{"1": {"fulltext": "TD 878\\n.7", "height": "4338", "width": "3221", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "S? H\\n/^V/) x V\\n3* J w\\n7^rn\u00c2\u00a3* y*Sk*X V\\n?\u00c2\u00bbsli@,\u00c2\u00bb W \u00e2\u0080\u0098.Sw 1 W qy\\nk i-,\\nV\\nf\\\\\\n-Tz- ft V-v\\nta\\n*W\\n,.\u00c2\u00b0V^ v", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "l! O\\nA o\\nXr", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "f/EPA\\nUnited States\\nEnvironmental Protection\\nAgency\\nOffice of Research and\\nDevelopment\\nWashington DC 20460\\nGeotech, Inc.\\nCold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification\\nSystem\\nInnovative Technology\\nEvaluation Report", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "EPA/540/R-97/506\\nDecember 1999\\nGeotech, Inc.\\nCold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System\\nInnovative Technology Evaluation Report\\nNational Risk Management Research Laboratory\\nOffice of Research and Development\\nU.S. Environmental Protection Agency\\nCincinnati, Ohio 45268\\nPrinted on Recycled Paper", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "NOTICE\\nThe information in this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\\n(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program under Contract No. 68-C5-0037.\\nThis document has been subjected to EPA s peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for\\npublication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an\\nendorsement or recommendation for use.\\n,ov\\nAC\\nA\\n0\\nLC Control Number", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "FOREWORD\\nI he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation s\\nland, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to\\nformulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the\\nability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet these mandates, EPA s research program is\\nproviding data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science\\nknow ledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect\\nour health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.\\nThe National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the EPA center for investigation of\\ntechnical and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the\\nenvironment. The focus of the NRMRL research program is on methods for the prevention and control\\nof pollution to air, land, w ater, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water\\nsystems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor air\\npollution. The goals of this research effort are to catalyze development and implementation of\\ninnovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information\\nneeded by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information\\ntransfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.\\nThis publication has been produced as part of the NRMRL strategic, long-term research plan. It is\\npublished and made available by the EPA Office of Research and Development to assist the user\\ncommunity and to link researchers with their clients.\\nE. Timothy Oppelt, Director\\nNational Risk Management Research Laboratory\\nin", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "ABSTRACT\\nA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) technology demonstration was conducted in\\nFebruary and March 1997 to evaluate the potential applicability and effectiveness of the Geotech\\nDevelopment Corporation (Geotech) Cold Top ex-situ vitrification technology on chromium-\\ncontaminated soils. The demonstration was conducted using the vitrification furnace at Geotech\u00e2\u0080\u0099s pilot\\nplant in Niagara Falls, New York.\\nChromium-contaminated soil from two state Superfund sites in the Jersey City, New Jersey area was\\ncollected, crushed, sieved, dried, mixed with carbon and sand, and shipped to the Geotech pilot plant.\\nThe SITE demonstration consisted of one vitrification test run on soil from each site. During each test,\\nsolid and gas samples were collected from various locations in the Cold Top system and analyzed for\\nseveral chemical and physical parameters. In addition, process monitoring data were recorded. During\\nthe demonstration, the Cold Top system treated about 10,000 pounds of soil contaminated with trivalent\\nand hexavalent chromium and other metals.\\nOne primary and five secondary objectives were identified for the SITE demonstration. The primary\\nobjective was to develop test data to evaluate whether waste and product streams from the Cold Top\\nvitrification system pilot plant were capable of meeting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\\nResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definitions of a nonhazardous waste, based on the\\nstream s leachable chromium content. Secondary objectives were to determine the following: (1)\\npartitioning of chromium and hexavalent chromium from the contaminated soil into various waste and\\nproduct streams; (2) the ability of the vitrified product to meet New Jersey Department of Environmental\\nProtection (NJDEP) criteria for use as fill material (such as road construction aggregate); (3) the system\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nability to meet applicable compliance regulations for air emissions of dioxins, furans, trace metals,\\nparticulates, and hydrogen chloride; (4) uncontrolled air emissions of the oxides of nitrogen, sulfur\\ndioxide, carbon monoxide, and total hydrocarbons from the vitrification unit; and (5) projected operating\\ncosts of the technology per ton of soil.\\nObservational demonstration results showed that the Cold Top system vitrified chromium-contaminated\\nsoil from the two New Jersey sites, yielding a product meeting RCRA toxicity characteristic leaching\\nprocedure (TCLP) standards. From soil excavated at one of the New Jersey sites, the system yielded a\\npotentially recyclable metallic product referred to as \u00e2\u0080\u009cferrofurnace bottoms that also met the RCRA\\nv", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "TCLP chromium standard. Demonstration results also showed that the chromium content of the vitrified\\nproducts did not differ significantly from that of the untreated soils, but that the baghouse dusts were\\nhigher in chromium content than the untreated soils. Hexavalent chromium concentrations in the\\nuntreated soil were generally not detected (reduced at least two to three orders of magnitude) in the\\nvitrified product and ferrofurnace bottoms. The hexavalent chromium concentration in the baghouse dust\\nwas about the same as that in the untreated soil.\\nResults of emissions modeling indicate that the concentration of metals in stack emissions depend on\\nsoil characteristics, the APCS, and detection limits of various analytes. Analysis of operating costs\\nindicates that Cold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to that treated during the SITE\\ndemonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal costs and potential\\ncredits for sale of the vitrified product.\\nThe results of all sample analyses and quality assurance and quality control data from the SITE\\ndemonstration were evaluated with respect to the project objectives specified by the quality assurance\\nproject plan (QAPP). The conclusions of the demonstration are being reported as observational,\\nmeaning that although the authors feel the conclusions are supported, some data are not statistically\\nvalid at the levels specified in the original data quality objectives.\\nvi", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "Section\\nCONTENTS\\nPage\\nNOTICE. ii\\nFOREWORD.\u00e2\u0080\u0099 jii\\nABSTRACT. v\\nACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .xi\\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS. x jjj\\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY. ES-1\\n1.0 INTRODUCTION\\n1.1 THE SITE PROGRAM 1\\n1.2 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT. 2\\n1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3\\n1.4 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION. 4\\n1.5 KEY CONTACTS. 5\\n2.0 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS. 7\\n2.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA. 7\\n2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. 7\\n2.1.2 Compliance with ARARs 9\\n2.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. 9\\n2.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment. 9\\n2.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 10\\n2.1.6 Implementability. 10\\n2.1.7 Costs 10\\n2.1.8 State Acceptance. 11\\n2.1.9 Community Acceptance. 11\\n2.2 TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE REGARDING ARARs 11\\n2.2.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and\\nLiability Act. 12\\n2.2.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 15\\n2.2.3 Clean Air Act. 17\\n2.2.4 Toxic Substances Control Act. 18\\n2.2.5 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements. 18\\n2.3 OPERABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY 18\\n2.4 APPLICABLE WASTES 19\\n2.5 KEY FEATURES OF THE COLD TOP EX SITU VITRIFICATION SYSTEM 19\\n2.6 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT. 21\\n2.7 MATERIALS-HANDLING REQUIREMENTS. 21\\n2.