United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati. OH 45268
EPA/540/R-94/507a
August 1994
^EPA
SITE Technology Capsule
Clean Berkshires, Inc.
Thermal Desorption System

Introduction
UA ERA Bagion 8 library
Bawtr, Colorado
In 1980. the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act (CERCLA). also known as Superfund. CERCLA Is
committed to protecting human health and the environ-
ment from the dangers posed by uncontrolled hazard-
ous waste sites. CERCLA was subsequently amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) In 1986, emphasizing long-term effectiveness and
permanent remedies at Superfund sites. SARA also en-
courages the use of alternative treatment or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent possible
to achieve these goals.
State and federal agencies as well as private parties
are now exploring a growing number of Innovative tech-
nologies for treating hazardous wastes. The sites on the
National Priorities List total over 1,200 and comprise a
broad spectrum of physical, chemical, and environmen-
tal conditions requiring varying types of remedial re-
sponses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Is leadng the effort to define polcy. technical, and
Information Issues related to developing and applying
new remediation techniques at Supeifrnd sites. One
such EPA Initiative Is 1he SupertUnd Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation (SITE) Program, which was established to
accelerate development, demonstration, and use of In-
novative technologies for site cleanups. To disseminate
Information on the latest technologies. EPA created SITE
Technology Capsules. These concise documents are de-
signed to help EPA remedtal project managers, EPA on-
scene coordnatore, contractors, and other stle cleanup
managers understand the types of data and site char-
acteristics needed to effectively evaluate a technology's
potential for clearing up Superfund sites.
This Capsule provides information oh the Clean Bertc-
ahlree, Inc. (CBI), now renamed MaxymWan Technolo-
gies, IrrcQMbrma Mtfptlon System (TDS), a technol-
ogy developed to Tiffflbve organic compounds from
soli, The CBI TDS was evaluated under EPA's SITE Pro-
gram In November/December 1993 at a former manu-
factured gas plant (MGP) site where soils are
contaminated primarily with coal coking by-products.
Information In this Capsule emphasizes specific site char-
acteristics and results from the SITE Demonstration Test,
Additional results including TDS performance at a sol
recycling site In western Massachusetts were provided
by CBI and are summarized In the Technology Status
section. This Capsule contains the foSowlrig Information:
•	Abstract
•	Technology Description
•	Technology AppBcabtlty
•	Technology Limitations
•	Process Residuals
•	Site Requirements
•	Performance Data
•	Technology Status
•	Source of Further Information
Abstract
The thermal desorption process devised by CBI uses
standard rotary kin technology to remove organic con-
tamlranh from excavated sold wastes. The process works
by vaporizing and Isolating the constituents In a gas
stream and then destroying them In a high-efficiency
afterburner. The processed solds are either reused or
disposed of as nonhazardous, depeneflng on applicable
regulations.
The CBI TDS was evaluated under the SITE Program
at the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's
Remedtattonleohnologles DenwnstrattonFadWy at Har-
bor Point In UKoa, New Yak. Haibor Point to the sHeof a
former manufactured gas plant and has been confarrt-

