5
  \
Tl
 o
                       /A newsletter about soil, sediment, and groundwater characterization and remediation technologies
                       Issue 56

772/5 /sswe of Technology News and Trends highlights cleanup approaches that rely on
waste materials or treatment processes as a means to generate heat or other forms of energy
for onsite or offsite use. Energy-generating sources can include extracted groundwater already
warmed by subsurface  temperatures, landfill gas with a high methane content,  and soil
containing byproducts from coal mining or processing. Recovery of these potential energy
sources can help beneficially reuse materials or media that are traditionally treated or
discarded as waste and may defray cleanup costs.
            Geothermal Energy Used in Groundwater Extraction
                           and Treatment Plants
  Treatment of contaminated soil and
  groundwater from the  Lawrence
  Aviation Industries (LAI) Superfund site
  in Port Jefferson, NY, has involved
  several technologies. Most recently, a
  full-scale groundwater  extraction and
  treatment  system began operating to
  capture and treat a contaminant plume
  flowing toward the Long Island Sound.
  Geothermal energy from the extracted
  groundwater  is collected and used to
  condition air inside the new water
  treatment plant rather than gradually lost
  during the treatment process. When
  compared to a conventional heat pump,
  which uses outside air year-round to
  condition the  interior air of a building,
  the geothermal system provides higher
  energy efficiency at a  lower  cost for
  building operations. It also needs less
  maintenance than a conventional heat
  pump,  which is typically exposed to
  adverse weather.

  The LAI site  was used  to manufacture
  titanium sheeting for the aeronautics
  industry. Past disposal practices and
  improper   management  of  drums
  containing volatile organic compounds
  (VOCs) such  as trichloroethene (TCE)
  and tetrachloroethene (PCE) as well as
  hydraulic oils, nitric acids, and other
                        plant wastes resulted in a series  of
                        contaminant releases. Investigations in
                        2003 detected TCE at concentrations
                        reaching  1,100   u,g/L   in   onsite
                        groundwater. Additionally, TCE, PCE,
                        nitrates, and  fluoride were  detected in
                        onsite monitoring wells  and nearby
                        residential wells.  The Port Jefferson
                        Harbor,  an outlet to the Long Island
                        Sound, lies approximately one mile away
                        in the direction of groundwater flow.
                        Groundwater from the underlying Upper
                        Glacial/Magothy Aquifer is the only source
                        of drinking water in the site vicinity.

                        Sampling to assess vapor intrusion was
                        conducted at residential properties,
                        businesses, and schools located within
                        the  area of the TCE  plume. As  a
                        precaution, vapor mitigation systems
                        were installed in a few residences and
                        one school. All residential buildings with
                        private wells containing contamination
                        attributed  to  the  LAI  site  were
                        connected to the public water supply.

                        Remedial actions involved excavation and
                        offsite disposal of contaminated soil from
                        the LAI site, followed by construction of
                        two groundwater extraction and treatment
                        systems. One system was built at the
                                        [continued on page 2]
                                                                             November 2011
                                                                           Contents
 Geothermal  Energy
 Used in Groundwater
 Extraction and
 Treatment Plants   page 1
 Superfund Site
 Landfill Gas
 Converted to
 Municipal Energy   page 3
 Coke Production
 Waste Converted to
 Synthetic Fuel at
 West Virginia
 Superfund Site     page 4
     Online Resources
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology
Innovation offers Web-
based seminars each
month on a  range of
technical and  regulatory
topics related  to site
cleanup. Recent topics
include  Use of
Geostatistical  3-D Data
Visualization/Analysis in
Superfund Remedial Action
Investigations  and
Bioavailability-Based
Remediation of Metals
Using Soil Amendments.
View the calendar of
upcoming seminars or
access the archives at:
www.clu-in.org/training/
#upcoming.
                                                                                         Recycled/Recyclable
                                                                                         Printed with Spy^anola Ink 01 paper ll
                                                                                         contains at least 50% recycled fiber

-------
[continued from page 1]
location of the former manufacturing
facility and began operating in September
2010.   The   second  system   was
constructed one mile downgradient in the
residential section of Port  Jefferson and
started operating in August 2011. Both
plants rely on a vertical borehole system
to extract groundwater and are equipped
with open-loop ground-source heat
exchange systems. As needed for all
geothermal heat exchange systems, heat
loss was minimized during construction
by properly sealing all wells and thermally
fusing all pipe connections.

