Diego, CA, March 19-21, 1991.
Contact: Capt. Catherine Vogel
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6036
96
-------
38. UNSATURATED ZONE IN SITU BIORECLAMATION
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To remove hydrocarbon from the unsaturated, or vadose, zone.
Application: The process may be applied to biodegradable fuels, volatile organic compounds
(VOC), chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene, etc.
Description: The process may be described briefly as a combination process of soil venting and
biodegradation or bioventing (see figures 38a and 38b). A vacuum is induced at the
surface on extraction wells. Extracted gases may be vented to the atmosphere
provided they meet EPA emission standards. Gases that do not meet emission
standards may be disposed of by catalytic combustion or in an internal combustion
engine if the concentration is great enough. Those gases that do not meet emission
standards may also be disposed of through biodegradation in small-scale bioreactors
or by reinjecting effluent vapors into uncontaminated soils above the contaminated
zone. Bioreactors used in this process may contain soil, activated carbon, specially
treated diatomite, or other suitable matrices as microbial fixed bed growth support
media. Fixed-film or fluidized-bed bioreactor designs show promise for vapor phase
biodegradation.
Advantages: The method enables both the rapid movement of air (oxygen gas) through the
subsurface and fuel vapor removal. A greater surface area for contact of
hydrocarbons and microbes is provided in the subsurface through vapor-phase fuel
depletion and in the bioreactor or uncontaminated soil in situ because of the small
size of the vapor molecules and even distribution.
Limitations: Little is known about how to introduce nutrients and to vent simultaneously or if
low-volatility fuels, such as JP-5, can be biodegraded rapidly in situ during or after
bioventing.
Cost-
Costs for soil venting and enhanced in situ bioreclamation are each around $50/yd3 .
Bioventing cost should be comparable, but detailed cost estimates are not available.
Availability: Technical information is available from NCEL.
Status: Bench-scale and field-pilot testing has been conducted by Battelle for bioventing of
JP-4, but not for JP-5. Field-pilot testing is planned for NAS Patuxent River and/or
NAS Fallon on JP 5.
References; Hoeppel, R. Ongoing and Planned Studies at Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory Pertinent to Advancement in Biotechnology. NCEL Biotechnology
Work Group Meeting, Monterey, CA Feb. 21-23, 1989.
Watts, R.J., P.N. McGuire, W. Lee, R.E. Hoeppel. Effect of Concentration on the
Biological Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons Associated with In Situ
Soil-Water Treatment. National Conference on Environmental Engineering.
Austin, TX. July 10-12 1989.
97
-------
Hoeppel, R.E. Combined In Situ Technologies for Reclamation of Jet Fuel
Contamination at a Maryland Fuel Farm. Soc. Envir. Toxic. & Chem., Tenth
Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada. Oct. 28 - Nov. 2, 1989.
Arthur, M.F., T.C. Zwick, G.K. O'Brien, R.E. Hoeppel. Laboratory Studies to
Support Microbially Mediated In Situ Soil Remediation. 4th Annual DOE
Model Conference. Oak Ridge, TN . Oct. 3-7, 1988.
Contact: Ronald E. Hoeppel
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1655, Autovon 551-1655
98
-------
Groundwaler
~ Pumping Well
Fuel Vapor Combustor
Vacuum Well Points/Ditches
Figure 38a. Soil venting of volatile organics in unsaturated subsoil.
'NUTRIENT
IRRIGATION
WATER
TREATMENT
TANK
Figure 38b. Bioventing
99
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
100
-------
39. RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) THERMAL SOIL DECONTAMINATION
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To remove volatile contaminants from soils.
Application: The method is applicable for removing volatile organic compounds (VOC) such as
solvents and fuels from soil at sites such as fire training pits, spills, and sludge pits
containing solvents. Some soil moisture can aid the process because of steam
stripping. The method is most economical when less than 1 acre of ground must be
treated.
Description: The system is made up of four components: (1) radio frequency (RF) energy
deposition electrode array; (2) RF power generation, transmission, monitoring, and
control system; (3) vapor barrier and containment system; and (4) gas and liquid
condensate handling and treatment system (see figure 39). Full-scale treatment
would be accomplished in 50-ft x 100-ft grids. Three or more rows of vertical or
horizontal electrodes are inserted in boreholes. A vapor barrier shroud is placed over
the plot. The RF power supplied to the electrodes heats the soil block above 150° C
vaporizing contaminants and moisture. The vapor barrier directs the off gases to an
appropriate treatment system.
The efficiency of the RF decontamination process was determined by a careful
comparison of pretest and post-test samples. Samples were analyzed to determine
changes in moisture, volatile aliphatics, volatile aromatics, and semivolatile
aliphatics and aromatics. The average removal rates from the heated volume were
impressive with 97% removal of semivolatile hydrocarbons and 99% removal of
volatile aromatics and aliphatics. Closer examination of the samples showed that
contaminant removal at the 2-m depth, the fringe of the heated zone, exceeded 95 %.
Advantages: Demonstrations have shown higher than 90% reduction of jet fuel components from
soils. The contaminants are recovered in a relatively concentrated form without
dilution from large volumes of air or combustion gases. This is an in situ method,
and the soil does not have to be excavated. All equipment is portable.
Limitations: High moisture or presence of groundwater in the treatment zone will result in
excessive power requirements to heat the soil. The method cannot be used if large
buried metal objects are in the treatment zone.
Cost: It is estimated that the treatment of a 3-acre site to a depth of 8 ft containing 12%
moisture raised to a temperature of 170° C would cost $80/ton (see references). The
treatment of such a site would require about 1 year. The initial equipment
investment for full-scale projects is estimated to be about $2.5 million. Power
requirements for the pilot-scale field demonstration totaled approximately 800 kW-
hr/m3 . Use of a state-of-the-art RF generator for full-scale application could reduce
the power input to less than 650 kW-hr/cm3 .
Availability: The RF heating method is proprietary. The laboratory and pilot studies are being
conducted by IIT Research Institute, the process developer.
101
-------
Status: A bench-scale pilot test (volume < 20 drums) has been conducted at IIT Research
Institute facilities. A larger field-pilot was completed at an Air Force site in
November 1987. A full-scale field demonstration was completed at Volk Field ANGB,
WI during October 1989. Full-scale implementation will begin during the fall of 1990
at Kelly AFB, San Antonio, Texas.
References: Dev, H., G. Sresty, and P. Carpenter. In Situ Soil Decontamination by Radio
Frequency Heating. Proc. 18th Environmental Symposium and Exhibition, Feb.
1992.
Downey, B.C. and M.G. Elliott, Performance of Selected In Situ Soil
Decontamination Technologies: An Air Force Perspective, Presented at the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers 1989 Summer National Meeting,
Philadelphia PA, Aug 1989.
Dev, H., P. Condorelli, J. Bridges, C. Rogers, and D. Downey. In Situ Radio
Frequency Heating Process for Decontamination of Soil, ACS Symposium
Series No. 338, Solving Hazardous Waste Problems: Learning from Dioxins, J. H.
Exner, Ed., 1987, pp. 332-339.
Contact: Paul Carpenter
HQ AFCESA/YE
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6022, Autovon 523-6022
RF Power
Source
Vapor Barrier
Exciter Electrodes
Ground Electrodes
— Gas and Vapor
Treatment System
Figure 39. Equipment layout diagram for RF soil decontamination.
102
-------
40. BASE CATALYZED DECOMPOSITION PROCESS (BCDP)
Ib.
Soil Treatment
Category
Purpose: To detoxify soils contaminated with chlorinated aromatic compounds.
Application: This method is a treatment process for halogenated aromatic contaminants such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), insecticides, herbicides, pentachloro-phenol (PGP),
lindane, and chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans. The matrix can be soils, sludges,
sediments, or oils.
Description: Contaminated soil is screened, processed with a crusher and pug mill, and stockpiled.
In a rotary reactor (see figure 40), the stockpiled soil is mixed with 10% by weight
sodium bicarbonate (NaHCOs) and heated to 644° F for 1 hour. The PCBs are
decomposed and partially volatilized in the reactor. Off gases from the reactor are
filtered and scrubbed with the clean gas vented to the atmosphere. The PCBs in the
vapor condensate, residual dust, spent carbon, and filter cake are decomposed after 2
hours at 622° F in a stirred-tank slurry reactor (STR) utilizing a high boiling point
hydrocarbon oil, catalyst, and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Nitrogen is injected into
the STR to prevent fires. Oily residuals left in the STR, containing dust, sludge, and
activated carbon, are combustible and can be burned in an oil-fired power plant or
treated and reclaimed by waste oil recyclers. Clean soil from the reactor can be
returned to the site from which it was excavated. Treated soil and sludge must be
analyzed to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. It is possible to treat
PCBs in concentrations as high as 10 wt % in dielectric fluid, 40 wt % in PCB-soaked
wood and paper, and 6,000 to 7,000 ppm in soil. Treatability tests should be
conducted to identify parameters such as water, alkaline metals, and humus content
in the soils; presence of multiple phases; and total organic halides that could affect
processing time and cost.
Advantages: The contaminated soil is rendered non-hazardous. The contaminant is destroyed
rather than being transferred to another media. Whereas alkaline polyethylene
glycol (APEG) residuals (see note #17 in the 1990 Edition of this handbook) contain
chlorine and hydroxyl groups, which make them water soluble and slightly toxic, the
base catalyzed decomposition process (BCDP) produces only biphenyl and low-boiling
point olefinics, which are not water-soluble and are much less toxic, and sodium
chloride. The BCDP is easily transportable and safely operated. The process
requires much less time, space, and capital investment to mobilize, set up, and
demobilize than incineration.
Limitations: If a waste site has contaminants other than halogenated aromatic compounds,
especially heavy metals, alternative treatment methods should be considered.
Excavation of contaminated soil for on site treatment and refill of soil to the
excavation site requires concise project planning and execution.
Costs: The cost for full-scale operation is estimated to be $245/ton and does not include
excavation, refilling, residue disposal, or analytical costs. Factors such as high clay
or moisture content may raise treatment cost slightly.
Availability: The process uses off-the-shelf equipment. Technical details can be obtained NCEL or
NEESA.
103
-------
Status:
References:
Contact:
NCEL and EPA have been jointly developing the BCDP since 1990. Pilot studies of
the process have proven successful, and it has received approval from the EPA's
Office of Toxic Substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act for PCB
treatment. Complete design information is available from NCEL and NEESA. Pre-
deployment testing was completed at Naval Communications Station (NCS) Stockton
in November 1991. The research, development, testing, and evaluation stage is
planned for Guam during the first 2 quarters of FY93.
Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
Process (BCDP). Tech Data Sheet - Naval Energy and Environmental Support
Activity and Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Jul 1992.
Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-Catalyzed Decomposition
Process (BCDP). Tech Data Sheet - Naval Energy and Environmental Support
Activity and Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Aug 1991.
BCD: An EPA-Patented Process for Detoxifying Chlorinated Wastes. U.S.
EPA Office of Research and Development, 1991.
Rogers, C., A. Kernel, and H. Sparks. U.S. Patent Numbers 5,019,175 (May 28,
1991), 5,039,350 (August 13, 1991), and 5,064,526 (Nov. 12, 1991): Method for the
Destruction of Halogenated Organic Compounds in a Contaminated Medium.
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Removal and Treatment of
PCB-Contaminated Soils at Building 3000 Site PWC Guam. Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory, July 1990.
Deh Bin Chan, Ph.D.
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Protection Div., Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-4191, Autovon 551-4191
John H. Fringer, P.E.
Naval Energy and Environmental
Support Activity, Code 112E4
1001 Lyons St., Suite 1
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4340
805-982-4856, Autovon 551-4856
104
-------
Rea
Fe
Stoc
^
ctor
ed
kpile
Soill
Conv
1
^ ^
REACTOF
644°F - 1 h
^- ^
1
Clean
Soil
Stockpile
lefined Petr
Screening. Exc,
^10tons/hr Mixing with Sto
Hpn
reed
'eyer _ . Bag house
' Cyclone ig i
. InTTnl
\ \^jr
j ] -70% 1 ) |
rj ofPCB V
y
Dust
oleum Oil > STIRRED ^
Nitrogen > TANK ^
. . _. , ^^ REACTOR ^
NaOH > op u
Catalyst >4. *
avated
ckpile
Vent to Atmosphere
t
Demister |
•^
^
^ Carbon
Filters
S VjExchangery
Settling
Tank
s
S
Mixing
Tank
s
r~,Unr f*
/ Filte
^ Pres
-.L-j-L '
>k
Sp
Car
T Filtrate
>s
^ Decontaminate Sludge
ent
bon
C
^ f
f
Tr
V
1
arbon
rifters
- V
eated
Vater
"ank
To Off-Site Disposal
Figure 40. Flow diagram for Base Catalyzed Decomposition Process.
105
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
106
-------
41. SLURRY BIOREACTOR FOR
EXPLOSIVES CONTAMINATED SOILS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To biologically remediate soils contaminated with explosives.
Application: This treatment may be applied to soils contaminated with TNT, RDX, HMX, and
other biodegradable, hazardous wastes. Applicable for installations at which soil
composition precludes composting.
Description: Contaminated soils are excavated, screened to remove large rocks, and mixed with
water to create a slurry. The soil-water slurry is biologically treated in a sequencing
batch reactor (SBR). Contaminant degradation is controlled by mixing rate, oxygen,
and nutrient additions. Processed slurry is dewatered with the process water
recycled to the reactor (see figure 41).
Advantages: Advantages include: more efficient biodegradation process control, contaminant
destruction rather than media transfer, and residual material can be readily
revegetated as part of the site restoration effort.
Limitations: Requires explosive safety-approved reactors not currently commercially available.
Costs: Estimated costs are between $50 and $200/yd^ depending on biodegradation kinetics
and required additive amounts (from WES).
Availability: The method is in the pilot-scale demonstration phase; however, the equipment is
available for full-scale applications.
Status;
References:
A pilot-scale demonstration of soil-slurry SBR technology to treat explosives-
contaminated soils biologically is being initiated at Joliet Army Ammunition Plant,
Joliet, IL.
WES has performed a bench-scale evaluation of bioslurry treatment of TNT-
contaminated soil from the Hastings East Industrial Park.
Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francingues. Development of a
Laboratory Method for Evaluation of Bioslurry Treatment Systems.
Presented at the 1991 Superfund Conference, Washington, DC, 1991.
Montamagno, C.D. Feasibility of Biodegrading TNT Contaminated Soils in a
Slurry Reactor - Final Technical Report. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-CR-90062, June 1990
Contact:
Capt. Kevin Keehan
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-
5401
410-671-2054
Mark E. Zappi
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3903 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-2856
107
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
108
-------
42. BIOSLURRY REACTORS FOR TREATMENT OF
CONTAMINATED SOILS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To develop expeditious methods of bioremediation of contaminated soils.
Application: This approach is applicable for petroleum wastes such as jet and diesel fuels.
Description: Contaminated soil is excavated and treated, and decontaminated soil is replaced.
The bioremediation reactor method to be used at each site will be modified for site
specific conditions. A continuous flow bioremediation process will be ideal.
Bioslurry treatment involves the slurrying of contaminated soils with water in an
above-ground reactor capable of keeping the slurry solids in suspension. Slurry
solids concentration typically varies from 20 to 50 % by weight. Soils are excavated,
passed through a prescreening stage to pass a Number 4 US Standard Sieve,
slurried, then added to the reactor(s) for treatment. After treatment, the solids are
separated for disposal, and the water is recycled for use in another slurry. Some
reactor systems are configured with several reactors plumbed in series. A reactor
system in series is needed for large slurry volumes, to improve reaction performance
and to eliminate short circuiting microbes with continuous feed of contaminated
slurry. Process design variables include nutrient additive amounts, soil residence
time, air requirements (if anaerobic), and soil characteristics.
Advantages: The excavation approach will be faster than in situ bioremediation, enable more
control over the process, require less energy than incineration, and enable total
degradation. The process may be the only workable approach to contaminated clay
soils.
Limitations: This technology requires excavation and that the contaminants be biodegradable.
Cost: Reported costs range from $50 to $200/yd3 of soil.
Availability: Under development.
Status: Laboratory testing is being conducted at NCCOSC RDT&E Division. Scaled up field-
pilot testing is planned for FY 92 - 3.
WES has several bench-scale 5-liter bioslurry reactors that have been used to
evaluate technology feasibility and determine optimum treatment conditions. The
WES also has six 60-liter pilot units manufactured by Eimco, Inc., Salt Lake City,
UT. WES has a gas recirculation system capable of keeping volatile contaminants
within the system, thereby allowing for complete degradation of all contaminants.
WES has successfully completed bench and pilot studies for a benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, and xylene (BTEX) contaminated soil and a soil contaminated with wood-
preserving wastes. These studies were funded by the Office of Solids Waste, USEPA,
in support of their Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) Program. WES
is also evaluating the feasibility of the technology for treatment of explosives-
contaminated soils from the Hastings East Industrial Park Superfund Site for the
109
-------
References:
Contact:
USAE District, Kansas City, MO. Finally, WES has evaluated bench-scale systems
for biotreatment of gasoline-contaminated soil. A pilot study will be performed using
gas recirculation in October 1992.
Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francingues. Development of a
Laboratory Method for Evaluation of Bioslurry Treatment Systems.
Presented at the 1991 Superfund Conference, Washington, DC, 1991.
Kenis, P. Degradation of Hazardous Organic Wastes by Microorganisms.
Naval Ocean Systems Center Technical Document 1253, May 1988.
George Pickwell
NCCOSC RDT&E Division, Code 521
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
619-553-2789
Mark E. Zappi or Douglas Gunnison
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-2856
110
-------
PLASMA ARC TECHNOLOGY FOR THERMAL DESTRUCTION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
I.e. Structural Treatment
II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Waste
Il.f. Minimization or Treatment of Gases
Purpose: Destruction of hazardous material with an intense heat source.
Application: This technology can be used for destruction of heavy metals, organic contaminated
soils, demilitarization of storage batteries, metal finishing sludges, pyrotechnic
sludges, asbestos, submarine silencing tiles, hazardous medical waste, and used
tires.
Description: A plasma is a gas that has been ionized by the electric arc of a plasma torch and can
therefore respond to electrical and magnetic fields. The resistance of the plasma
converts electricity into heat energy. The plasma arc torch is essentially a steel
cylinder several inches in diameter and several feet in length; the specific dimensions
are related to the torch power levels. Plasma torches operate in the 100 kilowatt to
10 megawatt power range. They can routinely create controlled furnace
temperatures that range from 3,000°C to more than 7,000°C. Plasma torches can
operate at much higher temperatures and at greatly increased efficiencies than fossil
fuel burners. Only 1% of the air necessary for fossil fuel burners is required for
operation of plasma torches. Therefore, the volume of effluent gases are greatly
reduced and furnace systems can be built much more compactly than traditional
furnaces at correspondingly reduced capital costs. A diagram of the plasma reactor
process is shown in figure 43.
There are basically two types of plasma arc torches: (1) Transferred Arc Torch - the
rear electrode is the positive attachment point and the negative attachment point is
the work-piece or the melt; for example, if metal scrap is being melted, the negative
attachment is the metallic scrap; and (2) Non-Transferred Arc Torch - both
attachment points are within the torch itself and only the generated plasma flame
egresses from the torch. The plasma arc torch is only one component of the plasma
heating system. The other components are: (1) a power supply can be alternating
current or direct current; (2) a control panel to control the initiation and sustainment
of the plasma arc column; (3) a closed-loop water system to provide cooling to the
electrodes and shroud; (4) a gas system to provide the small quantity of gas required
for the plasma gas; and (5) a starting system to start the torch.
Advantages: This treatment process eliminates waste and liquid or gas side streams. Remains of
the process are vitrified solid residue, carbon dioxide and water vapor. The end
product complies with toxic characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP) and can be
declassified. The process has a high energy transfer efficiency and no demand for air
compared to fossil-fuel incinerators, and high temperature accelerates the reaction
time.
High Temperatures: The plasma torch can create temperatures that are not
achievable with fossil fuel burners. In the plasma arc torch it is possible to routinely
achieve controlled temperatures greater than 7000°C. This extreme heat is produced
111
-------
instantly, and can be readily automated. Controlled, high temperatures increase feed
material throughput and reduce costs.
Controlled Atmosphere: Because the plasma arc torch is compatible with almost
any gas (e.g., reducing, oxidizing, neutral, inert gases, etc.), the furnace atmosphere
can be controlled to meet unique requirements.
Massless Heat: Plasma arc torches use 1% of the air needed by fossil fuel heaters.
Releasing heat energy with almost no mass is a simpler process than conventional
heating, and it offers greater control and efficiency. It also reduces off gas handling
and other capital costs.
High Thermal Efficiency: The efficiency of plasma arc torches consistently
reaches between 85% and 93%. Therefore, the faster and more complete reaction
kinetics of plasma energy sharply reduces processing time and operating costs.
Limitations: Operation of the process requires three-phase 100 to 1,000 kW-DC electrical power
source. The process has not been not used for destruction of explosive compounds or
pyrotechnical compounds. Cost of operation of the process limits applications.
Cost
Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: The field-pilot phase for asbestos destruction occured in Raleigh, NC, November
1990. In 1992 limited trial implementation of this technology will be at Atlanta, GA,
and USACERL Champaign, IL. The technology has been used for commercial
destruction of medical waste in California.
References: Circeo, Louis J., Ph.D., Destruction and Vitrification of Asbestos Using Plasma
Arc Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology for U.S. Army Construction
Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) Champaign, IL, Oct 1991.
Baker, Nancy Croft, Two New Technologies May Prolong Landfill Life,
Environment Today, 2(7):1 and 37, Sep 1991.
Process Could Reduce Burden on Special Landfills, ECON, Nov 1991, pp. 38-
39.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 74-75.
Contact: Hany H. Zaghloul, PE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217 373-7249, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
Laurel Stanley
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-560-7863
112
-------
FEEDER
PLASMA TORCH
EXHAUST
STACK
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
Figure 43. Plasma reactor process diagram.
113
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
114
-------
44. LOW-TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To separate physically semi-volatile and volatile organic compounds (VOC), including
fuels, from soils, sediments, sludges, and filter cakes.
Application: Thermal desorption is generally applicable to organic contaminants. It may also find
applications in conjunction with other technologies or be appropriate to specific
operable units at a site.
Description: Thermal desorption is any of a number of processes that use either indirect or direct
heat exchange to vaporize organic contaminants from soil or sludge (figure 44). Air,
combustion gas, or inert gas is used as the transfer medium for the vaporized
components. Thermal desorption systems are physical separation processes and are
not designed to provide organic destruction although the higher temperatures of
some systems will result in localized oxidation and/or pyrolysis. Thermal desorption
is not incineration, since the destruction of organic contaminants is not the desired
result. The bed temperatures achieved and residence times designed into thermal
desorption systems will volatilize selected contaminants, but typically not oxidize or
destroy them. System performance is typically measured by comparison of untreated
soil/sludge contaminant levels with those of the processed soil/sludge.
The waste is closely contacted with a heat transfer surface, and highly volatile
components, including water, are driven off. An inert gas, such as nitrogen, may be
injected in a counter-current sweep stream to prevent contaminant combustion and
to vaporize and remove the contaminants. Other systems simply direct the hot gas
stream from the desorption unit.
Soil/sludge is typically heated to 200° to 1,000° F, based on the thermal desorption
system selected. The actual bed temperatures and residence times are the primary
factors affecting performance in thermal desorption. These parameters are controlled
in the desorption unit by using a series of increasing temperature zones, multiple
passes of the medium through the desorber where the operating temperature is
sequentially increased, separate compartments where the heat transfer fluid
temperature is higher, or sequential processing into higher temperature zones. Heat
transfer fluids used to date include hot combustion gas, hot oil, steam, and molten
salts.
Typically, off gas from desorption is initially processed to remove particulates.
Volatiles in the off gas may then be burned in an afterburner, collected on activated
carbon, or recovered in condensation equipment. The selection of the off gas
treatment system will depend on the concentration of the contaminants, cleanup
standards, and regulatory requirements, and on the economics of the off gas-
treatment system(s) employed.
Waste-material handling requires excavation of the contaminated soil/sludge or
delivery of filter cake to the system. Typically, large objects are screened from the
media and rejected. The medium is then delivered by gravity to the desorber inlet or
conveyed by augers to a feed hopper.
115
-------
Significant system variations exist in the desorption step. The dryer can be an
indirectly fired rotary asphalt kiln, a single internally heated screw auger(s), or a
series of externally heated distillation chambers. The later process uses annular
augers to move the medium from one volatilization zone to the next. Additionally,
testing and demonstration data exist for a fluidized-bed desorption system.
Advantages: Low temperature desorption systems can be tailored to treat contaminant types by
controlling temperatures and retention times. Commercial systems are readily
available and easy to implement. Many systems can be set up on site and treatment
can be completed with a minimum of hauling excavated material. Treated material
can be used as backfill material for the site of excavation. Treatment efficiencies up
to 99% and better can be obtained, and treatment costs are very competitive with
other treatment methods, especially on larger projects.
Limitations: A number of variables, such as specific mix and distribution of contaminants, affect
system performance. A thorough characterization of the site and a well conducted
treatability study are highly recommended to document the applicability and
performance of a thermal-desorption system. Lower explosive limits and oxygen
levels must be considered when treating soils contaminated with flammable solvents.
Nitrogen may be used to reduce oxygen levels and avoid the explosion potential.
Excessively wet media may require dewatering prior to treatment due to material
handling difficulties and extra heat requirements within the system. Material
handling of soils that are tightly aggregated or largely clay, or that contain rock
fragments and particles greater than a specific size, may result in poor processing
performance due to caking and/or require screening. A high fraction of silt or clay
results in the generation of fugitive dusts and a greater load on downstream pollution
equipment.
Thermal desorption is generally not used for treating metals, high-boiling-point
compounds, and other inorganics; however, thermal desorption has been considered
for treating mercury containing waste and at least one treatability test has been
performed. Material containing these contaminants may need to be further treated
using other technologies or consigned to a hazardous waste landfill after treatment.
Costs: Several vendors have documented treatment costs in a range of $80 to $350 per ton
processed. Unit treatment costs of contaminated media are dependent on site-
specific conditions and are highly variable due to the quantity of waste to be
processed, term of remediation contract, moisture content, organic constituency of the
contaminated medium, and cleanup standards to be achieved.
Availability: The Low Temperature Thermal Stripping (LTTS) process was developed and
demonstrated by USATHAMA. This system uses twin screw augers to convey
contaminated media through the heat processor. This process has been patented and
is available commercially from Weston.
Other commercial-scale units exist and are in operation. Thermal desorption has
been selected at approximately 14 Superfund sites, and three Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstrations are planned for 1993.
In cooperation with USATHAMA, WES established a bench-scale twin-screw thermal
desorber unit to perform treatability tests of contaminated soil. These tests are
available to all Federal agencies and will be performed on a cost-reimbursement
basis. Results are published in a formal report and will determine the feasibility and
116
-------
Status:
optimum operating parameters for using the auger feed type desorption unit at
selected waste sites.
The U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, OH, has a
muffle furnace treatability testing unit available for use to government agencies.
This test is more basic and is generally used as a screening mechanism to determine
thermal desorption feasibility-
Many commercial vendors of low temperature thermal desorption units are capable of
performing either lab- or pilot-scale treatability tests to determine site feasibility.
Significant theoretical research and direct demonstration of thermal desorption
through both treatability testing and full-scale cleanups are ongoing.
References: Parker, C. and W. Sisk, Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Organics-
Contaminated Soils, The Society of American Military Engineers Technology
Transfer Conference on Environmental Cleanup, Denver, CO, Nov. 1991.
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-91/001, Jan 1991.
Thermal Desorption Treatment. Environmental Protection Agency Engineering
Bulletin EPA/540/2-91/008, May 1991.
Canonie Environmental Services Corporation, Draft Remedial Action Report -
Cannons Bridgewater Superfund Site, Feb 1991.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 34-35.
Ritcey, R. and R. Schwartz. Anaerobic Pyrolysis of Waste Solids and Sludges -
The AOSTRA Taciuk Process System. Presented at the Environmental Hazards
Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA, 1990.
Swanstrom, C. and C. Palmer. X*TRAX™ Transportable Thermal Separator for
Organic Contaminated Solids. Presented at the 2nd Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International,
Philadelphia, PA, 1990.
Cudahy, I. and W. Troxler. Thermal Remediation Industry Update - II.
Presented at Air and Waste Management Association Symposium on Treatment of
Contaminated Soils, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
Recycling Sciences International, Inc., DAVES Marketing Brochures, circa 1990.
T.D.I. Services, Marketing Brochures, circa 1990.
Nielson, R.K. and C.A. Myler. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3) of
Soils Contaminated with Aviation Fuel and Chlorinated Solvents. Presented
at the 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, Williamsburg, Nov 1989.
117
-------
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/640/5-89/013,1989.
Nielson, R. and M. Cosmos. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3) of
Volatile Organic Compounds from. Soil: A Technology Demonstration.
Presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers Meeting, Denver, CO,
1988
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-88/004, 1988.
Johnson, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks, Bench-Scale Investigation of Low
Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds From
Various Soil Types: Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-87124, USATHAMA, Nov
1987.
Marks, P.J. and J.W. Noland, Economic Evaluation of Low Temperature
Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds From Soil, Technical
Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-86085, USATHAMA, Aug 1986.
McDevitt, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks, Bench-Scale Investigation of Air
Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil: Technical Report,
AMXTH-TE-CR-86092, USATHAMA, Aug 1986.
Contact: Capt. Kevin Keehan
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010
410-671-2054
Daniel E. Averett
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3959
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7797
. Oversized
Rejects
Clean
Off gas
Spent
Carbon
Concentrated
Contaminants
Water
Figure 44. Schematic diagram of thermal desorption (EPA/540/2-91/008).
118
-------
45. PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATION OF
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION PROCESSES
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To provide standard methods for the evaluation of the effectiveness of various
solidification/stabilization (S/S) processes.
Application: This protocol can be utilized for any S/S process (see notes #46 - #50).
Description: Currently the only regulatory test for the evaluation of S/S is EPA's Toxicity
Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test This test is used to characterize a
waste as hazardous as a result of the leaching of hazardous compounds under
specified conditions. Due to the nature of the test, it is inappropriate to apply this
test to determine and compare the effectiveness of different S/S processes or different
formulations. The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) has developed various
tests and protocols for this purpose. Depending on the ultimate disposal scenario for
the S/S residue, various protocols are applied and an assessment of the treatment
effectiveness of the S/S process over the raw material can be made.
Advantages: Currently no published protocol exists for S/S waste.
Limitations: Long-term verification of the protocol is not available.
Cost: Not available.
Availability: The protocol is currently available at the USAE Waterways Experiment Station but
is unpublished to date.
Status: The protocol is in preparation.
References: Not available.
Contact: Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3700
119
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
120
-------
46. STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Il.e. Minimization or Treatment of Other Solid Wastes
Purpose: To immobilize metal, organic, and inorganic contaminants in wet or dry soils and
sludges using chemicals, reagents, and cement-like binding materials. To determine
the effectiveness of solidification/stabilization (S/S) for incinerator ash residuals.
Application: Stabilization and solidification is a process that is applicable to the treatment of
hazardous wastes and contaminated wet or dry soils, sludges, sediments, incinerator
ash, and other solid wastes. It may be used for base, neutral, or acid extractable
organics of high molecular weight, such as refinery wastes, creosote, and wood
treating wastes, heavy metals, oil and grease, polychlorinated biphenyls,
pentachlorophenol, and chlorinated and nitrated hydrocarbons.
Description: S/S is a process that involves the mixing of a hazardous waste with binder material
to enhance the physical properties of the waste, chemically immobilize contaminants,
and/or chemically bind any free liquid. Typical binders include Portland cements,
pozzolans, or thermoplastics. Proprietary additives may also be added. In most
cases, the S/S process is changed to accommodate specific wastes. Since it is not
possible to discuss completely all possible modifications to a S/S process, most
discussions of S/S processes have to be related directly to generic process types. The
performance observed for a specific S/S system may vary widely from its generic type,
but the general characteristics of a process and its products are usually similar.
Examples of S/S processes are given in notes #47 through #50.
Advantages: The hazardous material is rendered either less toxic or less mobile. The handling
and transportation properties are greatly enhanced, thus reducing the potential for
hazardous waste spills. Free liquids can be eliminated.
Ash residuals offer unique problems due to the fact that contaminants are
concentrated in the ashes, and there is little water to hydrate the binder.
Limitations: Careful chemical characterization is required to select the S/S method most
applicable. Some chemicals interfere with the setting properties of the waste binding
agent. This method is not optimal for materials containing high concentrations of
organics. S/S is not a destruction technology; rather, it is only a means of
containment.
Costs:
Costs depend upon specific applications, but range between $30 and $200 per ton.
Availability; This process is commercially available. The next four technical notes (#48 - #51)
describe commercially available S/S processes.
Status: S/S has been demonstrated as an effective treatment technology for immobilization of
most metals. Research is underway in many areas to evaluate the ability of S/S to
immobilize organic contaminants. S/S is used in conjunction with other technologies
to provide additional treatment of residual solids. S/S has been applied successfully
to contaminated soils.
121
-------
References:
Contacts:
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 100-101, EPA/540/5-
90/006, Nov 1990.
Bricka, R.M. et al. An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of Fluidized
Bed Incinerator Ash (K048 and K051). USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Technical Report EL-88-24, 1988.
Cullinane, M.J. et al. Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous
Wastes, Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-86/001, June 1986
Myers, T.E. A Simple Procedure for Acceptance Testing of Freshly Prepared
Solidified Waste, Hazardous and Industrial Solid Waste Testing: Fourth
Symposium, ASTM Special Technical Testing Publication 886, J.K Petros et al. eds.,
American Society for Testing Materials, 1986, pp. 263-72.
Mark Bricka, John Cullinane, or
Danny Averett
USAE Waterways Experiment Station,
CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-636-3111 or 601-634-3700
Terry Lyons
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7589
122
-------
47. STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION (CHEMFIX)
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To immobilize metal, organic, and inorganic hazardous wastes in wet or dry soils and
sludges using chemicals, reagents, and cement-like binding materials.
Application: The treatment of hazardous wastes and contaminated wet or dry soils, sludges,
sediments, and other solid wastes. This method is directed primarily toward metal
contaminants. Based upon the vendor's claims, it may be used also for base, neutral,
or acid extractable organics of high molecular weight, such as refinery wastes,
creosote, and wood treating wastes, oil and grease, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB),
penta-chlorophenol, and chlorinated and nitrated hydrocarbons.
Description: This solidification/stabilization (S/S) process is an inorganic system in which soluble
silicates and silicate setting agents react with polyvalent metal ions and certain other
waste components to produce a chemically and physically stable solid material. The
treated waste matrix displays good stability, a high melting point, and a friable
texture. The matrix may be similar to soil or rigid depending upon the water content
of the feed waste. The feed waste is first blended in the reaction vessel (see figure 47)
with certain reagents, which are dispersed and dissolved throughout the aqueous
phase. The reagents react with polyvalent ions in the waste. Inorganic polymer
chains (insoluble metal silicates) form throughout the aqueous phase and physically
entrap the organic colloids within the microstructure of the product matrix. The
water-soluble silicates then react with complex ions in the presence of a siliceous
setting agent, producing amorphous, colloidal silicates (gels) and silicon dioxide,
which acts as a precipitating agent. Most of the heavy metals in the waste become
part of the silicate. Some of the heavy metals precipitate with the structure of the
complex molecules. A very small percentage (estimated to be less then 1%) of the
heavy metals precipitates between the silicates and is not chemically immobilized.
Since some organics may be contained in particles larger then the colloids, all of the
waste is pumped through processing equipment, creating sufficient shear to emulsify
the organic constituents. Emulsified organics are then solidified and discharged to a
prepared area, where the gel continues to set. The resulting solids, though friable,
encase any organic substances that may have escaped. The system can be operated
at 5 to 80% solids in the waste feed; water is added for dryer wastes. Portions of the
water contained in the wastes are involved in three reactions after treatment: (1)
hydration, similar to that of cement reactions; (2) hydrolysis reactions; and (3)
equilibration through evaporation. There are no side streams or discharges from this
process. The process is applicable to electroplating wastes, electric arc furnace dust,
and municipal sewage sludge containing heavy metals such as aluminum, antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, mercury,
nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc.
Advantages: The CHEMFIX technology was effective in reducing the concentrations of lead and
copper in the extracts from the toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP).
The concentrations in the extracts from the treated wastes were 94 to 99% less than
those from the untreated wastes. Total lead concentrations in the raw waste
approached 14%. The results of the tests for durability were very good. The
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the wastes varied between 27 and 307 psi
after 28 days. Permeability decreased more than one order of magnitude. The air
123
-------
monitoring data suggest that significant volatilization of PCBs did not occur during
the treatment process.
Limitations: In the CHEMFIX process, the volume increase in the excavated waste material as a
result of treatment varied from 20 to 50%.
Costs: Not available.
Availability: The process is commercially available. This is one system in the general category of
stabilization and solidification.
Status: The CHEMFIX technology was demonstrated in March 1989 at the Portable
Equipment Salvage Co. site in Clackamas, OR.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006,
pp. 32-33, Nov 1990.
Earth, Edwin F., The SITE Demonstration of the CHEMFIX
Solidification/Stabilization Process at the Portable Equipment Salvage
Company Site. J. Air & Waste Management Association, 40(2):166-170, Feb 1990.
Soundararajan, R., Edwin F. Barth, and J. J. Gibbons, Using an Organophilic
Clay to Chemically Stabilize Waste Containing Organic Compounds.
Hazardous Materials Control, Vol. 3, No. 1, Jan-Feb 1990, pp. 42-45.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-89/013,
Nov 1989, pp. 27-28, 47-48, 51-52, 74-75.
Bricka, R.M., et al., An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of Fluidized
Bed Incineration Ash (K048 and KO51). USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Technical Report EL-88-24, 1988.
Cullinane, M.J., et al, Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous
Waste. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-86/001, June 1986.
Contact: John Cullinane or Mark Bricka Edwin Barth
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, U. S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering
CEWES-EE-S Laboratory
3909 Halls Ferry Road 26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
601-636-3111 513-569-7669
124
-------
Hnnv/fiynr
)
Walei Supply
(if required) ^ Mom°^
/ "-"quid A XT-I ^ Pll ,
Pcanan* 1 ^ l_l ^ "UQ
neageni i j^ t~* a
Feeder
i
jenizer
' \<
Mill
\Siuray«y ^L 1 Chute to Truck
Loading Area
Dry Reagent
Silo
^
Auger
f
Dry Reagent
Feeder
Figure 47. High solids-handling system block process flow diagram.
125
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
126
-------
48. STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION (DEEP SOIL MIXING)
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To immobilize metal, organic, and inorganic hazardous wastes in wet or dry soils and
sludges using chemicals, reagents, and cement-like binding materials.
Application: This method is applicable for the treatment of hazardous wastes and contaminated
wet or dry soils, sludges, sediments, and other solid wastes. It may be used for base,
neutral, or acid extractable organics of high molecular weight, such as refinery
wastes, creosote, and wood-treating wastes, heavy metals, oil and grease,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pentachlorophenol, and chlorinated and nitrated
hydrocarbons.
Description: This in situ solidification/stabilization (S/S) technology immobilizes organic and
inorganic compounds in wet or dry soils, using reagents (additives) to produce a
cement-like mass. The basic components of this technology are (1) Geo-Con's deep
soil mixing system (DSM), a system to deliver and mix the chemicals with the
International Waste Technologies' (IWT) proprietary treatment chemicals (see figure
48). The proprietary additives generate a complex crystalline connective network of
inorganic polymers. The structural bonding in the polymers is mainly covalent. The
process involves a two-phased reaction in which the contaminants are first complexed
in a fast-acting reaction, and then in a slow-acting reaction, where the building of
macromolecules continues over a long period of time. For each type of waste, the
amount of additives used varies and must be determined. The DSM system involves
mechanical mixing and injection. The system consists of one set of cutting blades and
two sets of mixing blades attached to a vertical drive auger, which rotates at
approximately 15 rpm. Two conduits in the auger are used to inject the additive
slurry and supplemental water. Additive injection occurs on the downstroke; further
mixing takes place upon auger withdrawal. The treated soil columns are 36 inches in
diameter and are positioned in an overlapping pattern of alternating primary and
secondary soil columns. Based on toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP)
leachate analysis, the process appears to immobilize PCBs; however, because PCBs
do not leach from most untreated soil samples, the immobilization of PCBs in the
treated soil could not be confirmed. Sufficient data were not available to evaluate the
performance of the system with regard to metals or other organic compounds. The
bulk density of the soil increased 21% after treatment. This increased the volume of
treated soil by 8.5% and caused a small ground rise of 1 inch per treated foot of soil.
The unconfined compressive strength (TJCS) of the treated soil was satisfactory, with
values from 300 to 500 psi. The permeability of the treated soil was satisfactory,
decreasing four orders of magnitude compared to the untreated soil, or 10"6 and 10"7
compared to 10"2 cm/sec. The wet/dry weathering test on treated soil was
satisfactory. The freeze/dry weathering test of treated soil was unsatisfactory. The
microstructural analysis, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), optical microscopy,
and x-ray diffraction (XRD), showed that the treated material was dense, non-porous,
and homogeneously mixed. The Geo-Con DSM equipment operated reliably.
Advantages: In the IWT/DSM process, microstructural analyses of the treated soils indicated a
potential for long-term durability. High, unconfined compressive strengths and low
permeabilities were recorded. The permeability of the treated soil was satisfactory.
The wet/dry weathering test on treated soil was satisfactory. The Geo-Con DSM
127
-------
equipment operated reliably.
treatment.
The bulk density of the soil increased 21% after
Limitations: For the IWT/DSM process, there are insufficient data to confirm the immobilization
of volatile and semivolatile organics. The treated soil volume increased by 8.5%. The
freeze/dry weathering test of treated soil was unsatisfactory. Performance data are
limited outside of site demonstrations. The developer modifies the binding agent for
different wastes. Treatability studies should be performed for specific wastes. Based
on TCLP leachate analysis, the process appears to immobilize PCBs. However,
because PCBs did not leach from most of the untreated soil samples, the
immobilization of PCBs in the treated soil could not be confirmed.
