cost and performance report - frtr › costperformance › pdf › wide_bch.pdfthe thermal...

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency ResponseTechnology Innovation Office

RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5

Wide Beach Development Superfund Site—Page 1 of 17

COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT

This report presents cost and performancedata for a thermal desorption/dehalogenationtreatment application at the Wide BeachDevelopment Superfund site (Wide Beach) inBrant, New York. Contamination of soil at theWide Beach site resulted from the spraying ofwaste oil containing polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) over the roadways in the community tocontrol dust. A Record of Decision (ROD),signed in 1985, required excavation, stockpil-ing, and treatment of soil from areas includingroadways, drainage ditches, and residentialyards where concentrations of PCBs weregreater than 10 mg/kg. In response to theROD and a 1988 interagency agreementbetween EPA and the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE), SoilTech’s mobile anaero-bic thermal processor (ATP) system was usedin conjunction with alkaline polyethyleneglycol (APEG) dechlorination to treat contami-nated soil at this site. The USACE specifiedthat the concentration of PCBs in soil treatedat Wide Beach should not exceed 2 mg/kg.

The system was operated from October 1990to September 1991. Approximately 42,000tons of stockpiled soil contaminated withPCBs, mainly Arochlor 1254, at concentra-tions ranging from 10 to 5,000 mg/kg, weretreated. The Wide Beach project is notable forbeing the first full-scale treatment applicationusing SoilTech’s ATP system in conjunction

with APEG dechlorination to treat soil at a Super-fund site contaminated with PCBs.

The SoilTech ATP system used at Wide Beachconsisted of a feed system, the ATP unit (a rotarykiln thermal desorber), a vapor recovery system, aflue gas treatment system, a tailings handlingsystem, and a module for preparing reagents usedfor the APEG dechlorination process. Wastewaterfrom the vapor recovery system was treated on-site and then disposed of at an off-site treatmentfacility. Waste oil from the vapor recovery systemcontaining PCBs was dechlorinated using APEGand then recycled as carrier oil in the vaporrecovery system. An EPA SITE Demonstration,conducted during the full-scale operation in Mayof 1991, indicated that 98 percent of the PCBsthat entered the ATP system were dechlorinated.

The thermal description system at Wide Beachachieved the specified soil cleanup standards.Concentration of PCBs in treated soil sampleswere generally at or below the reported detectionlimit of 0.5 mg/kg. However, treated soils couldnot be used as backfill, because they were not ascohesive as the excavated soil, and were disposedof off site as nonhazardous waste.

The costs for the treatment application at WideBeach, excluding costs for construction of aconcrete pad for the ATP unit and for off-sitedisposal of the treated soil, were $11,600,000.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


SITE INFORMATION

Figure 1. Site LocationBackground

Historical Activity That Generated Contami-nation at the Site: Spraying of waste oil overroadways for dust control. [7]Corresponding SIC Codes: Not applicableWaste Management Practice that Contrib-uted to Contamination: Road Oiling -Application of PCB-containing waste oils tothe roadways for dust control.

Site History: The Wide Beach DevelopmentSuperfund Site (Wide Beach) is a 55 acre,lake-side community located in Brant, NewYork, as shown on Figure 1. From 1964 until1978, waste oil containing polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) was applied to the roadwaysin the community to control dust. Soil fromthe roadways was excavated during theinstallation of a 1-mile sanitary sewer trench inthe community during 1980. Excavated soilwas used as fill in several residential yards. [7]

An Erie County Department of Environmentand Planning investigation of an odor com-plaint led to the discovery of 19 drums in awooded area in the Wide Beach Developmentcommunity. Two of the drums containedwaste oil contaminated with PCBs. Furtherinvestigation revealed that PCBs were presentin soil from roadways and residential yards, invacuum cleaner dust from residential homes,and in water from residential wells. The WideBeach Development site was placed on theNational Priorities List in September 1983. [7]

Identifying Information

Wide Beach Development Superfund Site,Brant, New YorkCERCLIS #: NY0980652259ROD Date: September 30, 1985

Treatment Application

Type of Action: RemedialDemonstration Test Associated withApplication? Yes (see Appendix A andReference 4)EPA SITE Program Test Associated withApplication? Yes (see Reference 9)Period of Operation: October 1990 toSeptember 1991Quantity of Soil Treated During Application:42,000 tons

A remedial investigation and feasibility study(RI/FS) was conducted from 1984 to 1985.[18] The RI/FS results indicated that:

PCBs (mainly Arochlor 1254) were themajor contaminants;

The highest PCB concentrations weredetected in soils from the roadways,drainage ditches, driveways, and frontyards;

Concentrations of PCBs in water fromresidential wells were in the parts perbillion range or less;

PCBs were transported mostly bysurface water:

Contaminated soils would act as along-term source of PCBs; and

Human exposure to PCBs was pos-sible through ingestion of contami-nated vegetation and/or soil, inhala-tion, and dermal absorption.