-------
noted with coal coking by-products. The list of primary
contaminants Include: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene (BTEX), polynuctear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), ferrlcyanlde compounds, arsenic and lead. Four
different types of MGP solid wastes were tested: (1) coke
plant residuals; (2) purifier bed wastes; (3) water gas plant
residuals; and (4) Utlca Terminal Harbor sediments. The
Demonstration Test took place between November 15
and December 13,1993.
Results from the SITE Demonstration are summarized
below:
•	The CBITDS achieved destruction and removal efficien-
cies (DREs) of 99.99% or greater In all 12 runs using total
xylenes as a volatile principal organic hazardous con-
stituent (POHC).
•	DREsof99.99%orgreaterwereachlevedlnllofl2run5
using naphthalene as a semlvolatlle POHC.
•	Average concentrations for critical pollutants In pro-
cessed solids were (estimated) 0.0$6 mg/kg>otal BTEX*
12.4 mg/kg total PAHs; and 5.4 mg/kg total cyanide.
•	The CBI TDS showed good operating stability. The range
for critical operating parameters was as follows: feed
rate, 16 to 22 tons/hr; kin sol exit temperature, 620 to
860°F; afterburner temperature, 1,810 to 11820#F; and
afterburner residence time, 0.82 to 0.87 seconds.
•	Comparison of the dry weight basis concentration of
pollutants In the feed and processed solids shows the
following average removal efficiencies: (estimated)
99.7% total BTEX; 98.6% total PAHs; and 97.5% total
cyanides.
•	Although stack emissions were generaHy In compli-
ance with applicable standards, data show sulfur diox-
ide emissions were wel above statutory limits since the
TDS was operating without any air pollution equipment
designed for scrubbing.
The CBI TDS technology was evaluated based on the
seven technical criteria used for decision making In the
SuperlUnd feasibility study (FS) process. Results of the evclu-
atlon are summarized In Table 1.
Technology Description
In general, thermal desorptton is an ex-sltu physical
separation technique that transfers contaminants from
soil and water to the gas phase. The process uses heat to
raise the temperature of organic contaminant enough
to volatfilze and separate them from a bed of contami-
nated sold waste. Temperatures are controled to pre-
vent widespread combustion since Incineration b not the
desired result. The voiaflttzed organic contaminants can
be captured by condensation or adsorption, or destroyed
by using an offfcas combustton chamber.
The CBI TDS is a direct-fired, co-current thermal
desorber based on standard rotary kin technology, it Is a
process which is composed of flvee afferent operations:
feed preparation, contaminant volatilization, and gas
treatment.
Feed preparation begins wHh a sequence consisting
of crushing, shredding, and screening 1o reduce mart-
mum particle size to SAHn. The material is then blended
by using a front-end loader to repeatedly fold the mate-
rial onto Itself as a precaution against pockets of high
BTU content sol and to distribute moisture evenly. This
step Is Important since It helps protect the system from
thermal shocks caused by oily 'hot spots* In the waste.
The prepared material Is then placed Into feed surge bins
and fed Into the kin through a two-stage conveyor belt
system.
Contaminant volatilization begins after the prepared
feed material enters the kin. The sol temperature Is In-
creased up to ~800°F through contact with an air stream
heated by a natural gas burner located at the kiln's
entrance. The kin Is equipped with speclaly designed
flights that lift and vel the soil, exposing greater surface
area to the hot gases, Improving volatilization. Treated
soli exits the kiln and enters a pug mil which combines
the material with solid residuals from the gas treatment
sequence to form a consolldgted processed soflds stream.
Water recycled from the quench tower Is added at this
time to cool the processed solids and control fugllive
dust emissions. The solids are deposited onto a dtocharge
conveyor and stockpiled.
Gas treatment begins when the kMn offgas, now flled
with volatilzed contaminants and entrained particulate,
enters a multi-stage treatment sequence. Klin offgases
are first drawn through a cyclone to remove coane
particulate matter. The gases then enter a hlgh-efftelency,
natural gas-fired afterburner which combusts organic con-
stituents at temperatures up to -1 ^00°F. A quench tower
cools the combustion gases by passing them through a
highly atomized water mist. The cooled gas stream then
enters a baghouse to remove flne-slzed tlterable particu-
late. If any acid levels are high enough to impact air
quafity standards, a scrubber could be added at this
point In the treatment sequence. Treated gases exit the
system through a 75-ft high stack. Solid residuals from gas
treatment are transferred by a screw auger to the pug
mil and are combined with the treated sod from the Ma
The TDS layout is flexible and facHtates the rear-
rangement or addition of process equipment, as required.
This permits CBI to customize operations based on site-
specific combinations of media and polutants. Figure 1 Is
a schematic diagram of the CBI TDS unit as configured
for the SfTE Demonstration Test. The TDS is transportable
and Is monitored and controled by a computer-based
data acquisition system.
Technology Applicability
in general, the CBI TDS can be appled at any Me
where the following conditions exist: the target waste
can be excavated or dredged readly for procesHria.
target pdlutantsae amenable to desofptton at kfln tem-
peratures with a capacity between 600 and 1,100»F. and
gas phase contaminants can be destroyed In an after-
burner at temperatures of 2,000*F or less.
CBI states that the TDS b capable of handng a
variety of sold waste types Including sol, sedment, and,
sludge, Within each sola waste type, the unit accepts o*
range of partlcte sizes, from granular to s«y clays. In the
SITE Demonstration Test, large chunks of debris were pul-
verized untl the maximum particle thm was reduoed to
3/44n. and ware than combined with other feed mated-
ab for routine treatment. CBI claims that sol oofrtuUng
large proportons of slit ordense clay-i» harcfean, trad£
2