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY. 21\\nVll", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS (Continued)\\nSection Page\\n3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. 23\\n3.1 INTRODUCTION. 23\\n3.2 ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS 25\\n3.3 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. 25\\n3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs 26\\n3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs. 27\\n3.3.3 Capital Costs 28\\n3.3.4 Fixed Costs 28\\n3.3.5 Labor Costs 28\\n3.3.6 Materials Costs 28\\n3.3.7 Utilities Costs 29\\n3.3.8 Disposal Costs. 29\\n3.3.9 Transportation Costs 29\\n3.3.10 Analytical Costs. 30\\n3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs 30\\n3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs. 31\\n3.4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 31\\n3.4.1 Total Cost for a Typical Site under Three Scenarios 31\\n3.4.2 Cost Breakdown by Category 31\\n3.4.3 Cost Sensitivity to Electricity Rates 31\\n4.0 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS 35\\n4.1 DEMONSTRATION OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH. 35\\n4.2 DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES 39\\n4.2.1 Predemonstration Activities 40\\n4.2.2 Demonstration Activities. 40\\n4.3 SAMPLING PROGRAM 41\\n4.3.1 Soil Dryer Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S4). 41\\n4.3.2 Carbon Additive (Sampling Location S5). 41\\n4.3.3 Sand Additive (Sampling Location S6). 42\\n4.3.4 Dried, Blended Soil Mixture (Sampling Location S7) 42\\n4.3.5 Vitrification Furnace Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S8). 42\\n4.3.6 Stack Gas (Sampling Location S13 and S9) 44\\n4.3.6.1 Sampling Location S13 Vitrification Hood\\nExhaust APCS Inlet.44\\n4.3.6.2 Sampling Location S9A and B APCS Outlet.44\\nviii", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS (Continued)\\nSection Pa^e\\n4.3.7 Ferrofurnace Bottoms (Sampling Location SI0). 49\\n4.3.8 Vitrified Product (Sampling Location SI 1). 49\\n4.3.9 Sand Added to Vitrification Furnace (Sampling Location SI4). 49\\n4.3.10 Mulcoa (Sampling Location SI5) 50\\n4.3.11 Sample Mass Measurements. 50\\n4.4 DEMONSTRATION RESULTS. 51\\n4.4.1 RCRA TCLP Chromium Standard 51\\n4.4.2 Chromium 51\\n4.4.3 Hexavalent Chromium. 54\\n4.4.4 NJDEP Soil Cleanup Standards. 54\\n4.4.5 Stack Emissions. 54\\n4.4.5.1 Field Test Changes.55\\n4.4.5.2 Results of Critical Parameters Fluegas. 56\\n4.4.5.3 Results of Non-Critical Parameters Fluegas.56\\n4.4.5.4 Continuous Emissions Monitoring.67\\n4.4.5.5 Compliance with NYSDEC.71\\n4.4.6 Other Analyses. 72\\n4.4.6.1 Chloride Analysis.72\\n4.4.6.2 Metallurgy of Ferrofurnace Bottoms 73\\n4.4.6.3 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure.73\\n4.4.7 Cost 74\\n4.4.8 Summary of Demonstration Results 75\\n4.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL. 76\\n4.5.1 Conformance with Quality Assurance Objectives. 76\\n4.5.1.1 Method Blanks 76\\n4.5.1.2 Analytical Quality Control Categories. 77\\n4.5.2 Stack Emissions Sampling. 80\\n4.5.2.1 EPA Method Cr +6 80\\n4.5.2.2 EPA Method 23 81\\n4.5.2.3 EPA Method 29 82\\n5.0 TECHNOLOGY STATUS. 83\\nREFERENCES. 85\\nIX", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "FIGURES\\nFigure Page\\n1 Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System. 20\\n2 Total Treatment Cost for a Typical Site. 32\\n3 Cost Breakdown for Each Treatment Scenario. 33\\n4 The Impact of Electricity Cost on Total Treatment Cost. 34\\n5 Sampling Location S13 in Circular Duct after Vitrification Furnace 45\\n6 Traverse Point Layout for Sampling Locations S13 and S9A and S9B. 46\\n7 Sampling Locations S9A and S9B in the APCS Outlet. 48\\n8 CEM Data for Run 1. 68\\n9 CEM Data for Run 2 69\\nTABLES\\nTable Page\\n1 Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the Cold Top Technology. 8\\n2 Potential Federal ARARs for the Cold Top Ex Situ Vitrification System. 13\\n3 Summary of Costs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification Process 24\\n4 Results of Chromium Analyses of Soils from Bench-Scale Study. 36\\n5 Sampling Locations 43\\n6 Traverse Point Locations in Inches from Duct Wall 47\\n7 Contaminant Concentrations in Samples from Site 130. 52\\n8 Contaminant Concentrations in Samples from Liberty State Park. 53\\n9 New Jersey Soil Cleanup Standards. 55\\n10 Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S13. 57\\n11 Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S9A. 58\\n12 Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Parameters. 59\\n13 Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Concentrations at 7 Percent Oxygen. 60\\n14 Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Mass Emission Rates 62\\n15 Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Average Fluegas Values 64\\n16 Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas Concentrations at 7 Percent\\nOxygen 65\\n17 Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas Mass Emission Rates. 66\\n18 CEM Sampling Matrix at Location SI3. 67\\n19 CEMs-Run 1 70\\n20 CEMs-Run 2. 70\\n21 Chloride in Dried, Blended Soil Mixture. 72\\n22 Metal Composition of Ferrofurnace Bottoms from Liberty State Park Soil 73\\n23 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Results 74\\n24 QA Data Objectives for Accuracy, Precision and Completeness.78\\nx", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS\\nAGC\\nAPCS\\nARAR\\nATTIC\\nb\\nB\\nBIF\\nC\\nCAA\\n\u00c2\u00b0C\\nCEM\\nCERCLA\\nCERI\\nCFR\\nCO\\nC0 2\\nCr +6\\ncy\\ndscf\\ndscf/hr\\ndscm\\nEPA\\n\u00c2\u00b0F\\nft/s\\nGeotech\\ng/hr\\nHC1\\nID\\nITER\\nkVA\\nkWh\\nLDR\\nlb\\n/^g/dscm\\n/urn\\nMDL\\nmg/d sc m\\nmg/kg\\nmg/L\\nMS\\nMSD\\nNA\\nNAAQS\\nAnnual guideline concentration\\nAir pollution control system\\nApplicable or relevant and appropriate requirement\\nAlternative Treatment Technology Information Center\\nBlank contamination\\nEstimated result is less than reporting limit\\nBoilers and industrial furnace\\nCo-eluting isomers/congeners\\nClean Air Act\\nDegree Celsius\\nContinuous emissions monitor\\nComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act\\nCenter for Environmental Research Information\\nCode of Federal Regulations\\nCarbon monoxide\\nCarbon dioxide\\nHexavalent chromium\\nCubic yard\\nDry standard cubic foot\\nDry standard cubic foot per hour\\nDry standard cubic meter\\nU.S. Environmental Protection Agency\\nDegree Fahrenheit\\nFoot per second\\nGeotech Development Corporation\\nGram per hour\\nHydrogen chloride gas\\nInduced draft\\nInnovative Technology Evaluation Report\\nKilovolt-amp\\nKilowatt hour\\nLand disposal restriction\\nPound\\nMicrogram per dry standard cubic meter\\nMicrometer\\nMethod Detection Limit\\nMilligrams per dry standard cubic meter\\nMilligrams per kilogram\\nMilligram per liter\\nMatrix spike\\nMatrix spike duplicate\\nNot analyzed\\nNational Ambient Air Quality Standards\\nxi", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)\\nND\\nng/dscm\\nNJDEP\\nNJIT\\nNO x\\nNRMRL\\nNR\\nNYSDEC\\no 2\\nORD\\nOSHA\\nOSWER\\nQAO\\nPCDD\\nPCDF\\n%V\\nPGC\\nPPE\\nppm\\nPSD\\nQ\\nQA\\nQAPP\\nQC\\nRCRA\\nSARA\\nSD\\nSGC\\nSIT\\nSITE\\nS0 2\\nSPLP\\nNot detected\\nNanograms per dry standard cubic meter\\nNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection\\nNew Jersey Institute of Technology\\nNitrogen oxides\\nNational Risk Management Research Laboratory\\nNot recorded\\nNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation\\nOxygen\\nU.S. EPA Office of Research and Development\\nOccupational Safety and Health Administration\\nU.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\\nQuality Assurance Objective\\nPolychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin\\nPolychlorinated dibenzofuran\\nPercent by volume\\nPotential annual guideline concentration\\nPersonal protective equipment\\npart per million\\nPrevention of significant deterioration\\nEstimated maximum possible concentration\\nQuality assurance\\nQuality assurance project plan\\nQuality control\\nResource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976\\nSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986\\nStandard Deviation\\nShort-term guideline concentration\\nStevens Institute of Technology\\nSuperfund Innovative Technology Evaluation\\nSulfur dioxide\\nSynthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure\\nTarget analyte list\\nTCLP\\nTEQ\\nTHC\\nTSCA\\nVISITT\\nXPS\\nToxicity characteristic leaching procedure\\n2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents\\nTotal hydrocarbons\\nToxic Substances Control Act\\nVendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies\\nX-ray photoelectron spectroscopy\\nXll", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\\nThis report was prepared under the direction of Ms. Marta K. Richards, the EPA Superfund Innovative\\nTechnology Evaluation (SITE) Project Manager at the National Risk Management Research Laboratory\\n(NRMRL) in Cincinnati, Ohio. This report was prepared by Mr. Robert Foster, Mr. Keith Foszcz,\\nDr. Kenneth Partymiller, and Ms. Regina Bergner of Tetra Tech EM Inc. and Mr. Vince Alaimo of\\nEnergy and Environmental Research, Inc. Contributors and reviewers for this report included Ms. Marta\\nK. Richards of NRMRL; Mr. Thomas Tate of Geotech, Inc.; Mr. William Librizzi, Mr. Gerald McKenna,\\nand Dr. Jay Meegoda of New Jersey Institute of Technology; and Mr. Scott Santora and Mr. Robert\\nMueller of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.