NCD980602163_19950609_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Comments on Technology Screening Process 1 June 1995-OCR

FROM NC DIU HAZ 6:R OUS WASTE 06.09.1995 14:5 3
s1jt~ ol'Nortti Corollna • • ~
D part~~"t :Of Environment, H 01th ur ,d f'rJatural Resources
DI sloh of Solid Woste Monogemant
i Ja t~ 8,:Hunt, iJr., Governor
Jo O!~on 8. Howes, Secretory
WIii am L. Mey~r. Director
T,O: Hope C. Taylor
,! I ! ! BiUMey~
June 9. 1995
sbn tt: ' Cominents on Technology Screening Press 6/1195
1.) C mrhunity Acceptability • The basis for acceptability and/or reJection should be based on
risks o some other scientifically measurable criteria. I think this wi}be relatively straight .
f~iwar • bµt it is esscnti~l :or political policy makers (th~ budget p es~) t~ ctew:ly understand
tl\at it n~t a; casual dec1s10n or choice. For example, high tempera incmeration may be •
etfeoti c·f?r PCB/Dloxin/Furan destruction but potential air releases my major risks. I also am
a~are at,flu1ding Will be state tax dollars. whlc~ are usually more c osely scrutinized than .
fQ<ieral d~Uars {espepially since we only cost share 10% for federal d llars). We must maintain
c~ibi it'ylwith the c)eneral Assembly on this criteria. •
: 1 •
' I 2,;) A ee;
3.•) A rec:
( Lo g term Effectiveness -This is a major -major criteria since it ll determine the
extent/ egroe of post detoxification state resources required f' or maint nance. If there is not a
si~nifi al'lt. reduction in risks and long term O & M. the incentive for ding detoxification wi(l
n~t be s ~trong.
5.) e
6.) e
7.!) e
8.l)
9) c;
I .
I 0.) tee. Also could use this weighing scale to both quickly screen vendors/technology to
mhlc.e a shdrt list and allow concentration on satisfactory or outstandirranked activity. There is
also fle ibility for the committee to define (to.~hateyer ex~ent _fu.~yg __ ) each of these factors.
· Poat•IC Fax Note 78 11 D•1• pa 1►
TD tJ
P, . B<>x 21687, Ralelgh. North Caollna 276
A~ Equal OpporturiHy Affirmative Action Erl Phone fl Phon.11
FaKII 7 $ _j 05 '
l I ..
p. 1
FROM NC DIU HAZEROUS WASTE 06.09.1995 14:54 ·o·. t'°'At : w,u, ~Ji.tsol1! : I
, I
Re>>'>; ; (3;11,e Hope C. ay1or
Environmental Technical Assistance
1590 J~ck Cle ent Road
Stent, NC 27581
LL/,f()Rr
6~-~-
DA TB ON TBCHNOLOG\' SCRE JUNB 1, 1995
;
~-.&Gi~lWll. A list of technology s
on m rgirut of the first ~ction of the Ap
used ln an 1BP A Feasibility Study for a Su
nlng alteria hav been proposed, baseli
11 draft from WM and those criteria
fund site remedi tton. These are:
' I .
1. ¢om ~lty acce~ti>lllty
2. ~xte t tjf prior experience with this tee ology at similar s tes
• ' : .
I
3. Shor term safety and effectiveness, pot tlal for worker e posure, planned and
unplan ed. releases.
4. J.,on . ,ejm effecf veness-exrent of redu Ion of ~xldty m blllty or vol um:)
5. Gen ratJon of residuals and degree of o -site management,
6. t'roj dea duration of full scale treatme t from present to tmpletlon
7. Av abhtty of pilot scale treatment edlately ~~~ ~t>\..,~
8. lmpl ~~n~abllity at Warren County sit , engineering feasi illty, infrastructure
reqldre •tjts, proximity of vendor ~utp ent
e* unit tr~ated, assuming slmilar nfrastructure costs
-----~ With ·e: excepti6n of #9, I would sugge t ranking each of ese factors on a scale
fro~ t as'. follows:
·2• tnar rially or conditionally acceptable
. I 3• ~atisf ctory
4• ~uts ~~ng
p. 2
•.
FROM NC DIU HAZERO S WASTE
I • : I .•
06.09.1995 14:54
2
selected for further cons! eration and lndu on in a second round
a total score among the to three and no crl eria evaluated as
~ th pJst eek I have reviewed materi s loaned by Shar n Rogers and Dave
Lo~ o the S~ erfµnd Branch concerning echnology saeeni g. Especially helpful
ls tl}e 1 3 ~:Eedl~tlon Technologi~ ning Mattix and !erence Guide, the
resqlt of a joint PA/ Air Poree project. nu is not up to date, of course, most
not~bly or ~ t , oJogy of recent vintage s ch as BCD. I ha.v requested
lnforma Q~ Yihfch tnay improve our ov iew of recent dev~opments from BPA's
Te4nol y mnrvat;ion Office and from th SITB program in l.inclnnati. The
gen~ral ors;nat (ff th.ts 1993 s·creenlng is qui e useful, however, and uses a very
si~lar 1st pf s·1eening criterja to that pro sed above, with ceml-quantltative
scale (B tter, A erase or Worse).
