S-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: 9200.5-2151
October 1990
Superfund Design and
Construction Update
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS - 220W
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 4 Number 4
INCINERATION COMPLETE AT BOG CREEK FARM (IN
REGION II) mm^—i^^—^mm—^—^^m—
The on-site incineration of approxi-
mately 15,000 cubic yards of con-
taminated soil at the Bog Creek Farm
Superfund Site in Region II was com-
pleted on Wednesday, July 11,1990.
Chemical wastes were disposed of
in a trench at the Bog Creek Farm site
between 1973 and 1974. Late in 1974,
the property owner removed a por-
tion of the waste from the trench
disposal area. Some of the remain-
ing chemicals migrated from the
waste disposal area to the ground-
water, then downgradient to a man-
made pond and a bog along the
northern border of the site and to the
north branch of the Squankum Brook
which runs adjacent to the site.
A Remedial Investigation/Feasibil-
ity Study(RI/FS), conducted in 1984,
indicated that soil near the waste
trench was highly contaminated,
primarily with volatileorganic com-
pounds. The pond and the bog were
also contaminated as migrating com-
pounds accumulated in these areas.
The Record of Decision (ROD),
signed on September 30, 1985, se-
lected excavation and incineration
as the remedy for the contaminated
material and recommended addi-
tional studies of thegroundwater. A
supplemental RI/FS, completed in
1988, found elevated levels of or-
ganic contaminants in the ground-
water and the sediments in a portion
of the Squankum Brook. The con-
taminated sediments in the north
branch of the Squankum Brook were
identified for remediation in the
second phase ROD signed on June
28,1989.
A $14.2 million contract for incinera-
tion of the contaminated material
was awarded to Chemical Waste
Management on January 27, 1989.
Mobilization at the site began in
October 1989. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers was responsible for ad-
ministration of the contract and
oversight of cleanup work at the site.
The work at the site included the
following:
• Excavation of approximately 15,500
cubic yards of contaminated material.
Sheet piling was driven around the pe-
rimeter of the trench, bog, and pond ex-
cavations to reduce the flow ofwastewa-
ter to these areas. The remainder of the
water was collected by a series of well-
points and treated in the aqueous
waste treatment system (AWTS). The
excavation areas were backfilled with
treated soil.
• Constructionof the AWTS consisting
of a metals precipation, air stripping
andcarbonadsorption. Thetreatedwater
from the AWTS was used as quench
water in the incinerator.
• Temporary relocation of a portion of
the stream, removal and incineration of
the sediments and restoration of the
stream to its original location.
• Assembly of a mobile Thermal De-
struction Unit (TDU) on-site.
A Rotary Kiln Incinerator was used
to remove the contaminants from
the soil. The kiln was 75 feet in di-
ameterand45feetinlength. The soil
was heated to a minimum tempera-
ture of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit with
a minimum residence time of 35
minutes. The feed rate to the kiln
was approximately 20 tons of soil
per hour.
A Wet Ash Quench System, whose
function was to minimizedust emis-
sions and promote compaction, fol-
lowed the kiln. In addition to the
treated water from the AWTS,
quench water wasalsoavailablefrom
a well on-site which was capable of
delivering 300 gallons per minute
(GPM). From the quench system,
the soil was conveyed to a storage
area where it wassampled and tested
before being backfilled in the exca-
vation area.
After leaving the Kiln, the gases
entetered the Cyclone which re-
moved 90 percent of the entrained
continued on page 2.
-------
BOG CREEK FARM
continued from page 1.
soil particles. The Secondary Com-
bustion Chamber (SCC)followed the
Cyclone and operated at a tempera-
ture of at least 1800 degrees Fahren-
heit. Exiting gases from the 5CC en-
tered a Quench Tower where they
were cooled by water sprays to a
temperature of less than 400 degrees
Fahrenheit. The gases then entered
the Baghouses where particulates
were removed. There were two
Baghousesin theTDU, each of which
contained 480 filter bags that col-
lected the particulates on their sur-
face. After the Baghouses, the gases
passed through an Acid Gas Ab-
sorber where sulfur dioxide and
hydrochloric acid was removed.
From the acid absorber, gas was
released from the stack which meas-
ured 72 feet.
Prior to commencing incineration,
the New Jersey Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (NJDEP)
granted a permit equivalency to
construct and a certificate to operate
the TDU at Bog Creek Farm. Incin-
eration of the contaminated mate-
rial was initiated on March23, 1990.
After operations began, a trial burn
was conducted to ensure that the
TDU was operating in accordance
with the requirements set forth in
the permit. During the trial burn,
waste material from the site was
spiked with napthalene and carbon
tetrachioride. These compounds
were chosenbecause they are among
the most dif flcult compounds of their
type to destroy. The TDU was re-
quired to achieve a destruction
removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99
percent. DRE refers to the amount
of material that is destroyed in the
unit and is calculated by comparing
the inlet waste concentration of a
particular compound with the con-
centration of the compound released
from the stack. Results of the trial
burn indicated that the incinerator
achieved the required DRE and was
operating within the guidelines es-
tablished by NJDEP.
