semspub.epa.govecology and environment, inc. international specialists in the environment cloverleaf...

ecology and environment, inc.International Specialists in the Environment

Cloverleaf Building 3,6405 Metcalf Overland Park, Kansas 66202 Tel: (913) 432-9961, Fax: (913) 432-0670

memorandum

TO: Paul Doherty, EPA/START PO

FROM: Samuel P. Mudumaia, P.E., CHMM, E & E/STM £

THRU: Hieu Q. Vu, P.E., CHMM, E & E/START PM

DATE: December8, 1997

TDD #: S07-9708-003A PAN ft: 0609ACTTXX EPA/OSC: Janice Kroone, EPA/OSC

Please find aftaehed a copy of the repon for the above subjecf. The scope of ivoric focused on dfe

evaluanon of the feasibility of several frcannem fechnologies and .heir associated costs for treating

contaminated soil and ground water a. die A,her, City SBA site. A brief summa^ of these technologies

"j2 : ,h' T“ fM y0“r reVtoW' InCl“ded in ^ "»■“ are — our lecommendations fortreatment technologies for contaminated soil and ground water nnwmnM vo-r. 8 ter‘ ° ease contact us you have any questions

r if the START can be of further assistant

30324420

Superfund

SM/LKS-'A* 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

•^6D Sr„v

x>zuios~:/^ PRCflfc0

SB UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VIIEMERGENCY RESPONSE AND REMOVAL

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION OF SOIL AND GROUND WATER CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES

at the

ALBERT CITY SBA SITE ALBERT CITY IOWA

CERCLIS ID No.: IAD984601039

NOVEMBER 1997

r

ri

i 1 L ,L J

Ecology and Environment, Inc.

SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM CONTRACT No: 68-W6-0012

TDD: S07-9708-003 PAN: 0609ACTTXX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................... 2-1

2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY............................................................... 2-2

2.3 SITE HISTORY AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS .............................................. 2-5

3.0 BRIEF SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTTECHNOLOGIES .................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL .............................................................3-2

3.2 ON-SITE EX-SITU INCINERATION (MOBILE INCINERATOR) ..........................34

3.3 ON-SITE EX-SITU SOIL WASHING ......................................................................... 3-6

3.4 BIODEGRADATION..................................................................................................... 3-7

3.5 ON-SITE EX-SITU LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION (LTTD) 3-8

3.6 BIOVENTING.................................................................. 3-9

3.7 SOIL FLUSHING ........................................................................................................3-10

3.8 IN-SITU VITRIFICATION .........................................................................................3-11

3.9 DEHALOGENATION ................................................................................................ 3-13

3.10 ENHANCED IN-SITU VAPORIZATION.................................................................. 3-14

3.11 CHEMICAL TREATMENT.........................................................................................3-15

3.12 IN-SITU DECHLORINATION WITH ZERO-VALENT IRON AND FUNNEL GATESYSTEM .................... 3-17

3.13 LANDFARMING ........................................................................................................3-18

3.14 NATURAL ATTENUATION.............................................................................. 3-19

3.15 AIR SPARGING .......................................................................................................... 3-20

3.16 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION ....................................................................................3-21

4.0 SCREENING AND SELECTION OF A TREATMENT SYSTEM......................................4-1

5.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR A PILOT TESTS AND A FULL SCALE SVE SYSTEM ... 5-1

6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................... 6-1\

Section Page

SM/LKS i 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

7.0 REFERENCES 7-1

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Figures 1 to 10

2. Smith Environmental—Soil Washing

3. B & S Research, Inc.—Biodegradation

4. Roy F. Weston, Inc.—Thermal Desorption

5. Midwest Soil Remediation, Inc.—Thermal Desorption

6. ENSR Consulting & Engineering—Bioventing

7. Batelle—Bioventing

8. Horizontal Technologies, Inc.—In-situ Soil Flushing

9. Geosafe Corporation—In-situ Vitrification

10. Retech, Division of M4 Environmental—In-situ Vitrification

11. Commodore Applied Technologies—Dehalogenation

12. SDTX Technologies—Dehalogenation

13. Millgard Environmental—Enhanced In-situ Vaporization

14. Golder Applied Technologies, Inc.—Technical Papers on Zero-valent Iron Technology

15. Integrated Environmental Solutions, Inc.—Air Sparging

16. Henry’s Law Constant Table

17. Terra Vac, Inc.—Soil Vapor Extraction

18. Terra Vac, Inc.—Dual Phase Extraction Process

19. Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc.—Pneumatic Fracturing

20. Supporting Documentation for the Pilot Test

21. Supporting Documentation for the Full-scale System

I

SM/LKS u 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

LIST OF TABLES

2-1 Monitoring Well Construction Summary and Ground Water Elevations ................................. 2-4

2-2 Summary of Highest Concentrations of Chlorinated VOCs Detected in Shallow Soil and GroundWater at the Albert City Site.....................................................................................................2-6

2-3 Summary of Highest Concentrations of Chlorinated VOCs Detected in Soil and Ground Water Beneath 5 Feet at the Albert City Site......................................................................................2-6

2- 4 Soil Clean-Up Levels.................. 2-7

3- 1 Superfund Remedial Actions: Project Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies .... 3-22

3- 2 Superfund Removal Actions: Project Status of Innovative Treatment Technologies...........3-23

4- 1 Summary of Evaluated Alternative—Costs and Duration of Treatment.................................... 4-4

5- 1 Budgetary Estimates for a Pilot Test at the Albert City Site......................................................5-1

5-2 Budgetary Estimates for a Full-Scale System at the Albert City Site.........................................5-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Site Location Map

2. Site Map

3. General Geologic/Hydrogeologic Column

4. Surface Geologic Cross-Section

5. Water Table Potentiometric Map

6. Potentiometric Map of Deep Wells

7. Contaminated Solvents in Soil at 2 and 5 feet depths

8. Schematic of a inadequate SVE system

9. Schematic of a SVE/Soil Ventilation System

10. Schematic of a SVE System

Tables Pa8e

iiiSM/LKS 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E & E), Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team

(START) was tasked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 Enforcement/Fund-

Lead Removal (EFLR) program, under Technical Direction Document (TDD) No. S07-9708-003, to

evaluate treatment technologies for contaminated soil and ground water at the Albert City SBA site

(referred to hereafter as the Albert City site) in Albert City, Iowa. Analytes present in concentrations

above the risk-based soil screening levels (SSLs) and preliminary removal goals (PRGs) in soil at the site

are: trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-DCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and vinyl chloride

(VC). The aforementioned PRGs and SSLs (risk-based levels) for the site were provided by the Iowa

Department of Health (IDOH). Monitoring well and storm sewer data indicate that contaminated soil at

the site is the waste source responsible for ground water contamination in the area. The compounds cited

above were considered as target contaminants for the evaluation.

The objective of this tasking was to evaluate appropriate technologies for remediating contaminated

soil and ground water. This objective was accomplished using the following approach:

1) Preparing a summary of available background information on the site.

2) Compiling summaries of available technologies appropriate for the cleanup of contaminated soil

and ground water.

3) Selection of a suitable technology for the Albert City site.

4) Obtaining budgetary cost estimates from vendors.

5) Provide a summary of the evaluation.

I

SM/LKS 1-1 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Albert City site is located on Orchard Street in the east-central portion of Albert City, Iowa. The

geographic coordinates at the site are latitude 42° 46’ 57.0" N and longitude 94° 56' 50.7" W the legal

description of the site is Township 92N, Range 35W, Section 14 of Buena Vista County, Iowa, (Reference

1). See Figure 1 for the location of the site. The site is located in a commercial/residential area of Albert

City approximately 150 feet north of Main Street. The site is bordered by commercial properties to the

south and east and residential areas to the west and north.

The Albert City site encompasses three primary contaminated areas: the former SMC plant property,

a former SMC waste storage area, and a waste staging and loading area. Figure 2 depicts the location of

these areas.

The former SMC plant property is a grass-covered, relatively flat unfenced open lot. Contaminants

present in soil in this area exceed the PRGs. See Section 2.3 for information on the significance PRGs and

SSLs for the site. The former plant building has been razed. A pole bam, 24 feet wide and 64 feet long

is the only building currently on the property. Surface water runoff from the site flows into two storm

sewer inlets. The inlets are located on the west and southeast side of the property (See Figure 2 for

locations). Storm water is transported through underground concrete drainage piping. The east inlet flows

to a drainage canal located approximately 3.25 miles south/southeast of the site and the west inlet flows

to a drainage canal located approximately 1.25 miles west of the site.

Three buildings are present on the former SMC waste storage area. They are historic buildings, which

were relocated to the property and include a garage, a museum, and a school house (Reference 1). Soil

contamination in this area also exceeds PRGs, suggesting that waste may have been stored in the areas

where the new Buena Vista County shop building and the Albert City Fire Station are now located. The

former SMC waste storage area terrain slopes to the southeast.

The waste staging/loading area is located on the east side of Railroad Street south and east of the

i-aiding. Contaminated soil above SSLs is present in this area. No structures are

present in dig contaminated area, although contamination may extend beneath the southern end of the

~ , building. The area of soil contamination extends approximately 140 feet south of the

building and east from Railroad Street for at least 160 feet extending across the railroadrtf


There are three underground storage tank (UST) sites in the vicinity of the Albert City SBA site. The

Buena Vista County (BVC) maintenance shop UST site is located adjacent to the east side of the former

SMC waste pile area and approximately 50 feet north of the SMC plant property. This UST site has six

functional monitoring wells that range in total depth from approximately 9 to 20 feet below ground surface

(BGS). A seventh well (BVC-6) has been damaged and cannot be used for monitoring. The s

RED AC . UST site is located approximately 100 feet southeast of the former SMC plant property

and has seven functional monitoring wells. These wells have total depths ranging from approximately 14

to 15 feet BGS. Jin^DAC^H’- - UST site is located approximately 25 feet south of the former SMC

plant property. There is one functional monitoring well on the property. The depth of the well is 17 feet

BGS (Reference 1). The location of all these wells is shown in Figure 5.

2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

Underlying the soils is a thick sequence (400 or more feet) of glacial drift materials (Cary till) of

Wisconsin age. The lithology of this glacial drift is generally a light yellowish-gray, sandy clay, with some

gravel, pebbles or boulders. It is likely that the sand-to-clay ratio is highly variable throughout this drift

(Reference 1). Figure 3 depicts a general geologic/hydrogeologic column of the area and Figure 4 is a near

surface geologic cross-section of the site.

During the Phase 3 Removal Assessment (Reference 2), 10 monitoring wells were installed to

maximum depths of 36 feet below ground surface (BGS) in the site vicinity to monitor the ground water

quality (see Figure 5 for locations). Based on these 10 boring logs, the site is immediately underlain by

sandy to silty clays with interbedded lenses of sand. Six samples were collected for laboratory

determination of grain size distribution. Results of these analyses show that the underlying formations to

a depth of 36 feet BGS contain between 28 to 40 percent sand, 36 to 46 percent silt, and 24 to 27 percent

clay. Significant sand lenses were identified at 7 to 12 feet BGS in monitoring well boring MW-2 and at

30.5-31.8 feet BGS in monitoring well boring MW-5A. These sand formations contained between 73 to

87 percent sand and gravel. The sand lenses appear to be discontinuous across the site.

tracks (Figure 2). The eastern boundary of the soil contamination is not completely defined (Figure 7).

Waste was transported off site by rail, and rail cars were loaded in this general area. Most of the area on

the west side of the railroad tracks is a gravel parking lot.


Total organic carbon (TOC) analysis was conducted on the same six samples submitted for grain size

distribution analysis. TOC values ranged from 480 mg/kg to 8,900 mg/kg, with the highest values

occurring at six feet BGS in monitoring well boring MW-3 (8,900 mg/kg) and at 30 feet BGS in monitoring

well boring MW-4A (3,800 mg/kg). Electrical conductivity logs were run at five locations to a depth of

30 feet BGS on the SBA property. The conductivity measurements were quite variable with depth and

location ranging between 25 and 150 milli Siemens per meter (mS/m) with an average conductivity of

approximately 75 mS/m. The logs show intermittent lower conductivity zones (25 to 50 mS/m) which are

likely indicative of areas containing a higher percentage of sand. These zones are generally less than 1 foot

thick and appear to be discontinuous across the site. Electrical conductivity logs were also run at two

locations to depths of 60 feet BGS giving similar results as the six 30-foot depth runs. However, both logs

show a significant decrease in conductivity between 45 and 60 foot depth suggesting an increase in sand

content. Though electrical conductivities have not been correlated to actual on-site soil conditions, but

variations are an indication of increasing and decreasing sand content of the silty clays.

During previous assessments at the site, static ground water levels were recorded from the 10 installed

monitoring wells and 14 existing monitoring wells. Aquifer testing was performed on nine of the newly

installed monitoring wells. Table 2-1 summarizes the monitoring well construction details and the static

water levels measured on April 15, May 2, and May 28, 1997.

Figure 5 presents a ground water elevation contour map illustrating flow directions in the water table

based on static water level data collected from the shallow wells on May 28, 1997. This map shows that

an “artificial” ground water divide exists through the center of the site diverting water to the east and west.

This divide is likely the result of two sets of drainage tiles (perforated storm sewer piping) that have been

constructed in a north-south direction along Railroad Street and Second Avenue. These drainage tiles

collect shallow ground water diverting it to the southeast (Railroad Street piping) and the southwest (Second

Avenue piping). Similar trends were also noted in the April 15 and May 2, 1997 water level

measurements. Because the ground water table is apparently controlled by the drainage piping in the site

area, flow direction throughout the general area is also probably controlled by the drainage system.

Therefore, based on county drainage tile maps the east portion of the site probably flows south/southeast

and the west portion of the site probably flows west/southwest.

The horizontal hydraulic gradient to the south as measured between wells MW-3 and JTS-1 is 0.00297.

The horizontal hydraulic gradient to the east as measured between wells MW-3 and BVC-3 is 0.0128 and

between MW-3 and MW-5 is 0.0194. It is likely that the eastern gradient is much greater than that to the


south because the drainage tiles running parallel to Railroad Street significantly lower the water table.

Three of the monitoring wells (MW-3A, MW-4A, and MW-5A) were constructed deeper in the aquifer

between 32 and 36 feet BGS. Using a three-point calculation, it was determined that ground water in this

portion of the aquifer is moving due east, which likely represents the natural flow of the aquifer in the

absence of the drainage tiles. Figure 6 illustrates the potentiometric surface using the three deep wells.

Unlike the shallow wells, these deeper wells are probably not affected by the drainage tiles which are

approximately 8 feet BGS. The horizontal hydraulic gradient for this deeper portion of the aquifer as

measured between wells MW-3A and MW-5A is approximately 0.00819. Vertical hydraulic gradients

measured at each of the three well nests range from 0.023 to 0.149 with the largest gradient occurring at

well nest MW-5, which is in proximity to the drainage tiles on Railroad Street. With the exception of

monitoring well MW-4A slug tests were conducted at each of the new monitoring well locations to estimate

hydraulic conductivity values. Hydraulic conductivities in the seven shallow monitoring wells ranged from

7.16X10"6 to 2.12x1b4 feet per minute (ft/min) which converts to a range of 3.8 to 110 feet per year. The

highest hydraulic conductivity was measured in monitoring well MW-2, which was screened in a fine sand

layer containing as much as 73 percent medium to fine sand. Hydraulic conductivities for the two deep

wells (MW-3A and MW-5A) were 1.43xl0'5 and 2.41xl0’5, respectively, which converts to approximately

7.5 to 12.7 feet per year.

MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION J ALBERT CITY SBA

Table 2-1“

SUMMARY AND G SITE-ALBERT Cl

ROUND WATER ELI TY, IOWA

OVATIONS

Well

Mane water Level April 15,1997

Static Water LevaMay 2,1997

Static water Leva May 28,1997

Total Depth Screened Interval

Elevation of TOC

DepthBelowTOC

Elevation(Feet)

DepthBelowTOC(Feet)

Elevation(Feet)

DepthBelowTOC

Elevation(Feet)

DepthBelowTOC

Elevation(Feet)

Depth Below TOC

(Feet)

Elevation (Feet)

MW-1 1321.65 4.57 1317.08 4.92 1316.73 5.55 1316.1 16.5 1305.15 6.5-16.5 1315.15-1305.15

MW-2 1322.76 6.67 1316.11 6.42 1316.34 7.12 1315.64 14.9 1307.86 4.9-14.9

MW-3 1323.08 3.91 1319.17 2.92 1320.16 4.78 1318.3 14.1 1308.98 4.1-14.1 1318.98—1308.98

MW-3A 1322.69 4.52 1318.17 4.36 1318.33 4.90 1317.79 36.0 1286.69 26.0-36.0 1296.69—1286.69

MW-4 1321.86 3.49 1318.37 3.60 1318.26 4.40 1317.46 15.6 1306.26 5.6-15.6

MW-4A 1321.86 12.42 1309.44 4.99 1316.87 5.15 1316.71 34.0 1287.86 24.0-34.0 1297.86—1287.86

MW-5 1319.45 4.39 1315.06 1.51** 1317.94 4.63 1314.82 17.0 1302.45 7.0-17.0

MW-5A 1319.66 11.19 1308.47 7.24 1312.42 7.05 1312.61 32.0 1287.66 22.0—32.0

MW-6 1322.04 6.51 1315.53 6.27 1315.77 6.75 1315.29 16.5 1305.54 6.5-16.5

MW-7 1319.82 2.66 1317.16 3.37 1316.45 4.04 1315.78 17.1 1302.72 7.1-17.0 1312.72—1302.72

JTS-1 1321.99 5.01 1316.98 5.07 1316.92 4.78 1317.51 17.25* 1304.74

BVC-1 1322.12 4.36 1317.76 4.79 1317.33 5.08 1317.04 20.6* 1301.52 0.0-20.6 1322.12—1301.52

BVC-2 1322.28 4.74 1317.54 5.01 1317.27 5.35 1316.93 12.0* 1310.28 2.0-12.0 1320.28—1310.28

BVC-3 1322.13 4.88 1317.25 5.09 1317.04 5.37 1316.76 12.0* 1310.13 0.0-20.5 1320.13—1310.13

BVC-4 1322.14 4.13 1318.01 4.67 1317.47 4.94 1317.2 20.5* 1301.64 45-9.5 1322.14-1301.64

BVC-5 1321.67 3.90 1317.77 4.35 1317.32 4.55 1317.12 9.5* 1312.17 5.0-15.0 1317.17—1312.17

BVC-7 1322.42 3.89 1318.53 3.41 1319.01 4.60 1317.82 15.0* 1307.42 5.0-15.0 1317.42-1307.42

FDI-1

FD1-2

1320.33

1320.38

6.13

6.18

1314.20

1314.20

6.33

6J6

1314.00

1314.02

6.58

6.55

1313.75

1313.83

16.5*

15.0*

1303.83

1305.38

5.0-15.0

5 0-15.0

1315.33-1305.33

1315.38-1305.38


MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION ALBERT CITY SBA

Table 2-1 (Continued)

SUMMARY AND GROUND WATER EL SITE-ALBERT CITY, IOWA

EVATIONS

WellElevation of TOC

Static Water Level April 15,1997

Stalk Water Level

May 2,1997Static Water Level

May 28,1997Total Depth Screened Interval

DepthBelowTOC(Feet)

Elevation(Feet)

DepthBelowTOC(Feet)

Elevation(Feet)

DepthBelowTOC(Feet)

Elevation(Feet)

DepthBelowTOC(Feet)

Elevation(Feet)

Depth Below TOC

(Feet)Elevation (Feet)

FDI-3 1320.31 6.25 1314.06 6.49 1313.82 6.61 1313.7 15.0* 1305.31 5.0-15.0 1315.31-1305.31

FDI-4 1320.19 6.27 1313.92 6.62 1313.57 6.70 1313.49 15.0* 1305.19 5.0-15.0 1315.19-1305.19

FDI-5 1320.45 6.40 1314.05 6.48 1313.97 6.70 1313.75 14.0* 1306.45 4.0-14.0 1316.45—1306.45

FDI-6 1320.74 6.67 1314.07 6.79 1313.95 6.98 1313.76 13.85* 1306.89 3.85-13.85 1316.89-1306.89

FDI-7 1320.44 6.36 1314.08 6.33 1314.11 6.70 1313.74 15.0* 1305.44 5.0-15.0 1315.44-1305.44

KEY: * = Approximate depth.** = Rain water seeped into manhole cover.

TOC = Top of casing.

2.3 SITE HISTORY AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

The former SMC plant property is presently owned by the . REDACTED^

7,.ic. The SMC began its operation in 1924 and initially operated out of a small

building manufacturing various items. In 1935, the SMC began manufacturing grease guns. Grease gun

production reached its peak in 1966 and 1967, at a rate of 6,000 guns per day. SMC was sold in 1967,

but production continued in Albert City until 1969. An estimated 17 million grease guns were manufac

tured at the SMC Albert City plant (Reference 1).

The SMC plant performed metal working, assembling, polishing, degreasing, painting, plating, and

other operations. Solvents were used in the manufacturing of grease guns, and waste metal cuttings coated

with oil and solvents were placed in the former waste storage area located approximately 50 feet north of

the plant. The oil and solvents were allowed to drain onto the ground, saturating the soil. Prior to hauling

waste metal cuttings off site by rail and truck, the metal shavings were stacked in tall piles that extended

north from Orchard Street to the abandoned alley in the center of the block. A 1947 aerial photograph of

the area, however, indicates that wastes also may have been stockpiled on the south portion of the Buena

Vista County property (Reference 1).

Based on the records, it is known that degreasers were used at the former SMC plant. Sampling results

from the removal assessment and previous investigations indicate that PCE, TCE, and degradation products

including cis-DCE, VC, and trans-l,2-dichloroethene (trans-DCE) are present in the soil and ground water

at the site. Based on the analysis of soil and ground water samples, TCE was the primary solvent used at

the plant.


Past investigations of the testing areas have been conducted by various Federal agencies and their

contractors. A more detailed description of the site history can be found in References 1 through 4.

Analytical results of past sampling events at the Albert City site are summarized below.

The highest contaminant concentrations in shallow soil were detected beneath the waste storage area,

as shown in Table 2-2, and included: PCE up to 27,795 pg/kg; TCE up to 262,504 /ig/kg; VC up to

23,351 /tg/kg; cis-l,2-DCE up to 164,444 /ig/kg; and trans-l,2-DCE up to 736 Mg/kg. For the long-term

removal of contamination from the Albert City site, it is critical to remember that these concentrations were

found only in the first five feet beneath the ground surface.

SUMMARY OF HIGHEf IN SHALLOW SO

Table 1-2

5T CONCENTRATIONS OF C IL AND GROUND WATER A

HLORINATED VOCs DETECTEDT THE ALBERT CITY SITE

fi mjmrtWateTt Uf!/L> iv:*:?*--. iMatrix; •

TCE

UJSttkSl--------------- ,—262.504 23,800

cii-DCE 164,444 45,200

tram-DCE 736 205

VC 23.351 115

PCE 27.795 249

In many areas where contamination was present and deeper samples were obtained from monitoring

well installation or SITE demonstration sampling the contaminant concentrations were higher than those

reported near the surface. Because of the small number of samples taken at these more highly

contaminated depths, it is possible only to estimate the vertical extent of the VOC contamination. Results

indjratpfi that, in certain locations, concentrations of VOCs, particularly TCE, increased with depth to at

least 15 feet BGS. One sample collected in the northwest portion of the plant property contained TCE at

1,270,000 /ig/kg at a depth of 14.5 feet BGS. Although no visual evidence was observed, these data

suggest that DNAPL may be present in the subsurface soils at the site. Table 2-3 summarizes the analytical

results from deeper soil samples.

SUMDETECTED D

MARY OF HIGHES 4 SOIL AND GROUI

Table 2-1

T CONCENTRA1 <JD WATER BENI

TONS OF CHLORINE 2ATH 5 FEET AT THI

VTED VOCs £ ALBERT CITY SITE |

........ MP I

TCE 1,270,000 14.5 15,600 5.0-15.0 |

cii-DCE 58.500 7.0 22,6005.0-15.0 1

trans-DCE 5.180 14.5 51.55.0-15.0 |

VC 5.070 6.5 27.54.S-9.5 1

PCE 10.300 7.0 93.25.0-15.0 1

* = Depth is below ground surface; GW depth refers to screened interval.


The highest contaminant concentrations in shallow ground water were found near the center of the

SMC waste storage area in MW3, except for rra/w-DCE in MW7, as shown in Table 2-2. Ground water

collected from deeper screened intervals also showed significant VOC contamination, as shown in Table

2-2. In addition to ground water, storm sewer effluent collected along the eastern side of the Albert City

site showed significant levels of VC (171 /ig/L), TCE (286 /ig/L), cis-DCE (1270 Mg/L), and trans-DCE

(32/ig/L).

A health assessment of the site was conducted by the Iowa Department of Health to establish cleanup

levels for soil that will be protective of public health. Preliminary Removal Goals (PRGs) were established

for current and future land use. The PRG cleanup levels were calculated based on a carcinogenic risk of

IE-6 and a hazard risk of 0.1. For short-term removal purposes of soil excavation, the PRG cleanup levels

established for land use of the properties as commercial will be used. In addition, the EPA Soil Screening

Guidance was used to calculate soil screening levels (SSLs) for migration to the ground water. The default

dilution factor (DAF) of 20 was used to calculate the SSLs. The SSLs will be used for long-term

removal/remediation of soil. Table 2-4 below summarizes the PRGs and the SSLs for the target VOC

contaminants. Figure 7 depicts the locations of these contaminated areas. Contaminants are presents in

15 and 28 cells above the PRGs and the SSLs respectively. The dimensions of each cell was 30 feet by

30 feet. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reviewed the assessment and

concurred with these levels.

Table 2-4

SOIL CLEAN-UP LE1 ALBERT CITY SBA—ALBER1

VELSr CITY, IOWA

'Contaminant Preliminary Removal Goals (PRGs) Ground Water

Vinyl Chloride 900 *ig/kg 175 Mg/kg

TCE 7,400 tig/kg 437 Mg/kg

PCE 23,800 *ig/kg 437 tig/kg

Cis-1,2-DCE 1.260.000 ^g/kg 6,124 Mg/kg

Trans- 1.2-DCE 2.770.000 ue/ke 8,749 ug/kg

contamination at the site is proposed to be cleaned up to below the aforementioned Preliminary Removal

Goals (PRGs).


3.0 BRIEF SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Assumptions Made for The Evaluation: As can be seen from the previous section, the extent of soil

contamination has not been fully defined at the Albert City site. Based on the available sampling data,

contaminants were assumed to be present up to a depth of 15 feet. However, complete delineation of

contaminants at the site would be required before a cleanup system can be installed at the site. All target

contaminants were evaluated as VOCs and no distinction was made between the contaminants for the

purpose of this evaluation. Also, it was assumed that the areal extent of ground water contamination was

cimiiar to the areal extent of soil contamination. This assumption was made because the extent of ground

water contamination has not been fully defined. Further, all the waste was assumed to fail the-Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test for VOCs. This assumption was made because no TCLP

data is available to make an actual determination.

Estimation of Quantities: Based on the aforementioned, the following quantities of contaminants were

estimated to be removed/remediated.

a) Contaminated soil above the PRGs (15 cells): 7,500 yd2 3.

b) Contaminated soil above the SSLs (28 cells): 14,000 yd3.Total quantity of contaminated soil: 21,500 yd3.

Potential Technologies: Potential technologies/methods applicable for the cleanup of sites

contaminated with VOCs were evaluated to select a suitable technology for the Albert City site. The

approach used for the evaluation was to review published literature on remediation at similar sites,

telephone conversations with vendors and accessing the internet. Two notable sources that were

extensively used for screening technologies were:

(1) EPA’s Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) (Reference 5): VISITT is a database developed by the Technology Innovation Office (TIO) of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and provides current information on innovative treatment technologies for cleanup of contaminated sites. VISITT contains technology information submitted by developers, manufacturers, and suppliers of innovative treatment technology equipment and services and is used by over 12,000 users to screen technologies that may be appropriate for cleanup of hazardous waste sites.

(2) EPA’s Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide (Reference 6): Though the reference guide was published in 1993, it provides strengths and limitations of bothconventional and innovative remediation technologies. This reference guide was used to supplement information obtained from VISITT.


Based on the review of the aforementioned sources, the following technologies were identified to be

applicable for the Albert City site.

• Excavation and off-site disposal

• On-site ex-situ incineration (mobile incinerator)

• On-site ex-situ soil washing

• Biodegradation

• On-site ex-situ thermal desorption

• Bioventing

• Soil flushing

• In-situ vitrification

• Dehalogenation

• Enhanced in-situ vaporization

• Chemical treatment• In-situ dechlorination with zero-valent iron funnel and gate system

• Land farming

• Natural attenuation

• Air sparging

• Soil vapor extraction

3.1 EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL

Excavation is the removal of contaminated material from a hazardous waste site using heavy

construction equipment. Steps involved in the process are:

• Marking areas of contamination on the site.

• Excavation and loading contaminated soil into trucks for hauling.

• Disposal by landfilling or treatment using chemical or thermal treatment methods.

This method of removing contaminants from the Albert City site was identified as a potential alternative

because:

• Excavation can be completed in less than 2 months.

• - Removal of wastes would result in removing the source of contamination from the site.


The likelihood of achieving cleanup goals for soil is the highest when compared to any conventional or innovative remediation methods.

The disadvantages of using this method at the Albert City site include:

• VOCs present in soil would be released into the air result in the exposure of nearby residents and workers.

• Ground water contamination cannot be addressed using this method,

• Excavation under buildings which have a historical value to the local community is difficult to implement.

• Soil excavated from below the water table would require pretreatment (like mixing with lime) prior to transportation to reduce moisture content and result in a significant increase in waste quantity.

• Water encountered during excavation would have to be pumped and treated prior to disposal in a

sewer.

• Excavation only transfers waste from the site to a different location and EPA would still be liable as a generator under CERCLA for any releases from the landfill.

• Costs for this option would be among the highest when compared to other alternatives.

