14 MSW Burning
Sawell, S. E., Bridle, T R. and Constable, T. W., "Heavy Metal
teachability from Solid Waste Incinerator Ashes,* Waste Management A
Research 6, 227 (1988).
Theis, T. I., and Gardner. K. H., "Environmental Assessment of Ash
Disposal," Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 20, 21 (1990).
Van der Sloot, II. A., "Leaching Behavior of Waste and Slahili/rd Waste
Materials; Characterization for Environmental Assessment Purposes," Waste
Management <4 Research 8, 215 (1990).
Wadge, A. and llutton, M., "The Leachability and Chemical Speciation ot
Selected Trace Elements in Fly Ash from Coal Combustion and Refuse
Incineration," Environmental Pollution 48, 85 (1987).
0. Kilgroe, J. I), and Finkelstein, A., "Combustion Characterization ot RIM
Incinerator Technology: A Joint Environment Canada-USEPA Protect."
Proc. International Conf. on Municipal Waste Combustion, 5A-65.
Hollywood. PL, April, 1989.
1. DeGroot, G. J. et al., "Leaching Characteristics of Selected Elements from
Coal Fly Ash as a Function of the Acidity of the Contact Solution and the
Liquid/Solid Ratio," ASTM STP 1033, 170 (1989).
2. Himmelblati, D. M., andBischoff, K. B , "Process Analysisand Simulation."
Ch. 4, J. Wiley & Sons, 1968.
EPA/600/A-94/013
11
INITIAL SCREENING OF THERMAL DESORPTION
I OR SOIL REMEDIATION
James J. Yczzi, Jr. and Anthony N. Tafuri
U.S. I'jivironiiifiital IVotrrtMin Agency
Kilisoii, NJ
Seymour Rosenthal
lml«r Wlirtler KiivirrspAitsr, Inc.
Kdisnn, NJ
William I.. Troalcr
Focus Environmental, Inc.
knoxvillr, IN
INTRODUCTION
Petroleum conianun;ilL-d soils caused by spills, leaks, and accidental discharges -
exist al many sites thioughout the United Slates. Thermal desorption technologies
which are increasingly lieing employed to treat these soils, have met soil cleanup
criteria for a vanety o| petroleum products.
Currently the United States Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a
technical report entitled (he of 7hernial Desotption for Treating Petroleum-
Contaminated Soils to assist remedial project managers, site owners, remediation
contractors, and equipment vendors in evaluating the use of thermal desorption
technologies for petioleum contaminated soil applications. The completed report
will be available from the Center for Environmental Research Information (CF.RI)
by June 1992.
-------
136 Thttniul /Vw»r/»fi#»n
CONTENTS Ol' TECHNICAL REPORT
The report will discuss Ihe following areas:
• Thermal desorption theory.
• The relationship of thermal desorption applicability, operations, and
efficiency lo site, contaminant and soil characteristics, as well as Ihe eflecls
of regulatory requirements.
• Commercial thermal desorption systems.
• Operating costs for thermal desorplion systems.
Comprehensive appendices lo Ihe report serve as an encyclopedic source with
detailed discussions on related topics; for example:
• Theimal desorption theory.
• Sile, contaminant, and soil characteristics, and their inipad on thermal
desorption applicability.
• Regulatory issues affecting Ihe permitting and operation ol thermal
desorption systems.
• Commercially available thermal desorption systems.
• Project task lists for use of mobile and fixed-based systems.
• Estimation of costs for using mobile or fixed based thermal desorption
systems.
• Comparison of thermal desorbers lo incinerators.
THREE LEVEL SCREENING METHOD
The reporl will also present a three-level screening method to help a reader predict
Ihe success of applying thermal desorption at a specific site. This method utilizes
• aeries of worksheets thai will assisl Ihe reader in accomplishing the following
activities:
• Performing an initial assessment, based on limited data, lo determine the
applicability of thermal desorplion tor a given application.