Incineration concluded at 130a.m.
on Wednesday, July 11, 1990, 51
days ahead of schedule. The stream
has been returned to its original
location and backfilling of treated
soil in the excavated areas is con-
tinuing at this time. The incinera-
tor is being dismantled and decon-
taminated for use at another site.
Demobilization and site restoration
activities are expected to be com-
pleted by mid-fall. In accordance
with the second phase ROD, pump-
ing and treating of the contami-
nated groundwate will commence
shortly using the AWTS that has
been left on-site. This system is
expected to be in operation for ten
years.
If you have any questions, please
contact Romona Pezzella, RPM,
Southern New Jersey Remedial
Action Section at FFS or (212) 264-
8216 or Don Lynch, Section Chief,
Southern New Jersey Remedial
Action Section at FTSor (212) 264-
8669.
COVER (CAPPING) SYSTEMS - THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE BARRIER
MATERIALS
Cap designs at Superfund sites typi-
cally include a clay layer consisting
of two feet of low permeability com-
pacted soil. Recently, thin bentonite
day blankets, less than one inch thick,
have been proposed as substitutes
to the traditional clay barrier. In
order to better understand the pro-
posed alternatives, a two day work-
shop was held receñtlyat EPA’s Risk
Reduction Laboratory in Cincinnati,
Ohio. The workshop was organ-
ized by Dr. Walter Grube, Jr., Office
of Research and Development and
Dr. David E. Daniel, Associate Pro-
fessor, University of Texas at Austin.
Attendees included representatives
from EPA, the Department of En-
ergy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, design firms, manufacturers,
and research firms.
Bentonite clay blankets are con-
structed in a number of different
ways. One manufacturer sand-
wiches dry bentonite clay granules
between two layers of filter fabric.
Anotherbondsthedrybentoniteclay
granules to one side of a flexible
membrane. Both of the proposed
alternatives are put into place dry
with the soil’s natural moisture
causing the clay to swell, thus creat-
ing a barrier seal. When fully hy-
drated, the bentonite clay reaches a
permeability of less than I x 10 (-8).
The following chart compares the
traditional compacted soil layerand
the alternative bentonite clay blan-
ket.
Compacted Soil Layer
Thick (2 feet)
High weight
Field constructed
Difficult to construct properly
Large volume requirements
Higher Cost ($6 to $10 SF)
thw tensile resistance
Desiccation cracking possibility
Constructed with heavy equipment
Requires test pad and field testing
conwiued on page 3.
2
-------
Bentonite Clay Blanket
Thin (less than 1 inch)
Low weight
Factory manufactured
Easy to construct properly
Small volume requirements
Low cost ($030 to $0.75 SF)
Can take tension
Self healing
Light equipment needed
Field testing not required
The attendees generally agreed that
the use of the bentoni te clay blankets
should be considered, particularly
if used in combination with a flex-
ible membrane liner. Because the
bentonite becomes very slippery
when wet, the blanket must be
anchored into place when used on
slopes greater than nine percent.
Before the alternatives are accepted
for use, the attendees proposed thai
additional research be conducted
to develop data in the following
areas:
Shear strength - Long term be
havior and interfacial friction
with other components of the
cover
• Hydraulic properties - After cx
posure to freezing temperatures,
dessication, and settlement
• Seaming
• Useful life
• Quality assurance and quality
control - For manufacture, trans
port, and installation
Dr. Daniels will be preparing a more
detailed record of the workshop that
will soon be available through Dr.
Grube at FTS 684-7790 or (513) 569-
7798. Questions concerning the use
of alternative materials for covers
can be addressed to Ken Skahn,
Design and Construction Man-
agament Branch at FFS 398-8355 or
(703) 308-8355.
WASTE SITES
Dallas, Texas has been selected as
the location for the upcoming May
1-3,1991 “Conference on Design and
Construction Issues at Hazardous
Waste Sites,” sponsored by EPA and
coordinated by the Design and Con-
struction Management Branch. This
conference will provide a forum for
the exchange of technical informa-
tion within and between Federal and
State Agencies, PRPs, and the Con-
tracting Community. Technical pa-
pers will be presented, in conjunc-
tion with panel discussions, on pol-
icy/technical issues and case stud-
ies.
Topics will include:
Policy for Remedial Design and
Remedial Action activities
• Planning phase impacts on Dc
sign and Construction
• Remedial Design Activities
• Remedial Construction Activities
• Post Construction Activities (pera
lion and Maintenance, Deletion
from the NPL, Long Term Re-
sponse Actions (LTRA)
The schedule is planned as follows:
September 1990 - Call for Abstracts
March 15. 1991 - Submission of
A Conference Proceeding with pa-
pers is planned for distribution to
conference attendees either at orafter
the Conference. Regional EPA staff
as well as representatives of the
Department of Defense, the Depart-
ment of Energy, the States, and
Contractors are strongly encouraged
to participate through the submis-
sion of abstracts. For additional in-
formation regarding the Conf erence,
please contact John J. Smith, Chief,
Remedial Construction Manage-
ment Section, Design and Construc-
tion Management BranchatFi’S 398-
8351 or (703) 308-8351.