Costs: IWT/DSM process - $194 per ton for the one-auger machine used in the
demonstration; $110 per ton for a commercial four-auger operation.
Availability: This process is commercially available. This is one system in the general category of
stabilization and solidification.
Status: The SITE demonstration was conducted at a PCB-contaminated site in Hialeah, FL,
in April 1988. Two 10 x 20-ft test sectors of the site were treated - one to a depth of
18 ft, and the other to a depth of 14 ft. Ten months after the demonstration, long-
term monitoring tests were performed on the treated sectors.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 80-81, EPA/540/5-90/006,
Nov 1990, pp. 62-63.
Technology Demonstration Summary, International Waste Technologies In
Situ Stabilization/Solidification, Hialeah, Florida, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/S5-89/004, June 1989.
Solidification Hialeah, Florida, Vol. 1, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA/540/5-89/004a, June 1989.
Cullinane, M.J., et al, Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous
Waste, Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-86/001, June 1986.
Cullinane, M.J., Jr., L.W. Jones, P.G. Malone, Handbook for
Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous Waste, Environmental Protection
Agency Report, EPA/540/2-86/0-01, June 1986.
Mary K. Stinson
Contacts: U. S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, New Jersey 08837
201-321-6683
John Cullinane or Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-636-3111
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7507
128
-------
Flow Line
Control Line
Communication Line
Figure 48. In situ stabilization batch mixing-plant process diagram.
129
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
130
-------
49. STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION (IM-TECH)
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To immobilize metal, organic, and inorganic hazardous wastes in wet or dry soils and
sludges using chemicals, reagents, and cement-like binding materials.
Application: This method is applicable for the treatment of hazardous wastes and contaminated
wet or dry soils, sludges, sediments, and other solid wastes. It may be used for base,
neutral, or acid extractable organics of high molecular weight, such as refinery
wastes, creosote, and wood treating wastes, heavy metals, oil and grease,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), pentachlorophenol, chlorinated and nitrated
hydrocarbons.
Description: The IM-TECH solidification/stabilization (S/S) treatment technology immobilizes
contaminants in soils by binding them into a concrete-like, leach-resistant mass. The
technology mixes hazardous wastes, cement, water, and an additive called chloranan
that encapsulates organic molecules. Contaminated soil is excavated, screened for
oversized material, and fed to a mobile field blending unit. The unit consists of soil
and cement holding bins, a chloranan (a proprietary chemical) feed tank, and a
blending auger to mix the waste and pozzolanic materials (Portland cement, fly ash,
or kiln dust). Water is added as necessary, and the resultant slurry is allowed to
harden before disposal. The treated output is a hardened, concrete-like mass that
immobilizes the contaminants. For large volumes of waste, larger blending systems
are available. The comparison of the soil 7-day, 28-day, 9-month, and 22-month
sample test results are generally favorable. The physical test results were very good,
with unconfined compressive strength between 220 to 1,570 psi. Very low
permeabilities were recorded, and the porosity of the treated wastes was moderate.
Durability test results showed no change in physical strength after the wet/dry and
freeze/thaw cycles. The waste volume increased by about 120%. By using less
stabilizer, it is possible to reduce volume increases, but lower strengths will result.
There is an inverse relationship between physical strength and the waste organic
concentration. The results of the leaching tests were mixed.
Advantages: The process may solidify contaminated material with higher concentrations (up to
25%) of organics. Heavy metals may be immobilized. In many instances, leachate
reductions were greater than 100 ppb. The physical properties of the treated waste
exhibit high unconfined compressive strengths, low permeabilities, and good
weathering properties.
Limitations: In the process the treated soils undergo a volumetric increase of approximately 120%.
Organic contaminants, including volatiles and base/neutral extractables were not
immobilized to any significant extent. Oil and grease concentrations were greater in
the treated waste toxicity characteristics leaching procedures (TCLP) than in the
untreated waste, from less than 2 up to 4 ppm.
Costs:
Costs for the process are expected to range between approximately $90 and $120 per
ton.
Availability; This process is commercially available. This is one system in the general category of
stabilization and solidification.
131
-------
Status:
References:
Contacts:
The technology was demonstrated in October 1987 at a former oil reprocessing plant
in Douglassville, PA. The site contained high levels of oil and grease (25%) and
heavy metals (2.2% lead, and low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC) (100
ppm) and PCBs (75 ppm). Since the demonstration, the technology has been used to
remediate a sludge with 85% oil from a refinery lagoon in Alaska, several organic
sludges for refineries on the Gulf Coast, and a California Superfund site
contaminated with very high levels of heavy metals.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 56-57.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-89/013, Nov
1989, pp. 27-28, 47-48, 51-52, & 74-75.
Technology Demonstration Summary, Technology Evaluation Report, SITE
Program Demonstration Test, BLAZCON Solidification, Douglassville,
Pennsylvania. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/S5-89/001,
Mar 1989.
HAZCON Solidification Process, Douglassville, PA, Applications Analysis
Report, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/A5-89/001, May
1989.
Technology Evaluation Report SITE Program Demonstration Test, HAZCON
Solidification, Douglassville, Pennsylvania, Vol. 1, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-89/00 la, Feb 1989.
Bricka, R.M., et al., An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of Fluidized
Bed Incineration Ash (K048 and KO51). USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Technical Report EL-88-24, 1988.
Cullinane, M.J., et al, Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous
Waste. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-86/001, June 1986.
Mark Bricka or John Cullinane
USAE Waterways Experiment Station,
CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-636-3111
Paul R. dePercin
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
523-569-7797
-------
50. STABILIZATION/SOLIDIFICATION (SOLIDITECH)
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To immobilize metal, organic, and inorganic hazardous wastes in wet or dry soils and
sludges using chemicals, reagents, and cement-like binding materials.
Application: This method is applicable for the treatment of hazardous wastes and contaminated
wet or dry soils, sludges, sediments, and other solid wastes. It may be used for base,
neutral, or acid extractable organics of high molecular weight, such as refinery
wastes, creosote, and wood treating wastes, heavy metals, oil and grease,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), pentachlorophenol, and chlorinated and nitrated
hydrocarbons.
Description: The SOLIDITECH solidification/stabilization (S/S) process immobilizes contaminants
in soils and sludges by binding them in a concrete-like, leach-resistant matrix.
Contaminated waste materials are collected, screened to remove oversized material,
and introduced to the batch mixer (figure 50). The waste material is then mixed with:
(1) water; (2) urrichem, a proprietary chemical reagent; (3) proprietary additives; and
(4) pozzolanic material (flash), kiln dust, or cement (cement was used for the
demonstration). Once thoroughly mixed, the treated waste is discharged from the
mixer. The treated waste is a solidified mass with significant unconfined
compressive strength, high stability, and a rigid texture similar to that of concrete.
Chemical analyses of extracts and leachates showed that heavy metals present in the
untreated waste were immobilized. The process solidified both solid and liquid
wastes with high organic content (up to 17%) as well as oil and grease. Volatile
organic compounds in the original waste were not detected in the treated waste.
Physical test results of the solidified waste samples showed: (1) unconfined
compressive strengths ranged from 390 to 860 psi; (2) very little weight loss after 12
cycles of wet/dry and freeze/thaw durability tests; (3) low permeability of the treated
waste; and (4) increased density after treatment. The solidified waste increased in
volume by an average of 22%. The bulk density of the waste material increased by
approximately 35% due to solidification. Semivolatile organic compounds (phenols)
were detected in the treated waste and the toxicity characteristics leaching procedure
(TCLP) extracts from the treated waste, but not in the untreated waste or its TCLP
extracts. The presence of these compounds is believed to result from chemical
reactions in the waste treatment mixture. Oil and grease content of the untreated
waste ranged from 2.8 to 17.3% (28,000 to 173,000 ppm). The pH of the solidified
waste ranged from 11.7 to 12.0. The pH of the untreated waste ranged from 3.4 to
7.9. PCBs were not detected in any extracts or leachates of the treated waste. Visual
observation of solidified waste showed dark inclusions approximately 1 mm in
diameter.
Advantages: In the SOLIDITECH process heavy metals present in the untreated waste appear to
be immobilized. Both solid and liquid wastes with high organic content as well as oil
and grease were solidified. Volatile organic compounds in the original waste were
not detected in the treated waste. Physical test results of the solidified waste
samples were satisfactory. PCBs were not detected in any extracts or leachates of
the treated wastes.
133
-------
Limitations: In the SOLIDITECH process, the solidified waste increased in volume by an average
of 22%. Semivolatile organic compounds (phenols) were detected in the treated waste
and the TCLP extracts from the treated waste, but not in the untreated waste or its
TCLP extracts. The pH of the solidified waste ranged from 11.7 to 12.0. The pH of
the untreated waste ranged from 3.4 to 7.9.
Costs:
Not available.
Availability: This process is commercially available. This is one system in the general category of
stabilization and solidification.
Status:
References:
Contacts:
The SOLIDITECH process was demonstrated in December 1988 at the Imperial Oil
Company/Champion Chemical Company Superfund site in Morganville, NJ. This
location formerly contained both chemical processing and oil reclamation facilities.
Wastes treated during the demonstration were soils, a waste pile, and wastes from an
old storage tank. These wastes were contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons,
PCBs, other organic chemicals, and heavy metals.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-89/006, Nov
1990, pp. 88-89.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-89/013, Nov
1989, pp. 27-28, 47-48, 51-52, & 74-75.
Bricka, R.M., et al., An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of Fluidized
Bed Incineration Ash (K048 and KO51). USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Technical Report EL-88-24, 1988.
Cullinane, M.J., et al, Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous
Waste, Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-86/001, Jun 1986.
Mark Bricka or John Cullinane
USAE Waterways Experiment Station,
CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-636-3111
Walter E. Grube
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7798
134
-------
INTERNAL VIEW OF MIXER
FRONT END LOADER
(LOADING CONTAMINATED SOILI
TREATED WASTE
Figure 50. Soliditech processing equipment.
135
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
136
-------
51. BIODECONTAMINATION OF FUEL OIL SPILLS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To decontaminate difficult to reach soils containing fuel oil from leaking tanks and
piping.
Application: Special bacteria are introduced where spills of fuel oil and other biodegradable
hydrocarbons have been severe and indigenous bacteria have been destroyed.
Description: Biodegradation is accomplished by applying special oil-degrading bacteria to a
bioreactor while filling the reactor with leachate water. As the reactor overflows,
bacteria are carried to a spray field pump sump and then to injection wells and the
spray field. Surface sprayers apply the treated leachate water on the spray field
while the injection wells apply the treated leachate water to soil under buildings. As
more water is added to the system and the ground under the buildings and
throughout the contaminated area becomes saturated, run-off water along with
leachate water is collected in a trench down-slope from the contaminated area. The
collected water is pumped back to the aerated reactor where bacterial growth on the
high surface area matrix, on which some of the bacteria are immobilized, occurs.
Clean nutrient-, detergent-, and oxygen-enriched water with bacteria is recirculated
to the spray field and injection wells. For this implementation, the contaminated
area had a considerable slope, and the contaminated soil was a thin layer over a
relatively impermeable rock substrate.
Advantages: Excavation is not required. Buildings over a contaminated site would not have to be
destroyed by excavation.
Limitations:
Costs:
The microorganisms function best at temperatures between 20° and 35° C. Biological
growth in injection wells and in piping might restrict flow.
The site was cleaned to a satisfactory level for about $37,000, not including shipping
the equipment to the site, installation labor supplied by facilities personnel, and
analytical costs. The treatment area was 800 m2. Costs generally run between $50
and $150/yd3-
Availability: The technology and equipment are commercially available. The particular system
used for this implementation is proprietary and was supplied by Polybac Corp.,
Allentown, PA.
Status: The method was implemented to clean up a fuel oil spill resulting from leaking pipes
at a Naval Communication Station at Thurso, Scotland. In this case, oil was
entrapped in the soil matrix beneath boiler and power buildings. The project lasted
from February to October 1985.
WES is currently developing a method of extracting those native microbial
populations that show capability of degrading spilled product from the freshly
contaminated soil. Once these consortia are identified they will be removed and
incubated and a seed medium developed. The inoculum made up of the native
microbes will then be added back into the soil for remediation of the spilled product.
It is anticipated that the inocula consisting of the native populations should stand a
137
-------
References:
Contact:
better chance of successful cleanup as opposed to inoculum made up of exotic
microbes that are not native to the soil. WES has completed a bench-scale evaluation
of mechanisms responsible for degradation of heavy petroleum hydrocarbons in a
landfarming biotreatment system. WES has also performed both bench- and pilot-
scale bioslurry studies for treating petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soils.
Gunnison, D., Evaluation of the Potential use of Microorganisms in the
Cleanup of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Spills in Soils, WES Technical Report, EL-
91-13, 1991.
Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francingues. Development of a
Laboratory Method for Evaluation of Bioslurry Treatment Systems.
Presented at the 1991 Superfund Conference, Washington, DC, 1991.
Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and M J. Cullinane, An Assessment of the
Applications Potential of In-Situ Biotreatment for Remediation of Saturated
Aquifers, 15th Annual Army Environmental Research and Development
Symposium, Williamsburg, VA, 1991.
Donnelly, J.A. and W.J. Mikucki. Used Motor Oil Digestion by Soil
Microorganisms, Presented to the American Society for Microbiologists, Atlanta,
Mar 1987.
Brown, L.R. Oil-Degrading Microorganisms.
83(10):35-40, Oct 1987.
Chemical Engineering Progress,
Polybac Corporation, Biodecontamination of Fuel Oil Spill Located at
NAVCOMMSTA, Thurso Scotland, Final Report, U.S. Naval Air Station, Point
Mugu, CA, Dec 1985.
Deh Bin Chan, Ph.D.
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division,
Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-4191, Autovon 551-4191
Mark Zappi or Douglas Gunnison
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-636-3873
138
-------
52. BIOREMEDIATION IN COLD REGIONS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To biodegrade fuels and other organics in cold regions.
Application: This technology can be applied to jet fuels and weathered jet fuel products in soil.
Description: This technology is a form of landfarming of contaminated soil. A lined infiltration
basin is utilized for this process. A sprinkler system is used for distribution of water
for moisturizing contaminated soil and distribution of mixed fertilizer as nutrients on
the soil for biodegradation. Excess water that filters through the soil is recirculated
for conservation of this resource. Biodegradation is complete to below detection
levels. Contaminated soil is biodegraded to carbon dioxide, water, and clean soil.
Upon completion of the process, soil is returned to its original location as it is
declassified.
Advantages: Contaminated soil is not deposited into a hazardous waste landfill, it is not left in
place to cause further contamination, it is not incinerated, but rendered through
biodegradation to carbon dioxide, water, and clean soil. There is no outward evidence
or appearance of the application of a decontamination process on contaminated soil
(e.g. no stacks or trucks carrying waste). Decontaminated soil can be declassified and
returned to its original location as the process is completed.
Limitations: This biodegradation process is temperature-dependent. Therefore, the process does
not operate in freezing temperatures during winter months.
Cost:
Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: Full-scale implementation occurred at the Fairbanks, AK Airport during 1991-92.
References: None available.
Contact: Richard Scholze
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-6743, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
139
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
140
-------
53. SURFACE PILE BIOREMEDIATION OF FUEL IN SOILS
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To decontaminate soils that have been contaminated with fuels.
Application: The process may be applied to soils contaminated with diesel, JP-5, or other fuels
that have leaked from underground storage tanks.
Description: Contaminated soil is removed from the contaminated site and stockpiled for
treatment. The stockpiled soil is processed through a screen to eliminate rocks
greater than 4 inches in diameter. The screened soil is transported to a site that is
protected by a 40-ml liner with 8 in of sand sub-base. Three feet of contaminated soil
is spread along the base of the pile, and then a series of vacuum extraction pipes are
trenched in the soil and connected to the vacuum extraction system (VES) blower.
The VES blower provides movement of oxygen through the pile. The remaining soil
is piled into a trapezoid shape about 15 ft high, 200 ft long, and 60 ft wide. Fertilizer
is added, and an irrigation system is installed (see figure 53).
Computer-controlled sensors are placed within the pile to monitor temperature,
pressure, and soil moisture. A sampling plan was designed to measure the rate of
biodegradation and the effects of system design on biodegradation; i.e. compaction,
distance from VES piping, and depth. Analytical procedures included total petroleum
hydrocarbon (TPH) measured by EPA Method 418.1 and total recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbon (TRPH) as diesel using the California Department of Health Services
(DOHS) Method. Microbiological activity was measured using standard plate counts
and hydrocarbon-degraded plate counts. Standard methods were used to determine
water content, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, and pH.
The final analysis of the third set of samples taken after approximately 2 months of
operation indicates that the average TPH is 120 ppm. A report has been prepared for
the regional water quality board, and the site has been declared clean. A research
report will be prepared when the data are finalized.
Advantages: Fuels that have contaminated soil are completely destroyed with no hazardous
byproducts. Upon approval from the EPA, soil may be delisted and returned to the
excavation site. The method is not limited by the concentration of fuel in the soil.
Limitations: The process is not proven or approved for concentrations > 500 ppm.
Costs: Approximately $80/ton at the Bridgeport pilot project (report not published).
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: Field pilot testing has been conducted at Bridgeport, CA in FY89. Full-scale
implementation at 29 Palms, CA, MC Air Ground Combat Center is in progress.
References: Not available.
141
-------
Contact: William Major
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1808, Autovon 551-1808
S" PVC
"/Cv^X. IRRIGATION 15 FT 2'
PRUBBER HOSE
DETAIL A
NUTRI£NT SUPPLY SYSTEM
SUMP PUMP IN PERFORATED
BUCKET FILLED WTTH SAND
SU1LP CAPACITY 3100 CAL
n
o
\
1
1
to
i
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
i 1 i j
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
[ 1 1 i 1
•^ lift
\ R -
/- B~ PVC SLOTTE
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 i 1 i i
t t t t t '
AJR P— \ \
D SCR
80
40
LfTl. HPT
/
F
15 —
s
/
\
\
/
rup
\
jH
\ ->•
SO
BEKTONITE SEAL
SUPPLY ^
SYSTEM
DETAIL B
MANIFOLD
PIPING
DETAIL C
DETAIL C
MANIFOLD PIPING
DETAIL B
AJR SUPPLY SYSTEM
- ATTACHliENT FOR GAUGE
n
BLANK ^" PVC
SCII 60
CARBON CAHN1STER
II H P BLOWXR
AND MOTOR
Figure 53. Nutrient supply system for the surface pile biodegradation system.
142
-------
54. EXTRACTION OF OILY WASTES
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: Decontamination of soils.
Application: This process can be used to treat sludges, soils, and other water-bearing wastes
containing oil-soluble hazardous compounds, including polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCS), polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compounds, and dioxins. The process has been
commercially applied to municipal wastewater sludge, paper mill sludge, rendering
waste, pharmaceutical plant sludge, and many other wastes.
Description: This process is designed to separate materials into their constituent solid, oil
(including oil-soluble substances), and water phases. It is primarily intended for soils
and sludges contaminated with oil-soluble hazardous compounds. The technology
uses food-grade carrier oil to extract the oil-soluble contaminants (figure 54).
Pretreatment is necessary to achieve particle sizes less then 3/8-inch.
The carrier oil, with a boiling point of 400°F, typically is mixed with waste sludge or
soil and the mixture is placed in the evaporation system to remove any water. The
oil serves to fluidize the mix and maintain a low slurry viscosity to ensure efficient
heat transfer, allowing virtually all of the water to evaporate.
Oil-soluble contaminants are extracted from the waste by the carrier oil. Volatile
compounds present in the waste are also stripped in this step and condensed with the
carrier oil or water. After the water is evaporated from the mixture, the resulting
dried slurry is sent to a centrifuging section that removes most of the carrier oil from
the solids.
After centrifuging, residual carrier oil is remover by a process known as
hydroextraction. The carrier oil is recovered by evaporation and steam stripping.
The hazardous constituents are remover from the carrier oil by distillation. This
stream can be incinerated or reclaimed. In some cases, heavy metals in the solids
will be complexed with hydrocarbons and will also be extracted by the carrier.
Advantages: This technology will extract oil, PCBs, PNAs, and dioxins from high water content
(72%) sludges.
Limitations: Additional treatment is necessary to destroy the contaminants after extraction.
Cost: Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: The process has been successfully tested in a pilot plant on refinery slop oil,
consisting of 72% water, as well as on a mixed refinery waste consisting of dissolved
air flotation sludge, API separator bottoms, tank bottoms, and biological sludge.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov 1990, pp.
36-7.
143
-------
Contact: Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
16 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7863
Van U>
Tic* am*
•«-&-^< '
Ctrna O3 Viper tpd Steam
CantrOfl
Recovered Dinillauao
Wtln Calunm
oa Soluble
ChlSolobU
Codpowotx
Figure 54. Simplified Carver Greenfield process flow diagram
144
-------
55. IN SITU SOIL VENTING GUIDANCE MANUAL
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: Design and operation of soil vapor extraction systems.
Application: This method is applicable to soils contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOC).
Description: The manual is for design, operation, and cost estimation of in situ soil venting
systems for the removal of VOC-contaminated soils. Spread sheets are included for
cost estimates for design, installation, and operation of the systems. These designs
are for VOC spills of 50,000 gallons to 100,000 gallons.
Advantages: All data needed to design a soil vapor extraction system are in one manual.
Limitations: Design larger than 100,000 gallons are not covered in this manual.
Cost: No cost.
Availability: Published in December 1991.
Status: Manual is published.
References: DePaoli, D.E., et al. Guidance Manual for the Application of In Situ Soil
Venting for the Remediation of Soils Contaminated with Volatile Organic
Compounds. AFESC Report ESL-TR 90-21, Volume II, 1991.
Contact: Capt. Edward G. Marchand
HQ AFCESA/RAV
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6023
145
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
146
-------
56. IN SITU SOIL VENTING
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To remove volatile contaminants from unsaturated soils.
Application: This method is applicable for removal of volatile components such as fuels and
trichloroethylene in soil. It is applicable to such sites as fire training pits, spills, and
the unsaturated zone beneath leach pits. The method is most applicable for
contamination at depths greater than 40 ft in fairly permeable soils (see notes #37
and #57).
Description: Venting wells are placed in the unsaturated zone and connected to a manifold and
blower. A vacuum is applied to the manifold, and gases are extracted from the soil
and fed to the treatment system. Depending upon the individual site and the depth
of the contaminated zone, it might be necessary to seal the surface to the throughput
of air. Analysis of soil gas for oxygen and carbon dioxide content during a field test at
Hill AFB, UT, (figure 56) suggests that soil gas venting may provide oxygen for
biodegradation. Further research is needed to prove conclusively that soil venting
enhances biodegradation of organic contamination.
Advantages: This method is inexpensive, especially if the emissions require no treatment. The
equipment is easily emplaced. It is less expensive than excavation at depths greater
than 40 ft, and the costs are similar for depths between 10 and 40 ft. Operation is
simple, excavation of contaminated soil is not required, and the site is not destroyed.
Limitations: This is a transfer-of-media method; the waste is not destroyed. At depths of less than
10 ft, excavation could be less expensive, depending upon the type of waste treatment
required. The contamination must be located in the unsaturated zone above the
nearest aquifer. Prior bench-scale testing is important in determining the
effectiveness of the method to a specific site. To date, few field data exist on the level
of clean-up. If the contamination includes toxic volatile organic compounds, then
treatment of the vented gases may be required. The level of treatment normally is
based upon local requirements.
Costs: The costs range from $15/ton of contaminated soil, excluding emission treatment up
to approximately $85/ton using activated carbon emission treatment. Catalytic
incineration was used at Hill AFB fuel spill at a cost of $10/yd3 . Based upon pilot
studies at Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP), MN, the cost to treat a site
contaminated to a depth of 20 to 50 ft was between $15 and $20/yd3 , excluding air
treatment.
Availability: All equipment is commercially available. Treatment equipment must be selected on
a case-by-case basis. Documentation by vendors is incomplete concerning the extent
of cleanup by use of this method.
Status: A full-scale in situ field test was completed in October 1989 at Hill AFB. Based on
data from the extracted gases, 80% of the 100,000-liter fuel spill was removed in 9
months of operation Soil analysis following the test indicated an average fuel
residual of less than 100 ppm in the soils. This method has been implemented by
various organizations, including a full-scale remediation by the Army at TCAAP.
147
-------
References:
Contact:
Kroopnick, P. Modeling the In Situ Venting of Hydrocarbon Contaminated
Soil. Proc. 18th Environmental Symposium and Exhibition, Feb 1992.
DePaoli, D.W., S.E. Herbes, and M.G. Elliott. Performance of In Situ Soil
Venting System at a Jet Fuel Spill Site. U. S. EPA Soil Vapor Extraction
Workshop, Jun 1989.
Downey, B.C. and M.G. Elliott. Performance of Selected In Situ Soil
Decontamination Technologies: An Air Force Perspective. American Institute
of Chemical Engineers 1989 Summer National Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 1989.
Elliott, M.G. and D.W. DePaoli. In Situ Venting of Jet Fuel-Contaminated Soil.
44th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, May 1989.
Metzer, N., et al., In Situ Volatilization (ISV) Remedial System Cost Analysis
Technical Report. USATHAMA Report AMXTH-TE-CR-87123, Aug 1989.
Marks, P., et al., Task Order 4. Laboratory Study of In Situ Volatilization
(ISV) Technology Applied to Fort Campbell Soils Contaminated with JP-4,
Final Report. USATHAMA, May 1987.
Bennedsen, M.B., J.P. Scott, and J.D. Hartley. Use of Vapor Extraction Systems
for In Situ Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds and Hazardous
Materials. Washington, D. C., Mar 1987, pp. 92-95.
Anasotos, G.J. et al. Task 11. In Situ Sir Stripping of Soils Pilot Study, Final
Report. USATHAMA Report AMXTH-TE-TR-85026, Oct 1985.
Capt. Edward G. Marchand
HQ AFCESA/RAV
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
504-283-4628
Wayne Sisk
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2054
148
-------
ANALYTICAL TRAILER
EMISSIONS CONTROL
VERTICAL VENT ARRAY
Figure 56. Conceptual drawing of in situ soil venting demonstration system, Hill AFB.
149
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
150
-------
57. IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Category: I.b. Soil treatment
Purpose: To remove volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the vadose or unsaturated zone of
soils (see also notes #37 and #56).
Application: This technology is applicable to organic compounds that are volatile or semivolatile at
ambient temperatures in soils and groundwater. Contaminants should have a
Henry's constant of 0.001 or higher for effective removal. The discussion here is
related to Terra Vac, only one of the vendors who offer soil vapor extraction (SVE)
technologies.
Description: In situ SVE is a process for removing VOCs from the vadose or unsaturated zone of
soils. Often, these compounds can be removed from the vadose zone before they
contaminate ground water. In this technology, a well is used to extract subsurface
organic contaminants. The extracted contaminant stream passes through a
vapor/liquid separator, and the resulting off gases undergo treatment, such as
activated carbon, or thermal or catalytic destruction, before being released into the
atmosphere. The technology uses readily available equipment, such as extraction
and monitoring wells, manifold piping, a vapor/liquid separator, a vacuum pump, and
an emission-control device, such as an activated carbon canister. Once a
contaminated area is completely defined, an extraction well is installed and
connected by piping to a vapor/liquid separator device (see figure 57). A vacuum
pump draws subsurface contaminants through the well to the separator device and
through an activated carbon canister before the air stream is discharged to the
atmosphere. Subsurface vacuum and soil vapor concentrations are monitored using
vadose zone monitoring wells. The technology does not require highly trained
operators or soil excavation and is not limited by depth. The technology works best
at sites that are contaminated by liquids with high vapor pressures. The success of
the system depends on site conditions, soil properties, and the chemical properties of
the contaminants. The process works in soils of low permeability (clays) if the soil
has sufficient air-filtered porosity. Depending on the soil type and the depth to
groundwater, the radius of influence of a single extraction well can range from tens to
hundreds of feet. Typical contaminant recovery rates range between 20 and 2,500
pounds per day and are a function of volatility of the organic compound recovered and
site characteristics. Therefore, the more volatile the organic compound, the faster
the process works. The process is more cost-effective at sites where contaminated
soils are predominantly above the water table, although some vendors offer systems
designed for both vapor and groundwater recovery. The SVE demonstration at
Groveland Wells Superfund site used four extraction wells to pump contaminants to
the process system. Four monitoring wells were used to measure the impact of
treatment on site contamination. During the SITE demonstration, 1,300 pounds of
volatile organics, mainly trichloroethylene (TCE), were extracted during a 56-day
operational period. The volatiles were removed from both highly permeable strata
and low-permeability clays. The process represents a viable technology to fully
remediate a site contaminated with VOCs. The major considerations in applying this
technology are: volatility of the contaminants (Henry's constant), site soil porosity,
and the required cleanup level. The process performed well in removing VOCs from
soil with measured hydraulic conductivity of 10" ^ to 10" ^ cm/sec. Pilot
151
-------
demonstrations are necessary when treating soils of low permeability and high
moisture content.
Advantages: The process will remediate VOC contaminated soils with a measured air permeability
of 10'7 cm/sec. Contaminants should have a Henry's constant of 0.001 or higher for
effective removal. Also, biodegradation of some organic compounds takes place
during the SVE operation.
Limitations: The process may not remediate VOC-contaminated soils with a measured air
permeability of less than 10"^ cm/sec. Contaminants having a Henry's constant less
than 0.001 may not be removed effectively.
Cost:
Based on available data, treatment costs are typically near $50/ton. Costs for small
sites may range as high as $1507 ton.
Availability: SVE technology is commercially available from several vendors.
Status: The Terra Vac process was first applied at a Superfund site in Puerto Rico, where
carbon tetrachloride had leaked from an underground storage tank. In situ SVE
processes are now used at more than 200 waste sites across the United States, such
as the Verona Wells Superfund Site in Battle Creek, MI, which contains TCE and
contaminants from gasoline station spills. A field demonstration of the process was
performed as part of the SITE Program at the Groveland Wells Superfund site in
Groveland, MA, which is contaminated by TCE.
References: Chatwin, T.D. et al. Report of Results of the Vapor Vacuum Extraction Test
at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) on the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) in the State of Idaho. Proc. 18th
Environmental Symposium and Exhibition, Feb 1992.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-91/008, Nov
1991, pp. 148-9.
Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-91/003, Feb 1991.
Engineering Bulletin - In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-91/006, May 1991.
Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste Contaminated Soils.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/2-90/002, Jan 1990.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 92-3.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-89/013, Nov
1989, pp. 77-8.
Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System: Applications Analysis
Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/A5-89/003, Jul 1989
152
-------
Technology Demonstration Summary: Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum
Extraction System, Groveland, Massachusetts. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA/540/S5-89/003, May 1989
Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test Terra
Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System Groveland, Massachusetts, Volume 1,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 540/5-89/003a, Apr 1989.
Contacts: Capt. Edward G. Marchand
HQ AFCESA/RAV
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
504-283-6023
Mary K. Stinson
U. S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908-321-6683
Primary
Activated
Carbon
Canisters
Secondary
Activated
Carbon
Canister
EW2
Monitoring
Well
MW2
©©•
Barrier
Wells
Kgg
EW4
Monitoring
Well
MW3
C-©
EW1
Main Extraction
Well
Monitoring
Well
Monitoring
Well
MW1
MW4
Figure 57. Process diagram for in situ soil vapor extraction (Terra Vac).
153
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
154
-------
58. IN SITU STEAM/AIR STRIPPING
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To decontaminate soil contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
semi-VOCs (SVOC).
Application: This technology is applicable to organic contaminants, such as hydrocarbons and
solvents with sufficient vapor pressure, in the soil. The technology is not limited by
soil particle size, initial porosity, chemical concentration, or viscosity.
Description: In this technology, a transportable detoxifier treatment unit is used for in situ steam
and air stripping of volatile organics from contaminated soil.
The two main components of the on site treatment equipment are the process tower
and process train (figure 58). The process tower contains two counter-rotating hollow
stem drills, each with a modified cutting bit 5 ft in diameter, capable of operating to a
27-ft depth. Each drill contains two concentric pipes. The inner pipe is used to
convey steam to the rotating cutting blades. The steam is supplied by an oil-fired
boiler at 450° F and 450 psig. The outer pipe conveys air at approximately 300° F
and 250 psig to the rotating blades.
Steam is piped to the top of the drills and injected through the cutting blades. The
steam heats the ground being remediated, increasing the vapor pressure of the
volatile contaminants and thereby increasing the rate at which they can be stripped.
Both the air and steam serve as carriers to convey these contaminants to the surface.
A metal box called a shroud seals the process area above the rotating cutter blades
from the outside environments, collects the volatile contaminants, and ducts them to
the process train.
In the process train, the volatile contaminants and the water vapor are removed from
the off gas stream by condensation. The condensed water is separated from the
contaminants by distillation, then filtered through activated carbon beds, and
subsequently used as make-up water for a wet cooling tower. Steam is also used to
regenerate the activated carbon beds and as the heat source for distilling the volatile
contaminants from the condensed liquid stream. The recovery-concentrated organic
liquid can be recycled or used as a fuel in an incinerator.
Advantages: Soil contaminated by VOCs and SVOCs can be treated without excavation.
Limitations: There is a depth limitation of 27 ft for application of the process. The pollution in the
aquifer is transferred to another media, carbon beds, needing further treatment and
disposal.
Cost: Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: A SITE demonstration was performed the week of September 18, 1989 at the Annex
Terminal, San Pedro, CA. Twelve soil blocks were treated for VOCs and SVOCs.
Various liquid samples were collected from the process during operation, and the
155
-------
process operating procedures were closely monitored and recorded. Post-treatment
soil samples were collected and analyzed by EPA 8240 and 8270. In January 1990, 6
blocks which had been previously treated in the saturated zone were analyzed for
EPA 8240 and 8270 chemicals.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 96-97, 80-81.
Contact: Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7797
iroud
/
-------
59. IN SITU VITRIFICATION
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To decontaminate soils through an electrical process that generates temperatures of
1,600° C to 2,000° C that will solidify the contaminated soil.
Application: This process can be used to destroy or remove organics and/or immobilize inorganics
in contaminated soils or sludges. The initial application of the electric current must
reduce the moisture content before the vitrification process can begin. This increases
energy consumption and associated costs. Also, sludges must contain a sufficient
amount of glass-forming material (non-volatile, non-destructible solids) to produce a
molten mass that will destroy or remove organic pollutants and immobilize inorganic
pollutants.
Description: In situ vitrification (ISV) uses an electrical network to melt soil or sludge at
temperatures of 1,600 to 2,000° C, thus destroying organic pollutants by pyrolysis.
Inorganic pollutants are incorporated within the vitrified mass, which has properties
of glass. Both the organic and inorganic airborne pyrolysis byproducts are captured
in a hood that draws the contaminants into an off gas treatment system that removes
particulates and other pollutants of concern.
The vitrification process begins by inserting large electrodes into contaminated zones
containing sufficient soil to support the formation of a melt (figure 59). An array
(usually square) of four electrodes is placed at the desired treatment depth in the
volume to be treated. Because soil typically has low conductivity, flaked graphite and
glass frit are placed on the soil surface between the electrodes to provide a starter
path for electric current. The electric current passes through the electrodes and
begins to melt soil at the surface. As power is applied, the melt continues to grow
downward, at a rate of 1 to 2 in./hr. Individual settings or emplacements each
encompass a total melt mass of 1,000 tons and a maximum width of 30 ft. Single
setting depths as great as 30 ft are considered possible. Depths of 17 ft have been
achieved to date with the existing large-scale ISV equipment. Adjacent settings can
be positioned to fuse to each other and to completely process the desired volume at a
site. Stacked settings to reach a deep contamination are also possible.
The large-scale ISV system melts soil at a rate of 4 to 6 ton/hr. Since the void volume
present in particulate materials (20-40% for typical soils) is removed during
processing, a corresponding volume reduction occurs. Volume is further reduced as
some materials present in the soil, such as humus and organic contaminants, are
removed as gases and vapors during processing. After cooling, a vitrified monolith
results, with a silicate glass and microcrystalline structure. This monolith possesses
excellent structural and environmental properties.
The ISV system is mounted on three semi-trailers for transport to a site. Electric
power is usually taken from a utility distribution system at transmission voltage of
125 or 138 kV; power may also be generated on site by a diesel generator. The
electrical supply system has an isolated ground circuit to provide appropriate
operational safety.
157
-------
Air flow through the hood is controlled to maintain a negative pressure. An ample
supply of air provides excess oxygen for combustion of any pyrolysis products and
organic vapors from the treatment volume. The off gases, combustion products, and
air are drawn from the hood by induced draft blower into the off-gas treatment
system, where they are treated by: (1) quenching (2) pH controlled scrubbing; (3)
dewatering (mist elimination); (4) heating (for dew point control); (5) particulate
filtration; and (6) activated carbon adsorption.
Advantages: The process is usually conducted on site without excavation of contaminated soil.
The final product is a monolith of silicate glass with a microcrystalline structure.
Limitations: The process is limited by : (1) individual void volumes in excess of 150 ft3 ; (2) rubble
in excess of 10 wt%; and (3) combustible organics in the soil or sludge in excess of 5 to
10 wt%, depending upon the heat value.
Cost:
Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: Six full-scale demonstrations of the ISV process have been conducted on radioactive
waste at the Department of Energy's Hanford Nuclear Reservation. More than 90
tests at various scales have been performed on polychlorinated biphenyl wastes,
industrial lime sludge, dioxins, metal plating wastes, and other solid combustibles
and liquid chemicals.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006,
Nov 1990, pp. 52-53.
Contact: Ten Shearer
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7949
Graphite & Glass Frit
Starter Path
i
Electrodes to
Desired Depth
Subsidence
Backfill Over
Completed
Monolith
Contaminated
Soil Region
Natural Soil
Vitrified Monolith
Figure 59. In situ vitrification process.
158
-------
60. IN SITU CARBON REGENERATION
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Il.f. Minimization or Treatment of Gases
Purpose: To regenerate contaminated granular activated carbon on site; thereby, reducing
regeneration and overall treatment costs.
Application: The method is applicable for the regeneration of granular activated carbon (GAC)
contaminated by organic compounds and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
from remediation systems using vapor phase treatment of off gases (see notes #1 and
#74).
Description: A typical process involves passing a stream of contaminated air through one or more
adsorbers that contain granular activated carbon. VOCs are adsorbed onto the
carbon. After a period of time, the ability of the carbon to adsorb additional
contaminants is reduced, and the air stream is switched to a parallel adsorber path.
Regeneration gas is passed through the contaminated carbon adsorber to desorb the
contaminants. The contaminants are passed into an oxidizer where they are
decomposed. A schematic of a typical process is shown in figure 60. Normally, the
process is automatic. The stream is switched between the alternate adsorber streams
after a preset time or upon breakthrough. Another method of GAC regeneration that
may be feasible is the use of acclimated microbial populations for degrading adsorbed
contaminants.
Advantages: Waste compounds are decomposed. Costs for off site carbon regeneration are
reduced. Potentially operator-free system would allow unsupervised operations.
Limitations: Not determined yet.
Costs: Not available.
Availability: Carbon regeneration systems are commercially available.
Status: Pilot test conducted at Letterkenny Army Depot, PA. WES is currently developing on
site regeneration systems based on biological, chemical, and physical techniques.
References: Dobreviski, I., and L. Zvezdova. Biological Regenerated Activated Carbon.
Water Science and Technology, 21(1):144, 1989.
Kim, B.R., et al. Adsorption, Desorption, and Bioregeneration in an
Anaerobic Granular Activated Carbon Reactor for Removal of Phenol. J.
WPCF, 58(2):143, 1986.
Contact: Ed Engbert
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-
5401
(410) 671-1564
C.L. Teeter
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-ES-A
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-4260
159
-------
Exhaust
A
Contaminated Gas Stream
Contaminated Regen Gas Stream
Fresh Regeneration Gas
Adsorber
#1
Adsorber
#2
f
Clean Gas Stream
= No Flow
Carbon
Regenerator
Combustion Air
Natural Gas
Figure 60. Schematic diagram of a typical carbon regeneration system. As shown, contaminated
gas is being decontaminated in Adsorber #1 while the carbon in Adsorber #2 is being
regenerated.
160
-------
61. INCINERATION OF EXPLOSIVES CONTAMINATED SOIL
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To decontaminate soils contaminated with explosives.
Application: This method is applicable for the decontamination of soils from lagoons used in the
past for the disposal of wastewaters, known as pink water or red water, from the
manufacture of explosives; from munitions load, assemble and pack (LAP) operations;
and from demilitarization and wash-out operations.
Description: The incinerator is a rotary kiln operated at about 1,200° to 1,600° F. Other
equipment includes the feed system, the bag house or scrubber system for off gases,
and the ash-removal system (see figure 61). Fuel is required for the kiln, and water
is required for cooling the ash and for the scrubber. The quantity of material that
can be decontaminated per hour is proportional to the size of the incinerator.
Advantages: This is a destructive, rather than a media-transfer technique. The equipment is
transportable and can be moved from one site to another and be operational within 4
to 8 weeks. Destructive efficiencies of greater than 99% have been demonstrated
without any explosives detectable in the stack gases. The resulting ash is not
hazardous.
Limitations: The method is relatively expensive. Excavation of the entire contaminated site is
necessary for treatment. As with any operation dealing with explosive materials,
safety is a primary concern. A rigorous explosives safety review must be conducted
with particular attention to materials-handling operations.
Costs: Based on an economic evaluation of alternative incineration options, the total project
costs for on site incineration with a transportable system range from $200 to $400
per cubic yard. These costs include operating and capital costs for excavation,
transportation, and processing (see references).
Availability: The equipment is commercially available.
Status: The technology has been implemented at the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant,
Grand Island, NB, and the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Shreveport, LA.