The onsite groundwater treatment system
uses a conventional 15-hp submersible
pump   to  extract   contaminated
groundwater from two 10-inch-diameter
boreholes  at a  depth of 250 feet below
ground  surface (bgs). To assure an
adequate seal, each well was constructed
of stainless steel (type 304) and packed
along its full length with 20% bentonite
slurry emplaced using a tremie pipe. Both
wells are connected to a header assembly
that directs water through approximately
600 feet of HOPE pipe to a single 1.5-ton
geothermal heat exchanger inside the
treatment plant (Figure 1).

The average temperature of unconditioned
groundwater entering the heat exchanger
is 56°F. Following heating or cooling of
coils within the exchanger, the air is
released at an average rate of 600 standard
cubic feet per minute (scfm) and blown
through ductwork throughout the plant to
supply warm or cool air as needed.  This
allows the ground below and around the
treatment plant to serve as a heat source
in winter and a heat sink in summer.

After passing through the heat exchanger,
water is pumped to an air stripping system
operating with  an air/water ratio of 65/1
to separate VOCs from the water. The
system is equipped with two 3,000-pound
activated carbon filtration vessels to treat
the air prior to its emission from the plant.
Water then flows from the air stripper
through bag filters to extract solid materials
generated during the air stripping process,
which could plug discharge piping. Finally,
the fully processed water is returned to the
aquifer through a network of five 25 8-foot
injection wells approximately 1,000 feet
upgradient from the extraction wells. The
system treats approximately 150 gallons of
water per minute.

hi contrast, the downgradient groundwater
treatment system (within Port Jefferson)
extracts contaminated water at a  slower
rate averaging 80 gallons per minute from
four shallower wells at depths of 80-140
feet bgs. The treatment plant operates a
similar geothermal energy system and air
stripping system. Fully processed water is
discharged into  an existing pond and its
adjoining creek at a point approximately 20
feet from the extraction wells.

EPA Region 2 anticipates operating both
treatment plants for approximately 20 years
to achieve remedial action goals. Use of
geothermal energy is expected to annually
avoid 6,000-7,000 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of
electricity otherwise needed to heat or cool
each treatment plant.  This electricity
reduction is estimated  to save $1,300-
$ 1,700 in annual operation and maintenance
costs for each plant. Additional processing
efficiencies leading to lower maintenance
costs were gained by using variable
                                    Figure 1. To minimize heat loss and
                                    gain other operating efficiencies, the
                                    heat pump is joined directly to the
                                    HVAC manifold for conditioning air
                                    inside the LAI treatment plant.
frequency drives for on-demand rather
than continual pumping. Energy-efficient
features of the treatment buildings include
skylights or strategically placed windows
for natural daylighting, tankless water
heaters, and highly insulated exterior walls.

Prior to treatment plant start-ups, two
injections of potassium permanganate
were conducted to address an onsite TCE
hotspot by  way  of in situ chemical
oxidation. Approximately 42,000 pounds
and 31,000 pounds were injected to a
depth of 200-220 feet in July and August,
respectively,  of 2010. Groundwater
sampling near  the injection locations in
January 2011 indicated a 92% decrease
in TCE concentrations.
To  date, site cleanup  costs  total
approximately $16 million, including
about $2 million for the downgradient
groundwater extraction/treatment system
and $7.5 million for the upgradient
extraction/treatment system and
ISCO. The cost was reimbursed by
$4.7 million in American Resource and
Recovery  Act funding in 2009.  In
addition to the geothermal system,
other elements of the newer plant in
Port Jefferson conformed to the U.S.
Green Building Council's Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED)  specifications  for   new
construction and major renovations.

Contributed by Keith Glenn, EPA
Region 2 (glenn.keith(q),epa.gov or
732-321-4454), Maria Jon, EPA
Region 2 (jon.maria(a),epa.gov or
212-637-3967), andDemetrios
Klerides, CDM (kleridesd(a),cdm. com
or 212-785-9123)

-------
                      Superfund Site Landfill Gas Converted to Municipal Energy
EPA Region 5 worked with Waste
Management of Illinois, Inc., the
Community High School District #117
of Lake County, and other parties in
northeastern Illinois to integrate
energy production with remediation
of the HOD Landfill Superfund site.
Landfill gas (LFG) from this inactive
waste facility is routed to the adjacent
school where microturbines convert
methane in the gas to heat and generate
electricity for the campus. Prior  to
the 2003 integration, LFG was treated
as waste through active flaring.