• Identifying thermal desorption and off-gas treatment system requirements.
• Developing an overall cost estimate for treating a site using thermal
desorption.
The objective of screening level one is lo determine the likelihood of success
in a specific application of thermal desorption. It will take into account procedures
for collecting and evaluating data on site characteristics, contaminant
characteristics, soil characteristics, and regulatory requirements. This level will
establish whether or not thermal desorption should be evaluated Cm flier for site
remediation, whether treatment should occur on-site or off-site, and if on-site is
a viable option, what system size will be most cost-effective.
Screening level two will evaluate alternative thermal desorption technologies and
factors such as tin* type of unit operations and operating conditions that are
required to achieve specific cleanup criteria. It will also identify the most viable
equipment alternatives
Screening level three will guide in Ihe preparation of an economic evaluation
of Ihe treatment altci natives selected in Ihe first two levels. It identifies project
tasks that must be conducted and provides typical cost factors for treating
petroleum contaminated soils by thermal desorption technologies.
The scope of this paper addresses only screening level one which provides a
preliminary assessment ot the applicability of thermal desorption to a particular
sile. This topic encompasses worksheets that are an integial part of the "user
friendly" screening process, l evel one scicening provides a foundation lor Ihe
subsequent two levels which follow a similar "user friendly* worksheet approach
to evaluating thermal desorption technologies and establishing costs lor thermal
desorplion in an overall remediation project.
Pigure I illustrates the three level screening method presented in the reporl.
The screening level one worksheets are developed l< simplify Ihe evaluation of
thermal desoiption i llccliveness and ire based on th • collection of limi'eJ data.
The woiksheets do not constitute a design manual, nor a final basis for eluding
thermal desorption as a lemedy. They piovide a pre selection screening method
to determine if Ihe ulili/iition of thermal desorption to a particular site warrants
further consideialion.
I JiVEL ONE SCKI-liNING
The tiist level ol screening describes six steps for collecting and evaluating key
data that will affect Ihe application of Ihennal desorption at a specific sile. These
data are defined as "ciilical success factois."
The worksheets in the reporl guide the reader through Ihe six steps:
1. Data collection.
2. Waste classification.
1 On-site versus off-.sile treatment selection.
4. Critical success factor evaluation
5. Contingency planning.
6. Treatment system selection.
The initial screening accomplished by these six steps limits the number of
alternatives that will be subjected lo further screening levels.
STEP I: DATA COLLECTION
This lirst step in screening level one involves Ihe collection of data in four major
categories:
-------
13ti Ihetnitil l)fit>r/un>n
Dale (Meclon Atlivrt**
CoMect Oata ht IWemwne Pwnniuuj
1ts Hased «»¦
First I evel
Set MO* 19
On site/OH til* (vahi.i
Screen On tMVnm<
i» Me/Off s*e| Score > ? I)
I Qu«xn«iM Siie Sciwii»i|
f* ie«m A(>fM<»»-He Sue* of I r>iq>uM
Hated (>ian!4y ol •«( '-1
(S«ep6»
Sdeci MoUfeEQiMpment fl
Sinai
Medunt
::n
Use 0(1 Mi lr«a*iMi>i
Conhacior* wflftai
?ilf) «*te Ractan o< S>v
Second I r>rt
SoMmq
technology Mernetive
Screen tqu«>men< lyi>-
Alar net n*t
TNrd level
SctMnktg
Economc Anatysn
itltKMfCotli for lh«H|
E »h Viable M«nMivc
I MlHm.ll |>TMHpl
A\ j Vi.ilib- AHmii;iIi««'
Most iicMctfr and
EconomcaiyVMbta
thermal Detorplion Alternate
Figure I 1 formal deMwptMm evaluation decision diagram.
• Contaminant characteristics
• Site chatacleiislics
• Regulatory requirements
• Soil characteristics
Tabic I details these types of data. The method limits the number of paiameteis
in the screening analysis in order to minimize the time and cost of the evaluation.