Costs for this alternative were estimated as follows:

a) Excavation costs (obtained from Smith Environmental): $ 20 per ton.Total excavation costs: 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x 20 per ton = $ 688,000.

b) Transportation costs by truck (obtained from Smith Environmental): $ 3.00 per load (20 tons) permile. Since it was assumed that the soil does not pass TCLP tests for VOCs, contaminated soil has to be disposed in a chemical waste landfill. Three disposal facilities were considered for disposal of contaminated soil from the site: Peoria Disposal Facility in Peoria, Illinois, RollinsEnvironmental in Coffeyville, Kansas and the Environmental Quality (EQ) Company in Belleville, Michigan. The distance from the site to either of these facilities is at least 400 miles.

Transportation costs (by truck): 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 0.15 per ton x 400 miles =$ 2.064 million

Since, the cost of transportation by truck seemed too high, approximate costs for transportation by rail was

obtained. Chem-Rail Transport, Inc., in Kansas City, Kansas was contacted for approximate costs.

Transportation by rail is at least 40 % less expensive than transporting by truck. Chem-Rail Transport will

not give out price estimates without a waste sample. Assuming that the costs are 40 % lower, it would cost

$ 0.09 per ton per loaded mile for transportation by rail.

Transportation costs by rail: 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 0.09 per ton x 400 miles =$ 1.2384 million.


c) Treatment or disposal costs: Contaminated soil can either be treated by disposal facilities using chemical treatment methods prior to disposal in a landfill. The EQ Company has a proprietary chemical oxidation process which might treat soil to breakdown organic molecules to yield carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water and salts. Based on conversations with EQ officials, it would cost approximately $ 110.00 per ton to treat soils contaminated with VOCs. EQ would require samples prior to accepting the waste to run treatability tests. However, if the wastes are not treatable, EQ can dispose the soil in their hazardous waste landfill which would cost approximately $ 280.00 per

ton.

Hence, treatment and disposal costs: 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 110 per ton = $ 3.784 million.

Disposal costs with no treatment: 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 280 per ton = $ 9.632 million.

Several other vendors are available to treat and dispose contaminated soils from the site. Since this

option is more expensive when compared to other options, no further research was done to look into prices

of other facilities or vendors.

Total Costs—Transportation by trucks

Excavation with landfilling alternative: $ 0.680 + S 2.064 + 9.632 = $ 12.376 million.

Excavation with treatment alternative: $ 0.680 + $ 2.064 + 3.784 = $ 6.528 million.

Total Costs—Transportation by rail

Excavation with landfilling alternative: $ 0.680 + $ 1.238 + 9.632 = $ 11.138 million.

Excavation with treatment alternative: S 0.680 + $ 1.238 + 3.784 = $ 5.7024 million.

In addition to the above, the excavation alternative would involve backfilling, grading and site

restoration costs.

3.2 ON-SITE EX-SITU INCINERATION (MOBILE INCINERATOR)

Incineration can be used to treat contaminated soil at the Albert City site by destroying VOCs using

high temperatures (1,600 °F to 2,200 °F) in the presence of oxygen. Incineration degrades toxic organic

contaminants to basic elements—hydrogen, carbon, chlorine, nitrogen, etc. These basic elements combine

with oxygen to form non-toxic substances like water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, inert ash, organic

free particulate and hydrogen chloride. Properly done incineration is an effective, odorless, and smokeless

process. Incineration offers a permanent solution by destroying wastes that would otherwise require space

in a landfill. A common misconception about incineration is that more toxic the chemical, the more

difficult it is to burn. EPA research has demonstrated that though some chemicals are more difficult to


incinerate than others, destruction of organic wastes occurs independent of toxicity. Four common

incinerator designs are rotary kiln, liquid injection, fluidized bed, and infrared incinerators. The

destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for properly operated incinerators often exceeds the 99.99

percent which is the EPA requirement for hazardous waste incinerators (Reference 6).

Though incineration offers several advantages, the following disadvantages (in addition to the ones

identified under the excavation alternative) may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:

• There are specific feed size and materials—handling requirements that can impact applicability or

cost at specific sites.

• The presence of volatile metals and salts may affect performance or incinerator life.

• Volatile metals, including lead and arsenic, leave the combustion unit with the flue gases and may have to be removed prior to incineration.

• Metals can react with other elements in the feed stream, such as chlorine or sulfur, forming more volatile and toxic compounds than the original species.

• Sodium and potassium can attack the brick lining and form a sticky particulate that fouls heat

transfer surfaces.

• Obtaining community acceptance and air permits for incineration is very difficult and expensive.

• The cost of incineration is higher compared to several other available technologies.

Incineration at the Albert City site will require either a mobile incinerator to treat contaminated soil

on-site or transportation of contaminated soil to an off-site incineration facility. However, the cost of

incineration using a mobile incinerator on-site would be significantly lower than the cost of incineration

at an off-site facility. Incineration on-site can be completed in less than two months. For the purpose of

this evaluation, costs for excavation and incineration using a mobile incinerator were estimated as follows:

a) Excavation costs: $ 688,000 (from Section 3.1).

b) Transportation costs (by truck): 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 0.15 per ton x 1 mile = $ 5,160.It was assumed that an incinerator would be set-up within a mile from the site.

c) Incineration costs: Incineration costs are dependent upon the size of the site and the type of incinerator used. As per EPA’s Remediation Technology Screening Guide (Reference 6), the cost to incinerate approximate 20,000 tons using a mobile incinerator would be greater than $ 300 per

ton.

Assuming the same cost, it would cost $ 300 x 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons = $ 10.320 million.


Total costs for the mobile incinerator alternative: 0.688 + 0.005 + 10.320 $ 11.013 million.

3.3 ON-SITE EX-SITU SOIL WASHING

Soil washing is a mechanical process that uses liquids, usually water mixed with extraction agents, to

scrub soils in order to remove hazardous wastes. These wastes are usually bound, either chemically or

physically, to silt or clay. Silt and clay, in turn, are usually bound to larger particles of sand and gravel.

Soil washing separates the fine silt and clay particles from the coarser sand and gravel particles. With the

larger particles removed, the waste is concentrated into a smaller volume, making further remediation

easier. Soil washing technology has been proven to treat soils contaminated with halogenated and non-

halogenated SVOCs and VOCs, PCBs, heavy metals, radioactive metals, inorganic cyanides and

corrosives, explosives and propellents and organometallic pesticides and herbicides. Contaminants sorbed

onto soil particles are separated from soil in an aqueous-based system. The wash water may be augmented

with a basic leaching agent, surfactant, pH adjustment, or chelating agent to help remove organics or heavy

metals. Time required to complete the cleanup would be less than 3 months. The following factors (m

addition to the ones identified under the excavation alternative) may limit the applicability and effectiveness

of the process (Reference 6):

• Fine soil particles (silts, clays) are difficult to remove from washing fluid.

• Complex waste mixtures (e.g., metals with organics) make formulating fluid difficult.

• High humic content in soil inhibits desorption.

Based on a search in the VISITT database Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation was one of

the vendors identified with soil washing experience. Smith’s technology was studied for evaluating the soil

washing alternative. Attachments 2 contains detailed information about the technology. Smith’s soil

washing technology would cost in the range of $ 50.00 to $ 100.00 per ton and can treat 8 to 10 tons per

hour. All the contaminated soil at the Albert City site can be treated in approximately 6 months. The

following factors would have a significant effect on treatment costs: target contaminant concentration, soil

sieve analysis, quantity of waste, initial contaminant concentration, waste handling and preprocessing and

the amount of debris with waste. Approximate treatment costs as per EPA Remediation Technologies

Screening Guide, the cost of using the soil washing treatment technology costs in the range of $120—$200

per ton.

Assuming an average cost of $ 100 per ton the costs for this alternative were estimated as follows:



b) Transportation costs (by truck): 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 0.15 per ton x 1 mile = $ 5,160.It was assumed that the soil washing equipment would be set-up within a mile from the site.

c) Soil washing costs: 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 100 per ton = $ 3.440 million.

Total cost for this alternative: 0.688 4- 0.005 + 3.440 = $ 4.133 million.

3.4 BIODEGRADATION

Biodegradation or bioremediation is the stimulation of activity of naturally occurring microbes to

enhance degradation of organic contaminants. In subsurface environments, water-based solutions

containing nutrients, oxygen, or other amendments are circulated through contaminated soils to enhance

biodegradation and contaminant desorption. This technology is capable of transforming contaminants into

non-hazardous substances. This process may include above-ground treatment and conditioning of the

infiltration water with nutrients and an oxygen source. The technology is very effective m treating non-

halogenated VOCs and SVOCs. Halogenated VOCs can be also be treated using this technology but, the

effectiveness of the process is decreased significantly (Reference 6).

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:

• Extensive treatability study and site characterization may be necessary.

• Circulation of water-based solutions through the soil may increase contaminant mobility and necessitate use of an above-ground system for treating water prior to re-injection or disposal.

• Preferential flow paths may severely decrease contact between injected fluids and contaminants

throughout the contaminated zones. •

• Technology not effective in clay, highly layered, or heterogenous subsurface environments due to

oxygen transfer limitations.

• The cleanup might take an indefinitely long time to accomplish the objectives.

Based on a VISITT search, included an estimated price range of $40.00 to $80.00 per cubic yard for

treatment by B&S Research, Inc., (Attachment 3). Factors that would have a significant impact on the cost

of treatment would be: depth of contamination, initial and target contaminant concentration, characteristics

of soil, quantity of waste, site preparation, amount of debris with waste, depth to ground water and

characteristics of residual waste. Costs incurred for this alternative would be the costs for set-up and the

cost of nutrients needed for circulation through the contaminated soils and monitoring costs. During


treatment, concentration of the nutrients and the contaminant degradation rate would be monitored. The

following estimate was prepared with the average cost provided by the vendor: 21,500 yd3 x $ 50 per yd3

= $ 1.075 million.

This cost does not include bioassessment studies prior to treatment or monitoring of nutrient

concentrations and contaminant degradation rates.

3.5 ON-SITE EX-SITU LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION (LTTD)

The LTTD technology can be used to treat soils contaminated with halogenated and non-halogenated

VOCs and fuel hydrocarbons. The technology can also be used to treat soils contaminated with

halogenated and non-halogenated semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and pesucides, though with

less effectiveness. Wastes are heated from 200°F to 1200 °F to volatilize water and contaminants. A

carrier gas or vacuum system transport volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment system. LTTD

systems are physical separation processes and are not designed to destroy organics. The bed temperature

and residence times designed into these systems will volatilize selected contaminants, but typically not

oxidize them. LTTD is a full-scale technology. The time duration of this alternative would be between

three to six months. The following factors (in addition to the ones identified under the excavation

alternative) may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the treatment process (Reference 6):

. There are specific feed size and materials-handling requirements that can impact applicability or

cost at specific sites.

• Dewatering may be necessary to achieve acceptable soil moisture content levels.

• Highly abrasive feedstocks have the potential to damage the processor unit.

Based on a search in the VISITT database Roy F. Weston, Inc., and Midwest Soil Remediation Inc.,

were identified as vendors with thermal desorption experience. Their technologies were studied for

evaluating the treatment alternative. Both the processes are similar to each other and have been widely

used for on-site ex-situ remediation. Attachments 4 and 5 contain detailed information about the

technologies and also include a schematic of the treatment process.

Roy F. Weston’s process would cost in the range of $ 60 to $ 150 per ton. Midwest’s process would

cost range varies from $ 30 to $ 150. The costs are dependent on the quantity and characteristics of the

soU to be treated, moisture content of the soU, initial and target contaminant concentrations, waste handling


and preprocessing, amount of debris with waste and the characteristics of waste residuals. Approximate

treatment costs as per EPA Remediation Technologies Screening Guide, the cost of using the LTTD

technology is less than $ 100 per ton (Reference 6). Assuming a cost of $ 100 per ton, the costs for this

alternative were estimated as follows:


b) Transportation costs (by truck): 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 0.15 per ton x 1 mile = $ 5,160.It was assumed that the LTTD equipment would be set-up within a mile from the site.

c) LTTD costs: 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 100 per ton = $ 3.44 million.

Total cost for this alternative: 0.688 + 0.005 + 3.44 = $ 4.133 million.

3.6 BIO VENTING

Bioventing is a process by which oxygen is delivered to contaminated unsaturated soils by forced air

movement (either extraction or injection of air) to increase oxygen concentrations and stimulate

biodegradation. The system also may include the injection of contaminated gases, using the soil system

for remediation. Unlike SVE, bioventing employs much lower air flow rates that provide only the amount

of oxygen necessary for biodegradation while minimizing volatilization and release of contaminants to the

atmosphere. The advantages of gas-phase (as opposed to liquid phase) introduction of oxygen into soils

are that gases diffuse more rapidly than liquids into less permeable subsurface formations and much less

gas is required to deliver oxygen at levels needed to stimulate biological degradation of contaminants.

Bioventing is extensively used for remediating non-halogenated VOCs, SVOCs, and fuel hydrocarbons.

Halogenated VOCs and SVOCs and pesticides can also be treated, but the process may be less effective

and may only be applicable to some compounds within these contaminant groups. The following factors

limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process (Reference 6):

• Bioventing is not recommended where there is a high water table (within several feet of the surface), saturated soil lenses, or impermeable soils. Areas with a high water table can be successfully treated by combining bioventing with a dewatering process. Dewatering processes involve treatment of large quantities of water which could be very expensive. •

• Low moisture content may limit biodegradation and the effectiveness of bioventing, which tends

to dry out the soils.

• Monitoring off-gases at the soil surface may be required. Emission permits from the stat might

also be required.


• Aerobic biodegradation of chlorinated compounds is not very effective unless a co-metabolite is

present.

• Bioventing will not remediate contaminated ground water.

• Based on a review of the site geology, the site is underlain by sandy to silty clays with interbedded lenses of sand. This may make bioventing ineffective at the site.

• Low subsurface temperatures will extend the time necessary to degrade contaminants and result in a long treatment time (over three years).

ENSR Consulting and Engineering has designed and installed numerous bioventing systems to

remediate hydrocarbon and chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminated vadose zone soils. Their technology

information was reviewed using VISITT. VISITT provided a description of the technology, limitations,

waste applications, representative projects and an estimated price range. Typical costs for bioventing are

$ 65 to $ 100 per yd3. Using an average $ 82.5 per yd3, the cost of remediation of the Albert City site

would be: 21,500 yd3 x $ 15 per yd3 = $ 1.774 million. This cost does not include other indirect costs

such as excavation, permits and, treatment of residuals. The information obtained from the VISITT

database for ENSR is included as Attachment 6 of this report.

VISITT database also contains information about Batelle, another vendor who has a proprietary

bioventing technology. Though Batelle’s technology might be an effective bioventing technology, it is still

in the developmental stages. VISITT information about the technology is provided as Attachment 7 of this

report and contains information about technology highlights, limitations, waste applications, technical

references, representative projects, estimated price range and a schematic of the process. The approximate

price range for Batelle’s technology varies from $ 20 to $ 50 per yd3.

Cost of remediating the Albert City site was not evaluated using Batelle’s technology because, the

technology is not a proven one and the estimated costs are only theoretical and not factual.

3.7 SOIL FLUSHING

Water, or water containing an additive to enhance contaminant solubility, is applied to the soil or

injected into the ground water to raise the water table into the contaminated soil zone. Contaminants are

leached into the ground water. The contaminated ground water is then extracted, treated and re-circulated

to the ground water system (Reference 6). Soil washing can be applied to treat halogenated VOCs and

SVOCs, organic pesticides and herbicides, PCBs and heavy metals. Though soil flushing accomplishes

SM/LKS 3-10 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

permanent removal of contaminants from the soil, it is most effective in permeable soils. This technology

may require a long time to completely flush the contaminants and clean up the site. The technology offers

the potential for recovery of metals and can clean a wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants from

coarse-grained soils. Soil flushing does introduce potential toxins (e.g., the flushing solution) into the soil,

which also may alter the physical/chemical properties of the soil system.

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process (Reference 6):

• The technology is applicable only to sites with favorable hydrology, where flushed contaminants and soil flushing fluid can be contained and recaptured.

• Low permeable soils are difficult to treat.

• Surfactants can adhere to soil and reduce effective soil porosity.

• Existing underground utility lines may limit length.

• Cannot be installed directly under buildings.

• Solvent reactions with soil can reduce contaminant mobility.

Based on a VISITT search, Horizontal Technology, Inc., (HTI) was identified as one of the

experienced vendors in implementing the soil flushing technology to remediate hazardous waste sites.

HTI’s patented technology was studied for potential applicability to the Albert City site. HTI’s process

would cost approximately $ 50 per cubic yard. The following factors would have a significant effect on

the unit price: initial contaminant concentration, quantity of waste, depth of contamination, depth to

ground water, waste handling/preprocessing, amount of debris and, characteristics of soil. The cost of

remediating the Albert City site would be: 21,500 yd3 X $ 50 = $ 1.075 million. Further information

about HTI’s technology can be found in Attachment 8 of this report.

3.8 IN-SITU VITRIFICATION

In-situ vitrification destroys organics by pyrolysis and immobilizes inorganics by chemical

incorporation as a result of applied electricity used to melt contaminated soil, sediment, tailings, concrete,

construction debris, and sludge. This alternative destroys all types of organic compounds and volatile

metals and permanently immobilizes inorganics, metals, and radionuclides in a glass and crystalline residual

product. The glass and crystalline residual product, possessing low leaching characteristics, encapsulates

hazardous inorganic contaminants. Electrodes inserted one to two feet in the ground move downward by

SM/LKS 3-11 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

gravity as the melt grows. Off-gases are collected in a hood placed over the treatment zone and treated

before release. Soil temperatures of approximately 3000°F (1600°C) are achieved during in-situ

vitrification (Reference 6).

In situ vitrification has the ability to withstand variations in contaminants, contaminant concentrations,

and extraneous material that would be unacceptable for other thermal or immobilization technologies.

Most contaminated soils can be treated without modification. In addition, in-situ vitrification treatment is

flexible; material can be treated in-situ or consolidated into waste cells for treatment.

The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the treatment process:

• Due to relatively complex, high-energy technology, a high degree of skill and training is necessary.

• In-situ vitrification is limited to operations in the vadose zone.

• Large-scale in-situ vitrification equipment (4-6 tons per hour) is limited by a total organic

concentration of 10 percent by weight in the treatment media.

• Inorganic debris is limited to a maximum of 20 percent by volume in the treatment media, without

special modifications.

• In-situ vitrification is only effective to a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet and the current

depth limitations for a single melt is 20 feet.

• The off-gas system volumetric limitation for individual void volumes within the treatment volume

must not exceed 150 cubic feet in size.

• High water recharge rates into the treatment volume require additional energy for water removal. Hydraulic conductivity (recharge velocity) greater than 10E-4 cm/sec should employ recharge limiting measures such as slurry walls or pumping down of the water table.

Due to the buildings in the vicinity and above the contaminated soils at Albert City, implementation

of this technology would not be possible because of the high temperatures that must be achieved during

treatment. The heat could cause unwanted damage to the buildings and may not receive community

acceptance.

Based on a VISITT search, Geosafe Corporation and ReTech were identified as the two vendors with

available in-situ vitrification technologies. Further information about these vendors is provided in this

report as Attachment 9 and 10 respectively. Geosafe’s estimated price ranged from $ 300 to $ 500 per

ton and Retech’s price ranged from $ 600 to $ 1200 per ton. Therefore, at an average price of $650 per

ton, the costs for vitrification would be: 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 650.00 per ton = $ 22.36 million.

SM/LKS 3-12 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

Though not a reasonable assumption, it is assumed for the purpose of this estimate that no additional

technology is needed to treat contaminated soil under structures.

3.9 DEHALOGENATION

Chemical dehalogenation is a ex-situ solvent electron technology (SET) wherein contaminated soil is

mixed with solvents and heated in a treatment vessel. The technology is an ex-situ treatment process. Two

types of SET processes have been identified in EPA’s Remediation Technologies Screening Guide

(Reference 6). They are SET using: (1) a glycolate and (2) base-catalyzed decomposition. Both these

processes can be implemented at the site in approximately six months.

Glycolate Process: This process uses an alkaline polyethylene glycolate (APEG) reagent in a batch

reactor. Complete destruction of target compound results from dehalogenation. This alternative is

ineffective toward non-halogenated contaminants. This technology is used for soils, sediments, and

sludges. Potassium Polyethylene glycolate (KPEG) is the most common APEG reagent. KPEG is a non

hazardous substance, resulting in safer and more cost effective applications. In the a typical system,

contaminated material and the reagent are fed to a desorber in which they are mixed and heated to initiate

the dechlorination. Hazardous contaminants are converted to less toxic, sometimes more water-soluble

products, leaving compounds that are more readily separated for treatment. Upon exiting the desorber,

vapors and treated soil or sludge, free of organic chloride, can be disposed of or burned as fuel to fire the

desorber.

Base Catalyzed Decomposition: In this process, contaminated soil is screened, processed with a

crusher and pug mill, and mixed with sodium bicarbonate. The mixture is heated at 630° F in a rotary

reactor to decompose and partially volatilize the contaminants. This process is more suitable to treat

halogenated SVOCs and is less effective for halogenated VOCs.

At Albert City, treatment of contaminated soils by dehalogenation is primarily limited by existing

structures, under which exists contaminated soils. In addition, treatment of residuals may be necessary.

Waste water may require treatment prior to discharge, as well as volatile air emissions that would need to

be controlled by condensation and/or activated carbon adsorption. However, this alternative can be

implemented in approximately six months time.

Based on a search in the VISITT database, Commodore Applied Technologies, Columbus, Ohio and

SDTX Technologies, Princeton, New York, were identified as the vendors with available dehalogenation

SM/LKS 3-13 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

technologies and descriptions of their technology is provided in this report as Attachments 11 and 12

respectively. Commodore did not provide a price range for their treatment. SDTX estimates that it would

cost in the range of $ 100 to $ 300 per ton.

Treatment costs were estimated as follows:

a) Excavation costs: $688,000 (from Section 3.1).

b) Dehaolgenation costs: 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $200.00 per ton (average cost) = $6.88 million.

Total cost for this alternative: 0.688 + 6.88 - $7,568 million.

3.10 ENHANCED IN-SITU VAPORIZATION

Enhanced in-situ vaporization involves desorption and evaporation of halogenated VOCs. Millgard

Environmental has a proprietary technology called MecTool which utilizes this technology (Reference 8).

This technology combines soil mixing and volatization to expedite removal of volatile contaminants.

Heated air or steam is injected into an area covered by a ten-foot diameter shroud while auger blades mix

the soil at depth beneath the shroud and a vacuum is applied. In-situ mixing increases contact between

VOCs and steam or air, thereby increasing the phase transfer rate from the soil or pore water into the gas

stream compared to conventional soil vapor extraction (SVE). Injection of steam or hot air mto the

subsurface increases volatization by increasing subsurface temperature. VOCs are then treated in the off

gas by either carbon adsorption or catalytic oxidation. Typically, between five and eight ten-foot

cylindrical cores at a depth of up to 25 feet can be treated per day. The primary equipment used with the

MecTool application consists of a crane used to move the shroud and auger assemblies, a soil mixing auger

capable of delivering liquid or gas to the subsurface, high-torque (to 350,000 ft-lbs) equipment to provide

power for adequate soil mixing, a fiberglass shroud which provides containment and collection of off

gasses, an off gas treatment system (adsorption or oxidation), air handling equipment, and monitoring

equipment. Additional information about this technology is included in this report as Attachment 13.

Application of this mobile technology for in-situ removal of VOCs does not require excavation or the

installation of wells for injection or extraction. Disadvantages of this technology include:

• This technology is not applicable to removal of contamination beneath structures.

• High humic content and compacted clays will decrease extraction efficiency, thereby increasing

the amount of time required to treat cells with these conditions. •

• .Heterogeneous soil conditions may result in inconsistent removal rates.

SM/LKS 3-14 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

• Mobilization costs are significant ($75,000).

• The use of heavy equipment at the site may require construction for its support.

This technology will effectively remove VOCs from both the saturated and vadose zones. This

technology will be an effective alternative for ground water protection over the long term because the

VOCs will be removed from source areas. The short-term risk from implementation of this technology

is minimal because the contaminants will be removed in-situ and the off gasses will be treated.

The estimated time required for conducting this removal is less than three months, based upon an

average of 5 cylindrical sections treated per day and an estimated requirement of 250 sections requiring

treatment due to VOC levels above the primary removal goal. The implementation time is contingent upon

the availability of construction materials and services obtained by Millgard Environmental and other

contractors. During winter, soil mixing may be difficult due to low temperatures.

Approximate costs for this technology are estimated as follows:

a) Mobilization costs: $75,000.

b) MecTool technology costs: 21,500 yd3 x $ 150/yd3 = $3,225 million .O&M costs for monitoring system performance are included in the estimated cost.

3.11 CHEMICAL TREATMENT

The conversion of hazardous contaminants to more stable, less mobile, and/or inert non-hazardous or

less toxic compounds is a result of chemical reduction/oxidation. Ozone, hydrogen peroxide,

hypochlorites, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide, are the principle reducing/oxidizing agents used. This

treatment results in complete destruction of target contaminants. For in situ processes, wells and/or

boreholes are injected with a reducing/oxidizing agent and allowed to percolate through the contaminated

soils. Ex situ chemical reduction/oxidation is also possible. A combination of these reagents, or

combining ultraviolet oxidation makes the process more effective. Another chemical reduction/oxidation

technology includes application of electron beam treatment resulting in the formation of free radicals,

which include the reducing aqueous electron and hydrogen atom and the oxidizing hydroxyl radical. The

products of the destroyed organic compounds include carbon dioxide, water, inert solids, and concentrated

residue of toxic metals in the form of oxides or salts (Reference 6). However, no information about the

duration of cleanup using this alternative is available.

SM/LKS 3-15 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

The exothermic oxidizing reaction resulting in increased soil temperature increases the volatization of

the VOCs in the soil, ultimately increasing the soil vapor concentrations for these substances. The removal

of the vapor phase VOCs in the contaminated soils can be accomplished by coupling the chemical

oxidation/reduction process with a vacuum extraction system.

This technology could effectively treat the target contaminant at the Albert City site. The following

factors may limit the applicability of the process:

• Incomplete oxidation/reduction or formation of intermediate compounds may occur depending on the concentration of contaminants and oxidizing agents used.

• The process is not cost effective for high contaminant concentrations due to the large amounts of

oxidizing agents required.

• Grease and oil should be minimized to optimize efficiency.

A concern using this technology at the Albert City Site would be the possibility of not saturating the

contaminant with reagent, therefore, effectively, not completely removing the contaminant. Also,

directional or horizontal wells would be needed in order to treat contaminated soils under structures.

Implementation of this technology would be technically feasible with additional technologies to enhance

the removal of the target contaminant. Air sparging may be necessary to enhance percolation of reagent

through contaminated soils. Also, vacuum extraction would be necessary to remove the vapor phase VOCs

if exothermic oxidation is used. If vacuum extraction is to be coupled with chemical reduction/oxidation,

the site must be capable of supporting the drilling operation in the locations where the vacuum extraction

wells/injection points are to be located. An area designated for this extraction equipment and an electricity

source is necessary. Weather conditions, such as precipitation, may affect implementation of this

technology.

A VISITT search for the technology identified several vendors with available proprietary technologies.

The costs ranged from $ 100 to $ 5,000 per ton. Assuming an average of $ 2,550 per ton, the cost of

remediating the site would be:

a) Excavation costs: $688,000 (from Section 3.1).

b) Ex situ chemical treatment: 21,500 yd3 x 1.6 tons x $ 2550 per ton = $ 87.72 million.

Total cost: $ 88.41 million.

SM/LKS 3-16 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

3.12 IN-SITU DECHLORINATION WITH ZERO-VALENT IRON FUNNEL AND GATE SYSTEM

In-situ dechlorination with zero-valent iron funnel and gate system involves dechlorination of dissolved

halogenated VOCs in ground water with zero-valent iron results in the elimination of the halogenated VOCs

and production of innocuous daughter products, including hydrogen gas, ethene, ethane, and chloride. The

treatment involves placing passive in-situ iron walls in the path of contaminant movement. The treatment

wall consists of two parts: an impermeable section constructed of sheet piling and a permeable section

consisting of granular iron and pea gravel. The wall is installed at the appropriate depth perpendicular to

the flow path of the contaminated ground water plume so that the dissolved contaminants are guided by the

impermeable section through the permeable section. The contaminants then react with the iron, resulting

in their destruction by dechlorination. As described, this is a passive technology, but hydraulic control of

the ground water plume, using extraction and injection wells, can be employed in conjunction with this

funnel and gate system to enhance treatment.

This passive approach allows low visibility of the treatment system after installation in the subsurface.

The operation of the system without hydraulic control requires only periodic monitoring of the system

performance, minimizing the impact of treatment on the local community.

The process has the following disadvantages:

• Contaminants must be dissolved in the ground water to allow effective contact with the iron. No significant removal of contaminants from the silty clays at the site is expected with this technology because contaminants adsorbed to silty clays will not be desorbed through this passive process.

• Another disadvantage is involves installation. Although treatment occurs in situ, the installation of the funnel and gate system requires construction of one or more trenches which intersect the ground water plume. Thus, a certain amount of potentially contaminated material must be treated or disposed using a different method.

• The passive process may take an indefinite time for cleanup. In order to speed up the cleanup process an active process involving the use of injection and extraction wells is required. Since, the funnel and gate application of zero-valent dechlorination relies on groundwater flow to bring contaminants into contact with the reactive barrier, O&M costs for the active process will significantly increase O&M costs. •

• The system may be effective in removal of contaminants in the saturated zone but, may not remove contaminants from the vadose zone (except a small quantity through infiltration). Based on the available site information, most contamination at the site is within the vadose zone and hence this technology may not be feasible at the site.

SM/LKS 3-17 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

Golder Applied Technologies Inc., Atlanta, Georgia was contacted to obtain further information for

this alternative. Two technical papers titled “Hydraulic Fracturing for Placement of Zero-Valent Iron

Reaction Barriers” and “Oriented Vertical Hydraulic Fracture Iron Reactive Walls” which provided

background information on the feasibility of this alternative was provided by Golder and have been

included to this report as Attachment 14.

Golder’s also provided the following estimate based on a review of available site information for the

Albert City site: Pre-construction costs for data review, planning and design, and bench-scale testing:

$35,000. Construction of the funnel and gate system: $450,000. Total cost for this alternative, not

including O&M costs: $485,000. Additionally, annual O&M costs for monitoring system performance

would be incurred for this alternative.