\\nxm", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\\nThis report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification technology\\ndeveloped by Geotech Development Corporation (Geotech). The Cold Top technology was\\ndemonstrated at the Geotech pilot-plant facility in Niagara Falls, New York, under the EPA Superfund\\nInnovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program and in conjunction with the New Jersey Institute of\\nTechnology (NJIT) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 1997.\\nThe purpose of this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report is to present and summarize information\\nfrom the SITE demonstration of the Cold Top technology. The information is intended for remedial\\nmanagers, environmental consultants, and other potential users who may consider using the technology to\\ntreat Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) hazardous wastes.\\nSection 1.0 presents an overview of the SITE program, describes the Cold Top technology, and lists key\\ncontacts. Section 2.0 discusses information relevant to the technology s application, including an\\nassessment of the technology related to the nine feasibility study evaluation criteria, potential applicable\\nenvironmental regulations, and operability and limitations of the technology. Section 3.0 summarizes the\\ncosts associated with implementing the technology. Section 4.0 presents the waste characteristics,\\ndemonstration approach, demonstration procedures, and the results and conclusions of the demonstration.\\nSection 5.0 summarizes the technology status, and Section 6.0 includes a list of references. The\\nAppendices include several technical reports concerning the technology, prepared by NJIT. The first\\nreport presents the findings of a bench-scale study of the technology and the second presents the results\\nof a study on the use of the vitrified product from the SITE demonstration as fill for road aggregate.\\nThe remainder of this executive summary provides an overview of the Cold Top technology; its waste\\napplicability; demonstration objectives, approach, and conclusions; other case studies; and technology\\napplicability.\\nThe Cold Top Technology\\nGeotech of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, has developed an ex-situ, submerged-electrode, resistance\u00c2\u00ac\\nmelting technology designed to convert contaminated soil into an essentially monolithic, vitrified mass.\\nAccording to Geotech, a development engineering firm holding four patents in the field of applied\\nelectrical power, vitrification transforms the physical state of contaminated soil from assorted,\\ncrystalline matrices into a glassy, amorphous solid comprised of interlaced polymeric chains that\\ntypically consist of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms. Geotech claims that chromium can readily\\nsubstitute for silicon in these chains, thus rendering the chromium immobile to leaching by aqueous\\nsolvents and, therefore, nontoxic.\\nES-1", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "For the past 15 years, Geotech has operated a pilot plant that has vitrified a wide variety of materials,\\nincluding granite, blast-furnace slag, fly ash, spent catalyst, and flue dust. Several production plants\\nbased on the Geotech technology are now being used to produce mineral fiber and other commercial\\nproducts. The heart of the system is an electric resistance furnace capable of operating at melting\\ntemperatures of up to 5,200 \u00c2\u00b0F (2,870 \u00c2\u00b0C). The furnace is cooled by water circulating within its hollow\\njacket and is equipped with an off-gas treatment system, which may include a baghouse, cyclone, and wet\\nscrubbers, depending on waste characteristics.\\nPrior to treatment, the furnace is initially charged with a mixture of sand and alumina/silica clay.\\nThrough electrical resistance heating, a molten pool forms; the voltage to the furnace is properly\\nadjusted; and, finally, contaminated soil is fed into the furnace by a screw conveyor. Geotech removes\\nthe furnace plug from below the molten-product tap when the desired soil-melt temperature is achieved.\\nAs the soil melts, additional soil is added to maintain a \u00e2\u0080\u009ccold top/\u00e2\u0080\u0099 During the demonstration test, the\\noutflow was poured into refractory-lined and insulated molds for slow cooling. Excess material was\\ndischarged to a water sluice for immediate cooling and collection before off-site disposal.\\nWaste Applicability\\nAccording to Geotech, the Cold Top Vitrification process has been used to treat soils contaminated with\\nhazardous heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and chromium; asbestos and asbestos-containing\\nmaterials; and municipal solid waste combustor-ash residue. Waste material must be sized to pass\\nthrough a 3/8-inch screen. The Cold Top Vitrification process is most efficient when feed materials have\\nbeen dewatered to less than 5 percent water and organic chemical concentrations have been minimized.\\nWastes similar to those treated during the demonstration may require the addition of sand to ensure that\\nthe vitrification process produces a glass-like product. According to Geotech, in the molten state,\\ninorganic contaminants fuse with the sand to become an integral part of the fused material. The vitrified\\nproduct from the Cold Top process is designed to cool slowly to form a high-density, noncrystalline glass\\nwith physical properties suitable for commercial use.\\nGeotech claims that the vitrified product has many uses, including shore erosion blocks, decorative tiles,\\nroadbed fill, and cement or blacktop aggregate, and that radioactive wastes can be treated with this\\ntechnology.\\nDemonstration Objectives and Approach\\nKey participants in the planning and execution of the Cold Top demonstration included the Geotech.\\nNJIT, NJDEP, and the EPA SITE Program. Additional support was provided by the New York State\\nDepartment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Stevens Institute of Technology.\\nES-2", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "Demonstration tests were performed on soils from two sites, representing residue from two types of\\nchromite-ore-processing procedures. The sites were selected by NJDEP under an ongoing program to\\nclean up over 150 hexavalent-chromium-contaminated sites. Excavated soils from Liberty State Park and\\nNJDEP Site 130 were crushed, sieved, dried, and amended with carbon and sand at a facility in New\\nJersey. \u00e2\u0080\u0098Supersacs containing the pretreated material were then shipped to the Geotech facility in\\nNiagara Falls, NY, where separate demonstration runs were conducted on February 1 and March 11,\\n1997. The SITE team collected samples of untreated soil, offgas generated during treatment, and\\nbaghouse dust. Cooled castings were transported to NJIT, where samples were crushed and ground for\\nchemical analyses. Chemical analyses were performed in triplicate by NJIT and by SITE-contracted\\nlaboratories.\\nDemonstration Conclusions\\nThe primary objective of the SITE demonstration was to determine if the waste and products produced by\\nthe Cold Top Vitrification system meet the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definition\\nof a characteristic waste because of their chromium content. The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching\\nProcedure was performed on both treated product and untreated waste to evaluate this objective.\\nSecondary objectives of the demonstration were as follows: 1) evaluate the partitioning of total\\nchromium from the waste feed into the various waste and product streams; 2) determine costs for treating\\nthe type of waste treated during the demonstration; 3) determine if the vitrified product meets NJDEP\\ncriteria for fill material, such as road construction aggregate, based on chromium, antimony, beryllium,\\ncadmium, nickel, and vanadium concentrations; 4) determine if process air emissions meet NYSDEC\\ncompliance requirements and determine the uncontrolled air emissions of oxides of nitrogen, sulfur\\ndioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride; and 5) determine if the high chlorine concentrations in\\nthe untreated soils causes formation of dioxins and furans in the exhaust gases.\\nDue to a system shutdown during the first run and unanticipated changes made to the off-gas collection\\nand treatment system during the second test run, data from the two runs are not directly comparable.\\nTherefore, all demonstration data are presented as observational data. Observational data are data which\\nare analytically sound but that did not meet the predetermined data quality objective goals.\\nDemonstration findings included:\\nRCRA TCLP Chromium Standard\\nThe Cold Top technology vitrified chromium-contaminated soil from two New Jersey sites, producing a\\nproduct meeting the RCRA TCLP total chromium standard at the 95 percent confidence level.\\nVitrification of soil from one of the two sites also produced ferrofumace bottoms, a potentially\\nES-3", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "recyclable metallic product, that also met the RCRA TCLP total chromium standard.