NCD980602163_19950620_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Memo from Hope Taylor to Working Group Subcommittee on Vendor Selection Criteria-OCR

.· SENT ~y : K i n k o ' s Cop i es
• OTHER AREA BRANCH OFFICES '
J
ASIIEVILLE
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
17 Bryson St.
Asheville, NC 28803
OIAPELHlll
Tel: [phone] .
FAX: [phone]
J J 4 W~t Franklin St.
Cha~I Hill, NC 27516
CHARLOTTE I -MIDTOWN
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
601 South Kings Dr.
Charloue, NC 28204
CHARLOTI'E Il • SOUTH PARK
Tel: [phone]
FAX [phone]
4722 Sharon R<l., Suite G
Charlotte, NC 28210
CHARLOrl'.E m -UNIVERSITY
1'el: [phone]
FAX [phone]
8215 University City filv<.J.
Charlotte, NC 28213
GREENSBORO
Tt+ (!)10) 273-5865
FAX: [phone]
'101 South Tall: St
Gref:!nsboro, NC 27403
GREENVILLE
Td: [phone]
FAX: (9 J 9) 830-470')
321 E.lst Tenth St.
Grcl'nville, NC 27834
RAl.F.IGH I
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
2316-106 Hill:;borough St.
Raleigh, NC 27607
• RALEIGHil
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
4112-132 Plc:1s:1nt Valley Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27612
RAI.EIGHID
Tel: [phone]
FA..'C: (919) 876•1960
908 Springfidd C:ommons Drive
R;ilt!igh, NC 27609
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
Td: [phone]
• • FAX: (919) 405-Hl39
Park \X.·est Crossing Shopping Clt.
4900 NC I lwy 55, Suite 40-1
Dltrlum, NC 2771.,
WINSTON-SALEM
,·~1; [phone]
FAX: (?10) 721-2441
232 s. Stratford Rd.
Thruw:ty ShoppinH Ctr.
Winston-S;ill:!m. NC 2710:-S
6-20-95 ;11:13PM; Kinko's Durham 1➔ 919 715 3605 ;# 1/17
Durham I kinko•s·
the copy center
610 Ninth Street
Durham, North Carolina 27705
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
. _ -.:.T~. 20 19'f ~
FAX#: 1l~-3~0S Date: 2;fJ (ff~
To: 'B: II N' f-e./ 1 Ca-cltru' v:~ 1 S·td2 ~0-Mfrl ;ff~ G
Company: ,Al {!_ -;;;; 11/Jf O :Y ...la_, :::~on~ ~ -;:;:;
Company: _____________________ _
'felephone:_.....,lo_. f_'f_-=-;).-=;)__.(,_7~----------
You should have received f 7 .pages (including this cover sheet).
Please call [phone] if this transmission is not complete.
INSTRUCTIONS/COMMENTS:
\
\
RATES: \
LOCAL & TOll FllliE FAX NUMBERS
Each Page .............................................. : ......... $1 .00
DOMES11C TRANSMISSION NON-J.OCAL
Each Page ........................................................ $2.00
INTERNATIONAL TRANSMISSIONS
First Page ......................................................... $9.95
Each Additional Page ...................................... $2.00
All RECEPTIONS
Each Page ........................................................ $1.00
.SEI\JT BY:Kinko 's Copies 6-20-95 ;11:13PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605:# 2/17
Hope C. Taylor
Environmental Technical Assistance to Communities
1590 Jack Clement Road
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Hope Taylor
Stem, NC 27581
TO: Co-Chairs of the Warren County-NC PCB Landfill Joint Working Group
All members of the -Vendor Selection Criteria subcommittee
This submission of a draft Technology Screening Report includes a brief
introduction to the methods used for screening, a description and evaluation of
each technology considered and, finally, some general recommendations on
technology selection to the Joint Working Group.
I hope that this draft report will be useful to the Joint Working Group and its
subcommittee as an overview of technologies available and their advantages and
disadvantages for use at the PCB landfill. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend
the June 22 meeting, due to a prior oommittrnent. However, I will be available to
answer any questions that I can about these technologies on June 21, from 4:30-6:30
PM at 919-684-2217, and again on June 22 from 1:00-3:00 PM at the same number.