The source of these data, required to complete the critical success factor
evaluation, generally include limited field investigations, standard analytical tests,
or published sources The report appendices contain detailed information regarding
the potential unpad of each item presented.
STEP 2: WASH* CLASSIFICATION
This second step in level one screening uses the data collected in the liiM step to
confirm that the site is appropriate tor further evaluation. The report Ionises on
the cleanup of petroleum contaminated soil as a non-RCRA and non-TSCA waste.
The (low chart in Figure 2 provides a decision tree for classifying the
contaminated soil and confirming the applicability of the report. The appendices
in the ieport contain detailed explanations of each element in the Mow chart.
STEP 1: ON-SITE VERSUS OFF-SITE TREATMENT SELECTION
Figure ^ presents a decision diagram to compare the economic effectiveness of on-
site or oil-site tieatment. 11ns figure is only a screening tool; n is not a substitute
for a detailed economic analysis of alternatives. The report discusses economic
analysis in depth as a separate topic
STEP A: CRITICAL SUCCESS FACIOR EVALUATION
In this lourllt step. woiksh.\Ms address each critical success factor. Completing
these worksheets employs simple qualitative and/or quantitative methods lor rating
each factor accoiiling to the ptobabilily for the successful application «>| thermal
desorplion. Ihe hum ranks each factor as having a least, average, «>i highest
probability for successful use of thermal desorption.
Example - Calculation of the Probability of Succcsa
Table 2 contains an example of a completed critical success factor screening
evaluation for an on-site application. The remedial manager first defined the
critical contaminant as well as the site, regulatory, and soil characteristics. The
managci assumed that an on-site cleanup of 800 Ions of soil contaminated with
No. 6 luel oil will occur at a 125 acre commercial retail facility in a slate having
the assumed criteria presented in the example. The contamination al this site
resulted from a leaking underground storage tank. The TIM I concentration is
12,000 mg/kg and metal concentrations do not exceed state or local cit.-ria.
-------
Table I Thermal Deaorpoon Date RaqmraoieBta Critical Soocm Ffecton
Data Collection
Characteristic
Rationale
Source 1 Method"-*1
Cosuiiaa Chuictswici
Petroleum product type
Selection of required sod treatment
temperature
Owner s knowledge of tank usage
Sit* owner
Concentration oi'TPH in
contaminated toil
Determination of treatment and disposal
requirements under state and local
regulations, selection ot required soil
treatment temperature and residence time,
potential to exceed lower explosive
concentration limits in thermal desorption
device.
Analytical data from soil boring
sampks
EPA 41S.1 is
mom common
method, siau
•ad local
reqoiremM*
may vary
TCLP extract concentration
)f metals or oryanics dead
from leaded gasoline it
most likely contaminant)
Materul may be classified as a RCRA
hazardous waste if TCLP extract
concentrations exceed values listed in 40
CFR .51. Exclusions aopiy tor wastes from
underground storage tanks that are subject to
the RCRa Corrective Action requirements
in 40 CFR 280. Sec flow chart in Figure 2.
If material is a hazardous wast*, this
Tecnrucal Report is no* applicable.
Analytical data from soil boring
samples
EPA 1311
(extraction)
EPA 6010
(mauls) EPA
8260 (volatile
Off Mica) EPA
80S0
(aemivolatile
Concemmion of PCBs in
;ontaminated toil
1
If PCBs are present at a concentration of
grester than 50 ppm. the waste is subject to
TSCA regulations and this Technical Reoort
:s not applicable.
Analytical data from *oii boring
samples
EPA 8080
Table 1 Thermal Deaorpoaa Data Requixeaneota Critical Snrrrm Factor* (Con tinned)
Data Collection
Characteristic
Rationale
Source
Method10'
1 Dau Requirtmenta Critical
Success Factors
Total meula concentration
(Aa. Ba. Cd. Cr. Pb. Hg.