Based on these results, EPA implemented aremoval action, which was conducted fromJune to July 1985. The removal action in-cluded paving roadways, drainage ditches,and driveways, shampooing and vacuumingrugs, replacing air conditioner and furnacefilters in residential homes, and installing


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)Background (cont.)

particulate filters in residential wells to preventfurther exposure of the public to PCBs. [7]

Long-term remedial measures were subse-quently specified in a 1985 Record of Deci-sion (ROD). Remedial measures were con-ducted from 1986 until 1991.

Several activities took place relative to theimplementation of the ROD requirement ofchemical treatment for contaminated soil atWide Beach.

From May 1986 to February 1989, EbascoServices, Inc., and Galson Research Corpora-tion conducted bench- and pilot-scaletreatability studies to determine the suitabilityof potassium polyethylene glycol (KPEG)dechlorination as a chemical treatmentprocess. These studies were completed usinga batch process, including blending of con-taminated soil with KPEG for at least 12 hours,centrifugation of the mixture to recover thedechlorination reagents, and then washing ofthe soil. [8]

In December 1988, EPA and the United StatesArmy Corps of Engineers (USACE) signed aninteragency agreement for the procurement ofa remedial action (RA) contractor and man-agement and administration of the RA con-tract by the USACE. The RA contract devel-oped by the USACE specified that all exca-vated soils must be treated using a chemicaltreatment process. Additionally, the contractspecified that the concentration of PCBs insoil treated with this process should not begreater than 2 mg/kg and specified that allwork be performed in conformance withapplicable Federal, State, and local require-ments. [8]

In October 1989, Kimmins Thermal Corpora-tion (Kimmins) was awarded the RA contractfor the Wide Beach site. Kimmins subse-quently submitted a Value Engineering ChangeProposal in February 1990 suggesting the useof a continuous process consisting of treat-ment of soil using SoilTech’s Anaerobic Ther-mal Process (ATP) combined with EPA’s APEG

dechlorination process, instead of the batchKPEG process, for remediating soil at the WideBeach site. The ATP/APEG process waspreferred by Kimmins because the APEGprocess could be accelerated by the combina-tion of vigorous mixing and higher tempera-tures in the ATP unit. This process was sub-jected to a demonstration test in September1990 and stack gas testing on October 4 and5, 1990. Based on the results of these teststhe ATP/APEG process was found to beacceptable to EPA and the USACE. The soilremediation at the Wide Beach site using theATP/APEG process was conducted fromOctober 1990 to September 1991. [8]

Regulatory Context: The September 1985ROD identified the following long-termremedial measures for the site [7]:

Excavation and chemical treatment ofcontaminated soil from roadways,drainage ditches, driveways, yards,and wetlands containing PCB concen-trations greater than 10 mg/kg;

Sampling for PCBs in soils fromresidential yards, sewage in a liftstation near the site, and sediments indisconnected septic systems toaccurately define the extent of PCBcontamination;

Pilot-scale testing to determine aneffective treatment scheme forchemically treating the PCB-contami-nated soils;

Backfilling the treated soil into theexcavated areas;

Treatment of water from the sewertrench;

Construction of a hydraulic barrier atthe end of the sewer trench;

Disposal of contaminated asphalticmaterial and reuse of uncontaminatedasphaltic material for repaving road-ways and driveways; and

Repaving roadways and driveways.


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


SITE INFORMATION (CONT.)

U.S. Army Point of Contact:Joe Salvatore (primary contact for this applica-tion)USACEc/o 914 TAG, Building 322Niagara Falls International AirportNiagara Falls, NY 14304(716) 297-8531

Treatment Vendor:Joseph HuttonSoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.800 Canonie DrivePorter, IN 46304(219) 926-8651

Site Management: Fund - Lead (remedialdesign activities)USACE - Lead (Contract Administration)

Oversight: EPA

Remedial Project Manager:Herb KingUSEPA, Region 226 Federal PlazaNew York, NY 10278(212) 264-1129

Site Logistics/Contacts

MATRIX DESCRIPTION

Matrix Identification

Type of Matrix Processed Through theTreatment System: Soil (ex situ)

Matrix Characteristics AffectingTreatment Cost or Performance [9]

The major matrix characteristics affecting cost orperformance for this technology and their mea-sured values are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Matrix Characteristics [9,28]

*These values are the average results for three composite samples of the contaminated feed collected during the threetest runs of the SITE Demonstration conducted in May 1991. These values are from the SITE Demonstration only, duringwhich 104 of the 42,000 tons of contaminated soil from Wide Beach were tested.