3.13 LANDFARMING

r .anrifarming requires excavation of contaminated soils and periodic tilling or turning over of the soil

to aerate the waste. This technology can permanently destroy selected organic contaminants. Landfarming

does not require control of environmental conditions or addition of additives. To control leaching of

contaminants, landfarming systems are increasingly incorporating liners and other methods of containment

(Reference 6).

Disadvantages of landfarming include:

• A large amount of space is required.

• Excavation of contaminated soils is required.

• Conditions advantageous for biological degradation of contaminants are largely uncontrolled, which may increase the length of time to complete remediation. •

• Reduction of contaminant concentrations may be caused more by volatilization than biodegradation.

• Air permitting would be required.

• Excavation under structures would be an issue of concern.

Total excavation costs: $688,000 (from Section 3.1).

Costs of tilling, liners and other containment costs: $100,000 (assumed).

Total costs for landfarming: $ 788,000.

SM/LKS 3-18 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

3.14 NATURAL ATTENUATION

Natural subsurface processes—such as dilution, volatilization, biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical

reactions with subsurface materials—are allowed to reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels.

Natural attenuation is not the same as “no action”, although it often is perceived as such. For consideration

of natural attenuation, extensive site characterization is required, including modeling and evaluation of

contaminant degradation rates. In addition, sampling and sample analysis must be conducted throughout

the process to confirm that degradation is proceeding at rates consistent with meeting cleanup objectives.

Natural attenuation is selected for sites in which the contaminant is not migrating and other removal and

remediation technologies have been determined to be technically impractical active remedial alternatives

would not significantly speed cleanup time. Natural attenuation, unlike “no action alternatives, does not

require evaluation under the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA). Natural attenuation does not involve active remedial measures, but is limited in regards to

the needs of microorganisms that can degrade organic contaminants. Biodegradation can be slow without

active measure to increase the oxygen supply.

The major advantage for this alternative is that no excavation or transportation of contaminated

materials is necessary. Therefore, no risk is posed to the site workers or community. No protective

equipment is necessary for site workers .

Disadvantages include:

• Natural attenuation is not well accepted by the regulatory community; the public generally prefers

active remedial alternatives.

• Highly skilled modelers are required for accurate evaluation of cleanup.

• Contaminants may migrate before they degrade.

• Intermediate products may be more mobile and more toxic than original contaminants.

• Natural attenuation should only be used where there are no impacts on potential receptors.

• Special approvals may be necessary.

• Due to the proximity to populated areas, special consideration would need to be taken to control migration of the contaminant to other areas and to drinking water. There are no capital or O&M costs associated with natural attenuation. There is no equipment to maintain. Costs associated with this alternative include costs for modeling contamination degradation rates and costs for sampling

and sample analysis.

SM/LKS 3-19 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

Costs of this alternative would be less than $ 100,000 and would include the costs for monitoring and

labor hours.

3.15 AIR SPARGING

Air sparging involves injection of compressed air into the lower portion of the contaminated aquifer.

The air percolates up through the contaminated region of the zone of saturation, generates local turbulence

in ground water, and strips VOCs from the aqueous phase into the vapor phase. The increased local

turbulence can be expected to increase the rate of solution of DNAPL residual droplets trapped in the

aquifer. After the gas leaves the saturated zone, it may be recovered by an SVE system in concert with

the sparging operation to remediate the vadose zone and prevent the vapors from escaping the atmosphere.

If VOCs are readily biodegradeable, the organic vapors may be destroyed biologically as the moist,

oxygen-rich soil gas rises through the vadose zone. Air sparging has been widely used to treat soils

contaminated with halogenated VOCs, non-halogenated VOCs and fuel hydrocarbons. The advantage of

air sparging over conventional techniques such as excavation and ground water pump and treat operations

include remediation of the overlying vadose zone, shorter remediation times, reduced environmental

impact, destruction or capture of the contaminant, and potentially reduced costs. Also this technology can

be used underneath buildings and other overlying impermeable structures. Factors affecting the

applicability and performance of air sparging are similar to an SVE system and are: vapor pressure (should

be greater than 0.5 torr) and Henry’s Law Constant (should be less than 0.01) of the contaminants. The

following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process (References 6 and 7):

• Depth of contaminants and specific site geology must be considered. The greater the depth of the contaminated zone below the water table, the higher the pressure required to operate the sparging

well and higher the costs.

• Pressure levels must be designed for site-specific conditions. A pilot test is required prior to design of a remediation system. The pilot test will determine the required pressure levels for

stripping contaminants from ground water.

• Channeling of the air flow can occur. The aquifer medium must be sufficiendy permeable to permit adequate flow of injected air. Low permeability structures (such as clay lenses in Albert City) may interfere with the movement of air and water in the vicinity of the well, thereby preventing VOC removal from some domains. •

• The natural rate of ground water flow must be sufficiendy slow to permit adequate contact of contaminated ground water in the air stripping region around the sparging well.

SM/LKS 3-20 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

• This alternative has to be used with an SVE system otherwise air sparging alone could create a net positive subsurface pressure that could induce contaminant migration beyond the contaminated

zone.

Based on a search on the VISITT database, several vendors with air sparging technologies were

identified. Some of the vendors identified were: Terra Vac Inc., Windsor, New Jersey, Fluor Daniel GTI,

Norwood, Massachusetts, IT Corporation and Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES), Jacksonville,

Florida. All the aforementioned vendors have patented air sparging technologies. The estimated cost

range of these technologies ranged from $ 10 to $ 90 per cubic yard. All these technologies are based on

the following principle: volatilization, mass transfer, capture, and treatment of contaminants.

IES’s patented QUICK-PURGE air sparging technology was picked randomly and studied further to

determine applicability to the Albert City site. IES claims that their technology can remediate site within

30 days. Also, the approximate price range for this technology varies from $ 10 to $ 50 per cubic yard.

Additional information about the technology which includes a schematic of the process has been included

with this report as Attachment 15.

Costs for remediating the Albert City site: 21,500 yd3 x $30/yd3 (average of $ 10 and $ 50) =

$645,000**.

**Costs do not include the cost of extracting vapors from the vadose zone.

3.16 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION

SVE Technology: Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an effective method for in-situ remediation of vadose

zone soils for the removal of VOCs from contaminated soils. The SVE process involves application of a

vacuum to withdraw vapors from soil. Following removal of contaminants from the soil, equipment either

condenses the vapors, collects them on activated carbon, or destroys them by catalytic oxidation.

Condensed vapors are disposed of off site or destroyed by a suitable technology. The technology is

applicable only to volatile compounds with Henry’s Law Constant greater than 0.01 or a vapor pressure

greater than 0.5 units. Among advantages of the SVE process are that it minimally disturbs the

contaminated soil; it can be constructed from standard equipment; it has been demonstrated at pilot- and

field-scale; it can be used to treat larger volumes of soil than can be practically excavated; and it has

potential for product recovery. In situ SVE technology removes contaminants directly from the source

area, eliminating further migration in the subsoils. In addition, ground water can be removed

SM/LKS 3-21 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

• High humic content of soil inhibits contaminant volatilization.

• Heterogeneous soil conditions may result in inconsistent removal rates.

• Low soil permeability limits subsurface air flow rates and reduces process efficiency.

A typical SVE system consists of: (1) a network of extraction wells and (2) extraction equipment.

Extraction wells consist of either vertical wells, horizontal wells or excavated soil piles or a combination.

Extraction wells are similar to monitoring wells. The construction involves drilling or auguring a borehole,

placing a PVC casing and screening and filling the annular space. The slots are usually sized as small as

possible to reduce silt entrainment. A highly permeable sand or gravel packing is placed around the screen

for optimum gas flow to the well. Above the pack, bentonite is used to seal the hole. A cement-bentonite

grout is typically used to seal the annular space to the surface. The screened interval should coincide with

the depth of highest product contamination. Extraction equipment usually consists of positive displacement

blowers driven by electric motors, air/water separator with overflow protection shutdown switch,

temperature sensors with system shutdown switch, air particle filter to recover grit and other fine particles,

vacuum intake and injection manifolds, air sampling ports, silencers for noise reduction, vacuum gauges,

pressure gauges flow meters and a off-gas treatment system which consists of either a carbon adsorption

canister or catalytic oxidizers (Reference 10).

Application of SVE at Superfund Sites: SVE technology is EPA’s most preferred innovative

technology for treatment of soils contaminated with VOCs and fuel hydrocarbons at Superfund sites. Of

the 290 Superfund remedial action sites that applied innovative technologies for treatment of contaminants,

SVE technology was used at 121 projects for treatment of contaminated soils (Reference 11). The

following table summarizes project status of innovative treatment technologies at Superfund remedial action

sites (Reference 11).

simultaneously from vacuum extraction wells to further enhance recovery of groundwater contaminants

and reduce the time for total cleanup (Reference 10). The following factors may limit the applicability and

effectiveness of the process (Reference 6):

Table 3-1

SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS: PROJECT STATUS OF INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIESAS OF SEPTEMBER 1994

Technology Predesign/In DesignDesign Complete/

Beine Install ed/OoerationalProject

ComnletedTotal

Soil Vapor Extraction 69 42 10 121

Thermal Desonnion 26 7 8 41

t

SM/LKS 3-22 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

Table 3-1 (Continued)

SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS: PROJECT STATUS OF INNOVATIVE TRE;AS OF SEPTEMBER 1994

VTMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Technology Predesign/In DesignDesign Complete/

Beine Installed/OnerationalProject

CompletedTotal

EX Situ Bioremediation 24 12 2 38

In Situ Bioremediation 14 14 2 30

Soil Washing 11 3 1 15

In Situ Flushing 14 3 1 18

Dechlorination 3 1 1 5

Solvent Extraction 3 1 0.00 4

In Situ Vitrification 1 1 0.00 2

Chemical Treatment 1 0.00 0.00 1

Other Innovative Treatment 12 3 0.00 15

TOTAL 178 87 25 290

SVE technology has also been applied to Superfund removal action sites. The following table

.<n1mmari7.es project status of innovative treatment technologies applied at Superfund removal action sites

(Reference 11).

Table 3-2

SUPERFUND REMOVAL ACTIONS: PROJECT STATUS OF INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIESAS OF SEPTEMBER 1994

Technology Predeagn/ln DesignDesign Complete/

Rein? Installed/OnerationalProject

CompletedTotal

Soil Vapor Extraction 0.00 1 3 4

Thermal Desorption 0.00 1 1 2

EX Situ Bioremediation 1 2 3 6

In Situ Bioremediation 0.00 1 3 4

Soil Washing 0.00 1 1 2

In Situ Flushing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dechlorination 0.00 0.00 2 2

Solvent Extraction 0.00 0.00 2 2

In Situ Vitrification 0.00 1 0.00 1

Chemical Treatment 0.00 1 6 7

Other Innovative Treatment 0.00 1 0.00 1

TOTAL 1 9 21 31

The SVE technology can be used in combination with other innovative technologies to enhance removal

effectiveness and efficiency, such as the thermally enhanced SVE and dual-phase SVE (References 11 and

12). The thermally enhanced SVE process is similar to the SVE process, except that steam/hot air injection

or electric/radio frequency heating is used to increase the mobility of volatiles and facilitate extraction.

The dual-phase SVE process includes a high-pressure vacuum system to simultaneously remove and treat

contaminated liquids and vapors from low permeability or heterogenous formations.

SM/LKS 3-23 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

Henry’s Law Constant: Under normal static conditions within a soil matrix, VOCs are partitioned

between four possible phases: 1) vapor, 2) liquid, 3) dissolved in soil water, and 4) adsorbed to solid

particles. These four phases comprise the aggregate contaminant concentration in the subsoils. The vapor

phase partitioning is a complex function of water content, organic content solubility, temperature, and

vapor pressure. It is not necessary to define the exact relationship between soil concentration and vapor

concentration to understand that reductions in extracted vapor concentrations are driven by continuous

partitioning to the vapor phase, which results in reductions in soil concentrations. The degree to which

a compound partitions into the vapor phase is described by that compound’s vapor pressure and the Henry’s

Law Constant (Reference 13). Henry’s Law Constant can simply be stated as the ratio of a compound’s

concentration in air divided by the concentration in water. As concentrations in soils are reduced

significantly, vapor phase partitioning is generally controlled by Henry’s Law Constant. Compounds with

higher Henry’s Law Constants will be removed faster. Therefore, one of the bases for successful

application of vacuum extraction to clean soils and associated interstitial water is Henry’s Law Constant.

Effective recovery of chemicals with Henry’s Law Constants greater than 0.01 have been demonstrated

at Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) sites (Reference 13). A table of dimension less

Henry’s Constants for typical VOCs at 10 °C is included in Attachment 16 of this report. All VOCs at the

Albert City site have Henry’s Constants greater than 0.01. Therefore, contaminant characteristics are

suitable for SVE application.

Hydraulic Conductivity: The aforementioned SITE evaluation and other literature on the technology

indicates that the technology is not a viable treatment alternative for sites with permeabilities lower than

10* cm/sec. Hydraulic permeabilities at the Albert City site range from 10" to 10" cm/sec (Reference 2).

Therefore, permeability may not be a limiting factor at the site.

Air Filled Porosity: Another factor which effects the performance of an SVE system is air filled

porosity. The permeability of the soil to air flow is perhaps the single most important parameter with

respect to the success of SVE technology (Reference 14). The smaller the clay pore size, the larger the

resistance to the flow of liquids and much lower resistance to the flow of the smaller air molecules. For

vacuum extraction (or aeration) to work well, the soil must have a sufficient air-filled porosity, so that the

induced stripping air may have a low resistance to flow to allow for the stripping of VOCs from the soil

Application of SVE Technology to the Albert City Site: The following three factors influence the

feasibility of SVE technology at the site: (1) Henry’s Law Constant, (2) Hydraulic Conductivity and (3)

Air Filled Porosity.

SM/LKS 3-24 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

Air filled porosity is a function of soil’s bulk density, moisture content and void ratio. Soils at Albert

City have a moisture content ranging from 18.2 to 22.7 percent. Bulk density and void ratio of the soil

is unavailable to calculate the air filled porosity. However, based on the available sieve analysis, the soils

are composed of mosdy gravel and sand with some silt or clay indicating that the site may be suitable for

application of the SVE technology.

Though all the aforementioned factors seem amenable to SVE, the success of such a system at the site

can only be determined by conducting a pilot test. Based on the results, a suitable SVE system can be

implemented by applying the following individual and/or combined systems:

High-Power Vacuum Coupled With Soil Ventilation System: The application of a high-power

vacuum soil ventilation system reduces the pressure drop across the treatment volume; thus, increasing the

flow of induced air and enhancing the in situ stripping process. Theoretically, the process is simply an air

stripping process, with the treatment volume as the packed column, with air being drawn from areas

surrounding the packed column into the center to an extraction well. The high-power vacuum can induce

water/contaminated liquids from the soil matrix to the extraction well and ultimately to a vapor/liquid

separator. As liquids are removed from the soil matrix, the air-filled porosity increases and allows induced

air to flow readily.

As volumes of soil vapors are removed by the in situ SVE process, fresh air naturally recharges the

vadose zone from the surface. Fresh air moves through the contaminated zone as VOCs are partitioned

from the soil matrix to the vapor phase and moved to the extraction wells. With vacuum-induced

volatization and air stripping of the soil matrix, cleanup occurs continuously. As the process continues,

however, the effective treatment zone would be significantly reduced, leaving part of it inadequately

treated. This may be the result of the distribution of pressure drop across the treatment zone (Figure 8:

In situ SVE—Inadequately Treated Zone as a Result of Pressure Drop Distribution Profile).

In order to optimize the cleanup, fresh air should be supplied to the treatment zone from the

subsurface, instead of the surface, at areas around the treatment zone. This method allows air to diffuse

horizontally through the treatment zone. This can be achieved by implementing a soil ventilation system.

This system consists of a number of bore holes to be used for passive air inlets, which are developed

matrix. Although there is no recommended air-filled porosity value for the application of the SVE

technology, a successful VOCs removal utilizing the SVE technology has been demonstrated at a Superfund

site, which had an air-filled porosity of approximately 15 percent (Reference 13).

SM/LKS 3-25 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

around the treatment area, down to the same treatment depth. These bore holes allow fresh air from the

surface to flow into the subsurface at areas around the treatment zone and to horizontally diffuse into the

center to the extraction well (Figure 9: Schematic of SVE/Soil Ventilation System). The distance from

the centered extraction well to soil ventilation bore holes, as well as their distance apart, should be designed

for process optimization. In addition, an impermeable pad should be placed over the surface of the

treatment area to prevent precipitation and fresh air from infiltrating and diffusing into the treatment zone

from the surface.

Based on the aforementioned factors, the application of a high-power vacuum coupled with a soil

ventilation system would increase the effectiveness of a SVE system.

Pneumatic Fracturing SVE System: The purposes of applying the pneumatic fracturing SVE (PFE)

process are to: 1) increase the removal rates of VOCs vapors, and 2) broaden the range of vadose zone

where the SVE technology is applied (Reference 14). This system works well at sites having low

permeability silts, clays, shales, etc. The PFE system provides an innovative means of increasing the

permeability of a formation, thus extending the radius of influence that can be reached to effectively extract

contaminants that otherwise might not be reached by the conventional SVE system.

In the PFE process, fracture wells are drilled in the contaminated vadose zone and left open (uncased)

for most of their depth. A packer system is used to isolate small (2 feet) intervals so that short bursts

(approximately 20 seconds) of compressed air (less than 500 pounds per square inch) can be injected into

the interval to fracture the. formation. The process is repeated for each interval. The fracturing extends

and enlarges existing fissures and introduces new fractures, primarily in the horizontal direction. When

fracturing has been completed, the formation is then subjected to vapor extraction, either by applying a

vacuum to all wells or by extracting from selected wells, while others are capped or used for passive air

inlet or forced air injection (Reference 14).

The PFE system has been evaluated under the EPA SITE program at an industrial site in central New

Jersey; and it demonstrated successful removal of chlorinated VOCs, specifically TCE. It should be noted

that the system can be used for other VOCs as well. Based on results from the SITE demonstration, the

PFE system is both technologically feasible and cost effective. The PFE process increased the extracted

air flow rate by >600% relative to that achieved in the site formation prior to fracturing. While TCE

concentration in the extracted air remained approximately constant, the increased air flow rate resulted in

TCE mass removal rates after fracturing that were an average of 675% higher over the 4-hour test periods.

Significantly increased extracted air flow rates (700% to 1,400%) were observed in wells 10 feet from the

SM/LKS 3-26 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

fracturing wells. Even at wells 20 feet away, increases in air flow rates of 200% to 1,100% were

observed. From well pressure and tiltmeter (surface heave) data, results suggest an effective extraction

radius of at least 20 feet (Reference 14).

Even higher increases in air flow rates and TCE mass removal were observed when one or more of

the monitoring wells was opened to allow passive air inlet. Under these conditions, air flow rates increased

an average of 19,500% and TCE mass removal rates increased 2,300% (Reference 14). This indicates that

the SVE technology coupled with an air ventilation system that was mentioned previously would enhance

the SVE removal rates.

In Situ Thermally Enhanced SVE System: In this system, hot air/steam or an electrical source is

applied to the treatment soils. The application of steam may be not be feasible, because steam would likely

cause the clayed soil to swell and plug the soil void space; thus, reducing the air-filled porosity. The

targeted treatment soils will be heated in situ using an electric source (or a hot-air injection system) to

approximately 250 °F to 300 °F. An array (usually square) of four electrodes is placed to the desired

depth in the volume to be treated. Because soil typically does not have sufficient electrical conductivity

to allow initiation of the process, a conductive mixture of graphite and glass frit is placed on the surface

between electrodes to serve as an initial conductive (starter) path. As electric potential is applied between

electrodes; current flows through the starter path, heating it and the adjacent soil to a desired temperature

range (Reference 14). Heated soil or water content in the soil matrix can act as an electrical conductivity

media, which carries the process beyond startup at the surface. As water is driven to the vapor state during

the thermal treatment process, the air-filled porosity increases and allows the induced air to flow readily.

This method effectively dewaters the soil (e.g., water vaporization) while vaporization of VOCs occurs as

well; thus, enhancing the SVE system and its VOCs removal rates. Since VOCs vaporize readily, the SVE

process continually drives contaminants within the subsoil’s pore volume, the three other phases (liquid,

adsorbed and dissolved) of VOCs vaporize in place, further reducing the aggregate soil concentration.

SVE System Design Variables: The objective of the design process is to develop an SVE system that

removes contaminants efficiently, in a timely manner, and cost-effectively. This design requires a

knowledge of system effectiveness, including contaminant composition and characteristics, vapor flow path

and flow rate, and contaminant location with respect to the vapor flow paths. Basic equipment used in a

SVE system includes pumps or blowers to produce the applied vacuum; piping, valves, and instrumentation

to transfer air from the wells through the system and to calculate contaminant concentrations and the total

air flow; vapor pretreatment to remove soil particles and water/contaminated liquids from the vapors

SM/LKS 3-27 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

treated; and an air emission control device to concentrate or destroy vapor-phase contaminants a typical

SVE system is depicted in Figure 10: Typical Soil Vapor Extraction Schematic.

Although the scope of this project did not include design specifications of a SVE system, a brief

summary of design variables that characterize the successful design and operation of a SVE system is

provided as follows (Reference 10):

Site Conditions:

Soil Properties:

Control Variables:

Distribution of VOCs, depth to ground water, infiltration rate, location of heterogeneities, temperature, and atmospheric pressure.

Permeability, porosity, organic carbon content, soil structure, soil moisture characteristics, and particle size distribution.

Air withdrawal rate, well configuration, extraction well spacing, vent well spacing, ground surface covering, inlet air VOC concentration and moisture content, and pumping duration.

Response Variables: Pressure gradients, final distribution of VOCs, final moisture content, extracted air concentration, extracted air temperature, extracted air moisture, and power usage.

Chemical Properties: Henry’s Law Constant, solubility, adsorption equilibrium, diffusivity (air and water), density, and viscosity.

Design Software: The U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development/Risk Reduction Engineering

Laboratory has developed a software, Hyperventilate, to assist users with evaluating the feasibility of using

SVE at a specific site (Reference 15). Hyperventilate was designed for use as a guide to achieve the

following:

1) To identify the level of site data needed to evaluate SVE systems.

2) To determine if soil venting is appropriate at a site.

3) To evaluate soil permeability test results.

4) To approximate the minimum number of extraction wells likely to be needed in a SVE system.

Hyperventilate Version 2.0 is available for IBM compatible personal computers equipped with an 80386

processor, 4 MB RAM minimum, VGA or 8514, DOS 3.1 or higher, Microsoft Windows 3.x and

Spinnaker PLUS 2.5 or higher.

VISITT Search: A VISITT search was conducted to identify vendors with SVE experience. Several

vendors were identified by the search. The noted vendors among the list were Accutech Remedial

SM/LKS 3-28 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

Systems, Inc., Keyport, New Jersey; Terra Vac, Inc., Windsor, New Jersey; Dames & Moore, Willow

Grave, Pennsylvania; IT Corporation, Houston, Texas, Envirogen, Inc., Lawrenceville, New Jersey and;

Geo-Con, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania. All except Dames & Moore have in-situ SVE processes. The

price estimates for in-situ SVE processes varied from $ 15 to $ 100 per cubic yard. The price for dual

phase extraction processes varied from $ 10 to $ 100 per cubic yard and the price estimates for pneumatic

fracturing varied from $ 8 to $ 30 per cubic yard. The factors that would have a significant impact on the

price range per cubic yard in descending order for SVE and dual phase extraction systems were: quantity

of waste, initial and target contaminant concentrations, depth to ground water, characteristics of soil and

the amount of debris with the waste. Similarly, the factors that would impact the price range for pneumatic

fracturing systems were depth of contamination, depth to ground water, characteristics of soil, moisture

content of soil, quantity of waste and, site preparation. Terra Vac, Inc. and Accutech Remedial Systems,

Inc., both have extensive experience in remediating similar sites. Further information about Terra Vac’s

SVE and dual phase extraction processes is included in this report as Attachments 17 and 18 respectively.

Information about Accutech’s pneumatic fracturing process is included as Attachment 19 of this report.

Based on the aforementioned costs, the average cost was used for estimating the remediation costs at the

Albert City site.

Cost of SVE System: 21,500 yd3 x $ 57.50 per cubic yard = $ 1.236 million.

Cost of SVE Dual Phase Extraction System: 21,500 yd3 x $ 55 per yd3 = $ 1.182 million.

Cost of SVE System with Pneumatic Fracturing: (21,500 yd3 x $ 19 per yd3) + $ 1.236 million= $

1.644 million.

The site geology at the site is known to contain sandy to silty clay with interbedded lenses of sand.

Hence, a Huai phase SVE system with pnuematic fracturing would be the most suitable SVE system for the

site. The cost of this alternative would approximately be $ 1.60 million.

SM/LKS 3-29 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

4.0 SCREENING AND SELECTION OF A TREATMENT SYSTEM

All the evaluated technologies are commercially available and applicable for the target contaminants

at the Albert City site. Information about the technologies and their applications, limiting factors and

associated costs were provided in the previous section. However, no single alternative would be effective

in completely Waning up the site to the proposed levels of interest. This is because of the limiting factors

of each alternative which make them either less effective or difficult to implement or very costly.

Implanting a combination of technologies would be the efficient method of remediating the site. Table

4-1 lists all the alternatives with associated costs and estimated duration of treatment.

Based on a review of several technologies, the following may be a viable alternative for treatment of

contaminated soil and ground water at the Albert City site: Dual phase in-situ SVE coupled with air

sparging and pneumatic fracturing system. The system performance can be further enhanced by

biodegradation with nutrient supplementation after the concentration of target compounds drop below 20

percent of the initial levels. A detailed description of the proposed system follows.

The SVE system would consist of horizontal and vertical vapor extraction wells placed strategically

to cover the contaminated area. Vertical SVE wells would be used to draw the water table down to

approximately 15 feet to increase the depth of the vadose zone and increase the effectiveness of the system.

Horizontal wells will be suitable for removal in shallow areas and under buildings. Horizontal wells would

be placed approximately 7 feet below ground surface. Air sparging at the site would involve injection of

air into the water bearing surface stratum. This would cause bubbling of air through the contaminated

saturated zone and result in stripping of contaminants from ground water to the vadose zone. The soil

vapor extraction wells placed around the sparge points would remove the contaminants thus achieving soil

and ground water cleanup. Since there is a significant amount of clay in the impacted area, the SVE and

AS wells would be set up to pneumatically fracture the impermeable formations to increase extraction and

injection flow rates and thereby increase mass removal rates. The vertical SVE wells should be installed

as dual phase wells—capable of handling both vapor and water. This will prevent mounding of the water

table and recover any perched water.

In addition to the above, bioremediation with nutrient supplementation would be used once the targeted

compounds reach below 20 percent of their initial concentrations. The process would involve providing

soil with nutrients (through the air sparging wells) like nitrogen, phosphorus and oxygen which would

enable the indigenous microbial communities to breakdown the contaminants into carbon dioxide and


water. Further, an impermeable seal would be placed over the entire impacted area to: control vapor flow

paths toward the extraction wells and reduce the entry of atmospheric air into the wells and result in an

increase of radius of influence of extraction wells, reduce fugitive emissions from soil to air and, prevent

infiltration of rainfall, reducing the amount of water to be removed by extraction wells. The permeable

seal would be a flexible membrane lining (e.g., high density polyethylene) that can be rolled out on the site

and can be easily removed when the treatment is complete or bentonite clay can be used as the permeable

seal. Finally, the treatment system would treat the extracted water and vapor by passing them through a

suitable treatment system (e.g., biofilters and granulated activated carbon).

However, to verify the feasibility of the proposed system, a pilot test would be required. The pilot test

will be used to determine the zone of influence of vapor extraction wells, estimate removal efficiency and

provide the conceptual design to design a full-scale system. Specifically the scope of the test shall be as

follows:

(1) Drilling and installation of SVE and air sparge wells in two locations at the site.

(2) Injection wells, 2 extraction wells, 24-32 monitoring points). SVE extraction and observation wells would be 8 feet deep with a 5 feet screen and air sparging wells would be 20 feet deep with

5 feet screen.

(3) Mobilization and demobilization of all equipment and personnel.

(4) Performance of two separate tests at different locations either simultaneously or separately to test the application of SVE (enhanced with pneumatic fracturing) and air sparging technology. The duration of the tests shall be approximately 48 to 72 hours.

(5) Pass vapors through a granulated activated carbon adsorption system to remove VOCs from the air stream and disposal of spent activated carbon after the test.

(6) Monitor for the following parameters at the following locations during the tests:

(a) SVE Wells: vacuum, air flow rate, carbon dioxide, oxygen, temperature, PID readings, and an independent laboratory analysis data using EPA Method TO 14 or modified Method 18 for VOCs. At least six samples should be collected during each test for laboratory analysis.

(b) Air Sparge Wells: Pressure and flow rate.

(c) Adsorption system outlet: PID reading and draeger tubes to check for emissions.

(d) SVE observation wells: Vacuum, water level.

(e) Air sparge observation wells: Pressure, vacuum and dissolved oxygen.

(6)- Prepare a conceptual design for design of a full scale system.


After completion of the pilot test, the conceptual design prepared from the data obtained from the pilot

test would be reviewed to determine the feasibility of the proposed system. Assuming that the pilot test

is successful, the following activities are recommended for further work at the site:

(1) Preparation of design and specifications for remediation activities.

(2) Construction and installation of a full scale system.

(3) Operation and maintenance of the system.

«


Table 4-1

•SUMMARY OF EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES—COSTS AND DURATION OF TREATMENT

ALBERT CITY SBA SITE-ALBERT CITY. IOWA

Prooosed Alternative Cost in Millions ($$) Duration of Treatment Comments

Excavation and off-site disposal by landfilling.

12.38 (transport by trucks)11.14 (transport by rail)

Less than two months Less than two months

Expensive, ground water contamination not remediated, excavation under buildings difficult at the site.

Excavation and off-site disposal by treatment.

6.S3 (transport by trucks) 5.70 (transport by rail)

' Less than two months Less than two months

Expensive, ground water contamination not remediated, excavation under buildings difficult at the site.

On-site ex-situ incinerator. 11.01 Less than six months Same comments as excavation and, obtaining air permits is difficult.

On-site ex-situ soil washing. 4.13 Less than three months Same comments as excavation and, silts and clays are difficult to wash.