Se. Ag)
State and local regulatory requirements for
treatment or ditpoaal of contaminated soil.
Analytical data from soil boring
samples
EPA 3050 (acid
digeation) EPA
6010 (metalj),
meet with
regulatory
agencies
Sas CharadariMaea
Contaminant source
Exemptions apply for wastes that exhibit the
RCRA characteristic of toxicity codes 0018-
D043 if the wuu is from a leaking
underground storage tank that is aubject to
tba Corrective Action Require rnetaa ia 40
CFR 280. See Sow chart ia Figure 2.
Edetaificatioo of coou/ninam source
Site review
Contaminated aoil quantity
(ux»)
Selection of oo-eita vervua off-eite treaimeot.
Soi> borinfft, concentration of
coeftAminaau, aoil cleanup criteria
Use approved
eatlytieal
—fhadi from 8
SW-S46 |
Site usage
Project coat eatimate ibould include revenue
lots from norraai site activities.
Revenue kite etch day that ate it
out of service
Steovair'i 1
coaettinett |
Operational area available
Mum be sufficient to set up and operate
proceea equipmet* and mamrem f»ed aad
treated aods nockpik (no ate ucannau*
ooty).
Plot pian drawing of area available
for oyerii>o«
Site survey }|
-------
Table 1 Thermal Dosorptioo Data Requirements Critical Success tacton (Cootmuea)
aaaeMsasaaasaajjaj ¦¦ "
Data Collection
Characteristic
Rationale
Source
Method"1
Surrounding land use
Adjoining land uses such is schools, paries,
health care facilities, or dense urban
development may preclude on-site treatment
Map showing surrounding land uaea
She survey
Ditunce to stationary
thermal desorption facility
(off-site treatment only)
Potential cost of soil transportation,
evaluation of on-site versus off-site
treatment options.
Location of stationary thermal
desoipuon facilities in geographical
area
Contact state
regulatory
agency
Ambient temperature
Frozen sot! ia difficult to excavate. pretreaL
aod process in thermal treatment devices.
Average temperature at time of
treatment
Weather of
U.S. Cttiea,
Vol I *2.
Gak Research,
Detroit.
Michigan,
1915.
Regulatory RtqiuviiMi
So. of permits required
Tou) permitting cost (on-site treatment
only).
Review of state and local
requtrementi
Meet with
regulatory
sgenciee
Site specific performance
.tfjung requirements
Testing costs and project schedule impact*,
including analytical turnaround (on-site
treatment only).
Review of state si.d local
require menu
Meet with
regulatory
agencies
TPH target residual level
Soil treatment time and temperature
requirements, soil dispoul alternatives
Review of state and local
requirements
Meet with
regulatory
agencies
Table 1 Thermal Deeorptioo Data Requirements Critical Suoceat Factors (Continued)
Data Collection
Characteristic
Rationale
Source
Method"'
BTEX target residual level
Soil treatment time and temperature
requirements, soil dispoeal alternatives.
Review of state and local
requirements
Meet with
regulatory
agencies
Trauponauon restrictions
Some states may restrict off-site
transportation of petroleum coaamineted
soila.
Review of state and local
requirements
Meal with
regulatory
agencies
Soil Oinmuain
Moisture content
Materials handling properties, drying duty of
thermal deaocptioo process
Analytical data from soil boring
samples
ASTM D-2216
Soil claaaificetioe (coem
grained soils)
Maiehal size reduction requirements.
Analytical data firaa soil boring
senates
uses
Soil claaaificatioa (fine
grained soils)
Material carryover from TD device, material
plaeucity characteristics.
Analytical data from soil boring
samp lea
uses
Soil ctestification (organic
soila)
^i'ti rn "T* ¦ a- ¦
Potential for TPH analysis interferences
becauae of naturally occurring organic
matter
Analytical data from soil boring
samples
uses 9
*' SW-846 - Test Method* lor Evaluating Solid Wastes. Physicai/Chemical Methods' I'.S. EPA. SW-846. Third Edition. November. 1988.