Contaminant CharacterizationPrimary contaminant groups: PCBs

The concentration of PCBs measured in thesoils stockpiled for treatment ranged fromapproximately 10 to 5,000 mg/kg. PCB

concentrations measured in the material fed tothe ATP unit ranged from 11 to 68 mg/kg. PCBswere measured in the untreated (stockpiled) soilusing EPA Method 8080. [16, 19]


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Primary Treatment Technology Type

Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenation

Figure 2. ATP Schematic [9]

Post-treatment (air): The ATP system usedat Wide Beach included two off-gas treatmentsystems.

The flue gas treatment system, designed totreat gases from the combustion zone of theATP unit, included the following technologies:

Cyclone;Baghouse;Acid gas scrubber; andCarbon adsorption.

The vapor recovery system, designed to treatgases from the preheat and retort zones ofthe ATP unit, consisted of the followingtechnologies:

Cyclone;Scrubber;Fractionator;Condenser; andGas-oil-water separator.

Post-treatment (water): The condensedwater from the vapor recovery system wastreated in an on-site wastewater treatmentsystem utilizing sand filtration, clay andanthracite coal filtration, primary oxidation,gravity settling, secondary oxidation, airstripping, and carbon adsorption.

Supplemental Treatment Technology Types [9]


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


Supplemental Treatment Technology Types [9] (cont.)

TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CONT.)

The SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processormobile treatment system shown in Figure 2consisted of six main process units including asoil pretreatment system, a feed system, ananaerobic thermal processor, a vapor recoverysystem, a flue gas treatment system, and atailings handling system. In addition, thesystem used at Wide Beach included a re-agent preparation module.

APEG reagent and carrier oil solution wassprayed onto the contaminated soil as itentered the ATP unit. APEG reagent wasprepared in a module consisting of a reagentstorage area, reagent mixing tank, reagent andcarrier oil blending tank, and feed pumps.Reagents were mixed and heated in thereagent mixing tank. The reagent solution wasthen blended with carrier oil in the reagentand carrier oil blending tank.

The feed system consisted of two feedhoppers and a conveyor belt. One feedhopper contained the contaminated soil andthe other contained clean sand. The sand

served as a heat carrier and was fed to theATP unit during system startup and shutdownperiods.

The ATP unit is a rotary kiln containing fourseparate internal zones - the preheat, retort,combustion, and cooling zones (shown inFigure 3). The feed entered the preheat zonewhere it was heated and mixed, vaporizingwater, volatile organics, and some semivolatileorganics. The heated solids then entered theretort zone where they were further heated,causing vaporization of heavy oils and somethermal cracking of hydrocarbons, resulting inthe formation of coked solids and decontami-nated solids. The coked and decontaminatedsolids from the retort zone then entered thecombustion zone where coked solids werecombusted. A portion of the decontaminatedsolids were recycled to the retort zone via arecycle channel. The recycling of these solidshelped to maintain an elevated temperature inthe retort zone. The decontaminated solidsremaining in the combustion zone entered the

Figure 3. Simplified Sectional Diagram Showing the Four Internal Zones [9]

ATP/APEG Process Description and Operation [7,9,27,28]


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


ATP/APEG Process Description and Operation [7,9,27,28] (cont.)


cooling zone where they were cooled to anappropriate exit temperature.

The primary innovative features of the ATPunit are the four internal zones and the use ofproprietary sand seals at each end of theretort zone which are designed to maintain anoxygen-free environment in the retort zone,and to prevent the oxidation of hydrocarbonsand coke.

The vapor recovery system consisted of twoparallel systems. One system condensedwater and vapors from the preheat zone ofthe ATP unit. This system consisted of acyclone, a condenser, and a gas-oil-waterseparator. The other system condensed waterand vapors from the retort zone and consistedof two cyclones, a fines conveyor, a scrubber,a fractionator, a condenser, and a gas-oil-water separator.

At Wide Beach, condensed water from thevapor recovery system was treated in an on-site wastewater pretreatment system whichconsisted of the following treatment pro-cesses: sand filtration; clay and anthracitecoal filtration; primary oxidation using sodiumhypochlorite; settling; secondary oxidationwith sodium hypochlorite; air stripping; andcarbon adsorption. The wastewater dis-charged from this system was further treatedin an off-site commercial treatment system.

The waste oil from the vapor recovery systemcontaining PCBs was dechlorinated usingAPEG and then recycled as carrier oil in thevapor recovery system. At the end of theproject, waste oil remaining in the vaporrecovery system was disposed off site.

The flue gas treatment system consisted of acyclone, fines conveyor, baghouse, dustconveyor, acid gas scrubber and activatedcarbon unit. This system removed particulatesand trace hydrocarbons from the flue gasexiting the combustion zone of the ATP. Finesfrom the baghouse and cyclone were mixedwith the treated solids exiting the ATP unit.The treated flue gas was released to theatmosphere.

