Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCD980602163_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: (704) 254-0021 FAX: (704) 254-4002 17 Bryson St. Asheville, NC 28803 OIAPELHlll Tel: (919) 967-0790 . FAX: (919) 967-9243 J J 4 W~t Franklin St. Cha~I Hill, NC 27516 CHARLOTTE I -MIDTOWN Tel: (704) 347-8192 FAX: (704) 358-0100 601 South Kings Dr. Charloue, NC 28204 CHARLOTI'E Il • SOUTH PARK Tel: (704) 556-0665 FAX (704) 554-1505 4722 Sharon R<l., Suite G Charlotte, NC 28210 CHARLOrl'.E m -UNIVERSITY 1'el: (704) 597-9190 FAX (704) 597-9183 8215 University City filv<.J. Charlotte, NC 28213 GREENSBORO Tt+ (!)10) 273-5865 FAX: (910) 273-2927 '101 South Tall: St Gref:!nsboro, NC 27403 GREENVILLE Td: (919) 752-0875 FAX: (9 J 9) 830-470') 321 E.lst Tenth St. Grcl'nville, NC 27834 RAl.F.IGH I Tel: (919) 832-4533 FAX: (919) 856-1132 2316-106 Hill:;borough St. Raleigh, NC 27607 • RALEIGHil Tel: (919) 787-8636 FAX: (919) 787-84.37 4112-132 Plc:1s:1nt Valley Rd. Raleigh, NC 27612 RAI.EIGHID Tel: (919) 876-2488 FA..'C: (919) 876•1960 908 Springfidd C:ommons Drive R;ilt!igh, NC 27609 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK Td: (919) 405-1800 • • FAX: (919) 405-Hl39 Park \X.·est Crossing Shopping Clt. 4900 NC I lwy 55, Suite 40-1 Dltrlum, NC 2771., WINSTON-SALEM ,·~1; (910) 722-6611 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: (919) 286-1000 FAX: (919) 286-4684 . _ -.:.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 (919) 286-1000 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: 684-2217, Teusdays, Thursdays and Fridays, or fax: 684-8885) 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.