Methods 6010, 411.1, and 1311 arc analytical methods deacribed in SW-S46.
Methods A3TM D-2216 U an analytical method ifcecribad ia American Society for Teeoaf tad Masenale (ASTM), Itfea nauiii ffMtfand,
** uses - Oafixl Sea n»««V»OT Sym.
-------
144 lh*'Utml Drunptum
Is the Material
a Petroleum
Contaminated Soil?
J Yes
No
Does the Soil Exhibit any ol the
RCRACharacloristice of Ignitability.
Corrosivity. Reactivity, or Toxicity ?
<40 CFR 261.20 40 CFR 261 24)
Yes
Is the Soil from an Underground
Storage Tank (hat is Subject to
Corrective Action Requirements ?
(40 CFR 280)
Is Soil Eligable for an Exclusion
Because it Failed the Toxicity Test
for Waste Codes OOtH 0043 Only 7
140 CFR 261.4(bx10) 40 CFR 261 24)
Yet
Is the Waste Subject to a
Recycling Exemption f
(40 CFR 261 6 (3XV VII)
|no
Non hazardous Waste Exempt from
RCRA Regulations
Hazardous Waste Subject to
RCRA Regulations
. }
Docs the Waste Contain
Yes
Toxic Waste Suh|ecl to
Mote Than 50 mg/fcg PCBs ?
TSCA Regulations
No
1
Technical Report Applies
Technical Report Does
Not Apply
Figure 2 Waiile climficaliiin decision Jiagrtm.
lO.OtM) Ions
Evaluate Contaminated
Soil Quantity (tons)
BOO Tons « Quantity < 10.000 Tons
Is a Site Specific
Performance Test
Required f
No
Is a Minimum of 0.5 Acres
Available ON-sitc for a
Processing Area ?
Yos
Is the Site Within
200 Miles of a
Fixed Based Facility 7
Yes
No
On site Treatment
Hat Highest Probability
of Being
Economically Elk* live
Do Economic Analysis
of On-site and Off site
Treatment Alternatives
Off site Treatment
Has Highest Probability
of Being
Economically Effective
l:igure 3 On site venau off site licalmart decision diagram.
-------
146 Thenmll Desorption
Ibblel. Example of Thermal Desorption
Critical Sacctu Factor Evaluation
00-lto
Cll Ml
OMtrf »k<*m N«m Cmpt
N_
UW»
A««m«a(2)
Hij** 0>
Scot*
Dm*mOwmUn
hwhM fi i *art T>f
NA
NfcO
Moa
Mft. 4 Iwl •* Mb*
dl.wiw^.
N» t telati
<*.—a).H. 1
fM«4l(4ta«l
«il. N* 4DmImI
A ml B
1
CaM**t««(TT1lki
CMHfeltfWM
Mtft|
iumo
>90.000
9.000 - 90.000
<5.000
2
CmhIm Sowc*
NA
UST
¦Wllfl! 1
•4W«A|Hth
RCWA)
NA
MMtgtHf*
*****
Atte
li|din«««te
40 cm 3«o
9
Hmi^i *
r i ^ i ¦ s*4i
"0*4
90
NA
<90
9
flfwl MlMrfk Ra* m
lwlitlrk«Ml^ j NA
¦0*4
/tewli 99
V<
Mm 2,7)0
¦1*1
1.490
Citoln 99
-*•
11
CkMMlHB Tf9
iMi T7
•«k|
M
49
M*m7 IT
-«»l
<1
titaliw 149
-1*1
•few U9
-1*1
-0*1
<3
<
<»-
-£f
i
l)tr, ninl De
NO
M>
NO
<10
<10
19
NO
NO
NO
NO
M>
M>
NO
ND
NO
ND
m
• wi 11ST
-------
148 Tlirrmul Otsorplinn
Ifcble 2. Example of Thermal Desorption
Critical Success Factor Evaluation (Continued)
DOMt*
Mt
oannu.