\\nChromium Partitioning\\nWith the exception of the baghouse dust and the ferrofurnace bottoms sample, the total chromium\\ncontent of the vitrified product did not differ significantly from that of the untreated soil. The\\nconcentrations of total chromium in the vitrification baghouse dust and ferrofurnace bottoms samples\\nwere approximately two and five times greater, respectively, than those found in the untreated soil.\\nHexavalent chromium was not detected in the ferrofurnace bottoms samples and was only detected in one\\nof six vitrified-product samples. The hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from one-half to\\napproximately the same in the vitrification baghouse dust as in the untreated soil. The baghouse dust was\\npresumed to be mainly fine-sized, untreated soil that was generated when soil was added to the\\nvitrification furnace and then carried through the air pollution control system (APCS).\\nCost\\nCold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to that treated during the SITE\\ndemonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal costs and potential\\ncredits for the vitrified product. The three scenarios evaluated included (1) use of the vitrified product as\\naggregate, (2) backfilling of the vitrified product on site, and (3) landfilling of the vitrified product.\\nCosts for these three scenarios were $83, $98, and $213 per ton, respectively. Because of the uncertainty\\nof their formation, potential credits for ferrofurnace bottoms were not considered in this economic\\nanalysis.\\nNJDEP Interim Cleanup Standards\\nComparison of metal concentrations in the vitrified product to the NJDEP interim soil cleanup standards\\nindicated that the vitrified product met the interim standards for antimony, beryllium, cadmium,\\nvanadium, and hexavalent chromium, but did not for nickel and total chromium.\\nStack Emissions\\nAlthough the Cold Top technology is not an incineration technology, the stack emissions from the\\ndemonstration were compared to Subpart O incinerator regulations, and the results were mixed. The data\\ncollected during the SITE demonstration were input into complex modeling calculations supplied by New\\nYork State. The modeling required site- and waste-specific analyses to assess the impact of the Cold Top\\nstack emissions. Results of the modeling were found to depend on the soil, the APCS, and the detection\\nlimits of the various analytes. Results of emissions modeling indicate that the concentrations of metals in\\nES-4", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "stack emissions depend on the characteristics of the soil, the air pollution control system, and the\\ndetection limits of the various analytes. Emissions of dioxins, particulate, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur\\ndioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride were all below the appropriate New York limits, based\\non appropriate measurement and calculation procedures.\\nDioxin and Furan Formation\\nExhaust gas concentrations of dioxins and furans were generally below the laboratory reporting limits.\\nThe high concentrations of chloride in the site soils could not be correlated with dioxin and furan\\nformation.\\nOther Observations\\nField observations and measurements made during the demonstration indicate that several operational\\nissues must be addressed during technology scale-up. First, a consistent and controlled feed system\\nneeds to be developed that spreads the waste feed uniformly over the surface of the molten soil. This\\nfeed system must also minimize dust generation. Second, an emission control system needs to be\\nconfigured to control any particulate and gaseous emissions from the furnace and feed system.\\nOther Studies\\nA bench-scale study of the Cold Top technology was performed at NJIT After completion of this\\ndemonstration, NJIT studied the feasibility of using the vitrified product from the SITE demonstration as\\nroad aggregate.\\nES-5", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4319", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "SECTION 1\\nINTRODUCTION\\nThis section provides background information on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\\nSuperfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, discusses the purpose of this Innovative\\nTechnology Evaluation Report (ITER), and describes the Cold Top vitrification system developed by\\nGeotech Development Corporation (Geotech) of Niagara Falls, New York. Additional information about\\nthe SITE program, the Geotech technology, and the demonstration can be obtained by contacting the key\\nindividuals listed at the end of this section.\\n1.1 THE SITE PROGRAM\\nThe SITE program was established by the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\\n(OSWER) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) in response to the Superfund Amendments\\nand Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The SITE program s primary purpose is to promote the use of\\nalternative technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites. The various component programs under\\nSITE are designed to encourage the development, demonstration, and use of new or innovative treatment\\nand monitoring technologies. The program is designed to meet four primary objectives:\\nIdentify and remove obstacles to the development and commercial use of alternate\\ntechnologies\\nStructure a development program that nurtures emerging technologies\\nDemonstrate promising innovative technologies to establish reliable performance and\\ncost information for site characterization and cleanup decision-making\\nDevelop procedures and policies that encourage the selection of available alternative\\ntreatment remedies at Superfund sites as well as other waste sites and commercial\\nfacilities\\nTechnologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration Program through annual solicitations. ORD staff\\nreview the proposals to determine which technologies show the most promise for use at Superfund sites.\\nTechnologies chosen must be at the pilot- or full-scale stage, must be innovative, and must have some\\nadvantage over existing technologies. Mobile or transportable technologies are of particular interest.\\nOnce EPA has accepted a proposal, cooperative agreements between EPA and the developer establish\\n1", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "responsibilities for conducting the demonstrations and evaluating the technology. The developer is\\nresponsible for demonstrating the technology at the selected site and is expected to pay any costs of\\ntransporting, operating, and removing the equipment. EPA is responsible for project planning;\\ntransporting the material to be treated to a fixed facility for off-site demonstrations; sampling and\\nanalysis; quality assurance and quality control; preparing reports; disseminating information; and\\ntransporting and disposing of treated waste materials.\\nFor this Geotech technology demonstration, New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) has a contract\\nwith New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to evaluate the Geotech Cold Top\\ntechnology. EPA and NJIT have a formal agreement to cooperate in this evaluation. NJDEP is the lead\\nagency for the evaluation, and EPA is furnishing additional resources to enhance the overall results.\\nEPA s responsibilities for this demonstration are limited to the evaluation of the vitrification unit itself,\\nwhile NJDEP will have primary responsibility for evaluating necessary pre- and post-vitrification\\ntreatment activities.\\nThe results of the demonstration are published in two basic documents: the SITE Technology Capsule\\nand the ITER. The SITE Technology Capsule provides relevant information on the technology,\\nemphasizing key results of the SITE demonstration. Both documents are intended for use by remedial\\nmanagers who need a detailed evaluation of the technology for a specific site and waste.\\n1.2 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT\\nThis ITER provides information on the Geotech technology and includes a comprehensive description of\\nthe demonstration and its results. The ITER is intended for use by EPA remedial project managers, EPA\\non-scene coordinators, contractors, and other decision makers who must implement specific remedial\\nactions. The ITER is designed to aid decision makers in further evaluating specific technologies for\\nconsideration as an applicable option for a particular cleanup operation.\\nTo encourage the general use of demonstrated technologies, the ITER provides information regarding the\\napplicability of each technology to specific sites and wastes. In particular, the report includes\\ninformation on (1) cost and site-specific characteristics and (2) the advantages, disadvantages, and\\nlimitations of the technology.\\n2", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "Each SITE demonstration evaluates a technology\u00e2\u0080\u0099s performance in treating a specific material. Because\\nthe characteristics of other materials may differ from the characteristics of the treated material, successful\\nfield demonstration of a technology at one site does not necessarily ensure that it will be applicable at\\nother sites. Data from the field demonstration may require extrapolation for estimating the operating\\nranges in which the technology will perform satisfactorily. Only limited conclusions can be drawn from\\na single field demonstration.