-------
Table 1. Evaluation Criteria for the CBITDS

Criteria

Overall Protection
of Human Health
and the
Environment
Compliance with
Federal ARARs*
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Performance
Reduction ot
Toxicity, MoUHty,
or Volume
Through
Treatment
Short-Term
Effectiveness
ImplementablMty
Cost

Provides both short-
and long-term protec-
tion by permanently
eliminating contami-
nantslnsoU.
May require
compliance with
RCRA treatment,
storage, and land
disposal regulations.
Effectively separatee
organic contamination
from sou, and
destroys organics
in alterbumer.
Significantly
reduces toxicity,
mobility, and vol-
ume cisoU contam-
inants trnugh
treatment
Requires measures
to protect workers
and community dur-
ing excavation, han-
ding, and treatment
The system has
online efficiency
otao-Box
$75-10Mon
(which is highly
dependent on
site charac-
teristics)
1
Process control*
reduce any unac-
ceptable short-
term or cross media
Impacts.
Feed preparation,
and operation of
treatment unit may
require compliance
with State and
ARARs.
Involves well demon-
strated technique for
removal ot
contaminants.
Does not produce
any intermediates
of greater toxicity
aaaresultof
treatment
High throughput
rates of technology
can reduce overall
time tor
remedial action
Utmty require-
ments are limited
to water, electricity,
and natural gas
or fuel oH.



Emission controls
are needed to
ensure compli-
ance with air
quality standards.
Involves some
residuals treatment
or disposal.
Treatment Is
permanent.

Technology
performance
monitored by
oomputerdata
acquisition
system.




Metal bearing
wastes nor effect-
ively treated.


Thermal technol-
ogies historicaty
have had trouble
gaining commun-
ity acceptance.