Incineration of explosives-contaminated soils is currently underway at Savanna
Army Depot, Savanna, IL
References: Noland, J.W., J.R. Marks, and P.J. Marks, Task 2. Incineration Test of
Explosives Contaminated Soils At Savanna Army Depot Activity, Final
Report, Savanna, Illinois, USATHAMA Report DRXTH-TE-CR-84277, Apr 1984.
Contact: Wayne Sisk
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2054
161
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
162
-------
62. INFRARED THERMAL DESTRUCTION (SHIRCO)
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose; To destroy organic contaminants in the soil by combustion.
Application: This technology is suitable for soils or sediments with organic contaminants. Liquid
organic wastes can be treated after mixing with sand or soil.
Description: The electric infrared incineration technology (originally developed by Shirco Infrared
Systems, Inc. of Dallas, TX) is a mobile thermal-processing system that uses
electrically powered silicon carbide rods to heat organic waste to combustion
temperatures. Any remaining combustibles are incinerated in an afterburner. One
configuration of this mobile system (see figure 62) is comprised of four components:
an electric-powered infrared primary chamber, a gas-fired secondary combustion
chamber, an emissions-control system, and a control center. Waste is fed into the
primary chamber on a wire-mesh conveyor belt and exposed to infrared radiant heat
(up to 1,850° F) provided by the horizontal rows of electrically powered silicon carbide
rods above the belt. A blower delivers air to selected locations along the belt and can
be used to control the oxidation rate of the waste feed. The ash material that drops
off the belt in the primary chamber is quenched using scrubber water effluent. The
ash is then conveyed to the ash hopper, where it is removed to a holding area and
analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) content. Volatile gases from the
primary chamber flow into the secondary chamber, which uses higher temperatures,
greater residence time, turbulence, and supplemental energy (if required) to destroy
these gases. Gases from the secondary chamber are ducted through the emissions-
control system. In the emissions-control system, the particulates are removed in a
venturi scrubber. Acid vapor is neutralized in a packed tower scrubber. An induced
draft blower draws the cleaned gases from the scrubber into the free-standing
exhaust stack. An emergency stack is installed prior to the venturi scrubber system
so that if the temperature control system and its interlocks fail, the emissions control
system will not be melted by the hot gases. The scrubber liquid effluent flows into a
clarifier, where scrubber sludge settles out for disposal, and through an activated
carbon filter for reuse or to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for disposal.
In both tests, at standard operating conditions, PCBs were reduced to less than 1
ppm in the ash, with a destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) for air emissions
greater then 99.99% (based on detection limits. In the pilot-scale demonstration, the
standard for particulate emission (180 mg/dscf) was achieved. In the full-scale
demonstration, however, this standard was not met in all runs due to scrubber
inefficiencies. Lead was not immobilized; however, it remained in the ash and
significant amounts were not transferred to the scrubber water or emitted to the
atmosphere. The pilot testing demonstrated satisfactory performance with high feed
rate and reduced power consumption when fuel oil was added to the waste feed and
the primary chamber temperature was reduced.
Advantages: The process is capable of meeting both RCRA and TSCA DRE requirements for air
emissions. Operations on waste feed contaminated with PCBs have consistently met
the TSCA guidance level of 2 ppm in ash. Improvements in the scrubber system
resulted in compliance with RCRA and TSCA particulate emission standards. Based
on recent commercial operations, projected utilization factors range from 50 to 75%.
163
-------
Limitations: In the full-scale demonstration the standard for particulate emission was not met in
all runs due to scrubber inefficiencies. Lead was not immobilized. In some cases,
restrictions in chloride levels in the waste and/or feed rate may be necessary to meet
particulate emissions standards.
Costs: Economic analysis and observation suggest a cost range from $180/ton to $240/ton of
waste feed, excluding waste excavation, feed preparation, profit, and ash disposal
costs. Overall costs may be as high as $800/ton.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: EPA conducted two evaluations of the infrared system. An evaluation of a full-scale
unit was conducted from August 1 to 4, 1987, during a removal action by Region IV at
the Peak Oil site, an abandoned oil refinery in Tampa, FL. During the cleanup, a
nominal 100 ton/day system treated nearly 7,000 cu yd of waste oil sludge containing
PCBs and lead. A second demonstration of the system, at pilot-scale, took place at
the Rose Township Demode Road Site, an NPL site in Michigan, from November 2 to
11, 1987. Organics, PCBs, and metals in soil were the target waste compounds to be
destroyed or immobilized. The pilot-scale operation allowed the evaluation of
performance under varied operating conditions. In addition to Peak Oil, infrared
incineration was used to remediate PCB-contaminated materials at the Florida Steel
Corporation Superfund site, and is being used on PCB-contaminated soil at the
LaSalle Electric NPL site in Illinois.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, United States Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006,
Nov 1990, pp. 84-85.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-89/013, Nov
1989, pp. 69 & 70.
Technology Demonstration Summary: Shirco Pilot-Scale Infrared
Incineration System at the Rose Township Demode Road Superfund Site,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/S5-89/007, Apr 1989.
Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test Shirco
Pilot-Scale infrared Incineration System at the Rose Township Demode
Road Superfund Site, Vol. 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
EPA/540/5-89/007a, Apr 1989.
Technology Evaluation Report SITE Program Demonstration Test, Shirco
Infrared Incineration System Peak Oil, Brandon, Florida, Vol. 1, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-88/002a, Sep 1988.
Contact: Howard 0. Wall
U. S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7691
164
-------
Emission Duct
I
I
Primary Combustion Chamber (PCC)
on ncTon on
Belt Conveyor
Secondary Combustion Chamber (SCCj
SCC Emission
Outlet Duct
Emergency
Bypass Stack
Effluent Tank
ToPOTW
Sludge to
Disposal
Figure 62. Shirco incineration unit process diagram.
165
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
166
-------
63. THERMAL DESTRUCTION (PYRETRON)
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: To destroy hazardous waste.
Application: Solid wastes contaminated with hazardous organics are suitable for the Pyretron
technology. In general, the technology is applicable to any waste that can be
incinerated.
Description: The Pyretron technology involves an oxygen-air-fuel burner and uses advanced fuel
injection and mixing concepts to burn wastes. Pure oxygen, in combination with air
and natural gas, is burned in the Pyretron burner to destroy solid hazardous waste.
The burner operation is computer controlled to automatically adjust the amount of
oxygen to sudden changes in the heating value of the waste. The burner can be fitted
onto any conventional combustion unit for burning liquids, solids, and sludges.
Solids and sludges can be co-incinerated when the burner is used in conjunction with
a rotary kiln or similar equipment. Six polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
compounds were selected as the principal organic hazardous constituents (POHC) for
the test program - naphthalene, acenaphthylene, fluorine, phenanthrene,
anthracene, and fluoranthene.
Advantages: The Pyretron technology achieved greater than 99.99% destruction and removal
efficiencies (DRE) of all POHCs measured in all test runs performed. The technology
with oxygen enhancement achieved double the waste throughput possible with
conventional incineration. All particulate emission levels in the scrubber system
discharge were significantly below the hazardous waste incinerator performance
standard of 180 mg/dscm at 7% oxygen. Solid residues were contaminant free. There
were no significant differences in transient carbon monoxide levels emissions
between air-only incineration and Pyretron oxygen-enhanced operation. Cost savings
can be achieved in many situations. The system is capable of doubling the capacity of
a conventional rotary kiln incinerator. This increase is more significant for wastes
with low heating values. In situations where particulate carryover causes
operational problems, the Pyretron system may increase reliability.
Limitations: The technology is not suitable for processing aqueous wastes, RCRA heavy metal
wastes, or inorganic wastes.
Cost The costs associated with using the Pyretron in place of an air-only burner depend
upon the relative costs of oxygen and fuel and to some extent the capital costs of the
burners themselves. For this demonstration, operating the Pyretron with oxygen
enhancement used oxygen worth between $3,250 and $3,870 (it was provided free of
charge) and roughly $2,672 worth of propane. Operation without oxygen
enhancement consumed $4,000 worth of propane. The Pyretron burners used in this
demonstration had an estimated cost of $150,000 and involved $50,000 of design and
development effort.
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: A demonstration project was conducted at EPA's Combustion Research Facility in
Jefferson, AR, using a mixture of 40% contaminated soil from the Stringfellow Acid
167
-------
Pit Superfund site in California and 60% decanter tank tar sludge from coking
operations (RCRA listed waste K087). The demonstration began in November 1987,
and was completed at the end of January 1988.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 20-21.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5089/013, Nov
1989, pp. 15-16.
Technology Demonstration Summary, The American Combustion Pyretron
Thermal Destruction System at the U. S. EPA's Combustion Research
Facility, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/S5-89/008, May
1989.
American Combustion Pyretron Destruction System, Applications Analysis
Report, Research and Development (MD-235) Report EPA/540/A5-89/008, Jun 1989.
Contact: Laurel Staley
U. S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7863
168
-------
64. CIRCULATING BED COMBUSTOR
Category: I.b. Soil Treatment
Purpose: Decontamination of soils, slurries, and sludges.
Application: The circulating bed combustor (CBC) technology may be applied to soils, slurries, and
sludges contaminated with halogenated and nonhalogenated hydrocarbons. The CBC
technology was recently applied at two site-remediation projects for treating soils
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and fuel oil.
Description: The CBC uses high-velocity air to entrain circulating solids and create a highly
turbulent combustion zone for the efficient destruction of toxic hydrocarbons. The
commercial-size combustion chamber (36 inches in diameter) can treat up to 100 tons
of contaminated soil daily, depending on the heating value of the feed material.
The CBC technology operates at relatively low temperatures (approximately
1,600°F), thus reducing operation costs. The high turbulence produces a uniform
temperature around the combustion chamber, hot cyclone, and return leg. It also
promotes the complete mixing of the waste material during combustion. The
effective mixing and relatively low combustion temperature also reduce emission of
carbon monoxide and nitrogen.
As shown in Figure 64, waste material and limestone are fed into the combustion
chamber along with the recirculating bed material from the hot cyclone. The
limestone neutralizes acid gases. The treated ash is transported out of the system by
an ash conveyor for proper disposal.
Hot gases produced during combustion pass through a convective gas cooler and
baghouse before being released to the atmosphere. Ogden states that the CBC
technology can attain a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for
hazardous waste and 99.9999% for PCB waste.
Advantages: CBC technology can attain a DRE of 99.99% for hazardous waste and 99.9999% for
PCB waste.
Limitations: The treated ash must be disposed of upon decontamination of the soil.
Cost Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: The CBC technology is one of seven nationwide incinerators permitted to burn PCBs.
A test burn/treatability study of waste from the McColl Superfund site was conducted
in March 1989. A demonstration of the feasibility of the CBC to treat red water from
TNT production is planned.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 64-65, 80-81.
169
-------
Wentz, J.A. et al. Technology Evaluation for Treatment/Disposal of TNT Red
Water. USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-90048, 1990.
Contact; Joseph McSorley
U.S. EPA
Air & Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory
Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 17711
919-541-2920
Julia Kilduff
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1563
-irn<
reet
v>li<
Fe«
.1 A
1
T
W
*• ' - ^
Li
F<
tsto
1
M
y
-U1
— ^
qui<
^ed
C<
oe
*•*"•«
<
1
imbusti
—
A
t
3. .'
'-•-A.-i
r~ i
CM
:
)
y
^
'c
•C
^-
\
S
^•3
* ••
•w
G
111
>
Z»
— K.
X* ^
^
i
•^•j
^^•^^
•• —
—
] Flue Gas
, Cooler
i
^ r- i
r^ Cyclone
Cooling
Water -—
Cnliric
•^- «^^IHJS
Return
m-v-v-
!j
N^
\
*
— _
_J
— *.
Flue C
(Dust)
Filter
I
i
^
1
St;
as
1 —
MM
ac
•>
^^^
i
T
^
i
k
I
I
t
D
-a
\ FD
Fan
Cooling
Water
Ash Conveyor
System
Figure 64. Circulating bed combustor process diagram.
170
-------
65. BIOTECHNICAL SLOPE PROTECTION
Category! I.e. Structural Treatment
Il.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To prevent migration of contaminants offsite, either through runoff or groundwater
infiltration.
Application: This method is applicable for slope stabilization and erosion control at Defense
Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) sites. The method can help to manage a
site before, during, and after cleanup by keeping contaminants, especially those
associated with the particulate phase, on site.
Description: Vegetation native to the contaminated area is established to reduce runoff and
percolation. The method is to be used in conjunction with permanent cleanup
technologies. The revegetation may be used to restore the site to natural conditions
after cleanup is completed. Low to moderate soil TNT concentrations (up to 50 ppm)
can support a healthy biomass using soil amendments, such as straw and chicken or
horse manure. Higher concentrations (1,000 ppm) cannot support a viable plant
community.
Advantages:
Limitations:
This method reduces physical transport of contaminants, may be more cost-effective
than physical barriers, and makes the area more aesthetically pleasing.
The method is not well suited to industrial areas surrounded by concrete
buildings. The method may not be applicable to areas of extreme toxicity.
Not available.
or
Costs:
Availability: Technical details are available from NCEL.
Status: This technology was demonstrated first at nonhazardous waste sites. The first
demonstration was at Meridian Naval Air Station (NAS) where typical rill erosion
was occurring along the border road. By using vegetation native to the area, the cut
slope was stabilized and erosion controlled. At a second site, the method was
demonstrated successfully under more adverse conditions: high precipitation, steep
slopes, and highly erodable soils. Laboratory studies have been conducted at WES to
determine phytotoxicity for TNT and RDX and to conduct rainfall lysimeter tests.
Significant amounts of particulate and dissolved TNT were found in runoff.
References: None available.
Contact: Leslie Kan-
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1618, Autovon 551-1618
171
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
172
-------
66. HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION OF
EXPLOSIVES-CONTAMINATED STRUCTURES
Category: I.e. Structural Treatment
Purpose: To develop an innovative, nondestructive technology to decontaminate Army facilities
contaminated by explosives and to prepare them for reuse or excessing.
Application: The method can be used for buildings or structures associated with ammunition
plants, arsenals, and depots involved in the manufacture, processing, loading, and
storage of pyrotechnics, explosives, and propellents.
Description: The method involves sealing and insulating the structures, heating with hot gas
stream to 500° F for a prescribed period of time, volatilizing the explosive
contaminants, and destroying them in an afterburner. Operating conditions are site-
specific. Contaminants are completely destroyed. The operation can be conducted by
government or contractor personnel.
Advantages: The advantages of this method over open burning, which is not allowed in many
states, is the potential for less strict regulation. The process can be controlled and
some structures may be reused.
Limitations: The method is more costly than open burning.
Costs: The cost of the decontamination will vary with the application depending upon the
size and geometry of the structure to be decontaminated and the temperature and
holding time required for the decontamination. No specific cost analyses have been
completed.
Availability: All equipment is commercially available.
Status: Large-scale pilot testing of an explosives contaminated building was conducted at the
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant, Grand Island, NE, in 1987.
References: McNeill, W., et al. Pilot Plant Testing of Hot Gas Building Decontamination
Process - Final Report. USATHAMA Report AMXTH-TE-CR-87130, Oct 1987.
Woodland, L.R. et al., Pilot Testing of Caustic Spray/Hot Gas Building
Decontamination Process. USATHAMA Report AMXTH-TE-CR-87112, Aug 1987.
Design Support for a Hot Gas Decontamination System for Explosives-
Contaminated Buildings. Maumee Research and Engineering, Apr 1986.
Contact: Erik B. Hangeland
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
(410) 671-1560
173
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
174
-------
67. HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION OF
EXPLOSIVES-CONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT
Category? I.e. Structural Treatment
Purpose: To develop a technology that will allow cost effective decontamination of internal and
external surfaces of process equipment contaminated with explosives.
Application: The method is applicable for process equipment requiring decontamination for reuse.
It is also applicable for explosive items, such as mines and shells, being demilitarized
or scrap material contaminated with explosives.
Description: The process involves raising the temperature of the contaminated equipment or
material to 500° F for a specified period of time. The gas effluent from the material is
treated in an afterburner system to destroy all volatilized contaminants. The method
eliminates a waste that currently is stockpiled and requires disposal as a hazardous
material. This method will permit reuse or disposal as non-hazardous scrap
material.
Advantages: Compared with the alternative of open burning, which is not allowed in some states,
the hot gas decontamination process is less strictly regulated. This process can be
controlled. Material is completely decontaminated and may be reused in some cases.
Limitations: The costs of this method are higher than open burning, some capital investment is
required, and the rate at which equipment or material can be decontaminated might
be slower than that for open burning.
Cost: The cost of the decontamination will vary with the application depending upon the
size and geometry of the equipment or material to be decontaminated and the
temperature and holding time required for the decontamination. No specific cost
analysis has been completed.
Availability: Equipment required is commercially available.
Status: Field-pilot demonstration was conducted at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant,
NV, in 1990. Limited trial implementation of the method is planned.
References: Pilot Test of Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated
Equipment at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant (HWAAP), Hawthorne,
NV, Final Technical Report. USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-90036, Jul
1990.
Contact: Erik B. Hangeland
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1560
175
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
176
-------
68. HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION OF
EXPLOSIVES-CONTAMINATED UNDERGROUND PIPING
Category: I.e. Structural Treatment
Purpose: To develop an alternative method of decontaminating underground piping
contaminated with explosives.
Application: The method is applicable for explosives-contaminated underground piping associated
with explosives production and load, assemble, and pack operations.
Description: To date, this technology has involved the excavation of piping, placing the piping in a
flashing chamber, heating to 500° F with hot gases, and destroying the explosives
volatilized by the hot gas in an afterburner. Consideration is being given to applying
the hot gases in situ. The piping most likely will not be returned to service, but
disposed as non-hazardous scrap. Removing the piping will eliminate a source of
contamination; contaminants are completely destroyed. Throughput using this
method is site-dependent. Equipment required includes a burner to generate the hot
gas, a chamber in which to heat the pipe, an afterburner to destroy volatilized
contaminants, and appropriate ducting. The work can be performed by government
or contractor personnel.
Advantages: The current method of decontamination is very labor-intensive and involves
excavating the piping and flushing out the contaminants with flame, one pipe at a
time. The hot gas method has a higher throughput, a lower risk to personnel, a lower
cost, and control of air emissions.
Limitations: A higher initial capital investment is required to procure the system, but it can be
used to decontaminate other explosives-contaminated material in addition to piping.
Cost: The cost of the decontamination will vary with the application depending upon the
size and geometry of the piping to be decontaminated and the temperature and
holding time required for the decontamination. No specific cost analyses have been
completed.
Availability: Equipment required is commercially available.
Status: Field-pilot demonstration was conducted at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant,
NV, in 1990. Limited trial implementation of the method is planned.
References: Pilot Test of Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated
Equipment at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant (HWAAP), Hawthorne,
NV, Final Technical Report. USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-90036, Jul
1990.
Contact: Erik B. Hangeland
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
(410) 671-1560
177
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
178
-------
69. HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION OF
CHEMICAL-AGENT-CONTAMINATED FACILITIES
Category: I.e. Structural Treatment
Purpose: To identify and develop an innovative, nondestructive technology to decontaminate
Army facilities and equipment contaminated by chemical agents to prepare them for
reuse or excessing.
Application: This hot gas technology is applicable to structures that are contaminated with
chemical agents. The process enables safe, effective, and environmentally acceptable
decontamination of facilities for potential reuse or disposal.
Description: This technology uses the exhaust from an oil or gas burner to heat a building to a
prescribed temperature, hold the building at temperature for a prescribed time, and
then cool the building. Times and temperatures are agent-dependent and range from
6 to 24 hours and 400° F to 600° F, respectively. Exhaust gas from the building is
drawn through an afterburner operated at 2,000° F with a 2-second residence time to
destroy the volatilized chemical agents. From the afterburner, the exhaust gas
passes through a spray quench system or some other heat reducing device to lower its
temperature to 250° F to 400° F prior to passing through two carbon beds. The gas
passes through an induced draft (ID) fan and then to the atmosphere. The ID fan
maintains negative pressure through out the system. Chemical agent monitors are
used throughout the process to detect the presence of agents.
Advantages: Currently, the only approved method of decontaminating structures is that of
reducing the building to rubble and processing the rubble through an incinerator.
The hot gas technology offers a safe and effective process to enable decontamination
in place. The negative pressure of the system prevents any escape of chemical
agents.
Limitations: Combustible materials will be destroyed during this process and may require removal
prior to initiation of the process.
Cost
Costs would be directly proportional to the size of the facility and the length of time
required to heat the entire structure to the operating temperature.
Availability: The technology has been tested in the laboratory and in a controlled chamber pilot-
test. A field demonstration is planned for FY93.
Status:
Field-pilot testing is planned for Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO, for FY93.
References: Demonstration of the Hot Gas Decontamination System for Chemical Agents
- Task 3 Final Report USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-89168, Aug 1989.
Pilot Plant Testing of Hot Gas Building Decontamination Process - Final
Report. USATHAMA Report AMXTH-TE-CR-87130, Oct 1987.
Development of Novel Decontamination Techniques for Chemical Agents
(GB, VX, HD) Contaminated Facilities, Phase II - Laboratory Evaluation of
179
-------
Novel Agent Decontamination Concepts - Final Technical Report.
USATHAMA Report AMXTH-TE-TR-85012, Jun 1985.
Contact: Wayne Sisk
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1559
180
-------
70. DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
Category* I.e. Structural Treatment
Purpose: To remove and safely dispose of contaminated underwater sediments.
Application: The method is applicable for contaminated sediments in harbors, waterways, lakes,
reservoirs, or any water impoundment. The contamination can include organic and
metallic compounds.
Description: Primarily, three dredging methods, although others exist, are used in this
application: mud cat, cutter head, and match box (see figure 70). Once the sediment
has been removed from the water environment, it must be dewatered. The
dewatering generally includes gravity settling, precipitation, or active site
management practices such as trenching. Settling can be enhanced through the use
of polyelectrolytes and commercial floe agents. Once dewatered, the contaminated
sediment can be stored in a disposal area, treated to detoxify or destroy
contaminants, or subjected to stabilization (see the section on stabilization and
solidification of hazardous wastes, notes 45 - 50), depending upon the type and
toxicity of the contamination.
Advantages: In many cases, dredging is the only means of removing contaminated materials from
waterways. The water column does not have to be removed. Major alteration to the
existing hydraulic regime is not necessary. One alternative to dredging might be to
lay an impermeable cap onto the contaminated sediments, but in shallow waterways
sufficient space would not exist to prevent interference with the use of the waterway.
Limitations: Care must be taken during dredging operations to prevent disturbance of the
sediment and stimulation of contaminant release and spreading. The depth of the
water must be enough, usually at least 18 inches, to enable access by the dredge.
Rocks and debris in the sediment must be small enough, usually smaller than a few
inches in diameter depending upon the size of the dredge, not to interfere with the
dredge operation. A clam shell dredge causes considerable mixing, resuspension of
sediment, and does not allow controlled cuts. Water entrained by the hydraulic
dredge might become contaminated and require treatment.
Costs: The cost of dredging, not including the subsequent treatment, can range widely
between $200,000 to $3.5 million to remove 104 to 106 yd3 . The costs for a specific
operation depend upon the location of the contamination in the waterway, the
difficulty in removal, and the disruption to the normal use of the waterway. Details
of costs can be found in the references listed below.
Availability: All of the dredging equipment is commercially available from various vendors.
Status: A large scale pilot was conducted at Calumet Harbor, IL in 1985. The technology was
demonstrated with a low rate of sediment resuspension. The method is widely used
in Japan and the Netherlands. A pilot-scale dredging demonstration project was
conducted in New Bedford Harbor, MA, a Superfund site contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls. The project was completed in January 1989.
181
-------
References:
Contact:
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Pilot Study: Evaluation of Dredging and
Dredged Material Disposal, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England Division,
Waltham, MA, 1990.
Hayes, D.F., T.N. McLellan, and C.L. Truitt, Demonstrations of Innovative and
Conventional Dredging Equipment and Calumet Harbor, IL, (Draft Report),
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Jan 1987.
Cullinane, M.J. et al., Guidelines for Selecting Control and Treatment Options
for Contaminated Dredged Material Requiring Restrictions, Final Report,
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Sep 1986.
Francingues, Jr., N.R. et al., Management Strategy for Disposal of Dredged
Material: Contaminant Testing and Controls, Final Report, USAE Waterways
Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper D-85-1, Aug 1985.
Danny Averett
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
3903 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
(601) 634-3703
Dave Cowgill
USEPA
Great Lakes National Program Office
1300 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2018
182
-------
• DISCHARGE LINE
ANCHOR
LIME
MATCHBOX HEAD
LADDER HEAD
SUCTION
CUTTER SHAfT
LOOSC MATERIAL
ORCDGED BOTTOM
figure 70. Three types of dredge systems: mud cat (top), match box suction head (middle), and
cross-section view of a typical cutterhead and suction dredge.
183
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
184
-------
71. USE OF WASTE EXPLOSIVES AND PROPELLANTS AS
SUPPLEMENTAL FUEL IN INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
Category: n.a. Recovery and Reuse of Energetics
Purpose: To provide an alternative disposal technology for waste energetic materials which
safely and effectively utilizes the energy content to fuel existing industrial boilers at
DOD facilities.
Application: Currently, the method is applicable to the reutilization of waste TNT. The
application to RDX, Composition B, nitrocellulose (NC), nitroguanidine (NG), and
AA2 Double Base Propellant is being investigated.
Description: Waste explosives such as TNT, RDX, and Composition B are dissolved in toluene and
the resultant mixture is co-fired into a standard industrial boiler. The process design
has been developed to use existing industrial boilers with minimal retrofitting.
Acetone is used to flush the system. A flow diagram for the process is presented in
figure 71. In the case of propellants, which are less soluble in solvents and fuel oil, a
10% by weight propellant-fuel oil slurry is proposed based on the viscosity
requirements (20 centistokes) of standard oil burners.
Advantages: Through this technology, the energy from waste explosives is reutilized to fuel
industrial combustors rather than destroying these wastes by conventional
incineration or open burning/detonation.
Limitations: Safety is a primary concern. Considerable testing has been conducted to determine
parameters under which this technology can be conducted safely. Continued scrutiny
of safety matters will continue. A permit may be required under the new RCRA
regulations for industrial boilers.
Costs: Although actual costs are not available, several economic analysis studies indicate
this technique is a potentially cost-effective alternative for the disposal of waste
energetic materials.
Availability: The method is currently in the pilot-scale field demonstration phase.
Status: A pilot-scale demonstration on the use of explosives as a fuel supplement has been
completed at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant, Hawthorne, NV. Initial tests
have demonstrated that dilute solutions of TNT can be co-fired efficiently and safely.
These tests identified the need for additional equipment and process changes. Tests
are scheduled in FY92 to increase the quantity of TNT and initiate RDX co-firing
tests. The Tennessee Valley Authority completed a study on the technical and
economic feasibility of using propellant-fuel oil slurries. Pilot-scale demonstration of
the propellant-fuel oil-slurry technology is planned for FY94.
References: Norwood, V.M., D.J. Craft. Zero Gap Propagation Testing Of Propellant - No. 2
Fuel Oil Slurries. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Report
CETHA-TS-CR-92005, Jan 1992.
Norwood, V.M., D.J. Craft, and K.E. McGill. Technical And Economic Analyses
To Assess The Feasibility Of Using Propellant - No. 2 Fuel Oil Slurries As
185
-------
Supplemental Fuels. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Report
CETHA-TS-CR-91046, Sep 1991.
Cosmos, M. and P. Marks. Pilot Test to Determine the Feasibility of Using
Explosives as Supplemental Fuel at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant
(HWAAP), Hawthorne, Nevada. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency Report CETHA-TS-CR-91006, Apr 1991.
Myler, C.A., W.M. Bradshaw, and M.G. Cosmos. Use of Energetic Materials as a
Fuel Supplement in Utility Boilers. J. Hazardous Materials, 26 (1991), pp. 333-
42.
Myler, C.A., W.M. Bradshaw and M.G. Cosmos. Use of Waste Energetic
Materials as a Fuel Supplement in Utility Boilers. Presented at AIChE
National Meeting, Philadelphia, Aug 1989.
Bradshaw, W.M. Pilot-Scale Testing of a Fuel Oil-Explosives Cofiring Process
for Recovering Energy from Waste Explosives. USATHAMA Report AMXTH-
TE-CR-88272, May 1988.
Mahannah, J.L., E.G. Fox, and M.E. Lackey. Utilization of Waste Energetic
Material as Supplementary Boiler Fuel, Proc. for the 15th Environmental
Symposium "Waste Minimization and Environmental Programs Within DOD,"
American Defense Preparedness Association, Long Beach, CA, Apr 1987, pp. 200-5.
Contact: Capt. Kevin Keehan
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2054
186
-------
f
Acetone
Toluene
V-WT
Explosives
Dissolving
System
C
Fuel Oil
->• Drain
Fuel/Explosives
Blending Tank
Tank T-300
Circulating
Pump
Combustion Air
Propane Pilot
Vent
Steam
Exhaust
Fresh Water
Water
Conditioner
Condensate
To Drain
Figure 71. Process flow diagram for explosives used as supplemental fuel.
187
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
188
-------
72. PROPELLANT RECOVERY AND REUSE
Category: II. a. Recovery and Reuse of Energetics
Purpose: To demonstrate the feasibility of resolvation of obsolete solvent-based propellants
Application: The method is applicable for waste or off-specification single, double, and triple-base
propellants.
Description: Single-base propellants, those that contain nitrocellulose (NO), are resolvated using
an ether/ethanol system. Double- and triple-base propellants, those that contain NO
nitroglycerin (NG), and nitroguanidine, respectively, are resolvated using an
acetone/ethanol system (see figure 72).
Advantages: Current alternatives for disposal of waste propellants are incineration, which is
costly, or open burning/open detonation, which may have negative environmental
impact. Reuse/recovery offers economic and environmental advantages.
Limitations: For the method to be useful, the reclaimed product must meet specifications.
Costs: A plant with a design capacity of 3 million pounds per year of obsolete propellant
would have a total installed equipment cost of $5.8 million. The payback periods on
invested capital range from a high of 1.9 years for Ml propellant to a low of 0.8 year
for M31A1.
Availability: Technical details are available from USATHAMA.
Status: Bench-scale pilot testing completed at Radford Army Ammunition Plant, VA. A field
pilot at Radford AAP is planned for FY92 - 93.
References: Smith, L.L. et al. Propellant Reuse/Recovery Technology. USATHAMA Report
AMXTH-TE-CR-88026, Aug 1988.
Balasco, A.A. et al. Economic Evaluation of Propellant Reuse/Recovery
Technology. USATHAMA Report, Dec 1988.
Contact: Richard Eichholtz
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2054
189
-------
OBSOLETE
PROPELLANT
FROM
STORAGE
Water
Spray
REMOTE 1
UNPACKING 1
i
r
CONVEYOR 1
1
r
METAL 1
DETECTOR 1
l
r
GRINDER 1
i
F
SURGE 1
TANK 1
i
r
I
Water
PROPELLANT
SLURRY FROM ]
BLDG1
SWECO®
SEPARATOR
Propellant
WOLVERINE®
DRYER
DUMP
HOPPER
AIR
CONVEYOR
PROPELLANT
SLURRY TO
BLDG. 2
DRIED
PROPELLANT
TO BLDG 3
DRIED
PROPELLANT
FROM BLDG 2
CYCLONE
SEPARATOR
1
FEED
HOPPER
METAL
DETECTOR
WEIGH LOADER
AND LID SEALER I
DRUMMED
GROUND
PROPELLANT
TO EXISTING
PRODUCTION
LINES
Figure 72.
Schematic flow diagram of equipment necessary for the grinding operations
(Balasco, 1988)
190
-------
73. TREATMENT OF BALL POWDER PRODUCTION WASTEWATER
Category: Il.b. Minimization or Treatment of Munition Production and/or Handling Waste
Streams
Purpose: To develop a method to treat wastewater from Ball Powder® (Ball Powder propellant
is a registered trademark of Olin Corporation) manufacture at Badger Army
Ammunition Plant (BAAP) in Wisconsin to meet NPDES requirements.
Application: The method is applicable to potential wastewater from Badger AAP (currently,
Badger AAP is not producing Ball Powder). Parameters expected to be limited
include biochemical oxygen demand (BOD, 45 mg/L), total suspended solids (TSS, 30
mg/L monthly average and 50 mg/L daily), N-nitrosodiphenylamine (NDPA, 1.9
ug/L), and dibutylphthalate (DBP, 2.5 ug/L).
Description: Two methods were developed and evaluated: extended aeration and sequencing
batch reactor (SBR). The extended aeration process (figure 73a) consists of an
aerated biological reactor, or aeration tank, in which activated sludge interacts with
incoming wastewater. The effluent from this tank is fed to a clarifier in which the
suspended activated sludge solids are separated from the treated wastewater. A
portion of the activated sludge solids are recycled to the aeration tank; the remainder
of the solids comprise a waste stream. The SBR (figure 73b) makes use of a single
tank in which all processing takes place including filling, reaction settling, and
liquid/solid separation. In the absence of nitroglycerin (NG), both methods worked
well; however, when NG was added during the second phase of the first
demonstration, the microbes were killed. Since the literature claims that NG can be
biodegraded, a second demonstration was conducted. A selection process to
determine the best reaction system settled on SBR. The SBR reaction sequence was
optimized so that up to 1,600 mg/L of NG in the feed to the reactor can be tolerated.
The actual concentration of NG in the reactor never exceeds 160 mg/L.
Advantages: This system is commercially available. The main advantage of the SBR is its
flexibility. It can be computer controlled so that very little human effort is needed.
Nitroglycerin at a concentration above 200 mg/L causes a toxic effect on the biomass.
Not available.
Limitations:
Costs:
Availability: These types of systems are available commercially.
Status:
The final report of the second demonstration is available.
expected to implement the system at BAAP.
Olin Corporation is
References:
Grasso, D. et al. Ball Powder Production Wastewater Biological Treatability
Studies. USATHAMA Report CETHA-TS-CR-92047, Jun 1992.
Lewandowski, G.A. et al. Engineering Study of a Sequencing Batch Reactor
for Denitrification of Munition Wastes. Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental
Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-
TR-90055, Apr 1990.
191
-------
Balasco, A.A. et al. Ball Powder Production Wastewater Pilot-Scale
Biodegradation Support Studies. USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-88344,
Feb 1989.
Balasco, A.A. et al. Ball Powder Production Wastewater Pilot-Scale
Biodegradation Support Studies - With Nitroglycerin, Final Report.
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-88344, Feb 1989.
Contact: Richard Eichholtz
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
(410) 671-2054
Clarified Effluent
Wastewater.
Sludge Recycle
Figure 73a. Extended aeration process schematic
Fill
React Settle Decant
Figure 73b. Sequencing batch reactor schematic
Idle
192
-------
74. UPFLOW ANAEROBIC GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON (GAC)
BIOREACTORS
Category: H.b. Minimization or Treatment of Munition Production and/or Handling Waste
Streams
Purpose: To degrade undesirable organics and provide storage capacity for concentration
variations.
Application: This technology is used for organics, both absorbable and slowly biodegradable
dinitrotoluene (DNT) in the presence of ethanol (see also notes #6 and #60).
Description: The reactor is an upflow expanded bed reactor containing granular activated carbon
(GAC) and anaerobic bacteria acclimated to contaminant compound. Removal of
100% of DNT from waste stream with no production of nitrotoluene.
Advantages: Storage capacity on activated carbon allows this unit to treat high concentration
variation in contaminants. Bacteria degradation avoids requirement for carbon
replacement.
Limitations: If other materials dissolved that are toxic to the bacteria exceed carbon capacity,
carbon in the reactor must be regenerated.
Cost: Not available.
Availability: Can be built with off the shelf equipment and used in waste water plants with
nitrated toluene.
Status: Laboratory testing phase during 1991/92 and bench-scale pilot phase during 1992 at
the University of Cincinnati.
References: Fox, Perer, Markram T. Suidan, John T. Pfeffer, and John T. Bandy, Hybrid
Expanded-Bed BAG Reactor for Treating Inhibitory Wastewaters, J.
Environmental Engineering, 116(3), May/Jun 1990.
Contact: Stephen Maloney
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-3482, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
193
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
194
-------
75. WET AIR OXIDATION OF TNT RED WATER
Category: Il.b. Minimization or Treatment of Munition Production and/or Handling Waste
Streams
Purpose: To oxidize all organics to by-products that are environmentally acceptable, e.g.
carbon dioxide (C02 ), water (H2 O), nitrate (NOs •), sulfate (864 2'), etc.
Application: This method is applicable for minimization of high strength TNT production waste
waters (red water).
Description: Wastewater is introduced into a batch reactor pressure vessel and heated to 325°C,
with or without pure oxygen at 2,000 psi. A flow-through reactor will be tested in
1992.
Advantages: In excess of 99% of dinitrotoluene sulfonate introduced into the batch reactor is
rendered into less hazardous chemical compounds such as CO2 , H£ O, NOs", SC>4 2~.
The process is capable of treating a large number of contaminants at the same time.
It has a wide range of applications to lower toxicity of waste. Destruction of waste is
handled in a one-unit process.
Limitations: The process is designed for high energy, high pressure reactions and should not be
used for low strength waste.
Cost:
Not currently available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status:
References:
Laboratory testing phase during 1991/1992 by USACERL and by the University of
Maryland from 1990-91. Bench-scale pilot phase will be conducted in Rothchild, WI
during 1992. A field demonstration is being planned.
Hao, Oliver J., TNT Red Water Treatment By Wet Air Oxidation. Feasibility
Study Report Contract No. DACA88-90-M-1418, Feb 1991.
Wentz, J.A. et al. Technology Evaluation for Treatment/Disposal of TNT Red
Water. USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-90048, 1990.
Contact:
Stephen Maloney
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511 or 1-800-USA-CERL
Julia Kilduff
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2054
195
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
196
-------
76. SUPER CRITICAL WATER OXIDATION
Category: Il.b. Minimization or Treatment of Munition Production and/or Handling Waste
Streams
Purpose: Render inert propellents with no emissions until the process is complete.
Application: This technology is applicable for destruction of rocket propellants and other organic
compounds. It is also used for treatment of dilute aqueous streams containing
hazardous organic substances.
Description: Unused rocket motors with propellant are placed in a reactor cell for removal of the
propellant. The process for hazardous waste destruction operates at nominal
conditions of 1,112° F (600° C) and 3,300 psi (23 MPa). The process for destruction of
rocket propellant operates at 392°F to 572°F (200°C to 300°C) and 200 atmospheres
(19 MPa) pressure. Under these conditions, organic compounds are completely
miscible with supercritical water, oxygen, and nitrogen, and can be rapidly oxidized
to carbon dioxide and water. Inorganic salts to a large extent precipitate at reaction
conditions. In this process hazardous wastes are oxidized and inorganic salts are
separated in a single reaction vessel. The configuration of the pilot-scale reactor is
shown in figure 76. In excess of 99.99% destruction efficiency of hazardous organic
waste constituents is achieved in a single step. The formation of nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide is precluded by in-situ acid gas neutralization. Propellants and organic
waste streams are rendered inert or destroyed in a clean, safe reaction.
Advantages: The waste stream or propellant is rendered inert with no waste plumes that are
visible in a community.
Limitations: Some byproducts may need bioremediation.
Costs: Estimate of millions of dollars to rocket propellant and rocket manufactures when
full-scale design is completed.
Availability: Bench-scale only at the present time.
Status: Bench-scale 1989 to present (1992) at Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM and 1992
bench-scale at SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
References: Earner, H.E., et al. Supercritical Water Oxidation: An Emerging Technology,
Presented at ACHEMA '91 - International Meeting on Chemical Engineering and
Biotechnology, June 9,1991.
Buelow, S.J., et al. Destruction of Propellant Components in Supercritical
Water, Proceedings: Workshop on Alternatives for OB/OD of Propellants and
Explosives, 1990.
Contact: Dr. Joseph D. Wander
HQ AFCESA/RAVS
Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403-5319
904-283-6026
197
-------
Air&
Water"
Waste &
Caustic
->• Effluent
254mm
Cold
Water
Brine
Figure 76. Configuration of pilot-scale reactor for super-critical water oxidation.
198
-------
77. PINK WATER TREATMENT
Category: H.b. Minimization or Treatment of Munition Production and/or Handling Waste
Streams
Purpose: Remove contaminants in wash water from load, assemble, and pack (LAP) facilities
(pink water).
Application: The method can be used to remove explosive contaminants in water arising from
washing equipment and surfaces contacted during LAP operations (see notes #1 and
#60).
Description: The waste stream flows through a settling chamber, a diatomaceous earth filter, and
an activated carbon filter (see figure 77). A survey of carbon treatment methods at
Army Ammunition Plants indicates that the methods are dependent on the
characteristics of the pink water, carbon used, and specific requirements of the
installation. At some sites, carbon is regenerated, while at others the carbon is
burned as supplemental fuel in cement kilns. No current need exists for the Army to
install carbon regeneration systems.
Advantages: The operations are simple; unique equipment is not required.
Limitations: The method is not suitable for red water from trinitrotoluene production. Currently,
some open burning is used to dispose of the contaminated activated carbon resulting
from this method, but that practice might be subject to local regulations.
Regeneration of the carbon, a feasible technology, might be necessary.
Costs: The costs depend upon the size of the operation and are detailed in the referenced
report.
Availability: All equipment is commercially available from several vendors. Contractors supply
and install the equipment, which can be operated by facilities personnel.
Status: The method has been implemented at several facilities including Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant (AAP), IA; Louisiana AAP, LA; Joliet AAP, IL; Volunteer AAP,
TN; Radford AAP, VA; and Holston AAP, TN.
References: Mahannah, J. Survey of Generation and Management of Explosive-Laden
Spent Carbon. USATHAMA Report CETHA-TS-CR-92024, Sep 1992.
Wentz, J.A. et al. Technology Evaluation for Treatment/Abatement of TNT
Red Water. Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic
and Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr 1990.