\\n1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION\\nAbout 3 tons of contaminated soil were excavated from each of two chromium-contaminated sites. The\\nsoil was screened to remove material larger than one inch in diameter and placed in drums for shipment\\nto a facility in Camden, New Jersey, where it was dried, crushed, sieved, and blended with several\\nadditives. This soil pretreatment was performed because the developer claims that effective vitrification\\nby the Cold Top system requires soil that is dried to less than 5 percent moisture and sized to less than\\n0.375-inch diameter particle size. The addition of sand aids in the vitrification and improves the physical\\nstrength and other properties of the vitrified product. The soils from the two sites were handled\\nseparately. A continuous-loop or toroidal-flash dryer, operating at 300 to 450 \u00c2\u00b0F (150 to 230 \u00c2\u00b0C) inlet\\ntemperature with approximately 175\u00c2\u00b0F (80\u00c2\u00b0C) outlet or exhaust temperature, was used to dry the soils.\\nA baghouse captured dust emitted by the drying process. During the drying operation, the soil was mixed\\nwith (1) sand to increase the silica content and facilitate vitrification, (2) carbon to increase the electrical\\nconductivity of the mixture, and (3) dust from the baghouse. The resulting mixture was dry and well\\nblended; it was placed in one-half-filled 2,000-pound-capacity polypropylene bags, called supersacs,\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nand transported to Geotech in Niagara Falls, New York.\\nAt the Geotech facility, soil from each of the sites was placed in the vitrification furnace, which produced\\na vitrified product and, in one case, a by-product referred to as ferrofurnace bottoms. Off-gases from the\\nvitrification oven and dust from the vitrification baghouse were collected. The products and waste\\nstreams of the vitrification process were sampled and analyzed as part of the demonstration. The vitrified\\nproduct was then subjected to various tests by NJIT to determine if it is suitable for use in concrete or\\nasphalt.\\n3", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "1.4 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION\\nGeotech, the developer of the ex-situ, submerged-electrode, resistance-melting technology known as\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cCold Top,\u00e2\u0080\u009d claims its technology converts contaminated soil particles into an essentially monolithic,\\nvitrified mass. According to Geotech, vitrification transforms the physical state of contaminated soil\\nfrom assorted crystalline matrices to a glassy, amorphous, solid state comprised of interlaced polymeric\\nchains. These chains typically consist of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms. Chromium is expected to\\nreadily substitute for silicon in the chains. According to Geotech, the chromium would then be immobile\\nto leaching by aqueous solvents, and as a result, it would be biologically unavailable and nontoxic.\\nThe main unit of the system is a 1,350-kilovolt-amps (kVA) electric resistance furnace capable of\\noperating at melting temperatures up to 5,200 \u00c2\u00b0F (2,900 \u00c2\u00b0C). Once the voltage is properly adjusted, the\\nfurnace operates continuously. The furnace is initially charged with a mixture of sand and alumina-silica\\nclay. When subjected to electrical resistance heating, the mixture forms a molten pool; the voltage to the\\nfurnace is then adjusted; and the contaminated soil is fed into the furnace by a screw conveyor. As the\\nsoil melts, additional soil is added to maintain a \u00e2\u0080\u009ccold top.\u00e2\u0080\u009d When the desired soil-melting temperature is\\nachieved, Geotech removes the furnace plug from below the molten-product tap. During the\\ndemonstration, the outflow was poured into refractory-lined and insulated molds for slow cooling.\\nMaterial not collected in the molds for physical or chemical testing was discharged to a water sluice for\\nimmediate cooling and collection before off-site disposal. Other configurations of a full-scale system\\nallow outflow to be converted to pellets and fibers. The furnace is equipped with an off-gas treatment\\nsystem (which can include a baghouse, cyclone, and wet scrubbers) to control emissions.\\n4", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "1.5 KEY CONTACTS\\nAdditional information on the Geotech technology and the SITE program can be obtained from the\\nfollowing sources:\\nThe Geotech Development Corporation\\nDr. Thomas R. Tate\\nPresident\\nGeotech Development Corporation\\n1150 First Avenue, Suite 630\\nKing of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406\\n(610) 337-8515\\nFAX: (610) 768-5244\\nThe SITE Program\\nMarta K. Richards\\nEPA SITE Project Manager\\nNational Risk Management Research Laboratory\\nU.S. Environmental Protection Agency\\n26 West Martin Luther King Drive\\nCincinnati, Ohio 45268\\n(513)569-7692\\nFAX: (513) 569-7676\\nInformation on the SITE program is available through the following on-line information clearinghouses:\\nThe Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) System is a\\ncomprehensive, automated, information retrieval system that integrates data on\\nhazardous waste treatment technologies into a centralized source. The system operator\\ncan be reached at 301-670-6294.\\nThe Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT)\\ndatabase contains information on 154 technologies offered by 97 developers. The\\nhotline number is 800-245-4505.\\nThe OSWER CLU-In electronic bulletin board contains information on the status of\\nSITE technology demonstrations. The system operator can be reached at 301-585-8368.\\nOther on-line Internet information sources.\\nTechnical reports may be obtained by contacting the EPA Center for Environmental Research\\nInformation (CERI) at 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268: telephone\\n513-569-7562.\\n5", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "SECTION 2\\nTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS\\nThis section assesses the general applicability of the Geotech Cold Top system to remediate waste and\\ncontaminated soils from Superfund sites. This assessment is based on results from the SITE Program\\ndemonstration of the technology.\\nDemonstration tests were performed on soils from two sites contaminated with residues from two types\\not chromite-ore processing: NJDEP Site 130 and the NJDEP-owned Liberty State Park site. The sites\\nwere selected by NJDEP under an ongoing program to clean up more than 150 sites contaminated with\\nhexavalent chromium. Excavated soils were crushed, sieved, dried, and blended with carbon and sand at\\na facility in Camden, New Jersey. Supersacs containing the pretreated material were then shipped to the\\nGeotech facility in Niagara Falls, New York, where separate demonstration runs were conducted.\\n2.1 FEASIBILITY STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA\\nThis section assesses the Geotech technology relative to nine evaluation criteria used to conduct detailed\\nanalyses of remedial alternatives in feasibility studies performed under the Comprehensive\\nEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Table 1 summarizes the\\nevaluation criteria as they relate to the performance of the technology.\\n2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment\\nThis criterion addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks\\nposed by each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or\\ninstitutional controls.\\nThe Geotech technology provides both short- and long-term protection of human health and the\\nenvironment by eliminating exposure to hazardous inorganic constituents; the process fuses hazardous\\nconstituents into a noncrystalline, glass-like product. Exposure to air emissions is minimized by\\nremoving contaminants with an off-gas treatment system. Potential accidental releases could temporarily\\naffect air quality in the vicinity of the site. Site workers may be exposed to air emissions on a short-term\\nbasis when preparing the waste feed dumping the waste feed from the supersacs into the feed hopper,\\nand manually\\n7", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "Table 1. Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the Geotech Technology\\nCRITERION\\nGEOTECH TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE\\n1 Overall Protection of\\nHuman Health and\\nthe Environment\\nThe Geotech technology fuses hazardous inorganic constituents into a noncrystalline,\\nglass-like product. Air emissions are reduced by using an air pollution control system\\n(APCS).\\n2 Compliance with\\nFederal ARARs\\nCompliance with chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements\\n(ARARs) depends on the treatment efficiency of the vitrification system and the chemical\\nconstituents of the waste. Compliance with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs\\nmust be determined on a site-specific basis. For most sites, the following environmental\\nregulations will be applicable to Cold Top operations: Comprehensive Environmental\\nResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Resource Conservation and\\nRecovery Act (RCRA); the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; and the Occupational\\nSafety and Health Act.