WUHh!
*15
•M
01)
» 0J
)«
OMI 2AST»
DM)1A*-T«
p—
CMJ I1**" C^r^T
HD»Mm I ii Hi MiiHw
• M*Mi •>)!)
J Iw* <¦»(•«<***"*
ittenniil i)r\infth'n 14V
l)ible 2. Example of Thermal Deaorptlon
Critical Success Factor Evaluation (Continued)
BtM-Typr
MMX
00-Uto
¦ • * " - " - i w
fc-«
IUm
S*>
t.-(0
Aiwp(D
Smm
UfMMy IUf*aBMta
*¦*«• rfp«bi«fM (•vthuto
htw«iikii«iNl)
NA
3
>4
1-4
0-2
2
to fttUb prfaaawi txHxg
RfM (MilMN tm MHto
NA
No
Tm
NA
N*
3
TIM iflfM l»««l
SO
<1
<10
<100
3
RTf X t»gM imMmI k*«l
»«A|
<1
<1
<3
<10
2
ycwiMWd
IMMlCrtM
•
23
>ts
10-29
Im
(kM M (r*> C«M«.
ht, • «|«k Milt m
NA
CH
CL.CM
MH.0H
MUOL
1
•rib (Mi •**« CN«. fc*. -
m\ i ¦ <»»n.niiw.)
NA
NA
oh. n
NA
NA
—
MMlalwMf
I1M S«* «# Smm to AS CiapilM
31
LIMM^HrffwBilM R«*d
17
ftc-A-mir,,, 1nW»(A*)
2.23
• Mm
-------
ISO Thermal Desorption
Benzene concentrations in the leaclule exceed Ihe TCLP standard Moderate
regulatory consideration! require three permits, little or no performance testing,
and residual target levels of 50 mg/kg TPH and <2 mg/kg BTF.X. The soil is
fine-grained inorganic clay with a moisture content of 22*.
Using the site values recorded on the example worksheet, Ihe reader calculates
the appropriate score for each critical success factor. A score of 3 has a "highest"
probability of success; 2 indicates 'average"; and I is the "least likely to
nicceed." In some instances a particular success factor may not he applicable to
aa alternative, or data may not be available. Duplicate evaluations must consider
ao-aite and off-site treatment separately, since several data factors apply to only
ooe of these altemativea.
An evaluation summary appears at the bottom of Ihe worksheet By calculating
Ibe total score for all categories and dividing by the number of factors that were
rated, the reader can compile an overall composite score. This score indicates Ihe
probability for success in this applicatUm of thermal desorption.
The composite acore is a relative indicator of technical difficulty and treatment
coat. Sites that receive a composite score greater than 2.0 are the most technically
and economically viable candidates Treatment costs for these applications will
generally range from $35 to $65 per ton. A score below 2.0 indicates lower
viability and higher cost! ($65 to $125 per ton).
The data in this worksheet compiled a total score of 38 from 17 rated
parameters, with an average score of 2.23. This score warrants further
consideration of thermal desorption. The manager should continue through Ihe two
additional screening levels.
5TBPS: CONTINGENCY PLANNING
The reader can use Table 3 to prepare contingency plans lor any critical success
factors with a "least" probability for success. In many cases, engineering or
administrative procedures can mitigate Ihe possible effects of a parameter with a
"least* probability rating.
STEP 6: TREATMENT SYSTEM SElJiCTlON
Figure 4 contains a diagram for determining Ihe most cost-effective siu of thermal
deaorplion equipment as a function of contaminated soil volume at a site. A
vertical line drawn from Ihe site sire value on Ihe x axis will intersect with one
or more horizontal operating range bars that represent various sizes of treatment
equipment. The systems identified (by Ihe intersection of Ihe line with bars
(¦presenting Ihem) should continue on to second and third level screening.