Chaiko, D.J. et al. Development of a Process for Treating Red Water by
Organic/Inorganic Separation and Biodegradation. Proc. 14th Annual Army
Environmental Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr 1990.
Lowe, W.L. et al. Use of Activated Carbon for Treatment of Explosives
Contaminated Groundwater. Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental
199
-------
Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-
TR-90055, Apr 1990.
Carltech Associates, Granular Activated Carbon Performance Capability and
Availability, DRXTH-TE-CR-88323, Jun 1983.
Contact: Richard Eichholtz
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-6401
410-671-2054
Air
Stripping
Column
To Atmosphere
GAC = Granulated
Activated Carbon
Column
GAC
Effluent
Holding
Tank
Figure 77. Schematic diagram of pilot-scale granular activated carbon method to treat explosives
contaminated groundwater (after Lowe, 1990).
200
-------
78. NON-CYANIDE ELECTROPLATING
Category: II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: To eliminate cyanide (ON) wastes from electroplating operations without sacrificing
plating quality.
Applications The method is applicable to plating operations in which CN is used. The method
development has been directed toward cadmium (Cd) plating, but eventually will be
applicable to other metals.
Description: Direct current and pulse-current plating are employed in a slightly acidic bath (pH =
5.8 to 6.1) at a moderate temperature (T = 27° to 31° C). Research is underway to
optimize the bath composition.
Advantages: CN wastes are eliminated. The work place is safer.
Limitations: More precise process control of the chemical composition in the bath is required as
compared with the CN process currently is use.
Costs: Plating costs are comparable, but treatment costs for CN wastes are eliminated.
Availability: Details of the method are available from NCEL.
Status: Bench-scale pilot testing was conducted at Naval Air Depot Center, Warminster, PA.
References: Pearlstein, F., V.S. Agarwala and D.B. Chan. Development of Non-Cyanide
Electroplating of Cadmium. Presented at the 1989 Tri-Service Corrosion
Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, Oct 1989.
Contact: Jennie Koff
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Pollution Prevention Division, Code L74
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1674, Autovon 551-1674
201
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
202
-------
79. NON-CYANIDE METAL STRIPPER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Category^ II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: To evaluate non-cyanide metal stripper replacement technologies in a three-phase
program: (1) evaluate currently used metal stripping technologies, (2) evaluate
alternative commercial metal stripping technologies, and (3) develop new generic
metal stripping technologies, evaluate precious metal recovery methods for metal
stripping wastes, establish waste treatment procedures, and implement technologies
that are beneficial to the Air Force.
Application: The acceptable non-cyanide metal stripping processes will be applied for stripping
electroplated metal coatings or metal coatings applied by another process.
Description: Metal coatings are presently stripped from metal parts by immersion in a cyanide
compound bath until the metal coating is removed. Waste from this process is
harmful to personnel and the environment. Six commercial non-cyanide metal
strippers and ten commercially available non-cyanide silver strippers were evaluated
in pilot and laboratory tests at Kelly AFB, TX. These tests concluded that metal
coatings may be removed from substrate metals with a tradeoff in time.
Advantages: No cyanide is used, the processes tested are cleaner, they pose no health or safety
hazards, and the waste may be treated on site with no offsite disposal.
Limitations: Production time for coating removal is increased. Enhancement techniques of using
mechanical agitator may help reduce coating removal time.
Cost
Not available.
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: Laboratory testing , bench-scale pilot testing, and field pilot testing have been
conducted at Kelly AFB, TX. Two commercial non-cyanide nickel strippers have been
implemented into the plating shop at Kelly AFB. A generic electrolytic nickel
stripper has been developed.
References: Janikowski, S.K., et al. Non-cyanide Stripper Replacement Program, Phase
III, Final Report, AFCESA, DE-AC07-76ID01570, Oct. 1990.
Janikowski, S.K. et al. Non-cyanide Stripper Replacement Program, Phase II,
Quick Look Report, (Draft), AFESC, DE-AC07-76ID01570, Apr 1989.
Contact: Lt. Phillip P. Brown
HQ AFCESA/RAVS
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6018 or Autovon 523-6018
203
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
204
-------
80. SODIUM SULFIDE/FERROUS SULFATE TREATMENT PROCESS
FOR METALS RECOVERY
Category: II. c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: To reduce heavy metals, sludge production and treatment costs in industrial
wastewater.
Application: The method is applicable to chromium and other heavy metals associated with
industrial wastewater from electroplating.
Description: Sodium sulfide/ferrous sulfate (FeS04/Na2S) is used in place of lime/polymer
flocculation of metal finishing wastes. This change improves metal removal and
decreases the amount of sludge produced. Sludge is reduced by 90%. Waste is more
hazardous since the concentration of sludge is higher. A schematic diagram of a pilot
plant for this method is given in figure 80a, and a photograph of the unit at Tinker
AFB, OK, is shown in figure 80b. The external sludge recirculation is started first in
the solids contact clarifier at 10 to 20% of the plant influent flow, after which the
polymer feed (Betz 1195 cationic polymer) is started to mixer basin 3. The feed is
controlled by the streaming current detector to a streaming current reading of+1.0 to
+2.0 units, which is approximately 2- mg/L of Betz 1195, depending on what other
species are present in the wastewater. The Betz 1120 anionic polymer is fed to the
center mixing well of the solids contact clarifier at 0.5 mg/L. The polymers are fed for
approximately 1 week before starting the sodium sulfide and ferrous sulfate feed.
The lime floe in the solids contact clarifier is light and fluffy, but the addition of the
polymer causes the floe to compact, and the sludge depth decreased from greater than
7 ft to 2 ft in the solids contact clarifier at Tinker AFB. Before starting the Na2S and
FeSC>4 feed, it is desirable to allow the sludge depth to build to 7 ft. This allows the
sludge blanket to act as a filter for the fine precipitate or floe produced. After the
sludge bed has been built with the sulfuric acid/sulfur dioxide/lime process with the
polymer feeding and the external sludge recirculation, the ferrous sulfate feed is
started to Mixer Basin 2 at six times the normally required ferrous concentration (9
mg/L Fe+2 per 1 mg/L Cr+6). At the same time, the sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide
feed to Mixer Basin 1 increases the pH so that Na2S can be added without hydrogen
sulfide offgassing. This requires approximately 20 to 30 minutes retention time of
Mixer Basin 1. When Mixer Basin 1 is at pH 7 or greater, the Na2S feed is started at
2 mg/L S"2 per 1 mg/L Cr+6. At the same time, sulfuric acid feed is started to Mixer
Basin 2 to control the pH at 7.2 to 7.5. After approximately 20 to 30 minutes
retention time of Mixer Basin 1, the FeSC>4 feed to Mixer Basin 2 is decreased to 1.5
mg/L Fe+2 per 1 mg/L Cr+6, and the lime feed to Mixer Basin 3 is stopped. The
system is then operating in the normal mode for the FeSC>4/Na2S process.
Advantages: Retention time is shorter, and the amount of sludge to be handled is reduced
compared to the lime/polymer flocculation method. The process is more cost effective.
In many cases, heavy metals in the waste stream are reduced below detectable limits.
Limitations: Metals in the sludge are not recovered economically for recycling. Processes are
being developed for economical recovery of metals from sludge for recycling.
205
-------
Cost:
Savings of $370,000/year without reclamation of the water and $655,000fyear savings
with reclamation of water can be realized for a 1.4 million gal/d facility..
Availability: The technology is available through AFCESA Tyndall AFB, FL.
Status: Bench-scale pilot testing was conducted at NAS Pensacola, FL. Full-scale
implementation has been conducted at Tinker AFB, OK in FY 89.
References: Wikoff, P.M. et al. Full-Scale Implementation of The Sodium Sulfide/Ferrous
Sulfate Treatment Process, Phase m Report, AFESC, Feb 1989.
Contact: Lt. Phillip P. Brown
HQ AFCESA/RAVS
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6018 or Autovon 523-6018
E. Durlak
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Pollution Prevention Division, Code L74
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1341, Autovon 551-1341
Figure 80b. Photograph of sodium sulfide I ferrous sulfate unit at NAS Pensacola, FL.
206
-------
81. SPRAY-CASTING TO REPLACE ELECTROPLATING
Category: II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: To design, construct, and test an alternative metallization process to minimize
hazardous waste.
Application: The process has been used to place low-temperature tin coatings on low-carbon-steel
templates. This process currently is being tested for high temperature applications
for coating of chromium, nickel, cadmium, lead, etc.
Description: In this nebulization process, molten metal is drawn by aspiration into the throat of a
converging/diverging gas nozzle. There the liquid stream is sheared by the gas flow
into a spray of individual droplets that collect and solidify onto the surface to be
coated. In principle, coatings can be sprayed directly from the melt with over 95%
conversion efficiency. Small amounts of overspray can be collected and recycled. A
spray chamber is shown in figure 81.
Advantages: Metallic and chemical waste associated with electroplating are eliminated.
Limitations: This is a line-of-sight process.
Costs: Costfbenefit information is being developed.
Availability: The method is still under development.
Status: Bench-scale testing has been conducted at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. Detailed coating characterization testing will be conducted in the spring
of 1992. Prototype process tests will take place in FY93. at MSE, Inc., Butte, MT
References: Watson, L.D. and S.A. Ploger. Spray Coating of Metals, Phase I, Quick Look
Report. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Prepared for the U. S. Air Force
through DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76ID01570, Apr 1989.
Suciu, D. and L. Watson. Low Temperature Metal Spray Coating, Quick Look
Report Supplement, Sep 1989.
Contact: Lt. Phillip P. Brown
HQ AFCESA/RAVS
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6018 or Autovon 523-6018
207
-------
Figure 81. Spray chamber: viewing side (top) and access side (below).
208
-------
82. MEMBRANE MICRO FILTRATION
Category: II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: Extraction of hazardous waste suspensions, liquid heavy metal- and cyanide-bearing
wastes (such as electroplating rinsewaters).
Application: This treatment technology is applicable to hazardous waste suspensions, particularly
liquid heavy metal- and cyanide-bearing wastes (such as electroplating rinse waters),
groundwater contaminated with heavy metals, landfill leachate, and process
wastewaters containing uranium. The technology is best suited for treating waste
with solid concentrations less than 5,000 ppm; otherwise, the coke capacity and
handling become limiting factors. The developers claim the system can treat any
type of solids, including inorganics, organics, and oily wastes with a wide variety of
particle sizes. Moreover, because the unit is enclosed, the system is said to be
capable of treating liquid wastes containing volatile organics.
Description: This microfiltration system is designed to remove solid particles from liquid wastes,
forming filter cakes typically ranging from 40% to 60% solids. The system can be
manufactured as an enclosed unit, requires little or no attention during operation, is
mobile, and can be trailer-mounted.
The microfiltration system uses automatic pressure filter combined with special filter
material made of spunbonded olefin (figure 82). The filter material is a thin, durable
plastic fabric with tiny openings (about one ten-millionth of a meter in diameter) that
allow water or other liquids, along with solid particles smaller than the openings, to
flow through. Solids in the liquid stream that are too large to pass through the
openings accumulate on the filter and can be easily collected for disposal.
The automatic pressure filter has two chambers - an upper chamber for feeding
waste through the filter and a lower chamber for collecting the filtered liquid
(filtrate). At the start of a filter cycle, the upper chamber is lowered to form a liquid-
tight seal against the filter. The waste feed is then pumped into the upper chamber
and through the filter. Filtered solids accumulate on the surface, forming a filter
cake, while filtrate is collected in the lower chamber. Air is fed into the upper
chamber at about 45 pounds per square inch, and used to further dry the cake and
remove any liquid remaining in the upper chamber. When the cake is considered to
be dry, the upper chamber is lifted and the filter cake is automatically discharged.
Clean filter material is then drawn from a roll into the system for the next cycle.
Both the filter cake and the filtrate can be collected and treated further prior to
disposal if necessary.
The demonstration was conducted over a 4-week period in April and May 1990.
During the demonstration at the Palmerton Zinc Superfund site, the microfiltration
system achieved the following results:
• Zinc and total suspended solids removal efficiencies ranged from 99.75% to
99.99%.
• Solids in the filter range from 30.5% to 47.1%.
209
-------
• Dry filter cake in all test runs passed the RCRA permit filter liquids test
• Filtrate met the applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) standard for zinc, but exceeded the standard pH.
• A composite filter cake sample passed the EPA Toxicity and toxicity
characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP) tests for metals.
Advantages: The zinc and total suspended solids removal efficiency of this method is 99.75% to
99.99%. Dry filter cake in all test runs passed RCRA permit filter liquids test.
Filtrate met the applicable NPDES standard for zinc.
Limitations: Additional treatment is needed after hazardous waste has been separated. The pH of
the filtrate exceeded the NPDES standard after removing zinc from a hazardous
waste sludge.
Cost
Not available.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: The technology was demonstrated at the Palmerton Zinc Superfund site in
Palmerton, PA. The shallow aquifer at the site, contaminated with dissolved heavy
metals (such as cadmium, lead, and zinc), was selected as the feed waste for the
demonstration. Pilot studies on the ground water have shown that the
microfiltration system can produce a 35% to 45% solids filter cake and a filtrate with
non-detectable levels of heavy metals.
References: The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/540/5-90/006, Nov
1990, pp. 38-39.
Contact: John F. Martin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513-569-7758
210
-------
AIR CYLINDER
FILTER CAKE
USED TYVEK® MEDIA
FILTRATE CHAMBER
WASTE
FEED
AIR BAGS
WASTE FEED CHAMBER
CLEAN TYVEK
MEDIA ROLL
FILTER BELT
Figure 82. Schematic diagram of DuPont / Oberlin microfiltration system.
211
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
212
-------
83. ELECTROLYTIC RECOVERY OF METAL/CYANIDE
WASTEWATERS
Category: II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: To recycle heavy metals and reduce cyanide wastes from plating operations.
Application: The method is applicable to cyanide containing wastewater from plating operations.
With minor modifications, the method is applicable to cadmium/cyanide (Cd/CN),
silver/CN (Ag/CN), copper/CN (Cu/CN), Cu/sulfate (Cu/SC^), and nickel/sulfamate
wastewaters. The metal is recovered as a thin plate or foil and can be reused as an
anode in the plating bath. The volume of wastewater generated from rinsing and the
amount of toxic metals and cyanide discharges are reduced. Existing plating
operations can be modified to incorporate an electrolytic unit.
Description: The electrolytic unit is connected to a segregated still rinse tank. The electrolytic
process involves passing an electric current between an anode and cathode which are
placed in an aqueous ionic solution. The application of direct current to the metal/CN
rinse water results in the electrochemical reduction of metal ions to the elemental
metal on the cathode. Oxidation of cyanide occurs at the anode. Rinse waters are
recycled continuously between the electrolytic unit and the still-rinse tank. The
volume of wastewater generated in the final rinse is reduced by 80 to 90%.
Discharges of metals and CN are reduced up to 99% and 75%, respectively. The flow
schematic for the process is shown in figure 83a; photographs of the exterior and
interior of the electrolytic unit are shown in figures 83b and 83c, respectively.
Advantages: The volume of waste is reduced, the cost of waste treatment is reduced, sludge
volume is reduced, metal is recovered and can be reused, and CN levels are reduced.
Limitations: The method requires shop space for two rinses following the plating bath: first rinse
is a still rinse connected to the electrolytic recovery unit; the second rinse is a
running rinse connected to the waste treatment facility.
Costs: Capital costs for implementation are about $15,000. Operating costs are about
$9,700/yr.
Availability: Equipment tested is commercially available. Specifications and operating
parameters are being documented. Technical details for cadmium recovery are
available from NEESA. Information on other metals is available from NCEL.
Status: The field-scale pilot demonstration was conducted at NADEP, Norfolk, VA.
Implementation of cadmium electrolytic recovery has been conducted at NADEP
Pensacola and NAG Indianapolis in FY90. Additional implementation has been
conducted at Long Beach Naval Ship Yard, FY91. Planned implementations include
NADEP Alameda, NADEP North Island, and NADEP Pensacola.
References: Koff, J. Minimization of Cadmium Cyanide Wastes Using Electrolytic
Treatment. The Military Engineer, No. 530, Aug 1989, pp. 37-9.
213
-------
Contact: Mike Viggiano
Naval Energy and Environmental
Support Activity
Industrial Waste Division, Code 112F3
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-4895, Autovon 551-4895
Jennie Koff
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Pollution Prevention Div., Code L74
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-1674, Autovon 551-1674
Workflow
Fresh Water
Plating Bath
Still Rinse
Running Rinse
Wastewater
Electrolytic
Unit
T
Recovered Metal
Figure 83a. Electrolytic treatment in cadmium plating (Koff, 1989).
214
-------
Figure 83b. Exterior of electrolytic unit.
215
-------
1C
Figure 83c. Interior of electrolytic unit.
-------
84. HARD CHROME PLATING
Category: II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: To reduce the generation of chrome sludge, to reduce water usage, and to improve
plating quality at chrome plating operations.
Application: The method is applicable to buildup chrome plating, for example, bearing surfaces,
shafts, and hydraulic components, as opposed to decorative plating.
Description: The system consists of four components (see figure 84): (1) two-buss-bar plating tank
conversion, (2) zero discharge rinse system, (3) plating bath purifier, and (4)
reclamation of ventilation losses. Rinse water and/or ventilation scrubber water is
used to replace plating bath solution lost due to evaporation, thus achieving zero
discharge of chrome-containing rinse waters. A conforming anode in the shape of the
part to be plated is made from lead mesh. The conforming anode reduces the number
of defective parts. When completed, the plated part is removed from the plating bath
for rinse. If the flow in the rinse tank is countercurrent, then a spray rinse must be
added - a series of spray rings using recycled water and a hand sprayer using new
water. Rinse water and mist are recycled.
Advantages: The design is simple. Plating quality is improved while generation of plating sludge
and water usage is decreased. The method is as much as five times faster than
alternative plating methods. The reclamation is less expensive than other methods,
and equipment maintenance is low. In existing systems with the flow rate through
the rinse tank between 12 to 13 gal/min, the rinse water goes to the industrial
treatment plant resulting in the generation of from two to three drums of sludge per
week. In this method, if the scrubber water is included, all discharges are
eliminated.
Limitations: The method is not applicable to room temperature plating such as that for cadmium
or precious metals.
Costs: The conversion from conventional to hard-chrome plating costs about $40,000 for
materials and $100,000 for engineering. These costs will be reduced through
experience. Cost details are available from the Naval Energy and Environmental
Support Activity (NEESA) or in the implementation reports mentioned below.
Availability: The technology is not commercially available but is available from NCEL or NEESA.
Status: The method has been implemented or is in the process of being implemented at Long
Beach Naval Ship Yard (NSY), CA; Pearl Harbor NSY, HI; Naval Air Station (NAS)
North Island, San Diego, CA; Mare Island NSY, CA; NAS, Alameda, CA; Naval
Undersea Warfare Engineering Station (NUWES), Keyport, WA; NAS, Jacksonville,
FL; Philadelphia NSY, PA; and Charleston NSY, SC. Plans are for five facilities to be
converted each year for 3 years. Pilot plant testing was conducted by NCEL at Puget
Sound NSY, WA; Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, KY; NAS Pensacola, FL; and
NAS Cherry Point, NC.
References: Carpenter, C., Innovative Hard Chrome Plating Concept, Technical
Memorandum, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory TM No. 71-85-12, Feb 1985.
217
-------
Hard Chrome Plating Zero Discharge Rinse - Technology Transfer
Document. NEESA Report 19-006, Oct 1991.
Some reports of implementation plans are available from NEESA.
Contact: Robert Fredrickson, Director
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity
Industrial Waste Division, 112F3
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-4897
UIBt
El l(tl rotor
Holding
Tarfc
-Sr
Spray ^(J
a -
ZEFO OISCHMGE BIKSE CWFIOCWTION
*ITH AIR O.EANirC DEVICE INCDCPOBATED
TYPE 1
i
w
c
3 f
Scr.y
Xnaj*
RlnM Ti
X,-"
1"
ll
*^«ir
irk
•«•»>
K
•£?
1
H0>
Tsrk
ZBC OISCMMGS RINSE CD»F IQLCUT ION
TITHVT AIR O.EAMIMS OEVICt IMgCTOWTE)
TYPE 2
Figure 84. Hard chrome plating schematic.
218
-------
85. ELECTRODIALYSIS OF CHROMIC ACID PLATING SOLUTIONS
Category: II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: To regenerate and reuse chromic acid plating solutions.
Application: The method is applicable to chromic acid-based stripping, plating, and conversion
coating solutions.
Description: Electrodialysis employs a cation-selective membrane to control the transport of
cations (chromium and other metal ions) from the anolyte (chromic acid solution) to a
catholyte. In this unit, cations entering the catholyte are precipitated as metal
hydroxides. Precipitation prevents a loss of conductivity, which occurs when an
acidic catholyte is used, and eliminates the buildup of a deposit on the cathode. A
sludge, much like that generated by an industrial wastewater treatment plant, is
generated and must be disposed as a hazardous waste. The catholyte solution can be
filtered and reused or treated in a conventional industrial wastewater treatment
plant. A simplified schematic of the electrodialysis process to recover chromium is
given in figure 85a. Although the metal sludge is considered a hazardous waste, the
volume of the hazardous material is reduced. A three-compartment electrodialysis
cell is depicted in figure 85b.
Advantages: The chromic acid solution is regenerated and can be reused. Contaminant metals are
constantly removed, resulting in improved plating quality. The system requires little
maintenance. The technology can be made applicable to other acidic solutions. The
system can be combined with ion exchange columns in a closed-loop system for
process solution regeneration and rinse water reclamation.
Limitations: The membrane is subject to leakage at high operation temperatures.
Costs: The cost for a unit is estimated at $30,000.
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: The method is being implemented at Corpus Christi Army Depot, TX.
References: Davis, J.S. Evaluation of Electrodialysis for Chromic Acid Recovery and
Purification at Corpus Christi Army Depot. USATHAMA Report CETHA-TS-
CR-91032, Sep 1991.
Contact: Ronald Jackson
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2054
219
-------
to
to
o
Key
• Purification Loop
- Regeneration Loop
Chromic
Acid
Solution
Rinse
Cation
Filter
Deionized Rinse Water
«*•
Metal
Sulfates
Metal Hydroxides
to Disposal or
Recovery
Electrodialysis
Cell
Sulfuric
Acid
An ion
Filter
Sodium Sodium
Chromate Hydroxide
Electrodialysis
Cell
J
Figure 85a. Schematic diagram of a closed-loop electrodialysis system for chromium recovery
-------
Membrane
Cathode
Reactor
K(OH)
Na(OH)
Cu(OH)2
Cd(OH)2
Fe(OH)3
lonsep Reactor
Solution
Catholyte
-K(OH)
- Na(OH)
•Na(OH)
Figure 85b. Schematic diagram of a three-compartment lonsep electrodialysis cell.
221
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
222
-------
86. ION VAPOR DEPOSITION (IVD) SUBSTITUTION OF
ALUMINUM FOR CADMIUM
Category; II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: To reduce hazardous waste production and its associated adverse effect on the
environment by substituting ion vapor deposition (IVD) aluminum as a replacement
for cadmium where it is used as a corrosion-resistant finish on steel.
Application: IVD aluminum is applicable as a replacement for cadmium where it is used as a
corrosion-resistant finish on steel.
Description: The IVD aluminum coating is applied in production coating equipment called
Ivadizers. The basic equipment consists of a steel chamber, a pumping system, a
parts holder, an evaporation source, and a high-voltage power supply. A schematic of
an IVD coater is shown in figure 86. The IVD processing sequence consists of
pumping the vacuum chamber down to about 10~4 Torr. The chamber is then
backfilled with argon gas, and a high negative potential is applied to the parts being
coated. The argon gas becomes ionized and creates a glow discharge around the
parts. The positively charged gas ions bombard the negatively charged surface of the
parts and perform a final cleaning, which contributes to good coating adhesion.
Following glow discharge cleaning, aluminum wire is evaporated by being
continuously fed into resistance-heated crucibles. As the aluminum vapor passes
through the glow discharge, a portion of it becomes ionized. This, in addition to
collision with the ionized argon gas, accelerates the aluminum vapor toward the part
surface, resulting in excellent coating adhesion and uniformity. Both the aluminum
coating and the IVD process are environmentally clean.
Advantages: There is a reduction in hazardous waste. IVD aluminum out-performs cadmium in
preventing corrosion in acidic environments and actual service test. Aluminum
coatings can be used at temperatures up to 950° F, whereas cadmium is limited to
450° F. IVD aluminum coatings can be applied to high-strength steel without fear of
hydrogen embrittlement. Aluminum coatings can be used in contact with titanium
without causing solid metal embrittlement, and they can also be used in contact with
fuels; cadmium is prohibited for these applications. IVD aluminum can be used in
space applications whereas cadmium is limited because of sublimation. The coating
requirements for IVD aluminum are specified in MIL-C-83488, the tri-service
specification for pure aluminum coatings. After coating, the parts are generally
chromate-treated in accordance with MIL-C-5541. This provides additional
protection against corrosion, forms a good base for paint adhesion, and is a common
treatment for aluminum alloy surfaces. It can also be applied thicker than cadmium
where part tolerance permits; this results in additional corrosion resistance.
Limitations: The IVD process can only coat one diameter deep into a recess or cavity. IVD-coated
nuts and bolts require significantly more torque to complete a threaded connection
than does a cadmium-coated connection.
Cost:
IVD costs for a generic part 36 X 12 X 8 in. are $105. The IVD costs are competitive
with "Bright" cadmium, low embrittlement cadmium, and diffused nickel-cadmium at
$105, $142, and $135, respectively. Annual costs of cadmium plating at Anniston
223
-------
Army Depot (ANAD), AL, are about $340,000 ($4.47/ft2 ); whereas the estimated
annual cost for IVD is $505,330 ($6.64/ft2 ).
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: Full-scale implementation is being conducted at Warner Robins AFB, GA. The
technology is being implemented at ANAD.
References: Jackson, R.P. and T.C. Pollard. The Evaluation of Aluminum Ion Vapor
Deposition as a Replacement for Cadmium Electroplating at U.S. Army
Depots. Proc. 18th Environmental Symposium and Exhibition, Feb 1992.
Ressi, R. and J. Spessard. Evaluation of Aluminum Ion Vapor Deposition as a
Replacement for Cadmium Electroplating at ANAD - Final Report. USATHAMA
Report CETHA-TS-CR-91054, 1991.
Holmes, V.L., D.E. Muehlberger, and J.J. Reilly, The Substitution of IVD
Aluminum for Cadmium, Final Report, U.S. Air Force Engineering and Services
Center Report ESL-TR-ii-75, Aug 1989.
Contact: Lt. Phillip P. Brown
HQ AFCESA/RAVS
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6018 or Autovon 523-6018
Ronald P. Jackson
USATHAMA CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2054
Substrate Holder
Cathode
Vacuum
Chamber
Movable
Boat Rack
High Voltage
Power Supply
Evaporator
Power Supply
— Aluminum
Evaporators
Wire Feeders
Figure 86. Schematic diagram of an ion vapor deposition system.
224
-------
87. RECYCLE OF SPENT ABRASIVE INTO ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
Category: II.c. Minimization or Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes
Purpose: To minimize the hazardous waste stream from abrasive blasting operations and to
recover the waste as a valuable raw material.
Application: The method is applicable for the recycle and reuse of sand-blast grit, slag, and other
blasting abrasives.
Description: The abrasives are mixed into asphaltic concrete. The asphalt is tested to determine
that it meets asphalt strength specifications and that hazardous materials are not
leached or pose other environmental hazards, such as emissions. The entire volume
of waste is reused. Figures 87a and 87b show an asphalt plant and an asphalt paver
being loaded, respectively.
Advantages: The alternative is disposal as a hazardous waste at about $500/ton. This method is
less expensive and the waste becomes a raw material, thus helping to meet waste
minimization goals.
Limitations: A nearby asphalt plant is necessary.
Costs: Exact cost information is not available, but is estimated to be about $50/ton including
transportation and permit activity.
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: Limited trial implementation occurred at CBC, Port Hueneme, CA, September 1991.
The method is fully implemented at CBC Port Hueneme.
References: None available.
Contact: Jeffrey C. Heath
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1657, Autovon 551-1657
225
-------
Figure 87a. Photograph of an asphalt plant utilizing spent blasting abrasives.
Figure 876. Asphalt made using abrasive grit being loaded into a paver.
226
-------
88. RECLAMATION AND REPROCESSING OF SPENT SOLVENTS
Category: H.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose: To recommend and evaluate simple tests to be used as criteria for evaluating the
condition of cold-dipping solvents and vapor degreasers and to identify when these
solvents should be changed.
Application: The method is applicable to maximize solvent use before disposal or recycle, to assure
that recycled solvents meet cleaning specifications, and to minimize waste solvent
generation. Applicable solvents include Stoddard solvent (PD680 - petroleum
distillate) and degreasing solvents, mainly chlorinated solvents such as
trichloroethylene.
Description: Standard tests are used that identify the condition of solvents. Tests include visible
light absorption spectrometry, and measurement of viscosity, electrical conductivity,
and specific gravity. Absorbence is the most sensitive test and can be used alone in
most cases. Borderline cases can be distinguished by specific gravity and viscosity
measurements.
Advantages: Use of the tests results in lower solvent costs and lower equipment maintenance
costs. Unspent solvents are kept in use longer. Spent solvents are detected before
equipment damage can occur.
Limitations: Testing criteria for only a few solvents have been established.
Costs: Test kits are supplied that contain the equipment and reagents necessary for
facilities personnel to conduct the tests.
Availability: The method is still in development at the pilot-testing stage. The equipment
expected for use in the tests is commercially available.
Status: Pilot testing is completed at several Army and Air Force facilities including Anniston
Army Depot, AL and Robins Air Force Base, GA.
References: Tarrer, A.R., B.A. Donahue, S. Dharmavaran, and S.B. Joshi. Reclamation and
Reprocessing of Spent Solvents, Published in U.S.A. by Noyes Data Corp., Mill
Road, Parkridge, NJ, 1989.
Contact: Bernie Donahue
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
227
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
228
-------
89. BIODEGRADABLE SOLVENTS
Category: II.cL Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose: To identify solvents for removing wax, grease, and oil that can be replaced by
biodegradable solvents, identify the biodegradable solvents that can be used, and
develop procedures for and implement their use.
Application: The method is applicable for the removal of wax, grease, and oil.
Description: Several methods have been developed to screen solvents for biodegradability,
cleaning efficiency, and corrosiveness. About 200 chemical companies were contacted
and samples obtained from them for tests as replacements for solvents currently in
use. Biodegradability screening consisted of testing a bench-scale activated-sludge
system and measuring chemical oxygen demand (COD) and adenosine triphosphate
(ATP) over a 6-hour period to establish if the actions of the system can reduce the
COD to below the limits imposed by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). This is a modification of an existing ASTM method and is being
developed into a new ASTM method. A 6-hour period was chosen for the test period
for biodegradation because that is the shortest retention time in an U. S. Air Force
Industrial Waste Treatment Plant. To screen candidate solvents for cleaning
efficiency, the solvents were initially tested (solubility testing) to determine if they
would dissolve or loosen the adhesion of the soils to metal. If effective, they were
then tested for cleaning efficiency on that type of soil. Testing consisted of coating
metal coupons with masking wax, oil, or grease and submerging them for a time in
the solvent mixed according to the manufacturer's recommendation. The coupons
were then removed from the solvent, and their weight loss was determined as a
function of time. Corrosion testing was performed for each of the solvents that met
the criteria established for biodegradation, solubility, and cleaning efficiency. These
tests, each lasting a week, followed the ANSI/ASTM F 484-77 corrosion test method.
Of the 200 plus solvents tested, 40 passed the cleaning and biodegradability tests.
The solvents that were applicable to all the metals were corrosion-tested, and 10
passed the test criteria. Six solvents were selected for pilot-scale testing at Tinker
AFB, OK Five of the six solvents passed all tests and will help meet new volatile
organic compound compliance requirements. These five solvents are also
biodegradable within the 6-hour time frame in the Industrial Waste Disposal
Facility.
Advantages: All five solvents selected are biodegradable in 6 hours. No landfill is needed for
disposal of hazardous waste. Use of these solvents will result in lower disposal cost.
These solvents are less toxic than those formerly in use.
Limitations: Costs are higher for solvents that meet all requirements including biodegradability in
6 hours. Additional processes may be needed for biodegradation. Enhancement
techniques may be needed for some of the solvents.
Costs: Cost of solvents depends on the solvent and the manufacturer.
Availability: The solvents are commercially available.
229
-------
Status: Full-scale implementation is planned for Tinker AFB in FY 90. Final report will be
available in FY92.
References: Beller, J.M. et al. Substitution of Cleaners with Biodegradable Solvents,
Final Report. AFCESA, DE-AC07-76ID01570, May 1991.
Beller, J.M. et al. Substitution of Wax and Grease Cleaners with
Biodegradable Solvents, Phase I. U.S. Air Force Engineering and Services
Center Report ESL-TR-89-04, Nov 1988.
Contact: Lt. Phillip P. Brown
HQ AFCESA/RAVS
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6018 or Autovon 523-6018
230
-------
90. BIODEGRADATION OF PHENOLIC PAINT STRIPPERS
Category: II.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose: To remove phenol from paint-stripping wastewater.
Application: The method is applicable to any wastewater stream containing phenol. It potentially
is applicable for the treatment of wastewater containing methylene chloride and
other chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Description: The pilot plant, discussed in the status section below, consisted of two trickling filter
bioreactors (600-gallon reinforced fiberglass tanks) containing Actofil® biorings for
support of phenol-oxidizing microbes. Diammonium phosphate nutrient was added.
Advantages: This is a destructive method; that is, the waste is eliminated. The alternative has
been to bury the waste at an approved landfill. Since relatively high concentrations
of phenol can be treated, the amount of dilution required prior to treatment is small.
The method can be used to minimize upsets from phenol to existing industrial
treatment plants, that is, a pretreatment method for influent to a combined stream
treatment plant.
Limitations: An upper phenol concentration limit must be established by laboratory tests before
implementation.
Costs: Cost will depend upon factors that will be unique to specific installations. Further
developmental research is required for detailed cost estimation.
Availability: The method is still in the development stage.
Status: Large-scale pilot testing (> 10 drums) has been conducted at Hill AFB, UT. Phenols
were biodegraded successfully, but the continued use of phenolic paint strippers is
under investigation. Therefore, the need for such a minimization method could be
limited by the introduction of methods such as plastic media blasting for paint
removal. The effects of pH, temperature, flow rate, aeration, nutrients, and phenol
concentration were investigated. The pilot study reactors were operated in single-
pass, series-flow, and recirculation modes for about 9 months. Reseeding the bed was
not required. The biodegradation was successful over a phenol concentration range of
50 to 2,100 ppm. The degradation occurred over a temperature range of 10° to 37° C,
with the optimum at about 20° C. The optimum pH was near 7, the natural pH of the
system, so pH modification was not necessary. Biological activity was maintained at
a cadmium concentration as high as 320 ppm.
References: Suciu, D.F. et al. Pilot Plant Studies of Biological Phenol Degradation from
Industrial Effluents, Final Report. AFESC Report ESL-TR-85-60, Oct 1986.
Contact: Capt. Catherine Vogel
HQ AFCESA/RAV
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
(904) 283-2942, Autovon 523-2942
231
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
232
-------
91. SODIUM NITRITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Category: II. d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose: To reduce disposal costs of hazardous boiler sodium nitrite wastewater generated
from Naval shipyards.
Application: Naval shipyards (NSY) generate hazardous sodium nitrite wastewater from three
sources: (1) boiler tube hydroblasting, (2) boiler lay-up, and (3) boiler hydro-leak
testing. The water solution used in these operations contains sodium nitrite
(NaNO2), a corrosion inhibitor, with a concentration of 1,200 ppm. In addition, the
wastewater also contains various heavy metals in ionic form, mainly, cadmium,
copper, nickel, chromium, lead, and zinc, which are regulated as hazardous waste by
the EPA. The shipyards generate about 3 million gallons of NaNO 2 wastewater per
year. At the Long Beach NSY alone, 800,000 gal of hazardous NaNO2 boiler wash
were disposed of during 1990 at a cost of $1.65 million. When NaNO2 wastewater is
mixed with other wastes in the ship bilge, the disposal cost by contractor is about
$3.25/gal. If it is separated from other wastes in the ship bilge, the disposal cost is
about $2/gal. Many municipal wastewater treatment systems cannot handle NaNO2
wastewater and refuse to accept it. Naval waste treatment facilities, either
industrial or sanitary, are likewise not equipped to treat this type of waste water.
The need for a cost-effective treatment option for NaNC>2 wastewater is clear.
Description: Laboratory studies conducted in FY90 showed that sulfamic acid
administered stoichiometrically is capable of completely eliminating nitrite through
denitrification without formation of nitrate ion. This occurs through direct nitrite
conversion to nitrogen gas. During FY91, a bench-scale process of 100-gal capacity
was successfully tested at the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA.
The results showed that the chemical process using NH2 863 H as a reducing agent
can complete convert the nitrite ion to nitrogen gas, while successfully removing
heavy metals and sludge, and meet the requirements for discharging the treated
waster to NPDES channels.
Advantages: The proposed chemical process will not produce hazardous waste and the effluent
produced can be safely discharged to the sanitary sewer.
Limitations: Additional testing is necessary to determine limitations of the method.
Costs: Exact cost information has not been determined; however the capital costs are
estimated to be about $100K.
Availability: Technical details are available from NCEL (see point of contact).
Status: A pilot plant has been constructed at the Long Beach NSY, CA (figure 91), and field-
test runs are in progress.
References: Pan, B.Y.K. and Andy Law. Initial Feasibility Study of Treatment of Sodium
Nitrite Wastewater From Naval Shipyards. NCEL Technical Memorandum TM
71-90-4, May 1990.
233
-------
Lee, T.Y. Richard, B.Y.K Pan, and Henry Sheng. Final Feasibility Report on
Chemical Treatment of Sodium Nitrite Wastewater. NCEL Technical Note (in
review).
Contact: Dr. T. Richard Lee
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Pollution Prevention Division, Code L74
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1670, Autovon 551-1670
234
-------
to
CO
en
Chemical
r
Ffled
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
236
-------
92. CITRIC ACID WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Category: II.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose: To reduce the volume and disposal cost of hazardous citric acid wastewater
originating from naval ship yards (NSY).
Application: Citric acid is used at NSYs to remove rust from ship bilges and tanks. Because of the
chelating effect of heavy metals, the resulting citric acid wastewater probably
becomes immune to the usual biological and chemical treatment. Major components
of this wastewater are citric acid (CA), triethanolamine (TEA), and iron. This
ultraviolet (UV) light and hydrogen peroxide method is intended to decompose CA
and TEA and break the chelating bond between iron and CA or TEA.
Description: UV light in combination with some oxidant, such as ozone or hydrogen peroxide
(H202,) has been used widely in industry to destroy various organics (see the
UV/Oxidation method discussed in notes #13, #14, and #15), but the technique has
been limited to organics in the range of several hundred ppm or lower. The high
concentrations of CA and TEA (at least 1% each to as high as 4%) in this CA
wastewater are considered to be difficult to treat with the usual WfH^Oz method.
With the proper selection of reaction conditions and a catalyst, wastewaters
containing up to 1.5% CA and TEA have been treated successfully (figure 92).
Advantages: In the alternative method of removing the chelated iron using an exchange resin, the
TEA interferes with iron removal because it occupies the resin sites preferentially.
Additional work is necessary to determine the limitations of this method.
Not available.
Limitations:
Costs:
Availability: Equipment and technical details are available from NCEL.
Status:
Lab- and bench-scale pilot tests have demonstrated the treatment of wastewaters
containing up to 1.5% CA and 1.5% TEA (NCEL and the University of Southern
California). A field pilot was conducted at the Long Beach NSY, CA, in FY90.
References: Pan, B.Y.K., J.R. Chen, and T.F. Yen. Initial Feasibility Study on Ultraviolet
Light and Hydrogen Peroxide Method. NCEL Technical Memorandum TM-90-5,
Jun 1990.
Field Tests of Ultraviolet Light/Hydrogen Peroxide System To Treat Citric
Acid/Triethanolamine Wastewater. Arthur D. Little Report, Reference 63183,
Final Report to U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Port Hueneme, CA, Sep
1990.
Contact: Dr. Richard Lee
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Pollution Prevention Division, Code L74
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1670, Autovon 551-1670
237
-------
Coagulant
Steam
Cooling
Water
Citric Acid IS
Wastewater
Sampling Point
Recess Chamber
Filter Press
Filtrate Recycle
Otl-Gas
Catalytic
Ozone
Decomposer
D
o
o
o
o
Ozone Generator
H2S04
Filter Cake
to Disposal
i
1
1
/
^
f
©
To ch
100 gal
Effluent
and discharge
Figure 92. Conceptual design of full-scale citric acid treatment system using oxidation and UV light (source: Arthur D. Little, Inc.).
-------
93. HAZARDOUS OILY BILGE WATER WASTE TREATMENT
Category: II.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose: To develop a method for treatment of bilge water that costs less than the current
method of bilge water disposal and to develop techniques to polish water from the
oil/water separator.
Application: As originally developed, the method is applicable to treat the 1 to 1.5 million gallons
of bilge water per year generated at the Naval Weapons Station Earle, Colts Neck,
NJ. Bilge water is classified as hazardous in New Jersey, since it could contain
hydrocarbons, fuels, lube oils, solvents, and heavy metals. The method may reduce
the volume of bilge material that the facility will have to haul away for proper
disposal and allow the reuse of separated oil.
Description: Bilge waste is transferred to tank cars on the pier. From the tank cars, the liquid
goes to a parallel plate, gravity, oil/water separator (OWS), Navy Model OPB-10NP.
From the separator, the oil is transferred to tank cars for subsequent reuse, burning,
or disposal. Water from the separator goes to a bank of ultrafiltration membranes.
