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 ------- |