Theimal DtMH/Hum /5/
Table 3 Critical Success Factor Cooliagency Analysis.
I Characteristic
Reason for impact
Contingency plan
1 Contaminant
j Characteristics
] Petroleum product
type
Petroleum product
requires high treatment
temperature.
Selection of thermal
desorption devices 0
with appropriate Q
operating temperature 1
range. |
1 Concentration of
1 TPH in
Q contaminated soil
High (>2-3%)
concentration of TPH
in contaminated soil
may cause
concentration of
organic* in thermal
desorption offgas to be
above lower explosive
limit for directly
heated thermal
desorption devices.
Blend highly 1
contaminated soil with I
lower TPH |
concentration soils to 1
reduce overall average
concentration or use
indirectly heated
thermal desorption
device.
1 TCLP extrai t
1 concentration of
1 metals or oiganics
Concentration of
parameter in TCLP
extract exceeds
criteria.
Material must lie
handled as a RCRA
hazardous waste.
Technical Repot t does
not apply.
I Total metals
8 concentration
(As. Ba. Cd. Ph.
Ilg, Se. Ag)
Exceeds state
regulatory criteria for
preferred treated soil
disposal alternative.
Use alternative treated
soil disposal option or
stabilize treated t
material. |
Concentration of
PCBs in
contaminated soil
PCB concentration
greater than 50 ppm.
Material must lie 1
handled as a I SC'A j
toxic waste. Technical 1
Report does not »|>ply- 1
-------
152 Vifimal Desuipium
Table 3 Critical Sueceaa Factor C-onlinjan:y Arulyu. (Continued)
1 Characteristic
Reason for impact
Contingency plan
Sile Chuacieriitics
Contaminanted toil
quantity
Small quantity of soil
(< 500 Inns).
Large quantity of soil
(> 10,000 tons).
Use off-site treatment.
Use on-site treatment.
H Sile usage
Revenue lost from
site's normal
commercial operations
because site is out of
service.
Use tiff-site treatment.
Operational area
available
Insufficient operational
•tea available for on-
site treatment (Note:
area required depends
on capacity of mobile
thermal treatment
system).
Use off-site treatment.
Surrounding land
use
Adjoining land uses
such as schools, parks,
health care facilities,
or dense urban
development.
Use off site treatment. j
I Distance to
I stationary I hernial
| desorption facility
Transportation cost to
ship soils.
Use on-site treatment
| Ambient
H temperature
Low ambient
temperature may cause
soil to freeze and he
difficult to screen and
difficult to thaw in
thermal desorher.
Perform project during
warmer weather.
Crush material before
processing in thermal
desorption device.
Virtual DtHdif'iwn US
TiWc 3 Ciilical SucoaiK i'activ Contingency Analysis (Q*itim*xJ)
Characteiistie
Reason for impact
Contingency plan
Regulatory
Requirements
No. of permits
required
Permitting cost.
Use off-site 1
treatment. Performance 1
testing cost.Use off- 1
site treatment oi use |
stack testing dal < from i
similar application if 1
appropriate. [
TPH target
residual level
Capability of meeting
performance criteria.
Select technology with [
appropriate soil 1
treatment temperature
and residence time.
BTliX target
residual level
Capability of meeting
performance criteria.
Select technology with
appropriate soil
treatment temperature
and residence time.
Soil Characteristic*
Moisture content
Soil moisture content
too high to feed and
process soil properly.
Air dry soil if
sufficient area is
available, weather is
appropriate, and
project schedule
allows lime for drying
(may need to consider
control of fugitive
emissions).
USCS Soil
Classification
Soils are classified as
group GW, GP. GC,
cobbles, or boulders
(coarse grained soils).
Screen soil to remove
oversize material.
Wash rocks or crush
rocks to a size that
can be processed in
thermal desorption
system (typically
<2.0 inches
diameter).