Additional oil removed during the ultrafiltration is treated similarly to the oil from
the separator. The water from the ultrafiltration membrane is disposed to the
sanitary sewer. Current research is being conducted on methods and frequency for
cleaning the membranes. The ultrafiltration technology is effective in separating
both free and emulsified oil from bilge water. The ultrafiltration subsystem is
partitioned into two branches each of which contains four parallel channels of two
membrane cartridges connected in series. Each cartridge contains 40 ft^ of
membrane surface or 320 ft^ per branch. Hollow-fiber, polysulfone membranes have
been used, with flow through each channel of about 10 gal/min. The operating
pressures are 30 psig at the head of the first membrane and 15 psig at the tail of the
second membrane. The final design will be scalable to process flow rates of over 100
gal/min at Navy ports.
Advantages: The current bilge water disposal method required disposal of large volumes. The
ultrafiltration method greatly reduces the volume of hazardous waste that must be
disposed, and, when fully developed, will be fully automated, reducing labor costs and
making bilge water disposal less costly.
Limitations: Operating personnel require more training.
Costs: Estimated costs are: capital - $95,000 for buildings and $200,000 to $250,000 for
equipment; operation - less than $100,000/yr. The costs for the parallel plate
separator are: 10 gal/min unit - $70,000; 100 gal/min unit - $100,000.
Availability: Equipment is off-the-shelf and requires very minimal operator skills and attention.
The Navy parallel plate OWS is available from Quantek in Tulsa, OK.
Ultrafiltration membranes are available from several vendors.
Status: A field-scale pilot demonstration was conducted at Naval Weapons Station, Earle, NJ
in 1991. During August 1991, about 45,000 gal of bilge was processed - 40,000 gal of
membrane permeate were discharged to the sanitary sewer, 5,000 gal of concentrate
were collected for disposal, and 50 gal of oil were recovered. Full-scale
239
-------
implementation is scheduled for FY93. The technology developed will also be applied
to the design of a shipboard prototype for the Naval Sea Systems Command.
References: Not available.
Contact: Edgar Rodriguiz
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Carderock Division Detachment, Annapolis
Environmental Protection Branch, Code 2834
Annapolis, MD 21402
410-267-2578
240
-------
94. RECYCLING OF HYDROBLASTING WASTEWATER
Category: II.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose: To reduce the volume of hydroblasting waste water up to 90% by recycling.
Application: Hydroblasting wastewater is produced from a high-pressure water jet used to clean
the boiler tubes of naval surface ships. Sodium nitrite, a corrosion inhibitor, is added
to potable water to make the feed solution. In the usual practice, the spent
hydroblasting solution overflows from the boiler to the ship bilge in a single pass.
The wastewater combines with heavy metals, oils, grease, and dirt from other waste
streams in the bilge. This combined hazardous wastewater resists available
treatment methods and is hauled away by a contractor at a cost up to $3.25/gal. This
recycling technology can minimize significantly, up to 90%, the hydroblasting
wastewater. This technology is applicable not only to naval shipyards, but also to
commercial shipyards and ships.
Description: The recycling process for hydroblasting wastewater consists of wastewater collection,
settling, filtration, recondition, and reuse. A process flow diagram of the recycling
unit is given in figure 94a. A schematic diagram of the process is shown in figure
94b. A recycling unit is shown in figure 94c.
Advantages: The volume of wastewater is lowered significantly. Other waste streams to the bilge
become more manageable.
Limitations: The 10% of the wastewater not recycled will have relatively high concentrations of
contaminants. The concentrations of copper and lead can be higher than discharge
limits.
Costs: Capital costs (settling tank, two filter trains, heat exchanger, pumps, pressure gages)
are estimated to be below $15,000. Operation of the recycle unit can be incorporated
easily into existing hydroblasting operations and will require no additional labor.
Availability: Technical details are available from NEESA or Naval Ship Systems Engineering
Station (NAVSSES), Philadelphia, PA. A mobile recycling unit is available for
implementation in FY92.
Status:
The initial feasibility study involving bench-scale testing at NCEL and pilot-scale
tests at Long Beach, CA, and Norfolk, VA, Naval Shipyards (NSY) were completed in
1988. Results confirmed the feasibility of recycling hydroblasting wastewater. Three
series of field tests were conducted in 1989 at the Norfolk NSY. The first series
provided a 75% reduction of wastewater. The second resulted in a 90% reduction.
The third resulted in a 92% reduction. A separate project to treat the unrecycled
wastewater that contains high concentrations of sodium nitrite is underway.
Implementation has been accomplished at Long Beach NSY, Pearl Harbor NSY, HI,
and Norfolk NSY. Additional units will be implemented in FY92 and FY93.
References:
Pan, B.Y.K. and B. Swaidan.
Hydroblasting Wastewater.
1991.
Final Feasibility Report on Recycling of
NCEL Technical Memorandum TM-74-91-01, Apr
241
-------
Pan, B.Y.K. Initial Feasibility Study on Recycling Hydroblasting
Waste water, NCEL TM 71-89-01, Feb 1989.
Contact: Brian Swaidan
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1337, Autovon 551-1337
High/Low Float Switch Signal
HYDROBLAST
UNIT
Figure 94a. Mobile Hydroblasting wasterwater recycling unit -process flow.
242
-------
to
£>•
CO
1 ..
1 ........ F4 : BAG FILTERS
..... P3 . PRESSURE GAUGES
•••• S6 : SAMPLING PORTS
..... T2 : FLOW TOTALIZERS
.... : VALVES
TO RECYCLING MODE
TO NORMAL MODE OF
DISPOSAL
FLEXIBLE HOSE
(10.OOO psig)
S1
POTABLE
WATER
STEAM DRUM
MULTI- ORIFICE LANCE
BOILER TUBES
BOILER
WATER (MUD) DRUM
RECYCLED WASTE
WATER
HYDROBLAST (WATER JET) UNIT
WATER WATER
IN OUT
i L
USED IN TEST
SERIES 2 & 3 ONLY,
HEAT
EXCHANGER
S4
600 Gallon Tank used in Test
series 2 & 3 only
(Test Series 1 Utilized a
2500 Gallon Tank Shown in
Figure 3)
RECYCLING PUMP
S5
S6
SETTLING TANK
Figure 94b. Layout of recycling process for hydroblasting wastewater. Two PARALLEL TRAINS
-------
FILTER
TRAIN
SAMPLING
FAUCETS
OUTPUT TO
HYDROBLASTUNIT
LUNETTE
RING
MANUAL
LEVELING
JACKS
VENTS
ACCESS
HATCHES
SECOND
SETTLING
TANK
FIRST
SETTLING
TANK
TOWING
TONGUE
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
BOX
WASTEWATER
INPUT
TEE
TO NORMAL
MEANS OF
DISPOSAL
WASTEWATER
FROM
BOILER
TANKS
DRAINAGE,
CLEAN-OUT
Figure 94c. Mobile hydroblasttng wastewater recycling unit.
-------
95. FILTRATION OF PAINT STRIPPING BATHS
Category: II.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose:
Application:
Description:
To extend the useful life of paint stripping solutions.
The method is applicable to caustic and methylene chloride-based strippers.
The filtration system removes paint residue that collects on the bottom of the bath
limiting working space. Also, the life of the stripper solution is extended since paint
residue can react with the solution, rendering it less effective. The filtration process
consists of three bag-filtration units in series (see figure 95a). Bags of various mesh
sizes ranging from 1 um to 400 um have been used. Figures 95b is a photograph of
the alkaline paint stripper bath and the particulate filtration system.
Advantages: The system is relatively inexpensive, requires little maintenance, and is applicable to
caustic and methylene chloride stripping solutions. Filter bags are reusable.
Dragout of contaminants to other baths is reduced.
Limitations: Stripping solutions still must be disposed of as hazardous waste when spent.
Particulates removed from baths are also hazardous waste.
Costs: The cost for the filtration system is estimated at $25,000 to $45,000.
Availability: This technology is commercially available.
Status: The process was demonstrated at Letterkenny Army Depot, PA. Implementation at
other Army depots is underway.
References: Mathis, J. and J.S. Davis. Evaluation of a Particulate Filtrations System for
an Alkaline Paint Stripper at Letterkenny Army Depot. U.S. Army Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TS-CR-91033, Aug 1991.
Contact: Ronald Jackson
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2054
245
-------
Tank
Eductor
III!!! Sludge Layer||| |il
City Water
Air
Progressing Cavity Pump
Air
Air
1
3rd
Level
Filter
2nd
Level
Filter
t
1st
Level
Filter
Drain
Figure 95a. Simplified process diagram of the paniculate filtration system for alkaline paint
stripping solutions (from Mathis, 1991).
Figure 95b. Photograph of paniculate filtration system and alkaline paint stripper bath.
246
-------
96. CONVERSION OF PAINT BOOTH FILTRATION FROM
WET TO DRY
Category: Il.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose: To reduce wastewater and sludge generated from wet paint booths.
Application: The method is applicable for the conversion of water-wall spray booths to dry-filter
particulate emissions control (PEC).
Description: The water scrubbing system is removed from the booths (see figure 96). Dry filters
are installed to retain paint mist. Filters are selected based on local air quality
requirements and types of paints. The air velocity in the booth should be 100 ft/min
(60 ftVmin for electrostatic operations as specified by 29 CFR 1910.107). Paint dries
on the filter. In most cases the filter can be disposed as a nonhazardous waste to a
landfill. Filters are disposed as a solid waste or as a hazardous waste depending on
the results of the toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP). In some cases,
the filter must be baked to attain nonleachable requirements. Air flow in the spray
booth may be improved. Overspray problems are reduced.
Advantages: Waste may be converted to a nonhazardous waste. Waste stream to the wastewater
treatment plant and sludge handling are eliminated. Ventilation and paint filtration
efficiency may be improved. Dry filter systems will not rust and deteriorate, as is
possible with wet systems.
Limitations: Large down-draft booths may be more difficult to convert, but can prove to be quite
cost-effective. Neither water-curtain or dry filter systems reduce volatile organic
compounds emitted to the atmosphere.
Costs: Costs for sludge handling and water treatment are reduced. Maintenance and
operations costs for the spray booth are reduced. Cost to convert a small cross-draft
booth is about $2,000 to $4,000 or less depending on the size of booth.
Availability: Technical support is available from the Naval Energy and Environmental Support
Activity (NEESA).
Status: Pilot-scale tests were conducted at the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant,
Pomona, CA, Travis AFB, CA, and McClellan AFB, CA. Conversions have been
implemented at many activities Navy-wide.
References: The Replacement of Paint Spray Booth Water Curtains with Dry Filters as a
Hazardous Waste Minimization Measure. NEESA Report 19-007, Jun 1992.
Paint Spray Booth Wet-to-Dry Conversion.
1990.
NCEL Techdata Sheet 90-02, Apr
Ayer, J. User's Guide for the Conversion of Navy Paint Spray Booth
Particulate Emission Control Systems from Wet to Dry Operation. Acurex
Corporation report submitted to NCEL, Contract No. 68-02-4285 WA 2/026, Sep
1989.
247
-------
Navy Paint Booth Conversion Feasibility Study.
89.004, Jan 1989.
NCEL Contract Report CR
Contact: R.M. Roberts, Head
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Pollution Prevention Div., Code L74B
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1682, Autovon 1682
Robert Fredrickson
Naval Energy and Environmental
Support Activity, Code 112F3
1001 Lyons St., Suite 1
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-4897
WET
DRY
WATER
WASH
CONTAMINATED
AIR — >
DRY
FILTER-
CONTAMINATED
AIR
Water Sump
Baffles
Removed
ff
Closed In
BEFORE AFTER
Figure 96. Schematic of wet to dry spray booth conversion.
248
-------
97. PLASTIC MEDIA BLASTING
Category: Il.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
II.e. Minimization or Treatment of Other Solid Wastes
Purpose: To remove paint without the use of solvents. This is a method for the reduction of
solid/chemical waste due to paint stripping.
Application: Blasting of painted surfaces with plastic media (beads) allows a dry method of paint
removal. This process reduces the volume of hazardous liquid waste solvents.
Plastic media may be recycled after separation. The method is applicable to stripping
paint from sensitive substrates such as aluminum and composites. A primary
application is in aircraft rework.
Description: Plastic media blasting (PMB) is a method to remove paint from substrates by
bombarding the surface with plastic media. The media may be thermoplastic or
thennoset depending upon the application. Media may be recycled several times for
reuse until it falls below some critical lower limit mesh size. When the media falls
below the critical lower limit mesh size, it is disposed of as a hazardous waste due to
the heavy metal contamination from paint pigments.
In one application, the PMB unit with hoses, beads, etc. is 8 x 5 x 15 ft high. Blasting
is performed inside an enclosure that is 10 x 10 x 20 ft. Plastic beads are recycled
approximately 10 times with mechanical sieve separation after each use. With the
use of this process there is a 90% reduction in waste and 4 to 6 times increase in
production.
Advantages: The waste stream is in the form of a solid. The potential exists for waste volume
reduction by separating the hazardous component from the non-toxic plastic media.
The potential also exists for media reprocessing, resulting in savings in operational
costs. PMB minimizes labor and down-time for aircraft. Media is non-toxic when
compared to toxic chemicals used in chemical stripping. The blast process is
computer-controlled. Recycling of media for reuse is automated. Robotics are being
developed to perform the blasting. The process is faster, reduces waste, and
increases production.
Limitations: Plastic media are potentially explosive and good ventilation is required. Noise
control during the process of blasting may be a problem. Media waste is considered
hazardous due to heavy metal contamination. Paint pigment may be considered a
hazardous waste, until recycled, due to the heavy metal content of the pigment.
Supplied air respirators are required for operators.
Cost: Both European and American blast systems are available commercially. The cost is
dependent on the size and complexity of the unit and the manufacturer.
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: Technology currently is in use at approximately 15 to 20 Navy activities and others
are planned. PMB waste treatment technology sponsored by the AFCESA is being
developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Laboratory and bench-scale
pilot testing of the process have been completed at ORNL. Second generation PMB
249
-------
References:
Contact:
blast booths have been installed at Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill AFB, UT.
Limited trial implementation was conducted by the Navy at NADEP, Cherry Point.
Four complete, full-scale, room size units are being constructed over the next 1.5
years; there are plans to construct eight additional units .
Technology Transfer Manual for Plastic Media Blasting Walk-In Booth
Installation. NEESA Report 19-005, Jun 1992.
Tapscott, R. E., G.A. Blakut, and S.H. Kellogg. Plastic Media Blasting Waste
Treatment. New Mexico Engineering Research Institute, July 1989.
Lindstrom, R.S., C. d'Agincourt, C. Scholl, and A. Balasco. Demonstration Testing
of Plastic Media Blasting at Letterkenny Army Depot, Final Report.
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-89004, Jan 1989.
Installation and Implementation Plan for Plastic Media Paint Stripping
Facility at Naval Aviation Depot, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point,
North Carolina, Prepared By ORNL, May 1988.
Plastic Media Blasting Regulatory Equipment Study, NCEL Contract Report,
Oct 1988.
Cash Dollar, K. L., M. Hertzberg, J.A. Alochomer, and R.S. Conti. Explosibility
and Ignitability of Plastic Abrasive Media. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Report CR 87.011, June 1987.
Plastic Media Blasting Monitoring at Hill AFB, Utah and NARF, Pensacola,
Florida Final Test Report, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Feb 1987.
Plastic Media Blasting Data Gathering Study: Final Report, CR87.006, Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA, Dec 1986.
Childers, S., D.C. Watson, P. Stumpff, and J. Tirpak. Evaluation of the Effects of
a Plastic Bead Paint Removal Process on Impurities of Aircraft Structural
Materials. Final Report for Period, Oct 1984 to Aug 1985, Materials Laboratory,
Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
Dr. Joe Wander
HQ AFCESA/RAVS
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6029
Thomas Green
NEESA, Code 112F3
1001 Lyons Street, Suite 1
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-4889
Ronald Jackson
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010
410-671-2054
R. Kirts
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Pollution Prevention Div., Code L74
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1334, Autovon 551-1334
250
-------
98. TACTICAL VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
Category: Il.d. Minimization or Treatment of Other Liquid Wastes
Purpose: To eliminate solvents and surfactants from vehicle wash water thereby simplifying
the waste.
Application: Considerable volumes of water are used as a result of training and maintenance
activities at Army facilities. This method is applicable wherever water is used as a
part of vehicle or engine maintenance - either scheduled maintenance or at external
washing facilities.
Description: For external washing, a central facility will have bays to handle the largest vehicles,
such as trucks and main battle tanks, that include wash towers on both sides of the
vehicle using cold water at moderate pressures of around 90 psi; optional tank bath
prewash basins, 3 to 4 ft deep, to remove heavy soils; trenches to move water to
sedimentation basins for solids removal; oil skimmers; equalization ponds;
intermittent sand filtration; and recycle pumps. The external, central washing
facility will have a zero discharge. Engine washing will not be centralized, but will
be located at the maintenance shops. Hot water, about 150° F above ambient
temperatures, at 800 psi is used. The wastewater goes to an oil/water separator and
a sedimentation basin before entering the sanitary sewer system. Because of the
high temperature and pressure of the water, large volumes are not required for
engine washing.
Advantages: Emulsifying agents are eliminated from the wash water. Purchase of chemicals is
not necessary. Treatment of the wastewater is simplified because it consists only of
water and oil. The operation is more efficient for the personnel who do the washing.
Water demand is reduced. Special precautions because of chemicals added to the
wash water are not required. The hazard from harsh washing chemicals to the
troops who wash the vehicles is eliminated.
Limitations: An additional expense is necessary for new construction, but the expense can be
recovered in labor and water savings. Cold weather might limit operations.
Costs: The cost of a central washing facility at Ft. Bragg was $5 million. The cost of a
central washing facility along with an industrial waste treatment plant at Ft. Carson
was $7.6 million. Not enough experience has been gained to evaluate the operating
costs. Cost information was obtained from the Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories (CERL).
Availability: The technology is available from CERL. Engineering would be involved in the design
of a central wash facility. Facilities personnel could handle the retrofit of engine
washing operations.
Status: The method is implemented and in regular use at Ft. Lewis, WA (washing and
maintenance); Ft. Carson, CO (washing and maintenance); Ft. Hood, TX (washing
and maintenance); Ft. Polk, LA (washing and maintenance); Ft. Indiantown Gap, PA,
Ft. Bliss, TX, Ft. Benning GA, Ft Riley, KS, Ft. Stewart, GA, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, MD, and Ft. Bragg, NC (washing and maintenance).
251
-------
References: A number of Engineering Technical Letters are available from CERL, such as
Central Vehicle Wash Facilities for TOE Vehicles and Equipment, TM 5-814-
9, 1992.
Contact: Joseph Matherly and Gary Gerdes
Technical Assistance Center
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
252
-------
99. ABRASIVE GRIT RECYCLING
Category: II.e. Minimization or Treatment of Other Solid Wastes
Purpose: To reduce the disposal costs of used abrasive grit and to reduce the disposal of a
potentially hazardous waste.
Application: The method is applicable to paint-grit mixtures that result from paint removal by
abrasive blasting. The method is applicable to process landfills containing abrasives.
The grit is a crushed slag from nickel or copper smelters or from coal-fired power
plants. Recycling may make the use of less friable, more expensive abrasives, such as
aluminum oxide or garnet, cost-effective.
Description: The method concentrates the paint-grit fines, enabling the recycle of usable grit. Grit
purchases are reduced. The usable grit is maintained in a non-hazardous state by
the elimination of fines and paint particles. The method involves the use of a heated,
fluidized bed separator (see figure 99). Single units are expected to handle between
2,000 and 10,000 Ib/hr. The fines are disposed as hazardous or nonhazardous waste
in accordance with local, state, and Federal regulations.
Advantages: The volume of waste that requires disposal is reduced thus reducing disposal and
compliance costs. The cost of new grit is reduced because usable grit is recycled.
Recycling may make the use of less friable, more expensive abrasives, such as
aluminum oxide or garnet, cost-effective. Based upon pilot-scale testing, the unit
meets the requirements of (1) destruction of organic compounds that exist mainly in
the form of paint chips, (2) the removal of fines smaller than 70 mesh that are
generated by particle fracture during the blasting operation, and (3) the levels of
toxic metals in the reclaimed abrasive do not exceed their total threshold limit
concentration (TTLC) and soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC) limits.
Limitations: The method is not applicable to other blasting media such as plastic beads. The
resulting waste is more concentrated and may require disposal as a hazardous waste.
The method requires a relatively large facility to take advantage of an economy of
scale due to the considerable up-front capital costs. Depending upon local regulation,
the fines discharged from the separator may require disposal as a hazardous waste.
Costs: Excluding design, development, and land, the cost of a 5-ton/hr unit was estimated to
be $985,700 (in 1990 dollars). The unit operating costs were estimated to be
$17.04/ton of spent abrasive processed (details of the basis for the cost estimates can
be found in the reference cited). A 3-ton/hr unit in a NAVFAC study, project P-316,
cost $2.25 million including design, development, and testing.
Availability: Most of the equipment is off-the-shelf. The fluidized bed must be custom designed
and constructed. IGT, the developer of the process, has a patent on the fluidized bed
separator.
Status: Laboratory and bench-scale pilot testing was conducted by IGT at its Chicago
facilities and IGT continues to fine-tune the fluidized bed design. Pilot-scale tests
demonstrated that grit having copper- or tin-based paint contaminants could be
recycled. A field-scale demonstration will be conducted at Mare Island NSY, CA,
during FY94.
253
-------
References: NAVFAC Facility Study: Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, CA; "Abrasive
Recycling Demonstration Facility," Project Number P-316, Category Code 831-14, Jul
1991.
Bryan, E.G., W.M. Thomas, and C.M. Adema. Thermal Reclamation of Blasting
Abrasives. Proc. 17th Environmental Symposium, Atlanta, GA, Apr 1990.
Bryan, B.G. Thermal Reclamation of Spent Blasting Abrasives With a
Fluidized Bed Sloped Grid Calciner. David Taylor Research Center Report
DTRC/SME-CR-03-89, July 1989.
Contact: William K Upton HI
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment, Annapolis
Environmental Protection Branch, Code 2834
Annapolis, MD 21402-5067
301-267-3831
254
-------
ATOMIZED
WATER SPRAY
to
§!
Figure 99. Schematic diagram of a 5-ton/hr prototype fluidized bed sloped grid (FBSG) mineral reclamation plant
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
256
-------
100. COATINGS REMOVAL USING ULTRA HIGH PRESSURE WATER
WITH GARNET ABRASIVE
Category?
Purpose:
II. e. Minimization or Treatment of Other Solid Wastes
To reduce the quantity of hazardous waste generated through ship abrasive blasting
(paint removal and surface preparation).
Application: The method is applicable for the reduction of slag abrasive waste.
Description: The method includes ultra-high pressure water (greater than 35,000 psi) with the
addition of garnet blasting abrasive. The two are combined to make a slurry. The
water and garnet are mixed in a four-nozzle rotating blasting head. The slag
abrasive is replaced by garnet, but the amount of abrasive should be reduced by
approximately 75%. Spent copper slag abrasive, containing copper anti-fouling paint
particles, is considered hazardous in California.
Advantages: The amount of hazardous waste is reduced by between 75% and 100%. The amount
of waste sent to landfills is reduced by 75%. The cost of this method is comparable to
that using copper slag. Garnet abrasive is about four times more expensive than
slag, but the reduction in disposal cost offsets the increase material cost.
Limitations: If disposal costs for the slag are not as large as in California, the material cost will be
higher than the current method.
Costs: Exact cost information is not available; however, the estimated cost for the ultra-high
pressure systems is about $150,000. Garnet costs about $300/ton compared to slag at
$70/ton.
Availability: Approximately half of the naval shipyards have ultra-high pressure equipment, and
it is likely that all shipyards will have the equipment within the next few years due
to its many uses in shipyard cleaning and hydro-destruction.
Status: A large-scale demonstration of a hand-held ultra-high-pressure abrasive slurry
(UHPAS) blasting head was conducted at Tampa Ship, Inc. on a Military Sealift
Command ship in September 1991. The results of this demonstration, documented in
DCNSWC report TM-28-92-09 (scheduled for release in September 1992), indicate
that paint removal rates in excess of 150 ft2/hr can be achieved. A semi-automatic
system has been designed and assembled in which the blasting head is mounted on a
hydraulic manipulating arm and remotely controlled by a commercially available
"man-lift" or "hi-reach." A semi-automatic demonstration will be conducted at Tampa
Ship, Inc. during September 1992.
References: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center Report TM-28-92-09, Sep 1992.
Contact: W.M. Thomas
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Detachment, Annapolis
Environmental Protection Branch, Code 2834
Annapolis, MD 21402-5067
410-267-2157
257
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
258
-------
101. CRYOGENIC REMOVAL AND SIZING OF
CLASS 1.1 SOLID PROPELLANT
Category: II.e. Minimization or Treatment of Other Solid Wastes
Purpose: Removal and rendering to an inert state of Class 1.1 solid rocket propellant for
demilitarization of rocket motors.
Application: This process is for solid propellant of Class 1.1 rocket motors.
Description: A stream of liquid cryogenic liquid N2 (-196° C) is sprayed onto the interior surface of
a rocket motor. At this low temperature solid rocket propellant will spall (erode) off
of the interior surface of a rocket motor. Cryogenic cooling at this temperature
causes nitrate esters to become inert. The process removes all of the interior surface
of the motor. The now inert nitrate esters are washed out into a recovery basin for
treatment. There is no waste from the process because inert propellant is either
recovered as less hazardous and less reactive material or disposed of into a recovery
basin for treatment.
Advantages: The process is safer than explosion and burning of propellants. There is no disposal
of propellants and casings in landfills. Process sites do not need remediation. This
process allows safe removal of propellant from casing, size reduction of propellant for
processing, recovery and reuse of salvageable ingredients, and RCRA - terminating
destruction of hazardous residues.
Limitations: Class 1.1 propellant is unstable, becoming an explosive upon impact. It is also poorly
soluble in water. Removal technology requires subsequent destruction of inert
propellant.
Costs:
Not available.
Availability: Small scale demonstration during 1992.
Status: Bench-scale pilot phase during 1992 at a rocket manufacturing facility in Utah. A
demonstration of the process will be on an 80 Ib rocket motor.
References: Cornette, Jimmy C., Mark D. Smith, and Joseph D. Wander, Alternative
Technologies for Disposal of Solid Rocket Propellants. HQ Air Force
Engineering Services Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, H & WMA MLG,
Vancouver, BC 1991.
Contact: Capt. Mark Smith or Dr. Joseph Wander
HQ AFCESA/RAVS
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6037 or 904-283-4026
259
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
260
-------
102. BIODEGRADATION USING WHITE ROT FUNGUS FOR
PCP-TREATED WOOD
Category: Il.e. Minimization or Treatment of Other Solid Wastes
Purpose: To develop a safe, cost effective method of treating (cleaning-up) pentachlorophenol-
(PCP) treated ammunition boxes (-1 million pounds stockpiled that was treated
before 1985).
Application: This technology is for biotreatment of ammunition boxes that have been treated with
PCPs and biotreatment of other organic compounds in reactors (see note #26).
Description: Lignin-degrading fungus (white rot) is used for biodegradation of PCPs in this
process. An aerobic system using moisturized air on wood chips is used in a reactor
for biodegradation. In the bench-scale trial of the process a reactor was utilized. In
the pilot scale project an adjustable shredder was used for making chips for the open
system used in this project. The open system is similar to composting, with wood
chips on a liner or hard contained surface that is covered. Temperature is not
controlled in this type of system. The optimum temperature for biodegradation with
lignin degrading fungus is 30° C. The heat of the biodegradation reaction will help to
maintain the temperature of the process near the optimum.
Through biodegradation there is about a 60% reduction of POP content of the wood
rendering it less hazardous. At the end of 30 days during the bench scale
demonstration, PCPs in the treated wood were reduced by about 60%. As wood mass
degrades, more PCP is degraded.
Advantages: Disposal of PCPs in hazardous waste landfill is eliminated. Therefore, the landfill
space can be used for other purposes. Incineration, which could create dioxins, is not
used for destruction of PCPs. Waste is rendered to carbon dixoide and water through
biodegradation along with decomposition of contaminated wood chips. The
biodegradation area can be recycled for other purposes after completion of the project.
Limitations: There is only 60% degradation of PCPs and wood chips during a 30 day period in the
laboratory.
Cost: Cost of bench scale project not available. Cost of a field pilot project is <$20,000.
Availability: Not commercially available.
Status: Bench-scale pilot phase at USACERL during 1991. Field pilot phase at Sierra Army
Ammunition Depot (AAD), CA and at Letterkenny AAD, PA, during 4th quarter of
1992.
References: Lamar, Richard T. and Richard J. Scholze, White-Rot Fungi Biodegradation of
PCP-Treated Ammunition Boxes, Presented at National Research and
Development Conference on the Control of Hazardous Materials, San Francisco, CA,
Feb. 4-6,1992
261
-------
Contact: Richard Scholze, Research Environmental Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-6743, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
262
-------
103. SMALL ARMS RANGE MANAGEMENT
Category: Il.e. Minimization or Treatment of Other Solid Wastes
Il.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To manage small arms ranges having high levels of lead.
Application: The method is applicable to outdoor small arms ranges, excluding skeet ranges, i.e.,
rifle, pistol, and machine gun.
Description: Soil at older ranges can contain high levels of lead requiring disposal as hazardous
waste. Rain-water runoff can contain high levels of lead and zinc that could be
transported to surface water as a non-point source. This method consists of spiral
separators, water elutricators, water tables jigs - techniques that rely on density
differences between soil and lead particles. High clays could reduce the level of lead
reduction, thus, soil stabilization could be required. Excavation is required for
abandoned sites. Trees may have to be cleared. Decontaminated material is
returned to the site at close to background levels. The pilot unit has a capacity of 10
tons/hr. Metals are recycled to smelters as a raw material. The work is performed by
contractors using portable and trailer-mounted units. At current ranges,
management is accomplished by a combination of runoff control, retention basins,
and a polishing step using bio-beads (peat moss encapsulated in plastic) on which
lead is adsorbed.
Advantages: The current method is to use a sieve to separate soil from bullets leaving high
concentrations of lead fragments. This method results in much lower lead levels.
Costs are lower because heating is not involved. The equipment is easy to operate.
Limitations: Heavily vegetated sites may be difficult to excavate economically to recover lead.
Costs: Costs are not documented, but are estimated to be about $100/ton, including
excavation.
Availability: Most of the equipment is commercially available through the mining industry.
Specially trained operators are necessary.
Status: Laboratory testing, conducted by the Bureau of Mines in Salt Lake City, was
completed in 1991. Bench-scale pilots (a few tons/hr) are underway at Camp
Pendleton, CA. Field-pilot testing (10 ton/hr) is planned for Camp Pendleton for
FY93.
References: Heath, J.C. et al. Environmental Effects of Small Arms Ranges. NCEL Report
N-1836, Oct 1991.
Karr, L. et al. A Biogeochemical Analysis of Metal Contamination at a Small
Arms Firing Range. NCEL Report TN-1823. Marine Corps Combat Development
Command, Quantico, VA 1991.
Karr, L. et al. Memo to Files - Characterization of Metals in Soil and
Vegetation of a Small Arms Impact Berm, NAVAMPfflBASE, Little Creek, Jun
1990.
263
-------
Contact: Jeffrey C. Heath
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1657, Autovon 551-1657
264
-------
104. DISPOSAL OF OXYGEN BREATHING APPARATUS CANISTERS
Category: II.e. Minimization or Treatment of Other Solid Wastes
Purpose: To render the active agent in oxygen breathing apparatuses innocuous.
Application: The method is applicable for potassium superoxide (K02 ), greater than 200,000
pounds per year of which from oxygen breathing apparatuses (OBA) must be
disposed.
Description: The process is accomplished in seven steps (figure 104a): (1) perforate the OBA
canister either by spiked clamshell or spiked rollers (figure 104b); (2) rack canisters
in the reactor in baskets, a spiral-slide rack, or vertical racks; (3) complete slaking
reaction using either a water spray or water flooding; (4) caustic neutralization using
recirculation with addition of acid to bulk fluid or recirculation with addition of acid
in-line; (5) solids filtration using cartridge filtration; (6) discharge of liquid effluent to
sanitary sewer; and (7) canister recovery by removal of canisters from reactor and
storage in drums or transfer of canisters to compaction system for volume reduction
and packaging for storage or recycle. The slaking reaction consists of contacting the
K02 in the canisters with water producing aqueous potassium hydroxide (KOH) and
oxygen. A small about of barium ions (Ba2+) will be in solution after the slaking
reaction. The acid neutralization is accomplished with sulfuric acid, which
neutralizes the KOH and combines with the Ba2+ to from a precipitate, which is
filtered from the solution by cartridge filters. The spent filters may be drummed for
disposal as a hazardous waste. Process efficiency is high; the conversion of
superoxide to potassium hydroxide is complete and the subsequent neutralization
eliminates the hazard associated with caustic solutions.
Advantages: An alternative method is not available to render the material non-toxic and non-
reactive.
Limitations: None known.
Costs: Detailed cost information is not available; however, the results of the laboratory
study indicate the cost of chemicals would be about $0.06 per canister, excluding the
cost of water. Current disposal costs are between $8 and $12 per canister.
Availability: The method is under development.
Status: Laboratory testing was conducted by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). Field-pilot testing is planned for FY92.
References: Hurley, James A. et al. Proposed Process for Conversion of Potassium
Superoxide to Innocuous Compounds - Task 1 Report NIST Report, Jul 1991.
Contact: Brian Swaidan
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805-982-1337, Autovon 551-1337
265
-------
STEP 1
Prepare
Canister
Clamsr
>.
lell
Spiked
Rollers
STEP 2
Pack Cannister
in Reactor
- Basket
_ Spiral
Rack
_Vertical
Racks
>.
STEP 3
Slaking
Reaction
Water
Spray
Water
Flooding
STEP 4
Caustic
Neutralization
^^
- HCI
- H2SO4
_ Recirculation
In Situ
_ Acid Addition
In Line
STEPS
Solids
Filtration
STEP 6
Process
Effluent
Removal &
Storage in
Drums
Transfer to
Compaction
System
Figure 104a. Seven steps in the oxygen breathing apparatus disposal process.
Vflcrft '
Figure 104b. Spiked rollers used in canister preparation (Step 1 in figure 105a).
266
-------
105. LOW NOX BURNER RETROFITS
Category: Il.f. Minimization or Treatment of Gases
Purpose: To bring existing natural gas and oil fired boilers into compliance with new air
pollution emission regulations for nitrogen oxides (NOX).
Application: This method is applicable for the retrofit of boilers in the size range of 10 MM Btu/hr
to 250 MM Btu/hr oil and natural gas fuels, fire tube and water tube boilers.
Description: The Dunphy burner uses an axial turbine fan to compress combustion air and force it
through swirl chambers for optimum air distribution. The air quantity is controlled
by a cylindrical drum with slots that rotates axially in front of another identical
concentric stationary drum. Gas and oil flow are corrected for variance in combustion
air conditions by pressure balanced valves with pneumatic sensor lines for gas, oil,
and combustion chamber pressures. In the combustion chamber, a characterized gas
ring or oil gun creates fuel-rich pockets that later mix with additional air for
complete combustion and NOX reduction. The manufacturer specifications indicated
NOX levels of 28-38 ppm and a 4:1 turndown ratio with natural gas and 36-41 ppm
NOX and a turndown ratio of 4:1 for No. 2 oil. This burner was demonstrated at Fort
Knox, KY.
In the Hague Transjet burner, furnace gas rather than flue gas is internally
recirculated. The recirculated gas encapsulates the flame in a sheath with little or no
recirculation occurring at the center of the flame front. Combustion air is supplied
from an integral windbox through nozzles in the burner housing. This high velocity
creates a depression at the point of discharge and induces products of combustion to
be recirculated and mixed with the incoming combustion at the point of discharge
and induces products of combustion to be recirculated and mixed with the incoming
combustion air. A sheath of combustion air and recirculated gas surrounds and
mixes with the fuel rich core flame to complete combustion as the flame travels down
the furnace. The manufacturer specifications indicated NOX levels of 40-50 ppm and
a 10:1 turndown ratio with natural gas and 45-50 ppm NOX and a turndown ratio of
8:1 for No. 2 oil.
Advantages: New burners have a 35% to 50% reduction in NOX, 1% to 2% increase in efficiency of
burners, and are more fuel efficient by reduction of fuel burned.
Limitations: High efficiency burners have a higher capital cost. Retrofit of new more efficient
burners have physical limitations of fitting older burner boxes.
Costs: Cost of new energy efficient, low NOX burners is contingent upon the Btu rating of
the burner.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: Demonstration projects have been conducted by burner retrofits on boilers at Fort
Knox, KY, and Yakima Firing Center, WA, from 1990 - 1992.
References: Potts, Noel L. and Martin J. Savoie. Low NOr Burner Retrofits: Case Studies,
U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Lab, Presentation at the Air & Waste
267
-------
Management Association 84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Vancouver, British
Columbia, June 16-21, 1991.
Contact: Martin J. Savoie
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
268
-------
106. NOX EMISSION CONTROL FOR JET ENGINE TEST CELLS
Category: H.f. Minimization or Treatment of Gases
Purpose: Compliance with title IV Clean Air Act Amendments.
Application: This method is applicable for the removal of combustion byproducts from exhaust
stack of stationary jet engine test cells.
Description: This pollution control device is made of a reactive filter containing expanded
vermiculite coated with magnesium oxide. The magnesium oxide reacts with nitrous
oxide (NO) and nitric oxide (NC>2) to form magnesium nitrate. The filtration system
reactive materials are regenerated by heating in a reducing atmosphere. The process
emits carbon dioxide (CC>2) and water while nitrogen oxides (NOX) react with the
magnesium oxide and metals react with the vermiculite. There is a 50% to 70%
reduction in N02 emission. There is not an alternative technology at the present
time. A drawing of a high-temperature test system is shown in figure 106.
Advantages: Stationary jet engine test cells are permitted to operate because they are in
compliance with title IV Clean Air Act Amendments.
Limitations: An external blower is needed to maintain air flow in jet engine test cells.
Costs: $100,000 per test cell.
Availability: Available in June 1992.
Status: Field-pilot testing was conducted at Tyndall AFB, FL, 475th Weapons Evaluation
Group (WEGVXRM, 1992.
References: Nelson, B.W., S.G. Nelson, M.O. Higgins, and P.A. Brandum A New Catalyst for
NOX Control, Sanitech, Inc., Final Report, for Air Force Engineering Center,
Engineering & Services Laboratory, Tyndall AFB, FL, Jun 1989.
Contact: Dr. Joseph Wander
HQ AFCESA/RAV
Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403-5319
904-283-4234
269
-------
VELOCITY AND
TEHP PROBES
B!
o GAS ANALYZER
DDD
AIP CH.
PARTICLE
INJECTION
S Y S T E n
(Optional)
N'Ox LADEN OTHER
nIXED GAS ADD ITIONS
TEHPERATURE
PROBES
Figure 106. Drawing of a high-temperature test system for NOX emission control.
270
-------
107. CATALYTIC DECONTAMINATION OF AIR STREAMS
Category: Il.f. Minimization or Treatment of Gases
Purpose: To decontaminate the air stream from air stripping process.
Application: The process is applicable to volatile organic compounds (VOC) from groundwater,
process streams from air stripping operations, or VOCs from soil vapor extraction.
Description: The mini-pilot unit was built in such a way that the system has the capability to
readily change and control many variables such as using different catalysts during
the run, and controlling air flow, water flow, ozone input, etc.
The continuous water-feeding system is a source of providing constant VOCs and
halogenated VOCs (VHOCs) concentration levels in air saturated with water vapor.
It is controlled by a pump which gives variable occlusion and provides accurate flow
into the stripper cylinder at a broad flow range. The water level inside the stripper
cylinder stays constant since inlet water flow equals to outlet flow at about one gallon
level, which is the initial volume.
The VOCs and VHOCs are stripped off by air using a diaphragm air compressor at a
desired flow rate provided with a needle valve bypass system. The air delivered into
the stripping cylinder through a gas dispersion tube provides better stripping
efficiency and gives even distribution of air through the water. Also, the air reservoir
tank has been installed to eliminate the fluctuations of any air flow from the
diaphragm compressor which pulsates during the operation. For prevention of any
backflow, several water trap units have been installed to avoid damaging the
compressor and the catalytic unit by eliminating any possibility of water droplets
going into the system.
To check the initial VOCs and VHOCs concentrations in the air, gas sampling tubes
have been installed upstream of the catalysts. By taking aliquots of the gas flow and
passing the gas through two hexane traps in series, the concentrations of VOCs and
VHOCs can be determined by direct injection onto gas chromatograph equipment
with either electron-capture detector or flame-ionization detector, depending upon
the nature of the compound.
To heat the catalyst in the catalytic decontamination system, heavily insulated
heating tapes are wrapped around the stainless steel tubes (preheating) and
insulated with glass wool and aluminum foil. The heat tapes are controlled by
variable-voltage controllers. The temperatures are checked by using Analog
temperature analyzers with thermocouple probe and by thermometers placed inside
the catalysts.
Ozone is fed through the top of silica gel cylinder at 2 % and its mass flow can be
adjusted by varying the flow of 02 - Oa . The ozone output is calibrated by using the
potassium iodide titration method. To deliver and control the flow of 02 - Os
accurately, two needle valves are used to stabilize any flow changes from the
pressure change in the catalytic unit.
271
-------
The direction of air flow can be easily controlled by turning the valve on and off. In
this way, the catalytic destruction of VOCs and VHOCs in the air can be determined
after passing through each catalyst and trapping the off gas. Also, one extra catalyst
cylinder has been installed to check a different catalyst's activity of organics in air
without modifying the system.
Advantages: There is a 99% reduction of contaminants in the air stream, rendering them less
harmless. The reaction is with ozone and catalyst in the reactor. The process does
not have cross-media contamination, treatment chemicals are not lost to the
environment, the waste stream from air stripping is not vented to the atmosphere,
and incineration is not necessary.
Limitations: Ozone generation is not easy and personnel must have more specialized training to
operate the equipment and process.