From 1963 until 1984, the 51-acre
landfill accepted local residential.
commercial, and industrial waste. The
waste was covered in 1989 with four
to seven feet of soil. Over  time.
portions of the cover exhibited
erosion, differential settlement.
ponded water, and failing vegetation.
Leachate seeps, animal burrows, and
fugitive LFG emissions also were
evident on or around the cover. By
1990, VOCs were detected in several
onsite wells and the leachate, which
also contained high concentrations of
metals such as barium and chromium.
Site  remediation starting in 1998
focused on  restoring the  cover.
improving leachate collection, and
upgrading the gas collection and
treatment system.

Instead of repairing  the  existing
networks for LFG flaring and leachate
collection, the two networks were
upgraded  and combined as  a  dual
extraction  system. A header  system
comprising about 12,000 feet of piping
interconnects the well network  to
convey LFG to one centralized blower/
flare station. This forms a fully active
extraction and treatment system, with
a 100- to 150-foot radius of influence
for each well. The wells are  spaced
approximately 200 feet apart and
extend approximately  35 feet below
ground surface, to approximately five
feet above the bottom of the landfill.

Feasibility  of converting the LFG to
useable energy depended on  several
factors, all of which were favorable at
the site. The  landfill is estimated to
contain 1.5 million cubic  yards  of
waste, the  majority being municipal
waste (with carbon content higher than
industrial waste). The landfill also is
sufficiently deep (45 feet on average)
to promote generation of anaerobic
gas, and  its restored soil  cover
would decrease water infiltration. In
addition, the upgrade to an active gas
collection system would provide
better control of the  LFG, which
contained up to 55% methane in
2003. Designs for the dual extraction
system  expected an  initial  LFG
throughput of 200 scfm.

Construction  of the new  LFG
system, including 20 new extraction
wells, began in August 2000 and
was completed in March 2001.
One-half mile of pipeline transfers
the  clean and compressed LFG to a
co-generated heat and power (CHP)
system on  the school campus (Figure
2). The CHP system employs twelve
30-kW microturbine generators with
two  heat  exchangers  that recycle
exhaust heat from the turbines. The
system is  designed to  operate 24/7
and supplements utility power for six
roof-top mechanical units, parking lot
lights, seven boilers, 15 pumps, and
classroom lighting as well as  other
machinery components. When heat is
             [continued on page 4]
          36 GAS AND LEACHATE
           COLLECTION WELLS
                                                    GAS COMPRESSION AND
                                                    CONDITIONING BUILDING
                                                                                          EXCESS•
                                                                                         ELECTRICITY
                                                                                         TO COM ED
                                             HIGH SCHOOL
                                                                MICROTURBINES —7
                                                                  AND HEAT    /
                                                                  RECOVERY   /
                         LEACHATE -
                      COLLECTION TANK
                FLARE
               '/2 MILE GAS •
            TRANSMISSION PIPE
                                                                  ELECTRICITY TO
                                                                    SCHOOL
      7[
             HEATTO SCHOOL
   Figure 2. LFG from the HOD Landfill travels to an onsite building where the gas is compressed before continuing
   to a separate school building containing the CHP system.

-------
[continued from page 3]
not required, the exhaust is automatically
diverted around the heat exchanger.
allowing for continued electrical output.

The equipment can generate a total of
approximately 360 kW of electric energy
and 3.48 million British thermal units
(BTUs) of thermal energy to heat and
power portions of the 262,000-square-
foot school building. The District uses
approximately 60% of the power
generated during peak hours, and excess
electricity produced by the microturbines
is transferred to the grid for distribution
by Commonwealth Edison (Com Ed).

During installation of the LFG system.
improvements were made to the
landfill's   final  cover   system.
Restoration involved adding a 2-foot
layer of compacted clay and a 12-inch
layer of non-compacted soil  over
portions of the site to serve as the
upper cover layer. In low-lying areas
of the site, the  waste  was  first
reconsolidated and then re-covered in
a similar manner.  Finally, the entire
site was regraded to a minimum 2%
slope with a maximum 4:1 (horizontal
to vertical) ratio on most sides, and
vegetation was re-established through
seeding and mulching. Approximately
two-thirds of the site now hosts many
of the school's athletic fields.