If there is a consensus that finalizing this report would be helpful to the process of
expediting an RFP and other actions necessary to get pilot studies underway, I will be
glad to do so. Please select a near-term date (I would suggest a week or less from the
June 22nd meeting) by which all interested members of the Working Group can
send me comments (including increased weighting for such criteria as 1 and 4?) and
assessments of community acceptability for each technology. (Phone: [phone],
Teusdays, Thursdays and Fridays, or fax: [phone]) I will incorporate this
information and submit a final report within four working days.
Best wishes,
.. SENT BY:Ktnko's Copies 6-20-95 ;11:14PM Kinko's Durham 1~
TECHNOLOGY SCREENING: REMEDIATION OF THE
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
DRAFf REPORT, JUNE 1995
Screening Criteria
919 715 3605 ;# 3/17
At the June 1 meeting of the PCB Landfill Joint Working Group, proposed
screening criteria to be applied to potential remedial technologies for the landfill
were presented, along with a "short list" of technologies which met three minimal
criteria. Remedial technologies were retained for more detailed evaluation if they:
a) were considered potentially effective against halogenated semi-volatile organic
compounds in soil, b) did not involve high pressure, temperature or other stresses
which could effect the integrity of the landfill liners, and c) are considered in EPA
documents to be at the "full scale" level of development.
Comments were received from members of the criteria development
subcommittee by June 12 and discussed by phone, with special emphasis on reaching
a consensus on the meaning and use of criterion 1) Community Acceptability.
While this report will not evaluate technologies for that particular criterion, it was
an opportunity to clarify and define this parameter for later evaluation by
community members of the Joint Working Group.
One overall comment which had been received in response to the April 11 draft
criteria submitted to the subcommittee was that the technology should be approved
by EPA and the state of North Carolina. The technologies considered in this report
have all been sufficiently tested at the pilot scale to merit consideration by EPA for
full scale remediation at CERCLA hazardous waste sites. One of them, incineration,
is considered "conventional" for PCB treatments, as it has been applied numerous
times to similar sites. The other nine are considered "innova.tive11 and have widely
differing degrees of experience with actual soil clean-ups. Several, including BCD,
have only been used on a pilot scale, with no full-scale results yet available. Because
of the strong commitment to detoxification of the landfill, some technologies
should be considered only as part of a "treatment train", as they are only designed to
reduce the volume in which the contaminants are contained.
As a result of these comments and discussions and the availability of data in
technical documents obtained by June 15, the following criteria and methods of
evaluating them will be used:
1) Community Acceptability. It is my understanding that all subcommittee
members agree that this criterion shall be a subjective measure of the community's
overall perception of a technology, after having the opportunity to read a
description and evaluation of the technology as well as to ask questions of technical
advisors. The community's assessment of acceptability will be prominantly
_.SENT BY :Kinko'~ Coples Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605:# 4/17
3
included with any distribution of this technology screening information and will be
extremely important in selection of actual pilot study and full remediation vendors.
(Suggested ratings: 4 -outstanding; 3 •satisfactory; 2 -marginally acceptable; 1 -
unacceptable)
2) Extent of prior experience with this technology on soils at similar sites. (Rating
based on the number of sites with PCB or dioxin-contaminated soils which have
completed pilot or full-scale projecls with this technology. 4 -more than five sites; 3 -
three to five sites; 2· one to two sites; 1 -no sites using this technology.)
3) Short term safety and effectiveness. Includes potential for worker and
community exposure due to planned arid unplanned releases (excavation, gaseous
emissions1 solvents) during operation. (Rating: 4 -in situ and well-contained
process m: "closed loop" with essentially no chance of releases; 3 -technology
demonstrates very low release levels within regulatory limits; 2 -some releases
documented with technical improvements currently available; 1 -uncontrolled
releases possible.)
4} Long term effectiveness. Reduction of toxicity or volume of toxic contaminants.