'ARARs - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
tlonally a problem for other treatment technologies, have
been processed successfully by the TDS.
The CBI TDS was designed to remove volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semlvolatlle organic compounds
(SVOCs), and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). During
the Demonstration Test, the CBI TDS removed VOCs such
as BTEX; SVOCs such as naphthalene, phenanthrene,
chrysene, benzo(a)pyrene, and other PAHs; and organo-
metalllc ferrlcyanlde complexes. CBI claims that other ftJI-
scale TDS operations have been used to treat TPHs
Including gasoline and fuel oils such as No. 2 oil, cBeeel
fuel, kerosene, and, Jet fUel.
The CBI TDS does have some limitations with respect
to the characteristics of wastes It can treat (see Technol-
ogy Limitations), and, the process does generate some
residuals that require further treatment (see Process Re-
siduals). As such, the technology should not be consid-
ered entirely stand-alone.
Technology Limitations
Contaminated feed materials must have a minimum
solids content of 60% to facilitate materials handing op-
erations. It should be noted that a high moisture content
may reduce throughput only If burner capacity to ex-
ceeded. As feed material passes through the Win. energy
Is tint consumed to heat end vaporize moisture. Signifi-
cant contaminant volatilization cannot begin until most of
the moisture is driven from the teed material. In ordeMo
restore desorber throughput, higher burner thing rates or
the addition of a separate dewatedng step may be re-
quired. During the SITE Demonstration, high moisture con-
tent feed materials did not appear to have an Impact on
desorber performance.
CBI advises that the unit has a waste heat value
upper limit of approximately 300 Btus/lb. The limit was a
conservative estimate designed to ensure temperature
stability throughout the system. However, actual condi-
tions during testing Introduced waste with heat values In
excess of 3XXX) Btus/lb. For MGP wastes, the major sources
of elevated heating value are oily manufactured gas by-
products and wood chips from purifier beds, an out-
dated stack gas scrubbing process. Waste blending or
homogentoalton Is highly recommended as a means to
evenly distribute both moisture and Btu content.
Various compounds containing sullUr and cyanide
are common In MGP wastes and when treated with this
system become a potential source of air pollution. A
caustic scrubber may be required to capture the com-
bustion products of these compounds If sulfUr and cya-
nide levels are high enough to exceed health and safety
or applicable air quaflty standards.
Deatment of wastes contaminated primarily with ha-
logenated hydrocarbons can be accomplished with the
addition of air pollution control equipment since system
temperatures are above tie condensation point, pre-
venting corrosion of component! Metals that ere not
particularly volatile eve not Mceiy be treated effectively by
the TDS. If there Is a need to reduce metals concentra-
tion, a separate pre- or posMreatment step will be re-
quired. Plastic materials are not recommended for
treatment by 1tt» prooess since their decomposition prod-
ucts could cause plugging or foul surfaces.
ProcMt Residual*
The CBI TDS was designed to minimize waste streams
by combining or recyclng Intemd prooess streams wher-
3

-------
To atmosphere
Quench
tower
Stack
Prepared
Natural
Make-up
water
tank
Baghouse
Afterburner
Pugmill
Processed aoHda
stockpile area
Gas streams
Natural gas streams
Sotid/water streams
Figure 1. CBI thermal desorpthn system.
ever possible. For example, excess water from the quench
tower Is recycled In the system to control fugitive dust
emissions. As a result of Its design, the TDS generates three
residual streams: (1) screened debris rejects, (2) processed
solids, and, (3) stack gases.
Screened debris rejects for Ihe Demonstration Test
consisted primarily of a low volume of metal scraps, over-
sized wood pieces, and, articles of plastic. These Items
are currently stockpiled onslte. Other screened debris were
pulverized and combined with feed material for routine
treatment.
Internal solid residual streams generated by Ihe TDS
are combined to create a single consolidated processed
solids stream. The stream consists of particulate removed
from the gas treatment sequence and kiln solids. The
processed solids are not derived from Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA) listed wastes and do not
exhibit characteristics of hazardous waste as defined In
40 CFR 261. Preliminary results show that the processed
solids have met special slte-speclflc treatment standards
and are currently stockpiled onslte awaiting use as back-
fill In future Harbor Point projects.
Stack gas emissions from the TDS were subject to a
number of standards during the Demonstration Test In-
cluding: 40 CFR 50, National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS); Title 6 New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations (NYCRR) Part 257, Air Quality Standards; and
New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion (NYSDEC) Air Guide 1, Guidelines for the Control of
Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants. Results from the Demon-
stration Test show that average sulfur dioxide emissions
were above NYSDEC standards for each MGP waste type
tested. The addition of a caustic scrubber would be re-
quired for full-scale remediation at this site.
Site Requirements
CBI TDS equipment transportation requirements con-
sist of 15 to 20 legal and oversized truck loads of equip-
ment. Oversized loads requiring permits Include: feed bins,
Idln, cyclone, afterburner, afterburner stack base, quench
top, quench bottom, and, baghouse. For remote sites,
access roads win be necessary for equipment transport.
Once onslte, the TDS can be fully operational in approxi-
mately 1 mo. depending on wealher conditions and avatt-
abUlty of necessary facilities, equipment, utilities, and
supplies. Ihe major components of the system are de-
signed to be off-loaded directly Into place. If a suitably
constructed floor space Is not available, then, at a mini-
mum, concrete footers will be required to support system
components at several key locations. Once assembled,
the entire system has a footprint measuring 100 x 150 ft
(exclusive of materials handing and decontamination
areas). For standard operations, the system requires a
crew of 6 to 8 people. After treatment Is completed the
system can be demobilized and moved ofMte within one
mo.
Utility requirements for the CBI TDS are electricity,
water, and natural gas. The TDS requires a three-phase
transformer with 1000-ampere. 480-volt service. The fol-
lowing quantities of utilities were used (/ton of sol treated)
during the Demonstration Teat: water, 320 gal; electricity.
4