Cost:
Operating cost is $254/day for 98.4% destruction of trichloroethylene. Capital
equipment costs range from $160,000 to $185,000.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: Pilot testing at USACERL during 1991.
References: Leitis, Eriks, Mike Chung, and Jack D. Zeff. Catalytic Decontamination of
Effluent Air Streams From Stripping Towers, Progress Report Phase II.
SBIR Contract DACA-90-C00003, for USACERL Champaign, IL, Feb 1991.
Contact: Stephen Maloney
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-6747, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
272
-------
108. TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED OFF GASES
Category: Il.f. Minimization or Treatment of Gases
Purpose: To treat organic contaminated off gases from process equipment such as air strippers,
low temperature thermal units, and aerobic bioreactors. Candidate processes include
granular activated carbon (GAG), resins, chemical oxidation/ photolysis, and
biofilters.
Application: These technologies are used to decontaminate off gases from treatment processes
that produce a waste gas stream. The GAG and resins do not result in the
destruction of the gas phase contaminants; however, resins have potential for product
recovery. Chemical oxidation/photolysis and biofilters do have potential to destroy
the contaminants making some nondestructive technologies, air stripping,
contaminants destruction technologies. However, many of these technologies are
developmental with the exception of GAG.
Description: GAG treatment of contaminant gas streams is a proven technology. Typically, if the
gas stream has a high relative humidity an in-line heat exchanger is used to reduce
the humidity thereby significantly increasing bed-life.
Resins have potential for removing organic compounds from contaminated air
streams based on their effectiveness in treating some simple matrix based aqueous
streams.
Chemical oxidation/photolysis is a mechanism by which much of the airborne organic
compounds are destroyed in the atmosphere. The concept of the technology is to treat
the off gas stream by passage through an oxidative, UV irradiated system. Biofilters
have been used to treat some organic contaminated air streams. Most of the
applications have been done by the Europeans for treating of industrial process
streams and odors from municipal sewage plants.
Advantages: GAG treatment of organic contaminated gas streams is more cost effective and much
more politically palatable then using a secondary combustion unit. GAG treatment is
also an off-the-shelf technology. Resins may be more efficient than GAG for some gas
streams and may also have potential for product recovery. Chemical
oxidation/photolysis and biofilters are destruction technologies.
Limitations: These technologies result in increased treatment costs. Except for GAG, these
technologies are developmental, and actual limitations have not yet been defined.
Cost: For GAG, costs vary with gas stream flowrate and contaminant concentration and
type. The other technologies are under development, and costs have not been
estimated; however, based on aqueous phase treatment rules of thumb, biotreatment
is usually more cost effective than GAG.
Availability: The GAG technology is commercially available. Resin technology is commercially
available, but applications in this context are not known. Chemical
oxidation/photolysis and biofilters are under development.
273
-------
Status: WES has been involved with various Corps of Engineers (COE) Districts on
application and design of GAG systems. WES under the Army's Environmental
Quality and Technology Program is currently assessing the capability of resins for
treatment of contaminated gas streams and is currently developing chemical and
biological systems capable of destroying gas phase organic contaminants.
References: Lith, C.V. Design Criteria for Biofilters, Air and Waste Management
Association's 82nd Meeting and Exhibition, 1989.
Kosky, E.P. and Neff, C.R. Innovative Biological Degradation System for
Hydrocarbon Treatment. Biofiltration Brochure, 1990.
MacFarlane, J.C., Cross, A., Frank, C., and Rogers, R.D. Atmospheric Benzene
Depletion by Soil Microorganisms. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
017-6369/0011, 1981.
Contact: Mark E. Zappi
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-2856
274
-------
109. ASBESTOS SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
PRIORITIZATION SYSTEM
Category: E.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To determine the extent of the risk that asbestos containing materials (ACM) may
pose, a thorough survey of ACM coupled with an assessment methodology can be
used to prioritize the relative risk potential for a given asbestos situation.
Application: The system is applicable to areas on military installations that contain asbestos that
must be removed.
Description: This is a computerized assessment system for prioritizing asbestos abatement and
risk potential of asbestos that has been damaged. The system allows input of data
from asbestos surveys on military installations for prioritization for abatement.
The following minimum hardware is required:
1. IBM Personal Computer or 100% compatible equipment.
2. One hard disk and at least one floppy disk drive.
3. Minimum 640K bytes of internal memory
4. Compatible monochrome or color monitor
5. Optionally, a compatible printer.
The following minimum software is required:
1. DOS 2.0 or higher.
2. High-level database management system software.
Advantages: The system is menu-driven which allows the user to enter new data, view and edit
existing data, print reports to either a file or printer, and backup the existing
database to a mass storage device (e.g., diskette). A menu-driven system will allow
most system operations to be performed by personnel who are not computer
professionals.
Limitations: An asbestos survey is needed in order to use this computerized system.
Cost
None.
Availability: Available through USACERL.
Status: The system is operational.
References: Cole, Robert H., Asbestos Survey and Assessment Prioritization System, TR-
1113-11, Jan 1990.
275
-------
Contact: Bernie Donahue, Gary Gerdes, or Richard Haw
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
276
-------
110. ENHANCED LANDFILL COVER
Category: II.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To provide a permanent cap (target: greater than 100-years life) for hazardous waste
landfills to keep animals out, reduce water infiltration, and reduce waste leaching.
Application: The method is applicable to landfills, impoundments, and pits. The cap could also be
temporary.
Description: The exact configuration is under investigation. Testing is occurring in high-
precipitation areas. The probable structure will be a combination of soil, native
vegetation, cobble, and other indigenous materials.
Advantages: The method conforms to current EPA guidance, but is not specific. The result will be
a procedure designed for areas having precipitation greater than 20 inches per year.
The cap will have a longer design life and lower maintenance, and will be easy to
install. Contamination will be contained until a treatment method can be developed.
This type of cap is cheaper than clay.
Limitations: Areas having a high water table would not be helped by a cap. Freezing conditions
have an unknown effect.
Costs: Exact cost information is not available, but costs are estimated to be an order of
magnitude less expensive than current technology.
Availability: The method is under development.
Status: Field-pilot testing is underway at Whidby Island Naval Air Station, WA.
References: None available.
Contact: Leslie Kan-
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1618, Autovon 551-1618
277
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
278
-------
111. IN SITU CAPPING OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT
Category: II.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To restrict contaminant migration from containment into sediment to water column
or biological receptors in waterways.
Application: This technology may be used for less contaminated sediment and non-hazardous
waste contaminants. It is applicable for medium to low energy streams or lakes with
appropriate engineering control.
Description: This technology is applied without disturbing contaminated sediment or with
insignificant disturbance of contaminated sediment. The cap is placed by hydraulic
dredging. Thickness of the cap is approximately 3 ft. Capping material is similar to
or identical to uncontaminated sediment in the area. Contaminated sediments are
analyzed as to type of sediment, then uncontaminated sediment that most nearly
matches the contaminated sediment is dredged for use as an in situ cap. In streams
with high turbulence, armoring with gravel or other large-grained sediment may be
needed for use as a cap, but silt or sand are the more common capping materials. No
excavation of contaminated sediment is necessary for containment by in situ capping
(see figure 111).
Advantages: This technology effectively contains organic and inorganic contaminants in sediment.
Removal of contaminated sediment is not necessary; therefore, contaminated
sediments have little or no disturbance. Land disposal sites are needed for disposal
of contaminated sediments in streams. Maintains chemical conditions favorable for
contaminants to remain adsorbed to contaminated sediment particles.
Limitations: In situ capping of sediments reduces water depth in the area of the cap. Reduction in
water depth in navigable streams could become a hazard to navigation, which could
cause additional contamination of sediments. The technology does not alter the
contaminant, but leaves chemical contaminants adsorbed to sediments.
Contaminants stay in place and are covered by similar sediments from a nearby
source.
Cost
Availability:
Status:
References:
Site specific, near cost of dredging if capping material is in close proximity.
Commercially available. Special equipment is needed to distribute capping materials
uniformly over contaminated sediments to a thickness of 3 ft. Hydraulic dredge
outlet or a sandbox-sieve can be used for placing capping material.
WES at Vicksburg, MS has field-tested this technology.
Averett, Daniel E., Bret D. Petty, Elizabeth J. Torrey and Jan A. Miller. Review of
Removal, Containment and Treatment Technologies for Remediation of
Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes. USAE Waterways Experiment
Station Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-25, 1990.
Palermo, Michael R. and E. Clark McNair, Jr. Dredging Research Technical
Notes, Design Requirements for Capping. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station Report DRP-5-03, 1991.
279
-------
Contact:
Zappi, Paul A. and Donald F. Hayes. Innovative Technologies for Dredging
Contaminated Sediments, Improvement of Operations and Maintenance
Techniques Research Program. USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Miscellaneous Paper EL-91-20, 1991.
Daniel E. Averett
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-3959
O NO LATERAL CONFINEMENT
O DISCRETE MOUND NECESSARY
CAPPING
MATERIAL
CONTAMINATED
MATERIAL
Figure Ilia, Level bottom capping.
O LATERAL CONFINEMENT
O MOUND LESS CRITICAL
LATERAL
CONFINEMENT
CAP
Figure 1 lib. Contained aquatic disposal.
280
-------
112. ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM VIDEOTAPES
Category: II.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To assist Army installations to develop effective asbestos management programs to
eliminate health hazards.
Application: The videotapes provide the information necessary to develop and implement an
effective asbestos management program: identification of potential asbestos health
hazards, assessment of health risks, when and where to obtain expert analysis of
asbestos, and how to find competent contractors who can correct asbestos-related
problems.
Advantages: The method provides Army specific guidance on handling asbestos. Health risks will
be reduced by training installation personnel in effective asbestos management
techniques.
Limitations: The program is limited only by the information available about asbestos-related
problems and management techniques.
Description: A series of four videotapes is available: general guidelines, asbestos survey, special
operations and maintenance, and asbestos abatement.
Costs: About $30 per tape.
Availability: The videotapes are available through Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories (CERL).
Status: The general guidelines and asbestos survey tapes are complete and available. The
script for the special operations and maintenance tape is complete, and available.
References: Asbestos Management Program Videotape. Fact Sheet, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers CERL, Mar 1987.
Contact: Bernie Donahue
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
281
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
282
-------
113. HAZARDOUS WASTE MINIMIZATION SURVEYS
Category: II.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To characterize processes generating hazardous waste and recommend measures that
reduce or eliminate hazardous materials usage and/or hazardous waste streams.
Application: The survey is applicable to any activity or facility managing hazardous wastes.
Description: An investigation team goes to an activity, assembles the available data on waste
streams and industrial processes, evaluates the activity and makes
recommendations.
Advantages: The survey provides guidance for achieving hazardous waste minimization goals.
Limitations: The effectiveness of a survey is limited only by the motivation of facility management
and staff.
Costs: Costs will be site specific.
Availability: Technical support is available from NEESA. A standard package has been prepared
to enable activities to conduct this type of survey (see reference).
Status: Surveys have been conducted at 12 sites.
References: Camacho, N., R. Klopp, and W. Venable. Comprehensive Hazardous Waste
Minimization Survey Guide. NEESA Report 19-002, Jul 1990
Contact: Robert Fredrickson
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity Code 112F3
1001 Lyons St., Suite 1
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4340
805-982-4897
283
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
284
-------
114. HAZARDOUS WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
Category: Il.g. Management strategies.
Purpose: Development of a hazardous waste minimization plan for Army installations to
include the actions necessary to accomplish reduction in volume and toxicity of
hazardous wastes generated.
Application: This protocol was developed for waste minimization of items disposed of on military
installations such as storage batteries, solvents, used oils, antifreeze, paint waste,
etc.
Description: The strategy for minimization on Army installations is the development of a protocol
for surveying each installation for hazardous waste streams and methods of disposal.
These major categories are the approach taken for surveying installations with this
protocol:
1. Review information available at the installation.
2. Talk to several groups of individuals.
3. Develop a list of waste streams and rank them.
4. Develop information on each waste stream.
5. Identify minimization options for each waste stream.
6. Evaluate and rate options (preliminary or first screen) for each waste stream.
Advantages: There has been a reduction in hazardous waste generation and disposal on Army
installations where it has been used.
Limitations: It can not be used on all types of waste.
Cost A survey at Ft. Riley, KS, cost $70,000 for a 1 year study. Cost at other military
installations will be site specific.
Availability: Available at USACERL.
Status: This protocol has been applied at several Army installations: Ft. Ord, CA, Ft.
Campbell, KY, Ft. Meade, MD, Ft. Carson, CO, and Ft Sam Houston, TX. A full-
scale survey will be implemented at Ft Riley during 1992.
References: Dharmavaram, S., D.A. Knowlton, and B.A. Donahue. Hazardous Waste
Minimization Assessment: Ft Carson, CO, USACERL Technical Report N-91/02,
Jan 1991.
Dharmavaram, S. and B.A. Donahue. Hazardous Waste Minimization
Assessment: Fort Meade, MD. USACERL Technical Report N-91/03, Jan 1991.
Dharmavaram, S. and B.A. Donahue. Hazardous Waste Minimization
Assessment: Fort Sam Houston, TX. USACERL Technical Report N-91/07, Jan
1991.
285
-------
Dharmavaram, S., D.A Knowlton, C. Heflin, and BA Donahue. Hazardous Waste
Minimization Assessment: Fort Campbell, KY. USACERL Technical Report N-
91/09, Jan 1991.
Dharmavaram, S., D.A. Knowlton, and B.A. Donahue. Hazardous Waste
Minimization Assessment: Fort Meade, MD. USACERL Technical Report N-
91714, Jan 1991.
Contact: Andy Isbell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-7256, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
286
-------
11.5. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (HMID)
Category: II.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To inform the Director of Engineering and Housing (DEH) officer at military
installations of hazardous material (HM) brought onto an installation and that HM
can be processed into hazardous waste (HW).
Application: This system can be used on all hazardous material entering a military installation
that can be processed into hazardous waste.
Description: This system is used in conjunction with the Hazardous Waste Management
Information System (HWMIS). The HMID system is a computer-based identification
system. The minimum system requirements for running the HMID program are an
IBM/XT or compatible system with 512K of free RAM, a 5 1/4" 360K floppy disk
drive, a 10 MB hard disk, and DOS 3.2 or greater.
The Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMID) is a tool developed by the
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (CERL) to aid the Environmental
Management Officer (EMO) in achieving the goals of the United States Army
Hazardous Materials (HM) and Hazardous Waste (HW management programs,
including:
• Complying with all Federal, Department of Defense (DOD), State, and Local
regulations governing HM and HW.
• Protecting the health and well-being of its personnel, the general public, and the
environment.
• Minimizing expenditures for HM and HW management.
More specifically, HMID is a system which allows the Environmental Management
Officer (EMO) to account for HMs on an installation by processing and reporting data
received from Logistics Control Activity (LCA) with minimal amount of additional
data entered by the EIM.
As an aid to the EMO in HM management, HMID can be integrated into the
Hazardous Waste Management Information System (HWMIS) to allow for the
accounting of HM through the stages of its use: procurement, use, and disposal or
recycling.
Advantages: This system for identification of hazardous materials is a simplification over paper
method . The system is user friendly. A system for downloading from a mainframe
using C or DBXL is in development.
Limitations: Downloading data from a mainframe computer to a PC is cumbersome. Older sets of
data menus must be transferred by hand to new facilities because of the Base Closure
Act.
Cost:
Free to DOD installations.
287
-------
Availability: Available from USACERL. Contact USATHAMA to obtain data.
Status: Limited trial implementation was conducted from 1990 to present at White Sands,
NM. Approximately 75 installations are using this system.
References: The Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMID). USACERL,
Champaign, IL, Jul 1991.
Contact: Lynne Mikulich or Donald Grafmyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-6749, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
288
-------
116. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Category: Il.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: The Hazardous Waste Management Information System (HWMIS) is a management
tool developed to aid the environmental coordinator (EC) at an installation in the
management of HW and minimization programs. Help in tracking HMs and HW
from cradle to grave is the impetus behind HWMIS. The ease of formulating the
upward reporting requirements to EPA, HQDA, and MACOMs is also an important
function of HWMIS.
Application: This management system is applicable to all hazardous waste and hazardous
materials.
Description: HWMIS is a user-friendly system created to aid an EC at an installation. There are
many uses and benefits. One of the main benefits is to aid ECs in managing HW and
HM on installations. With the impetus being minimization, ECs must know what
HMs are used, what HWs are generated, what has been treated/processed, what has
been stored for less than 90 days, and what HW has been disposed.
Environmental engineers from all levels of the Army have helped design HWMIS to
meet the needs of an installation's environmental coordinator. HWMIS captures
data at critical points of HM use, HW generation, treatment/process, interim storage,
and disposal. HWMIS also provides employee training record keeping, spills record
keeping (reportable and non reportable), permit/violation record keeping, system
maintenance utilities, and the ability to send summaries to MACOM/DA level.
Through HWMIS, the standard unit of measures include gallons (GL), pounds (LB),
and kilogram (KG), with kilograms the preferred unit of measure. HWMIS provides
conversion from pounds to kilograms automatically. With the user inputing the
appropriate density, gallons are also converted to kilograms. Using a standard unit
of measure provides more accurate comparisons and more easily understood reports
and summaries.
HWMIS is designed to provide the environmental coordinator with internal
management reports based on the data entered. Some of the reports include who is
producing HW, how much HW is treated/recycled, what quantity of HW is going off
the installation, where is it going, and when it reached its destination. Other reports
include who has had the proper training and who needs training. Internal
management reports are a vital part of HWMIS and help ECs at an installation get a
better picture of HW management. Also, quantities needed for external reports (e.g.
Biennial and DESK) are provided to aid the EC in fulfilling regulatory requirements.
Advantages:
Limitations:
Cost: Free to DOD installations.
This management system is faster than paper tracking. It allows near cradle to
grave tracking of HW and HM and is user friendly.
The computer language used is dBase III+ or DBXL. It is limited to the storage space
on the computer used.
289
-------
Availability: This is a full running program at USACERL. The system using C language program
will be available by December 1992.
Status: Limited trial implementation has been conducted at White Sands Missile Range, NM,
since 1990.
References: Webster, R., L. Mikulich, and C. Corbin. Hazardous Waste Management
Information System (HWMIS) User Manual. USACERL, Champaign, IL, Draft
Feb 1989.
Contact: Lynne Mikulich or Donald Grafmyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-6749, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
290
-------
117. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
BAR CODE TRACKING SYSTEM
Category: II.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To track hazardous-material consumption, hazardous waste generation, hazardous-
waste storage, and hazardous-waste disposal on Army installations.
Application: This hazardous waste-tracking system is applicable to all hazardous materials and
waste generated from these materials, that can be placed in containers, from the
point of delivery and storage on the installation to the time that the material as a
hazardous waste is removed from the military installation.
Description: The HM/HW tracking system uses dBase IV on an IBM PC or compatible personal
computer and a programmable bar code reader to monitor the location and ownership
of HM/HW containers. The personal computer must have 640 K RAM and a hard
disk drive. The bar code reader is the point of transaction data collection device and
the temporary storage location for tracking information. The personal computer is
used for permanent storage of tracking data, HM/HW forms editing, and HM/HW
tracking report generation.
The Hazardous Material and Hazardous Waste (HM/HW) tracking system has the
following characteristics:
1. Documents the chain-of-custody (or life history) of HMs from the point of issue at
warehouse to point of use, and HWs from the point of generation to final
disposition.
2. Maintains data on relevant physical and chemical characteristics including
chemical names and quantity of HM/HW involved.
3. Employs automated identification technologies to minimize cost, staff time, and
paperwork necessary to implement the system.
4. Provides a database that is flexible, easy to use, large in capacity and capable of
producing reports of different contents and formats.
5. Compatible with existing HM/HW management procedures at Army
installations.
Advantages: There is greater accuracy of the chain-of-custody with documentation. There is less
human error. The system has easy access to data for reporting purposes and saves
time in reporting.
Limitations: Users need to be trained. At the present time this system can not be used on liquid
waste streams. Also, at the present time it is not set up for hazardous materials.
Cost
Costs incurred in setting up this system include the cost of a bar code scanner and a
PC computer. Contingent upon the type of computer and scanner purchased for the
system.
291
-------
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: The bar code tracking system has been demonstrated at the Army Depot in Corpus
Christi, TX. Full-scale implementation during 1992 will be at Ft Lewis, WA
References: Hazardous Material and Hazardous Waste Bar Code Tracking System. Fact
Sheet, EN 42, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories, Champaign, IL, May 1990.
Contact: Michael R. Kemme
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-7254, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
292
-------
118. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS MODEL FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE MINIMIZATION CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Category: E.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: Economic analysis decision making.
Application: The model is for use with hazardous waste generated from: paint and paint waste,
waste solvents, batteries and battery acid, industrial waste treatment sludges,
electroplating waste, lubricating oil, and generic waste.
Description: A computer program in C language has been developed for use by the Department of
Defense (DOD) for economic evaluation of hazardous waste remediation. The
program is classified and not for civilian use but could be adapted for civilian use
with permission of the DOD and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Advantages: Very fast information available without research. The generic model is applicable for
either DOD or civilian uses.
Limitations: DOD applicable only in present form.
Cost: A computer disc, instruction manual, and labor.
Availability: Available to U.S. Government agencies or to civilians.
Status: The model has been field tested at 25 DOD installations.
References: None available.
Contact: Bemie Donahue
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-6733, 217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
293
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
294
-------
119. LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS FOR
SOLVENT MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Category: ILg. Management Strategies
Purpose: To identify the most economical means of eliminating solvents under the used solvent
elimination (USE) program.
Application: The method is applicable for the calculation of life cycle costs for four recycle options:
(1) recycling on-post, (2) recycling with a commercial recycler, (3) recycling with a full
service contractor, or (4) recycling by burning in an industrial boiler. Solvents for
which the method is applicable include chlorinated and petroleum distillate solvents.
Description: Lift cycle cost (LCC) calculations for solvent management consist of six steps: (1)
determine the cost of new solvent to be purchased each year, (2) determine the cost of
capital equipment or investment for each year, (3) determine recurring costs for each
year, (4) calculate cost-reduction factors such as heating and salvage values, (5)
calculate the present value for each year by multiplying the total annual costs by the
present value factors for each year, and (6) add the annual present value factors for
the lifetime of the project to arrive at the LCC.
Advantages: Enables the user to identify the most economical means of eliminating solvents under
the USE program.
Limitations: The method is limited to the options covered and the applicable solvents.
Costs: This management options will save money in design and management of solvent
streams..
Availability: The method is available in Technical Note 86-1 cited below. Technical assistance is
available from the Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (CERL).
Status: The program has been implemented. Two facilities that use the program are Rock
Island Arsenal, IL and Ft Bragg, NC.
References: Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Solvent Management Options, Fact Sheet, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers CERL, Apr 1987.
Watling, E.T., Economic Analysis of Solvent Management Options.
Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, D AEN-ZCF-U Technical
Note No. 86-1, May 1986.
Neathammer, R.D., Economic Analysis Description and Methods. U.S. Army
CERL Technical Report P-151/ADA185280,1983.
Contact: Bemie Donahue
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511,800-USA-CERL
295
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
296
-------
120. STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Category: Il.g. Management Strategies
Purpose: To collect and store information about U.S. Army Storage Tanks, both underground
and aboveground storage tanks, develop management plans, and assess the risk
associated with tank leakage.
Application: The method is applicable for all underground and aboveground storage tanks.
Description: The system (TANKMAN) maintains a database of tank physical characteristics,
compliance, status, testing data, and related information. Full historical tracking of
all information is provided. A full feature SQL report facility is also provided. The
system runs on IBM PC compatible hardware under MS DOS and is a module of the
AAEMIS System (Army Automated Environmental Management Information
System).
Advantages: Using the system facilitates management of tank data and makes access and updates
more efficient and accurate. Reporting capabilities allow liquid level record
management, identification of possible problems with tanks, work schedule reports,
and non-compliance reports. Data rollup utilities are provided, allowing higher level
global database maintenance and reporting.
Limitations: Risk assessment and compliance status require accurate information input by the
user.
Costs: Program disks are free to U.S. Army facilities.
Availability: Tank Management System is available from:
Commander
USATHAMA
CETHA-ECD-S/Captain Steve Chetty
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
Status: The program has been implemented. User training is planned. Current users
include Department of the Army Headquarters, the Army Environmental Office, and
Army major commands. The management system for decisions related to
maintaining, upgrading, or replacing underground storage tanks is available.
References: Haw. R.C., and J.E. Lorenzen. A Computerized Underground Storage Tank
Management System. Proc. 18th Environmental Symposium and Exhibition, Feb
1992.
Pautz, J.F. and R.E. Porter. Underground Storage Tanks Management
Decision Tool for MACOMs. U.S. Department of Energy Report NIPER-394, Nov
1988.
Underground Storage Tank Data Management Program and Leak Potential
Index. Fact Sheet, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CERL, Feb 1987.
297
-------
Contact: Richard C. Haw
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
298
-------
121. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Category: H.h. Risk Assessment
Purpose: To develop biological and chemical methods for direct measurement of ecological
health as a basis for deciding whether remediation is necessary.
Application: The method is applicable for any type of site contaminated with any type of waste. It
can be done in conjunction with measurement of contaminant levels and lab
toxicology. Methods can be used in developing site closure plans and in verifying the
effectiveness of clean up.
Description: At the Naval Air Station (NAS), Whidbey Island, WA, toxicological impacts are being
evaluated using starling nesting and reproductive biology as an indication of
contaminant migration into the food chain. Toxicological impacts are also being
monitored in small mammals, hawks, owls, herons, and selected prey species located
on or near the hazardous waste disposal sites (fire fighting training area, pesticide
disposal site, and runway ditches). At the Naval Construction Battalion Center
(NCBC), Davisville, ecological impacts are being assessed by characterizing the
sediment and water quality and evaluating the toxicological impact on quahog clams,
soft shell clams, oysters, mussels, polychaetes, and amphipods. The ecological risk
assessment model is depicted in figure 121a. An arrangement for deploying and
retrieving mussels is shown in figure 12 Ib. An approach for sampling large volumes
of water is illustrated in figure 12 Ic. Efforts will soon be underway in San Diego Bay
to examine impacts of Navy hazardous waste landfills on the aquatic environment.
Advantages: The method (1) provides a direct measure of environmental health, (2) allows
identification of the source and extent of a problem, (3) allows an understanding of
the ecological toxicity of contamination, and (4) allows verification of environmental
safety.
Limitations: Ecological risk assessment is an emerging, evolving, scientific discipline that
attempts to extrapolate toxicity data on selected individual animal species to
ecosystem health.
Costs: Costs to implement the method would be site specific. Two case histories provide
example costs: (1) NCBC, Davisville, RI - about $1MM; (2) NAS, Whidbey Island,
WA - about $1MM; and (3) San Diego, CA - estimate about $400,000.
Availability: Guidance is available from NCCOSC RDT&E Division.
Status: Trial implementations are ongoing at NCBC, Davisville, RI and NAS, Whidbey
Island, WA. Efforts will soon be underway in San Diego Bay to examine impacts of a
Navy hazardous waste landfill on the marine environment.
References: Mueller, C., et al. editors. Standard Operating Procedures and Field Methods
Used for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessment Case Studies. Naval
Construction Battalion Center Davisville, RI, and Naval Shipyard Portsmouth,
Kittery, ME, Technical Document 2296, May 1992.
299
-------
Munns, Wayne R. et al. Marine Ecological Risk Assessment at Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Davisville, Rhode Island. NOSC Technical
Report 1437, May 1991.
Kendall, R.J. et al. Toxicology Demonstration Project: Environmental
Toxicology Assessment for Three Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites at NAS
Whidbey Island. NOSC Work Plan, May 1989.
Johnston, R.K. et al. Assessing the Impact of Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites
on the Environment: Case Studies of Ecological Risk Assessments at
Selected Navy Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. Paper presented at the 14th
Annual Army Environmental R&D Symposium, Williamsburg, Nov 1989.
Johnston, R.K. and D. Lapota. A New Approach for Evaluating Biological
Toxicity at Aquatic Hazardous Waste Sites. Proc. of the 6th Symposium on
Coastal and Ocean Management/ASCE, Charleston, SC, July 1989.
Lapota, D. R.K. Johnston, and D.E. Ronsenberger. Survey of Methods to Assess
the Toxicological Impact of Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites on Aquatic
Ecosystems, NOSC Technical Report 1305, 1989.
Johnston, R.K. et al. Navy Aquatic Hazardous Waste Sites: The Problem and
Possible Solutions. NOSC Technical Report 1308, 1989.
Contact: Joseph G. Grovhoug
NCCOSC RDT&E Division, Code 522
271 Catalina Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
619-553-5475
Robert K. Johnston
NCCOSC/University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Narragansett, RI 02882-1197
401-295-5462
Waste Characterization
Ecosystem Characterization
Exposure Assessment
Effects Assessment
Risk Assessment
Environmental Monitoring
Figure 121a. The ERLN ecological risk assessment model.
300
-------
Figure 121 b Deployment arrangement for Mytilus edulis.
301
-------
MILIPORE HC.SING WITH
GELMA!,' GLASS FIBER FILTER
PLUGS
WATER METER
TEFLON HOUSING
WITH PLUGS
\
\
\
\
\
OUTFLOW
\
\
\
\ I
\ '
I
TELFLON PUMP CONTAINED IN
FIBERGLASS HOUSING | \ BOAT
I
TELFLON -STAINLESS
STEEL HOSE
////
Figure 121c. Schematic of large volume water sampling approach.
302
-------
122. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Category: Il.g. Risk Assessment
Purpose: To determine the environmental risk associated with contaminated sediments at
Army installations containing hazardous and toxic wastes.
Application: The method can be used at any installation where contaminated sediments exist and
pose a potential environmental hazard. This method is especially useful in setting
risk-based clean-up levels for sediment restoration and remediation activities.
Description: The environmental risk posed by contaminated sediments is a function of toxicity and
exposure. Site-specific information is gathered regarding the extent and magnitude of
sediment toxicity as well as the spatial/temporal variation in contaminated sediment
exposure potential. Populations of important human and non-human target
receptors are identified. Environmental risk is characterized by integrating the
toxicity and exposure data. Uncertainty is addressed explicitly for the site manager
via probability density analysis.
Advantages: The method helps the site manager establish a technically sound basis for risk-based
clean-up criteria for contaminated sediments. The method may represent a
substantial cost-savings over the more common cleanup to background approach.
The method can effectively deal with complex mixtures of environmental
contaminants and Military-unique compounds.
Limitations: Depending on the site, the method can be data-intensive. An interdisciplinary team
approach is required. The latter characteristic could be construed to be an
advantage.
Cost: Costs are site-specific.
Availability: Guidance is available from WES.
Status: This is an emerging technology.
References: Dillon, T.M. Risk Assessment: An Overview of the Process. Technical Note EL-
EEDP-XX-XX, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, (in press), 1992.
Dillon, T.M. and F. Reilly. Environmental Risk Assessment for Contaminated
Sediments. Technical Report EL-XX-XX, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, (in press), 1992.
Palermo, M.R. et al. Long-Term Management Strategy for Dredged Material
Disposal for the Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia: Naval Supply
Center, Cheatham Annex, Williamsburg, Virginia; and Naval Amphibious
Base, Little Creek, Norfork, Virginia. Phase II: Formulation of Alternatives.
Miscellaneous Paper EL-XX-XX, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, (in press), 1992.
303
-------
Contact; Dr. Tom M. Dillon
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-ES-R
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-3922
304
-------
123. FIELD PREPARATION TECHNIQUES
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To develop a technique to prepare environmental samples for field analysis.
Application: Currently, the method is applicable for metals. Future work will be directed toward
volatile organic compounds.
Description: Soil samples are taken and dried for moisture determination. About 1 g of sample is
mixed with nitric acid and placed in a Teflon holder in a Parr bomb. The bomb is
placed in a microwave oven and digested for 20 to 30 minutes. No special training is
required.
Advantages: The method results in savings of time and money. The method is simple and can be
conducted in the field. It is portable. Good recovery has been demonstrated for
volatile metals such as mercury, lead, and selenium. Many more digestions can be
done in a given time than can be done using conventional heating.
Limitations: The method is applicable only to extractable metals.
Costs: The only equipment is the microwave oven, which is modified only slightly from those
commercially available.
Availability: Microwave ovens are commercially available. Some modifications are required.
Technical details are available from USATHAMA.
Status: The method has been tested at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, NH.
References: Not available.
Contact: Martin Stutz
CETHA-TS-C
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1568
305
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
306
-------
124. ANALYTICAL METHODS TO MONITOR REMEDIATION
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: A rapid tool to (1) map the extent of a hazardous site before, during, and after the
application of remedial measures; and (2) monitor cleanup measures in the field.
Application: The effort has been directed initially toward measurement of fuel oils in
contaminated soils and groundwater.
Description: Related chemical substances have structural characteristics in common. These
structural characteristics can be the basis for the identification and estimation of the
substance by, for example, the presence or absence and intensity of distinctive
ultraviolet or infrared absorption bands. Table 124 indicates components,
characteristics, degradation products, and potential measurement techniques for
typical pollutant categories.
Advantages: The method has the potential for being rapid, inexpensive, and useful in the field.
Limitations:
Costs:
Availability:
Status:
References:
Contact:
The limitations are not yet known.
Not available.
Under development.
The method is under development (see also note #149).
Not available.
Carol A. Dooley
NCCOSC RDT&E Division, Code 521
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
619-553-2782
Table 124. Analytical Methods To Monitor Remediation Of Fuel Hydrocarbons
Characteristics
Measurement
Degradation Products
Measurement
Alkanes
-CH2-
IR
-COOH
-C=0
IR
Colorimetry
Aromatics
Ring
UV
-COOH
-C=0
Ring
m,uv
Colorimetry
Heavy Metals
Colored Complex
Colorimetry
None
—
307
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
308
-------
125. GLOW DISCHARGE MASS SPECTROMETRY (GDMS)
Category: m. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To develop quicker analytical turnaround times using mass Spectrometry CMS)
techniques.
Application: The method is applicable for the screening of samples for voLatiles or semi volatiles.
Description: Glow discharge MS (GDMS) uses an atmospheric pressure electromagnetic interface
to a quadrapole gas chromatograph/MS (GC/MS) to analyze environmental samples,
Using the glow discharge source and sampling inlet, analysis of soil and water
samples can be done in 2 to 5 minutes. Results for benzene, toluene, methylene
chloride, chloroform, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene have been
comparable to standard GC/MS analysis.
The use of GDMS can reduce the time necessary to obtain accurate analytical results
and increase the number of analytical samples analyzed by a laboratory. As a field
tool, GDMS can reduce the expense of sending samples to a laboratory by providing
an indication on a near real-time basis of those samples that are contaminated, so
that only the samples of interest will be sent to the laboratory,
Limitations: Problems differentiating multiple compounds have been encountered,
Costs: Cost information has not been developed,
Availability: The method is still under development.
Status: Laboratory testing is being conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory lORNL) to
apply the method to all S3 listed volatile compounds and 30 to 40 semi-volatiles. The
laboratory is investigating ion trap mass speetrometry (TTMS) to overcome
limitations on multiple compounds. Both techniques will be evaluated, with
continuing effort expended on the method that wiH provide the most usable results,
References Wise, M.B., M.V. Buchanan, and M.R Guerin. Rapid Environmental Organic
Analysis by Direct Sampling Glow Discharge Mass Spectrometry and Ion
Trap Mass Spectrometry: Summary of Pilot Studies - Final Report.
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-&0029, ORXL Report ORXL-TM-1153.8, Mar
1990.
Contact George Robitaille
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-C
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1576
309
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
310
-------
126. LEACH TESTING FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: Determine mobilization characteristics of contaminants from contaminated solids
into aqueous phase.
Application: Leachate testing procedures are applicable for evaluation of contaminant mobility in
soils and sediments and potential impacts of leachate from soils and sediments on
groundwater. Leachate testing will also generate data which can be used to
determine the degree of contaminant immobilization gained through solidification/
stabilization (S/S) processing (see notes 45 to 50).
Description: Contaminants found in controlled and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites can be
leached, resulting in groundwater contamination. Laboratory tests for evaluating
hazardous material generally possess limited potential for extrapolating results to
field situations because the tests were not designed on the basis of a mass transport
model of leachate generation. Procedures developed at the Waterways Experiment
Station utilize results from batch tests and column tests, coupled with mass
transport equations, to describe mobilization of contaminants from sediment and soil.
Once a reasonable description of interphase contaminant transfer (desorption from
solid media to water) has been found, contaminant migration by leaching can be
evaluated by solving the mass transport equations for the initial and boundary
conditions that apply in the field. Tests are conducted in a chemical environment
that simulates important conditions anticipated for disposal of the sediment or soil.
The leaching tests can also provide information needed to determine the effectiveness
of S/S in reducing the potential hazard of contaminated material.
Advantages: The mobility of contaminants can be determined in soils, sludges, and treated
residuals.
Costs will vary with contaminants and length of testing.
Limitations: Not available.
Cost
Availability: The method is under development.
Status:
References:
WES has assisted the New Bedford Superfund Project (see note #70) with evaluation
of leachate for Superfund material to be placed in a confined disposal facility.
Research is underway in many areas to evaluate the mobility of metals and organic
contaminants from sediments subject to dredging. WES has also assisted the Office
of the Program Manager (PM) at the RMA in determining the degree of
immobilization gained through propriety S/S processing of Basin F liquid. Finally,
WES has determined the potential for increasing the desorption of explosives
compounds from soils using aqueous solutions with and without surfactants.
Myers, T.E. and J.M. Brannon. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project,
Acushnet River Estuary Engineering Feasibility Study of Dredging and
Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives, Report V: Evaluation of Leachate
Quality. USAE Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report EL-88-15, 1988.
311
-------
Myers, T.E. and M.E. Zappi. Laboratory Investigation of Organic Contaminant
Immobilization by Proprietary Processing of Basin F Liquid, Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado. USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Technical Report EL-87-11, 1987.
Contact: James M. Brannon, Thomas E. Myers, or Judy Pennington
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-ES-A
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3726
312
-------
127. LABORATORY AND FIELD BIOINDICATOR SYSTEMS
Category: IK. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To develop sensitive laboratory and field bioindicator systems that can be used
simultaneously to evaluate contamination associated with Naval facilities and
operations.
Application: The method is applicable for any contaminant in an effluent or receiving water
providing that the contaminant causes stress to organisms.
Description: Bioassay procedures are based on protocols utilizing a suite of invertebrate and
vertebrate organisms known for their sensitivity to toxicants. New bioassay
methodologies will be developed using bioluminescence, chlorophyll fluorescence, and
adenosine tripolyphosphate (ATP) levels for contaminant stress indication via light
measurement (QWIK-LJTE, see figures 127a and 127b). Candidate organisms
include phytoplankton, amphipods, mysids, mussels worms, and fish. Bioassay
protocols are evaluated for their efficiency and predictive capabilities and include life-
cycle tests, embryo survival, larval survival and growth, and reproductive capacity.
Studies of a variety of sublethal responses have been conducted on mussel growth
rate, reproductive capacity, metamorphosis, and bioaccumulation in mussels, mysids,
worms, and fish. Sublethal assays on fluorescence and bioluminescence light output
in phytoplankton have been used to detect effects at the part-per-billion level.
Complementary laboratory and field studies have been conducted with several
contaminants.
Advantages: This method provides the best possible scientific data for making environmental
compliance decisions. It provides a direct means of measuring impact of pollutants
on marine and aquatic environments. The techniques covered by this method can
provide effluent discharges with a rapid and inexpensive assay to facilitate the
NPDES permitting process. The limitations of existing methods include lack of
combined laboratory and field approaches, inadequate calibration of existing systems,
and inappropriate extrapolations to and from real-world environments. This
technology could easily be transferred to commercial, private, and regulatory sectors.
Limitations: The method cannot be used to identify or quantify specific contaminants or
concentrations.
Costs: Cost information is not available.
Availability: The method is under development.
Status: Laboratory and field testing is underway at the NCCOSC. Plans are to finalize
procedures and transition to compliance applications by FY94.
References: Lapota, D. et al. A Bioassay Method to Assess Acute and Sublethal Effects of
Storm Drain Discharges, Diesel Marine Fuel, and Heavy Metals on
Stimulatable Bioluminescence from Marine Dinoflagellates. Presented at the
2nd Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment: Aquatic, Plant,
and Terrestrial, Pittsburgh, PA, Apr 1992.
313
-------
Huggett, KJ., M.A. Unger, PJ1. Seligman, and A.O. Valkirs. The Marine Bioeide
Tributyltin - Assessing and Managing the Environmental Risks. Environ.
So. TechnoL, 26(2):232-7,1992.
Johnston, R.K and D. Lapota. A New Approach For Evaluating Biological
Toxicity at Aquatic Hazardous Waste Sites. Proc. 6th Symposium on Coastal
and Ocean Management/ASCE, Jul 1989.
Lapota, D., RJL Johnston, and D.E. Rosenberger. Survey of Methods To Assess
the lexicological Impact of Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites on Aquatic
Ecosystems. NOSC Technical Report 1305,19S9.
Contact: David Lapota
NCCOSC RDT&E Division, Code 522
271 Catalans Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
619-553-2798
314
-------
BOTTLE HOLDER
ADAPTER
MULTICHANNEL
ANALYZER
MICROCOMPUTER
co
t-1
01
SAMPLE VIAL
_ WITH p. lunula
CELLS
NOSC
LAB
PLANKTON
TEST
CHAMBER
X
VARIABLE
CONTROLLER
HIGH VOLTAGE
POWER SUPPLY
Figure 127a. Bioluminescence assay instrumentation.
-------
DROPLETS OF
AERATED
SEAWATER
WATER LEVEL
REPLACE:
LARVAE IN
INNER
CHAMBER
WITH:
PLANKTON IN INNER
CHAMBER
Y—CONNECTOR
AIR
WATER
500ml
POLYCARBONATE
CENTRIFUGE
BOTTLE
100ml
POLYCARBONATE
CENTRIFUGE
TUBE (WITH
ROUND END
CUT OFF)
TEFLON
TUBING
TEFLON
SPECTRA/MESH
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENT
Figure 127b. Cutaway of laboratory assay chamber.