(Rating: 4 -demonstrated ability to detoxify contaminants to at least 99% removal
level; 3 -demonstrated ability to detoxify contaminants to at least 95% removal
level, m: to reduce volume of contaminated soils to less than 30 % of original
volume as part of a "treatment train", with greater than 95% removal from
remaining fraction; 2 -ability to detoxify or concentrate contaminants to 90% level
or to higher levels under limited conditions; 1 .. technology generally not effective
on contaminants and under conditions at the Warren County Landfill.)
5) Generation of residuals and ability to handle on-site. (Rating: 4 -no residuals or
completely treatable on-site; 3 -small volume of residuals, predominantly treatable
on-site; 2 -moderate volume of residuals, mostly treatable on site at added expense;
1 -large volume of incompletely detoxified residuals.)
6) Projected duration of full-scale treatment. (Rating: 4 -less than six months; 3 -
six months to one year; 2 -one to two years; 1 -longer than two years.)
7) Availability of pilot scale treatment. (Rating: 4 -available to start immediately; 3 -
available to start within three months; 2 -available within six months; 1 -longer
than six months or unknown.)
8) Implementability of this technology at Warren County PCB Landfill. Number of
vendors available, technical impediments, extent of infrastructure requirements.
(Rating: 4 -more than three vendors available, no major technical problems
anticipated, system largely self-contained; 3 -two to three vendors, technical
problems are soluble with minimal expem,e and time, few unique requirements for
--~ENT BY:Ktnko's Coples 6-20-95 ;11:15PM Klnko's Durham 1➔ 919 715 3605:# 5/17
infrastructure support; 2 • one vendor available, technical problems may delay or
increase costs up to 25%; significant unique infrastructure support needed for this
technology; 1 -no vendors available; major technical problems, infrastructure
requirements too expensive or unobtainable at this site.)
9) Estimated cost per cubic yard of oontaminated soil treated. (Rating: the projected
cost range will be given and the mid-point of that range will be rated as 4 -less than
$100 per cubic yard; 3 -$100 to $300 per cubic yard; 2 -$.300-$500 per cubic yill'd; 1 -
greater than $500 per cubic yard.)
Technologies Evaluated
1) In situ biodegradation
2) Slurry phase biological treatment
3) Controlled solid-phase biological treatment
4) Soil washing
5) Dehalogenation (glycolate)
6) Dehalogenation (BCD)
7) Solvent extraction
8) Low temperature thermal desorption
9) High temperature thermal desorption
10) Incineration
For each technology, a general description, any suggestions for technology-specific
vendor selection criteria, a numerical evaluation of criteria 2 through 9 and a
swnmary rating {not including Community Acceptability) will be given. The report
concludes with some general recommendations based on these ratings and other
infomation obtained during the data search for this screening. Please note that
TI1ermally Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction, though included in the June 1 list of
technologies to be evaluated, has since been eliminated from this list. Upon closer
examination of the technology, it appears that temperatures approximating those
used in thermal desorption (30().. lQOOoF) would be required for successful removal of
semi-volatiles such as PCB's, making this in-situ technology potentially damaging
to the landfill containment.
SENT BY=Kinko's Copies 6-20-95 ;11:15PM Klnko's Durham 1~
IN-SITIJ BIODEGRADA TION
Description
• 919 715 3605 ;# 6/17
Generally, native micro-organisms (bacteria and fungi) which are already present
at a contaminated site and able to metabolize one or more of the toxic contaminants
are provided with nutrients via injections of groundwater, and other conditions
modified to speed up their growth, thus shortening the time required to detoxify the
contaminan~. This technology does not involve excavation, minimizing exposure
to soils, dust and air emissions. If successful in speeding up metabolism of t~xic
compounds to less toxic products, this is one of the least expensive technologies.
