The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNCD980602163_19980323_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Memo from Mike Kerlly re Proposed Funding for PCB Detoxification-OCRJAMES B. HUNT JR. ~-Govl:RNOR 14, :.•~· '! i"·. l~·. WAYNIE MCDIEYl'.l'T 81:CltlETARY ! (>·~/ L ... ~-~ILLIAM L MIEYl:R :'.° 1 DIRICCTOlt :-,.-..,,. i : . ,. ,· 1 . ; f ' jf r · .. , .. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT March 23, 1998 MEMORANDUM: TO: DOUG LEWIS FROM: MIKE KELLY SUBJECT: PROPOSED FUNDING FOR PCB LANDFILL DETOXIFICATION I have attached the estimated cost page from the draft Phase II detoxification report based on additions and corrections made during the last couple of weeks in meetings with the contractor, science advisor's and division personnel. We anticipate a total cost of around 24 million, which includes a 10% contingency. The final Phase II report is to be delivered on April 4. I have also attached a copy of the "Explanation of Selection of Two Detoxification Technologies" summary that was a part of the Request for Proposals sent out last year on the detoxification efforts. The two technologies selected for testing included the Base Catalyzed Dechlorination (BCD, company ETG Environmental) and Chemical Gas Dechlorination (Ecologic Process, company ECOLOGIC). The BCD process was chosen following the Phase I bench scale testing procedures as the technology to pursue for detoxification. It should be noted that the process all along has looked at the best technology for this type of contaminated soil and the best long term solution for the PCB Landfill, and has not been cost driven. The process has followed very closely the same procedures that EPA uses to evaluate the cleanup of Superfund National Priority Listed sites (NPL ). Please call me should you have any further questions. 401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605 PHONE SIISl-733-4SISl6 FAX 9ISl-7l5-3605 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/I 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER DRAFT March 23, 1998 PCB LANDFILL DETOXIFICATION ESTIMATES Final design including permit preparation and plan submittal Mobilization/Site Preparation/Set-up Start-up/Performance Demonstration Excavation, Soil Treatment, Water treatment, Backfill Reclamation Decon, Dismantle, Demob Total Estimated Costs Revision based on March 12, 1998 Meeting: Additional Construction Cost, Lining of Pond Additional Analytical Testing/Boring Under Landfill Local Support, Working Group, Science Advisors Sub-total Contingency 1 0% $ $ $ $ 497,000.00 2,621 ,000.00 681,000.00 15,274,000.00 988 000 00 20,061,000.00 1,200,000.00 350,000.00 200 000 00 21,811 ,000.00 2.181 100 00 23,992,100.00 ' Appendix for technology RFP .EXPL4.NATION OF SELECTION OF nvo DETOXIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES A detailed technology screening, evaluation,. assessment and comparative analysis has been performed for the Vl arren County PCB Landfill. All but two treatment technologies were screened out. Only Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) and Gas Phase Chemical Reduction technology were found to he appropriate and potentially feasi'ble. The original use of the term detoxification technology by the state of North Carolina implies that technologies that are considered cleanup or remedial techn.ologies but that do not by tb.cmselves deto>..ify PCBs are not appropriate for the Warren County situation. Potential feaSJ.'bility has had to be demonstrated through prior successful full scale use of a technology for PCB detoxification work. All forms of containment technology such as caps and subsurface barrier walls have been ruled out as being inappropriate. All fonns of separation technologies that do not actually detoxify through treatment have been ruled out. l11ese include, for example, tbemuil desorption~ solvent e:\.traction, soil washing, and soil vapor e:\"traction. All forms of stabilization/solidification have lleen eliminated as inappropriate, because they have not been thoroughly pro,·en to actually and permanentjy destroy PCB molecules, rendering them permanently nontoxic. _.i\ny 11se of high temperatw-e incineration has been ruled out as being inappropriate because of its potential for causing harmful toxic air emissions and its long history of being deemed unacceptable by communities, especially "11en used in locations close to residential areas. All fonns ofhiotreatment or bioremediatio.ll have been screened out on the basis of insufficient proven effectiveness. For many years various fonns ofbiotreatment uve been pursued for PCB cleanups. The conclusion has been reached that biotreatmeut is not yet proven effective and reliable enough for full scale use either as an in situ or ex situ technology, in aerobic or anaerobic form or some combination. of them, for the Warren County application. ln situ vitrification has been screeD.ed out because of insufficient full scale application. This technology has been under extensive development for many years, chiefly with.in the DOE system. While some people have viewed this technology as a variant of incineration, chiefly because it employs very high temperatures, it usually is considered as a unique technology. Buried wastes can be heated to meh all materials and form a "itreous or glassy material. The process thermally destroys organic contaminants and an ex1ensi:ve offgas, air pollution control system is used. Interestingly, in October 1995 EPA granted Geosafe a National TSCA Operating Permit for the I ,, . ..... nationwide treatment of PCBs v.ithin a large number of prescnoed circumstances. including maximum average concentrations of 14,700 ppm an.d maximum hot spot concentrations of 17,860 ppm The company obtain.ed this regulatory permit on the basis of a site demonstration that achieved various performance criteria, including six nines destruction and removal efficiency and less than 2 ppm PCBs in vitrified product. No detectable dioxins/furan.s were found in o:ffgases. But the demonstration was not on in situ wastes similar to the Warren County situation. This technology must be considered detoxification, and it offers the comparative advantage of being intrinsically applicable for in situ treatment, avoiding the need for excavation of materials. In theory, the technology could be applied directly to the Warren County Landfill, perhaps 'Without dewatering the site. although the site's location would pose significant problem for using the c,-.1ensive equipment. Tne conclusion has been reached that this technology is not acceptable or feasible for the Warren County application, and that it could not be suitably evaluated through bench-scale testing. Because the objective is to select a detomcation technology that has already been proven effective for PCB detoxification through full scale, commercial use, an.d that will be demonstrated effective for full scale application at the Warren Com1ty PCB Landfill on the basis of bench-scale testing of site contammated soils, no technology that has not yet been fully deployed in a full scale detoxification of PCB wastes will be considered appropriate and potentially effective for this application. No technology that exists only as a research or developmental technology is deemed appropriate and potentially feasible for this application and, therefore, for bench-scale testing. 2