Biodegradation. 1.08 Indefinitely long time Not a stand alone technology, extensive studies required, indefinitely long cleanup time.

Ex-situ thermal desorption. 4.13 three to six months Same comments as excavation and, dewatering and additional treatment may be required.

Bioventing. 1.78 Indefinitely long time Not feasible where there is a high water table, cannot remediate ground water.

Soil flushing. 1.08 Indefinitely long time Complex hydrology at the site makes is less feasible, cannot be installed under buildings.

In-situ vitrification. 22.36 Less than three months High temperature can cause unwanted damage, very expensive, water needs to be removed.

Dehalogenation. 7.57 Less than six months Same as excavation, additional water treatment and emission controls required.

Enhanced in-situ vaporization. 3.23 Less than three months Excavation under buildings not feasible, expensive, not effective in clays.

Chemical treatment. 88.41 Unknown Not a stand alone technology, very expensive.

In-situ dechlorination with zero- valent iron technology.

0.49 Indefinitely long timeDoes not remediate ground water, not a stand alone technology, indefinitely long cleanup time, not effective in clays.

Land farming. 0.79 Indefinitely long time Large amount of space required, long treatment time, air permits required.

Natural Attenuation. 0.10 Indefinitely long time Does not protect public health, suitable only when no targets are present.

Air sparging. 0.65 (incomplete cost) Two years Not a stand alone technology.

Dual phase SVE with pnuematic fracturing.

1.60 One to two yearsHeterogenous soil may result in inconsistent removal rates. Very promising overall—process

could be made effective by air sparging, biodegradation and pneumatic fracturing.

SM/LKS 44 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

5.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR PILOT TESTS AND A FULL SCALE SVE SYSTEM

The treatment costs provided in Section 3.0 were based on an average treatment cost at a typical

hazardous waste site. Typical costs only serve as a screening tool to evaluate technologies and cannot be

interpolated to estimate treatment/cleanup costs of a specific site. Based on the site conditions, approximate

treatment costs can be estimated by experienced vendors. Obtaining estimates from several vendors is the

best method of determining the funding requirements for cleanup of a site. Hence, the START prepared

and sent out a statement of work (SOW) along with the site background information to four

vendors/developers, in order to obtain and refine estimated remediation costs and cleanup duration for the

site. The vendors were selected based on their qualifications and experience with SVE technology.

Soliciting budgetary estimates from the vendors was solely for the purpose of estimating funding

requirements for the project. The vendors were requested to provide non-binding budgetary estimates for:

(1) the pilot test and (2) the full-scale system. All the four vendors that were contacted responded to the

request. All supporting documentation which includes an example of the SOW that was sent to

vendors/developers and all their responses are provided in this report as Attachments 20 (For the pilot test)

and 21 (for the full-scale system). The following two Tables summarizes the information obtained.

Table 5-1

BUDGETARY ESTIMATES FOR A PILOT TESTALBERT CITY, IOV

AT THE ALBERT CITY SITE

Vendor’s Name and Address________Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc.

Cass Street at Highway 33Keyport, New Jersey 07735

$63,000

Bay West. Inc.4420 Madison Avenue, Ste. 222

Kansas City, Missouri 64111

$56,800—$62,800

MDC Environmental, Inc.3774 Oregon Road

Ottawa, Kansas 66067

$39,550

Advanced Engineering Solutions, Inc.23460 Novi Road

Novi. Michigan 48375

$49,000


Table 5-2

BUDGETARY ESTIMATES FOR A FULL-SCALE SYSTEM AT THE ALBERT CITY SITEALBERT CITY, IOWA

Vendor’s Name and Address

BUDGETARY ESTIMATE FOR A FULL SCALE SYSTEM

Design & specifications

Construction & Installation

Operation & Maintenance Total Cost

Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc.Cass Street at Highway 35

Keyport, New Jersey 07735

$25,000-$40,000

$400,000-$500,000

$300,00Duration: 30 Months

$725,000-$840,000

Bay West, Inc.4420 Madison Avenue, Ste. 222

Kansas City, Missouri 64111$44,000 $709,500

$ 290,250Duration: 24 Months

$ 1,043,750

MDC Environmental, Inc.3774 Oregon Road

Ottawa, Kansas 66067$36,000 $ 356,000

$ 195,000Duration: 36 Months $587,000

Advanced Engineering Solutions, Inc. 25460 Novi Road

Novi. Michigan 48375$ 16,180 $ 435,000

$220,000Duration: 20 Months

$ 671,180

*


6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Several conventional and innovative treatment technologies were evaluated for cleanup of contaminated

soil and ground water at the Albert City SBA site in Albert City, Iowa. The following treatment

alternatives were evaluated for the site: excavation and off-site disposal, on-site ex-situ incineration (mobile

incinerator), on-site ex-situ soil washing, biodegradation, on-site ex-situ thermal desorption, bioventing,

soil flushing, in-situ vitrification, dehalogenation, enhanced in-situ vaporization, chemical treatment, in-situ

dechlorination with zero-valent iron funnel and gate system, land fanning, natural attenuation, air sparging

and soil vapor extraction.

Based on our evaluation of soil and ground water characteristics at the site, no single technology could

effectively cleanup the site to below the PRGs set by IDOH, concurred by ATSDR and adopted EPA. All

the technologies evaluated were either too expensive, not implementable at the site or would take an

indefinite amount of time for cleanup to be accomplished. A combination of technologies is required to

<»nhanrp the r]*»annp thereby making it cost effective. Hence, a dual phase SVE system with air sparging

was selected as the most suitable technology for the site. Additionally, after the system reaches a steady

state, the removal of contaminants will be further enhanced by biodegradation through nutrient

supplementation. The guiding design parameters for a SVE/Air Sparging system, the Henry s Law

Constant of the target contaminants and hydraulic conductivity of the soils are within acceptable ranges of

implementation. Adequate geotechnical information is not available to calculate air filled porosity of the

soil. However, a review of the sieve analysis indicates that air filled porosity might also be within an

acceptable percent. Discontinuous lenses of sand in the soil strata might reduce the effectiveness of the

aforementioned system. Hence, pneumatic fracturing to increase the permeability of soil and enhance the

mass removal rate has also been proposed at the site.

It is estimated that cleanup at the site can be completed within two years. Application of this alternative

is a cost-effective treatment method. Among advantages of this process are that it minimally disturbs the

contaminated soil; it can be constructed from standard equipment; it has been demonstrated at pilot- and

field-scale; it can be used to treat large volumes of soil than cannot be practically excavated; and it has

potential for product recovery. Also, it removes contaminants directly from source areas, eliminating

further subsurface migration. In addition, contaminated ground water can be treated simultaneously from

vacuum extraction wells to further enhance the recovery of ground water contaminants. Also, based on

the background information reviewed, SVE systems have been selected at 121 of the 290 Superfund

Remedial sites and 4 out of 31 Superfund Removal sites where innovative technologies have been applied.


In addition, SVE technology was selected as the treatment method in 4 of 31 Superfund removal sites.

Though several factors indicate that a SVE system would effectively remove contaminants from the site,

the performance of the proposed system cannot be predicted without a on-site pilot test.

However, the following data gaps need to be addressed prior to implementing a cleanup alternative at

the site:

(1) Delineation of Waste Areas: The extent of soil and ground contamination at the site needs to be fully defined. Any additional areas of contamination will result in an increase of cleanup costs.

(2) Storm Sewer Pipes: The perforated storm sewer pipes at the site need to re-routed. This would prevent further transport of contaminants from the site. It would be also beneficial for implementing any in-situ cleanup methods at the site.

(3) Building Debris: Information about the location and the amount of buried building debris at the site is required to prepare the site for remediation.

(4) Representative soil sampling to determine the moisture content, bulk density and void ratio (geotechnical properties) of on-site soils.

(3) Conducting a pilot test at the site to determine the effectiveness of the proposed dual phase SVE and air sparging system.

Assumptions in regards to the aforementioned data gaps were made to complete the evaluation of

treatment technologies at the site. Treatment costs were estimated based on a limited search of potential

vendors. The estimated costs are an average of the cost range provided by respective vendors. The actual

cost of implementing the alternative at the site might be different based on site conditions. To get a better

picture of the potential costs of remediating the site, four vendors were contacted. These vendors were

provided with adequate background information about the site and requested to provide non-binding

budgetary estimates for the proposed pilot test and for installation and maintenance of a full-scale system.

All vendor queries regarding the proposed system were answered by the START. All the four vendors

contacted responded to the request. Based on information received from vendors, it is estimated that the

pilot test at the site would cost in the range of $ 39,350 to $ 65,000. Design, installation and maintenance

of a full-scale system would cost in the range of $ 587,000 to $ 1,043,750.

»


7.0 REFERENCES

Ecology and Environment, Inc., July 1996, Expanded Site Inspection for the Albert City SBA site, Albert City, Iowa, Prepared under the START contract for EPA Region 7, Kansas City, Kansas.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., August 1997, Draft Phase 3 Removal Assessment for the Albert City SBA site, Albert City, Iowa, Prepared under the START contract for EPA Region 7, Kansas City, Kansas.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., November 1996, Removal Assessment Report (Phase 1) for the Albert City SBA site, Albert City, Iowa, Prepared under the START contract for EPA Region 7, Kansas City,

Kansas.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., June 1997, Phase 2 Removal Assessment Report for the Albert City SBA site, Albert City, Iowa, Prepared under the START contract for EPA Region 7, Kansas City, Kansas.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies, Version 5.0,

July 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology innovation Office, Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, EPA 542-B-93-005, July 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Contaminants and Remedial Options at Solvent-Contaminated Sites, EPA/600/R-94/203.

MiUgard Environmental Corporation, Livonia, Michigan, Mectool Applications for Dynamic Air Sparging (Soil Vapor Extraction), October 1997.

Golder Applied Technologies, Inc., Atlanta, “Georgia, Oriented Vertical Hydraulic Fracture Iron Reactive Walls” by Grant Docking and Samuel L. Wells, 1997.

Penderson, T.A., and J.T. Curtis, Soil Vapor Extraction Technology, Noyes Data Corporation, Park

Ridge, New Jersey, 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology innovation Office, Innovative Treatment Technologies—Annual Status Report, EPA 542-R-94-005,

September 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SUPERFUND—XV Conference Abstract Book, Sheraton Washington Hotel, Washington, D.C., November 29—December 1, 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System—Applications Analysis Report, EPA/540/A5-89/003, July 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas Injection Phase I—Applications Analysis Report, EPA/540/AR-

93/509, July 1993.

I


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Decision Support Software for Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Application: Hyperventilate, EPA/540/R-93/028, February 1993.

>»


ATTACHMENT 1

Figures 1 to 10

1

SM/LKS 0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

LBSTLOC.CDR

Figure 1: SITE LOCATION MAP

Gra

pe S

tree

t

v

Second Avenue

SCALE TDD: S07-9708-003 Albert City SBA

0 200 PAN: 0609ACTTXXPrepared by STM L.J.Baer

October 1997

Albert City, Iowa

100 100

ALBSITE2.CDR

Figure 2: SITE MAP

Mai

n St

reet

and Iowa Geologic Survey Misc. Map Series 10. 1984.

Figure 3: GENERAL GEOLOGIC/HYDROGEOLOGIC COLUMN

->

Ele

vatio

n (f

eet)

v

A

NW

1400-

1300 —

1200 —

1100-

Glacial Drift

- 1200

Former SMC Well (Plugged)

— 1100

Deposits and Limestone NOTE: Vertical exageration is approximately 15X.

APPROXIMATE HORIZONTAL SCALE Albert City SBA Albert City, Iowa TDD: S07-9708-003

0 1 2 miles PAN: 0609ACTTXXPrepared by STM L.J.Baer

October 19975 .5 1.5

ALBXSECT CDR Figure 4: NEAR SURFACE GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION

Explanation

BVC Buena Vista County UST Well FDI ntLVMJ i tL JSTWe,|

JTS Jims Tire and Service UST Well

SCALE fleet)

e Monitoring Well LocationMW-4 and Designation

200

100

Albert City SBA Albert City, Iowa

TDD: S07-9708-003 PAN: 0609ACTTXX

Prepared by STM L.J.Baer October 1997

100

ALBFIG33.CDR

Figure 5: WATER TABLE POTENTIOMETRIC MAP

Explanation

BVC

FDI

JTS

Buena Vista County UST Well

REDACTED uSTWeii

Jims Tire and Service UST Well

_______ SCALE (feet)

e Monitoring Well LocationMW-4A and Designation with1316.71 Ground Water Elevation

200


TDD: S07-9708-003 PAN: 0609ACTTXX

Prepared by STM L.J.Baer October 1997

100 100

ALBFIG34.CDR

Figure 6: POTENTIOMETRIC MAP OF DEEP WELLS

EXTRACTIONWELL

FRESH AIR FRESH AIR

INADEQUATELY TREATED AREA


(ftl|l ecology and environment, inc

TDD: S07-9708-003 PAN: 0609ACTTXX

Prepared by STM L.J.Baer December 1997

IFigure 8: SCHEMATIC OF INADEQUATE SVE SYSTEM

AIBINSVE.CDR

oo

o

o

o

0

\d\

EXTRACTION WELL

o

on-,A

oo/sf

\ /SOIL VENTILATION BORE HOLES

PLAN VIEW

NOTE: R = radius from soil ventilation bore holes to extraction well

d = distance between ventilation bore holes

FRESH AIR

*772

UNSATURATED ZONE

I4Jl\/

4

/

IMPERMEABLE PAD

EXTRACTION WELL

u <f==\•c=^> <==$> A <£=> \

V V if <=><=> !<=> c=j:> if ;V^> c=z^>

u —, >------------1 - - » /ft

<b=i —/u -<S=!.s&=>

\ FRESH AIR

*77,av/

a

tiCONTAMINATED PLUME

SOIL VENTILATION BORE HOLES

SIDE VIEW

(jlAlbert City SBA

TDD: S07-9708-003[S ecology and environment, Inc. PAN: 0609ACTTXX

Albert City, Iowa Prepared by STM L.J.BaerDecember 1997

ALBSVE.CDR

Figure 9: SCHEMATIC OF SVE / SOIL VENTILATION SYSTEMr . . • • ' l

||j ecology and environment, inc.Albert City SBAAlbert City, Iowa

TDD: S07-9708-003PAN: 0609ACTTXX

Prepared by STM L.J.BaerDecember 1997

ALBSVAP.CDR

Figure 10: SCHEMATIC OF SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM

ATTACHMENT 2

Smith Environmental—Soil Washing Technology


Page No. 1 of 1311/08/97

VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: SMITH ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP.Technology Type: SOIL WASHING

Technology Trade Name:

Address: 304 Inverness Way South Suite 200

City: Englewood, Colorado 80112 USA

Contact: Dave EhlersTitle: Director - Waste Treatment TechnologiesPhone: (303) 790-1747Fax: (303) 799-0186E-Mail: Not ProvidedWeb Page: Not ProvidedStatus: Full scale

DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY

p'-'l washing is a process of mixing contaminated soil with water ex situ and anically scrubbing and separating the soil fractions to remove the

v -aminants. Soil washing can be, and has been, used as a single-stage, stand-alone technology where applicable, or coupled with other on-site remediation technologies to achieve desired final contaminant levels or destruction. Many soil contaminants, both organic and inorganic, tend to chemically or physically attach to the silt and clay fractions of the soil.The silt and clay, in turn, tend to attach to coarser sand and gravel particles. The various processes used in soil washing break the silt and clay away from the coarser fractions and scrub the coarser fractions, resulting in clean sand. The initial breakdown process is done by vibrating screens and then by attrition scrubbers. This clean sand can usually be backfilled on site. The fine fraction which contains the contaminants can then either be processed by an alternative technology or dewatered and disposed of off site. Process water is cleaned of contaminants and recycled for further use in the system.

Page No. 2 of 1311/08/97

VISITT 5.0


TECHNOLOGY HIGHLIGHTS

Sec. 121(b) of CERCLA mandates the EPA to select remedies that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies, or resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent practicable," and "to prefer remedial actions in which treatment permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances." Soil washing accomplishes all of the above where applicable and is steadily gaining favor with the EPA.

Volume reduction of contaminated material is dramatic, and expensive off-site disposal or destruction is minimized. Costs are relatively low because of high processing rates (10-50 tons per hour). Because of high production rates, relatively quick site remediation is possible.

Soil washing can be custom designed as a pre-treatment to obtain optimum results on other downstream technologies. Example: Using soil washing toreduce volume, size and dewater feed for SoilTech's ATP, Canonie's LTTA, incineration, or stabilization.

Page No. 3 of 1311/08/97

VISITT 5.0


TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS

Specific removal efficiencies are dependent upon the type and form of acontaminant as well as the type and grain size distribution of the contaminated soil.

As a very general statement, applicable contaminants can usually be removedcoarse s°il fractions (greater than 200 mesh) with relatively high removal

efficiencies (95.0 to 99.9 percent) at low to moderate cost, while fine soils, S^1TS. and,claYs (less than 200 mesh) achieve only moderate contaminant removal efficiencies (50.0 to 90.0 percent) at a moderate to high cost.

Sand fractions can often be cleaned to less than 1 ppm final contaminant concentrations, while silt/clay fractions may only be cleaned to less than 50 ppm. Organic fractions will often not be treatable without additional chemical treatment such as addition of surfactants or ion exchange.

Soil washing systems are usually not technology-limited, but may not be cost effective for difficult to remove or low contaminant levels (less than .5 ppm).

Page No. 4 of 1311/08/97 VISITT 5.0


OTHER COMMENTS ON TECHNOLOGY

Project:Status:

1. Salt removal system for Petroleum Environmental Research Foundation. In progress

2. Bench-scale treatability - removal of thorium plutonium from soil for Dept. of Energy

3. Gould Superfund site - battery waste and lead contaminated soil.

design inprogress

In progress

Pilot complete Full-scale

4. Tonalli Battery Superfund Site Proof of for RI/FS. In progress

5. Pesticide removal for W.R. Grace bench-scale ' stability.

^ Pesticide removal for confidential client

7. PCP and carcinogenic PAH removal for confidential

In progress

In progress

In progress

and

Process

client

Page No. 5 of 1311/08/97

VISITT 5.0

WASTE APPLICATIONS


Media

Actual/Potential

_ _ Soil (in situ)

X X Soil (ex situ)

_ _ Sludge (Does not include municipal sewage sludge)

_ _ Solid (e.g., slag)

_ _ Natural sediment (in situ)

_ X Natural sediment (ex situ)

_ _ Groundwater (in situ)

_ _ Off-gas generated from a primary innovative technology

_ _ Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) in situ

_ _ Light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) in situ


WASTE APPLICATIONS (Continued)


Contaminants and Contaminant Groups Treated

Actual/Potential Actual/Potential

_ X Halogenated volatiles

_ X Halogenated semivolatiles

_ X Nonhalogenated volatiles

_ X Nonhalogenated semivolatiles

_ X Organic pesticides/herbicides

_ _ Dioxins/furans

X PCBs

_ X Polynuclear aromatics (PNAs)

_ X Solvents

_ X Benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene- xylene (BTEX)

_ X Acetonitrile (organic cyanide)

_ X Organic acids

Others:

X X Heavy metals

_ X Nonmetallic toxic elements

_ X Radioactive metals

_ _ Asbestos

_ X Inorganic cyanides

_ X Inorganic corrosives

Miscellaneous

X Explosives/propellents

X Organometallic pesticides/ herbicides




Industrial Waste Sources or Site Types Treated

Actual/Potential

_ X Agriculture

X X Battery recycling/disposal

_ _ Chloro-alkali manufacturing

_ _ Coal gasification

_ X Dry cleaners

X X Electroplating

_ X Gasoline/service station

_ X Herbicide manufacturing/use

_ X Industrial landfills

_ X Inorganic/organic pigments

_ X Machine shops

X X Metal ore mining and smelting

_ _ Municipal landfill

Others:

Radionuclides - potential.

Actual/Potential

_ X Munitions manufacturing

_ _ Paint/ink formulation

_ X Pesticide manufacturing/use

_ X Petroleum refining and reuse

_ X Photographic products

_ X Plastics manufacturing

_ _ Pulp and paper industry

_ X Other organic chemicalmanufacturing

_ X Other inorganic chemicalmanufacturing

_ _ Rubber manufacturing

_ X Semiconductor manufacturing

_ X Wood preserving

_ X Uranium mining



ESTIMATED PRICE RANGE

Estimated price range per unit of waste treated :

$ 50.00 to $ 100.00____ per ton

Price estimates shown above do not always include all indirect cnctasuch as

aMlS^ F price comparisons, users should make certain that vendors provrde estimates based on comparable remediation Jctivit?2s.

Factors that have a significant effect on unit price. (1 is highest)

2 -

Initial contaminant concentration

—1 Target contaminant concentration

_3 Quantity of waste

__ Depth of contamination

__ Depth to groundwater

— Characteristics of residual waste

__ Labor Rates

Others:soil sieve analysis '

_6 Moisture content of soil

__ Site Preparation

_7 Waste handling/preprocessing

_5 Amount of debris with waste

__ Characteristics of soil

__ Utility/Fuel rates



TREATABILITY STUDY CAPABILITIES (BENCH-SCALE)

Description of bench-scale testing procedures:

Complete chemical and physical characterization of the contaminated soil leading to specifically designed bench- and pilot-scale treatabilty testing is an absolute requirement to ensure remediation success. Specific bench-scale testing considerations often include the following:

1. Contaminant level by sieve size 2. Sieve size distribution by weight 3. Soil clasification 4. Total organic solubility content 5. Solubility of contaminant 6. Optimum solid/liquid ration 7. Optimum reagent type and

8-. Optimum treatment system residence time 9. Degree of difficulty in soil dewatering 10. Optimum process water treatment for recycle

Specific tests usually include sieve analysis, attrition scrubbing, clay m ^eralogy, and gas chromatographic contaminant determination. Exact tests

ormed are contaminant and site specific.

Can you conduct bench-scale treatability studies on some types of waste at your location: Yes

Number of bench-scale studies conducted to date. (Does not include tests on surrogate wastes) : 12

Page No. 10 of 1311/08/97 VISITT 5.0


PILOT SCALE INFORMATION

Pilot unit processes :

1. Feed hopper and conveyor 2. Vibrating wet screen deck and/or rotatina

1' Attrition scrubber or high shear mix tank 4. Hydrocyclones

DS?g^r^rsThickener and *•

Vendor servicesEquipment manufacture

X Subcontractor for cleanup services

X Prime contractor for full-service remediation

Other:

Page No. 11 of 1311/08/97 VISITT 5.0

PILOT SCALE INFORMATION (Continued)

Number of pilot-scale systems :

3 Planned/in design

0 Under construction

1 Constructed

Pilot-scale facility is :

X Transportable

_ Fixed

_ In situ

Capacity range for batch processes:

------------ to 5_ tons/hour

Can you conduct pilot-scale treatability studies on some types of waste at your location? Yes

At a contaminated site? Yes


Quantity of waste needed for pilot-scale treatability study :

500 to 1 / 000_______ pounds

Number of pilot-scale studies conducted on wastes from different sources or sites : 8 L

Page No. 12 of 1311/08/97

VISITT 5.0


FULL SCALE INFORMATION

Major unit processes :

Unit processes in full-scale are similar to pilot, but sized and configured based on bench and pilot testing.


FULL SCALE INFORMATION (Continued)

Vendor services: _ Equipment manufacture



_ Other:

Full-scale facility is:

X Transportable _ Fixed _ In situ

Page No. 13 of 13 VISITT 5.011/08/97

Number of full-scale cleanups initiated or completed by this firm using this technology: _____0

Number of full-scale systems:

2 Planned/in design


1 Constructed

Capacity range: 8. to _______________ tons/hour

For equipment manufacturers - estimated or actual number of full-scale cleanups by other firms using this equipment: _ 0

ATTACHMENT 3

B & S Research, Inc.—Biodegradation Technology


Page No. 1 of 3512/02/97 ' ISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUNDWATER

Technology Trade Name: Bioremediation - In Situ Ground Water

Address: 4345 Highway 21

City: Embarrass, Minnesota 55732 USA

Contact: H.W. LashmettTitle: CEOPhone: (218) 984-3757Fax: (218) 984-3212E-Mail: [email protected] Page: www.northernnet.com/soilplusStatus: Full scale

anisms and ithter. Step 1

fertilizers,


P Research's Step 1 is shipped in two components: microor-i nutrients. B&S Research combines their microorganisms

-onutrients to successfully treat contaminated soil and v,v effectively degrades hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, PCB: pesticides, and other hazardous organic compounds in ground water During degradation, Step 1 converts the contaminants to harmless products consisting o wa er, carbon dioxide, and biomass. The required amounts of microorganisms and micronutrients depend on the contaminants and the concentration of the contaminants.

This technology is unique in that the full-scale system can d batch, continuous, or semi - continuous. A ground water application v.ould consist of pumping Step 1 through the contaminated water. Stability a-i flow rate of the ground water will determine the process used (injection or i amp and treat).^1QnaSPl^Catl°n.^an be in"sltu for effective treatment from the surface down to 90 feet, provided the appropriate equipment is used.

Please see schematic for additional details.

Page No. 2 of 3512/02/97 ’/ISITT 5.0



B&S Research's bioremediation technology highlights include:

Use of naturally occurring microbes - Safety - Nan-toxicNon-hazardous - Competitive pricing - A three year life : oan - Liquidform - Ease of handling - Performance documented - Versatility Adaptive to many application methods - Adaptive to broad range ofcontaminants - Applicability to herbicide, pesticide, and 1ertilizer

u contan4?atic?ns “ Fast working - No special equipment requirements r shallow applications - Depths to 90 feet are possible or in situ

applications - Technology suited to small or large projects

Page No. 3 of 3512/02/97

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND1.;


This technology is not applicable for heavy metals and those where contaminants are not biodegradable. However, metals v, with the process. The optimum pH is between 5 and 8.

ISITT 5.0

ATER

applications ill not interfere


Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUNDUATER


Research and development is continuously on-going. This technology has a successful track record in agriculture since 1979 and in industrial applications since 1990. This is a U.S. technology available for licensing opportunities worldwide and to the bioremediation industry :or on site applications. Formal or on-the-job training is available.

This technology successfully participated in the Tier II Bicremediation Agent Evaluations Testing. This technology was effectively emploved in the Exxon Valdez cleanup.

Page No. 5 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0

WASTE APPLICATIONS


Media

Actual/Potential

X X Soil (in situ)

X X Soil (ex situ)

X X Sludge (Does not include municipal sewage slur, ge)

X X Solid (e.g., slag)

X X Natural sediment (in situ)



_ _ Off-gas generated from a primary innovative tr -hnology

_ _ Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) in sit;.

_ _ Light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) in sit;.

Page No. 6 of 3512/02/97 ' ISITT 5.0





X X Halogenated volatiles

X X Halogenated semivolatiles

X X Nonhalogenated volatiles

X X Nonhalogenated semivolatiles

X X Organic pesticides/herbicides

_ X Dioxins/furans

X X PCBs v

X X Polynuclear aromatics (PNAs)

X X Solvents

X X Benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene- xylene (BTEX)


_ X Organic acids

Others:

_ _ Heavy mete. Is

_ _ Nonmetal1:c toxic elements

_ _ Radioactive metals

_ _ Asbestos

_ _ Inorganic cyanides

_ _ Inorganic corrosives

Miscellaneous

X X Explosive-/propellents

_ X Organomet .lie pesticides/ herbicide?

Page No. 7 of 3512/02/97 ISITT 5.0


Industrial Waste Sources or Site Types Treater

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND! .ATER

Actual/Potential

X X Agriculture

_ _ Battery recycling/disposal

_ X Chloro-alkali manufacturing

X Coal gasification

X Dry cleaners

_ Electroplating

X Gasoline/service station

X Herbicide manufacturing/use

X Industrial landfills

_ Inorganic/organic pigments

X Machine shops

_ Metal ore mining and smelting

X Municipal landfill

Others:

X

X

X

X

Actual/Potential

_ X Munitions

_ _ Paint/ink

X X Pesticide

X X Petroleum

_ _ Photograpi

_ X Plastics !:

_ X Pulp and \

_ X Other or go manufactu:

X

_ Other inor manufactu:.

_ Rubber mar

_ Semiconduc

X Wood presc-

Uranium m.i

manufacturing

formulation

manufacturing/use

refining and reuse

ic products

anufacturing

tper industry

aic chemical mg

ganic chemical ing

ufacturing

tor manufacturing

rving

ningAll chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturing or mixing

Page No. 8 of 3512/02/97

lSITT 5.0

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS

Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confident! 1:

Wayne Wire & Cloth_____

City: KalkaskaState/Province: Michigan Country: USA________ _

Project Took Place at Site Named: Yes

At another Site (e.g., a Test Facility): No


_ Agriculture

_ Battery recycling/disposal

_ Chloro-alkali manufacturing

_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating

_ Gasoline service station

_ Herbicide manufacturing/use

_ Industrial landfills


_ Machine shops


_ Municipal landfills

_ Munitions manufacturing

Others:TCE in Ground water


Paint/ink formulation

Pesticide manufacturing/use

Petroleum refining and reuse

Photographic pr' lucts

Plastics manufacturing

Pulp and paper .. ndustry

Other organic chemical manuf.

Other inorganic chemical manufacturing

Semiconductor manufacturing

Rubber manufact- ring

Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Page No. 9 of 3512/02/97

ISITT 5.0

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS i

Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti: 1:

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND!.ATER

Wayne Wire & Cloth__________

Regulation/Statute/Organization

_ RCRA Corrective Action

CERCLA

_ TSCA

_ Safe Drinking Water Act

_ UST Corrective Action

_ U.S. Department of Defense

_ U.S. Department of Energy

X State: MI

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable

Volume/Quantity Treated:

Area treated (for in situ projects):

Depth treated (for in sity projects)

Media

_ Soil (in situ

_ Soil (ex situ

_ Sludge

_ Solid

_ Natural Sedime nt (in situ)

_ Natural Sedirru at (ex situ)

X Groundwater ( n situ)

_ Off-gas generated from aprimary treatment technology

_ Denee nonaqueous phaseliquid (in sir u)

_ Light nonaqueous phase liquid (in situ)

Other:

833.000 cubi yards(units)

250.000 squa;o feet(units)

90________ feet(units)

Page No. 10 of 3512/02/97

/ISITT 5.0


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti:i:

Wayne Wire & Cloth______________

Application Type

_ Full-'scale cleanup

_ Field Demonstration

X Pilot scale treatability study

_ RCRA Research, Development and Demo

TSCA National Demonstration

Other: __________

Estimated or actual total and/or unit cost for this proj-ct

::a

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUNDUATER

TSCA Research :id Development

EPA SITE Demon; “ration Program

EPA SITE Emerg-ng TechnologyProgram

Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 11 of 3512/02/97

7ISITT 5.0


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti.

