NCD980602163_19810201_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Power article - Disposing safely of PBCs-OCR

Pollution control
Dispos·ng safely of PCBs:
·-.. ~i•t.:~p . #(;·.,:'.• tf· ·•J.f
"Ftl'~i ha ~
ilt iii
W a· 's available, what's on the way .Ji:;;;~;
•;;, !!I PCB accumulations are reaching critical proportions. Only a handful of EPA-approved
landfills exist, and incinerators are meeting local and regulatory opposition.
But chemical methods that safely decompose the pollutant are on the horizon
By Leo Weitzman, Acurex Corp, and Leslie Pruce, Assistant Editor
Polychlorin:ited biphenyls (PCBs) have
been outlawed by EPA for several years
now. However, PCBs are still around.
There are some 42,000 indoor PCB-
insulated transformers still in service,
not to mention the ever-mounting piles
of PCB-contaminated wastes around the
US. Clearly, the situation has reached
critical proportions.
Although a PCB-insulated transform-
er may be kept in service until the end of
its normal life, trouble begins when the
unit must be scrapped, or when a rebuild
is needed, or when there is an accidental
spill. Regarding disposal, there are two
kinds of PCB wastes, as defined by
EPA:
■ High level,. with PCB concentra-
tions of 500 ppm or more.
m Low level, with PCB concentrations
50 to 500 ppm.
Until recently, PCB wastes containing
less than 50 ppm were exempt from
regulation. This is presently being chal-
lenged in court (see box).
At present, high-level PCB wastes
can't be destroyed legally, thanks mainly
to government indecision. The only com-
mercial disposal technique now available
for PCB materials is in EPA-approved
landfi lls, only eight of which exist in the
US. This is woefully inadequate for the
amount of PCBs in existence. The elec-
tric utility industry, as principal user of
PCB materials, has ·been severely affect-
ed.
Whatever the details of your system, if
you own PCB-filled transformers it will
pay you to keep a close watch on devel-
opments in disposal techniques. To help
you find answers, here is a review of the
major PCB-disposal processes that are
available today, or that may be available
in the near future, for both low-level and
high-level wastes.
Incineration presents problems
Although EPA considers incineration
of PCBs in a high-temperature furnace
to be a viable disposal technique, no
commercial units have been granted per-
mits to date. Four companies, however,
78
do have EPA approval to destroy their
own PCBs: General Electric Co's Water-
ford (NY) plant and Tennessee-Eastman
Co's Kingsport (Tenn) facility have fed-
eral approval to burn high-level PCBs,
and two utilities, Baltimore Gas & Elec-
tric Co and Potomac Electric Power Co,
have EPA's O.K. to burn their own
low-level PCB mixtures.
Several companies are seeking to set
up commercial PCB incinerators. Peer-
less Cement Co wants to burn PCBs in a
Detroit (Mich) cement kiln, but, not
surprisingly, the project has run into
intense neighborhood opposition.
Other companies seeking EPA permits
for high-level PCB incinerators include
Energy Systems Corp (Ensco), El
Dorado, Ark, and Rollins Environmental
Inc, Deer Park, Tex.
Test burns have been conducted at
both plants, and both appear able to
meet the stringent EPA standards that
require destruction of 99.9999% of the
high-level PCBs fed to them. However,
problems have postponed startup at these
sites several times. Preliminary cost esti-
mates for incineration of PCBs range
between $6 and $12/gal. ·
Another incineration system involves
burning PCB mixtures in a diesel engine
and cleaning up the exhaust gases to
recover usable hydrochloric acid. Ac-
cording to D&D Disposal Co, the Cana-
dian firm that developed the process,
destruction efficiencies of 99.998% were
achieved. D&D's US licensee, EOI Inc,
Washington, DC plans to mount diesel
engines on trailers and take them to
PCB-storage sites. Mobile systems, of
course, offer the advantage of avoiding
some of the local opposition that fre-
quently plagues fixed-site operations.
Chemical solutions on the way
Clearly, incineration is far from the
ideal answer for PCB disposal. Intense
efforts are now going on to find a better
solution. Chemical-treatment method,-
that neutralize PCBs are now emerging
as the most promising.
But despite the wide variety of work in
al.i ,,, ,. me ~~:c~:~~~ ~r::ia ~::ie ~~;1~n~~~~~f a::::~ _·:_!_-t:_:,~
7
1·,f ·::_~_t_~._:_-·_l_'.·•.•··.l•; f;:
Little commercial activity is expected 7rt" or :,,
until EPA issues guidelines for evaluat-1 . •
ing chemical detoxification methods for ~-: .. _ and :
ha~~~?s
0
~o
5
o::~t;;~ ~~~~~i;:e:~c~rmeth-. ~ ;_:_}_\ :;t·
ods available for PCB destruction and t·. stor.,
their applicability to the treatment of -~·i\, siti,· :· :?~~~::~:t:z~~:::~:f i,:f ·::"; :. __ r'._;_:_i:_:_·:_~-~-:' .. ~:::::
method developed by Goodyear Tire & • .• fore.