316
-------
128. BENTHIC FLUX SAMPLING DEVICE
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To determine in situ release rate (flux of toxicants) of chemical toxicants from
contaminated sediment in aqueous environments.
Application: The method is applicable for any organic or inorganic contaminant in aquatic
sediments.
Description: The Benthic Flux Sampling Device (BFSD) is deployed using a boat and left in place
for a period of time ranging from hours to days after which it is retrieved (figure 128).
The BFSD forms a seal with the sediment. Toxicants in the sediment below the
BFSD that are released into the water column are monitored. The BFSD collects
samples at a prearranged rate for analysis in the laboratory. Also, flow-through
sensors monitor temperature, salinity, and oxygen, and store the data on a
commercially available RAM device. The device as tested is applicable to a depth of
50 m. The water samples are analyzed by conventional laboratory procedures.
Advantages: No alternative method is available. Only a short training period is required.
Limitations: Excessively rocky sites would preclude establishing a seal. The depth to which the
device can be deployed is limited to 50 m (164 ft).
Costs: Capital costs are about $40,000. A boat, length of about 20 to 40 ft with a boom, is
required to deploy the device.
Availability: Specifications are available from NCCOSC RDT&E Division. The control unit is
commercially available.
Status: The device has been field tested in San Diego Harbor. A demonstration project was
performed at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, WA, in FY91.
References: Not available.
Contact: D. Bart Chadwick
NCCOSC RDT&E Division, Code 522
271 Catalina Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
619-553-5333
317
-------
CoBccklratioa
* Slope = FU* Rale
Time
Contaminated Sediment
T=Toxicant
CONNECT INSTRUXSST
RELEASE IHSTRUHEftT
Figure 128. Benthic contaminant flux sampling: device (top) and deployment method (below).
318
-------
129. FIBER OPTIC SENSORS
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To develop a technology to screen/map contaminants at hazardous waste sites for use
in conjunction with cone penetrometer.
Application: The method is applicable for detection of aromatic hydrocarbons and some metals in
soil or water.
Description: Measurement of laser-induced fluorescence - called emission spectra - via fiber optic
cable coupled to a diffraction grating/photodiode array. Time resolved fluorescence
can be used to improve specificity. It can use chelating agents to detect metals.
These sensors may be deployed using the cone penetrometer from a land vehicle or
from an ocean platform. At sea, the sensors may be used for analysis by pumping
water through the sensor or by towing the sensor behind a ship. The equipment is
mobile and may be used to locate or monitor waste streams (see figure 129).
Advantages: High spatial resolution can resolve contaminant concentration changes on the order
of centimeters. High speed analysis is made on contaminants in a fraction of a
second. Remote or in situ measurements are possible.
Limitations: The analytical process is not as rigorous as laboratory procedures. At the present
time, it is a screening technique rather than a standard analytical measurement.
Detectable limits for petroleum, oil, and lubricants are about 10 ppm.
Cost
Availability:
Status:
Potentially low cost on a cost/sample basis.
purchase a package for use by technicians.
Approximately $50,000 capital would
References:
The equipment components are commercially available. Hydrocarbon detection
equipment has been developed. Metal detection equipment is under development.
Bench-scale pilot testing for hydrocarbon detection was conducted by NOSC,
AFCESA, and WES. Field testing was completed at Jacksonville NAS, FL, Tyndall
AFB, FL, DOE Savannah River Plant, GA, Philadelphia NSY, PA, and Tinker AFB,
OK. The petroleum hydrocarbon penetrometer system (see note #134) is being
transitioned to Navy and Army engineering field divisions.
Gillispie, G.D. and R.W. St. Germain. In Situ Tunable Laser Fluorescence
Analysis of Hydrocarbons. In Environmental Process Monitoring Technologies,
Tuan Vo-Dinh, Editor, Proc. SPIE 1637, 1992, pp. 151-62.
St. Germain, R.W. and G.D. Gillispie. Transportable Tunable Dye Laser for
Field Analysis of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Groundwater. Proc. 2nd
International Symposium of Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and
Toxic Chemicals, 1991, pp. 789-92.
Seitz, W.R. et al. Membranes for Optical In Situ Detection of Explosives in
Groundwater. Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, U.S. Army
Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr 1990.
319
-------
Lieberman, S.H., S.M. Inman, and G.A. Theriault. Use of Time-Resolved Spectral
Fluorometry for Improving Specificity of Fiber Optic-Based Chemical
Sensors. Proc. SPIE Optoelectonics & Fiber Optic Devices & Applications, Env. and
Pollution Measurement Syst., Boston, 1989.
Contact: Steve Lieberman
NCCOSC RDT&E Division, Code 521
271 Catalina Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
619-553-2778
Bruce J. Nielsen
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6011 or AUTOVON 523-6011
Beam
Splitter
-V-h
\ Lens
Fast Pulser
"Delay Generator
Optical Signal Path
Electronic Signal Path
Figure 129. Fiber optic system configuration.
320
-------
130. HIGH RESOLUTION FOURIER TRANSFORM INFRARED
(FT-IR) FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Category* HI. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: Development of a field screening method for ambient air quality analysis.
Application: This method is applicable for the detection, measurement, and monitoring of volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentration, in parts per billion (ppb), in the atmosphere.
Description: A mobile system has been developed at Kansas State University to measure VOCs in
the atmosphere using a Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectrometer. The mobile
FT-IR spectrometer system was developed to conduct on site measurements and
analyses so that results can be obtained and reported more quickly. Field
measurements at path lengths up to 600 m have been conducted at industrial sites.
Estimates of detection limits as an average concentration over a path length of 100 m
are made for 26 mid-infrared absorption bands of 21 compounds. These estimated
detection limits vary from 5 to 76 ppb.
Advantages:
Limitations:
Cogfc Not available.
This technology is a quick screening method for VOCs. A large distance, up to 1 km2,
may be covered with one pass to analyze the atmosphere for VOCs.
No point-sampling is possible with the present technology, only sampling along a
straight or folded pathway.
Availability: All components used in this technology are off-the-shelf items that are commercially
available. The end product for this technology is developmental.
Status: Field-pilot testing was conducted through Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS,
and the University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
References: Report on Preliminary Evaluation of a High Resolution Fourier Transform
Infrared (HR-FT-IR) for Environmental Monitoring, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA/600/X-89/225, Aug 1989.
Contact: Dr. Donald Gurka
USEPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
P. O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
702-798-2432
321
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
322
-------
131. DETECTION OF EXPLOSIVES AND RELATED COMPOUNDS BY
FOURIER TRANSFORM INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To determine the availability and effectiveness of Fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy (FTTR) for the detection of explosive degradation products and other
organic compounds.
Application: This method is applicable for the field-detection of explosives and other organic
compounds in soil and groundwater.
Description: This system (figure 131) can be used in the field for a quick screening method for the
detection of volatile organics, semi-volatiles, and explosives. It is capable of
analyzing areas as large as 1 km while still achieving reasonable quantitative results
for wet soil and contaminated groundwater in the 5 to 100 ppb range. The analytical
procedure is as follows: (1) place weighed soil in tip of desorption probe, (2) evacuate
cell, (3) insert desorption probe into TDU (thermal desorption unit), (4) evacuate
TDU and inlet assembly, (5) thermally desorb contaminants from soil, (6) explosives
vaporize and enter the cell, (7) collect spectral data and perform computerized data
analysis.
Advantages Time and shipping costs are saved by performing analyses in the field.
Limitations: None identified at this time.
Cost:
Not available.
Availability: Under development.
Status:
References:
Research and development are ongoing.
Demirgian, J. A Quantitative Method to Detect Explosives and Selected
Semivolatiles in Soil Samples by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy.
Proc. 1992 JANNAF Safety and Environmental Subcommittee Meeting, Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, Aug 1992.
Contact:
George Robitaille
USATHAMA CETHA-TS-C
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-
5401
410-671-1576
Jack Demirgian
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
708-252-6807
323
-------
Interferometer
Allignment
Laser
Infrared Detector
Source
FTIR
Calibration Gas
Nitrogen Purge
! Cold Trap
Vacuum Pump
Thermal
TDU = Desorption
Unit
Figure 131. Detection of explosives in soils using FTIR.
324
-------
132. TRANSPORTABLE GAS CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS
SPECTROMETER (GC/MS)
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To field test the thermal desorption gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS)
technology and to determine its effectiveness and its use for sampling activities.
Application: The technology is applicable for screening and quantifying organic compounds in
water and soil matrices, including polychlorinated piphenyls (PCB), voaltile organic
compounds (VOC), phenols, and pesticides.
Description: The method involves analyte introduction by thermal desorption followed by fast GC
separation and MS detection. The MS used initially was designed as a chemical
agent detector and was manufactured from the outset as a field instrument. The unit
weighs about 300 pounds. It is transported to the field in a mid-sized truck and is
battery-operated for 8 to 10 hours at ambient conditions. Samples have been
obtained at ambient conditions ranging from 10° F to 90° F in rain, snow, and in high
humidity. Gas cylinders are not necessary since charcoal-filtered ambient air serves
as the carrier gas.
Advantages: The method enables obtaining real-time, accurate analytical results.
Limitations: The method is applicable to organic compounds only.
Costs:
Not available.
Availability: The instrumentation is commercially available.
Status: The method was developed at Tufts University and field tested at Ft. Devens, MA.
References: Robbat, A., Jr., T-Y. Liu, B. Abraham, and C-J Liu. Thermal Desorption Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Field Methods for the Detection of
Organic Compounds. Second International Symposium on Field Screening
Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals, Feb 1991.
Contact: George Robitaille
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
CETHA-TS-C
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1576
325
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
326
-------
133. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND MONITOR
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: The method is applicable for the on site, same-day analysis of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) in water. Application has been filed with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for approval of this method and instrumentation as an
alternative method for analysis of VOCs in the field.
Application: The instrumentation was developed for on site monitoring of VOCs and enables
same-day analysis of contaminated water. Prior to the development of this method,
several days were needed for analysis of contaminated water at an off site location.
The instrumentation for this method may be used to monitor VOC contamination in
aquifers, spill sites, monitoring wells, effluent treatment facilities, tracking of
pollution plumes in monitoring wells, efficiency of air stripping, etc.
Description Prototype instrumentation consists of a liquid sample concentrator with a 10-position
autosampler, a gas chromatograph, and a personal-computer-based data acquisition
system (figure 133). The system design for determination of trichloroethylene (TCE)
in groundwater is based on an initial purge-and-trap concentration step. The purge-
and-trap procedure effects extraction of VOCs from aqueous solution in a stream of
inert gas and concentrates the extracted volatiles on an adsorbent trap; in this
application, the adsorbent is Chromosorb WHP (60/80 mesh). Once the VOCs are
deposited on the absorbent trap, the trap is heated quickly to 180° C and flushed with
nitrogen. The gas stream carrying the desorbed analytes is swept through heated
transfer lines into the gas chromatograph, where separation and detection are
accomplished. The hardware for the next phase of development of this method is a
Wang 386 Computer, OI 4460A Sample Concentrator, Dyna Tech PTA 30 Auto
Sampler, and Capillary GC Column DB 624. This method is a minor modification of
EPA Methods 601, 602, and 624 . The instrumentation for this method was
developed for field analysis for TCE in groundwater after air stripping. The
instrumentation and method are applicable for aromatic and chlorinated
hydrocarbons. TCE is detectable in parts per billion (ppb) using this method and
instrumentation. It was accepted as an alternate technical procedure (ATP) for
analysis of TCE at the demonstration site, Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan. Minimal
experience and training are needed for conducting this procedure. Internal blanks
and matrix spikes are required for quality control. The system is automated.
Conventional purge-and-trap technology is used. State-of-the-art technology is used
in instrumentation and recording. Flame detection method used varies from EPA
approved detection method; it was chosen because it is more rugged. Close to ppb in
sensitivity is acceptable because it may detect false highs but does not give false low
readings.
Advantages: The procedure and method are automated except for sample collection and
preparation of standards. Only infrequent cleaning is necessary and annual
maintenance is required. Thirty (30) minute turnaround time for analysis, fixed
front-end cost for sample analysis for annual budgeting (380 samples per week), used
on site as an analytical method, and minimal training and no experience needed for
operators (mechanical aptitude needed).
327
-------
Limitations: Access to repair support, sensitive to dust, and reasonable security is necessary in
non-laboratory environments.
Cost: Cost of operators) plus an estimated $10,000 annual operating cost Startup cost of
$75,000 is estimated for instrumentation and installation on site.
Availability: All instrumentation used in the prototype is commercially available with the final
prototype installation in the field during July 90.
Status: Phase I was accepted by the EPA as a local ATP in the installation at Wurtsmith
AFB, MI. Phase II has begun with installation of instrumentation as described above
at Wurtsmith AFB and Castle AFB, CA.
References: Wander, J.D., B.L. Lentz, L. Michalec, and V. Taylor. Prototype Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Monitor. First International Symposium: Field Screening
Methods for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations, Oct 11-13, 1988, USEPA, pp. 319-
23.
Taylor, V. and J. Wander. Prototype Technology for Monitoring Volatile
Organics, Volume I, Engineering & Services Laboratory, Air Force Engineering &
Services Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, Final Report ESL-TR-88-01, Vol. I, Mar
1988.
Contact: Dr. Joseph D. Wander
HQ AFCESA/RAVS
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6026
Del* Acquisition
(L8C)
<)•• Chr oma
(OC)
Figure 133. Schematic diagram of computer-controlled instrument for purge-and-trap analysis of
volatile organics.
328
-------
134. SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
PENETROMETER SYSTEM (SCAPS)
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To enable better characterization of the geology and extent of contamination of
hazardous waste sites for more effective emplacement of monitoring wells.
Application: The method will be applicable for any site with sand, silt, or clay deposits.
Penetration in gravels and cemented soils is limited. The wastes for which the
method will be applicable will depend upon the analytical capabilities that can be
incorporated within the penetrometer. Currently this technology is applicable to
waste which can be found with the electrical resistivity geophysical method and
fluorescence. In the future this technology will be applied to detection of explosives,
heavy metals, solvents, and radioisotopes (also see notes 135 and 136).
Description: The site characterization and analysis penetrometer (SCAPS) apparatus is truck-
mounted. Surface scanning with ground-penetrating radar, electromagnetic
induction, magnetometer instruments, or other geophysical techniques for location of
buried metal objects is necessary to avoid damage to the cone tip. The SCAPS rod
with the instrumented cone tip is pushed into the soil by a hydraulic ram. Three
persons are required for operation: one to operate the hydraulic system equipment,
the second to assist the first and to operate the grouting equipment, and the third to
monitor the analytical equipment and data collection systems. Depending on the site
and the penetration depth, approximately 10 to 20 test penetrations can be made per
day. A truck should be able to collect 600 to 700 ft of soil data per day. Several
analytical techniques are possible with three modes now available: (1) real time soil
and contaminant analysis or screening, (2) sampling, and (3) monitoring when a
device is deposited in the subsurface by the SCAPS. Soil gases can be analyzed by a
gas chromatograph connected by a tube through which the gases can be drawn to a
sensing device pushed into the ground by SCAPS. The resistivity sensor provides
real time monitoring of subsurface geophysics, resistivity, and some contaminant
detection. Qualitative information about soil types and underground structure can
be obtained by measuring soil strength parameters, such as point resistance,
frictional sleeve resistance, and soil electrical resistivity. A penetrometer cone has
been developed with laser-excited florescence via a dual fiber optic pathway
connected to an optical multi-channel analyzer [U.S. Patent 5,128,882 assigned to
Department of the Army]. This cone can detect changes in fluorescence in real time.
Subsurface liquid and soil/waste samples can be taken using commercially developed
samplers. The system has been successfully field tested at several waste sites during
1990 - 92 for detection and 3-D visualization of hydrocarbon contaminant plumes.
The SCAPS may be used to identify or monitor contaminated soil or groundwater to
depths as great as 150 ft below the surface.
Advantages: The better a site can be characterized, the fewer monitoring wells are required and
fewer wells are misplaced. This method will assist the preliminary determination of
the vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination. This technology offers two-
fold cost savings: (1) fewer monitoring wells needed and (2) elimination of the cost of
sampling and chemical analysis of samples from misplaced wells. A high degree of
operator safety on hazardous waste sites is achieved with the self-contained SCAPS
329
-------
unit. By providing two separate compartments, each with its own air supply, data
collection is separated from push rod operations that can be contaminated.
Limitations: The penetrometer will be limited by the location of bedrock or other solid
obstructions. The types of waste detectable will be limited by the types of analytical
equipment incorporated within the penetrometer.
Cost- A SCAPS rig costs approximately $10/ft of penetration to operate. Future site
monitoring costs are reduced because of the better 3-D site characterization. This
method is more cost effective in real-time mode. Original capital cost for the
truck/penetrometer system is estimated to be about $500,000. This capital
expenditure compared favorably to a cost of $5,000 to $10,000 for the installation of a
single monitoring well because the SCAPS can be used in delineating many
contaminated sites.
Availability: The method has been tested and is being further developed. A prototype system is
available at WES. Three SCAPS systems are being built for the Corps of Engineers
and one for the Department of Energy (DOE). Currently, SCAPS is capable of
developing data on site geophysics, soil resistivity, and soil fluorescence. Sensors to
detect explosives and chlorinated hydrocarbons should be available in 1993.
Status:
References:
Contact:
The method has been tested in the field at Tyndall Air Force Base, Savannah River
Site (DOE), GA, Jacksonville Naval Air Station, FL, the Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard, PA, and the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, LA. Future DOD, DOE,
and EPA site visits are in the planning stage.
Malone, P.G., et al. Cone Penetrometer Surveys of Soil, in Usmen, M.A. and Y.
Acan, eds. Environmental Technology, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992, pp. 251-7.
Device for Measuring Reflectance and Fluorescence of In Situ Soil.
Patent 5,128,882, Jul 7, 1992.
U.S.
Cooper, S.S. et al. Development of an Innovative Penetrometer Technology
for the Detection and Delineation of Contaminated Soils. Proc. 14th Annual
Army Environmental Symposium, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055, Apr 1991
Cooper, S.S. and P.G. Malone, Three Dimensional Mapping of Contaminant
Distribution in Soil Using a Soil Penetrometer, The Military Engineer,
83(544):54-5, 1991
Lucero, D.P. A Soil Gas Sampler Implant for Monitoring Dump Site
Subsurface Hazardous Fluids. Hazardous Materials Control, 3(5):36-44, Sep-Oct
1990.
Wayne Sisk
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-
5401
410-671-2054, FAX: 410-671-1680
Stafford Cooper, Landris T. Lee, Jr.,
and Phillip G. Malone
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-EE
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-2477, FAX: 601-634-3453
330
-------
135. TERRATROG
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To develop a safer, more effective method to identify and track contaminants in soil
and water.
Application: The method is applicable for identifying and monitoring volatile organic compounds
(VOC) in soil and water.
Description: The TerraTrog system (figures 135a and 135b) consists of two modules: (1) an
implant of small dimensions containing a gas-permeable membrane of high diffusion
impedance that is deployed to subsurface levels, and (2) a surface module that
functions as the regulator for carrier gas as well as an interface for sampling and
calibrating the system. Traditional soil gas sampling techniques collect samples with
a vacuum. In contrast, this system relies on soil gas diffusion through a semi-
permeable membrane and an inert carrier gas stream that is flowing at a slight
positive pressure for lifting the sample to the surface. The sampling is diffusion-
limited by a membrane of known impedance. Therefore, the sampling rate and size
are independent of soil permeability.
Advantages: The method is safe - human contact with contaminants is decreased since
deployment of the implant using a cone penetrometer does not involve drilling which
would bring contaminants to the surface in the drill cuttings. The method is efficient
- a sample can be obtained either in the static mode within 6 to 7 days or the
dynamic mode in real time allowing 5 to 10 minutes to start up. When deployed in a
monitoring well, bailing and water collection are not required. Since this is a closed
system, the sample analysis is more representative of contaminant levels than those
obtained by traditional methods.
In soil, the deployment is limited to the capability of the cone penetrometer.
Costs are estimated at $120,000 in FY93 and $180,000 in FY94.
Limitations:
Costs:
Availability: TerraTrog is still under development.
Status:
TerraTrog has been field tested at two sites. Cone penetrometer deployment was
carried out at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site, GA, in 1992. The
implant was also deployed in groundwater wells at the U.S. Army Phoenix Nike Site,
Baltimore County, MD, in 1992.
References: Madden, M.P, Daniel P. Lucero, and S. K. Hendrickson. Preliminary Field
Characterization of TerraTrog in Soil and Groundwater Wells - Final
Report. USATHAMA Report, National Institute for Petroleum and Energy
Research, Dec 1991.
Lucero, D.P. A Soil Gas Sampler Implant for Monitoring Dump Site
Subsurface Hazardous Fluids. Hazardous Materials Control, 3(5):36-44, Sep/Oct
1990.
331
-------
Lang, K.T., D.T. Scarborough, M. Glover, and D.P. Lucero. Quantitative Soil Gas
Sampler Implant for Monitoring Sump Site Subsurface Hazardous Fluids.
Second International Symposium on Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes
and Toxic Chemicals.
Contact: George Robitaille
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-C
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1576
Carrier & Calibration
Gas Supply &
Control Network
Implant
Cone Penetrometer Tip
Figure 135a Schematic diagram of the TerraTrog implant and surface module system as deployed
by a cone penetrometer.
332
-------
Carrier Gas Out
Carrier Gas In
Calibration Gas in
Top Header and
Gas Manifold
Metal Wasb
Thread Sealing
Gasket
Membrane Support
Rods (8)
Cone Tip
Calibration Gas
Diffuser Cap
. Calibration Gas
Out
Membrane Tube
Carrier Gas Tube
-Bottom Header
Seeing Cap
and O-Ring
Figure 135b Schematic diagram of the TerraTrog implant.
333
-------
— This page intentionally left blank -
334
-------
136. CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DETECTOR FOR
CONE PENETROMETER SYSTEM
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To detect, quantify, and map subsurface chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination,
even in the presence of salt water intrusion, at hazardous waste sites utilizing the
cone penetrometer as a rapid and cost-effective delivery vehicle.
Application: The method is applicable for the detection of liquid-phase chlorinated hydrocarbons
in soil or groundwater.
Description: The method is based on gamma-ray spectrometry of emissions from neutron capture
by hydrogen and chlorine nuclei present in the chlorinated hydrocarbon (CHC)
compounds. Energetic neutrons are produced by an electronically produced collision
of deuterium and tritium in a miniature accelerator located within the penetrometer.
The gamma-ray energies generated by the capture are unique for each of these
elements. The ratio of H:C1 identified can be used to differentiate CHC from other
chlorinated compounds such as salt in water.
Advantages: This technique will enable in situ detection of CHCs without additional chemical
analysis. When coupled with the cone penetrometer, this technique provides rapid
and economical screening and mapping of hazardous waste sites. The electronically
produced neutron flux removes the inherent danger normally associated with the use
of radioisotopes to accomplish this type of gamma-ray spectrometry.
Limitations: This technique is not as sensitive as some analytical techniques, and the minimum
detectable concentration limits have not been determined for the final deployed
system. At present, this system is considered a screening technique only. The
primary application will be to aid in the placement of standard analytical test wells
at hazardous waste sites.
Costs: Capital investment for a field-deployed system for use in conjunction with the cone
penetrometer delivery system is estimated at $85,000. This system would be
operated by the same technicians operating the penetrometer. Estimated hourly cost
for operation would be less than $100.
Availability: The technique is a refinement of current well logging technology. Most of the effort is
in developing the analysis algorithms and engineering the final package to be
compatible with the cone penetrometer. Most of the individual components are
commercially available.
Status: The technique will be initially funded in FY92, and a system to be integrated in the
cone penetrometer is expected early in FY95.
References: Smith, R.C., C.H. Bush, and J.W. Reichardt. Small Accelerators as Neutron
Generators for Borehole Environment. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science,
35(l):859-62, Feb 1988.
Snyder, D.D. and D.B. Fleming.
Geophysics, 50(12):2504-29, 1985.
Well Logging - a 25-Year Perspective.
335
-------
Fletcher, J.W. and J. Walter. A Practical Shale Compensated Chlorine Log.
SPWLA 19th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun 1978.
Peatross, R.F. A New Lithology Compensated Capture Gamma-Ray System.
SPWLA 17th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun 1976.
Contact: Gary Mastny
NCCOSC RDT&E Division, Code 524
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
619-553-2802
336
-------
137. ENVIRONMENTAL GEOPHYSICS - SITE CHARACTERIZATION
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: Non-invasive characterization methodology for hazardous and toxic waste sites, to
include geology, hydrogeology, and the presence of contaminants.
Application: This technology can be used for contaminant plume detection and mapping,
underground storage tank location and condition assessment, disposal trench
mapping and characterization, mapping of buried metallic objects (drums, cylinders,
unexploded ordnance, etc.), characterization of subsurface geologic structure and
stratigraphy, and groundwater flow characteristics.
Description: This technology is a state-of-the-art application of shallow, high resolution
geophysical surveying (see notes 155 and 156). The methods include ground
penetrating radar, electromagnetic methods (terrain conductivity), microgravity,
magnetic surveys, seismic refraction and reflection, electrical resistivity (surface and
borehole), and surface airborne and waterborne instrumentation and data gathering.
Computer processing of data collected using these geophysical methods is needed for
best interpretation and utilization of methodology and data collected.
Instrumentation is mobile and non-invasive. Fundamentally there is no depth
limitation on data collection and recording using these technologies, but a 200 ft
depth of investigation is generally considered the maximum depth of data utilization
for site characterization of contaminated substrata.
Advantages: Geophysical methodologies complement drilling, sampling and testing by optimizing
location and number of drilling and sampling points needed to characterize a site.
The final interpretation of these geophysical data results in overall lower cost.
Limitations: Quantitative indication of contaminant concentration in soil or groundwater is not
generally an end result of geophysical technologies. Invasive sampling after
geophysical survey interpretation is needed for quantitative evaluation of
contaminant plumes.
Cost:
Costs are site specific because of the difference in areal extent of each site.
Availability: Skilled operators are required for data collection using off-the-shelf equipment and
instrumentation. Geophysical methodology is commercially available or available
through government laboratories. Skilled, experienced personnel are required in all
phases of planning, surveying, data processing, and interpretation.
Status:
At WES, these technologies are available, and their results are accepted.
References: Butler, Dwain K, Environmental Geophysics - Applicability, Physical Principles,
Capabilities and Limitations for Hazardous and Toxic Waste Site
Assessments and Monitoring, Draft Guidelines, USATHAMA and WES, 1991.
Benson, R.C., R. Glaccum, and M.R. Noel, Geophysical Techniques for Sensing
Buried Wastes Migration, National Ground Water Association, Columbus, OH,
1982.
337
-------
Contact: Dwain K Butler and Jose L. Llopis
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-2127, FAX: 601-634-3453
338
-------
138. PORTABLE X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYZER INTERFACED
TO AN AUTOMATED POSITIONING SYSTEM FOR IN SITU
DETERMINATION OF HAZARDOUS METALLIC COMPOUNDS
Category:
Purpose:
Application:
III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Development of a field screening method for elemental analysis of soil.
This method is applicable for the detection, measurement, and monitoring of
hazardous inorganic (metallic) compounds.
Description: A portable ultrasonic ranging and data system (USRADS) developed earlier at the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was combined with a sodium iodide detector
and used by ORNL to measure levels of radioactivity rapidly in a large number of
uranium mill tailings sites around the U.S. (in response to the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978). USRADS, interfaced with any appropriate detector
or sensor, is capable of on site field measurements in situ, providing rapid reporting
of results.
The U.S. EPA, through an Interagency Agreement to ORNL, funded the further
development of the USRADS versatility so that it could be interfaced with any X-ray
fluorescence (XRF) analyzer, of a type used by EPA for field screening of Superfund,
RCRA or other hazardous waste sites. Detection limits with the XRF are highly
matrix dependent and site specific but range from 100-500 mg/Kg when analyzing
arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, and zinc in soil. The particular XRF
instrument interfaced to the USRADS is a HAZ-MET 880™ (formerly X-MET 880™).
Advantages: Provides a very rapid field screening method for inorganic (metallic) contaminants at
Superfund, RCRA, or other hazardous waste sites.
Limitations: This instrumentation is still in the development stage. This advanced prototype, a
modification of the earlier-developed USRADS, is expected to be subsequently
available commercially under the provisions of the Federal Technology Transfer Act.
Costs: EPA purchased basic USRADS for $50K and X-MET 880 for $47K.
Availability: Components used in prototype are commercially available. End product is
developmental.
Status: Field testing of this advanced prototype will be done at EMSL, through its prime, on
site contractor, Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company.
References: Nyquist, J.E. and M.S. Emery, Adaptation of a Prototype data Telemetry-
Locator System to a Portable X-ray Analyzer. U.S. EPA, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory Report EPA 600/X-91/146, 1991.
339
-------
Contact: William H. Engelmann, AMD/AMW
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 80193-3478
702-798-2664
340
-------
139. PORTABLE SYNCHRONOUS UV-VIS SPECTROFLUOROMETER
WITH FIBER-OPTIC PROBE FOR IN'SITU DETECTION OF
HAZARDOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: Development of a field screening method for water and soil quality analysis.
Application: This method is applicable for the detection, measurement and monitoring of
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), most pesticides
and other hazardous hydrocarabons, and some heterocyclic compounds.
Description: A portable system has been developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
measure very low levels of polyaromatic or polynuclear hydrocarbons in
environmental water or soil samples using an ultraviolet/visable (UV-Vis)
spectrofluorometer with synchronous and emission capabilities. The portable system
was developed to do on site measurements and analysis in situ so that the field
results could be reported quickly. Field measurements in 1992 will be done with a 2-
meter fiber-optic probe for reaching into shallow monitoring wells, streams, and other
environmental water samples (longer fiber-optic probes will be subsequently used).
Alternatively, a 1-cm cuvette with a water sample or soil extract can be inserted into
the instrument after detaching the fiber-optic probe. Estimates of detection limit run
from the ppb to ppm range, depending on the fluorescent yield of the analyte.
Advantages: Provides a very rapid field screening method for PAH contaminants and can
spectrally distinguish mixtures of compounds with varying numbers of fused rings.
Limitations: This instrumentation is still in the development stage. This advanced prototype,
developed from the earlier-commercialized unit, will subsequently be commercially
available under the provisions of the Federal Technology Transfer Act.
Costs: Expected not to exceed $20,000.
Availability: Components used in prototype are commercially available. The end product is
developmental.
Status: Field testing of this advanced prototype will be done at EMSL-LV, through its prime
on site contractor, Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company.
References: Eastwood, D. and T. Vo-Dinh, Molecular Optical Spectroscopic Techniques for
Hazardous Waste Site Screening, U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory Report EPA 600/40917011, 1991.
Contact: William H. Engelmann, AMD/AMW
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
702-798-2664
341
-------
— This page intentionally left blank -
342
-------
140. UV-VIS LUMINESCENCE SPECTROMETRY FOR IN SITU FIELD
SCREENING AND MONITORING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: Development of low-cost spectroscopic field screening techniques and methods for
detecting and monitoring of various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), pesticides, phenols, and other hazardous aromatic
and polyaromatic or heterocyclic compounds in water or soil.
Application: This method is applicable for the detection, monitoring and measurement of virtually
all types of hydrocarbon compounds (noted above).
Description: Ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) photoluminescence techniques (i.e., fluorescence and
phosphorescence) are beginning to be of interest as low-cost alternatives for field
screening and /or monitoring of Superfund or RCRA sites for the U.S. EPA (EPA).
Examples are: (1) a fixed-wavelength excitation while recording the fluorescence
emission spectrum, and (2) synchronous fluorescence in which both excitation and
emission monochromators are scanned simultaneously with a small wavelength
offset to produce a simplified spectrum with usually one sharp peak per compound.
Advantages: (1) Provides a rapid and low-cost alternative (compared to gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer (GC-MS)) field screening method for very low levels of hazardous
aromatic or polyaromatic hydrocarbons, noted above. (2) The simplified, sharp
spectra, specific for each compound, enables easier identification of the classes
present in mixtures of PAHs or PCBs. Spectral separation into classes is roughly
according to the number of fused rings. (3) Little or no sample preparation is
required. (4) Techniques are also powerful for fluorescent metal chelates and uranyl
ions.
Limitations: Field screening methods are in both early and advanced stages of development (see
Status section, below). Also, the methods do not apply to all classes of compounds.
Costs: Instrumentation cost is relatively low. Also, relatively low sample preparation costs,
over that for traditional method (e.g., GC-MS), since little or no sample preparation is
required.
Availability: ASTM (when published) and subsequently as EPA methods.
Status: A PAH field screening method using fluorescence spectroscopy is in the final stage of
development for ASTM. Round-robin test results have been incorporated into the
draft method.
A PCB field screening methods using room temperature phosphorescence is in an
early stage of development for ASTM. This method development is being conducted
for the EPA at the Environmental Monitoring System Laboratory in Las Vegas
(EMSL-LV). The prime on site contractor, Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Company (LESC), is the developer of the PAH method, described above (D. Eastwood,
Principal investigator); the PCB method is being developed by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory through an Interagency Agreement (T. Vo-Dinh, Principal Investigator),
343
-------
in collaboration with on site LESC staff (the reference below indicates other
collaborative studies).
References: Eastwood, D. and T. Vo-Dinh, Molecular Optical Spectroscopic Techniques for
Hazardous Waste Site Screening, U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory Report EPA 600/4-91/011, 1991.
Contact: William H. Engelmann, AMD/AMW
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 80193-3478
702-798-2664
344
-------
141. PORTABLE ELECTROMAGNETIC SENSOR FOR DETECTION OF
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: This method is applicable for the detection of metallic and nonmetallic underground
storage tanks (UST) with a hand-held electromagnetic sensor.
Application: The method is applicable for the detection of buried metallic tanks and of voids
representing non-metallic tanks.
Description: The basic principle of a frequency-domain electromagnetic (EM) system involves the
measurement of change in mutual impedance between a pair of coils moving over the
earth. A transmitter coil sets up a sinusoidally varying primary field that induces a
system of currents within the earth below. These induced currents, in turn, generate
a secondary magnetic field that is measured by a receiver coil (figure 141).
Advantages: This is a hand-held detection instrument for metallic and nonmetallic underground
storage tanks.
Limitations: The method cannot be used to determine if tanks are intact or leaking.
Cost: The costs are indetenninant until the prototype is delivered, but the target range is
less than $15,000.
Availability: Not yet commercially available.
Status: Prototype delivery under Phase III of the Small Business Innovative Research
program is scheduled for October 1992.
References: None available.
Contact: Bernie Donahue
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
345
-------
f Transmitter Coll
7ft
_ Console _
LCD Display fnq / »
I ...J fnq2 •
MOOES
T ;
Bucking Coll
to
Receiver Coll
lOin
Frequency
Selodw
,
y
'1
f
1
'*-]
req freq
2 3
1
ix
PPM or
Conductivity
LCD Olsploy
Figure 141. Electronic block diagram and a possible packaging of the proposed portable EM sensor.
346
-------
Category:
Purpose:
142. SOIL GAS SAMPLING FOR DETECTION OF
SUBSURFACE ORGANIC CONTAMINATION
III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
To detect subsurface organic contamination by sampling of soil gas for volatile
organic compounds (VOC).
Application: This method is applicable for the sampling of soil gas above suspected groundwater
contamination. This technique may be used to detect the extent of groundwater
contamination without installation of monitoring wells. It may detect movement of
VOCs in groundwater from a contaminated hazardous waste site without installation
of monitoring wells.
Description: In active sampling, a hollow pipe is driven into the ground to a prescribed depth, and
soil gases are pulled through it to the surface. The sample is then analyzed by gas
chromatography (GO at or near the sampling location. This method offers the
benefit of immediate results as the survey progresses, an attractive feature which
allows the sampling plan to be changed on the basis of results. In addition,
preliminary measurements can be performed to allow investigators to optimize
certain survey parameters, such as sampling depth.
An analytical field van was equipped with two Tracor GCs with flame ionization
detectors (FIDs) and two computing integrators for real-time sampling and analysis
of the soil gas. This van was also equipped with a specialized hydraulic ram
mechanism used to drive and withdraw the sampling probes. The probes consisted of
2.1-m (7-ft) lengths of 1.9-cm diameter (3/4-in.) steel pipes fitted with detachable
drive points. A hydraulic hammer was used to assist in driving the probes through
hard soil.
Soil gas samples are collected from depths ranging from 0.6 to 2.4 m (2 to 8 ft) in the
ground. The above-ground ends of the sampling probes are fitted with a steel reducer
and a length of polyethylene tubing leading to a vacuum pump. Approximately 5 to
10 liters of gas are evacuated with the vacuum pump to assure a representative
sample. Samples are collected by inserting a syringe needle through a silicone
rubber segment, just above the reducer, in the flowing evacuation line and down into
the steel probe. Ten milliliters (mL) of soil gas are collected for immediate analysis
with one of the GCs. The soil gas is subsampled in volumes ranging from 1 to 2 mL,
depending on the expected concentrations of volatiles. The syringe needles are used
once and discarded and the syringes are cleaned and autoclaved after each use.
Specialized sophisticated equipment for gas sampling and analysis are required. The
presence of this equipment requires a specialist to operate and maintain it, and
associated support systems such as generators and gases. This technique has been
used successfully at a large number of sites.
Advantages: This method offers the benefit of immediate results as the survey progresses, an
attractive feature which allows the sampling plan to be changed on the basis of
results. In addition, preliminary measurements can be performed to allow
investigators to optimize certain survey parameters, such as sampling depth. An
347
-------
additional advantage of this approach is the presence of analytical equipment to
perform on site screening of soil and groundwater samples.
Limitations: Specialized sophisticated equipment for sampling and analysis are required.
Specialists are required for operation and maintenance of this equipment Support
systems such as generators and gases are required.
Cost: The cost per sample location is approximately $150.
Availability: The technology is commercially available.
Status: Field trials have been conducted at Holloman AFB, NM, Robins AFB, GA, and Tinker
AFB, OK.
References: Pitchford, AM., A.T. Mazzella, and KR. Scarborough. Soil-Gas and Geophysical
Techniques for Detection of Subsurface Organic Contamination, AFESC
Report ESL-TR-87-67, Nov 1987.
Contact: Bruce J. Nielsen
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6011
348
-------
143. GROUNDWATER MODEL ASSESSMENT
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To provide a repository of Army experience on the use of numerical models for
groundwater flow and transport of hazardous or toxic materials and an assessment of
the combinations of classes of problems and particular models which can be expected
to give useful results.
Application: Numerical models can, in principle, be used to guide site investigations, evaluate the
feasibility of remediation alternatives, and provide a framework for evaluating data
obtained during the monitoring of a remediation process. Their effective use is
complicated by difficulty in defining boundary conditions and parameters describing
flow and transport processes for a given somewhat heterogeneous site.
Description: Results of USATHAMA, HQ USAGE, and WES sponsored workshop on any
groundwater model use held 30 March - 1 April, 1992 are documented in a report
that includes conclusions on what has and has not worked and user-specified
required improvements in capability. A report describing assessment of the most
used groundwater models is also in preparation for late FY93.
This technology deals with the solution of partial differential equations governing
flow and transport in ideal media by numerical methods.
Advantages: This assessment and the associated user's workshop provided the Army with (a)
clearly defined user needs, (b) improved in-house technical assistance capabilities
relative to modeling, and (c) initial guidance on model limitations and capabilities.
Limitations: Certain specialized classes of models were not reviewed. Additional model evaluation
with increased depth is advisable.
Costs: Model application is site specific in nature. Thus, the costs are strongly contingent
upon the site and circumstances modeled.
Availability: A workshop report will be available from NTIS and WES early in FY93.
Status: Workshop proceedings are in final draft form and will be published by WES early in
FY93. Model assessment is on course and will be documented in late FY93.
References: Workshop proceedings are in final draft form and will be published by WES early in
FY93. Model assessment is on course and will be documented in late FY93.
Contact: Dr. J.P. Holland
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-HV-C
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-2644
349
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
350
-------
144. ACOUSTIC SURVEYING IN TOXIC WATER
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To measure non-invasively the thickness of precipitated salts in a covered-lined
containment pond for mixed salts and organic contaminants.
Application: This technology can be used to measure sediments/precipitants in covered-lined
containment impoundments without invasion. It is also used to measure the
thickness of sediments for dredging in streams, lakes, and bays.
Description: An Odom Echotrak dual frequency (24 kHz and 200 kHz) depth sounder was adapted
and attached to a hydro sports board with an outrigger, for stability. This device was
developed on site to float atop the 45 mil Hypalon floating cover over the
contaminated liquid. A non-invasive hydrographic survey by utilization of sound as
sonar in shallow liquid containments is made possible by the use of this technology.
The depth sounder measured the depth of the liquids overlying precipitated salts and
sediments in a covered-lined surface impoundment. This technique can be used in
covered/lined or uncovered/lined impoundments for determination of precipitant or
sediment thickness underlying contaminated water.
To manipulate the sounder and floatation device, cables must be placed across the
impoundment to be measured. The sounder is pulled across the impoundment while
attached to cables by pulleys. The number of parallel and intersecting surveys that
are taken is contingent upon the accuracy needed to estimate the thickness of the
contaminated water and of the salts/sediment on the bottom.
Advantages: This technology is a non-intrusive technique for measuring the thickness of
contaminated water and salts/sediment on the bottom of cover-lined or uncovered-
lined containment ponds. The low frequencies record depths exceptionally well in
shallow contaminated water (> 2 ft). Knowledge of the construction of the
containment area is an advantage during the planning and construction stage of the
instrumentation.
Limitations: With the low frequencies, recording at a minimum depth of 1-2 feet at 200 kHz and 3-
4 feet at 24 kHz.
Cost: The cost of the one demonstration project was $20,000 , but the cost of other projects
will be site specific.