-------
18.3 kilowatt-hr; arid natural gas, 0.16 to 0.424 million Btus
(based on 1500 to 4000 SCF/ton).
Excavation of one waste type, water gas plant re-
siduals, was accomplished In a prefabricated, fully-en-
closed. mechanically-ventilated, temporary structure. The
enclosed structure was necessary due to the high level of
malodorous volatile compounds In the waste and the
proximity of the excavation pit to the surrounding com-
munity. Dredging of harbor sediments required construc-
tion of a sheetplle excavation cell and Installation of a silt
curtain to decrease the potential for harm to the aquatic
environment. The need for specialized facilities such as
these is site specific.
A method to store waste materials prepared for treat-
ment may also be necessary. Storage capacity will de-
pend on waste volume. During the Demonstration Test,
several prefabricated structures were used to house pre-
pared feed materials prior to treatment. The structures
averted a rain runoff problem and prevented windy con-
ditions from creating a dust hazard. Storage should also
be provided to hold the processed materials until they
have been tested to determine their acceptability for
disposal or reuse.
Onsite analytical equipment capable of determining
the residual concentration of organic compounds In feed
and treated materials can provide quick-turnaround In-
formation on TDS performance. Such equipment and fa-
cilities were utilized during the Demonstration Test.
Performance Data
The performance of the CBI TDS was evaluated on
four types of MGP solid wastes. These were: (1) coke plant
residuals; (2) purifier bed wastes; (3) sediments from the
Uttca Terminal Harbor; and (4) water gas plant residuals.
The four waste types were selected because they repre-
sent waste types commonly found at each of the esti-
mated 3X)00 former MGP sites located across the nation.
Maximum pollutant concentrations were 320 mg/kg BTEX;
4>420 mg/kg total PAHs; 1,120 mg/kg total cyanide; 60
mg/kg arsenic; and 320 mg/kg lead.
Three 4-hr replicate runs were conducted for each
waste type. For each run, samples were collected from
the feed sod. processed solids, cyclone solids, baghouse
solids, quench water. Intake water, and, stack gases.
Samples were analyzed for PAHs, BTEX, cyanide, and
metals. Feed soK samples were also analyzed for other
physical and chemical parameters.
Performance criteria established for the Demonstra-
tion Test Included the following:
•	Compare actual DREs against standard of99,99%.
•	Determine concentration of total PAHs, total BTEX,
and total cyanide In the processed soflds stream.
•	Evaluate the stabfllty of targeted operating param-
eters.
•	Calculate removal efficiencies for total PAHs. BTEX.
and total cyanide.
•	Ascertain whether particulate emissions are within
limits established by New York State.
• Match emissions data against New York State Air
Guide-1 Toxic Air Contaminants Standards.
Predemonstratlon sampling and analysis showed that
each of the four waste types would require spiking In
order to provide pollutant concentrations that were con-
sistent and sufficient to evaluate the DRE performance
criterion. A volatile compound (x-ylene) and a semlvolatlle
compound (naphthalene) were selected as POHCs. Each
POHC was spiked Into the feed stream Just before entry
into the kiln. DREs were calculated based on emission
results, native feed soli concentrations, and POHC spiking
rates.
DREs based on total xylenes showed compliance wllh
the 99.99% (or "four nines") standard In each of the 12
runs. Naphthalene DREs were four nines or better for 11 of
12 runs. During the first treatment run of water gas plant
residuals, total hydrocarbon analyzers at the stack sig-
naled very large Intermittent surges In unbumed hydro-
carbons. The surges were likely due to oily hot spots In the
waste and caused significant disruptions in temperature
control at critical locations within the system. The tem-
perature disruptions led to decreased afterburner effec-
tiveness. The hot spots were diagnosed in the field as
being a result of deficient waste preparation procedures.
Corrective measures were Implemented, and subsequent
treatment runs achieved four nines performance. DRE
results are summarized In Table 2.
Performance goals were not established for pollutant
concentrations In the processed solids stream prior to the
start of the demonstration due to a lack of full-scale
treatability data and an absence of regulatory bench-
marks. As such, results from the demonstration were pro-
vided to New York State to assist in the development of
guidelines for the treatment of MGP wastes by thermal
desorption technology. Average concentrations In pro-
cessed solids were (estimated) 0.066 mg/kg, total BTEX;
12.4 mg/kg, total PAHs; and 5.4 mg/kg, total cyanide.
Processed solid concentrations are summarized in Table
3.
Prior to the commencement of the Demonstration
Test, a series of experimental runs were conducted In
order to optimize several critical operating parameters for
each of the four waste types. Operating ranges were
established which would provide adequate performance
with minimum fuel cost. The following operating param-
eters were monitored during each run: soil feed rate, kiln
soil exit temperature, afterburner exit temperature, and
afterburner residence time. Table 4 summarizes average
operating conditions.
The system showed good operating stability with all
waste types. as Indicated by the relative standard devia-
tion (RSD) of each data set. The range of RSDs for each
operating parameter Is given In Table 4. However, treat-
ment of the harbor sediments and water gas plant residu-
als provided some notable lessons. Both materials had a
tendency to adhere to conveyor belt and feed hopper
surfaces, requiring a labor-Intensive effort to produce an
even flow of feed to ihe kiln. Additional moisture released
In the kin from the harbor sediments caused kDn tem-
peratures to fluctuate. Pockets of contaminants In water
gas plant residuals affected afterburner temperatures by
creating nonuniform fuel Introduction and upsets to after-
burner control loop. Impacting afterburner efficiency.
6