Wayne Wire & Cloth________ ___________________

Performance Data

Contaminant Untreated Concent. Treated■Concent.


TCE 160 -1,700 ug/L 10 ug/L

Page No. 12 of 3512/02/97

/ISITT 5.0


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confident i1 :

Wayne Wire & Cloth

Person outside company familiar with project (optional):

Name: Ron Weiser

Company: ABS

Address: 1701 W. Hillsboro Blvd., Suite 103

Deerfield Beach, FL

Phone:

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUNDSTATER

Additional Project Information: Full-scale cleanup scheduled 1996

Page No. 13 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti. 1:

NETAC

City: PittsburghState/Province: Pennsylvania Country: USA


At another Site (e.g., a Test Facility): Yes


_ Agriculture _

_ Battery recycling/disposal _

_ Chloro-alkali manufacturing X

_ Coal gasification _

_ Dry cleaning _

_ Electroplating _

_ Gasoline service station _

_ Herbicide manufacturing/use _



_ Machine shops


_ Municipal landfills —


Others: __________Crude oil spill in salt water

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND!.ATER

Paint/ink formu ition

Pesticide manufanturing/use

Petroleum ref in. :ig and reuse

Photographic pr iucts

Plastics manufa auring

Pulp and paper idustry


Other inorganic ahemical manufacturing


Rubber manuf act'a ring

Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Page No. 14 of 3512/02/97

/ISITT 5.0


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidentic!:

NETAC

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND!ATER



CERCLA

_ TSCA





_ State:

X Other: EPA Emergency Response

_ Not Applicable



Depth treated (for in sity projects):

Media

_ Soil (in situ

_ Soil (ex situ

_ Sludge

_ Solid

_ Natural Sedim :c (in situ)

_ Natural Sedim: nt (ex situ)

_ Groundwater (_u situ)

_ Off-gas gener ;ed from aprimary treatment technology

_ Den; a nonaqueous phaseliquid (in si:u)

_ Light nonaque- us phaseliquid (in si'u)

X Other: Crude )il in

300_______ nil _________ (units)

______________ __________ (units)

__________(units)

Page No. 15 of 3512/02/97

/ISITT 5.0



Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti.

NETAC

Application Type

_ Full-scale cleanup


_ Pilot scale treatability study

X RCRA Research, Development and Demo


Other:

TSCA Research id Development

EPA SITE Demon?eration Program

EPA SITE Emerging Technology Program

Research

Estimated or actual total and/or unit cost for this proj :t

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 16 of 3512/02/97

/IS ITT



Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidential:

NETAC

Performance Data

Contaminant Untreated Concent. Treated .ncent.

PAHs 5,000 com 734 - ,089

5.0

ppm

Page No. 17 of 3512/02/97 /ISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND!,ATER


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti

NETAC

Person outside company familiar with project (optional).-

Name: Tom Merski______

Company: NETAC_____________________

Address: U of Pittsburgh Applied Research Center

Pittsburgh, PA 15238____

Phone:

Additional Project Information:

Page No. 18 of 3512/02/97

/ISITT 5.0



Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidents L:

Brown County Agriculture Fertilizer

City: Sleepy EyeState/Province: Minnesota Count ry: USA__________



Industrial Waste Sources or Site Types Treaced

X Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating


X Herbicide manufacturing/use



_ Machine shops




_ Paint/ink formulation

X Pesticide manuf ituring/use

_ Petroleum refin:ag and reuse

_ Photographic prc ducts

_ Plastics manufa. luring

_ Pulp and paper : adustry

_ Other organic chemical manuf.

_ Other inorganic :hemical manufacturing

_ Semiconductor m aufacturing

_ Rubber manufact: ring

_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:Fertilizer production

Page No. 19 of 3512/02/97 /ISITT 5.0



Site Name or Industry Type if Client

Brown County Agriculture Fertil



CERCLA

TSCA





X State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable


Area treated (for in situ projects)

Depth treated (for in sity projects

Identity Confidentic. 1 :

zer

Media

X Soil (in situ

_ Soil (ex situ

_ Sludge

_ Solid

_ Natural Sediment (in situ)

_ Natural Sedimc :it (ex situ)

X Groundwater ( :i situ)

_ Off-gas gener ied from aprimary treat: ?nt technology

_ Den. nonaqueous phaseliquid (in si’ i)

_ Light nonaque: is phase liquid (in si: i)

Other:

1'200_____ gall' :is(units)

__________(units)

________ ____ (units)

Page No. 20 of 3512/02/97

rISITT 5.0


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti L:



Application Type

X Full-scale cleanup





Other:

Estimated or actual total and/or unit

Units:

TSCA Research id Development

EPA SITE Demon, -ration Program

EPA SITE Emerg. ig TechnologyProgram

Research

cost tor this proj :t

Total: : ACost:

Page No. 21 of 3512/02/97

/ISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROTJNDHATER


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidentic


Performance Data

Contaminant Untreated Concent. Treated >ncent.

Alachlor 16,000 ppb .3 ppbDiazinon 130 ppb trXrppbMetolachlor 210 ppb tr Srppb2,4 -D 4,800 ppb ppbDicamba 1,800 ppb Srsr^ppbMCPA 4,500 ppb ; ppbM'"I ram

11,000 ppb • 3 0 ppb64 ppb «• 1 ppb

2, . J-T 85 ppb ] ppb2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 10 ppb ‘ ppb

Page No. 22 of 3512/02/97 /ISITT 5.0


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti L:



Name: w. Zick

Company: Braun Intertec__________

Address: 6875 Washington Avenue, South

Minneapolis, MN 55439-0108

Phone:

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUNDVATER

Additional Project Information: Contamination generated by fire at the plantT

Page No. 23 of 3512/02/97 ISITT 5.0



Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti; :

Nachusa Boy's School

City: NachusaState/Province: Illinois Country: USA



Industrial Waste Sources or Site Type

_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating

X Gasoline service station




_ Machine shops




Treat ed

_ Paint/ink formu. ition

_ Pesticide manuf; sturing/use

_ Petroleum refin:ng and reuse

_ Photographic prc. ducts

_ Plastics manufacturing

_ Pulp and paper . idustry

_ Other organic c: ±mical manuf

Other inorganic :hemical manufacturing

Semiconductor nr lufacturing

Rubber manufactusing

Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 24 of 3512/02/97

.'IS ITT 5.0


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti :

Nachusa Boy's School %




CERCLA

TSCA


X UST Corrective Action



X State: IL

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

_ Soil (in situ

_ Soil (ex situ

_ Sludge

_ Solid

_ Natural Sedimeut (in situ)

_ Natural Sedinv it (ex situ)

X Groundwater ( i situ)

_ iff-gas gener ed from aprimary treat' int technology

_ Den. : nonaqueous phaseLiquid (in si' ■)

_ Light nonaque; is phase liquid (in sii i)

Other:

3 - 010_____ cubi> yards(units)

______________ (units)

________________ __________ (units)

Page No. 25 of 3512/02/97

ISITT 5.0


Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confident if. L :

Nachusa Boy's School____________

Application Type






Jther: __________

Estimated or actual total and/or unit cost for this projt ;t

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND!. ATER

TSCA Research :d Development

EPA SITE Demon. ;ration Program

EPA SITE Emerg- ig TechnologyProgram

Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 26 of 3512/02/97

;ISITT 5.0



Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidenti A:

Nachusa Boy's School__________________

Performance Data

Contaminant Untreated Concent. Treated ( mcent.

Diesel Fuel 800 ppm ppm

Page No. 27 of 3512/02/97

i

/ISITT 5.0



Nachusa Boy's School_______________

Person outside company familiar with project: (optional) :

Name: Don Barkley

Company: Terra-Tec

Address: 900 S. Division____________

Polo, IL 61064

Phone:

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND!ATER


t

Page No. 28 of 3512/02/97

jlSITT 5.0


TECHNICAL REFERENCES

Author(s):

van Hoof, P.L. and J.E. Rogers

Title: j

Influence of low levels of nonionic surfactants on the ai ^jrobic

bioremediation of hazardous waste______ j

j

Journal/Conference: jI

NA 1

Date: 1992 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s : | EPA/600/R-92/126

Page No. 29 of 3512/02/97 ISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND! \TER


Author(s):

Merski, A. Thomas, and Dr. Felicia Cianciarulo

Title:

Tier II Bioremediation Agent Evaluation Testing of Step C ie with Marine

Aquarium Water_______________

Journal/Conference:

Date: April 1995 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s): EPA/300-4221-000

Page No. 30 of 3512/02/97

rISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUNDV.ATER


Estimated price range per unit of waste treated

$ 40.00_____ to $ 80.00_____ per cubic yard

Price estimates shown above do not always include all ind: :ect costs associated with treatment, such as excavation, permits anc treatment of residuals. For price comparisons, users should make certain that vendors provide estimates based on comparable remediation LCtivities

Factors that have a significant effect on

2 Initial contaminant concentration

3 Target contaminant concentration

5 Quantity of waste

1 Depth of contamination

_9 Depth to groundwater

10 Characteristics of residual waste

Labor Rates

unit price. (1 s highest).

7 Moisture content of soil

6 Site Preparation

_ Waste hand] _ng/preprocessing

3 Amount of c ;bris with waste

4 Character^;ics of soil

__ Utility/Fue .. rates

Others:

Page No. 31 of 3512/02/97 ■TSITT 5.0


TREATABILITY STUDY CAPABILITIES (BENCH-SCALE!


Characterization of the water sample is done fi reports. With that information we determine if necessary so that the microorganisms can live treatment mixture by first mixing the micronut and then with the microorganisms. We maintain generally between 65 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit conditions for bench tests, the sample(s) are process. The results are recorded to determine biodegradation of the contaminants in the water

-st for comple any correct: and multiply, rients with de a controlled

To maintain aerated throuc effectiveness

:e analytical /e actions are Then we make up a :hlorinated water :emperature aerobic

: the pumping of Step l on the

Can you conduct bench-scale treatability types of waste at your location: Yes

udies on some

Number of bench-scale studies conducted to date. (Does not include tests on surrogate wastes) :

Page No. 32 of 3512/02/97

ISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUNDV.ATER



The pilot-scale operation is a scaled-down version of the ful.-scale system, usually matching the full-scale system and site environment i ■ much as possible.



X Prime contractor for full-service remec ..ation

X Other: Consultant and technical advise -

Page No. 33 of 3512/02/97 'ISITT 5.0



0 Planned/in design


6 Constructed

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUNDt \TER


_ Transportable

_ Fixed

X In situ

_apacity range for batch processes:

Unlimited to

Can you conduct pilot-scale treatability studies on some waste at your location? No pes of


Quantity of waste needed for pilot-scale

2■______ to 10

treatability stuc: / :

_________ cubic v irds

Number of pilot-scale studies conducted on wastes from dif :^rent sources or sites : 6

Page No. 34 of 3512/02/97

'ISITT 5.0




For direct application to contamination:

Characterization of the ground water sample is done first for complete analytical reports. With that information we determine if ar. - corrective actions are necessary so that the microorganisms can live ar : multiply. The micronutrient portion of Step 1 is mixed with iechlorinated ater. Then, themicrobes are added to the mixture. Meanwhile cite preparat; n may consist ofconstruction of a subterranean dam to contain :he spread of ontamination. This mixture is then pumped through the ground water in one f two methods:

If the ground water is stable, an inoculate of Step 1 is usee and additionaloxygen is injected to stimulate growth.

If the ground water is moving, a dam is constructed downstree n of the p ""ution and wells are dug to remove the water from the flov. and run it

lgh a reactor for bioremediation. The processed water is returned ut .ream of the removal point.

The site is then monitored and periodically sampled to detern _ne when degradation is complete.

Equipment: Well-drilling equipment Tubing (optic .al)Hoses and pipes Standard testing eauipment Bioreactor(optional) Pumps

See also the general technology description.

Page No. 35 of 3512/02/97 'ISITT 5.0



X Subcontractor for cleanup service

X Prime contractor fir rull-service remediation

X Other: Consultant end technical a ivisor


_ Transportable _ Fixed X In situ

Vendor Name: B&S RESEARCH, INC.Technology Type: BIOREMEDIATION - IN SITU GROUND! iTER

Number of full-scale cleanups initiated or completed by t is firm using this technology: _____ 0


0 Planned/in design


0 Constructed

Capacity range: Unlimited to

For equipment manufacturers - estimated or actual number f full-scale cleanups by other firms using this equipment:

Press Any Key to Continue pumps

ATTACHMENT 4

Roy F. Weston, Inc.—Thermal Desorption Technology



Vendor Name: ROY F. WESTON, INC.Technology Type: THERMAL DESORPTION

Technology Trade Name: Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3)

Address: 1 Weston Way

City:

Contact: Title: Phone: Fax: E-Mail: Web Page: Status:

West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380 USAMichael G. Cosmos, P.E./A1 Murphy Treatment Systems Department Manager (610) 701-7423 (610) [email protected] www.rfweston.com Full scale


-scalITaaiaUreTSSe???1 •treatmen- <LT3) techn°l°3y is available on a - ^ screw conveyor and a indire^âVkSnô” indirectlyât thfsoilo^Lr0hirtA SS as%t%°ai

andlrvo?at-?eate^' The temperature of the soil increases driving off moisture and volatile and semivolatile organic compounds. A continuous stream T2 ture“sZSi moisture.draWn ™ the processor to ££Sl2ed

discharcreîntn t0 th* pollution control equipment prior towS?e?UaSddUSt COllfct°^têcondense?stUandnaCcarboi ^sorpSon^ystem8 ^he

r^paJ^rfS^coil^ôn^rSf -VocesKro^



iciOxUNULiUCii HIGHLIGHTS

The advantages of the LT3 process include:

•T1r,.The ^ost of operation of the LT3 is much lower when comoared to incineration or comparable thermal technologies. compared to

smaller than pL??® process equipment, because of indirect heating, is smaller than similar capacity incinceration systems.

produc? «!Sve£yPhaSeS recovered in che condensers can be utilized for

an ordar of

hazar5Sus°hea^rmetalstemPeratUre minimizes the volatilization of

much

volatile




heawTmetSl^n0lTK iS "0t appli?able for treatin9 "aste contaminated only with Si i'- i pr°5ess is also not applicable to free liquids or fluids.

_ e. f 1imi5 °^-,the <3uantlty moisture in the waste provided; the material can be handled by the screw and other material conveyors as a solid.




The LT3 technology is available on a full-scale basis and has been proven on a var^ety of organic contaminants. Bench-scale tests are being routinelv conducted for clients to determine applicability to particular waste characteristics.

Page No. 5 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0

WASTE APPLICATIONS


Media

Actual/Potential

_ _ Soil (in situ)

X X Soil (ex situ)

X X Sludge (Does not include municipal sewage sludge)

_ X Solid (e.g., slag)


X X Natural sediment (ex situ)


_ X Off-gas generated from a primary innovative technology



Page No. 6 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Actual/Potential






X X Dioxins/furans

X PCBs


X X Solvents

X X Benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene-xylene (BTEX)

X X Acetonitrile (organic cyanide)

_ _ Organic acids

Actual/Potential

_ Heavy metals

_ Nonmetallic toxic elements

_ Radioactive metals

_ Asbestos

_ Inorganic cyanides

_ Inorganic corrosives

Miscellaneous

_ Explosives/propellents


Others:





Actual/Potential

_ X Agriculture



X X Coal gasification

_ X Dry cleaners

_ X Electroplating

_ X Gasoline/service station


_ _ Industrial landfills


_ _ Machine shops

_ _ Metal ore mining and smelting

_ _ Municipal landfill

Others:

Actual/Potential


_ X Paint/ink formulation


X X Petroleum refining and reuse


X X Plastics manufacturing

_ X Pulp and paper industry

X X Other organic chemical manufacturing

_ _ Other inorganic chemicalmanufacturing

_ X Rubber manufacturing


_ X Wood preserving

_ _ Uranium mining

Page No. 8 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Tinker Air Force Base (Soldier Creek)

City: Oklahoma CityState/Province: Oklahoma_____Country: USA__________

Project Took Place at Site Named: No

At another Site (e.g., a Test Facili


_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




j : No

Treated


_ Pesticide manufacturing/use

_ Petroleum refining and reuse

_ Photographic products


_ Pulp and paper industry


_ Other inorganic chemical manufacturing

_ Semiconductor manufacturing

_ Rubber manufacturing

_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:





vendor Name: ROY F. WESTON, INC.Technology Type: THERMAL DESORPTION



_ CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

X Other: RCRA RDGD

_ Not Applicable

Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

Solid


_ Natural Sediment (ex situ)

_ Groundwater (in situ)


_ Dense nonaqueous phase liquid (in situ)


Other:




cubic yards (units)

______ (units)

(units)

Page No. 10 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Application Type


X Field Demonstration




Other:


Estimated or actual total and/or unit cost for this project

_ TSCA Research and Development

_ EPA SITE Demonstration Program

_ EPA SITE Emerging Technology Program

Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 11 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0

Vendor Names ROY F. WESTON, INC. Technology Type: THERMAL DESORPTION




Performance Data

Contaminant Untreated Concent. Treated Concent.

<Summary of Performance Data is Not Provided for This Site>

Page No. 12 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0





Name: Wayne Sisk______________

Company: USATHAMA____________________

Address: _________________

(301) 671-2466_________

Phone:



Page No. 13 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Anderson Development Co.___________ *

City: AdrianState/Province: Michiqan ' ~Country: USA




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops










_ Other organic chemical manuf




_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 14 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Anderson Development Co._______



X CERCLA

TSCA

_ Safe Drinking Water Act,




_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Identity Confidential:

Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

X Sludge

_ Solid





_ Dense nonaqueous phas liquid (in situ)


Other:

cubic yards , (units)

(units)

______ (units)

Page No. 15 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Anderson Development Co._____________________ *

Application Type






Other:


X EPA SITE Demonstration Program


Research


Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 16 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Anderson Development Co.__________ *

Performance Data



Page No. 17 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Anderson Development Co. ________________ *


Name: Jim Huerta_____

Company: Anderson Development Company

Address: ____ ______

(517) 263-2121_________ _______ _____

Phone:



Page No. 18 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Crows Landing, Naval Air Station____ _______

City: Crows LandingState/Province: California Country: USA




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




Others:Fuel Spill ----------











_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Page No. 19 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Crows Landing, Naval Air Station




CERCLA

TSCA





X State: California

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

cubic yards (units)

______(units)

____ _(units)

Page No. 2 0 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Application Type






-/ther:






_ Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 21 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0





Performance Data

Contaminant Untreated Concent. Treated Concent

BTEX 50 -100 ppm 1 -10 ppm

Page No. 22 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0






Name: Tom Torres__________

Company: Naval Civil Engineering Lab._________ ___

Address: ____ __________

(805) 982-1658____________

Phone:


Page No. 23 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Letterkenny Army Depot_______________ *

City: Letterkenny______________State/Province: Pennsylvania Country: USA________

Project Took Place at Site Named: No



_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops







Photographic products


Pulp and paper industry




Rubber manufacturing

Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Others: Solvent Spill

Page No. 24 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Letterkenny Army Depot ___________________ *




X CERCLA

_ TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

X Not Applicable




Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid




Off-gas generated from a primary treatment technology



Other:

500_______ cubic yards(units)

(units)

(units)

Page No. 25 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Letterkenny Army Depot_________

Application Type



X Pilot scale treatability study



Other:






Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 26 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Letterkenny Army Depot __________________ *

Performance Data



Page No. 27 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Letterkenny Army Depot. *


Name: Wayne Sisk___________

Company: USATHAMA______________

Address: ____ ____________

(301) 671-2466_________ ________

Phone:


Page No. 28 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Cosmos, M. and R. Nie1son

Title:

Low Temperature Thermal Treatment Technology for Onsite Remediation

Journal/Conference:

geparation Science and Environmental Chemists

NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):Date:

Page No. 29 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Cosmos, Michael C.

Title:

Appartus and Method for Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile

Organic Compounds from Soil__________

Journal/Conference:

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 4,738,206_______

Date: NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):

Page No. 30 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Velazquez, L. and J. Noland

Title:

"Low Temperature Thermal Stripping"

Journal/Conference:


Page No. 31 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Cohen, A. and N. Johnson

Title:

"Thermal Destruction of Military.'. . 11

Journal/Conference:


Page No. 32 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0




$ 60.00_____ to $ 150.00____ per ton

Price estimates shown above do not always include all indirect costs associated with treatment, such as excavation, permits and treatment of residuals. For price comparisons, users should make certain that vendors provide estimates based on comparable remediation activities

Factors that have a significant effect on unit price. (1 is highest).

_ Initial contaminant concentration

_ Target contaminant concentration

_ Quantity of waste

_ Depth of contamination

_ Depth to groundwater

4_ Characteristics of residual waste

Labor Rates


_ Site Preparation

_ Waste handling/preprocessing

3^ Amount of debris with waste

2 Characteristics of soil

_ Utility/Fuel rates

Others:

Page No. 33 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0




A bench-scale test is performed on a representative sample of waste material. The material, after receipt in the laboratory, is manually screened to remove

debris greater than 1/2 inch. The feed material is sampled for moisture, density, and appropriate organic constituents. The material is then fed into the bench-scale processor. After reaching steady state conditions, a sample of material is collected from the discharge. Temperature and residence time are recorded. The retention time of the bench-scale processor is approximately 15 ffii^utes• The processed material is collected and immediately recycled into the unit for a second and third pass, representing 30 and 45 minutes retention times. This data provides comparable results to the full-scale processor.


Number of bench-scale studies conducted to date. (Does not include tests on surrogate wastes) : 20

Page No. 34 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0




PTOce^^rLd°ind??»^ hf pilot-scale LT3 equipment are the thermalo and indirect heat exchanger. The thermal processor is used to heat

and consequentiy dry contaminated soils and sludges. The net effect of heating the soil is to evaporate organic components from the soil.

The processor consists of a trough which houses a double screw mechanism The*l inCheS, in diameter' 30 inches in length and prSviSJt ? square

feet of heat transfer surface area. A variable speed drive controls theTr^rSLS^dm^e(^r- The ran9S °f -P-SS X to 20

g & ^.cS: si"“late

intermeshing fm-slight screws are electrically heated with cartridae tvn^length of the shaL- ^ -x?mSrheit9;;pS%o

Vendor services:

X

X

Equipment manufacture

Subcontractor for cleanup services

Prime contractor for full-service remediation

Other:

Page No. 35 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0


Number of pilot-scale systems .-

2. Planned/in design

2. Under construction

Vendor Name: ROY P. WESTON, INC.Technology Type: THERMAL DESORPTION

_1 Constructed


_ Transportable

X Fixed

_ In situ

Location of fixed facility:

City: Lionville_____


^-------- to 25

State/Province:

pounds/hour

waste at yourClocition?CaleYeJeatablllty studies on some types of



-------- --- to ___________ gallons

soScL°orPsi?esS?ale ^20^ COnducted on wastes from different

Page No. 36 of 3711/04/97 VISITT 5.0




S°i1 is transported to the system by a front-end loader. The^°^f^d^loader, cfrrês the SQl1 over a weigh scale. The soil weight is recorded for each load transported to the shredder. Soil is deposited directly on a power shredding device. Classified soil with a top size of less than 2 7inches passes through the shredder into the feed conveyor. The feed conveyorlonq11 n„radiaVta£ker belt that ls finches widl and So ?eSt

iWessS ■ 1 int° the sur9e h°PPer located above the thermalThe soi1 Wl11 be fed into the LT3 system at regular intervals to

maintain the surge hopper seal.

SShSeri?al Pr°cesso^ consists of two jacketed troughs assembled in a piggyback (one.a5ove the other). Each houses four intermeshed screw conveyors

Soil is carried across the upper tier of the processor by the screws When the“i g£“£8 ' heûar9e end,°f thS UPPSr t?er' ifc dr°Ps to “confer116

T 9lu The.folluls moved in the opposite direction, across the second t , and then exits the processor at the same end that it entered.

The shafts and fiights of the screw conveyors and the trough jackets are hollow to allow circulation of a heat transfer fluid (i.e. hot oil) The function of tWnSCh?W conve£or 1S to move soil forward through the processor and to transfer^fluid and S^son. pr0viding indirect contact between the heat

byPanSi5duced1d?aft£fTnf°,F thS are drawn out of the thermal processorthe processor to111™The draft created by the ID fan is maintained in

Processor to allow the vapors to be removed from the processor.

S?he hSrizSnt??9^Jw°m ^ the5maluP^êssor into a horizontal screw conveyor. conditSne? Thr^nH??nVeYOr-dlSChaêS t0 a Second screw conveyor, or ash nozzles S 13 a ribb°n flight screw conveyor. Water spray

pT^Pstacker belt —YS the p™—d

Page No. 37 of 3711/04/97

VISITT 5.0





_ Other:


X Transportable _ Fixed In situ




0 Planned/in design


1 Constructed

Capacity range: 5_ to 1_0tons /hour

For equipment manufacturers - estimated or actual number of full-scale cleanups by other firms using this equipment: 0

Roy F.Weston, Inc. Thermal Desorption

ATTACHMENT 5

Midwest Soil Remediation, Inc.— Thermal Desorption Technology

SM/LKS0609ACTTXX/9708003A/F

Page No. 1 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: MIDWEST SOIL REMEDIATION, INC.Technology Type: THERMAL DESORPTION

Technology Trade Name: Mobile Low Temperature Thermal Desorption

Address: 1480 Sheldon Drive

City:


Elgin, Illinois 60120 USABruce Penn General Manager (847) 742-4331 (847) 742-4294 Not Provided Not Provided Full scale


l' Temperature Thermal Desorption as defined by the EPA consists of aoiogy that uses heat in a controlled environment to cause various organic

c junds to volatize and thereby be removed from contaminated material. The P^ocesses are planned and designed to avoid combustion by using low temperatures, 300 to 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit, in the primary unit. Typical off-gas systems either condense and recover volatilized constituents or destroy the off gas through thermal or catalytic oxidation.

Page No. 2 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: MIDWEST SOIL REMEDIATION, INC,Technology Type: THERMAL DESORPTION


- Midwest Soil Remediation, Inc.'s Services: and personnel to fully remediate soil regulatory cleaning criteria.

Provide all equipment to concentrations below

- With four thermal units in operation, MSR has the ability to respond quickly to your needs with the properly sizedequipment. - 1-12 load plant, capable of processing120 tons per hour at 1,200 degrees F.

1-6 load plant, capable of processing 40 tons per hour at 900 degrees F. _ 2-1 load plant, capable ofprocessing 15 tons per hour at 900 degrees F. - Soilprocessing costs are extremely competitive, often well below thoseof other alternative technologies. - MSR's thermal desorption plantsare completely mobile, allowing rapid deployment to any site in theUnited States. - The Low Temperature Thermal Desorption of soileffectively cleans soil contaminated with volatile and semi-volatile

compounds, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, pesticides, he* cides, solvents, and creosote to name just a few. This process allows ^ to be returned to its original location with no future treatmento. ^nitoring costs, eliminating all future liability associated withlandfilling contaminated soil.

MSR has processed over 350,000 tons of contaminated soil to concentrations below regulatory cleaning criteria. We guarantee allsoil to meet these objectives or our client does not pay for ourservices.

* FURTHER INFORMATION, TECHNICAL DATA, EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS, AND REFERENCES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. *


Vendor Name: MIDWEST SOIL REMEDIATION, INCTechnology Type: THERMAL DESORPTION


^ b~" in theDesorption process since i 991 c-i °ûh the L°W TemPeratue Thermal

Cons

Corps of EngineersEefenseEnvironment EE*”1?9 thiS techn°logy is the US Army National GuLd, MadlsISWifcoSnRest°r*tion Project at Truax Air

1to4theLal?vCEEtCted by-the <*rps of Engineers,

petroleum hydrocarbon impact^ soil ÊrufrêTf E 15E°° t0nS °f the demolition of existing concrete Ed aEhfEld' Speclflcatlons called for

soil; field testing of soil with EE „ Ci excavation of contaminatedchromatography; tJanspoEatinn =EE ?°rtable PID'e and on site gas prior to treatment; treatment of r’onh5lllnH'ând-^racking of contaminated soil Thermal Desorption; stockpiling and teat^"3116? J011 throu9h Dow Temperature e- nation boSndariesTo deteîE tE «E9 ?f breated a°il; testing of

for further excavation „mi?S the extent of the contamination, and thet .its oi bo?h e“a?ISon ioSaEfr“d°htr?Eed S°E 9 clean tlst

90 percent; site restoration ,-u , seated soil; compaction of soil togeneration'of a compJetfôrt fu?fn?edin?Kand fertili^tion; and theDepartment of Natural Resources lor siÊlosure6^1^1113 °£ the Wlscon3in

the extent ol°thSCionlamiMtionPwjr™chhlarIerMSthJnfthld invespi9ationa that

moreEhar^ doubled treatment

Wtih the ability to prolels ml?l ?han EE t 15'0E Cons to 36'000 tons,

to treat the additional soil without any allEaEEnEnEi^ pE^tEchedule^

plofelijâlsEEE^Sôj^t"611 33 thS 3 dedicatedstaff of


WASTE APPLICATIONS


Media

Actual/Potential

_ _ Soil (in situ)

X X Soil (ex situ)


_ X Solid (e.g., slag)











X X Halogenated volatiles _ _ Heavy metals


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X Halogenated semivolatiles

X Nonhalogenated volatiles

X Nonhalogenated semivolatiles

X Organic pesticides/herbicides

X Dioxins/furans

X PCBs

X Polynuclear aromatics (PNAs)

X Solvents

X Benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene-xylene (BTEX)

X Acetonitrile (organic cyanide)

X Organic acids

Others:

X Nonmetallic toxic elements


_ Asbestos



Miscellaneous







Actual/Potential

X X Agriculture

_ X Battery recycling/disposal

X X Chloro-alkali manufacturing

X X Coal gasification

X X Dry cleaners

X X Electroplating

X X Gasoline/service station

X X Herbicide manufacturing/use


X X Inorganic/organic pigments

X X Machine shops

_ X Metal ore mining and smelting

_ X Municipal landfill

Others:

Actual/Potential


X X Paint/ink formulation

X X Pesticide manufacturing/use

X X Petroleum refining and reuse




_ X Other organic chemical manufacturing

_ X Other inorganic chemical manufacturing



X X Wood preserving

_ _ Uranium mining

Page No. 8 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Former Chanute Air Force Base*

City: RantoulState/Province: Illinois Country: USA




_ Agriculture



X Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops














Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Others:





Former Chanute Air Force Base



X CERCLA

TSCA



X U.S. Department of Defense


_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable


Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

Sludge

Solid

Natural Sediment (in situ)

Natural Sediment (ex situ)

Groundwater (in situ)

Off-gas generated from a primary treatment technology


Light nonaqueous phase liquid (in situ)

Other:

Volume/Quantity Treated: 60,000



tons(units)

_(units)

___(units)

Page No. 10 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Former Chanute Air Force Base

Application Type






Other:






Research

Cost: NA Units: Total: NA

Page No. 11 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Former Chanute Air Force Base________________ *

Performance Data



BTEXBenzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(k)fluoranthene ChryseneIndeno(1,2,3 -cd)pyrene

11111

100 -5,000 ppm -1,000 ppm -1,000 ppm -1,000 ppm -1,000 ppm -1,000 ppm

<.005 ppm <0.0026 ppm <0.0046 ppm <0.0034 ppm <0.03 ppm <0.0086 ppm

Page No. 12 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Former Chanute Air Force Base*


Name : Mr. Greg We Hand_________

Company: Parsons Engineering Science

Address: 57 Executive Park South, NE Suite 500

Atlanta, GA 30329

Phone:


Additional Project Information: ____________ _the former Chanute Air Force Base in Rantoul, Illinois, Midwest

Remediation successfully treated 60,000 tons of soil contaminated variety of petroleum hydrocarbons, including gasoline, fuel oil, kerosene, diesel, heating oil, and tank sludge. Target compounds remediation included BTEX, PAHs, methylene chloride, and PCE.