Availability: Available at WES on a site specific basis.
Status:
References:
Demonstrated in the Basin F Hazardous Waste Storage Pond A at the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, CO, September 17-21, 1991.
Francingues, N.R., M.P. Alexander, and B.W. McCleave. Acoustic Surveying in
Toxic Waste at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, USAE Waterways Experiment
Station, 1991.
351
-------
Contact: Norman R. Frantingues
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Attn: CEWES-ES-A
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
601-634-3873
352
-------
145. CHRONIC SUBLETHAL SEDIMENT BIOASSAYS
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To determine the environmental impact of contaminated sediments on aquatic biota.
Application: The method can be used at all installations where contaminated sediments pose a
potential environmental hazard to freshwater or saltwater organisms.
Description: Ecologically and/or commercially important organisms at the site are identified.
They are exposed under environmentally realistic conditions to sediments collected at
the installation. Biologically important endpoints such as survival, growth, and
reproduction are monitored. Results are expressed in terms of the health and well-
being of the indigenous field populations of concern. The accuracy, precision, and
quality control of this method depend on the specific organism-test combination
selected.
Advantages: A major advantage of this method is that it is not limited to any particular chemical
or class of chemicals. It deals effectively with contaminant mixtures as well as
military-unique compounds. Use of sublethal endpoints increases method sensitivity
and ecological interpretability.
Limitations: Training and experience required to conduct this method are not insignificant.
Causal associations between individual chemicals and observed sublethal effects are
difficult to establish.
Costs: Costs are site-specific.
Availability: Equipment and supplies are available from commercial vendors. Some test methods
are available while others are under development. Guidance is available from WES.
Status: Varies with method selected.
References: Dillon, T.M., D.W. Moore, and A.B. Gibson. Initial Development of a Chronic
Sublethal Sediment Bioassay With the Marine Polychaete Nereis (Neanthes)
arenaceodentata. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. (in press), 1992.
Moore, D.W. and T.M. Dillon. Sediment Bioassays Supporting Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) at the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant.
Miscellaneous Paper EL-XX-XX, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS (in press), 1992.
Dillon, T.M., A.B. Gibson, and D.M. Moore. Development of Chronic Sublethal
Sediment Bioassays: Proceedings of a Workshop. Technical Note EL-EEDP-01-
22, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1990.
Contact: Dr. Tom M. Dillon
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, CEWES-GV-A
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-3922
353
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
354
-------
146. CONTAMINANT DISPERSION MODELS
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To predict the dispersion and fate of contaminants released into the water column.
Application: The method is applicable to many contaminants and has been tailored for a number
of harbors. Currently, it is best suited for organic contaminants.
Description: Several computer models for predicting hydrodynamic dispersion of a released
contaminant and its subsequent partitioning into water column, sediment, and
biological fractions are being investigated. A vessel-mounted acoustic doppler
current meter is used to validate hydrodynamic predictions. Water column and
sediment sampling from the vessel are used to validate partitioning predictions. The
models are iteratively tuned to match field observations (figure 146).
Advantages: Model predictions are faster, cheaper, and more spatially resolved than repeated field
sampling and analysis. They can be used to investigate the impact of hypothetical
situations and the relative impact of many simultaneous sources.
Limitations: Model accuracy depends on the completeness and quality of field data collected The
models assume a homogeneous water column.
Costs: Model software is commercially available and most models will run on IBM-
compatible microcomputers. Additional equipment required includes a vessel with
precise navigation, a current meter ($75,000), and sampling gear ($5,000).
Availability: All equipment and models are commercially available.
Status: The models are being validated through FY93 in San Diego Bay in cooperation with
the U.S. Geological Survey.
References: Ambrose, R.B., S.B. Vandergrift, and TA. Wool. WASP4, a Hydrodynamic and
Water Quality Model. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/600/3-
06/0-34, 1986.
Cheng, R.T., J.R. Burau, and J.W. Gartner. Interfacing Data Analysis and
Numerical Modeling for Tidal Hydrodynamic Modeling Phenomena. In
Tidal Hydrodynamics, B.B. Parker, Editor, John Wiley, 1991, pp. 201-19.
Contact: Kenneth Richter and Bart Chadwick
NCCOSC RDT&E Division, Code 522
271CatalinaBlvd.
San Diego, CA 92152-5000
619-553-5334
355
-------
NAVIGATION
SYSTEM
METEORLOGICAL
DATA
DATA ACQUISITION
PROCESSING
COMPUTER
pH. Cu--
•ELECTRODES
DO CONDUCTIVITY
TEMP DEPTH
TURBIDITY
TOWED SENSOR
ARRAY
Figure 146. Additional major sensor systems aboard vessel (current profiler and sediment sampler
not included in this figure). The vessel is part of Naval Ocean System Center's marine
environmental survey capability. Most water column sensors are designed for
continuous, underway mapping.
356
-------
147. QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) PROGRAM
Category: HI. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To provide a consistent framework for the generation of analytical data, to establish
standard practices that permit inter-laboratory comparison of data, and to establish
procedures for demonstrating that analytical systems are within established limits.
Application: The program applies to activities that generate analytical chemical data including
aspects of field sampling that can affect the chemical integrity of samples as well as
chemical laboratory activities.
Description: A quality assurance (QA) manual (see cited reference) has been published that
provides specific requirements for the sampling and chemical analysis of
groundwater, surface water, soil, and sediment samples. The general principles
described in the manual are applicable to most field and laboratory activities. Air
sampling, biological sampling, radiological analyses, and geotechnical parameter
analyses are not specifically addressed in the manual, but many of the guidelines in
the QA program apply.
Advantages: Data generated by facilities that ascribe to an accepted and effective QA program are
reliable and defensible. Different laboratories can generate data that are mutually
consistent. The customer for the data will know the accuracy and precision of the
data and can make educated decisions.
Limitations: The applicability of any QA program is limited to the tests for which QA procedures
have been established. The program is limited by the consistency with which it is
applied in the laboratories that participate.
Costs:
Not available.
Availability: The manual is available from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency (USATHAMA).
Status: The QA program is implemented. The use of the QA program is incorporated as a
requirement into all USATHAMA contracts that require laboratory data. The
program is being phased out. It will be replaced by the Corps of Engineers
Regulation 1110-1-263 and an implementation document for use on USATHAMA
projects. The QA Program will continue to be used for ongoing investigations.
References: USATHAMA QA Program, USATHAMA PAM 11-41, Jan 1990.
Contact: Martin Stutz
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-C
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1568
357
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
358
-------
148. STANDARD ANALYTICAL REFERENCE MATERIALS (SARMS)
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To supply consistent reference standards to USATHAMA contract laboratories.
Application: The repository includes soils, organic compounds, and explosives. Standard
analytical reference materials (SARMS) are traceable to the National Institute of
Science and Technology.
Description: Purity checks of SARMS are made every 6 months. Interim SARMS are only checked
for purity and identification initially upon receipt.
Advantages: Reference standard materials are available.
Limitations: The number of compounds within the repository is limited.
Costs: Not available.
Availability: Further information about SARMS is available from USATHAMA. Non-explosive
SARMS are available only to USATHAMA contractors; explosive SARMS are
available to any government contractor with USATHAMA approval.
Status: The use of SARMS is required for USATHAMA contractors.
References: USATHAMA QA Program, USATHAMA PAM 11-41, Jan 1990.
Contact: Darlene Bader
CETHA-TS-C
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
(301) 671-1573, 3348
359
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
360
-------
149. ANALYTICAL METHOD FOR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS AND
BIODEGRADATION BYPRODUCTS
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To develop improved analytical protocols for analyzing for aromatic organic
compounds and degradation byproducts during anaerobic biodegradation (see note
20).
Description: A technique has been developed based on injecting gaseous headspace from sample
bottles directly into a gas chromatograph (GC). 200 mL of inoculated media are
transferred using anaerobic techniques into 250 mL screw cap bottles with Mininert
closures. The bottle is spiked with the aromatic mixture of interest and placed in an
anaerobic glove box. To analyze for organics, the bottle is moved to a shaker table for
a minimum of 10 minutes prior to sampling (the aromatic compounds being
investigated come to equilibrium with the headspace within about 5 minutes). A 300-
uL sample of headspace is withdrawn from the bottle and injected into the GC. The
GC is equipped with a Megabore fused-silica capillary column and a photoionization
detector. Calibration of the instrument is accomplished by sampling external
standards (bottles with equivalent headspace and liquid volumes, and spiked with a
known amount of the organic compound).
Advantages: Little change in the individual sample bottle itself since no liquid must be withdrawn
from the system. Decreased labor and improved efficiency of sampling since no
sample liquid-liquid extraction must be performed.
Limitations: Headspace vapors may not be comparable directly to hydrocarbon content of the
liquid.
Costs:
Availability:
Status:
References:
Contact:
Not available.
Instrumentation and other equipment described in the process are commercially
available.
This protocol was developed during research on the Seal Beach, CA, gasoline-
contaminated site.
Ball, H.A., M. Reinhard, and P.L. McCarty. Factors Influencing the In-Situ
Biodegradation of Gasoline Hydrocarbons by Groundwater Bacteria:
Anaerobic Processes, Progress Report, NCEL, May 1989.
Carmen Lebron and Mary Pat Huxley
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Protection Division, Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805-982-1616 (Lebron); 805-982-1615 (Huxley)
361
-------
— This page intentionally left blank -
362
-------
Category:
Purpose:
150. DETERMINATION OF EXPLOSIVES IN
ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES
III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
To provide standard methodology for the determination of explosives in soil.
Application: The method is applicable to explosives in soil. Applicable explosives are HMX, RDX,
TNB, DNB, Tetryl, TNT, and 2,4-DNT.
Description: Briefly, the method involves extraction of soil using acetonitrile in an ultrasonic bath
followed by determination using reversed-phase high-pressure liquid
chromatography with an ultraviolet detector (HPLC-UV) at 254 nm. Certified
reporting limits are: HMX - 1.6 ug/g; RDX - 1.8 ug/g; TNB - 1.5 ug/g; DNB -
0.5 ug/g; tetryl - 5.5 ug/g; TNT - 0.8 ug/g; and 2,4-DNT - 0.8 ug/g. About 24 samples
can be extracted and analyzed over a 2-day period if stock solutions have been
prepared in advance. The major item of equipment is an HPLC having a 100-uL
sample loop injector and a fixed wavelength 254-nm detector. Soil samples should be
refrigerated in the dark as soon as feasible after collection.
Advantages: The method has been tested and evaluated and allows for consistency of results
across laboratories.
Limitations: Not available.
Costs: Capital costs are for the HPLC instrument and detector. Operating costs include
reagents and glassware.
Availability: Equipment is available commercially. Analysis protocol is in the references cited.
Status: The method has been promulgated, and the results using this method are accepted.
References: Method for Analysis of Nitroaromatic and Nitramine Explosives in Soil by
HPLC. Method D5143-90, ASTM, 1991.
Munition Residues in Soil, Liquid Chromatographic Method. Official 1st
action, Sep 1990. Method 991.09, 2nd Supplement to the 15th Edition of Official
Methods of Analysis, pp. 78-80, Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
Jenkins, T.F. et al. Development of an Analytical Method for the
Determination of Explosive Residues in Soil: Part III. Collaborative Test
Results and Final Performance Evaluation. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, May 1989.
Jenkins, T.F. et al. Development of an Analytical Method for the
Determination of Explosive Residues in Soil: Part II. Additional
Development and Ruggedness Testing. CRREL Report 88-8, July 1988.
363
-------
Contact: Martin Stutz
CETHA-TS-C
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1568
364
-------
Category:
Purpose:
151. FIELD PORTABLE INSTRUMENTATION -
X-RAY FLUORESCENCE
III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
To develop a rapid method to determine explosives in environmental samples in the
field.
Application: The method is applicable for the determination of TNT, RDX, DNT, nitroaromatics,
and nitramines in soil and water.
Description: Soil is shaken with acetone to extract munitions residues and the extracts are
filtered. The method then depends on the production of colored reaction products
when these extracts are subjected to two reaction sequences. For TNT, the extract is
reacted with a strong base, with development of a red color indicating the presence of
TNT. For RDX, the extract is passed through a disposable anion exchange cartridge,
acidified, and reacted with zinc metal. The resulting solution is filtered and a Hach
NITRA VER II™ powder pillow is added. The development of a red or orange color
indicates the presence of RDX. These colored reaction products are then analyzed
with a small, field-portable spectrophotometer to measure accurately the degree of
color formed (figure 151). The method is semi-quantitative - concentrations in the
range of ug/L in water and ug/g in soils can be determined.
Advantages: The method is rapid, low-cost, does not require highly trained personnel, and can be
used with a low volume of contaminated material.
Limitations: The method is not specific, i.e., color development will not differentiate between the
various nitroaromatics.
Costs: The cost of the method is around $50 per sample, excluding initial costs for the
analytical equipment.
Availability: Equipment and chemicals to perform the method are readily commercially available.
Status: The method was developed at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory (CRREL), Hanover, NH. Initial field testing for RDX detection was
performed at Eagle River Flats, AK The method has been promulgated, and results
using the method are accepted.
References: Walsh, M.E. and T.F. Jenkins. Development of a Field Screening Method for
RDX in Soil. CRREL Special Report 91-7, 1991.
Walsh, M.E. and T.F. Jenkins. Field Screening Method for 2,4-DNT in Soil.
CRREL Special Report 91-17, 1991.
Soil Contamination. Army Environmental Sciences, 9(2):12-13, Winter 1991.
Jenkins, T.F. Development of a Simplified Field Method for the
Determination of TNT in soil. CRREL Special Report 90-38, 1990.
365
-------
Contact: Martin Stutz
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-C
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410-671-1568
SOIL SAMPLE
EXTRACT WITH ACETONE
OBTAIN INITIAL ABSORBANCE AT 540 nm
TNT PROCEDURE
RDX PROCEDURE
I
Add KOH + Na2SO3
Pass Through
Anion Exchange
I
Add Zinc and Acetic Acid
Add NitraVer III
Powder Pillow
Obtain Absorbance at 540 nm
Obtain Absorbance at 507 nm
Figure 151. Schematic diagram of procedures for determining TNT and RDX in the field.
366
-------
Category:
Purpose:
152. EXTERIOR LEAK DETECTION FOR
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
To provide early leak detection of leaks associated with underground storage tanks
(UST).
Applications The methods are applicable for early detection of fuel leaks in USTs and possibly
plume monitoring. A review of technical and marketing literature identified
monitoring devices that were representative of the technologies available in 1987 and
is the basis for the information in this technical note.
Description: 1. Continuous, Saturated Zone (Liquid Phase) Monitors. The Leak-X™
System is a continuous liquid-phase detection technique. The operation of the sensor
is based on the principle of thermal conductivity. It monitors the fluid conductivity
at the air-water interface, and the manufacturer claims that it can detect a 0.125-
inch layer of oil-on-water. The system has been used in the field for more than 10
years. It may be subject to interferences such as ice or biofouling (for example, float
mechanism may fail because of ice or physical obstacles). The system includes an
audible and visual alarm and can be interfaced with computers, central alarms, strip
chart recorders, shutdown valves, and telephone lines. It does not measure
concentration. Each monitor can handle 10 sensors. Depending on the number of
sensors, the maximum distance between monitor and sensors ranges from 1,000 to
4,000 ft
The TCI™ Leak Detector is a continuous liquid monitoring system whose sensor is
product soluble. The monitor continuously reads a lOOK-ohm resister that has been
placed at the end of the sensing probe. When the probe is immersed in fuel, the
insulation jacket dissolves causing the conductor wires to make contact and signal an
alarm. The sensor cable reaction time for fuel oil No. 1 is 4 hours; it can detect a
1/100 inch layer of hydrocarbon liquid. The sensor jacket is not affected by water
and, therefore, this device may be particularly useful for areas with saturated or
variable water tables. The TCI system has been on the market since 1971 and has a
10-year warranty. TCI also makes a sensor cable which may be installed in the
annular spaces of piping systems. Sensor cables need to be replaced after exposure
to hydrocarbons. The system does not have data collection capability but only
activates an alarm. It does not measure concentration and is not capable of
distinguishing between a new release and past contamination. Each monitor can
handle up to 10 sensors. The system can be used to monitor for fuel release for
pipelines.
The Petrochemical Release Monitor (PRM) is a continuous product device for
detecting liquid hydrocarbons. The sensors can detect less then 0.1-inch of
hydrocarbons at the water/air interface. An audio alarm indicates the presence of a
leak, and a visual alarm identifies the sensor which detected the leak. The system
will also respond to vapors. For gasoline vapors, it is activated after 5-hour exposure
to 500 ppm or 1-hour exposure to more than 25,000 ppm. Sensors need to be replaced
after exposure to hydrocarbons. The sensor cannot distinguish between previous
and new releases. The system does not have data collection capability but only
activates an alarm. It does not measure concentration. The system can handle up to
367
-------
eight monitoring points. The maximum distance between sensors and monitor is
more than 1 mile.
FiberChem, Inc. is developing a gasoline sensor which consists of a fiber optic
chemical sensor (FOGS) and a reader. The FOGS consists of an inexpensive
fiberoptic cable which has a chemical coating (sensor) at the end. The reader consists
of a light source which sends the light down the fiber optic to the chemical sensor.
There, the light characteristics are changed and return up the same fiber to the
reader for a reading of the ppm of gasoline. The device could possibly be used for
monitoring JP-4 vapors in the vadose zone as well. The system has data-collection
capability. The response to hydrocarbons is reversible with approximately 2 to 3
seconds time lag. It measures concentrations for both dissolved and vapor-phase
hydrocarbons. It is sensitive down to ppm level (possibly ppb). Having the capability
to measure both dissolved and vapor-phase concentrations gives this system the
potential to distinguish new releases from past contamination. Size of sensor is very
small, approximately the size of a pencil tip. One reader is capable of supporting
many devices and is dependent on the switching or multiplexing device.
2. Continuous, Vadose Zone (Gas Phase) Monitors. USD manufactures
the Leak Alert™ system which is a vapor phase continuous monitoring system with
both visual and audible warnings. It detects vapors generated by leaking fluids. The
level at which the warning system is activated can be field adjusted for background
vapor correction. The sensor is a metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) type.
Components of an MOS system include a heater and a collector embedded in a solid
state cell. The cell is composed of metal and nonmetal oxides of transition elements.
Hydrocarbon vapor molecules are dissociated into charged ions or ion complexes on
the surface of the sensor, changing the electrical resistance of the junction. The
vapor concentration can be determined from the proportional change in resistance.
Depending on the vapor type, the sensor has a detection limit of approximately 200
ppm. The system can be computer interfaced for data handling. It measures total
vapor concentration but not specific component concentration. The sensor may be
subject to interferences, such as methane. It may not be suitable for sites with very
high hydrocarbon vapor background from past contamination. The detector may
saturate at vapor concentrations above 7,500 ppm. The option available for sites
with background above 5,000 ppm is to use a catalytic sensor with the same Leak
Alert/Software System manufactured by the same company. The maximum distance
between monitor and sensors is 3,000 ft. It can accommodate up to 48 monitoring
locations. It has data collection and computer interfacing capability as well as visual
and audible alarms.
The Arizona Instruments system, Oil Sentry 17-100 Lhis™, is a vapor-sensing
system consisting of an aspirator pump for vapor collection, a bulk semiconductor
(metal oxide semiconductor, MOS) vapor analyzer, a manifold assemble with solenoid
valves allowing selective sampling at multiple locations, a microprocessor, an alarm
system, and printer. The monitoring probes consist of 0.5-in. id PVC pipe with 0.01-
in. slots. Tubing (1/4 in. id.) is used to connect the module to the remote probes. Air
samples from the probes are analyzed in the module for vapor content. The detection
limit is approximately 100 ppm (depending on product type). An optional software
package allows storage and display of vapor concentrations versus time on any
monitoring well, as well as monitoring of alarm events. The device may be subject to
interferences such as methane and vapor losses in the tubing. It is suitable for sites
with very high hydrocarbon vapor background concentrations from past
contamination. The saturation level of the detector is higher than 30,000 ppm. It
measures total vapor concentration but not specific compound concentration. The
368
-------
maximum distance between monitor and sensor is 500 ft. It has data collection and
computer capability as well as audible and visual alarm. It can accommodate up to
12 monitoring locations. Sub-zero degree temperature may cause operational
problems.
The model PM 3000™ is a microprocessor-based program control unit equipped with
eight independent diffusion sensors (adsistor type). Hydrocarbon vapors diffuse into
the sensor. When they contact the adsorptive material, a resistance change occurs.
No heating element is used. The major atmospheric gases are not detected and are
not interferants. The sensor measures total vapor concentration but not specific
component concentration. The claimed detection limit is 150 ppm, and the sensor
active radius is 20 ft. The device may not be suitable for sites with high vapor
background. The saturation level of the detector is 4,000 ppm. The maximum
distance between monitor and sensor is 2,000 ft. The system has data collection
capability and can activate a visual or audible alarm. It can accommodate eight
monitoring locations (up to 128 with a multiplexer).
3. Intermittent Vadose Zone (Gas Phase) Monitoring. This type of
monitoring was not evaluated for the AFCESA research project because it could not
identify past contamination. It has been used for identification of active leaks in
USTs. The system described below has been tested with some success at a number of
Air Force installations. Tracer Research Corp. (TRC) developed a tracer leak
detection method for monthly tank leak testing and monitoring. This technology
offers several options that have not been possible with many existing techniques. In
particular, the tracer method has the unique ability of testing tanks without being
filled or emptied of product or taken out of service for leak test. The monthly leak
test is able to detect very small amounts of leakage (0.01 gallon per hour). The
tracer leak detection system uses a volatile chemical (tracer) placed in the stored fuel
(product). The tracer is continuously added to the fuel from a dispenser that is
placed inside the tank. If the fuel leaks out of the tank, the tracer evaporates out of
the fuel and diffuses into the air spaces of the soil. A vapor probe is placed in the
backfill adjacent to the tank. Air is continuously evacuated from the vapor probe.
The air is analyzed for the tracer on a regular basis, typically each month. A leak
located in the saturated zone can also be detected, but additional labor-intensive
measures may be necessary, such as emptying the tank, use of water sensitive
pastes, and examination of ground water samples. The frequency of sample analysis
(every 30 days) may not be sufficient for prompt leak detection.
Advantages: These methods are less labor intensive, more cost effective, and give information in
relatively real-time to provide immediate detection of problems. Centralized and
continuous monitoring provide a historical record.
Limitations: Instrumentation may not differentiate between old and new storage tank leaks.
Detection devices may not detect leaks within the regulatory limitations on vapor
monitoring. Monitoring devices may detect leaks only, not providing a quantitative
analysis on the leak detected.
Cost:
Costs given here are based on information from 1987.
Leak-X System - Suggested costs for the monitor and annunciator are $2,145 and
$825 per sensor.
TCI Leak Detector - The monitor console is approximately $1,000 and the sensors
are $100 to $160 each.
369
-------
Petrochemical Release Monitor (PRM) - The cost for a remote station with four
probes is approximately $1,600.
FiberChem -- Prototype version was used for the test. No cost is available.
USDs Leak Alert System -- The total cost for 16 sensors, the monitor, the software,
and the PC is $12,300.
Arizona Instruments Soil Sentry 17-100L - The suggested cost of the system is
$4,850 plus the cost of the PVC tubes for 12 monitoring wells.
PPM 3000 -- is priced at $l,395/monitor plus $510/sensor, i.e., approximately $10,000
for 16 monitoring points.
TRC -- The cost involved for implementing the system is $1,000 per 3 to 4 monitoring
points, plus $35 per sample analysis per Remote Sensing.
Availability: All systems are commercially available.
Status: These devices have been laboratory tested by Battelle in Columbus, OH.
References: Hokanson, L.D. Exterior Leak Detection for Underground Storage Tanks,
Status Report. Tyndall AFB, May 1989.
Wickramanayke, G.B., et al. Testing of Monitoring Devices for JP-4 Releases
in the Subsurface. Environics Division, USAF Engineering & Services Laboratory
Report ESL-TR-89-46, 1989.
Contact: Bruce J. Nielsen
Environmental Engineer
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-6011
370
-------
153. PORTABLE ASBESTOS MICROSCOPE
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To provide a field-portable means for the qualitative identification of asbestos
materials.
Application: The method is applicable for the field identification of asbestos materials.
Description: The system includes a customized, commercially available microscope having
polarized light capabilities and a manual that describes how to prepare samples and
conduct the microscopic examination. Reference slides of asbestos and non-asbestos
fibers are provided. The entire system is packed in a small, padded case for
transportation to the field.
Advantages: Traditionally, samples have been shipped to a laboratory for analysis. Depending
upon the laboratory, turnaround time can be on the order of weeks or months. This
method enables on-the-spot identification of asbestos materials, so that a course of
action can be determined more rapidly. Savings in time and money will result from
the availability of such a system. Job interruptions while waiting for analytical
results will be eliminated. The polarized light microscopy method of asbestos
identification is authorized by the EPA.
Limitations: The capability of the method would be limited by the completeness of sample
collection and training of the technician.
The system is expected to cost about $5,000 and training. About 1 week will be
required to train a technician (see cited references).
Costs:
Availability: The asbestos microscope is available from Hygeia, Inc.
Status: Field testing is underway.
References: Spooner, C.M., Polarizing Light Microscopy Manual. Hygeia, Inc., Nov 1986.
Asbestos Microscope. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CERL Fact Sheet, Feb 1987.
Contact: Bernard A. Donahue
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-352-6511, 800-USA-CERL
371
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
372
-------
154. GEOSTATISTICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SOFTWARE
VERSION 1.2.1
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To perform geostatistical analyses on spatially distributed data collected during site
investigation and remediation.
Application: The software package is public domain software collected since 1986 for geostatistical
evaluation of data collected at hazardous waste sites. These may be used as a data
management system or to interpret data that are collected during investigation.
Description: Geostatistical methods are useful for site assessment and monitoring situations
where data are collected on a spatial network of sampling locations, and are
particularly suited to cases where contour maps of pollutant concentration (or other
variables are desired. Examples of environmental applications include lead and
cadmium concentrations in soils surrounding smelter sites, outdoor atmosphere nitric
oxide (NC>2) concentrations in metropolitan areas, and regional sulfate deposition in
rainfall. Kriging is a weighted moving average method used to interpolate values
from a sample data set onto a grid of points for contouring. The kriging weights are
computed from a variogram, which measures the degree of correlation among sample
values in the area as a function of the distance and direction between samples.
Estimation of the variogram from the sample data is a critical part of a geostatistical
study. The procedure involves interpretation and judgment, and often requires a
large number of trial and error computer runs. The lack of inexpensive, easy-to-use
software has prevented many people from acquiring the experience necessary to use
geostatistical methods effectively. The software is designed to make it easy for the
novice to begin using geostatistical methods and to learn by doing, as well as to
provide sufficient power and flexibility for the experienced user to solve real-world
problems. The software package is called Geostatistical Environmental Assessment
Software (Geo-EAS) Version 1.2.1, released in June 1990. The software package
includes:
(1) Data Files - The Geo-EAS programs use a simple ASCII file structure for
input;
(2) Menu Screens - All Geo-EAS programs are controlled interactively through
menu screens which permit the user to select options and enter control
parameters;
(3) File Utilities - The DATAPREP and TRANS programs provide capability for
manipulating Geo-EAS data files;
(4) Variogram Analysis - The PREVAR program creates an intermediate binary
file of data pairs for use in VARIO, which computes and displays plots of
variograms for specified distance and directional limits. XVALID is a cross-
validation program which can test a variogram model by estimating values at
sampled locations from surrounding data and comparing the estimates with the
known sample values;
373
-------
(5) Interpolation - The KRIGE program provides kriged estimates for a two-
dimensional grid of points or blocks;
(6) Contour Maps - CONREC is a program which generates contour maps from a
gridded Geo-EAS data file, usually the output from KRIGE;
(7) DATA Maps - POSTPLOT creates a map of a data variable in a Geo-EAS data
file;
(8) Univariate Statistics - STAT1 computes univariate statistics such as mean,
standard deviation, etc. for variables in a Geo-EAS data file, and plots
histograms and probability plots;
(9) X-Y Plots - SCATTER and XYGRAPH both create x-y plots with optional
linear regression for any two variables in a Geo-EAS data file; and
(10) Pen Plotting - The POSTPLOT, XYGRAPH, and CONREC programs are all
based on subroutines originally developed by the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and produce graphics metafiles which can be
saved and replotted later. HPPLOT reads a metafile and produces a file of
HPGL commands which can be plotted on Hewlett-Packard compatible plotters.
VIEW reads a metafile and displays the plot on the monitor for review.
Advantages: The software is easily used by the beginner.
Limitations: Not available.
Costs: The cost of postage and discs provided for transfer of the software.
Availability: The Geo-EAS software in its executable form is entirely in the public domain, and
can be obtained free of charge by sending the appropriate number of pre-formatted
diskettes to the contact below.
Status: Not applicable.
References: GEO-EAS 1.2.1 User's Guide, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
EPA/600/8-917008, Apr 1991.
Contact: Evan Englund (Geo-EAS)
USEPA EMSL, EAD
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
702-798-2248
374
-------
155. GEOPHYSICS ADVISOR EXPERT SYSTEM
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: The expert system is designed to assist and educate non-geophysicists in the use of
geophysical methods at hazardous waste sites.
Application: This is another decision making tool to assist in selection of the geophysical
method(s) that may be used in hazardous waste site assessment/delineation.
Description: The program asks questions about a site and the contamination problem. Questions
about the types of cultural noise are also addressed. Over 90 questions are in the
program. The total number of questions asked, however, varies depending upon the
answers to initial questions. The program considers the following geophysical
methods: electromagnetic induction, d.c. resistivity, ground penetrating radar,
magnetic, seismic, soil gas, gravity, and radiometric techniques (see notes 137 and
156). Based upon the answers given, the program recommends what types of
geophysics will most likely be useful at the site to solve problems such as
contaminant location and hydrogeological characterization of the site. A relative
numerical ranking of the various methods is produced, with a method receiving a
recommended, not recommended, or uncertain effectiveness evaluation. The program
also annotates why the various geophysical techniques will likely work or not work at
the site.
Advantages: The expert system allows the non-geophysicist to select the geophysical method
needed to evaluate the site.
Limitations: Not available.
Cost: Not available.
Availability: The software is available through U.S. EPA, Las Vegas, NV.
References: Olhoeft, G.R., Geophysics Advisor Expert System, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report EPA/600/X-88/257, Jun 1988.
Contact: Aldo T. Mazzella
Advanced Monitoring Systems Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
P. 0. Box 93478
Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-3478
702-798-2368
375
-------
- - This page intentionally left blank -
376
-------
156. GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES
Category: III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development
Purpose: To locate organic contamination in the subsurface without drilling core holes or
monitoring wells. Pollution plumes in groundwater may be delineated by applying
one or more of these techniques during site investigations. One or more of these
techniques may be used in tracking movement of pollution plumes after detection and
delineation.
Application: These techniques can be used for defining natural geologic features and locating
conductive leachates, contaminant plumes, buried trenches, and metal objects.
Description: Electromagnetic (EM) Induction. A geophysical technique that is readily
available commercially and quickly acquires data for electrical conductivity over a
large area. Data are acquired by transmitting a signal from a transmitter coil and
measuring the perturbation in the signal at the receiver coil (see figure 156a). The
perturbation is due to the presence of nearby conductive materials such as metal
objects and the earth, and is proportional to the conductivity of these materials.
Depth of electromagnetic penetration is a function of coil spacing, signal frequency,
and electrical conductivity. These depths are typically on the order of meters to tens
of meters with hand-held instruments. A variety of commercially available
instruments can be used to explore different depths, depending on the conductivity of
the surface. If the site relief, i.e., change in surface elevation across the site, is
greater than 1 meter, the data may require topographic correction. This correction
accounts for the changing distance from the surface of the earth to the water table,
which is a conductive feature. Nearby utilities, gas pipelines, power and telephone
lines, radio and radar transmitters, and metal fences and debris can interfere with
the measurements. Variations on an electrical conductivity map can represent
changes in porosity, water saturation level, salinity of the ground water, or the
presence of clay lenses. Such a map generally can illustrate the uniformity of a site
subsurface.
Direct Current (DC) and Complex Resistivity. A commercially available
geophysical technique. The DC resistivity method makes physical contact with the
earth using shallow (< 0.3-meter) electrodes (see figure 156b). By establishing a
current between two electrodes and measuring the potential difference between a
second set of electrodes, the apparent resistivity of the earth is measured.
Interpretation of these data can indicate various layers, which may correspond to the
depths of the water table, aquitards, and bedrock. The geometry of the electrode
arrays and spacing determines the depth of investigation. Increasing the electrode
spacing samples a greater depth and volume of earth. The technique requires more
time than EM to cover a given area. Resistivity soundings, however, can give more
detailed depth profiles than commercially available EM methods. The technique
requires topographic correction and may also be subject to interference from utilities.
It is possible to perform DC resistivity measurements without interference nearer to
metal objects such as fences, than EM measurements can be performed. The direct
current resistivity method can be used with a single spacing or a series of spacings
(as described above for EM method) for profiling and mapping, at one depth or a
series of depths. Complex resistivity is the technique of measuring resistivity in both
magnitude and phase as a function of frequency (sometimes called induced
377
-------
polarization). The technique requires costly equipment and more time than
conventional resistivity and is thus more expensive. However, the frequency-
dependent measurement gives information about active chemical processes in the
earth as well as the same information acquired by EM or conventional resistivity.
This technique has shown the ability to detect and map organic materials in the
presence of clay by mapping clay-organic reactions. There are few available
commercial sources for this technique.
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR). Readily available commercially, GPR rapidly
provides very high spatial resolution for a large area, can make useful measurements
close to utilities, but is more expensive than EM or resistivity. GPR emits
electromagnetic waves at frequencies selected in the range of 80 to 1,000 MHz. The
wave fronts are reflected when they encounter contrasts in the dielectric constant,
such as the water table, bedrock, and clay layers (see figure 156c). The reflected
waves are plotted as a function of depth, and topographic correction is required. The
depth of penetration is controlled by the intrinsic conductivity of the earth, the
amount of inhomogeneity in the earth, and the amount of clay and water present. In
clay-free sand with resistivity above 30 ohm-meters, the GPR can map bedding and
stratigraphy, water tables, bedrock interfaces, and other features with dielectric
contrasts at a resolution of a few centimeters to depths of 30 meters.
Montmorillonite clay at a concentration of 5 to 10 % by weight will reduce the depth
of penetration to less than one meter. As dielectric contrasts do exist between most
earth materials and many organic substances, it is possible to detect certain kinds of
organics with ground-penetrating radar.
Seismic Techniques. Seismic compressional and shear wave reflection and
refraction techniques are readily available commercially and can be used to
determine stratigraphic and lithologic layer thicknesses and depths (see figure 156d).
Seismic waves in the subsurface travel at different speeds in various types of soil
and rock and are refracted and reflected (bent) at interfaces between layers.
Geophones spaced at intervals on the surface can detect these waves; from this
information, travel time can be determined. This enables the number and thickness
of layers as well as their depth and the seismic velocity of each layer to be determined
also. Topographic correction is required. Seismic refraction works if each
successively deeper layer has higher propagation velocity, i.e., is more dense. Both
seismic techniques can provide information at great depths, but they do not easily
provide information on features shallower than 3 meters (10 ft). Seismographs and
geophones are commercially available. A sledge hammer striking a steel plate on the
ground, or if there is no explosive danger, a specialized shotgun or explosives, are
examples of suitable sources of seismic energy. Any nearby loud noise source such as
a busy highway or construction may interfere with the survey. Seismic techniques
are not as rapid as EM and GPR. The seismic techniques work best in competent
materials and perform very poorly in loose materials. In clay-free sandy soils, GPR
will work better than seismic techniques and with higher resolution. In clay-bearing
soils, seismic techniques will work better than GPR. Marine seismic techniques are
useful in mapping stratigraphy below rivers and lakes. As there are no acoustic
contrasts between geological materials and organic contaminants, seismic techniques
cannot directly map organic contamination.
Magnetometry. An inexpensive, readily available technique that measures the
intensity of the earth's magnetic field. The presence of ferrous objects, such as iron
drums, creates a perturbation in the local strength of the earth's magnetic field (see
figure 156e). The change in the strength is proportional to the mass of the object.
Detection of these ferrous objects depends on the mass, magnetic properties,
378
-------
orientation, and depth of the object; the intensity and direction of the earth's
magnetic field; and the sensitivity of the magnetometer. A large number of
magnetometers are available commercially; two common types are the fluxgate and
proton magnetometers. The fluxgate measures a component of the magnetic field,
and the proton magnetometer measures the total magnetic field. Magnetic field
measurements can be made in two ways: the magnetic field can be measured, or a
difference, or gradient, can be determined between two different points. Total field
measurements are more sensitive, but are also more susceptible to noise than the
gradient measurements. Cultural features such as buried pipes, metal buildings,
and magnetic properties of the soil may interfere with the measurements. This
technique can detect buried drums, define boundaries of trenches filled with drums
or other steel objects, and locate iron pipes or tanks.
Geophysical Diffraction Tomography (GDT). A seismic technique used in
locating buried drums in landfills that are hazardous waste sites. Data collection is
the same as refraction seismic. The process allows for bending of the waves that are
propagated from the surface source as they pass from one subsurface formation to
another subsurface formation instead of processing the waves as moving in straight
lines as is usually done. This processing technique gives better definition of buried
objects at shallow depths. Organic gases are not detected by this technique, but it
allows better definition of possible point sources of pollutants.
Advantages: These techniques allow detection of organic contaminants and/or detection of buried
drums that may contain organic contaminants without coring or drilling of
monitoring wells. Movement of contaminants in an aquifer may be mapped without
drilling monitoring wells. GDT is a self-contained system based on 386-PC software
and may be integrated with use of the cone penetrometer.
Limitations: Specific organic contaminants are not identified using these techniques.
Interpretation of the data gathered through geophysical techniques is slower than
other methods because the data must be processed before interpretation. Cultural
features may interfere with data gathering. Shallow resolution for processed seismic
data may not be of the quality that can be interpreted (<3 meters) without special
processing.
Cost: GDT is approximately $1,000 per day to operate plus computer processing of data
and interpretation by a specialist. Costs are not available for the other techniques.
Availability: All techniques are commercially available.
Status: Field testing has been conducted at Holloman AFB, NM, and Robins AFB, GA. GDT
has been tested as follows: bench-scale phase, field-pilot phase, and limited-trial
implementation at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and full-scale implementation at
Ft. Rucker, AL, in Oct 1988.
References: Rudy, R.J., B.R. Levine, and S.O. Sanborn. Integration of Several Geophysical
Techniques to Optimize Sampling Resources at an 80-Acre Sanitary
Landfill, Naval Air Station Pensacola. Proc. 18th Environmental Symposium
and Exhibition, Feb 1992.
Witten, A. and J.E. Molyneux. Geophysical Imaging With Arbitrary Source
Illumination, Reprinted From IEEE Transactions On Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, Vol. 26, No. 4, July 1988.
379
-------
King, W.C., A.J. Witten, and G.D. Reed. Detection and Imaging of Buried Waste
Using Seismic Wave Propagation, July 1988.
Pitchford, A.M., A.T. Mazzella, and KR. Scarborough. Soil-Gas and Geophysical
Techniques for Detection of Subsurface Organic Contamination, AFESC
Report ESL-TR- 87-67, Nov 1987.
Witten, A.J. and E. Long. Shallow Applications of Geophysical Diffraction
Tomography, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 24, No. 5
Sep 1986.
Contact: Bruce J. Nielsen
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
904-283-2942
Dr. Dwain Butler
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEWES-GG-F
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Phone: 601-634-2127
380
-------
Coil
INDUCED
CURRENT
LOOPS
SECONDARY FIELDS
FROM CURRENT LOOPS
SENSED BY
RECEIVER COIL
Figure 156a. Conceptual design for an electromagnetic induction system.
381
-------
CURRENT
SOURCE
CURRENT
METER
CURRENT FLOW
THROUGH EARTH
CURRENT
VOLTAGE
Small
Electrode Spacing
Large
Electrode Spacing
Pi, High
P2, Low
T
Figure 156b. Conceptual diagram for a direct current resistivity system (top) and effect of varying
electrode spacing on volume of earth sampled (below)..
382
-------
ANTENNA
5-300 METER
CABLE
CONTROLLER
RADAR
WAVEFORM
GRAPHIC
RECORDER
TAPE
RECORDER
GROUND SURFACE
SOIL
\
ROCK
Figure 156c. Conceptual diagram for a ground-penetrating radar system.
383
-------
Hammer
Source
Figure 156d. Conceptual diagram of a seismic refraction system.
384
-------
Amplifers
and
Counter
Circuits
Chart and
Mag Tape
Recorders
Exitation
Circuits
Ground Surface
Figure 156e. Conceptual diagram for a magnetometer.
385
-------
- This page intentionally left blank -
386
-------
157. X-RAY FLUORESCENCE FIELD METHOD FOR SCREENING
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Category:
Purpose:
Application:
III. Analytical Methods and Instrumentation Development.
Field screening method for inorganic contaminants.
This method is applicable for the detection, measurement, and mapping of inorganic
contaminants at low-to-moderate ppm levels in soils and waste.
Description: Methodology for rapid field screening of inorganic contaminants has been developed
using portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzers. Measurements can be made in
situ or in a field laboratory for a small fraction of the cost of conventional laboratory
analysis. Detection limits vary depending on matrix effects, instrumentation, and
sample particle size, but generally range from tens of parts per million to tenths of
percent.
Advantages: Method is rapid and inexpensive.
Limitations: Sensitivity without extensive sample preparation.
Costs: Unavailable at the present time.
Availability: Commercially available.
Status: Widely used in mining exploration and used routinely for lead screening.
References: Simmons, M.S., Editor. Hazardous Waste Measurements - Chapter 9. Lewis
Publishers, Inc., 1991.
Contact: Larry Eccles
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 80193-3478
702-798-2385
387
-------
- - This page intentionally left blank -
388
------- |