NCD980602163_19831201_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_OTA Review of Missouri Dioxin Task Force Recommendation Concerning Management of Contaminated Soil-OCR

A l '
Staff Memorandum
OTA REVIEW OF THE MISSOURI DIOXIN TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
CONCERNING THE ~.ANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
Industry, Technology and Employment Proqram
Office of Technology Assessment
United States Congress
December 1983
This Memorandum has neither been reviewed nor approved by the
Technology Assessment Board.
believes it possible to devise an intensive one year technology evaluation
program to better decide the relative merits of (a) storage followed by
treatment at some later date and (b) proceeding directly to treatment, without
interim storage for the bulk of the soil. The costs of the one-year
evaluation program would be small compared to the total costs of either
strategy, and if the program were successful in providing a treatment
technology, a great deal of money could be saved while incurring at most a
small delay in the completion of cleanup.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. The recommendation for secure storage, initially in a concrete bunker
or vault and later in an above ground landfill, has not been based on detailed ·
technical and economic ~nalyses which allow a comparison of alternatives with
regard to technical feasibility, short-term and long-term costs, times for
implementation, environmental protection, and risks.
2. There appears to be a recognit_ion and ·a commitment that interim
storage must be followed by some permanent solution to the problem such as
destruction or detoxification treatment of the contaminated soil. However, if
this is the case, then it might be more cost-effective in the long-term to
meet the primary goals of protection of human health and the environment by
(a) continuing with immediate, emergency actions where appropriate, (b)
embarking on a high priority program for evaluating, choosing, and using a
permanent solution, and (c) eliminating interim storage either altogether or
for the bulk of the material destined for the second, large storage facility.
3. The costs for the proposed two stage interim storage approach are
likely to be substantially greater than early estimates. Under the best of
-2-
,
conditions, even the interim storage approach is estimated by the Task Force
to take five years to implement. Costs for construction, excavation,
transportation, restoration, leachate collection, and monitoring co1,1ld reach
$200 million. Moreover, it could take substantially longer to implement this
storage program if there is controversy over siting the facilities.
4. There are several technologies for a permanent solution that are
promising even though they have not yet been fully proven. Available
information indicates that during a one-year period a-nd for a cost to
government of perhaps s 1 · to $2 million it would be possible to narrow the
choices down, obtain further experimental, field, and economic data, and
decide whether a permanent solution is feasible and justified by .tJ:ie results
of the evaluation program. This a proach offers the potential benefit of
saving the substantial costs of interim storage without imposing significantly
greater health risks or waiting periods for complete implementation. This
approach would also provide a start for tackling the widespread, national
problem of soils contaminated with organic toxic chemicals by performing tests
and obtaining information tha·t could greatly hasten the development and use of
treatment and destruction technologies. If this approach were to be adopted,
it would be reasonable to consider having EPA assume major responsibility for
funding, organizing, and operating the intensive technology evaluation program
for the following reasons: (a) benefits would accrue to the Federal Superfund
program (at present there is no substantial Federal program for evaluating and
aiding the development of promising new technologies for treatment or
destruction of contaminated soil); (b) the high costs for storage or treatment
will be mostly borne by the Federal program in any case; and (c) the greater
technical capabilities of EPA could be brought to bear on the issue; also,
EPA's Science Advisory Board could act as a peer review group for this effort.
-3-
j I
I •
S. ·OTA identified five, markedly different approaches that could be the
focus of an intensive technology evaluation and demonstration program. The
possible alternatives for a permanent solution. that appear promising include
two technologies that were not evaluated by the Task Force and whose costs
might be relatively lower:
(a) a new very high temperature form of thermal destruction that appears
to be extremely effective while greatly reducing problems of air emissions and
toxic solid residues and that could be used onsite;
(b) a new chemical treatment or fixation approach that could be applied
onsite and that has been found in some applications to be effective in
encapsulating, immobilizing, and stabilizing toxic organic chemicals~
In addition, of those technologies that were brought to the attention of
the Task Force, there were three that appear promising technically and
economically but which require some type of demonstration project: (a) onsite
photodegradation, ultraviolet degradation, or photolysis treatment; (b) onsite
sodium reduction treatment; (c) onsite critical fluid extraction. To properly
evaluate the effectiveness of these or other technologies, it is necessary to
have standards for acceptable levels of dioxin remaining in specific types of
areas after treatment, and in any residues resulting from treatment
operations.
BACKGROUND
In a request to OTA of November 2, 1983, Congressman Robert A. Young
asked for a "comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness and engineering
feasibility of the (Missouri Govenor's) Task Force's proposal" for secure,_
interim, and central storage of Missouri's soil contaminated with dioxin.
-4-
TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES FOR A PERMANENT SOLUTION
l . '
The purpose of thls section is to briefly discuss five potential
permanent solutions to Missouri's contaminated soil problem. The Task Force
apparently did not know about the first two, but examined the latter three
(1). OTA is not suggesting that any of these five possibilities are proven"
technologies ready to be used today. All five options are designed to be
applied onsite and to result in treated, cleansed, or decontaminated soil
which could then be left at the site, perhaps covered with fresh soil. OTA
does not find that a number of other technologies, which were brought to the
attention of the Task Force, offer substantial near-term opportunities for
dealing with the Missouri problem. The issue of how . to deal wlth
uncertainties about these alternatives, tnrough further examination and data
gathering, and the need to obtain an expedient and effective solution to the
State's problem is dealt with from · an institutional perspective in the
concluding section of this memo.
1. New High Temperature Destruction
Building on a previous base, the J. M. Huber Corp. of Borger, Texas ls
rapidly developing a mobile soil detoxification plant using a novel high
temperature, fluid wall thermal destruction system. With their present plans
and a $10 million program aimed particularly at contaminated soils, they might
have operating unlts by late 1984 or early 1985. The technology is ultrahigh
temperature pyrolysis. Operating at temperatures of more than 4,OOQOF, the
equipment is far more capable of complete destruction of organic toxic
1. Nor were these two specific technologies considered in the
recent CH2MHill report.
-12-
chemicals than current forms of incineration which operate at about 2,3000F.
At 4,0000F, even in the absence of oxygen, destruction is more complete than
at lower temperatures, and fewer products of incomplete combustion, which may
. themselves be toxic, are formed. Thus toxic emissions are reduced and solid
residues are less likely to be contaminated with dioxin. Recent trial burn
tests for PCB destruction in a pilot scale unit have yielded positive
results. in a letter to OTA, the company has claimed that, although more
developmental work is necessary, there is a strong likelihood that their
technology could lead to total costs in the $185 million to $285 million range
for ·treating the 500,000 tons of contaminated soil in Missouri (i.e., $370 to
$570 per ton). Moreover, the time for demonstrating the technology, building
operating units, and treating contaminated soil at a number of sites might be
no longer than the five years currently anticipated for the storage
approach.
t
-13-