\\n3 Long-Term\\nEffectiveness and\\nPermanence\\nAs the vitrified products met RCRA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure\\nrequirements, these fused wastes were considered to be permanently treated. Treatment\\nresiduals from the APCS can be recycled through the system, and the vitrified product and\\nferrofurnace bottoms may be recycled or may require proper off-site disposal.\\n4 Reduction of Toxicity, Vitrification reduces the mobility of the waste feed by fusing hazardous inorganic\\nMobility, or Volume\\nThrough Treatment\\nconstituents into a high-density, noncrystalline, glass-like product. Toxicity is also reduced\\nby the chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium to less toxic species, such as trivalent\\nchromium.\\n5 Short-Term\\nEffectiveness\\nShort-term risks to workers, the community, and the environment are present during\\nwaste-handling activities and from potential exposure to process air emissions. Adverse\\nimpacts from both activities can be mitigated with proper personnel safety and\\nwaste-handling procedures and air pollution system control.\\n6 Implementability\\nThe Cold Top system vitrifies a wide variety of materials. Geotech plans to establish a\\nfull-scale fixed facility in the northern New Jersey area. Currently, Geotech does not\\noperate a transportable system, so only transportation of the waste feed needs to be\\nevaluated for this criterion.\\n7 Cost\\nCosts for treatment by the Cold Top technology depend on waste- and location-specific\\nfactors such as the volume of material to be treated, physical properties of the material to be\\ntreated, transportation costs, electricity costs, and economic value or cost to dispose of the\\nvitrified product and ferrofurnace bottoms. For the treatment scenarios evaluated in the\\neconomic analysis contained in this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report, costs ranged\\nfrom $83 to $213 per ton.\\n8 State Acceptance\\nState acceptance to the full-scale, fixed Cold Top facility is likely to be favorable.\\n9 Community\\nAcceptance\\nThe minimal short-term risks presented to the community along with the permanent fusing\\nof hazardous waste constituents in the waste, producing a usable product, should increase\\nthe likelihood of community acceptance of this technology. Additionally, as treatment by\\nthis technology takes place off site, acceptance by the community from where the waste is\\nremoved should be favorable.\\n8", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "removing the ferrofurnace bottoms after cool down.\\n2.1.2 Compliance with ARARs\\nThis criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and\\nappropriate requirements (ARARs) of federal and state environmental statutes. General and specific\\nARARs identified for the Geotech technology are presented in Section 2.2. Compliance with chemical-,\\nlocation-, and action-specific ARARs should be determined on a site-specific basis; however, location-\\nand action-specific ARARs generally can be met. Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs depends\\non the chemical constituents of the waste and the treatment efficiency of the vitrification system.\\n2.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence\\nThis criterion refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the\\nenvironment over time. Vitrification is a proven treatment technology for hazardous wastes\\ncontaminated with inorganic constituents. Vitrification transforms the physical state of contaminated soil\\nfrom assorted crystalline matrices to a glassy, amorphous, solid state comprised of interlaced polymeric\\nchains. These chains typically consist of alternating oxygen and silicon atoms. Chromium is expected to\\nreadily substitute for silicon in the chains. According to Geotech, the chromium would then be immobile\\nto leaching by aqueous solvents, and as a result, it would be biologically unavailable and nontoxic over\\ntime.\\n2.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment\\nThis criterion refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment technology potentially employed in a\\nSuperfund remediation. With vitrification, the toxicity of the waste feed is reduced by permanently\\nfusing hazardous inorganic constituents into a high-density, noncrystalline, glass-like product that may be\\nused as shore erosion block, decorative tile, roadbed fill, and cement or blacktop aggregate. The density\\nand volume of the vitrified product depends on the desired product. If high-density blocks are desired,\\nthe volume would be decreased. When the Cold Top system is run the way that was planned for the\\nSITE demonstration, there would be no waste product planned for disposal as it would be completely\\nrecyclable.\\nResults of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Synthetic Precipitation Leaching\\nProcedure (SPLP) tests indicated that the Cold Top process reduced leachable chromium concentrations\\n9", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "in the hazardous waste feed to below the regulatory limit defined for a characteristic waste as defined by\\nthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).\\nAir emissions from the treatment process are controlled by an off-gas treatment system. The iron-rich\\nferrofurnace bottoms may be recycled. Any treatment residual (such as or baghouse dust) can be\\nrecycled through the system or shipped off site to a permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facility.\\n2.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness\\nThis criterion addresses the period of time needed to achieve lasting protection of human health and the\\nenvironment as well as any adverse impacts that may be posed during the construction and\\nimplementation period before cleanup goals are achieved. During system operation, potential short-term\\nrisks presented to workers, the community, and the environment may include exposures to hazardous\\nsubstances during waste-handling activities and exposures to air emissions. Adverse impacts during\\nwaste-handling activities should be minimized by properly operating the Geotech technology, properly\\nhandling waste streams, and properly using appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE). Adverse\\nimpacts from the emissions are mitigated by using an off-gas treatment system.\\n2.1.6 Implementability\\nThis criterion considers the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the availability\\nof materials and services needed to implement a particular option. Geotech operates a pilot plant in\\nNiagara Falls, New York, that vitrifies a wide variety of materials. Currently, Geotech does not operate a\\ntransportable system; therefore, only the transportation of the waste feed needs to be evaluated for this\\ncriterion.\\n2.1.7 Costs\\nThis criterion addresses estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs as well as net present\\nworth costs. Costs for treatment by the Geotech technology will depend on site-specific factors such as\\nthe volume of material to be treated, physical properties of the material, contaminant types and\\nconcentrations, and site location. For the treatment scenarios evaluated in the economic analysis, costs\\nranged from $83 to $213 per ton. Section 3 of this report provides a detailed discussion of costs for the\\napplication of this technology.\\n10", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "2.1.8\\nState Acceptance\\nThis criterion addresses the technical or administrative issues and concerns the support agency may have\\nregarding the technology. EPA and NJIT, as a contractor to NJDEP, have a formal agreement to\\ncooperate on the evaluation of the Geotech Cold Top technology. NJDEP is the lead agency for the\\nevaluation, and EPA is furnishing additional resources to enhance the overall results. EPA\\nresponsibilities for this demonstration are limited to the evaluation of the vitrification unit itself; NJDEP\\nwill have primary responsibility for evaluating necessary pre- and post-vitrification treatment activities.\\nAcceptance by other states must be evaluated on a site-specific basis, although state acceptance is\\nexpected to be favorable.\\n2.1.9 Community Acceptance\\nThis criterion addresses any issues or concerns the public may have regarding the technology Public\\nacceptance of this technology should be positive for two reasons: (1) the technology presents minimal\\nshort-term risks to the community and (2) it permanently fuses hazardous constituents in the waste to\\nproduce a material that may be used as shore erosion block, decorative tile, roadbed fill, and cement or\\nblacktop aggregate.\\n2.2 TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE REGARDING ARARs\\nThis section discusses specific environmental regulations pertinent to the demonstration and operation of\\nthe Geotech Cold Top system, including the transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes and\\ntreatment residuals. CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires the consideration of ARARs; CERCLA\\nissues, although not true ARARs, are also considered.