Soil with a jet fuel, for

Page No. 13 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Wisconsin Air National Guard, Truax Field

City: Madison_______State/Province: Wisconsin " ’Country: USA




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops






X Petroleum refining and reuse








_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 14 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0







CERCLA

TSCA





X State: Wisconsin

X Other: USACE

_ Not Applicable




Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

36> 000 tons (units)

--------------------------- (units)

---------- ---- -----------(units)

Page No. 15 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0





Application Type

X Full-scale cleanup _ TSCA Research and Development

X Field Demonstration _ EPA SITE Demonstration Program

_ Pilot scale treatability study _ EPA SITE Emerging TechnologyProgram

_ RCRA Research, Development and Demo_ Research


Other:



VISITT 5.0Page No. 16 of 3611/04/97





Performance Data


BTEX (Gasoline) 10 Diesel and Kerosene 10 Gasoline 10 Methyl Tert-butyl Ether (MTBE 10 Diesel Fuel 10

-10,000 ppm <0.001 ppm-10,000 ppm <10.0 ppm-50,000 ppm <10.0 ppm-1,000 ppm <0.001 ppm-50,000 ppm <10 ppm

Page No. 17 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0





Name: Mr. Bob Martin


Company: US Army Corps of Engineers

Address: 410 D East Stevenson Dr.

Ottawa, Illinois 61350

Phone:

Additional Project Information:EiainpL^^ Remediation undertook this project with the Army Corps ofon silt AsidePfrom f °r' providin9 ful1 Project management and labor

aAside. ffom the site management and associated paper work, MSR alsoII qis ch?omatoa?anh°?‘Slte laboratory utilizing a Hewlett Packard 5890 Series xi gas chromatograph to provide instant turnaround on all soil samnles m<?pwas the subject of a feature article in Soils Magazine in A^ust 199? on Low

sit^ ^ Thermal Desorption which highlighted the work performed at this

Page No. 18 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Rockwell International

City: DarienState/Province: Illinois Country: USA_____




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

X Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops














Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 19 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0






X RCRA Corrective Action

CERCLA

_ TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

i2 / 000 tons(units)

___________ (units)

__________ ___________ _ (units)

Page No. 20 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Rockwell International__________

Application Type






Other:


Cost: NA Units :


TSCA Research and Development

EPA SITE Demonstration Program


Research

cost for this project

________ Total: NA

Page No. 21 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0





Performance Data


1,1,2-Trichloroethane (TCA) Methylene Chloride 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)

555

-50,000 ppb -11,000 ppb -650 ppb

<5<5<5

ppbppbppb

Page No. 22 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Rockwell International____ __________________


Name : Mr. Tim Tracy __________________

Company: Rust Remedial Services

Address: 7250 W. College Drive

Palos Heights, Illinois 60436

Phone:


Additional Project Information:MSR conducted all activities under Level C protection for most of this project. Activities included excavation, treatment, stockpiling, pollution control, and participation management procedures, as well as backfillinq and compaction of treated soil.

12,000 tons of RCRA hazardous waste contaminated soil was processed temperature thermal desorption. using low

Page No. 23 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Ryder Commercial Carriers_____

City: West ChicagoState/Province: Illinois Country: USA__________




_ Agriculture



X Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops














_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 24 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Ryder Commercial Carriers______



_ CERCLA

TSCA





X State: Illinois

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable





Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

1Q' °00 tons (units)

--------- - __(units)

---------- --------------- (units)

Page No. 25 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Ryder Commercial Carriers_______

Application Type






Other:






Research


Page No. 2 6 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Ryder Commercial Carriers___________'

Performance Data



BTEX (Gasoline)Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene ChryseneDibenzo(a,h)anthracene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

5111111

-50,000 ppm -10,000 ppm -10,000 ppm -10,000 ppm -10,000 ppm -10,000 ppm -10,000 ppm

<0.002 ppm <0.009 ppm <0.002 ppm <0.001 ppm <0.1 ppm <0.02 ppm <0.03 ppm

Page No. 27 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Ryder Commercial Carriers


Name : Mr David Ax___________ ___________

Company: Ryder Commercial Carriers

Address: 1450 W, Long Lake Dr. PO Box 7084,48098-

7084, Troy, MI 48908-6330

Phone:


Additional Project Information:This project consisted of demolition of existing structures, concrete and asphalt; excavation of soil; testing of soil to determine extent of contamination; soil density tests; treatment of more than 10,000 tons of soil

™ith BTEX' gasoline range organics (GRO) , diesel range organics (DRO), and polynuclear aromatics (PNA); backfilling of treated soils; and compaction and testing of backfilled soils to 95 percent American Standard Testing Method (ASTM).

Page No. 28 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Caterpillar, Inc._____________ _______________

City: JolietState/Province: Illinois_____ ______Country: USA




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




Others:Waste solvent treatment facility












Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Page No. 29 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Caterpillar, Inc.______________



CERCLA

_ TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable





Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

1,600_____ tons(units)

: __________ (units)

) : (units)

Page No. 30 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Application Type






Jther:






Research


Page No. 31 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Caterpillar, Inc.____________________

Performance Data



Acetone1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE) Methylene Chloride 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (TCA) BTEX

11

0.2

11

-10,000 ppb -24,000 ppb -2,500 ppb -73,000 ppb -50,000 ppb

<10 ppb <10.0 ppb <0.2 ppb <5.0 ppb <1.0 ppb

Page No. 32 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0





Name : Mr. Paul Sklar________ ________

Company: Woodward & Clyde_____

Address: 11270 W. Park Place

Milwaukee, WI 53224______

Phone:


Additional Project Information:Indi^IeS? ?ro:iect ln the state of Illinois utilizinglnairect Heat Transfer Desorption at the Caterpillar site in Joliet OvPr 4n

• °°SPOUndS found in che pre-treated soil were fully remediated to below Illinois Environmental Protection Agency cleanup objectives

Page No. 33 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Staff Writers

Title:

Thermal Plant Picks Up The Pace, high production speeds government -job.

Journal/Conference:

Soils Magazine_____

NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):Date: Aug-Sept 1994

Page No. 34 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0




$ 30 • 00_____ to $ 150.00____ per ton

shown above do not always include all indirect costs s°^abed with treatment, such as excavation, permits and treatment

dUalS'J F°r Price comparisons, users should make certain that vendors provide estimates based on comparable remediation activities.


_2

_7

1


Target contaminant concentration

Quantity of waste

Depth of contamination

Depth to groundwater

Characteristics of residual waste

Labor Rates

_3 Moisture content of soil

_ Site Preparation

_5 Waste handling/preprocessing

4. Amount of debris with waste


_ Utility/Fuel rates

Others:

Page No. 35 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Midwest Soil Remediation's thermal treatment systems meet and exceed all federal soil treatment and emmissions standards for contaminants, including oil well crude, fuel oil, gasoline, lubricating oil, jet fuel, diesel chlorinated hydrocarbons, creosote, PAHs, and herbicides just to name a few.

The CM?San 8°-12° :Envirotech Thermal Treatment Plant for larger projects.8°~120 ^ a state of the art, high production rate, fully automated,

computer-driven thermal treatment facility.

°ontr°1 system and energy center provide the operator with complete operational control from a central operating console. The console uses the

Automated Computer System for startup, operation, and shut down of all plant components. Safety interlocks automatically monitor all phases of operation at all times.

themal desorption process begins with the placement of contaminated soil 7 e.primary feed hopper by front end loader, where the soil passes throuqh

a six inch grizzly bar screen which rejects debris and oversized aggregate.

The soil proceeds through the hopper onto a transfer conveyor, after which the soil passes through a three-inch screen onto a scale conveyor. The soil thenoperator'readout-ale, which has an electronic remote P P°r readout to log all ,soil tonnage entering the process. The recorder

will log hourly, daily, and project totals for permanent records.

tha? three inchf in diameter travels via a slinger conveyor that feeds the systems rotary desorber. *

The rotary thermal desorber can elevate soil temperature to a level necessarvt2n7o a11 “■tta-inants in the soil, both liquid and solid?

•removal hY waY of the counterflow exhaust gas stream. The rotaryDemit qni? eq^PPed with variable speed, slope, and temperature controls^

1 r—entlon time to vary from eight to twenty minutes to assure the complete remediation of all contaminants. *^ure cne

desorSr^^ conduct°r receives the high temperature soil from the fn £ v?d eS^ut ^lth lnJected dust which is collected in the fabrictempera tureen? 1 ?US£n13 the5mally remediated by dwelling with the highemperature soil m a tumbling mode, using conductive heat tranfer to vaporizeY H™pHnin9)-COntaininants in the dust before they exit the conductor. The

t InatioS Thin?^dKCtud baCk into the combustion zone for trap dSst ?s th£ 4nnbrnC ba9house is equipped with filter bags thatA „ SaaSbthe 4°° de?rees F 9as stream is drawn inside by an exhaust fan As dust is trapped on the outside of the bags, the particulate free air exits the unit from inside the bags and is directed to the thermal txlliter

The thermal oxidizer receives the air stream from the baghouse containing thedeg^feS F dust7free vaporized contaminant and ducts it into the combustion

zone. The combustion system will elevate the gas stream to 1,800 degrees F' ,rqqaQS !£* gaf f?J.a.Period of one second, destroying all contaminants

i yy.99 percent efficiency.

S01i.f*ltin9 thf thermal dust conductor enters a soil conditioner. The soil conditioner cools and rehydrates the soil with water sprayed f?om high pressure jets. The cool, rehydrated soil exits the soil conditiSneJ by gravity and is deposited on a stacking conveyor for stockpiling. 7

Upon completion of laboratory testing to confirm the removal of all VOC-s to below project cleanup objectives, the soil is ready for use.






_ Other:


X Transportable Fixed In situ

Page No. 36 of 36 VISITT 5 011/04/97

Number of full-scale cleanups initiated or completed by this firm using this technology: 53


0 Planned/in design


4 Constructed

Capacity range: 10 to 120___________________ tons/hour


Ntdwest Soil Remediation, Inc. Thermal Desorption

Press Any Key To Continue

ATTACHMENT 6

Ensr Consulting and Engineering— Bioventing Technology



Vendor Name: ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERINGTechnology Type: BIOVENTING

.Technology Trade Name:

Address: 35 Nagog Park

City:


Acton, Massachusetts 01720 USAEllen Moyer, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Enviromental Engineer (508) 635-9500 (508) 635-9180 Not Provided Not Provided Full scale


F ^ Consulting and Engineering has designed and installed numerous full-scale ^mediation and bioventing systems to remediate hydrocarbon and chlorinated

n ocarbon contaminated vadose zone soils. This technology is applicable to RH’LWlth^S?11 9af permeability values of 1 x 10E-8 square cm/sec or greater. Biodegradation of contaminated soil is enhanced through the induction or

°5 amb?-ent air into the subsurface via venting wells screened in the contaminated soil zone. In some cases, groundwater depression may beSS°2£rated in treatment system design to expose contaminants trapped in

In m°St cases' the viability of bioremediation or bioventing Particular site is preceded by field tests to determine the soil's

permeabiiity, and vertical or horizontal vent radius of influence. In situandP is.a}so conducted to determine potential oxygen utilization ratesand related stoichiometric based contaminant degradation rates.

For common contaminants and favorable soil conditions, simple treatability Indies are performed in order to allow optimization of treatment

i parameters. For less common contaminants and limiting soilSfSJtS L2 S011?* 1^0118' experiments are conducted. These

uset 5°. identify metabolic pathways and applicable treatment ch®?* Nutrients may be provided in liquid phase through surface

infiltration or m vapor phase through injection via vent wells. SoiliS co2trolled.by subsurface infiltration via piping galleries or

0f+.in-,ect^?n of air* Treatment zone temperatures require m1^ ??rthern climates to raise degradation rates to acceptable

levels. Modeling may be performed to design thermal addition and conseravation methods to elevate treatment zone temperatures.




KTi'SysM :x‘3s:."s sks -s=“, a*?refined pitroleum products ®B ov™finS Vadose zone soils contaminated with

localized microbial colonies, and availability of SJentiilûtrieAts^

SSt-”?ot induce sufficient air flow i-o maDt W Pfessurf 1S all that is necessary

%=-s~S= Ssr&SS-K'5®* -permeable soils with ave?agJPdiesSm levels of ’ 2*0in

site design E?o£S£a* ES&

UtllTsT Sy2tSm f°r 3 CW° periodfÊconomy'ôf'^scale'is °f

system and mon?IoSng3 Pr°jeCtS C° the rel«ively fixed cost of the blower




conditions that limit the technical viability of bioremediation or bioventing of vadose zone soils include low soil permeability, low nutrients levels or inability to distribute nutrients, excessive contaminant levels affecting the soil toxicity or soil wetting characteristics, low temperature restriction of degradation rates, aerobic or sequential aereobic/anaerobic biodegradability of contaminants of concern, presence of more easily degradable or preferred alternative carbon sources, and soil pH levels.

Sioventmg has been demonstrated to be effective in remediation of a variety of hydrocarbon and chlorinated organic contaminants. The primary limitation to the applicability of this technology is the ability to affect soil pore gas changes by application of a pressure or vacuum at the venting locations. The permeability of soils generally must be 1 x 10E-8 square cm/sec or greater for this technology to be applicable. Soil moisture content must be maintaineda5'Teyelf that d° not inhibit oxygen diffusion. Other limitations include the abiiity to provide nutrients or other substances to the contaminant location. This is more important in the cases where the vapor pressure of the cc minant of concern is not high enough to allow volatilization and t )ort to areas in the subsurface where high microbial activity exists.Du o the relatively low degradation rates obtained using this remedial technique (2-15 mg/kg/day for diesel fuel at 20 degrees Celsius), lack of hiqh nutrients levels are not viewed as critical as long as a minimum amount of essential nutrients are distributed in the treatment soils. Finally, low subsurface temperatures will extend the time necessary to deqrade contaminants. a

Page No. 4 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



This technology is the result of the efforts of numerous scientists and is widely published by the Air Force Center of Environmental Excellence in "Test Plan and Technical Protocol for the Field Treatability Test for Bioventing" (Henche et.al., 1992). It also was developed as a result of widespread interest and application of vapor extraction remediation. ENSR, along with many other environmental engineering contractors, has employed various in situ treatments using aeration of groundwater or vadose zone soils.

ENSR s experience in conducting treatability studies and constructing and operation of bioventing and other on-site and in situ biological treatment systems in northern climates has enabled development of thermal design and management techniques. Experience with remediation systems at remote locations not served by utilities has fostered development of energy-efficient treatment approaches using a combination of enhanced solar gain, thermal conservation, and timed, automatic cycling of aeration or moisture-addition equipment that minimize fossil fuel energy consumption. A variety ofalternative active and passive aeration and thermal management methods have a been explored.

EN^v has experience in the subsquential anaerobic/aerobic dechlorination of TCE at a manufacturing site contaminated with cutting oil. This in situ treatment exempted the treatment from RCRA standards. Other experience includes pilot testing, design, and installation of a bioventing treatment system using a radial well pattern with central air induction vents to treat silt contaminated with gasoline. This system also includes design features to allow reinfection of extracted soil gas into the subsurface.

ENSR has performed bioventiing ex-situ through the use of biopiles.


WASTE APPLICATIONS


Media

Actual/Potential

X X Soil (in situ)

_ _ Soil (ex situ)

— — Sludge (Does not include municipal sewage sludge)



_ _ Natural sediment (ex situ)









X X Halogenated volatiles _ _ Heavy metals


X

X

X

X





_ Dioxins/furans

PCBs


X Solvents

X Benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene- xylene (BTEX)

X Acetonitrile (organic cyanide)

X Organic acids

Nonmetallie toxic elements

Radioactive metals

Asbestos

Inorganic cyanides

Inorganic corrosives

Miscellaneous

Explosives/propellents

Organometallic pesticides/ herbicides

CyanideOthers:






_ X Agriculture



_ X Coal gasification

_ X Dry cleaners

X X Electroplating

_ Gasoline/service station




_ X Machine shops



Others:

X Munitions manufacturing

X Paint/ink formulation

X Pesticide manufacturing/use


X Photographic products

X Plastics manufacturing


X Other organic chemical manufacturing


X Rubber manufacturing

X Semiconductor manufacturing

X Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Page No. 8 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




AT&T

City: _________________________State/Province: Illinois Country: USA




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




Others: __________Various organic contaminants











Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Page No. 9 of 3 611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



AT&T




_ CERCLA

_ TSCA





X State: Illinois

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

(units)

(units)

(units)

Page No. 10 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




AT&T_________________ __________

Application Type






other:






Research


Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 11 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0




AT&T

Performance Data



Page No. 12 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0

Vendor Names ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERINGTechnology Type: BIOVENTING



AT&T


Name: Angelo Basile_____________

Company: AT&T__________

Address: 131 Morristown Road

Basking Ridge, NJ 07920______________

Phone:


Page No. 13 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Confidential

City: Northern State/Province: New York Country: USA




_ Agriculture Paint/ink formulation

Battery recycling/disposal

Chloro-alkali manufacturing

Coal gasification

Dry cleaning

Electroplating

Gasoline service station

Herbicide manufacturing/use

Industrial landfills

Inorganic/organic pigments

Machine shops

Metal ore mining and smelting

Municipal landfills

Munitions manufacturing










Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 14 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Confidential



CERCLA

_ TSCA





X State: New Jersey

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

Solid







Other:

cubic yards (units)

(units)

______________ (units)




Confidential____________________

Application Type






other:

Page No. 15 of 36 VISITT 5 011/04/97





Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 16 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Confidential

Performance Data



Page No. 17 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Confidential


Name: Confidential

Company: _

Address:

Phone:



Page No. 18 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name; ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERINGTechnology Type: BIOVENTING



Tesora Alaska Petroleum

City:State/Province Country:

Eagle RiverAlaskaUSA

Company




_ Agriculture


— Chloro-alkali manufacturing

_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops


- Municipal landfills

— Munitions manufacturing




— Photographic products

— Plastics manufacturing


— other organic chemical manuf.




_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 19 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Tesora Alaska Petroleum Company



_ CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable

Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:




(units)

(units)

(units)

Page No. 20 of 3611/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Tesora Alaska Petroleum Company____

Application Type










TSCA National DemonstrationResearch

-cher:

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 21 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0





Performance Data








Name: Mr. Steve Roq

Company: Tesora Alaska Petroleum Company

Address: ___________ ____________________________

(907) 561-5521

Phone:

Page No. 22 of 36 VISITT 5.011/04/97


Page No. 23 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Petroleum Refinery

City: NorthernState/Province: Illinois Country: USA




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops















_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 24 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Petroleum Refinery____




CERCLA

_ TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

Not Applicable




Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid






Light nonaqueous phase liquid (in situ)

Other:

26,000____ cubic yards(units)

(units)

(units)

Page No. 25 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Petroleum Refinery___________

Application Type






other: __________






Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 2 6 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Petroleum Refinery____

Performance Data



Page No. 27 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Petroleum Refinery__________________________


Name: Confidential

Company: ____________

Address:

Phone:


Page No. 28 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Smith, G.J. and G.A. Ferguson, ENSR_________

Title:

In-Situ Remediation Using Anaerobic Biotransformation of Groundwater

Tournal/Conference:

2nd International In-Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation Sym,

Date: 04/93 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):

Page No. 29 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Smith, G.J., J.W. Aiken, and J.F. Tursman, ENSR

Title:

A Systems Approach for Rapid Cleanup of Chlorinated Solve..

Journal/Conference:

Presented at 1 USA/USSR Joint Conference on Environmental Hydrogeology

NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):Date: 06/90

Page No. 30 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Smith, G.J. and J.W. Aiken, ENSR

Title:

In-Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents in Soils and GW

Journal/Conference:

84th Annual Air and Waste Management Association Meeting & Exhbition


Page No. 31 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Weber, R.C., G. Smith, J. Aiken, R. Woodward, and D. Ramsden

Title:

In-Situ Bioremediation of Cyanide

Tournal/Conference:


Page No. 32 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




$ 65________ to $ 100_______ per cubic yard

Price estimates shown above do not always include all indirect costs associated with treatment, such as excavation, permits and treatment of residuals. For price comparisons, users should make certain that vendors provide estimates based on comparable remediation activities.

Factors that have a significant effect

2 Initial contaminant concentration

1 Target contaminant concentration

4 Quantity of waste

5__Depth of contamination


__ Characteristics of residual waste

6 Labor Rates

on unit price. (1 is highest).

_ Moisture content of soil

_ Site Preparation


_ Amount of debris with waste

3. Characteristics of soil

8. Utility/Fuel rates

Others:

Page No. 33 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




See description of the full-scale system.




Other:

Page No. 34 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




0 Planned/in design


1 Constructed


_ Transportable

_ Fixed

X In situ


to




5 to 100____________________ cubic yards

Number of pilot-scale studies conducted on wastes from different sources or sites : 0

Page No. 35 of 3611/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Air conditioning - such as humidification, thermal addition, particle and moisture removal.

Blower system - vacuum or injection blower or compressor to provide air or other oxygen rich gas to the contaminated zone.

Thermal management system - (Northern zones only) - methods of elevating the treatment zone soil temperatures include pre-heating of makeup air, warm water addition, and heat tape.

Nutrient and moisture addition system - a variety of liquid or vapor phase moisture and nutrient control systems. These generally consist of irrigation or infiltration galleries or gas phase injection and metering provisions.

F ess monitoring points and equipment - the remediation process is generally n ^ored by conducting in situ respirometry tests, analysis of off-gas constituents, lysimeters or soil moisture probes, use of thermistors and other temperature sensors to monitor in situ soil and injection or extraction soil gas temperatures.

Groundwater control system - groundwater control system may be used to expose contaminants trapped in the smear zone. Equipment consists of dewatering wells, interception trenches, or use of positive soil gas pressure to depress water table.

Vendor Names ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING Technology Type: BIOVENTING





_ Other:



Page No. 36 of 36 VISITT 5.011/04/97



6 Planned/in design


5 Constructed

Capacity range: to

For equipment manufacturers - estimated or actual number of full-scale cleanups by other firms using this equipment: _____0

ATTACHMENT 7

Batelle— Bioventing Technology



Vendor Name: BATTELLE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST DIVISIONTechnology Type: BIOVENTING


Address: Battelle Boulevard, MSIN P7-41P.O. Box 999

City: Richland, Washington 99352USA

Contact: Chris JohnsonTitle: EngineerPhone: (509) 372-2273Fax: (509) 376-1867E-Mail: cd_j [email protected] Page: etd.pnl.gov:2080/~yello/Status: Full scale


??' 'J* developed and is currently employing an in-situ bioremediation( ntmg) technology to remediate jet-fuel contaminated sites. Bioventinq tec^iology removes volatile organic compounds (VOC) from subsurface

w5xl* stimulating aerobic biodegradation of volatile and nwiXn1 n if compounds by controlling mass transfer and the availability of oxygen BatteUe is currently working on the design of an air injection bioventing demonstration for tight clay soils and an air sparging/bioventinqgJoSnd^te?11 t0 slmultaneously treat the vadose zone and shallow contaminated

Page No. 2 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



*Enhancement or replacement of vapor extraction for volatile and semivolatile components.

*Field treatability (in situ) capability to reduce cost of treatability/feasibility studies. *

*Developed specific design tools for in situ bioventing, using laboratory and field treatability test data.




-«nê°hn0i°9?u1f currf;ntly applicable to volatile and semivolatile organic to co bS êôblcallY biodegraded. It has limited applicability

jo-metabolically degraded contaminants such as TCE. Performance is affected-oi^moistf^ and dlversity of indigenous microorganisms, pH, temperature, and

Page No. 4 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Battelle has demonstrated the technology in the field at contaminated sites and is currently involved in several field-scale demonstrations.

Page No. 5 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0

WASTE APPLICATIONS

Media

Actual/Potential

X X Soil (in situ)

_ _ Soil (ex situ)

_ _ Sludge (Does not include municipal sewage sludge)














- - Hal°9enated volatiles _ _ Heavy metals

X

X

X




_ Organic pesticides/herbicides

_ Dioxins/furans

PCBs

_ Polynuclear aromatics (PNAs)

X Solvents


_ Acetonitrile (organic cyanide)

_ Organic acids

Others:

Nonmetallic toxic elements

Radioactive metals

Asbestos

Inorganic cyanides

Inorganic corrosives

Miscellaneous







Actual/Potential

_ X Agriculture




_ X Dry cleaners

_ _ Electroplating





_ _ Machine shops



Others:

UST sites (actual)

Actual/Potential

_ _ Munitions manufacturing


_ _ Pesticide manufacturing/use


_ _ Photographic products






_ _ Semiconductor manufacturing

_ X Wood preserving

_ _ Uranium mining

Page No. 8 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Eielson AFB, Alaska*

City:State/Province: Alaska Country: USA




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops










Other jprganic chemical manuf.




Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 9 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Eielson AFB, Alaska_________ *

Vendor Names BATTELLE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST DIVISIONTechnology Type: BIOVENTING



X CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable

l




Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge '

_ Solid







Other:

2,500_____ square feet(units)

10________ feet(units)

(units)

Page No. 10 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Eielson AFB, Alaska_____________ *

Application Type






Other: __________






Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 11 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5,0



Eielson AFB, Alaska*

Performance Data



TPH 20 -470 mg/kg

Page No. 12 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Eielson AFB, Alaska ________ _*


Name: __________________

Company: __________________________

Address:


Phone:


Page No. 13 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Hinchee, R.E. and R.N. Miller

Title:

Bioventinq for In Situ Treatment

Tournal/Conference:

Hazardous Material Control


Page No. 14 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Miller, R.E., R.E. Hinchee, and C. Vogel

Title:

A Field-Scale Investigation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Biodegredation

in the Vadose Zone Enhanced by Soil Venting at Tyndall AFB, Florida

Tournal/Conference:

R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, In Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation

Vol. 1

NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):Date: 1991

Page No. 15 of 2411/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Hinchee, R.E. and S.K. Ono

Title:

A_Rapid In Situ Respiration Test for Measuring Aerobic Biodegradation

Rates of Hydrocarbons in Soil

Tournal/Conference:

Air and Waste Management Association 42:1305-1312

Date: 1992 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):

Page No. 16 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Hinchee, R.E., S.K. Onq, R.N. Miller, D.C. Downey, and R. Frandt

Title:

Test Plan and Technical Protocol for a Field Treatability for Bioventing

(Rev. 2)__________________________________

Tournal/Conference:

Battelle Columbus Operations, Brooks AFB, Texas_________ _______________

Date: 1992 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):

Page No. 17 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, J.K. Slaughter, and M. Westray

Title:

Enhanced Biorestoration of Jet Fuels; A Full Scale Test at Eqlin AFB, FL

Journal/Conference:

Air Force Engineering and Services Center Report

ESL/TR/88-78____________________________________


Page No. 18 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Dupont, R.R., W. Doucette, and R.E. Hinchee

Title:

Assessment of In Situ Bioremediation Potential and the Application of

Bioventing at a Fuel-Contaminated Site __________________ ________

Tournal/Conference:

R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, In Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation,

Butterworth-Heineman, Stoneham, Massachusetts pp. 262-282


Page No. 19 of 2411/04/97 VISITT 5.0




$ 20 to $ 50 per cubic yard

Price estimates shown above do not always include all indirect costs associated with treatment, such as excavation, permits and treatment or residuals For price comparisons, users should make certain that vendors provide estimates based on comparable remediation activities,

Factors that have a significant effect

__ Initial contaminant concentration

__ Target contaminant concentration

__ Quantity of waste

__ Depth of contamination



_2 Labor Rates

on unit price. (1 is highest).

__ Moisture content of soil

1 Site Preparation

__ Waste handling/preprocessing

__ Amount of debris with waste


__ Utility/Fuel rates

Others:

Page No. 20 of 2411/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Bench scale studies are needed for bioventing to determine the potential effectiveness of the treatment on the contaminated medium. The following procedure is used in a bench scale treatability study.

a. A volume of the contaminated soil is placed in a container.

Samples of the contaminated soil are taken for analysis of contaminant and nutrient concentrations and of microbial population.

c. The container is sealed.