I
Wor ng ho~ the list of technologies i eluded in this vol e, I have
eli~at d froml.~etalled. screening all but ose which meet i.e following criteria:
al listed 1$ le«edtive with halogenated se •volatile compounr
b) Jo n t ~volj e in-situ pressure or high e~perature whic could damage the
lan~flll ontaln ent . .
c) +e f l~spte. ec}\nologles
Technol gies re alhlng to be screened in ude:
' I
' I
1) i .. sl 'tilode : a.Jation
2) -si ! ihe8a.lly enhanced seml•volati e extraction
3) lur IP,h~ blo)ogtcal treatment .
4) on d~Hed. s lid~. phase biological trea ent
S) Soil hing [
6) beh lo enation (glycolate)
7) ~h q ena_ti~n (BCD)
8) lv ~t Bx.tr ctlon
9) • w !f ~r tu~. thermal desorption
10) . Hi i inpe ature thermal desorption
11) I Inc ne alto •
I I • . I wo c:t ;pro , se using all information ailable to me by J ne 9 to screen these
tecbnol gl~s for all ;criterla other than #1, ommWlity Accep ability,and then
m~tln . 'o/ith all ln~rested members of e community befo the next Working
Group 'ting to describe . these technol es and assess their acceptability to the
comm I I.I\ o det to complete the scr lng process.
f g_,
p. 3
FROM NC DIU HAZERO S WA STE 06.09 .1 995 1s:00
!.
TWA 'N COUNTY -STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
EB, 1~ 5MEMO
EJ
Th re(ore, the Working Group must again decide definitively whether to abide by
pr~ ioµs p~icy and votes regarding moving the process forward, or to stop and
co sidpr th hutidreds of various approved an. d un-approved technologies that may be
av ilaqle. I ntU$t restate, that in good conscience, and according to best technical
opi 1i011s off Ysblf, and others on-staff and consulting with ECO,
tha • we cai?t endorse a feasibility type study of the universe of technologies, proven
an unprov9d, when we are faced ~th. an above federal limit dioxin contamination of
th g'r6und and surface waters at this site.
Th criteria presented are only useful in evaluating technologies, not vendors for the
pil t study. Should the Working Group decide to redirect its efforts towards obtaining
a CD ven or to implement the critical pilot study I believe that criteria similar to
th se rre8e~tcd in Table 1. included here, would be appropriate. Please note that
ve dor sete~tio11 criteria are almost universally given percentage weights. rather than
as gnj,d nur erlcal designations,
Pl as~ let mF know if I can be of further assistance in expediting the vendor selection
P!" e~s~ and th~ impl_ementation of the BCD pilot study that you have worked so
dtl ge~tly to acoomphsh.
ENVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLl.,\NCE
0 ROA Nl7.A TTON
P. 3
FROM NC DIU HAZEROUS WASTE
!,
'
06.09.1995 15:01
: J01 T WARREN COUNTY -ST.ATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
l J[ E 8, 1995 MEMO
: PA If~
le 1: BCD Pilot Study Suggested Vendor Selection Criteria
. I
V DOR SELECTION CRITERIA RELATIVE \VEIGHTING
D ,Jntdled E/tlct1CJ' of the proposod BCD
trea • e t on othet sites with geologic, soil and
wa c nditiona slmilar to those in Warren
cou ty. ! This crltctia shall encompass the
ext nt tifvcndor's prior experience with BCD.
P1<. raoHiJ,llan~ Hl.rto,y to include a full
d rl f on: of the yondor, and al.] parent and
off. h: t ot>mpanil:s in regard to violations of
an an all fcdoral environmental or fiscal
req ircrents. A lllstory of compliance in the
va 01)s 11ta~s "1\c~ the vendors have
per otnlcd ~jor 1ite remediations should also
ho u~red, This critorla cnoompassos safety
ekposw-e considerations.
I
o)ed Cbst of the pilot study.
i
S. Ii f u,dvantq1u Bu1mu1 Statu1 will •
be c:fit vendors who oan dcmonstrato that they
are midori\y or wqmcn owned businesses or
p : 1~ toftilize iSDBE companies as .
su dnµaelors fo~ this pilot study
i .
11 l ,I
. : I If l -
IN SELECTION DECISION
40%
30%
15 %
10%
S%
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 ROANT7.ATlON
P. 4