In the case of PCB'S) until recently considered considered "refractory" to
bioremediation, it is now known that the first metabolic step in detoxification must
be removal of the chlorine atoms from the aromatic rings under mearobic
conditionsl,2, The aerobic conditions usually applied in bioremediation encouraged
the growth of organisms which could not complete the detoxification until the
anearobic dechlorination is nearly complete. Although important progress has been
made recently in understanding degradation of PCB's in sediments3,4, and there is
evidence of natural dechlorination occuring at the Warren County site
(correspondence to S. Rogers, DSWM from J. Jones, EPA and F. Mondello, G. E.),
bioremediation of PCB's has generally been judged incomplete and/or too slow to be
practical for full-scale remediations.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 4
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicitj or volume 1
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 4
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 1
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 3
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 2
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated_soil: $2()..$100 4
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 22
_.SEI\JT BY:Klnko 's Coples 6-20-95 ;11:15PM Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605:# 7/17
SLURRY PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Description
Slurry phase methods involve biodegradation conditions similar to those
described in In-Situ Biodegradation, with the exception that the contaminated soils
are maintained in a suspended state in a solution of water and nutrients by a stirring
apparatus. Slurry phase treatment has been tried in-situ in river bottom sediments
'with limited success4, but is usually carried out in stirred tanks after excavation of
soils. This is the most frequently used method of bioremediation of PCB's (eight
sites), and shows some evidence of success at two sites, as indicated by its selection as
a full-scale remedyS. There is evidence at one site that dioxins are causing
interference with biodegradations.
Suggestions for technolo.gy-specific vendor selection criteria: bench scale treatability
studies must be performed by potential vendor before oonsideration for
performance of pilot study.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 4
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 3
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 2
s. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 1
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $100-$160 3
Summary scar~ (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 23
.. SENT BY:K! nko 's Cop! es 6-20-95 ;11:15PM Kinko 's Durham 1➔ 919 715 3605 ;# 8/17
CONTROLLED SOLID-PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Description
In the controlled solid-phase method of biodegradation, soils are excavated and
layered with soil amendments (nutrients, emulsifiers, etc.) in a large, shallow
containment with leachate collection systems and controlled moisture and
temperature6. The present landfill configuration would not be suitable and would
require construction of a new and larger oontainment area. Further, this method is
intended primarily for aerobic degradation, which has not been successful in
remediating PCB contaminated sites.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 2
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 1
s. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 1
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 2
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 1
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $100-$200 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 15
. SENT BY:Ktnko's Copies 6-20-95 ;11:16PM Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605;# 9/17
SOIL WASHING
Description
Soils are washed and scrubbed in a water-based solvent to remove contaminants
from the coarser particles in the soil and separated according to particle size. Present
saturation of landfill soils will help washin~ but waste water will need treatment.
Chlorinated semi-volatile organic compounds are adsorbed primarily to the clay and
silt particles ("fines") and to the surfaces of the coarser sand and gravel particles7.
This method can reduce the volume of oontaminated soils requiring detoxification
by concentrating contamination in the separated clay and silt fraction of the soil.
The coarse fraction can be used for backfill if decontaminated to target levels.
Soil washing could be used as part of a treatment train for detoxification of the
concentrated PCB's, potentially providing substantial savings in treatment costs.
One possible treatment train would include thermal desorption contaminants from
the separated soil fines, followed by dechlorination by BCD or another process.
Some thermal desorber designs are known to have problems with caking of high
clay/ silt soils, however, lowering the effectiveness of the treatment.
Suggestions for technolggy-§pecific vendor selection criteria: a) demonstrated ability
to remove contaminants from coarse fraction to target levels; b) suitable texture of
"fines" fraction produced for further detoxification treatments; c) experience of
vendor in coordinating volume reduction by soil washing with detoxification.
Evaluation
Criterion
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites
3. Short term safety and effectiveness
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management
6. Projected duration of full•scale remediation
7. Availability of pilot-scale study
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $170-$280
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32
Rating
3
3
3
2
4
4
4
3
26
.. SENT BY :Kinko 's Copies 6-20-95 ;11:16PM Kinko's Durham 14 919 715 3605 ;#10 /17
DEHALOGENATION (GL YCOLA TE)
Description
Soils are mixed with an alkaline polyethylene glycol (KPEG is the potassium
version) and heated in a batch reaction vessels. The PEG molecules replace the
chlorines on PCB's and dioxins to produce bi-phenyl compounds which are not
regulated as toxic by CERCLA, and probably more biodegradable in soils, but whose
toxicity has not been studied in detail. Waste water can be treated on-site by
conventional or innovative methods to remove any remaining organics before
release. Soil treatment is generally quite effective in reducing concentrations of
PCB's and dioxins to target levels. Treated soil is sometimes described as having a
texture similar to quicksand, unsuitable for backfilling on site.