Approximately 2,000-3,000 gallons of
leachate per day are collected from the
dual extraction wells and transported
to the publicly owned treatment works
for disposal. The current rate of LFG
throughput is approximately 150 scfm.
with about 48% methane. Turbine
efficiency is greatest in colder months.
In warmer months, extremely  high
temperatures within the turbines' metal
housings can cause turbine overheating
and temporary shutdown; after the
temperatures subside, the turbines can
be restarted. Although microturbines
typically perform best when operating
in areas with  open air passage, the
housings were added as a noise and visual
barrier for the campus.

Installed equipment costs for the LFG
system  totaled approximately  $1.9
million, including the  $200,000
compression  and treatment system.
$450,000 pipeline, $1.2 million CHP
system,  and two new buildings.  The
cost was offset by a $500,000 grant
from the  Illinois  Department of
Commerce and Community Affairs'
Renewable Energy Resource Program
and secured through revenue bonds. As
gas generation declines, individual
turbines will be taken offline and sold
or re-purposed, and low-cost methods
for purchasing second-generation
turbines will be explored.

Operational savings due to the first-
generation CHP system have been
lower than anticipated by the District.
with an overall loss to date; however.
less electricity and  natural gas are
purchased than if the system were
not in place.  To increase overall
savings, the District is investigating
modifications that could enable
certain equipment to operate during
off-peak rather than peak electricity
hours. Negotiations for net metering
of  the  excess  CHP-generated
electricity, which  would allow
potential credit by (or sale to) Com
Ed, also are underway.

Contributed by Karen Mason-Smith,
EPA Region 5 (mason-
smith.karen(a),epa.gov or
312-886-6150) and Jennifer
Nolde, Community High School
District #117 (jnolde(a),dll 7.org or
847-838-7180)
         Coke Production Waste Converted to Synthetic Fuel at West Virginia Superfund Site
EPA Region 3, the West Virginia
Department   of   Environmental
Protection (WV DEP), ExxonMobil
Corporation,   and  the  Fairmont
Community Liaison Panel partnered to
incorporate energy production into the
environmental restoration of two areas
containing byproduct waste  from
former operations at the Sharon Steel
Corporation-Fairmont Coke Works
Superfund site in  Fairmont, WV.
Between 2003  and 2010, coal tar-
derived waste materials with high BTU
value  at the site's former  waste
management and processing areas were
excavated and blended with coal and
other materials to form synthetic fuel,
or synfuel, for offsite energy recovery.
The work was completed as  part of
Project XL, a program created by EPA
in 1995 to test innovative environmental
management strategies for achieving a
faster, more thorough cleanup.

Coke production, coke waste disposal,
and  waste  treatment  operations
occurred from 1918 to 1979 on 55 acres
of the site. The site's remaining 42 acres
comprise a  wooded  hillside that
descends to the Monongahela River.
Waste generated during production
was disposed of at various onsite
locations. Initial emergency response
actions were completed in the 1990s,
when 1,100 tons of waste tar, over
55,000  tons of waste sludge and
debris and more than 330,000 gallons
of wastewater were removed from the
site. Through Project XL, the majority
of the waste materials located in the
remaining  two areas  - the former
waste  management and  former
process  areas - were integrated into
energy production.
              [continued on page 5]

-------
[continued from page 4]
The former waste management area
encompassed 29  acres in  the
western portion  of the  site  and
comprised  two  former  landfills,
oxidation impoundments, a breeze
washout area, a waste sludge and breeze
storage area, and a sludge storage area.
The  10-acre former process area
included a breeze pile, a waste tar pit, a
benzol scrubber area, gas holders, gas
purifier tanks, a phenol  recovery
building, and a Pyridine sump.

Soil impacted with coal tar-derived
constituents  and  coke breeze was
excavated to  depths of 18 feet bgs.
Excavated materials were  placed in
temporary staging piles used to sort
waste streams (Figure 3).  Impacted
materials that were deemed unsuitable
for synfuel production, such as low-
BTU clays and high-sulfur Prussian
blue materials, were shipped to
permitted off site treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. Materials with
tar-like composition  and high  BTU
value   were  transported  to  a
processing area where they were
screened  to  remove wood, large
rocks, and other debris from the fuel
and crushed to achieve  a maximum
particle size of 3/s-inch diameter for the
feedstock. Piles of feedstock were isolated
and sampled for parameters of interest.
The feedstock was then custom blended
with various amendments including coal,
coal silts, sawdust, and carbon black to
meet fuel feedstock  specifications of
greater than 7,500 BTU per pound of
material, less than 10% moisture, less than
38% ash, less than 2% sulfur. The
feedstock   also   passed  Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure tests.
Feedstock specifications were established
following  a pilot-scale,  proof-of-
performance, test burn conducted in
February 2003 at the Grant Town Power
Plant, to confirm that the synfuel product
could be processed within existing
emission standards.