-------
Removal efficiencies for BTEX, PAHs, and cyanide
were determined by comparing the dry weight concen-
tration of pollutants In the native feed soil and the pro-
cessed solids. Average removal efficiencies were:
(estimated) 99.7%, total BTEX; 98.6%, total PAHs; and 97.5%,
total cyanides. If the spiking levels were considered, these
reductions would be greater. Removal efficiencies are
summarized In Table 3. Total BTEX, total PAHs, and total
cyanide concentrations In feed soil and processed solids
are Illustrated In Figures 2 through 4.
Particulate emissions from the unit are subject to
limits established In 6 NYCRR Part 212: General Process
Emissions Source. For all 12 runs, particulate emissions met
the applicable State emission limit of 0.050 grains/dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dsft3) corrected to 7% oxygen.
The NYSDEC requires a toxic ambient air quality Im-
pact analysis for all new or modified sources of air con-
taminants regulated under 6 NYCRR Part 212. The analysis,
which Is described In New York Air Gulde-1, was con-
ducted to predict the point of maximum concentration.
A standard point source method was used to predict the
site of maximum Impact. As a conservative and simple
approximation, the effective stack height was assumed
to be the physical stack height. Building cavity Impacts
were not considered because emissions are confined to
onslte receptors. Worst-case annual and short-term am-
bient Impacts were calculated for all toxic emissions emit-
ted from the TDS then compared to the appropriate
guideline concentration to assess the acceptability of
the source. For all air contaminants but one, the pre-
dicted worst-case Impact was less than the concentra-
tion listed In 1he New York Air Guide 1. Arsenic emissions
exceeded the annual guideline concentration during
coke plant waste treatment runs, and both the annual
and short-term guideline concentrations were exceeded
during purifier bed wastes treatment runs. Since this basic
screening analysis showed a higher than acceptable
Impact, a more refined air quality analysis should be
Table 2. Destruction and Removal Efficiences
Waste Type
Run
DRE Total
DRE