This is generally a ,.stand-alone .. technology, but could be used on soil "fines"
obtained from a soil washing step, for example, or on the oil condensate from
thermal desorption, containing concentrated contaminants.
Suggestions for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: a) ability to control or
improve soil texture following treatment; b) willingness of vendor to test for toxicity
of reaction products.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 3
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 4
s. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 2
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 3
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $280-$700 2
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 24
-~ENT BY:KJnko's Copies 6-20-95 ;11:16PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605:#11/17
DEHALOGENATION (BCD)
Descrjption
Base Catalyzed Dechlorination was developed in EPA1s Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory and uses a somewhat simpler chemical process than the
APEG/KPEG type dechlorination8. Soils are treated initially with thermal
desorption in the presence of sodium bicarbonate at about 650<> F to partially
dechlorinate PCB's and dioxins and volatilize them from the soil9. These
contaminants are recovered by an oil scrubber in the vapor recovery system and are
concentrated in oil for later treatment with stronger reagents in a liquid tank reactor,
again at about 65()0. Removal of PCBs and dioxins from soils and dechlorination of
these contaminants in oil have been quite successful in pilot and bench scale
studies9,to. Air releases of dioxins have occurred in one test, from the thermal
desorber part of the system, due to insufficient air controls.
A closely related technology is the Soil-Tech ATP thermal desorber process,
which operates a unique flow system with internal BCD. The temperature of soil is
gradually increased, with a combustion final step after dechlorination, vaporization
and recovery of organic contaminants, which may require further detoxification.
The ATP process has been extensively tested and used on one full-scale remediation.
Sugiestions for tf,!Chnoloif-specific vendor selection criteria: a) well-engineered air
controls; b) willingness to analyze reaction products for toxicity
Evaluation
Criterion
1. Community Acceptability
Rating ·
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 4
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $150-$350 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 26
-~ENT BY:Ktnko's Copies 6-20-95 ;11:16PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605;#12 /17
SOL VENT EXTRACTION
Description
Solvent extraction is used to separate contaminants from soils and sediments,
reducing the volume which requires further treatment to detoxify. Organic solvents
have been used successfully for removal of PCB's in lhe past, but can leave trace
levels in treated soils. Less toxic, water-based solvents arc now available from
several vendors and have removed PCB's to target levels with few residuals,at all
but one site. One possible treatment train would be extraction of PCB's and other
toxic halogenated organic compound from soil with a water-based extraction
process, followed by dechlorination (APEG/KPEG if in water, extraction into organic
solvent or oil for treatment with BCD type process). This type of treatment train is
currently in operation at one site.
Suggestions for technolo~-specific vendor selection criteria: a) toxicity of solvent
system; b) compatability of extract with further detoxification methods; c)
compatablity of solvent with soil characteristics
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 4
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 3
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 3
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 3
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $140-$560 2
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 25
.. SENT BY : K i n k o ' s Cop i es 6-20-95 ;11 :17PM Kinko's Durham 1➔ 919 715 3605 ;#13/17
LOW TEMPERATURE TIIERMAL DESORPTION
Description
Low temperature thermal desorbers are designed to heat soils with mixing at
temperatures of 200-60QoF in order to volatilize organic material and remove it from
contaminated soils. Several flow designs are available, most operating in very low
oxygen or anaerobic conditions. All thermal desorbers require treatment of off-gases
to remove particulates and recover contaminants for further detoxification, such as
dechlorination, and are considered a volume reduction methodl 1. A large number
of vendors offer thermal desorption services and equipmentt2. Limited data
indicate that temperatures below SSOoF may not be effective in removal of PCB's
and dioxins from soilst3, and that higher temperature desorbers are more reliable
for such compounds. High water content soils require dewatering to make removal
cost effective.