^ d. Oxygen is periodically introduced into the sealed container and the o as is collected for analysis of oxygen and carbon dioxide content.

e-. At the end of the treatability study, samples are again taken to density116 contam:Lnant: and nutrient concentrations and microbial population

of analysis of the off-gas give information about the microbial reaction kinetics (How fast the microbes metabolize food). The soil sample

in5ormat. about the amount of contaminant destroyed during the with T?S kinetlc and contaminant destruction information, along

5 tl05 about nutrient concentrations, soil moisture content, bioSS^Mn^6' PH:, fre ?Sed t0 evaluate the potential for treatment viaparade?!' become t£e Umi^ing^toJs^ '° SySCem' S° the Site/media

implement^pilo^scale^ioventingHsystems?1011 tests to



Page No. 21 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0




A Pilot scale bioventing system requires the characterization, information to be collected for use in design and implementation. The following points describe major steps to take to deploy a bioventing system.

a. Laboratory and field treatability information must be collected to obtain information on the microbial kinetics (degradation rate). The primary information used to design a pilot-scale system is from field respiratory tests which analyze oxygen utilization and carbon dioxide production.

b. The contaminated site must be characterized with respect to the location a.nd concentration of contaminants and to the geophysical properties of the site. Water potential and gas permeability of the soil are important parameters for design and evaluating the potential for successful treatment.

c Wells are drilled for air injection to allow air to flow into the c tminated zone. Air is not extracted, but flows through the soil and eventually escapes to the surface.

d. Air flows through the contaminated vadose zone at a low flow rate. This stimulates indigenous aerobic microorganisms to grow and "eat" contaminants. Volatilization of VOCs is minimized becuase of the low air flow rates, the long travel distance, and biological activity of the microbes.

The main effect of bioventing is to bring oxygen to the indigenous microorganisms so that the microbes will grow and "eat" contaminants utilizing the available nutrients and water.

Vendor services:

X

Equipment manufacture

Subcontractor for cleanup services

Prime contractor for full-service remediation

Other: R&D, technology demos and transfer




0 Planned/in design


122 Constructed


_ Transportable

_ Fixed

X In situ

Page No. 22 of 24 VISITT 5.011/04/97


_____ to




toNot Applicable


Page No. 23 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0




A full scale bioventing system requires the characterization information to be collected for use in design and implementation. The following points describe major steps to take to deploy a bioventing system.

a. Laboratory and field treatability information must be collected to obtain information on the microbial kinetics (degradation rate). The primary information used to design a pilot-scale system is from field respiratory tests which analyze oxygen utilization and carbon dioxide production.

b. The contaminated site must be characterized with repsect to the location and concentration of contaminants and to the geophysical properties of the site. Water potential and gas permeability of the soil are important parameters for design and evaluating the potential for successful treatment.

c Wells are drilled for air injection to allow air to a flow into the c immated zone. Air is not extracted, but flows through the soil and e\wiitually escapes to the surface.

d. Air flows through the contaminated vadose zone at low flow rate. This stimulates indigenous aerobic microorganisms to grow and "eat" contaminants. Volatilization of VOCs is minimized because of the low air flow rates, the long travel distance, and biological activity of the microbes.

Tha main effect of bioventing is to bring oxygen to the indigenous microorganisms so that the microbes will grow and "eat" contaminants utilizing the available nutrients and water.

Page No. 24 of 2411/04/97

VISITT 5.0




_ Subcontractor for cleanup services

_ Prime contractor for full-service remediation

X Other: R&D, technology demos and transfer



Number of full-scale cleanups initiated or completed by this firm using this technology: ____50


0 Planned/in design


50 Constructed

Capacity range: to Not Applicable

For equipment manufacturers - estimated or actual number of full-scale cleanups by other firms using this equipment: _____0

Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division Bioventing lib* Air

ATTACHMENT 8

Horizontal Technologies, Inc.— In-situ Soil Flushing Technology


Page No. 1 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: HORIZONTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Technology Type: SOIL FLUSHING - IN SITU


Address: 4767 Pine Island Road, NW

City: Matlacha, Florida 33993USA

Contact: Donald R. JusticeTitle: President or Vice PresidentPhone: (941) 283-5640Fax: (941) 283-2222E-Mail: [email protected] Page: www.horizontal.comStatus: Full scale


rT” ' proprietary technology of Horizontal Technology, Inc. (HTI) consists of a sm of trenched horizontal wells designed on a site-specific basis to be

-ailed in plumes of contaminated ground water and soils. The system is used to withdraw contaminated ground water and return the treated effluent to the contaminated vadose zone and periphery of the ground water plume to both contain the plume and provide flushing of soluble contaminants in the vadose zone.

The heart of the system is the specially designed installation equipment that removes the soils/strata and places the horizontal well screen below the water table. The horizontal well screen can be installed with a high hydraulic conductivity sand/gravel pack or with the excavated material simply being returned to the trench. The installation process is completed in a one step process without the need for dewatering, sheeting, shoring, or placing personnel in the trench, which also minimizes the generation of contaminated soils. HTI also holds a patent on the sump for the horizontal well which iscalled a vertical riser. The vertical riser is a PVC pumping sump that is installed using the horizontal well installation equipment also without the need for dewatering, sheeting, shoring, or placing personnel in the trench.

The trenched horizontal wells are used for both free and dissolved contaminant recovery for a large range of contaminants. It has most frequently been used for recovery of shallow light nonaqueous phase liquid (LNAPL).

The trenched horizontal well offers unequalled performance over both vertical we"i Is and directionally drilled horizontal wells because of its superior j '.tration capacity. In low hydralic conductivity strata, the use of a high

^lic conductivity backfill creates a preferential flow path that enables derive flow over its entire depth. The trenched horizontal well's

akility to withdraw greater flow rates from shallow depths has enabled the rapid remediation of many LNAPL plumes.

Soil flushing in situ can be accomplished by installing this system across zones of contaminated soil and ground water, energizing the system to remove tho contaminated ground water,- thereby creating a cone of depression.

aminated groundwater is treated aboveground and returned to the ground ugh a horizontal well system around the perimeter of the well

installation. The treated ground water infiltrates the contaminated vadose zone soils and flushes contaminants downward to the horizontal recovery well that may be located at the bottom of the vadose zone or below the water table.The relative removal effectiveness of soil flushing will be dependent upon the solubility of the contaminant or contaminants involved. HTI will provide this system for remediation of soil and ground water contamination and to other technology vendors, environmental consultants, and contractors.

Page No. 2 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0



Can be installed quickly on small or large sites.

The increased exposure to the sub-surface afforded by the horizontal trench well grid system can greatly enhance the liquid flow through soils and thus reduce time needed for remediation.

Can be combined to produce a Delivery/Extraction System in a closed loop.

In situ premixing of low permeability soils can be accomplished by our special equipment to increase permeability.

Eliminates dead zones that often occur between vertical wells.

Can be combined with HTI's Synthetic "Polywall" Vertical Barrier System to form an in situ bio-reactor for in situ treatment of a wide range of contaminants.

Page No. 3 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0



System cannot be installed directly under buildings.

Maximum installation depth varies from site to site depending upon the depth to the ground water table. We currently have equipment that is capable of installing a trenched horizontal well at a depth of approximately 30 feet below the water table, however greater depths are achievable through benching down of equipment.

Existing underground utility lines may limit length.

Cannot cut hard rock with out pre-trenching.


Vendor Names HORIZONTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Technology Type: SOIL FLUSHING - IN SITU


See VISITT Delivery/Extraction System


WASTE APPLICATIONS

Media

Actual/Potential

X X Soil (in situ)

_ _ Soil (ex situ)

_ X Sludge (Does not include municipal sewage sludge)


_ X Natural sediment (in situ)


X X Groundwater (in situ)


_ X Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) in situ

X X Light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) in situ

Page No. 5 of 31 VISITT 5.011/08/97

Page No. 6 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0






_ _ Nonhalogenated volatiles

_ X Nonhalogenated semivolatiles


_ _ Dioxins/furans


X Heavy metals

_ Nonmetallic toxic elements


_ Asbestos



X X PCBs


X X Solvents


_ _ Acetonitrile (organic cyanide)

_ _ Organic acids

Others:

Miscellaneous



Page No. 7 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




Actual/Potential

X X Agriculture




X X Dry cleaners

_ X Electroplating

X X Gasoline/service station




_ X Machine shops


X X Municipal landfill

Others:

Actual/Potential









_ X Other inorganic chemicalmanufacturing



_ X Wood preserving

_ _ Uranium mining

Page No. 8 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




Municipal Garage

City: TamaracState/Province: Florida____________Country: USA




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops














Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Others:




Page No. 9 of 31 VISITT 5.011/08/97

Municipal Garage____________



CERCLA

TSCA





X State: Florida

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable


Area treated (for in situ projects) :


Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

(units)

(units)

(units)

Page No. 10 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




Municipal Garage________________

Application Type






Other:





Research


Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 11 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




Municipal Garage_________________________ ____

Performance Data


Xylenes 1,000 -3,700 mg/L ND -200 mg/L

Page No. 12 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0



Municipal Garage


Name: Dr. Michael L. Voorhees

Company: ESE___________________________________

Address: 31 Sarasota Ctr. Blvd.

Sarasota, FL 34240 Phone#(813) 371-1716

Phone:






Municipal Well Field

City: Lee CountyState/Province: Florida Country: USA_____ ______










Other organic chemical manuf




Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Page No. 13 of 31 VISITT 5.011/08/97

_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




Others:

Page No. 14 of 3111/08/97 VISITT 5.0



Municipal Well Field_________




CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid



X Groundwater (in situ)



X Light nonaqueous phase liquid (in situ)

Other:

(units)

(units)

(units)

Page No. 15 of 3111/08/97 VISITT 5.0




Municipal Well Field___________

Application Type






Other:






Research


Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 16 of 3111/08/97 VISITT 5.0




Municipal Well Field_________

Performance Data


Naphthalene >1,000 ppb ND -50 ppb

Page No. 17 of 3111/08/97 VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: HORIZONTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Technology Type: SOIL FLUSHING - IN SITU*



Municipal Well Field_______


Name: Mike Weinberg_______

Company: ViroGroup_______

Address: Cape Coral, FL___________

(813) 574-1919______________________

Phone:


Page No. 18 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




St. Joe Paper Company

City: ConfidentialState/Province:Country: USA________




_ Agriculture Paint/ink formulation



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops













Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Others:Gasoline storage tank

Page No. 19 of 3111/08/97 VISITT 5.0



Industry Type if Client Identity Confidential

St. Joe Paper Company __________ __________

Site Name or

St.



_ CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

(units)

(units)

(units)





Application Type




Research

Page No. 20 of 31 VISITT 5 011/08/97






Other:


Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 21 of 3111/08/97 VISITT 5.0





Performance Data


BTEX > 1,000 ppb 50 ppb

Page No. 22 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0





Name: Wayne Murphy

Company: Alvarez Lehman Association

Address: Cape Coral, Florida

Phone:



Page No. 23 of 3111/08/97 VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: HORIZONTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Technology Type: SOIL FLUSHING - IN SITU*



Municipal Landfill___________________

citY: St. Lucie CountyState/Province: Florida ---------Country: USA --------




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops


X Municipal landfills












_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:




Page No. 24 of 31 VISITT 5 011/08/97

Municipal Landfill__________



CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

Not Applicable




Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

(units)

(units)

(units)

Page No. 25 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




Municipal Landfill______________

Application Type






other:






Research


Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 26 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




Municipal Landfill

Performance Data


ZincChromiumNickelSulfateChloride

20,000 PPb ND -50 PPb140 PPb ND -50 PPb120 PPb ND -50 PPb383,000 PPb ND -50 PPb320 PPb ND -50 PPb

Page No. 27 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




Municipal Landfill


Name : Glen Cunningham______________ __________

Company: Hazen and Sawyer________________

Address: Boca Raton, Florida

Phone:


Page No. 28 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Boman, Brian J. , Ph.D. and Donald R. Justice

Title:

Tapping Shallow Groundwater with Horizontal Wells

Journal/Conference:

A.S.C.E., Water Forum '92


Page No. 29 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




$ 100 to $ 200 per foot



1 Initial contaminant concentration Moisture content of soil

Target contaminant concentration _ Site Preparation

_4 Waste handling/preprocessing3_ Quantity of waste

.2 Depth of contamination 6 Amount of debris with waste

_5 Depth to groundwater 7 Characteristics of soil

Characteristics of residual waste Utility/Fuel rates

Labor Rates

Others:

Page No. 30 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0




Convertible Articulated Installation Machine

A horizontal well grid system is placed across a zone of contamination at depths of 5 to 30 feet. The horizontal well grid system can be installed in the vadose zone to treat soil in situ or below the water table to treat ground water.

A horizontal well recharge system is placed around or up gradient from the recovery system. Contaminated ground water is recovered, treated above ground, and recirculated through the soil by the recharge system to the plume and is recovered by the horizontal well system, completing the flushing loop. Can be combined with HTI's Polywall barrier system to form an in situ bio-reactor for treatment of a wide range of contaminants.

P 'dng Equipment

_ -opriate treatment units

Gravel-packed well screens

Page No. 31 of 3111/08/97

VISITT 5.0






Other:


Transportable Fixed X In situ



0 Planned/in design

0 ' Under construction

4 Constructed

Capacity range: to


ATTACHMENT 9

Geosafe Corporation— In-situ Vitrification Technology


Page No. 1 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: GEOSAFE CORPORATIONTechnology Type: VITRIFICATION

Technology Trade Name: In Situ Vitrification (ISV)

Address: 2950 George Washington Way

City:


Richland, Washington 99352 USAJames E. Hansen / Matt Haass Director, Bus. Dev. & Communications (509) 375-0710 (509) 375-7721 [email protected] Not Provided Full scale


1 'itu vitrification (ISV) involves the electric melting of contaminated f°r PurPoses of destroying/removing hazardous organics and

immobilizing/removing hazardous inorganic contaminants in a glass and microcrystalline residual product form. Organics are destroyed by pyrolysis (i.e. thermal decomposition); inorganics are immobilized by chemical incorporation in the resulting vitrified residual product.

ISV may be applied to contaminated solid media such as soil, sediment, tailings, and sludge. The material may be treated in situ (i.e. where presently located) or consolidated into a waste cell for treatment.

The ISV process uses electricity applied through four graphite electrodes to treat up to 1000 tons of motor oil in a batch melt. The electrodes are inserted 1 to 2 feet into the soil surface configuration. The elctrode move downward by gravity as the melt grows. Typical soil melt temperature is 1,600 to 2,000 degrees centigrade. Large-scale processing rates are 4 to 6 tons per hour; the process operates 24 hours per day.

An off-gas collection hood is employed over the treatment zone to collect gases/vapors evolving from the treated volume and to direct them to a treatment system involving quenching, scrubbing, mist elimination, HEPA filtration, filtering, and activated carbon adsorption or thermal oxidation as a polishing step. The process equipment is mounted on three over-the-road

and may be quickly mobilized to a site. The process may be powered by utility power or by diesel generator. Typical applications require 800 to1,000 kilowatts per ton for treatment.

ISV product offers 20 to 45 percent volume reduction, and excellent structural, weathering, and biotoxicity properties.

Page No. 2 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0



ISV offers a significant cost advantage over other treatment technologies for processing material that contains mixtures of organics, inorganics, and radionuclides. This cost advantage is based on the fact that ISV can simultaneously treat mixtures of contaminants in one processing step.

ISV destroys all types of organic compounds and will permanently immobilize inorganics, metals, and radionuclides in a leachate resistant glass. Volatile metals not retained in the glass product are removed by the ISV off-gas treatment system. ISV can be used to treat a wide variety of wastes, including soils, sludges, mill tailings, concrete, and other types of construction debris. ISV is a robust technology that can withstand variations in contaminants, contaminant concentrations, and extraneous material that would be unacceptable for other thermal or immobilization technologies.

ISV is flexible in how material at a waste site is treated. It can be treated in place or consolidated into one or more waste cells for treatment. Using either method, large volumes of material can be treated using multiple melt f ings that join together to form one large contiguous vitrified mass.' :ally, a soil treated with ISV will undergo a 25 to 30 percent volumer<--iction (due to the elimination of internal voids spaces), that results in a3 to 6 ft. deep surface depression. Following treatment, the vitrified mass can be excavated or left in place and the depression backfilled.

Most contaminated soils can be treated without modification.Difficult-to-melt soils may be processed by addition of fluxants. Fully saturated soils can also be treated with ISV, provided the groundwater infiltration rate is maintained below 10E-4 cm/sec.

Typical vitrified product is unequalled in structural strength (10 times the compressive/tensile strength of after reinforced concrete), weathering (no freeze/thaw or wet/dry damage), chemical leaching (surpasses TCLP), biotoxicity (acceptable for near surface life forms), and life expectancy (geologic time period).

ISV enjoys good public and regulatory acceptance. It is recognized as one of the more advanced innovative technologies having a sound technical basis developed by Battelle Memorial Institute for the U.S. Department of Energy.ISV is being developed for widespread use at DOE sites.




Large-scale ISV equipment is limited to a total organic concentration in the treated media not exceeding 10 percent by weight. Higher concentration of organics can be treated by upgrading the size of the off-gas treatment system.

Applications involving high water recharge rates into the treatment volumeener9y for water removal. Applications involving hydraulic

conductivity (recharge velocity) greater than 10E-4 cm/sec should employtable^6 limitlng measures such as slurry walls or pumping down of the water

Inorganic debris (for example: metal, concrete, asphalt) is limited to maximum of 20 percent by volume unless special provisions are made. a

Individual void volumes within the treatment volume must not exceed 150 cubic leet m size; this is an off-gas system volumetric limitation.

Current depth limitation is 20 feet for single melts. Sealed containers or •els containing liquids must be punctured before processing to avoid .nal pressurization and the sudden venting of the pressure which may cause

. disruption. *m




ISV is being developed by Geosafe Corporation for hazardous chemical applications. The technology is also being developed for radioactivea^C^10nf0^Battelle Memorial Institute for the U.S. Department of Energy. More than 180 tests at bench-, engineering-, pilot-, and large-scale have been

?o ?8CmSntSsnCe 1980' ^ additional tests planned for the next if

Preferred remedy at 6 private, EPA-Super fund, and Department of Defense sites within the U.S., and 1 site in Australia ^e-scale commercial application of the technology was initiated in 1993 at the Parsons Chemical Superfund Site in Michigan. Two of the site selections have now reached the remediation contract stage. Two others are in remedial contract negotiations. The other two are at various stages of testing,

re9;jlat°ry compliance activities. ISV is also planned for use in a iS 1995 1 radloactlve demonstration project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory


WASTE APPLICATIONS


Media

Actual/Potential

X X Soil (in situ)

X X Soil (ex situ)






— — Off-gas generated from a primary innovative technology



Page No. 6 of 35 VTSITT 5 012/02/97





X X Halogenated volatiles X X Heavy metals





X X Dioxins/furans

X X PCBs


X X Solvents


X X Acetonitrile (organic cyanide)

X X Organic acids

X X Nonmetallic toxic elements

X X Radioactive metals

X X Asbestos

X X Inorganic cyanides

X X Inorganic corrosives

Miscellaneous

X X Explosives/propellents

X X Organometallic pesticides/herbicides

Others:

Page No. 7 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: GEOSAFE CORPORATION

Technology Type: VITRIFICATION



Actual/Potential

_ X Agriculture




_ X Dry cleaners

X X Electroplating

I X Gasoline/service station

X X Herbicide manufacturing/use

X X Industrial landfills

X X Inorganic/organic pigments

_ X Machine shops

X X Metal ore mining and smelting

X X Municipal landfill

Others:

Actual/Potential

X X Munitions manufacturing


X X Pesticide manufacturing/use





X X Other organic chemicalmanufacturing

X X Other inorganic chemicalmanufacturing



X X Wood preserving

X X Uranium mining

Actual: PCB Transformer facilities (SIC 3612), Chemical warfare gases (SIC2869) , Scrap and waste materials (SIC 5093), National Security (SIC 9711) .

Page No. 8 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0



Parsons Chemical Superfund Site*

City: Grand LedgeState/Province: Michigan Country: USA_________.














_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining




Agriculture



Coal gasification

Dry cleaning

Electroplating





Machine shops


Municipal landfills

Others:




Parsons Chemical Superfund Site____ _________ *




X CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

Not Applicable




Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid

X Natural Sediment (in situ)






Other:

4,800 tons (units)

6,300 square feet (units)

16 feet (units)

Page No. 10 of 3512/02/97 VISITT 5.0



Parsons Chemical Superfund Site

Application Type






^cher:





X EPA SITE Emerging Technology Program

Research

Cost: 400 Units: ton Total:2,000,000

Page No. 11 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0





Performance Data


DDDDDEDDTDieldrinChlordaneMercury

190 ppm21 ppm240 ppm24 ppm180 ppm60 ppm

0.15 ppm <0.05 ppm 1.9 ppm <0.05 ppm 0.09 ppm <0.1 ppm

Page No. 12 of 3512/02/97 VISITT 5.0






Name: Len Zintak____________

Company: US EPA Region V______________

Address: 77 West Jackson

Chicago, IL 60604____

Phone:


This project involved staging of contaminated soil and sedimerU£ 1/4 mile from the site. The contaminated soil

clean trench location on the site.from various was staged in a

Other contaminants present at the site are and HxCDF. TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Hp CCD, DCDD,

Page No. 13 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0





Transformer Service Facility_________ _______ *

City: SpokaneState/Province: Washington Country: USA_______




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops


Treated











_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining_ Municipal landfills


Others: _________Transformer service facility (PCBs)

Page No. 14 of 3512/02/97 VISITT 5.0



Transformer Service Facility__________ *




X CERCLA

X TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable

Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

Volume/Quantity Treated: 3,500 tons (units)

Area treated (for in situ projects): 3,750 square feet (units)

Depth treated (for in sity projects): 17 feet (units)

Page No. 15 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0



Transformer Service Facility______________*

Application Type

X Full-scale cleanup X




TSCA National Demonstration —

other:






Research

Cost: NA Units: Total:

Page No. 16 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0



Transformer Service Facility________ .*


Performance Data


PCBs 100 -17,860 ppm Unknown-Unknown ppm

Page No. 17 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0



Transformer Service Facility______*


Name: Mr. Russ Stenzel___________

Company: Bechtel Environmental_____

Address: 50 Beale Street_______ _______________

San Francisco, CA 94119-3965

Phone:




Page No. 18 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0




Wasatch Chemical Superfund Site*;

City: Salt Lake CityState/Province: Utah Country: USA




Agriculture



Coal gasification

Dry cleaning

Electroplating





Machine shops


Municipal landfills









_ Other inorganic'chemical manufacturing



X Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 19 of 3512/02/97 VISITT 5.0



Wasatch Chemical Superfund Site________ *




X CERCLA

TSCA





X State: Utah

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

X Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

X Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

6,000 tons (units)

15,625 square feet (units)

8 feet (units)

Page No. 2 0 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0




Wasatch Chemical Superfund Site

Application Type






other:





Research


Cost : Units: Total:

Page No. 21 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0





Wasatch Chemical Superfund Site*

Performance Data



Page No. 22 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0



Wasatch Chemical Superfund Site*



Name: Mr. Rowland Gow

Company: Entrada Industries

Address: 180 East First South Street

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Phone:

Additional Project Information:Contamination present at the site consisted of PCPs, dioxins, and furans

Page No. 23 of 3512/02/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

> Richard A., James L. Buelt, and William F. Bonner

Title:

In Situ Vitrification of Soil

Tournal/Conference:

Jnited States Patent 4,376,598


Page No. 24 of 3512/02/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

GEOSAFE Corporation

Title:

Application and Evaluation Considerations for Situ Vitrification

Tournal/Conference:

GSC 1901


Page No. 25 of 3512/02/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Hansen, J.E., and V.F. Fitzpatrick

Title:

In Situ Vitrification Applications

Tournal/Conference:

Proceedings of the 3rd Forum Hazardous Waste Treatment Techo


Page No. 26 of 3512/02/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Hansen, J.E.

Title:

Treatment of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soil by In Situ Vitrification

Tournal/Conference:

proceedings of Hazmat 91 Central Hazardous Materials Manage


Page No. 27 of 3512/02/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Liikala, S.C.

Title:

Applications of In Situ Vitrification to PCB Contaminated Soil

Journal/Conference:

Proceedings of the 3rd Inti Conf. for the Rem, of PCB Contamination

Date: 03/91 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s;:

Page No. 28 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Geosafe Corporation

Title:

Investigation Into the Causes and Application Significance

Tournal/Conference:

N/A_______


Page No. 29 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0




Author(s):

Campbell. Brett E., James E Hansen, et. al.

Title:

Large-Scale Commercial Application of the In-Situ Vitrification

Remediation Technology_______ :________ ____________ __________ _—

Journal/Conference:

Super fund XV Conference Proceedings_________________ ____

NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):Date: November 1994

Page No. 30 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0





$ 300.00 to $ 500.00 per ton

Price estimates shown above do not always include all indirect costs associated with treatment, such as excavation, permits and treatment of residuals. For price comparisons, users should make certain that vendors provide estimates based on comparable remediation activities


__ Initial contaminant concentration

__ Target contaminant concentration

2 Quantity of waste

1 Depth of contamination



__ Labor Rates

Others:


_ Site Preparation

__ Waste handling/preprocessing

5 Amount of debris with waste


6 Utility/Fuel rates

3 - water recharge rate impacts processing rate in saturated zone.

Page No. 31 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0





Treatability/pilot testing involves geochemical, chemical, and physical analytical tests to fully characterize solid media and contaminants prior to testing. Testing involves placing contaminated media within a large amount of clean media within the test container. A small-scale ISV meet is performed, utilizing a 30 KW, 4 electrode system, within the contaminated volume.Pretest, during-test, and post-test samples are analyzed to determine disposition of contaminants, including destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) and mass balance when appropriate. Volume reduction is measured.Samples of residual product are characterized and submitted to TCLP leach testing when appropriate. Operational data is gathered to allow scale-up cost estimates. Testing objectives include: 1) demonstration that the technology works on the specific solid/contaminant mixture involved, 2) production of r 'ess performance data pertinent to the destruction/removal/immobilization

;ment of the contaminants, 3) production of operating performance data n ^ed to perform cost estimates and remedial design, and 4) production of sample residual product for community relations purposes. Clean adjacent soil is analyzed to assess the possibility of contaminant migration during processing.


Number of bench-scale studies conducted to date. (Does not include tests on surrogate wastes) :_ 16

Page No. 32 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0




ISV is performed at four scales: bench (5 pounds), engineering (to 1 ton),pilot (to 50 tons), and large (to 1,000 tons). Geosafe performs treatability/pilot testing at engineering-scale; and is able to translate those results to large-scale application. Therefore, for purposes of this section, Geosafe's engineering-scale equipment will be described as it may be used for pilot testing.

The pilot testing system employs a 30 kilowatt multiple tap transformer for supplying energy to up to four electrodes. The electrodes may be either the pre-placed (to depth) or the moveable (lowered during processing) type. Testing is done within a steel enclosure which houses a 110-gallon drum containing the contaminated and clean solid media. Off-gases are drawn off the test container through a sampling section where several sampling trains may be installed. Thereafter, off-gases go through a condenser and activated c-~~hon treatment before being vented to the atmosphere. Geosafe is permitted

irform treatability studies on RCRA wastes and has an agreement with i. fic Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to perform treatability tests on radioactive material.

Vendor services:X Equipment manufacture



X Other: Treatability testing

Page No. 34 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0




The in situ vitrification (ISV) technology is applied by first positioning the off-gas collection hood over the volume to be treated, lowering the array of four electrodes slightly into the volume, and placing a graphite and glassfrit starter path between the electrodes. Conditioned electrical power isapplied in a gradually increasing manner until a melt has been established that is sufficiently large to allow full power application. The starter pathcarries the initial current and heats up to the point of melting the adjacentsoil. Once the soil becomes molten, it becomes electrically conductive and serves as the primary conductor and heat-generating source allowing the process to proceed. Electrical energy is converted to thermal energy within the molten zone by the phenomena of joule heating.

Power is applied until the melt grows to the desired depth and volume. Thermocouples and other means are used to determine the extent of melt setting

''letion. At completion, power is terminated, the off-gas collection hood oved to the next processing location, and the subsidence volume resulting volume reduction is backfilled with clean soil.

During processing, off-gases are collected and treated to ensure air emission standards are met. The off-gas treatment system includes the following unit processes: 1) quencher (water spray type), 2) high efficiency dual stageventuri scrubber (pH controlled), 3) mist eliminator (vane type), 4) heater (for dew point control), 5) high efficiency particulate adsorber (HEPA) filter bank, and 6) thermal oxidation unit or activated carbon adsorption. Off-gases are moved through the system by an induction blower.

The total ISV equipment system is mounted on three over-the-road trailers, including a transformer trailer, an off-gas treatment trailer, and a glycol cooling system trailer. The off-gas hood and related supplies and equipment are transported on additional trailers.

The residual vitrified product is monolithic in nature and is typically left in place where formed because it is no longer hazardous.

Page No. 35 of 3512/02/97

VISITT 5.0



Vendor services: X Equipment manufacture



X Other: Treatability testing



Number of full-scale cleanups initiated or completed by this firm

using this technology: _____5


1 Planned/in design


1 Constructed

Capacity range: 4___________ to 6 tons/hour


Geosafe Corporation

Vitrification

Backup Off-Gas System

Secondary Waste Recyc;.: uj l&jj&IS (ore Melts. . .. tn Future

wSHBw' ■' ■


ATTACHMENT 10

Retech, Division of M4 Environmental— In-situ Vitrification Technology


Page No. 1 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: RETECH, DIV. OF M4 ENVIRONMENTALTechnology Type: VITRIFICATION

Technology Trade Name: Plasma ARC Centrifugal Treatment (PACT) System

Address: 100 Henry Station Road P.O. Box 997

City: Ukiah, California 954. USA

Contact: Ronald K. WomackTitle: Regional ManagerPhone: (707) 462-6522Fax: (707) 462-4103E-Mail: [email protected] Page: Not ProvidedStatus: Full scale


rT" Plasma ARC Centrifugal Treatment System (PACT) uses electric energy from rc, which operates between a plasma torch and a rotating tub, to detoxify

i-- - material feed. The tub rotates on a vertical axis inside a sealedchamber. The organic substances vaporize and are burned (at 2,000 degrees F), partly in the reaction tub and partly in a downstream secondary combustion chamber. Virtually all the inorganics become part of the glassy melt in the tub (in excess of 3,000 degrees F), held in place by centrifugal force. At suitable intervals, rotation is slowed and part of the melt is tapped through the bottom of the tub into a mold. The cooled, solidified residue can be either entirely glassy or partly crystalline; the residue has passed Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests in either case. The partly burned gases from the chamber also exit through the bottom of the tub and are directed to the secondary combustion chamber, and from there to a gas cleanup system.