Rubber Co, Akron, Ohio. Briefly, the t , ment
Goodyear method uses a bcomkmercial · f:•.:_:_,_.'._,_:_:::.
1
·_'.·-· intF1:0i,,. metallic-sodium reagenc to rea apart :;-.
the very stable PCB molecule, rearrang-:.3, • ccssc·
ing it to form other chemical compounds ~::t ,· a war,
that arc considered harmless and emi-;,t,:_,:_,t: . ing m
ronmentally safe. Note that, to cherni-. risk f
cally destroy the PCB molecule, it is not f,;;,: •·-_ ,
necessary to break down the biphenyl ',; ... · r,;,~ ;
structure completely. Researchers have ;,~, },' F1:.·
found that the degree of toxicity, as well ,.-. l" ~-.
i~;f f if if::f ~~~ii[f ~'.~~g _-._f_._i_l.~_:,:_~-'-·.,:_•· ~~~.
sodiu~~irale~e .. -~-~r-~hy_91:Q[~_r_a~-~·. k;; adr;
the Goodyear process strips-away chlo-•~·:~. /,~}gar.
rine atoms from the PCB molecule, thus M :::_:· rlf_:. disi.
reducing its toxicity. · ~\' t:~, i
Last year, Goodyear used this proces; ft:/.-· ·,iOc1
to treat over 40,000 gal of PCB-contam.i-~"'.\ f,.i:.,111e
nated heat-transfer fluids. Typically, t~~\/ rs;1h1i1
PCB content was reduced from 82 ppm r-s,:_-.;~ t.[l ieve
to less than 10 ppm-well below EPA',. 'f;;{,·. ~-em·
current 50-ppm limit. The wastes, con• ~/ · \.iso '.
sisting of non halogenated polyph~nyu · i\-t', -Ition: ft{ .. ~ t,, ..
;~~eds~1i~:i ~:~o;:~:;et~~t u::!~ly dis-t;f,~_-_:.'._>, t_:.'._._~.:.•:l~~~tti'..·
Goodyear is not interested in commer-,. • F ...
cially developing the technology itself, w -~!...-, · t;;v.:ilu,
it has made its neutralization chemistry f;': ·. f;;Su:haw
public. As a result, several companies are ii:,:~· L-~)utt.,
developing similar processes, including Jf > f:f-torrn
~~~;~i~~:;t~;n~~~~~~~t/n1h~cn~~~~ tff\ n~;;r~
difference between these processes and ,:,:,, · r-·";': ardo·
Goodyear's approach is the substitution j!-t :.;: i~ttmcJ
of proprietary compounds for naphtha• :1:is:-·; ~~rm,
lene. This was necessary because EPA .li/;,,. · ,. ·•~·
has classified naphthalene as a priority
pollutant.
According to manufacturers, this
chemical process has important advan-
tages over other methods of disposal,
including incineration. Chemical dispos-
al, they assert, is safer environmentally,
since it is performed in a totally enclosed
liquid system at room temperature and
·pressure. Also, valuable transformer oils,
contaminated with PCBs, are not burned
·up and wasted, but rather are cleaned for
·reuse, free of PCBs.
Another advantage: Disposal can usu-
ally be accomplished on site, with a
mobile unit, precluding unnecessary han-
dling of the dangerous substance. Units
are currently available that can be
moved directly to contaminakd trans-
formers, capacitors, PCB-storage areas,
or anywhere PCBs are located.
These processes can handle both high-
and low-level PCBs. Problems may arise,
however, when waste oil has sat in stor-
age awhile. Bear in mind that oil in
storage can have highly variable compo-
sitions. Contaminants such as water and
organic acids make PCBs from this oil
harder to destroy than those from oil
taken directly from transformers. There-
fore, storage oil may require pretreat-
ment to neutralize contaminants that
inhibit the dechlorination process.
For most chemical engineers, the pro-
cesses described above are routine. Be
aware, however, that all reactions involv-
ing metallic sodium reagents have a high ruk factor. Sodium can react· violently
with water, air, halogenated materials,
such as Teflon, polyvinyl chlorides, and
even C01. But perhaps the most signifi-
cant problem with the process involves
the rapid generation of hydrogen that
occur.; when sodium makes contact with
water. For this reason, cu,: must be
taken to ensure that no ai1 enters the
PCB-conversion reaction vessel.