Suggestions for technolqgx-specific vendor selection criteria: a) well-engineered
treatment system for desorber off-gases; b) compatability of organic scrubber product
with following detoxification method.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 2
3. Short lerm safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 2
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $140-$280 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 23
. -~ENT .BY:Ktnko's Coples 6-20-95 ;ll:17PM Ktnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605;#14/17
IDGH TEMPERA TIJRE THERMAL DESORPTION
Description
Similar to low temperature desorption, except performed at 600-lOOOoF to .
volatilize more semi-volatile organic compoundsl t in order to remove them from
contaminated soils. High temperature desorption is often used in a treatment train
with dechlorination or incineration. Currently available BCD systems operate the
initial desorber step in this range, as it appears to be more successful in removal of
highly chlorinated aromatic compounds, such as PCBs13. High water content soils
require dewatering to make removal cost effective.
The Soil-Tech ATP process, described under the BCD technology, is a thermal
desorption process which operates with soil passing through chambers at gradually
increasing temperatures up to about 1200oF, and some degree of dechlorination
occuring within the desorber.
Suggestions for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: a) well-engineered
treatment system for desorber off-gases; b) compatability of organic scrubber product
with following detoxification method.
Evaluation
Criterion Rating
1. Community Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 3
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 3
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 3
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of, contaminated soil: $1~$450 3
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 25
SENT BY:Klnko's Cop les 6-20-95 ;11:17PM Kinko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605 ;#15/17
INCINERATION
DescriptiQn .
Incineration is a very high temperature method (1,400 to 2,2()()oF) designed to
destroy organic rontaminants either as a single--step method applied to
contaminated soils, or as the final step in a treatment train where thermal
desorption or another method has removed organic contaminants from soils.
Several vendors offer a conventional rotary kiln design, with an afterburner and an
air pollution control system. Newer designs include a circulating fluidized bed for
more even combustion, or infrared combustion at slightly lower temperatures. Air
emissions controls are extremely critical for incineration systems, as much higher
volumes of oxygen-containing off gases flow through the combustion chamber than
are required for thermal desorbers. Properly operated systems for incineration of
PCBs and dioxins meet the 99.9999% destruction require~ent for these compounds.
Combustion conditions can be maintained more uniformly if waste stream is
uniform and readily combustible, such as organics recovered from the oil scrubber
of a thermal desorption unit.
Suggestions for technology-specific vendor selection criteria: a) critically engineered
air pollution controls; b) compatability of optimal incinerator waste stream with
output from soil removal technology if used in treatment train.
Evalu·ation
Criterion Rating
1. Comm~ty Acceptability
2. Extent of prior experience with technology at similar sites 4
3. Short term safety and effectiveness 2
4. Long term effectiveness, reduction of toxicity or volume 4
5. Generation of residuals, degree of on site management 2
6. Projected duration of full-scale remediation 4
7. Availability of pilot-scale study 4
8. Implementability at Warren County PCB Landfill 3
9. Cost per cubic yard of contaminated soil: $170-$730 2
Summary score (not including Community Acceptability) out of 32 25
-~ENT BY :KJnko's Coples 6-20-95 ;11:18PM Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605 ;#16/17
REFERENCES
1. Abramowicz, D. A, 1990. "Aerobic and Anaerobic Biodegradation of PCBs: A
Review", Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, Vol. 10, pp. 241-251.
2. Evans, B. S.; Dudley, C. A. and Klasson, K. T., 1995. ''Sequential Anaerobic-
Aerobic Biodegradation of PCB's in Soil Slurry Reactors", Applied BiotechnolQ~y
and Bioengineering. in press.
3. Unterman, R et al, 1988. "Biological Approaches for Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Degradation", in Environmental Biotechnology (Omenn, G .• ed.) pp. 253-269.
4. Harkness, M. R. et al, 1993. "In Situ Stimulation of Aerobic PCB Biodegradation
in Hudson River Sediments11
• Science, Vol. 259, pp. 503-507.