Because all seals are close to room temperature, the system that is operated at slight negative pressure can withstand substantial overpressure (15 psig) without significant outleakage. The system can accept whole 55-gallon drums, and will treat both contents and containers. The process is continuous, but feed must be interrupted at intervals to tap accumulated melt. The time between taps is dependent on the amount of inorganic residue accumulated in the reaction chamber.

Page No. 2 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



The advantage of the PACT process is that virtually all of the material fed is converted into either a non-leachable solid, which meets all the criterial for delisting, or into a gas suitable for discharge into the atmosphere. Much of the cleanup system residues can either be recycled or discarded, leaving a net residue less than 2 percent of the material feed.

The process is good for high solids content wastes, especially when difficult-to-destroy organics and heavy metals are both present. It is also very useful for converting radioactive mixed wastes into a glass of high density and low leachability.

The hermetic sealing between the furnace and the environment is a key advantage over rotary kilns, as is the non-leaching nature of the solidified slag.

The flexibility of the feedstock, which can be liquid, slurry, loose solid (less than about 6-8 inch cubes), or drummed wastes (55 gallon or 200 liter ' e), coupled with its ability to treat virtually any compound, makes the

ess widely applicable.

Page No. 3 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



The system is not suitable for treating contaminated water, as there are more cost effective methods available than super heating with electric energy. Water cleanup, sludges, and filter media, however, along with concentrated contaminants from quantities of soil, can be treated economically. Also, mercury and salts (NaCl for example) are not found in the glass, but will be part of the gas treatment system residue.

Page No. 4 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



A demonstration scale unit, the PACT-6, was used in a Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) test in Butte, MT in July, 1991 to detoxify a combination of mining waste and organochloride contaminated soil. Following successful completion of the SITE test, additional tests with surrogates for wastes at DOE'S Idaho National Engineering Lab were completed. Further studies for DOD are underway.

A production size unit, a PACT-8, has been commissioned in Muttenz,Switzerland. Most of the waste treated will come from chemical manufacturers.

A portable unit, a PACT-2, is being used for surrogate and mixed waste tests in Europe. A second laboratory PACT-2 system has been delivered to Europe for surrogate and later radioactive contaminated mixed waste studies.

A lab unit, a PACT-1, has been delivered to the Navy for shipboard waste studies and another PACT-1 was used to demonstrate the volatility of plutonium

for DOE.

Page No. 5 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0

WASTE APPLICATIONS

Media


Actual/Potential

_ _ Soil (in situ)

X X Soil (ex situ)






Off-gas generated from a primary innovative technology

Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) in situ

_ Light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) in situ

Page No. 6 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0










_ X Dioxins/furans

X PCBs


X X Solvents

_ X Benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene-xylene (BTEX)


_ X Organic acids

X X Heavy metals

X X Nonmetallic toxic elements

_ X Radioactive metals

_ X Asbestos

_ X Inorganic cyanides

_ _ Inorganic corrosives

Miscellaneous

_ X Explosives/propellents

_ X Organometallic pesticides/ herbicides

Others:Hexachlorobenzene

Page No. 7 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



actual/Potential Actual/Potential


_ _ Agriculture




_ _ Dry cleaners

_ _ Electroplating



X Industrial landfills

_ _ Inorganic/organic pigments

_ X Machine shops



Others:

Sewage sludge at 50% solids - actual


X X Paint/ink formulation


_ _ Petroleum refining and reuse




_ X Other organic chemical - manufacturing

_ X Other inorganic chemical manufacturing



_ _ Wood preserving

X Uranium mining

Page No. 8 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0




Component Development & Integration Fac.

City: ButteState/Province: Montana Country: USA




Agriculture



Coal gasification

Dry cleaning

Electroplating





Machine shops


Municipal landfills


X Paint/ink formulation










_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining

Others:

Page No. 9 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0







CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

X Not Applicable




Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

X Sludge

X Solid







Other:

3,000_____ pounds(units)

__________ _______________ (units)

_________ '_______ (units)

Page No. 10 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0





Application Type






->cher:


Cost: Confidential Units:



X EPA SITE Emerging Technology Program

Research


Total:

Page No. 11 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0





Performance Data

Contaminant Untreated Concent. Treated Concent•

Cadmium 0.067 mg/L <0.039 mg/LCopper 4.6 mg/L 0.15 mg/LNickel 0.22 mg/L <0.11 mg/LHexachlorobenzene <0.001 mg/L <0.001 mg/LNaphthalene 0.40 mg/L <0.0026 mg/L2-Methylnaphthalene 0.28 mg/L <0.0019 mg/L

Page No. 12 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0





Name: Don Freeman

Company: Picatinny Arsenal

Address: SMCAR-AES-P Bldg 321

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5006

Phone:


Additional Project Information: _______________1. Mining waste and contaminated soil 2. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory surrogates 3. DOD fuses and flares 4. DOD Pyrotechnic Sludge

Performance data provided are TCLP test results.

Page No. 13 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Schlienger, M.E., M. P. Schlienqer, and R.C. Eschenbach

Title:

Waste Miniminzation with Plasma Processing

Journal/Conference:

Waste Management '93, Tuscon, AZ


Page No. 14 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Warf, W.R., M.E. Schlienqer, and S.R. Johnson

Title:

The mobile PACT-2

Journal/Conference:

Waste Management '93, Tuscon, AZ


Page No. 15 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Title:

Applications Analysis Report

•Journal/Conference:

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)

Date: 8/92 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s): EPA/540/55-91/007

Page No. 16 of 2912/03/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

SAIC Corp., San Diego, CA

Title:

Technology Evaluation Report, Retech, Inc. Plasma Centrifugal Furnace

Journal/Conference:

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)

Date: 7/92 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s): PB92-216043

Page No. 17 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

SAIC Corp. San Diego, CA

Title:

Technology Evaluation Report of Retech's Plasma Centrifugal, Furnace

Volume I_____________________________________

Journal/Conference:

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation

Date: 7/92 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s): PB92-216 035U1

Page No. 18 of 2912/03/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Hoeffelner, W., R.C. Eschenbach, M.R. Funfschilling, A. Chrubas, and

B. Pellaud_____

Title:

Plasma Technology for Rapid Oxidiation and Vitrification of Low/Medium

Radioactive Waste

Journal/Conference:

Nuclear Engineering International


Page No. 19 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Eschenbach, R.C.

Title:

Vitrification of PACT

Journal/Conference:

Stabilization of Mixed Radioactive Waste, Williamburg, VA


Page No. 20 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Schlienger, Max P.

Title:

U.S. Patent No, 5,005, 494 Apparatus & Method for High Temperature

Disposal of Hazardous Waste Materials______________

Journal/Conference:


Page No. 21 of 2912/03/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Schlienger, Max P.

Title:

U.S. Patent No. 5,136,137 Appartus for High Temperature Disposal of

Hazardous Waste Materials

Journal/Conference:


Page No. 22 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Schlienger, Max P.

Title:

U.S. Patent 4,770,109 "Apparatus and Method for High Temperature

Disposal of High Temperature Disposal of Hazardous Waste Materials

Journal/Conference:


Page No. 23 of 2912/03/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Yeast, T.F., R.C. Eschenbach, G.D. Pierce, M.B. Arndt, and J. Ginsburo

Title:

Volatility Studies in a Rotating Hearth Furnace

Journal/Conference:

1994 American Nuclear Society Meeting

Washington, D.C.___________________ _


Page No. 24 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0




$ 600_______ to $ 1,200_____ per ton





Quantity of waste



Characteristics of residual waste

Labor Rates

_ Moisture content of soil

_3 Site Preparation


_7 Amount of debris with waste

_8 Characteristics of soil

_6 Utility/Fuel rates

Others:1. Water content of waste 2. Waste characteristics

Page No. 25 of 2912/03/97 VISITT 5.0




^CT 1,5 in Ukiah is similar to the larger furnaces, except that it lackstreatid caPablllty. After 20 to 50 pounds of material have beentreated, the furnace is turned off, and the cold glassy residue is chippedThe1"™?6 fu^nace f°r study. The gas cleanup system includes a spray quench The material is fed through a manual feeder capable of pushing in loose feed or small bags (about half-pound) or other containers



Page No. 2 6 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0




The major components in the system are:

1. Material feeding system. 2. Plasma furnace* with centrifugal tub. 3. Secondary combustion chamber. 4. Slag removal system. 5. Scrubber, with pH control 6. Bionox or other deNox System (optional) 7. Controls and instrumentation

* 500 kW at Butte, 125 kW at Ukiah, 1,200 kW at Muttenz, Switzerland

200 kw at Ukiah (leased), 200 KW at Ukiah, 200 KW in Washington, D.C.

Once the slag-containing tub is heated, cold material is fed into the rotatinq slag bed.

T operator pours the melt downward through a center hole by slowing the tub.slag mold can be 55-gallon or 200-liter drums or a variety of "pig"

l .,es. Since the process is continuous, slag can be removed without cooling the system or otherwise interrupting treatment. System duty cycle is best when operated around the clock. The pilot-scale equipment has volumetric and thermal limitations, which prevent a higher throughput.

Vendor services:X Equipment manufacture



Other:

Page No. 27 of 2912/03/97

VISITT 5.0



0 Planned/in design


3 Constructed



X Transportable

_ Fixed

In situ


100_________ to 500_________ pounds/hour


At a contaminated site? No


500_________ to 4,000_______ pounds


Page No. 28 of 2912/03/97 VISITT 5.0




The major components in the system are:

?®edinS systems (specially designed to handle drums,?ent?ifuoil tihSi an£/or loose solids) 2- Plasma furnace (1,200 kw) with centrifugal tub 3. Secondary combustion chamber 4. Slag removal svstem 5?aS ?oSSo?sSYSdem W;Ch acid ?as and dusc «">°™1 6- De^ ^?em TSpJLnal)7. Controls and instrumentation ' v '

at5T°TVH^h kW at Ukiah' 1'200 kw in Muttenz, Switzerland, 200 kWat Ukiah (leased), 200 KW at Ukiah, 200 KW in Washington, D.C.

Slag ^slag-containin9 tub is heated, cold material is fed into the rotating

T °rehollT SihTJOWn tub' discharging the slag downward through ao pL-shaves Can b® 55'gallon or 200-liter drums or a variety

9 ^shapes. Since the process is continuous, slag can be removed withoutcv?lenis h!JyS£em °r oChe™ise interrupting treitment® ?he systSm^ du^y cycle is best when operated around the clock. y

Page No. 29 of 2912/03/97 VISITT 5.0


Vendor services:


X Equipment manufacture



Other:


X Transportable X Fixed _ in situ

Location of fixed facility: City: Muttenz,SwitzerlandState:

u^rtgfSftectoglogy:leanUPo lnitiated completed by this firm


3 Planned/in design

_0 Under construction

_1 Constructed

Capacity range: 2,000 to 4,000 pounds/hour

eJ^?men? manufacturers - estimated or actual number of ull scale cleanups by other firms using this equipment: o

Retech, D in. of Lockheed E nil. Sys. & Tech. Vitrification


ATTACHMENT 11

Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.— Dehalogenation Technology


Page No. 1 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0

Vendor Name: COMMODORE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Technology Type: CHEMICAL TREATMENT - DECHLORINATION

Technology Trade Name: Agent 313

Address: 1487 Delashmut Avenue

City: Columbus, Ohio 43212USA

Contact: Neil Drobny/Albert AbelTitle: Group Vice President/Senior ScientistPhone: (614) 297-0365Fax: (614) 297-7535E-Mail: supplied only on requestWeb Page: Not ProvidedStatus: Full scale


Commodore's Agent 313 technology employs solvated electron technology (SET) to ' itaminate, detoxify, or destroy a wide range of wastes including 1. genated organic compounds such as PCBs, dioxins, pesticides, chlorofluorinated hydrocarbons (CFCs) , chemical warfare agents (including nerve agents, blister agents, and explosives), PAHs, and numerous other toxins in matrices ranging from soils and sludges to oils, surfaces, and gases to bulk quantities of raw toxin.

Basic Chemistry

The process uses alkali or alkaline earth metals such as sodium, calcium, lithium, etc dissolved in any of a variety of solvents including ammonia, amines, and some ethers to produce a solution of free electrons and metal cations.

For example, NH3 Na--------- >Na+ + e-

Dehalogenation reaction pathways vary depending on the halogenated compound present, but can be illustrated by the following generic reaction:

RX + 2M + H20 ---------- > RH + MX + MOH

The deleterious effects of water, iron and its compounds, oxygen, and carbon dioxide on solvated electron solutions are well known. However, a major breakthrough by Commodore has provided a mechanism for treating toxins and cr Ttiinated matrices, even when substantial quantities of water and/or other ^ ting reactants are present in the system to be treated.

Hul09unfted or9anic compounds are "destroyed" by Commodore's Agent 313 process when halogens are selectively stripped from the parent hydrocarbon by the free electrons (dehalogenation) and captured by the metal cations to form salts

(such as calcium chloride) and biphenyl in the case of PCBs). essentially instantaneous.

h^rogen"substituted organic compounds (such as The process occurs at room temperature and is


Vendor Name: COMMODORE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INCTechnology Type: CHEMICAL TREATMENT - DECHLORINATION

destroyed

destroyed


Agent 313 has been demonstrated on numerous materials including:

approximately 25 different soil types contaminated with PCBs in treat2drto1lMsrthIini ppm!1 20 ^ t0 °VSr 200'000 PPm were successfully

(CFCO (°Ver 60 gercent pCB) , malathion, and chlorofluorocarbons99 9999 success*ully destroyed (destruction efficiency g“atl”thanper b”ch ’ “ quanCltles from several pounds to ovfr ?So po!Sds

byaê°soâ?ed e?ec^Tpllcess^3 h”“ be“

non-dSe?ta?ppt)lrbySsolva?Id elertr^solutlSn1’3611 rSdUCed to

m0fhruct?SiiF^"aVailable CFCS and halons have been tested and estruction efficiencies greater than 99.9999 percent.

- all major classes of chemical warfare agents (excludinaand destroyed3!? d«?rSc“on etficr^ eXCeedin9 P- per batch most cases^reater thS 99 99?9999 pe?cent9reater a" 99999 Percent and in

containing^halogenated^hydrocarbons th\tre“ <* *—d wastes

âsntand ™"^tSn=5i1St«1

theaig^tm3«U^c:ssPcan 3£EH with

for treatment or disposal of the °rganic compound, allowingthe remaining °f

S?Is^tiad9a^lebbiêFara°"adlp°°beg^m^1P^"°StetSStewithou?1Udin9

problemsnass?ciated9withZothi sbrebdi"9',or drying. Material handling materials such asll^f ,

53TJX SSaSôUÎSlic? processes, Age^fdo^notâm^r1

suitable for return to thi “nvSnmen^^^prodSjt^se. S°ilS “»

f’ ^n£?JdWa5e-iS feadily fabricated or assembled from off-the-shelfsy,.ement?h2ntr:at^n? comparable to an ammonLêfrigeration

equipment costs are substantiallv iPqc ,-u cement mixer. As a result, capital systems. substantially less than comparably-sized incineratioS

treated £y AgJnf ^3^

^‘S'^sss £ ssss.°5*3£j;s - £;<F-v-ter^eiially invited to contact the vendo^foi^f^ther^nlo^aMo^”105 “*


Vendor Name: COMMODORE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES INC.Technology Type: CHEMICAL TREATMENT - DECHLORINATION


Itei«9nof ^-Pr°Se!S iS n0t desi9ned i°r treatment of aqueous waste streamsa==T




extSsiveliestud?„HeCh?°l09yiWaS firSt discovered in 1865 and has been extensively studied. As early as 1914, the process was being used incompounds1 determinations of haloglnated organic

-in Hoot- "• n early 1970s, the process was shown to be highly effectivein destroying a wide variety of pesticides. In 1996, the UnitedStatesD^m??nfental Protectlon Agency granted Commodore a nationwide operating spaces °f the Process to PCB-contaminated soils aSd mÎlonp a? f? the same Year, the Clinton administration selected Agent 313 as one of the three remediation technologies to be included in the Raoid Commercialization Initiative program. ne Rapid

Superfundfq^6' i9®1* 313 WaS demonstrated at the New Bedford Harbor WhSSlfr and Rônn^ r contra^ from the us EPA in conjunction with Fosterye^been/presentedôn^site/f ield SysL S "that^B l£5M“

^rodActioûnf6 t0 1633 ^ lppm in each °f the

f °l 1996n' Comi!lodore successfully treated over 1 pound of each of the* Jwln9 chemical warfare agents: GB (Seran), HD (Mustard), VX (nerve aaent?"seS)Slt?n(ea;hP^nCiP^ COnstituent of the former Soviit^heiSS™ 9 ^<99 9^99 pe^cJnt to 9l'99999?fenCS We?e destr°red to bel°« detection limits

t~£d“'™t2Sn.£2l“ agent^contaminateddcarbon

chemical °f 3of cppc warfare agents. A full-scale commercial system for the destruction™s £ i3 zsBpz*

tanker ??adaqSa™Jtiei1iSFSa?^go?tSSoand recove^ planc °* receiving


WASTE APPLICATIONS

Vendor Name: COMMODORE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES INCTechnology Type: CHEMICAL TREATMENT - DECHLORINATION

Media

Actual/Potential

_ X Soil (in situ)

X X Soil (ex situ)



_ X Natural sediment (in situ)



x X Off-gas generated from a primary innovative technology

_ X Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) in situ

_ X Light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) in situ






X X Halogenated volatiles X X Heavy metals

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

_ Nonmetallie toxic elements

X Radioactive metals

_ Asbestos



Miscellaneous







X Dioxins/furans

X PCBs


X Solvents



_ X Organic acids

Others:Other pesticides actually treated include:

dSoh116 Decarnba PMA Brorracil Dieldrin Trifluralin Carbaryl Zineb DBCP ' ' LrCat DDT "alathio”

Other materials actually treated include:

?h^°S?^h?Zen; 2-Chlorot°luene 4-Chlorotoluene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 12 5-Tr^h?benSene 1'4 _Dlchlorobenzene 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene

1'2'4,5 -Tetrachlorobenzene' PentichlSrobSSzJSJ 2'5/2'4 _^^Jchl°r?benzeneTi^ac^^^^r"6 2 • 3{3 •4-DichlorotoluenenTrichloroethylene°t0^Uene

CFC materials actually treated:

r *?■, CC13F CFC-12 CCL2F2 HCFC-22 CHC1F2 HFC-32 ruovo- -CP3 HFC-Sf^L^^SOO CC1F2Sl%C:%£\52a H^4.

HCFC-22 Halon 1211 CBrClF2 Halon 1301 SrF3 H^lon 2402 CBrF2CBrF2 C'115 +





Actual/Potential

_ X Agriculture




_ _ Dry cleaners

_ _ Electroplating

_ _ Gasoline/service station




_ _ Machine shops



Others:

Actual/Potential




_ _ Petroleum refining and reuse


_ _ Plastics manufacturing


_ X Other organic chemical manufacturing




_ X Wood preserving

_ _ Uranium mining

Page No. 8 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0



New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site*


New BedfordCity: _State/Province: Massachusetts Country: USA_______




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




Others: __________Pu wastes extracted from harbor sludge by Resources Conservation Company'sBasic Extractive Sludge Treatment (BEST) process.











Wood preserving

Uranium mining





New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site



X CERCLA

X TSCA





X State: Masssachusetts

X Other: local (New Bedford)

_ Not Applicable




Media

_ Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

X Sludge

_ Solid







X Other:

kilograms(units)

_____(units)

(units)

Page No. 10 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0

> Vendor Name: COMMODORE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Technology Type: CHEMICAL TREATMENT - DECHLORINATION




Application Type






yther:




Research


Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 11 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0



New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site_________ *

Performance Data

Vendor Name: COMMODORE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Technology Type: CHEMICAL TREATMENT - DECHLORINATION


PCBs (in oil) 60,000 -70,000 ppm ND -<1 ppm

Page No. 12 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0





Nama: William Heins______________

Company: Resources Conservation Company

Address: 3006 Northup Way_________

Bellevue, WA 98004____________

Phone:

Vendor Name: COMMODORE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC

Technology Type: CHEMICAL TREATMENT - DECHLORINATION

Additional Project Information:con??SctorS£o?PSepro°ec?.1SSUed “ late 1356 by F°ster Wheeler'

prime

Page No. 13 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Marengo National PCB Demonstration

City: MarengoState/Province: Ohio Country: USA














_ Wood preserving

_ Uranium mining


_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




Others:PCb-contaminated soils and metal surfaces

Page No. 14 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Marengo National PCB Demonstration_____



CERCLA

X TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

_ Soil (in situ)

X Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







Other:

1400______ pounds ______ (units)

(units)

____ _____ (units)

Page No. 15 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Application Type






cher:



X TSCA Research and Development



Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 16 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Performance Data



PCBs (Aroclor 1254) PCBs (Aroclor 1260)

1000 -10,000 ppm ND1,000 -10,000 ppm ND

-<2-<2

ppmppm

Page No. 17 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0





Name: Winston Lue, Chemical Engineer

Company: U.S EPA

Address: 401 "M" Street S.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Phone:


Additional Project Information:A copy of the national operating specifications can be obtained by Commodore.

contacting

Page No. 18 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Calspan Corporation

City: Buffalo State/Province: New York ~Country: USA______




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




Others:











Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Demonstration project to demonstrate destruction of pound quantities of chemical warfare agents.

Page No. 19 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Calspan Corporation__________



CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

_ Not Applicable




Media

_ Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







X Other:

pounds(units)

_______________ (units)

_____(units)

Page No. 20 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Calspan Corporation____________

Application Type






cher:






Research

Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 21 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0

Vendor Names COMMODORE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES INCTechnology Type: CHEMICAL TREATMENT - DECHLORINATION



Calspan Corporation________

Performance Data


VX (chemical warfare agent) HD (chemical warfare agent) GB (chemical warfare agent) Lewisite

100 % ND -ND100 % ND -ND100 % ND -ND100 % ND -ND§

§§§

Page No. 22 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Calspan Corporation___________


Name: Dr. William Goldberg_____

Company: Teledyne Brown Engineering

Address: P.O. Box 070007_____

Huntsville, AL 35807-7007

Phone:


Additional Project Information:Contact Commodore or Teledyne Brown Engineering for available additional information.

Page No. 23 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0




Marengo__________________________________

City: MarengoState/Province: Ohio Country: USA____




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




Others:Maidthion - pure

Malathion is a standard surrogate for VX pesticide.











Wood preserving

Uranium mining

nerve agent and is a commonly-used

Page No. 24 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Marengo__________



_ CERCLA

_ TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

X Not Applicable

Media

_ Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

_ Solid







X Other: pure liquid




pounds(units)

_____(units)

____ _(units)

Page No. 25 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Marengo________________________

Application Type






/ther:






Research


Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 2 6 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Marengo____

Performance Data

Contaminant Untreated Concent, Treated Concent

Malathion - pure 100 ND -ND

Page No. 27 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Marengo _________ ___ _______


Name : Dr. William Goldberg ________ _______

Company: Teledyne Brown Engineering

Address: P.O, Box 070007_________

Huntsville, AL 35807-7007

Phone:


Page No. 28 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Site Name or Industry Type if Client Identity Confidential

Confidential______________________

City: Marengo_______State/Province: Ohio Country: USA




_ Agriculture



_ Coal gasification

_ Dry cleaning

_ Electroplating





_ Machine shops




Others











Wood preserving

Uranium mining

Selective destruction of R-22 in R-12 with full recovery of R-12.

Page No. 29 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Confidential_____________



CERCLA

TSCA





_ State:

_ Other:

X Not Applicable


Media

_ Soil (in situ)

_ Soil (ex situ)

_ Sludge

Solid




_ Off-gas generated from aP^"iroary treatment technology



X Other: R-12




pounds(units)

_____ (units)

____________ (units)

Page No. 30 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Confidential___________________

Application Type






yther:






Research


Cost: Units: Total:

Page No. 31 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Confidential

Performance Data


R-22 (chlorodifluoromethane) 7 -10 ND -<0.3 %

Page No. 32 of 4211/04/97

VISITT 5.0



Confidential____________


Name: James DeAnqelis__________________

Company: CORT_________ ___________

Address: 1487 Delashmut___________

Columbus, Ohio 43212

Phone:


Additional Project Information:Parties interested in additional information on this project should Commodore directly. contact

Page No. 33 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Abel, Albert E.

Title:

PCB Destruction in Soils using Solvated Electrons

Journal/Conference:

unpublished - presented to the American Institute of Chemical Engineers

1995 Summer National Meeting - Boston MA_________

NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):Date: August 1995

Page No. 34 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Abel, Albert E.

Title

Solvated Electron Chemistry Achieves Breakthrough Waste DetoxifiraMon

Date: September 1995 NTIS/EPA Document Number(s)

Page No. 35 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Abel, Albert E., and Marc W. Abel

Title:

Commercial Systems for Selective and Full Destruction of CFCs and Halons

Journal/Conference:

unpublished: presented at the International CFC and Halon Alternatives

Conference. Washington DC____________

NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):Date: October 1995

Page No. 36 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0



Author(s):

Abel, Albert E.

Title:

Solvated Electron Chemistry and the Destruction of Chemical Warfare

Agents ____________

Journal/Conference:

unpublished: presented to the workshop on Advances in Alternative

Demilitarization Technologies - Reston, Virginia________

NTIS/EPA Document Number(s):Date: September 1995

Page No. 37 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




$ NA to $ NA per

Price estimates shown above do not always include all indirect costsSfS?SsidualslthFo?entment' SUCh.as excavati°n, permits and treatment or residuals. For price comparisons, users should make certain thatvendors provide estimates based on comparable remediation activities


_5

_6

4



Quantity of waste



Cherecteristics of residual waste

Labor Rates

Others

_3

2

Moisture content of soil

Site Preparation

Waste handling/preprocessing

Amount of debris with waste

Characteristics of soil

Utility/Fuel rates

VISITTSnroaramr^o??ted rJference A9ent 313 soil decontamination systems.

Iltnlnl*a£^“r^drtSac£ol^W - discuss more

Page No. 38 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




san?les received for treatability studies are logged in and inventoried by matrix type, suspected contaminants, and gross weight The sampies are then tested for the presence of the stated target contaminants, contaminant levels, pH, and moisture content.

Typically 100 to 200 grams of soil are treated at the bench-scale The sampies are placed into the treatment vessel, mixed with anhydrous ammonia for five minutes at room temperature, and then treated by adding an appropriate ammount of calcium or sodium to the ammonia/soil slurry. The slurry iscomnlSteUntiiira?l C°?dUCt^itY °f th® slurry indicates that the reaction is complete, typically less than 45 seconds. The slurry is then transferred toan ammonia/soil separation vessel where the ammonia is removed from the soil.

soil is removed from the separation vessel as a dry cake, placed in asa^pl® c°ntamer, sealed, shaken, (to insure a homogenous mix), and sent

to an outside laboratory for analysis.

sample8' in thS f°rm °f 3 Written reP°rt' are directed to the sender of the



Page No. 39 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




Pilot-scale soil decontamination system

ewatenng is normally unnecessary, except with extremely wet soils1'

TijL,f011 is Place5 directly into the treatment vessel, which resembles a

“alogenated organict0

au IoSdrobjeotsn?fSrdt^na?/t”Scia/S?;1 3e?a5ation vessel, leaving behind

inch are dU4ed and^rn^^h^faoi^êd^S SSSJ5TX&.untU Sat of SeSSoAiahLareSSd!S ^rsâratSîSthlS1 S ? dUguid.

the soil and drivina off t-h*» rpmain^n ne seParator 1S then rotated, warmingalong with the which ia collectel,

■ ~*'S. seParated from the ammonia for return to the cleaned soil Th*> ammonia is returned to the main ammonia storage tank for Suse




X Other: Technology provided through joint venture and

Page No. 40 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0



0 Planned/in design


1 Constructedc


X Transportable

_ Fixed

In situ



100_________ to 600 pounds/batch

Can you conduct pilot-scale treatability studies waste at your location? Yes on some types of


Quantity of waste needed for pilot-scale treatabil

500 ______ to 4,000

ity study :

pounds____

Number of pilot-scale studies conducted sources or sites : 9

on wastes from different

Page No. 41 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0




CFC Destruction System

In September-, 1996, a full-scale CFC destruction system will be transported tolasrquarter^f^gg^^Th11 b® Pâced in ful1 commercial operation in theof CFC p^ h! V h systam' designed to handle between 50 to 100 poundsL of CF? LS f?ing ?Vhe Specific feed' will destroy essentiallyall types or CFC materials including the halons. *

CFCs will be transported to the facility in 1,000 pound containersrSf?iSeJJtiSn Tnh1■b® îmited to removal of any significant quantity of retrigeration lubricant prior to treatment.

whichônt^n^ro °f. fleeting the CFC material into the treatment vesselp^cess SoLSês a?nroLC? m ?r SO?ium dissolved in anhydrous ammonia. CFct f°2 temperature (70 degrees Fahrenheit) and at 100

. Jid h i 9enfted essentially instantously and the resulting>ride and fluoride salts are removed for disposal. 9

units f*re Planned for operation in the United States and other countries as the CFC destruction market develops.

Commodore presently has designed and built two full-scale CFC separation systems which are presently in commercial operation in Marengo, Ohio.

i^.Presently completing construction and testing of the CFC destruction system described above. full-scale

fSndsîe0nso^TSâiini?i“es^^®n/Plannin3 ^ * 5 - 10 '«/*•**

Page No. 42 of 4211/04/97 VISITT 5.0





X Other: Technology provided through joint venture and license agreements principally.


_ Transportable X Fixed _ in situ

Location of fixed facility: City: Sidney, Australia________ State: _

fJlll"scfle cleanups initiated or completed by this firm using this technology: _____o


1 Planned/in design

1^ Under construction

2 Constructed

Capacity range: 5 to 10_____________________ tons/batch


For equipment manufacturers - estimated or actual number of full-scale cleanups by other firms using this equipment:

Commodore Environmental Services, Inc. Chonical Treatment - Dechlorination

9r To \fent System


semspub.epa.govecology and environment, inc. international specialists in the environment cloverleaf...

Documents