The tailings (treated solids) handling systemwas used to cool and remove treated solidsfrom the ATP. The treated solids exiting theATP were quenched with process and scrub-ber water and transported to storage pilesusing belt and screw conveyors.

The ROD specified that the treated solidswere to be used to backfill the excavatedareas of the site; however, the treated solidsexhibited less cohesiveness than the exca-vated soil and were not suitable for backfilling.The loss of cohesion was possibly due to thehigh silt and clay content and the presence ofexpansive interlayered illite/smectite clay.

At Wide Beach, the ATP unit was operatedcontinuously (24 hours a day and 7 days aweek) excluding system down time to repairthe mechanical problems discussed below(approximately two months) and to performroutine maintenance (approximately threedays per month).

During the treatment application at WideBeach, the unit was shut down for approxi-mately two months because the inner kiln ofthe ATP unit cracked due to heat and me-chanical stresses during operation. During thattime, the geometry and metallurgy of theinner kiln was modified, the burner systemwas redesigned to reduce heat stresses, and asecond drive system was installed to reducethe mechanical stresses on the existing drivesystem. After making these modifications, theinner kiln did not crack again during theremainder of the treatment application atWide Beach.

During treatment, problems were encounteredwith steel debris interfering with the retortzone sand seal in the ATP unit. Also, conglom-erated soil was clogging the feed hopper. Asoil pretreatment system was added to shredlarge pieces of conglomerated soil andremove steel debris. The pretreatment systemconsisted of an asphalt grinder for crushingsoil conglomerates to feed particle sizes ofless than 2 inches and a magnet for removingsteel debris from stockpiled, contaminatedsoil.


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5



Prior to the demonstration test conducted inSeptember 1990, SoilTech discovered that anumber of the filter bags in the baghouse weretorn due to excessive wear from previousoperations. During the test, SoilTech tied offthe damaged bags. SoilTech indicated that thebaghouse had adequate capacity to operatewith the damaged bags off-line. After discov-ering that the particulate emissions hadexceeded the NYDEC air permit level duringthe demonstration test, SoilTech determinedthat several damaged bags had not been tied

ATP/APEG Process Description and Operation [7,9,27,28] (cont.)

off. SoilTech subsequently replaced all of thefilter bags in the baghouse prior to stack gastesting requested by the USACE and con-ducted the tests on October 4 and 5, 1990.The average particulate emissions measuredduring the October 1990 stack gas tests (0.03gr/dscf, based on three stack gas tests) wereless than one-tenth the average particulateemissions measured during the September1990 stack gas tests (0.32 gr/dscf, based ontwo stack gas tests).

The major operating parameters affectingtreatment cost or performance for thistechnology and their values measured during

this treatment application are presented inTable 2.

Operating Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance

Table 2. Operating Parameters* [9,25]

*The values presented in Table 2 are the average results for the three test runs of the SITE Demonstration. According tothe USACE, these values were held fairly constant during the entire course of the soil remediation at Wide Beach. [9,25]

Other parameters measured during the SITEDemonstration were the stack gas flow rate(5,275 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm))

and the preheat and retort zone off-gas flowrates (203 and 109 actual cubic feet perminute (acfm), respectively). [9]


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5



Timeline

The timeline for this application is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Timeline

TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCECleanup Goals Standards

Polyethylene glycol (PEG): 4.16 x 10 -5 lb/hr; and

Particulates: 0.05 gr/dscf.

The ROD specified that contaminated soils fromroadways, drainage ditches, driveways, yards, andwetlands containing more than 10 mg/kg of PCBswere to be excavated and chemically treated.

The RA contract required a PCB cleanup level of 2mg/kg be verified by collecting one sample fromthe treated soil staging area for every 100 tons ofsoil treated. These samples were collected byinserting a stainless steel tube into the stagingpile. [17, 19]

Treatment Performance Data

Table 4 summarizes the analytical results forPCBs (measured in an on-site laboratory usingEPA Method 8080) in untreated and treatedsoil during the treatment application at WideBeach. [19, 24]

Results for stack gas emissions of PCBs, PEG,and particulates are presented in Appendix A.

Although no treatment standard or action levelwas set for dioxins/furans in stack gas emis-sions, these constituents were measured inthe SITE Demonstration. [28] Table 5 showsdioxin and furan stack gas emissions mea-sured during the SITE Demonstration. [9]

The Remedial Action (RA) contract developedby USACE specified a maximum concentrationof 2 mg/kg for PCBs in treated soil and that allremediation work be performed in conform-ance with applicable Federal, State and localrequirements. [17]

Applicable Federal, State, and local require-ments include air emission requirements forstack gases. The New York Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NYDEC) speci-fied the following stack emission requirementsfor the ATP unit used at Wide Beach [4]:

PCBs: 3.33 x 10-5 pounds per hours(lb/hr);

Start Date End Date A c t i v i t y

September 30, 1985 — ROD signed

May 1986 February 1989 Treatability Studies of KPEG conducted

September 7, 1990 September 8, 1990 Demonstration test of the ATP/APEG process performed

October 4, 1990 October 5, 1990 Stack gas tested for particulate emissions.