Despite the problems, these processes
are inching closer to commercialization.
Last October, Sunohio demons-trated its
first large-scale neutralization unit for
EPA officials in Massillon, Ohio. In one
test, transformer oil contaminated with a
low level of PCB-255 ppm-showed a
concentration of only I ppm after being
run once through the chemical process.
In another test, pure PCBs were
destroyed at the rate of 150 ml/min.
Next month Acurex will demonstrate its
process, at a midwestern utility's storage
site.
While the Sunohio and Acurex pro-
cesses appear capable of reducing the
PCB content of oils to less than 50 ppm,
here is a rundown of some other pro-
cesses being developed:
II Atlantic Research Corp, Alexan-
dria, Va, is testing a prototype unit
scaled for field treatment of contami-
nated transfer oils. This process uses
ultraviolet light and a reducing agent-
hydrogen gas is currently being used~to
destroy the PCBs.
II Lockheed Missile & Space Co, Sun-
nyvale, Calif, is studying a microwave
plasma process for detoxifying PCBs and
::J?l~~~1f~}~f1-i1;~?11:w?;?~'''.s~f;,.-z:r.::;~:~K~~?~;:frfZ!JI(~~~~::?~ .· .. , .. fed_eral regulatlons_,that -attect P,CBs ,-_,1: .. ~1>.'c"''.:~.--.~-,i:,,:i.-; .• ,,.,~;"i
f /~:,O,fS~-~r.1,;~\~:_tj~_~ti~\~ff 6-)\(-)'·}&'(:.! ,;.:1ii :~(, <1~{~.~ ~ ·. ·;) ~:'~'-·,:i~}:r:~-:,~:~_;-~i •;~;' ~--;!-~'.:;{! ~ li_~ p~~?. >:.(:•,::~··tr~· ;;~f~~1
: , . .t.l;he -Toxlci: Substance 'Control • Act ,of ;·'._fluids .. :; Many ,, such·· ·units,. have : been j;,}
: (r:1.976 ff-'?CA) ·specificall/prohlblts man--,/found : to·:be. tainted.·. with.I pCBs,·, and• ;,;j
. f.~lactu(e ·J of ~:P_CB~ ,".and·~~thelr; 1 use:; In . .:' must. now. be reclassified_ as.· PCB~con-;:,;1
:/{almos(all ,nonenclosed'.°appllclitlons. In . \tamlnated ' transformers> Here's ·,how ·:,j
::~-cjd1t,i~_r{;tl)_e-r~~lat1cint:set.very.~trln~ / .~PA classifies transfcmners: · .·> •;;:'.;;i<_l~-i;_;{J
; ·:; gent"c_rules :_for.<_st9rage, s;shlpplng,, and :,,.:,0; PCB tranaformers are those contain-: ; -~
. ·;"'dls~sal~or'.i?cs:wastes;/ir.~!/L;.;{~>ci::?{1n1i"11ulds · with. PCB . conc'entratlons . of }.0~
_,· .... 4~•;1 --~ ...... ~· ~,-, ~-. , ••• "..i' :·: -~ ;; ... . : . . .. . ·., ·i'f "•~T9-:£CCl_mpllc_ate.~Jhe·~•-pr_oblem,!1last ;-,~,500 :ppm· _or, more.-Thls:Jncludes .most,-;~~
; ... ~oct?bei:;;th~_:USiqo~-rt( of. Appeals .-,or ;;;:1,ansformars ::that J,havs '.been:· drained \M
j.}1e;91s!~lc~:;9('?°1u~bla~lrjtormed:EP"?'~nd refllled·wlth a ;non~PCB fluid:: P.CB_,•:~!