\\nRegulations that apply to a particular remediation activity depend on the ty pe of remediation site and the\\ntype of waste treated. State and local regulatory requirements, which may be more stringent, must also\\nbe addressed by remedial managers. ARARs for the Geotech demonstration include the following:\\n(1) CERCLA, (2) RCRA, (3) Clean Air Act (CAA), (4) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and (5)\\nOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Table 2 summarizes these\\nregulations, which are discussed in greater detail below.\\n11", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "2.2.1\\nComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act\\nCERCLA, as amended by SARA, provides for federal authority to respond to releases or potential\\nreleases of any hazardous substance into the environment, as well as to releases of pollutants or\\ncontaminants that may present an imminent or significant danger to public health and welfare or the\\nenvironment. Remedial alternatives that significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of\\nhazardous materials and provide long-term protection are preferred. Selected remedies must also be cost-\\neffective and protective of human health and the environment.\\nDue to the large number and relatively small size of most of the New Jersey chromium-contaminated\\nsites in New Jersey, the Geotech Cold Top system may likely be constructed in a central location to treat\\nwastes from the various sites. In addition, for sites that contain large quantities of contaminated soil.\\nGeotech is considering constructing a transportable unit for on-site operation. Disposal of residual\\nwastes generated during on-site application might require off-site disposal or treatment. All on-site\\nactions must meet all substantive state and federal ARARs. Substantive requirements pertain directly to\\nactions or conditions in the environment (for example, air emission standards). Off-site actions must\\ncomply with legally applicable substantive and administrative requirements; administrative requirements,\\nsuch as permitting, facilitate the implementation of substantive requirements.\\nOn-site remedial actions must comply with all federal ARARs as well as more stringent state ARARs.\\nARARs are determined on a site-by-site basis and may be waived under six conditions: (1) the action is\\nan interim measure, and the ARAR will be met at completion; (2) compliance with the ARAR would\\npose a greater risk to health and the environment than noncompliance; (3) it is technically impracticable\\nto meet the ARAR; (4) the standard of performance of an ARAR can be met by an equivalent method;\\n(5) a state ARAR has not been consistently applied elsewhere; and (6) fund balancing, where ARAR\\ncompliance would entail such cost in relation to the added degree of protection or reduction of risk\\nafforded by that ARAR that remedial action at other sites would be jeopardized. These waiver options\\napply only to Superfund actions taken on site, and justification for the waiver must be clearly\\ndemonstrated. Off-site remediations are not eligible for ARAR waivers, and all substantive and\\nadministrative applicable requirements must be met.", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "Table 2. Potential Federal ARARs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification System\\n13", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "Table 2. Potential Federal ARARs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification System\\n14", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "2.2.2\\nResource Conservation and Recovery Act\\nRCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Disposal Amendments of 1984, regulates\\nthe management and disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes. EPA and certain\\nRCRA-authorized states [listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 272] implement\\nand enforce RCRA and state regulations.\\nRCRA regulations may vary according to the specific use of the Geotech system. For example,\\nthe Cold Top process may also be used with pretreatment process units to remove extensive\\norganic contamination before vitrification. In such cases, pertinent RCRA regulations would\\nneed to be determined for each specific application.\\nThe presence of RCRA-defined hazardous waste determines whether RCRA regulations apply to\\nthe Geotech technology. If hazardous wastes are treated or generated during the operation of the\\ntechnology, all RCRA requirements must be addressed regarding the management and disposal\\nof hazardous wastes. RCRA regulations define hazardous wastes and regulate their transport and\\ntreatment, storage, and disposal. Wastes defined as hazardous under RCRA include\\ncharacteristic and listed wastes. Criteria for identifying characteristic hazardous wastes are\\nincluded in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C. Listed wastes generated from nonspecific and specific\\nindustrial sources, off-specification products, spill cleanups, and other industrial sources are\\nitemized in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D.\\nIf hazardous wastes are treated by the Geotech system, the owner or operator of the treatment or\\ndisposal facility must obtain an EPA identification number and a RCRA permit from EPA or the\\nRCRA-authorized state. RCRA requirements for permits are specified in 40 CFR Part 270.\\nThe Geotech Cold Top system is classified as a smelting, melting, and refining furnace by the\\nboiler and industrial furnace (BIF) rule (as defined in 40 CFR Part 260.10). If the treatment\\nwaste feed has a high organic content, the Geotech system may burn or process wastes as a BIF;\\nin such cases, the BIF rule outlined in 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H may become an ARAR.\\n15", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "Treatment residuals generated during the operation of the system, such as baghouse dust, must be\\nstored and disposed of properly. If the treatment waste feed is a listed waste, treatment residuals\\nmust be considered listed wastes (unless RCRA delisting requirements are met). If the treatment\\nresiduals are not listed wastes, they should be tested to determine if they are RCRA characteristic\\nhazardous wastes. If the residuals are not hazardous and do not contain free liquids, they can be\\ndisposed of on site or at a nonhazardous waste landfill. If the treatment residuals are hazardous,\\nthe following RCRA standards apply:\\nStandards and requirements for generators of hazardous waste, including hazardous\\ntreatment residuals, are outlined in 40 CFR Part 262. These requirements include\\nobtaining an EPA identification number, meeting waste-accumulation standards, labeling\\nwastes, and keeping appropriate records. Part 262 allows generators to store wastes up to\\n90 days without a permit and without having interim status as a treatment, storage, or\\ndisposal facility. If treatment residuals are stored on site for 90 days or more, 40 CFR\\nPart 265 requirements apply.\\nAny on- or off-site facility designated for permanent disposal of hazardous treatment\\nresiduals must be in compliance with RCRA. Disposal facilities must fulfill permitting,\\nstorage, maintenance, and closure requirements provided in 40 CFR Parts 264 through\\n270. In addition, any state RCRA requirements must be fulfilled. If treatment residuals\\nare disposed of off site, 40 CFR Part 263 transportation standards apply.\\nThe waste feed mixture used during the Geotech demonstration included chromium-\\ncontaminated soil from two types of chromite-ore processing sites. Soils classified as hazardous\\nwaste are subject to land disposal restrictions (LDR) under both RCRA and CERCLA.\\nApplicable RCRA requirements may include (1) a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest if the\\ntreated soils are transported, (2) restrictions on placing soils in land disposal units, (3) time limits\\non accumulating treated soils, and (4) permits for storing treated soils.\\nRequirements for corrective action at RCRA-regulated facilities are provided in 40 CFR Part\\n264, Subpart F (promulgated) and Subpart S (proposed). These subparts also apply to\\nremediation at Superfund sites. Subparts F and S include requirements for initiating and\\nconducting RCRA corrective actions, remediating groundwater, and ensuring that corrective\\nactions comply with other environmental regulations. Subpart S also details conditions under\\n16", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "which particular RCRA requirements may be waived for temporary treatment units operating at\\ncorrective action sites. Thus, RCRA mandates requirements similar to CERCLA, and as\\nproposed, may allow units such as the Geotech treatment system to operate with partial waivers\\nof permits.\\n2.2.3 Clean Air Act\\nThe CAA and its 1990 amendments establish (1) primary and secondary ambient air quality\\nstandards for the protection of public health and (2) emission limitations on certain hazardous air\\npollutants.