“Oil Lakes” Monitoring and Assessment Report

Marine and Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Report

Oil Lakes Volume 2, Appendix E, Annex 1:

Marine and Coastal Appendix M, Annex 1

High-Temperature Thermal Desorption Case Study

Monitoring and Assessment of the Environmental Damages and Rehabilitation in the Terrestrial Environment (Cluster 3) and in the Coastal and Marine Resources (Cluster 2)

UNCC Claims 5000432 and 5000398

27 August 2003

KERP IMS

Consortium of International Consultants I

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Background ...................................................................................1

2 Description of Treatment System/Process ....................................2

3 Soil Treatment Performance Data and Results .............................3

KERP IMS

Consortium of International Consultants II

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Destruction and Removal Efficiency Summary Table 3-2 Summary of Soil Test Results: Total Recoverable Petroleum

Hydrocarbons

KERP IMS

Consortium of International Consultants III

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 G.A. Meyer Soil Remediation Facility Process Flow

Schematic

Figure 2 G.A. Meyer Soil Remediation Facility Process Temperatures

KERP IMS

Consortium of International Consultants 1

1 Background In November 1990, C.A. Meyer Company of Clermont, Florida, began operation of a commercial facility designed to thermally treat petroleum-contaminated soil. Previously, the C.A. Meyer facility consisted of an asphalt kiln and a road-base soil cement plant. Because of the acceleration of regulatory-induced cleanups of petroleum-contaminated soil, the company modified an existing asphalt plant to thermally treat the soil. The existing kiln and air pollution control system were subsequently modified to treat petroleum-contaminated soils at the nominal rate of 100 tons per hour at a maximum soil temperature of 850º Fahrenheit. In addition, the modified kiln was designed to comply with all United States Environmental Protection Agency and State of Florida emissions and ambient air standards. The system modification and fabrication began in early 1990, with subsequent operational testing in September 1990. The facility has been operating at an average rate of 100 tons per hour for approximately 10 hours per day (1,000 tons per day) and 20 days per month. On average, the facility has treated more than 200,000 tons per year of contaminated soil for more than 12 years, or approximately 2.5 x 106 total tons of soil.

KERP IMS

Consortium of International Consultants 2

2 Description of Treatment System/Process The C.A. Meyer thermal desorption system is shown schematically in Figures 2-1 and 2-2. The main components of the system are as follows:

• Feed hopper and screen; • Counter-flow rotating drum; • Dropout box or cyclone; • Fabric filter; • Induced draft fan; • Cylindrical thermal oxidizer; and • Exhaust stack.

The contaminated soil is brought to the facility by truck and dumped onto the contaminated storage pile. The storage pile is located in a partially enclosed facility to protect it from rainfall and wind erosion. The partially enclosed facility also limits fugitive emissions from volatile organic compounds. The contaminated soil is brought by front-end loader to a feed hopper, which is followed by a power screen. The power screen removes all large stones and foreign objects (larger than 2 inches), and breaks up any clumps in the soil. The screened soil is then fed by conveyor to a counter-flow rotating kiln. The soil enters the kiln at the opposite end from the burner and exits the kiln at the burner end at a temperature of 700º Fahrenheit. The cleaned soil is then quenched with water sprays to reduce the temperature and restore moisture to the soil. Meanwhile, the hot gases (approximately 350º Fahrenheit) exit the kiln from the end opposite the burner and pass through a cyclone and baghouse to remove carry-over particulates. The gas (approximately 250º Fahrenheit) then enters a thermal oxidizer, which raises the temperature to 1,500º Fahrenheit and destroys any organic compounds that are desorbed from the soil. The hot gases are then exhausted through a stack.

KERP IMS

Consortium of International Consultants 3

3 Soil Treatment Performance Data and Results During September 1990, the C.A. Meyer soil remediation facility went through an extensive testing program to establish compliance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection air permitting regulations and soil treatment criteria. These data are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, which show the testing results for soil feed rates of approximately 100 tons per hour. Table 3-1 presents the destruction efficiency of the thermal oxidizer with respect to the desorbed organic compounds. This testing was performed to show compliance with the State of Florida (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) requirement that the thermal oxidizer demonstrate a minimum of 95-percent destruction efficiency at maximum soil feed rates.

Table 3-1 Destruction and Removal Efficiency Summary

Run

Soil Feed Rate

(tons per hour)

Soil Temperature (°Fahrenheit)

Afterburner Operating

Temperature (°Fahrenheit)

Stack Gas Flow Rate

(acfm)

Afterburner(1)

Retention Time(seconds)

Stack O2 Dry Volume

Basis (percent)

Destruction Removal

Efficiency (percent)

1 101.5 592 1,508 151,991 1.85 7.3 98.88 2 101.5 581 1,538 151,991 1.85 4.3 99.33 3 97.9 589 1,557 130,425 2.16 4.3 99.64 4 100.2 586 1,592 133,444 2.11 (2) 99.58 5 100.4 574 1,461 126,803 2.29 4.9 99.60

Average 100.3 585 1,531 138,931 2.05 5.2 99.44

(1) Afterburner volume = 4,692.8 cubic feet. (2) Data unavailable because of monitoring equipment malfunction. Table 3-2 presents a comparison of untreated and treated soils, showing that at the maximum feed rate of 100 tons per hour, the treated soil total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons was less than 50 parts per million. In conclusion, it can be stated that the facility achieved a total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon removal efficiency of greater than 99.8 percent for petroleum-contaminated soils and complied with the air emissions standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Table 3-2 Summary of Soil Test Results: Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Sample Identification

Untreated Soils

(parts per million)

Treated Soil

(parts per million)

Permitted Allowable

Treated Soil (parts per million)

1 13,820 23.2 50 2 12,860 27.8 50 3 13,580 16.6 50 4 14,430 22.9 50 5 20,230 29.1 50

Average 14,984 23.92 50

KERP IMS

02:001483_KA03_05_01Fig2-1.CDR-8/14/03-GRA

Figure 2-1 C.A. Meyer Soil Remediation Facility Process Flow Schematic

Sta

ck

Fabric Filter

Cyclone

Water Quench

Feed Hopper

RotaryDru

m

Screening

I.D. Fan

Thermal

Oxidizer

Contaminated Soil

Clean Soil

A AA A

FF

FF

W WW W

D D D D D D D D D D

DD

D

D D D D D D D D D D

DD

D

F FF

FF

F FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

KEY

Contaminated Soils

Fuel

Air

Water

Flue Gas

Clean Soil

AA

FF

WW

FF

DustDD

KERP IMS

02:001483_KA03_05_01Fig2-2.CDR-8/13/03-GRA

Figure 2-2 C.A. Meyer Soil Remediation Facility Process Temperatures

StackAfterburnerBaghouseDryer

Soil

Cyclone

Air

330°C 60°C

Gas180°C 180°C 120°C 815°C

KERP IMS