October 1990 September 1991 Full-scale operation of the ATP/APEG process

December1990 January 1991System shut down - the inner kiln of the ATP unit cracked due to thermal andmechanical stresses. The geometry and metallurgy of the inner kiln wasimporved to allow use of combustion zone temperature up to 1,500 F.

May 1991 — SITE Demonstration conducted


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)Treatment Performance Data (Cont.)

Compound Stack Gas (ng/dscm)

Tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD) 0.14

Tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDF) 4.8

Pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PeCDD) 0.96

Pentachlorinated dibenzofurans (PeCDF) 0.72

Hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HxCDD) 0.17

Hexachlorinated dibenzofurans (HxCDF) 0.077

Heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HpCDD) 0.25

Heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HpCDF) 0.032

Octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (OCDD) 2.34

Octachlorinated dibenzofurans (OCDF) 0.032

TOTAL 9.52*

Table 4. PCB Results [19, 24]

ND = Not detected. Number in parenthesis is the reported detection limit.

Table 5. Dioxin and Furan Stack Gas Emissions [9]

Performance Data Assessment

The concentrations of PCBs in treated soilsamples ranged from less than the reporteddetection limit (generally equal to 0.4 to 0.5mg/kg) to 1.8 mg/kg. The concentrations ofPCBs in treated soil samples were generallyless than or equal to the detection limit of 0.4to 0.5 mg/kg.

The level of dechlorination in the ATP unit wasmeasured during the demonstration testconducted in September 1990 (seeAppendix A), and the SITE Demonstrationconducted in May 1991. The level ofdechlorination was determined by comparingthe quantity of PCBs entering the ATP systemto the quantity of PCBs discharged from theATP system via all effluent streams - thetreated solids, stack gas, condensed water,and vapor scrubber oils, and assuming that the

difference in mass of PCBs is attributed todechlorination. During the demonstration test,4.3 pounds of PCBs entered the system and1.05 pounds of PCBs were discharged,corresponding to a 76 percent dechlorinationlevel (i.e., 76 percent of the mass of PCBsentering the system were dechlorinated).However, this figure does not account fordechlorination from the recycle of residual oilthrough the system. During the SITEDemonstration, 0.321 lb/hr of PCBs were fedto the ATP system and 0.00678 lb/hr of PCBswere discharged from the ATP system,corresponding to a 98 percent dechlorinationlevel. [4, 9]

During the Demonstration Test, stack gasemission requirements were met for PCBs,PEG, and particulates.

*Total stack gas concentration of 9.52 ng/dscm is equivalent to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 0.707 ng/dscm.


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (CONT.)

TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTProcurement Process

EPA and the USACE signed an interagencyagreement for the procurement of an RAcontractor. The interagency agreement speci-fied that the USACE would be responsible formanagement and administration of the RAcontract. The USACE retained Kimmins

Thermal Corporation to manage the remedialconstruction and treatment activities at thesite. Kimmins subcontracted SoilTech, Inc., totreat the excavated contaminated soil at WideBeach using the ATP/APEG dechlorinationprocess. [8]

Treatment Cost

Tables 6, 7, and 8 present the costs for theThermal Desorption/Dehalogenation applica-tion at the Wide Beach DevelopmentSuperfund Site. In order to standardizereporting of costs across projects, costs areshown in Tables 6, 7, and 8 according to theformat for an interagency Work BreakdownStructure (WBS). The WBS specifies 9 before-treatment cost elements, 5 after-treatmentcost elements, and 12 cost elements thatprovide a detailed breakdown of costs directlyassociated with treatment. Tables 6, 7, and 8present the cost elements exactly as theyappear in the WBS, along with the specificactivities, and unit cost and number of units ofthe activity, as provided by EPA in the draftApplications Analysis Report.

In preparing the Applications Analysis Report,EPA obtained actual cost data from Soil Techfor treating 42,000 tons of soil at Wide Beach[9]. As shown in Table 6, the cost data show atotal of $11,600,00 for cost elements directlyassociated with treatment of the soil (i.e.,excluding before- and after-treatment costelements). This total treatment cost corre-sponds to $280 per ton of soil treated. Inaddition, Tables 7 and 8 show that a total of$908,000 for before-treatment and$3,400,000 for after-treatment costs wereincurred. There were no costs in this applica-tion for the following elements in the WBS:Liquid Preparation and Handling, Vapor/GasPreparation and Handling, Pads/Foundations/

Performance Data Completeness

The performance data are suitable for char-acterizing the concentrations of PCBs inuntreated and treated soil, and for comparingtreatment performance with system design

Performance Data Quality

and operation. The demonstration test andthe SITE Demonstration test include paired,representative untreated and treated soilsamples.