-------
154 Thermal Dtsorptum
TaMe 3 Critical Success Factor Contingency Analysis (Continued)
Characteristic
Reason for impact
Contingency plan
USCS Soil
Classification
Soils are classified as
group CL or CH (fine
grained soils).
Reduce soil feed rale
and burner firing rate
(if applicable) to
reduce carryover. Air
dry material or blend 1
with lime, kiln dust, D
or dry soil so that it is
below the plastic
limit.
1 USCS Soil
I Classification
Soil is classified as
group OH or Pi
(organic soils).
Use alternative
analytical technique f
which is not subject to |
interferences from [
humic materials. H
Correct TPII |
analytical results on |
treated soils for [
apparent background 1
levels in thermally 1
treated soils which 1
have no known 1
petroleum |
contamination. 1
Thermal De.w />tii>n 155
SYSTEM SIZE
SMALL MOBILE SYSTEM
MEDIUM SIZED MOBILE SYSTEM
twm-wmmwm
LARGE MOBILE SYSTEM
FIXED FACILITY
System T ype
Small
System Characteristics Mobile
Medium Large
Mobile Mobile
Fixed
Facility
Number of Trailms 12
36 7 10
25 150
Primary Burner Capacity (MM Btu/hr) 5 15
15 30 25 50
25 150'
Secondary Burner Capacity (MM Btu/hr) 5 15
15 30 2550
25 150
Soil Processing Capacity (lont/hour) 6 15
1530 2550
25 150
So«n« liiid tin not Include ihiibuiMfi
¦ 1 J. .1 1
1 1
0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000
Site Siie (tonsi
ligurc 4 Thcra desritier size veuii site aize.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Plate rati Initnicuoftj on the rr»mc bcfort completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/A-94/013
2
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION No.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Initial screening of Thermal Oesorption for Soil Remediation
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S) James Yezzi1, Anthony Tafuri1. Seymour Rosenthal2,
William L. Troxler1
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
' Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. USEPA Edison, NJ 08637
: Foster Wheeler Enviresponse. Inc., Edison. NJ 08837
3 Focus Environmental, Inc . Knoxville. TN 37923
10- PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory-Cinti
Office of Research and Development
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati OH 45268
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Book Chapter
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Project Officer: James Yezzi 908/321-6703
Hazardous Waste Management Handbook. Spring 1993. p 135-154
16 ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper rs to present procedures for collecting and evaluating key data that affect the potential application of thermal desorption for
a specific site These data are defined as "critical success factors" The screening procedure can be used to perform an initial assessment, based on
limited data, to determine if thermal desorption may be a viable technology for a given application
The critical success factor screening methodology is executed in six steps: 1) Data collection. 2) Waste classification. 3) On-Srte versus off-site
treatment evaluation. 4) Critical success factor evaluation. 5) Contingency planning and 6) Treatment system size evaluation.
Procedures for performing and summarizing the Results of each of these screening steps are presented. The screening procedures were developed to
simplify the evaluation of thermal desorption effectiveness and are based on the collection of limited data The screening steps do not constitute a
design manual, nor a final basis for choosing thermal desorption as a remedy. They provide a pre-selection screening method to determine if the
utilization of thermal desorption to a particular site warrants further consideration.
If the results of the critical success factor screening evaluation are positive, the user should perform additional analyses to evaluate equipment
alternatives Alternatives that are considered include the use of specific types of thermal desorper technologies or offgas treatment systems and the
selection of the appropnate size of thermal desorption system for mobile applications
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
• DESCRIPTORS
b IOENT1FIERS/OPEN ENOED TERMS
C COSATl F«kVGro<4>
thermal desorption. thermal desorption screening, treatment of
petroleum contaminated soils, low temperature thermal
desorption
18. DISTRIBUTION STATE
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19 SECURITY CLASS
ReoCrt) UNCLASSIFIED
21 NO OF PAGES
21
20 SECURITY CLASS Oh*
*900/1) UNCLASSIFIED
22 PRICE
EPA Fwtt 2220-1
------- |