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.
------- |