Onsite processing of excavated materials
for synfuel production continued until July
2009, when the  larger  deposits of
potentially recyclable materials at the site
had been nearly exhausted. At that point,
high BTU-wastes had been processed
onsite  to  generate 486,111 tons of
synthetic fuel. The fuel produced in the
recycling effort was used at the Grant
Town Power Plant to generate over
520,000  megawatts  of electricity.
When the throughput diminished, the
final 6,993 tons of material with greater
than 3,500  BTU per pound were
transported to the Piney Creek Power
Plant  in Clarion,  PA, where it was
blended onsite prior to usage as a power
source. In addition, 238,342 tons of
contaminated soil and waste with a low
BTU value or properties otherwise
unsuitable  for  recycling  were
transported to permitted offsite facilities
for treatment or disposal.

Prior to excavation of materials for
synfuel blending, a 50- by 50-foot grid
was laid  over the entire site. Upon
removal of impacted materials,  each
cell was  sampled  to verify  that
chemical-specific    performance
standards were met within each area
to a 95% upper confidence limit. The
critical constituents driving the
confirmation sampling program were
benzene, naphthalene and carcinogenic
PAHs measured as benzo(a)pyrene
toxicity equivalents [B(a)P TEQ].
Specific performance standards varied
slightly between each area but were
nominally less than 1.0 mg/kg benzene,
less than 0.7 mg/kg naphthalene, and
less than 4.6 mg/kg B(a)P TEQ. The
cleanup criteria were selected to  be
protective of underlying groundwater
and direct contact with remaining onsite
soil. Soil  samples  collected from the
two areas in 2010 confirmed that
performance standards had been
achieved. The two areas were graded
to promote  stormwater sheet flow
across clean areas, and seeded to
control   erosion  and  prevent
sedimentation.  Deeper excavations

-------
                                             Solid Waste and
                                             Emergency Response
                                             (5203P)
                                EPA 542-N-11-005
                                November 2011
                                Issue No. 56
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
            Presorted Standard
            Postage and Fees Paid
            EPA "
            Permit No. G-35
 [continued from page 5]
 were backfilled with clean soil from
 both onsite and offsite sources.

 A final remedial investigation focusing on
 groundwater is now underway, and a
 record of decision is expected in 2012.
 Redevelopment plans for the site include
 commercial and recreational use options.
Contributed by Eric Newman, EPA
Region 3 (newman.eric(a),epa.gov or
215-814-3237), Thomas Bass, WV
DEP (thomas. 1. bass(a)wv. gov or
 304-926-0499 ext. 1274), and
MichaelLamarre, ExxonMobil
Corporation
                              Recent Report
 EPA's recent report, Superfund Landfill Methane-to-Energy Pilot Project,
 evaluates the technical and economic feasibility of recovering methane at landfills
 on six Superfund sites. The methane could be captured to generate electricity for
 onsite use or sale to a utility, substitute for natural gas used onsite, or fuel gas-
 fired technologies used by nearby industry. Access the report (OSWER 9200.081)
 at: www.clu-in.org/greenremediation/subtab c3.cfm.
                                                                                          Contact Us
   Technology News and Trends
  is on the NET! View, download,
  subscribe, and unsubscribe at:
    www.clu-in.org/newsletters/

   Suggestions for articles may
         be submitted to:

          John Quander
  Office of Superfund Remediation
    and Technology Innovation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Phone: 703-603-7198
     quander.iohn@epa.gov
                               Let Us Know If You Would Like to Go Paperless!
  In the interest of minimizing the resources required to print and distribute the Technology News and Trends newsletter, EPA
  is asking hard copy subscribers to let us know if you would like to go paperless and receive the newsletter via e-mail
  notification  of its  online availability.  Please send an e-mail message with your mailing address and e-mail address to
  TNTeditor(g),emsus.com. Put "Paperless" in the subject line so we can make the switch. Thank you!
EPA is publishing this newsletter as a means of disseminating useful information regarding innovative and alternative characterization and treatment
techniques or technologies. The Agency does not endorse specific technology vendors.

-------