5. "Bioremediation in the Field". USEPA office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Removal, 1994. EPA/540/N•94/501.
6. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide. Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable. USEP A and the DOD Environmental
Technology Transfer Committee, 1994 EPA/542/8-94/13.
7. Soil Washing/Soil Flushing, Volume 3 of the engineering guide series
"Innovative Site Remediation Teclmology11 USEPA, 1993. EPA/542/B-93/012.
8. Chemical Treatment. Volume 2 of engineering guide series "Innovative Sile
Remediation Technology" USEPA, 1994. EPA/542/B-94/004.
9. Timberlake, D., 1995. "Evaluation of Base-Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD)
Process for New York/New Jersey harbor Sediment Decontamination", Abstract,
RREL Research Symposium, 1995.
10. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Technology
Profiles, Seventh Edition. USEPA, 1994 EPA/540/R-94/526.
11. Thermal Desor.ption. Volume 6 of the series "Innovative Site Remediation
Technology". USEPA, 1993. EPA/542/B-93/011.
12. VISITT 3.0, USEPA, 1994. DOS-compatible database.
13. Alperin, E. S. and Fox, R. D., 1993. "Soils, Removal of Toxics" in Volume 51 of
the Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design, (Mcketta, J. and Weismantel,
G, eds.) Marcel Dekker.
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report, Sixth Edition. USEP A,
1994. EPA/542/R-94/005.
·SENT BY:KJnko's Coples 6-20-95 ;11:18PM Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 715 3605 ;#17/17
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Joint Working Group consider the possible advantages, both technical
and economic, of a 11treatment train" for remediation of landfill soil. (Base
Catalyzed Dechlorination, as currently implemented, is already an example of a
treatment train: thermal desorption followed by BCD in a liquid tank reactor. This
report describes other technologies, such as soil washing or solvent extraction,
whcih could remove PCB's and other halogenated contaminants from the soil-or
concentrate them in a smaller soil fraction-and make them available for
detoxification with a dehalogenation technology).
2. That the Working Group arrange to contract with pilot study vendors for all
innovative technologies being considered for inclusion in a treatment train. Except
for incineration, all of the technologies discussed in this report are considered
innovative by EPA, but have been demonstrated sufficiently to be considered for full
scale remediation at sites where they can be pilot-tested for effectiveness.
Incineration, on the other hand, is considered a conventional method, and has
been so widely used that a pilot sludy would not generally be recommended, but
could still be used as a ''back-up" method if a BCD pilot were not successful. With
the data that we have in hand for BCD's effectiveness on PCB's and dioxins,
however, there is good reason for optimism regarding the outcome of a pilot study
at the Warren County site. The other principle alternative to BCD for detoxification
is a glycolate dehalogenation process, such as APEG, somewhat more expensive and
sometimes yielding solids that are not structurally stable enough for on-site
backfilling.
3. That the Div. of Solid Waste Manage continue to share research-scale samples of
the landfill contents for bioremediation studies wherever this does not compromise
the safety of groundwater or interfere with any pilot studies or other remedial work
at the landfill. Based on results to date on pilot to full scale in-situ or ex-situ
bioremediation projects involving PCB or dioxin-contaminated soils and sediments,
I do not feel that incurring substantial state expense for a pilot study, with the
expectation of rapid (less than 1 year) and effective detoxification, is merited at this
site.
Assistance to the research community, which could benefit all persons and
ecosystems impacted by PCB contamination, might even include an on-site pilot
study of in-situ or slurry phase bioremediation, provided that: a) it is acceptable to
the community, b) it does not interfere in any way with contracted pilot studies or
any other remediation activities at the site and c) the NC DSWM and an
independent environmental engineer retained by the Working Group determine
that the design for the bioremediation pilot is sufficiently contained to prevent any
releases to air, surface soil, ground or surface waters. If the bioremediation pilot
study is completed within the time allotted for contracted pilot studies and
demonstrates effective detoxification of landfill contents as judged by the same
criteria as other methods, it should then be re-evaluated for full-scale remediation,
dependent on community acceptance.