Xylenes
Naphthalene
Coke Plant
1
99.990%
99.998%

2
99.994
99.998

3
> 99.9992
99.998
Purifier Wastes
1
99.993
99.998

2
99.997
99.9992

3
99.998
99.9990
Harbor SedlmentB
1
99.994
> 99.997

2
99.997
> 99.997

3
99.997
99.9996
Water Gas Plant
1
99.998
99.97

2
99.998
99.998

3
99.998
99.9997
Table 3. Input/Output Solids Concentrations and Removal Efficiencies
Processed
Feed Soil	Solids	Removal
Concentration Concentration	Efficiency
Waste Type (Mg/kg) (mg/kg) (%)
BTEX
13	0.056	99.6
15	0.071	99.6
81	0.065	99.9
320	0.073	99.B
99.7
PAHs
320	13	95.9
1040	5.1	99.5
1620	5.5	99.7
4420	26	99.4
98.6
Total Cyanides
Coke Plant
730
21
97.1
Purifier Wastes
1120
0.24
99.9
Harbor Segments
9.3
0.23
97.5
Water Gas Plant
4.3
0.2
95.4
Average


97.5
conducted to accurately predict the site of maximum
concentration.
It should be noted that metal emissions. Including
arsenic, would vary depending on such factors as Input
concentration, metals species, waste matrix, organic con-
stituents and chlorine content. Emission estimates for other
waste streams treated by the TDS cannot be extrapo-
lated from the demonstration results and site-specific cal-
culations would need to be performed to determine
ambient Impacts. Upon examination of these ambient
Impacts, operating temperature, air pollution control
equipment operating parameters, and, waste stream char-
acteristics need to be analyzed to determine how best to
control metal emissions.
A continuous emissions monitor (CEM) was used to
measure oxygen (Oj), carbon dioxide (CO-), carbon mon-
oxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), end.
sulfur dioxide (SOp. NYSDEC currently has no emission
limits for any of these pollutants except SO,. The CEM
recorded levels of SO, above regulatory standards during
aH runs. Because of tne short duration of the Demonstra-
tion Test. NYSDEC allowed the system to operate without
a scrubber. However, NYSDEC would require a scrubber
to control SO. emissions If the CBI TDS was selected to
remediate the site. Stack emissions are summarized in
Table 5.
Coke Plant
Purifier Wastes
Harbor Sediments
Water Gas Plant
Average
Coke Plant
Purifier Wastes
Harbor Sediments
Water Gas Plant
Average
6

-------
Table 4. Average Targeted Operating Parameters




Parameter
Coke Plant
Purifier Wastes
Harbor Sediments
Water Gas Plant
RSD Range (%)
Feed Rate (tons/hr)
18
22
16
16
3.4-9.7
Kiln Exit
Temperature (CF)
620
860
780
820
0.9-4.9
Afterburner Exit
Temperature (°F)
1810
1810
1810
1820
0.1-0.9
Afterburner Residence
Time (seconds)
0.86
0.87
0.82
0.84
1.1-1.9
Table 5. Average Stack Emisssiona Data
Coke Plant	Purifier Wastes	Harbor Sediments	Water Gas Plant
Particulate
gr/dsffi
0.026
0.026
0.042
0.041

Ib/hr
2.66
3.18
5.46
5.03
Lead
tig/m?
17.0
76.5
13.4
34.3

Ib/hr
0.0011
0.0047
0.0009
0.0021
Arsenic
Itg/nfi
10.7
39.2
5.7
6.3

Ib/hr
0.0007
0.0024
0.0004
0.0004
CO'
ppm
<1
3
<1
5

Ib/hr
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.4
Total Hydrocarbons'
ppm
6
1
<1
1