Approximately 10% of the treated soilsamples collected during the treatmentapplication at Wide Beach were split foranalysis in both the on-site laboratory and theUSACE’s New England Division laboratory. Theon-site laboratory results generally compared

well with the USACE results. In some in-stances the on-site laboratory results below 1mg/kg PCBs showed a negative bias whencompared to the USACE laboratory results;however, none of the data were rejected bythe USACE. [20-23]


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)

Spill Control, Training, Operation (Long-term -over 3 years), Site Work, Surface WaterCollection and Control, Groundwater Collec-tion and Control, Air Pollution/Gas Collectionand Control, Solids Collection and Contain-ment, Liquids/Sediments/Sludges Collection

Treatment Cost (Cont.)

and Containment, Drums/Tanks/Structures/Miscellaneous Demolition and Removal,Decontamination and Decommissioning,Disposal (Other than Commercial), SiteRestoration, and Demobilization.

Table 6. Costs Directly Associated with Treatment [9]*

Calculated Cost per Ton of Soil Treated: $280 per ton*Additional information on estimated costs is available in Reference 26.

Cost Elements Cost (dollars)

Solids Preparation and Handling—residuals and waste handling and transporting 736,000

Star tup/Test ing/Permi ts—permitting and regulatory—startup

200,000133,000

Operation (short-term - up to 3 years)—labor—supplies and consumables—utilities—equipment repair and replacement

3,800,0001,194,000913,000

1982,000

Cost of Ownership—capital equipment 2,153,000

Demobilization 481,000

TOTAL TREATMENT COST 11,600,000


Mobilization and Preparatory Work—transport of ATP unit to site—initial setup—installing infrastructure for utilities—setup of decontamination facilities

588,000

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, andAnalysis

320,000

Table7. Before -Treatment Cost Elements

Table 8. After -Treatment Cost Elements [9]


Disposal (commercial) 3,400,000*

* Calculated from a disposal cost of $80/ton x 42,000 tons of soil treated.


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


TREATMENT SYSTEM COST (CONT.)

Cost Data Quality

Treatment cost information shown in Table 6represents actual costs of the treatmentapplication and was obtained from the

treatment vendor. No qualifications to the costinformation were provided by the vendor. [9]

Vendor Input [27,28]

Material handling characteristics; andChemical characteristics.

Vendor estimates for mobilization and demo-bilization costs for a 10-ton per hour systemrange from $700,000 to $1.5 million. In thethree Superfund projects completed by theSoilTech ATP System since the Wide Beachproject, no off-site disposal of treated solidshas been required. In addition, treatmentcosts have been reduced by as much as 17%as a result of improved process efficiency.

According to the treatment vendor, in general,the costs for treatment using the SoilTech ATPsystem vary depending on the character of thewaste material, with treatment costs rangingfrom $150 to $250 per ton for a 10-ton perhour ATP system. The factors identified by thevendor that affect costs include:

Moisture content of feed material;Particle size;Hydrocarbon content;

Cost Observations and Lessons Learned

Performance Observations and Lessons Learned

The SoilTech ATP System achieved the2 mg/kg cleanup level for PCBs in soil.The concentrations of PCBs in treatedsoil were generally at or below thereported detection limit (0.5 mg/kg).These results were consistent withthose shown in the demonstrationtest.

Treatment of 42,000 tons of soil wascompleted in a one year period.

During the demonstration test, stackgas emission requirements were metfor PCBs, PEG, and particulates.

The SITE Demonstration resultsindicated that about 98 percent of thePCBs were dechlorinated. This value isgreater than the level of dechlorina-tion calculated from the demonstra-tion test results (76 percent, seeAppendix A).

The cost for treatment of 42,000 tonsof soil at Wide Beach was$11,600,000, or approximately $280/ton. This value includes treatment

chemical costs, but does not includecosts for a concrete pad for the ATPunit. Off-site disposal of treated soilfrom Wide Beach was $80/ton.

OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Other Observations and Lessons Learned

The system was shut down for abouttwo months when the inner kiln of theATP unit cracked due to mechanicaland heat stresses during operation.The geometry and metallurgy of theinner kiln, and the burner and drivesystems for the ATP unit were modi-fied so that the unit could withstand

temperatures of up to 1,500° C in thecombustion zone.

A soil pretreatment system was addedto the treatment system after thesystem was shut down to removesteel debris which interfered with theretort zone sand seal and conglomer-ated soil lodged in the feed hopper.