COVER (CAPPING) SYSTEMS
conwiued from page 2.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION ISSUES AT HAZARDOUS
Papers
November 1.1990 - Submission of
Abstracts
December 1.1990-Selection of Ab-
stracts
REMEDIAL
DESIGN/REMEDIAL
CONSTRUCTION
TECHNICAL ADVISORS I
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Jo Ann Griffith
Joe Cocalis
William Zobel
Ken Skahn
Tracy thy
FTS 398-8353
Fl’S 398-8356
Fl ’S 398-8354
FIS 398-8355
F l’S 398-8349
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Ed Hanlon
Ken Skahn
Ben Hamm
Ed Hanlon
Ed Hanlon
Fl ’S 398-8352
F l ’S 398-8355 I
Fl’S 398-8347 I
F S 398-8352
Fl ’S 398 -8352J
3
-------
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM VALUE
ENGINEERING REVIEWS AND VALUE ENGINEERING
CHANGE PROPOSALS
Value Engineering is a highly bene-
ficial technique to reduce unneces-
sary cost in engineered projects.
Value Engineering during design
(VE) and Value Engineering Change
Proposals during remedial action
(VECP) use systematic and creative
approaches without sacrificing the
reliability, efficiency, or original ob-
jectives of the project. These tech-
mques are widely recognized and
are required by the Office of Man-
agement and Budget (0MB Circular
No. A-131, issued January 26, 1988).
Additional information concerning
the use of Value Engineering an be
found in the February 1989 edition
of the “Design and Construction
Update.”
While there have been some excel-
lent success stories with VE in the
Superfund program, experience
suggests that confusion exists over
the role of EPA’s Regional Project
Manager (RPM) in the process. The
majority of the technical decisions
needed to implement recommenda-
tions from VE during design and
VECPs during remedial action have
no adverse impacts on project objec-
tives or schedules and can result in
substantial cost savings. In those
cases, the RPM’s role in the VE proc-
ess is minimal. However, for those
situations where VE recommenda-
tions adversely impact project sched-
ules, the Record of Decision (ROD),
or environmental or public health
matters, then the RPM’s role is sig-
nificant. The implementation of rec-
ommendations from yE reviews by
designers and VECPs by remedial
action contractors are usually sub-
ject to schedules specified in their
contracts, therefore timely decisions
are necessary to realize the full sav-
ings and avoid costly delays.
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Remedial designs should be sub-
ject to a formal yE screening and, if
deemed appropriate by the screen-
ing process, a formal VE study.
2. Remedial action contracts should
include a VE incentive clause to
provide the contractual mechanism
for the VECP process. The clause
should provide a specified time pe-
riod for the party contracting for the
remedial action (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation,
State, or ARCS) to conduct technical
reviews and decide on the VE change
proposals made by the RA contrac-
tor. Project schedules and operating
plans of the contracting party must
allow the VECP process to function
within the contract schedules.
3. The RPM’s review and approval
must be obtained if implement
ing the recommendations would:
a. Have an environmental or pub-
lic health impact,
b. Propose a change or variation to
the remedy specified in the ROD,
c. Increase the cost or delay the
completion of the RD or RA be
yond that specified in the Inte
agency Agreement (LAG), Coop
erative Agreement (CA), or con
tract,
d. Increase operating and snainte
nance costs, or
e. Exceed the constraints of the
project lAG, CA, or contract.
4. If the recommendations do not
meet any of the conditions stated
above, then the designer and the
party contracting for the remedial
action have the authority to imple-
ment the recommendations.
5. The designer and the party con-
tracting for the remedial action
should provide a yE report to the
EPA RPM containing the following
information:
a. The cost of the VE study or VECP
review,
b. Findings and recommendations,
c. Estimated cost savings, and
d. Reasons for rejecting any recom
mendation
6. The RPM should provide a copy
of the VE report to the Office of
Emergency Response (OERR), De-
sign and Construction Management
Branch, Superfund VE coordinator
(06-220W) to be included in an an-
nual report on Superfund VE sav-
ings. EPA’s Office of Water VE Co-
ordinator may also solicit inforina-
tion directly from the RPM.
For additional information concern-
ing the VE program contact your Re-
gion’s RD/RA Technical Advisor or
Thomas A. Whalen, P.E. at FF5 398-
8345 or (703)308-8345.
ABOUT THE UPDATE
For comments, ideas, submissions, or questions about the Update, please contact Jo Ann Griffith, Design and Construction Management
Branch, at FTS 398-8353 or commercially at (703) 308.8353. For copies, contact EPA ’s Public Information Center at FTS 382-2080 or
(202) 382-2080, or write to EPA Public Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. S.W., Washington. D.C.
20460.
4
------- |