Ib/hr
0.7
0.1
<0.1
0.1
NO/
ppm
88
91
101
121

Ib/hr
10.8
10.5
12.3
14.6
so2•
ppm
126
1020
118
353

Ib/hr
21.4
165
20.1
59.0
Physical analyses of the feed materials show that
the CBITDS was able to process different soil types with
no dlscemable effect on performance. The soil types
ranged from silly harbor sediments (39% slit/clay) to highly
granular purifier bed wastes (89% sand/gravel).
Information on capital and utility costs are prelimi-
nary. Based on preliminary data, treatment costs range
from $75 - $190/ton. These costs are highly dependent
on materials handling operations, contamination type,
level, and volume of soil treated.
Technology Status
CBI treated approximately 1,500 tons of waste dur-
ing the Demonstration Test and an additional 6,600 tons
during other tests at Harbor Point outside the scope of
this SITE project. All 8,100 tons of treated materials have
met special slte-speclHc NYSDEC treatment standards and
are currently stockpiled onslte.
The CBI TDS unit used for the SITE Demonstration Test Is
a modified version of CBI's SoU Recycling Unit (Re•Soli) In
North Adams, MA. The Re* Soil system Includes a rotary
kHn, cyclone, quench, bag house, and afterburner. Since
1989 the Re*Soil unit has been used to treat petroleum-
contaminated soil from various sites throughout the north-
east. SoU is transported to Re*Soll's permanent location
where It Is thermally decontaminated and reused as landfill
cover. To date 250,000 Ions of contaminated soil have
been treated. The unit treats a variety of soils, granular to
day-like, and contaminants Include gasoline and fuel oils
such as No. 2 oH. dleeel fuel, kerosene, and jet fuel. The
Re*Soll unit Is permitted to operate at a maximum of 100
tons per hour. Processed soils have been In compliance
with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protec-
7

-------
Feed Soil
Coke	Purifier	Harbor	Water
plant	wastes	sediments	gas plant
Figure 2. Average BTEX concentrations in feed soil and processed solids.
Feed Soil
Processed solids
Coke	Purifier	Harbor	Water
plant	wastes	sediments	gas plant
Figure 3. Average PAH concentrations in toed soil and processed sotids.
8

-------
Coke	Purifier	Haibor	Water
plant	wastes	sediments	gas plant
Figure 4. Average cyanide concentrations in feed soil and processed soils.
tlon soil clean-up requirements, and compliance tests for
emissions have demonstrated a DRE In excess of 99%.
CBI has also designed and built a High Temperature
Thermal Incinerator (HTI) which It operates currently at a
PCB-contamlnated site. The HTI Includes a rotary kiln, cy-
clone, afterburner, first quench, baghouse. second
quench, and packed bed scrubber. Approximately 50,000
tons of contaminated soils have been remediated. The
soli is primarily sllty day or dense day-Hke hardpan and Is
contaminated with up to 594XXX) ppm polychlorlnated
blphenyls (PCBs) and up to 86,000 ppm VOCs. The HTI Is
permitted to operate at approximately 52 tons/hr and
consistently operates at 42 to 46 tons/hr. Processed sols
to date have had PCB concentrations below 0.5 ppm
and particulate emissions below the 0.015 gr/dsft3 require-
ment. Hydrochloric add (HCO/chlorlne (CIJ emissions are
0.072 Ib/hr.
Disclaimer
Although the technology conduslons presented In
this report may not change, the data has not been re-
viewed by the EPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control of-
fice.
Source of Further Information
EPA Contact:
Ronald F. Lewis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
dndmatl, OH 45268
Telephone No.: (513) 569-7856
Fax No.: (513) 569-7620
Technology Developer.
Neal MaxymWIan
Vice President
Clean Berkshires. Inc.
Ten Post Office Square
Suite 600 South
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone No.: (617) 695-9770
Fax No.: (617) 695-9790
9

-------