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


4. Demonstration Test, Demonstration of theAOSTRA-Taciuk Process System forDechlorination of PCB Contaminants onSoil Using Alkaline/Polyethylene Glycol,SoilTech, (undated).

5. Cleary, J.G. “Development of RemedialDesign for KPEG Chemical Treatment ofPCB Contaminated Soil at Wide Beach,New York, Superfund Site”, ContaminatedSoil Treatment, (undated).

6. Peterson, R.L. “APEG-Plus Dechlorinationof Dioxins, PCBs, and Pentachlorophenolin Soils and Sludges”, Galson RemediationCorporation Company Literature, (un-dated).

OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED (CONT.)

REFERENCES1. Appendix D: Pilot Study Testing Report:

KPEG Processing of Soils, Galson Reme-diation Corp; Final Design Report, Reme-dial Design, Ebasco Services, February1989.

2. Lab Scale Testing Report, KPEG Processingof Wide Beach Development Site Soil,Galson Remediation Corp., September 30,1988.

3. NATO/CCMS Proceedings, Wide BeachDevelopment Site, 2nd InternationalWorkshop, April 1988.

Other Observations and Lessons Learned (Cont.)

The fiberglass woven bags used in theflue gas treatment system baghouseabraded when the bags were cleanedwith an air pulse system. SoilTech laterreplaced the fiberglass woven bagswith stronger felted glass bags whichare more durable at higher tempera-tures. The modified bags did notabrade when the ATP system was laterused to treat soil and sediment at theOutboard Marine CorporationSuperfund Site.

The treated solids could not bebackfilled at the site because theywere not as cohesive as the excavatedsoil. The vendor indicated that theloss of cohesion in the solids aftertreatment was possibly due to thehigh silt and clay content and thepresence of expansive illite/smectiteclay. While off-site disposal of treatedsoils was necessary for this applica-tion, no off-site disposal has beennecessary in the three Superfundprojects conducted since Wide Beachwhich used the SoilTech ATP system.

The SITE Demonstration and aNew York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation studyindicated that the thermal and chemi-

cal treatment of soils at Wide Beachmay have adversely affected theability of the treated soils to supportvegetation for the following reasons:

- the average concentration ofnitrogen was reduced from 733 inthe untreated soil to 40 mg/kg inthe treated solids during the SITEDemonstration;

- the treated solids contained anelevated concentration of solublesalts due to the addition of theAPEG reagents; and

- the pH of the treated soil requiredadjustment.

Additional information provided by theRPM and Contracting Officer concern-ing the procurement and contractingprocesses at the Wide Beach Devel-opment site (and other sites) isprovided in Reference 30. Reference30 is available from the U.S. EPANational Center for EnvironmentalPublications and Information (NCEPI),P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH45242; (fax orders only) (513) 489-8695.


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


REFERENCES (CONT.)

7. Superfund Record of Decision, WideBeach, New York, September 1985.

8. Generaux, I.D. “Wide Beach DevelopmentSite - Case Study”, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Kansas City District, (undated).

9. U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineers Labora-tory. Draft Applications Analysis Report forthe SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processorat the Wide Beach Development andWaukegan Harbor Superfund Sites.Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1993.

10. “Turning “Dirty” Soil into “Clean” Mush”,Soils, September- October 1991.

11. SoilTech, Inc. The Taciuk Process Technol-ogy: Thermal Remediation of Solids andSludges. (undated).

12. Vorum, M., and Montgomery, A. TheTaciuk Technology for Anaerobic Pyrolysisof Solid Wastes and Sludges: Applicationsin Remediation. Canonie Environmental,Englewood, Colorado, (undated).

13. Superfund Preliminary Site Close OutReport, Wide Beach Development Site,EPA Region II, New York, New York,September 30, 1992.

14. “Wide Beach Cleanup Two-Thirds Com-plete: Soil Contains


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


APPENDIX A—DEMONSTRATION TEST

Demonstration Test Purpose

The purpose of this test was to:

Demonstrate that SoilTech’s AnaerobicThermal Processor (ATP) systemcombined with dechlorination chemis-try could achieve treatment of poly-chlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contami-nated soil from the Wide Beach site toa cleanup level of less than 2 mg/kgPCBs.

Demonstrate that the New YorkDepartment of Environmental Conser-vation (NYDEC) air emission standardscould be achieved by the ATP system.

Demonstrate that the concentrations ofmetals, herbicides, semivolatile organics,pesticides, and volatile organics measuredin the Toxicity Characteristic LeachateProcedure (TCLP) extracts from thetreated solids are less than the ToxicityCharacteristic (TC) limits.

Demonstrate that dechlorination of PCBsis occurring during the treatment process.

Demonstrate that an average feed rate of8 tons per hour is attainable by the ATPsystem.