, :~!!J~t·:\l.s ,;regwa11o~S1ry"!~~t!,l[1Clude -_l?w: *;_;tran,~forrpe_rs must. ~e.l_abeled as such, \-U
. ;_;)r,:e\ ~tf~s. :-that;;w~re.:pre~_lousiy . ex-'\ and. ·.they ,:cannot~-be ·dismantled,. or.:;,'.~
i ,:;~P,_!.-:-:;Taterlal!·'.con,~~l~lpg;_less sthari _,~: rebuilt. ,T9 scrap a PCB transformer; lt }}j
.:~~o(JJ PP!71:fce:3s.i}fhe~1c.~urt-,also1;ques~ ;':.;,,must.;be. either. Incinerated or--flushed .·, .i
· ·>~t!oned. ·'.E~A'.s:-'appcoval ot;certaln .-PCB '?°with · a '.solvent, for ~.18 hours (then· the 'r;~
' j uees ~_ln ~iptallyfericlosec(appllcations, :·,_.solvent must be disposed of In an lncin-:~c,1 ' ),. :-, .. ,... . -. . . . . . . . ,, ... : . . .• ;
/.su_ct) as_.transforr:ners: .What this m.eans -·;-'erator).1;EPA > requires, 99.9999% :de-.>.:·~
, •/ii3)hat;;Jn_•·a_11. llkelihood/an'~yeri·1arger ·'\struction efficiencies: when _deallng with i ,if . f p1.u·0.1a{of,} P'?B::°contaml(lat.e~;:_oll·:will : {~CBs over 500 ppm .• ,,;:./:;;,,:;:-//''""\,,:,~:\~
·,have to be·treated·orstored.ln the near ;_,, 1 :PCB-contaminated· transformers <.,,,,
. :·;ii.:(µ_r_ei(;raisl~g'•_the_' p;sslbill.tytof,)ransa /.are ·.those·. containing between 50 and:~i~ 'I ... ', ,~ • . ' -···u· .' . ,._.,1,, .·,•,. • .... _ ~ '_ ' .. ' '\·" -. • •• ,., . j J'.?,<;~!!r:~U;~~?-rt.ages~~t;~;_t~:b:i;:"',\<'i".{,;f 500 ppm:They may b;, rebullt,·but they··;.15
. ,::,.~T,SCA: expl1cltlyJorblds,waste gener-,. ,must. be labeled as PCB-contaminated .... A _;d ... -r .,.. · ·. · ., · · .,0 ,. • ' • 7 .· ' . · _) · '}.il,to~·!(om. transferriog .liability. for .haz-•,,;:·Fluld.;from them can only be disposed .::?1
: :{a_r5<?UJ j 018_l~~!als,):.J~-'!ay)llabllity ex-·.,; of 'ln'.,a · hlgh~t~mparature,, incinerator, :,:1
; !(Jen~~;.evan~tci"owners~o.f qll-fitled trans-•<boiler, ,··or , In , an :·approved :.chemical •,·,:
~~~~!r;~~J;;~~~~~.~1ie:Z:~!)t.~~:~f;iJl:,t;;;,t:~~:~~i11~~:'.~i;iJ};:.:~
-~. Fob,uary 1981
other organic chemicals. So far, no tests
have been run with PCBs, but good
results have been achieved with similar
materials.
a Verlac Chemical Corp, Jacksonville,
Ark, has found that a chemical destruc-
tion process it is developing for dioxin
also works for PCBs. Destruction effi-
ciencies of 99.94% have been achieved in
the lab. Work has stopped, however,
pending clarification of regulations.
• Rockwell International Inc, Pitts-
burgh, Pa, is working on destroying
PCBs and other toxic organic chemica ls
in a bed of molten salt. The process,
similar to incineration, has achieved
destruction efficiencies of 99.994% on
PC13s at temperatures of 1380 to I 650F. ■ The Franklin Institute, PhiladelJ~
phia, Pa, is working on a neutralization
process using a reactive sodium glycolate
oxygen solution to destroy PCBs. De-
struction levels of 99.999% have been
reported.
• Westgate Research Corp, Los An-
geles, Calif, has proposed use of ultravio-
let light and ozone to destroy PCBs in
aqueous systems. However, because the
suspended solids likely to be encountered
in actual systems could prevent the ultra-
violet light from penetrating, work did
not continue.
■ Oak Ridge National Laboratories,
Oak Ridge, Tenn, chemists are studying
adsorption and extraction processes as
possible methods for PCB destruction.
Preliminary results indicate that PCBs
can be extracted from contaminated oils
using a suitable solvent, such as furfu-
ral.
Offshore disposal promising
Besides land-based incinerators and
chemical techniques, the federal govern-
ment and private companies are looking
into incineration offshore, aboard a spe-
cially designed ship and on an aban-
doned oil platform. Three times in the
last six years, EPA has permitted incin-
eration of hazardous wastes at sea. ·
All ocean disposal has involved the
incinerator ship Vulcanus, operated by
Oceanic Combustion Services. Destruc-
tion efficiencies of at least 99.995% have
been reported. From data collected in
the Gulf of Mexico while the ship was
operating, EPA found no harmful effects
on marine life from the hydrochloric acid
released as a byproduct of the thermal
destruction process .
Recently, At-Sea Incineration Co,
Greenwich, Conn, presented to EPA
plans td operate an incinerator ship out
of Port Newark, NJ. However, problems
still have to be worked out. Siting for a
land-based support system remains an
issue. Also, preliminary estimates indi-
cate that the cost of offshore disposal of
PCBs is about double the cost of land.-
based incineration. 11
POLLUTION CONTROL 79