Demonstration Test Description

Demonstration Test Performance Data [4]

Analyses of the TCLP extracts from the treatedsolids indicated that metals, herbicides,semivolatile organics, pesticides, and volatileorganics were not present in the extractsabove the TC limits. Additionally, total petro-leum hydrocarbons were not detected in the

As shown in Tables A-1 and A-2, the demon-stration scale test results indicated that thesite cleanup goal for PCBs in soil (less than 2mg/kg) and stack gas emissions requirementswere achieved using the ATP dechlorinationtreatment system.

curred during the first ten hours of the test.The second phase included the processing ofclean sand feed while recycling recovered oilscontaining PCBs with the dechlorinationreagents. The second phase occurred duringthe last 11 hours of the demonstration. Thepurpose of the second phase was to collectdata which showed that dechlorination wasoccurring during the treatment process byisolating the dechlorination of PCBs containedin the recycled water and oil.

The treatment system used for the full-scaleremediation of soil at the Wide Beach site wasused for the demonstration test, as describedin the ATP/APEG Process Description andOperation section of this report.

The demonstration scale test was conductedon September 7 and 8, 1990 and consisted oftwo phases. The first phase included process-ing of approximately 62 tons of contaminatedsoil through the treatment system and oc-

Concentration of PCBs in theContaminated Feed Composite

Sample (mg/kg)Concentration of PCBs in the Treated

Solids Composite Sample (mg/kg)

Cleanup Goal forPCBs in Soil

(mg/kg)Percent

Removal (%)

25


RPF-

048.

pm

5\10

17-0

3.p

m5


APPENDIX A—DEMONSTRATION TEST (CONT.)

Demonstration Test Performance Data [4] (Cont.)

Table A-2. Stack Gas Emissions [4]

Constituent Requirement Maximum Emission Levels

PCB (lb/hr) 3.33 x 10 1.0 x 10

PEG (lb/hr) 4.16 x 10 4.0 x 10

Particulates (gr/dscf) 0.05 0.04

-5

-5 -5

-5

These results indicate that approximately 76percent of the PCBs introduced into thesystem were dechlorinated during the firstphase of the demonstration test.

During the first phase of the demonstrationtest, recovered oils were commingled with oilsproduced during the pretest run and reagentfuel. This increased the volume of oil to berecycled during the second phase. As a result,only 20% of the recovered oils could berecycled during the test. Consequently, thesecond phase of the demonstration test couldnot provide conclusive evidence of dechlori-nation of the recycled oils.

During the first phase of the demonstrationtest, 61.66 tons of contaminated soil weretreated in the ATP system in 7.62 hours. Thiscorresponds to an average feed rate of 8.1tons per hour (tph). The maximum feed rateduring the first phase of the demonstrationtest was 8.92 tph for approximately 1.5 hours.

treated solids (detection limit equal to 4.6mg/Kg).

The occurrence of dechlorination was quanti-fied by analyzing PCB material balance datafor the demonstration test. During the firstphase of the demonstration, approximately4.3 pounds of PCBs were fed into the treat-ment system, 0.0151 pounds were dis-charged in the treated soils and stack emis-sions, and 1.03 pounds accumulated in thesystem (in process oil and water). The per-centage of PCBs introduced into the treatmentsystem that were dechlorinated is calculatedby the following equation:

PCBs PCBs discharged PCBs accumulatedintroduced (pounds) in the system(pounds)

PCBs introduced (pounds)

+— [ ]X 100=Percentage of PCBsdechlorinated

Demonstration Test Lessons Learned

The SoilTech ATP/dechlorinationsystem achieved the site cleanup goalfor PCBs in soil (less than 2 mg/Kg)during the demonstration test. PCBswere reduced from 25 mg/kg to lessthan the 0.06 mg/kg reported detec-tion limit.

Metals, herbicides, semivolatileorganics, pesticides and volatileorganics in the TCLP extracts for thetreated solids were measured atconcentrations which were less thanthe TC limits.

PCB material balance data indicatedthat approximately 76 percent of thePCBs introduced into the treatmentsystem were dechlorinated in the firstphase of the demonstration test. Thisfigure underestimates the ability of thesystem to dechlorinate PCBs becauseit does not take into account therecycling of residual oil through thesystem.

The ATP system maintained anaverage operating rate of 8.1 tphduring the first phase of the demon-stration test.

COST AND PERFORMANCE REPORT

Thermal Desorption/Dehalogenationat the

Wide Beach Development Superfund SiteBrant, New York

Prepared By:

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency ResponseTechnology Innovation Office

March 1995


Notice

Preparation of this report has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency under Contract Number 68-W3-0001. It has been subject to administrative reviewby EPA headquarters and Regional staff and by the technology vendor. Mention of trade namesfor commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

cost and performance report - frtr › costperformance › pdf › wide_bch.pdfthe thermal...

Documents