\\nCAA permitting requirements are administered by each state as part of State Implementation\\nPlans developed to bring each state into compliance with National Ambient Air Quality\\nStandards (NAAQS). Ambient air quality standards for specific pollutants apply to the operation\\nof the Geotech system, because the technology ultimately results in an emission from a point\\nsource to the ambient air. Allowable emission limits for the operation of a Geotech system will\\nbe established on a case-by-case basis depending on the type of waste treated and whether or not\\nthe site is in a NAAQS attainment area. Allowable emission limits may be set for specific\\nhazardous air pollutants, particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, or other pollutants. If the site is\\nin an attainment area, the allowable emission limits may still be curtailed by the increments\\navailable under prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations. Typically, an air\\npollution control system (APCS) similar to the type used during the SITE demonstration will be\\nrequired to control the discharge of emissions to the ambient air.\\nARARs pertaining to the CAA must be determined on a site-by-site basis. In attainment (or\\nunclassified) areas, remedial activities involving the Geotech technology may be subject to PSD\\nrequirements in Part C of the CAA. The PSD requirements will apply when remedial activities\\ninvolve a major source or modification as defined in 40 CFR Section 52.21; remedial activities\\nsubject to review must apply the best available control technologies and demonstrate that the\\n17", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "activity will not adversely affect ambient air quality.\\n2.2.4 Toxic Substances Control Act\\nAlthough the waste material treated during the SITE demonstration of the Cold Top technology\\ndid not contain asbestos, successful treatment of asbestos-contaminated materials is a claim of\\nthe technology. Asbestos regulations are described in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)\\nand 40 CFR Part 763. If the system is used to treat asbestos-contaminated material, the\\nremediation will require TSCA authorization that defines operational and disposal constraints. If\\nthe asbestos-contaminated material contains RCRA wastes, RCRA compliance is also required.\\n2.2.5 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements\\nCERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions must be performed in accordance with OSHA\\nrequirements detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926, especially Part 1910.120, which provides for\\nthe health and safety of workers at hazardous waste sites. On-site construction activities at Superfund or\\nRCRA corrective actions sites must be performed in accordance with Part 1926 of OSHA, which\\nprovides safety and health regulations for construction sites. State OSHA requirements, which may be\\nsignificantly stricter than federal standards, must also be met.\\nAll technicians operating the Geotech treatment system are required to have completed an OSHA training\\ncourse and must be familiar with all OSHA requirements relevant to hazardous waste sites. For most\\nsites, minimum PPE for technicians will include gloves, hard hats, steel-toe boots, and coveralls.\\nDepending on contaminant types and concentrations, additional PPE may be required.\\n2.3 OPERABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY\\nA schematic of the Cold Top system is shown in Figure 1. The system is controlled by an operator\\nworking at a control panel. The operator can control the power supplied to each of the vitrification\\nelectrodes. The amount of power supplied to the electrodes determines the rate at which contaminated\\nsoil is vitrified and also the rate at which untreated soil must be added to the furnace. Prior to startup, the\\n18", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "furnace is lined with sand to insulate its bottom and walls. A clay material, Mulcoa, is added on top of the\\nsand. The energy required to melt Mulcoa is well characterized by Geotech and they use this information\\nto determine the initial setting of the furnace. Contaminated soil is placed on top of the Mulcoa and, once\\nthe Mulcoa begins to melt and the power to the electrodes is properly determined, the soil begins to melt\\nalso. By visualizing the vitrified effluent from the reactor, the operator can tell when the Mulcoa has been\\ncompletely melted and discharged. At this point, the discharge rate of the vitrified soil is closely\\nmonitored using a ladle, and power to the electrodes is adjusted, as necessary, to maintain the desired flow\\nrate. This flow rate is maintained throughout the test run. A skilled operator is required to monitor and\\nrun the system.\\n2.4 APPLICABLE WASTES\\nGeotech has operated a pilot plant that has vitrified a wide variety of materials, including granite, blast\\nfurnace slag, fly ash, spent catalyst, and flue dust. In addition, the Cold Top vitrification process has been\\nused to treat soils contaminated with hazardous heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and chromium;\\nasbestos and asbestos-containing materials; and municipal-solid-waste-incinerator-ash residue. Waste\\nmaterial must be sized to pass through a 0.375-inch mesh screen.\\nThe Cold Top vitrification process is most efficient when (1) feed materials have been dewatered to less\\nthan 5 percent water and (2) organic chemical concentrations have been minimized. The demonstration\\nwastes required the addition of carbon and sand to ensure that the vitrification process produced a durable\\nglass-like product.\\n2.5 KEY FEATURES OF THE GEOTECH COLD TOP SYSTEM\\nThe system is a 1,350-kVA electric resistance furnace capable of operating at melting temperatures of up\\nto 5,200 \u00c2\u00b0F (2,870 \u00c2\u00b0C). The furnace is cooled by water circulating within its hollow jacket and is\\nequipped with an off-gas treatment system, which may include a baghouse, cyclone, and wet scrubbers,\\ndepending on waste characteristics. Once the operating temperature is attained, contaminated soil is\\ncontinuously fed to the furnace by a screw conveyor, while vitrified product is tapped from the middle of\\nthe furnace.\\n19", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "TO AIR POLLUTION\\nCONTROL SYSTEM\\n20", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "2.6 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT\\nFor the past 15 years, Geotech\u00e2\u0080\u0099s pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New York, has vitrified a wide variety of\\nmaterials. A Geotech system may be constructed and centrally located for the more than 150 chromium-\\ncontaminated sites in New Jersey. Although Geotech does not currently operate a transportable system, it\\nis considering constructing a transportable unit for sites that contain large quantities of contaminated soil.\\nSeveral production plants based on the Geotech technology are now being used to produce mineral fiber\\nand other commercial products. These plants could be converted to the treatment of hazardous wastes.\\n2.7 MATERIALS-HANDLING REQUIREMENTS\\nWaste feed must be sized to pass through a 0.375-inch mesh screen. The Cold Top vitrification process is\\nmost efficient when (1) feed materials have been dewatered to less than 5 percent water and (2) organic\\nchemical concentrations have been minimized. Waste feed may require the addition of carbon (to increase\\nthe electrical conductivity of the mixture) and silica (to increase the silica content and facilitate\\nvitrification). Demonstration waste feed pretreatment consisted of reducing the particle size, drying, and\\nblending with 0.2 percent carbon and 25 percent sand by weight. Following pretreatment, the waste feed\\nwas placed in supersacs for transport to the Cold Top furnace. The waste feed was then emptied from the\\nsupersacs into a feed hopper where it was metered into the furnace by screw conveyor.\\nWhen the desired soil melt temperature is achieved. Geotech removes the furnace plug from below the\\nmolten-product tap. During the demonstration, the outflow to be used for chemical and durability testing\\nwas poured into refractory-lined and insulated molds for slow cooling. Excess material was discharged to\\na water sluice for immediate cooling and collection for off-site disposal.\\n2.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY\\nThe Geotech Cold Top system has several limitations. At the present time, waste material must be\\ntransported for treatment at the Geotech facility in Niagara Falls, New York, although other Cold Top\\nfacilities may be constructed in the future. Geotech is also considering constructing a transportable unit.\\n21", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "At the conclusion of a waste-feed run, ferrofurnace bottoms may be present in the furnace. This material\\nmust be analyzed prior to recycling or off-site disposal. The material may have significant value for\\nrecycling, therefore its formation as a by-product may be a benefit. Other limitations of the process, such\\nas waste feed organic chemical content, dryness, and particle size, are discussed above.\\n22", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "SECTION 3\\nECONOMIC ANALYSIS\\nThis economic analysis presents cost estimates for using the Cold Top ex-situ vitrification system to treat\\ncontaminated soil. Cost data were compiled during the SITE demonstration at the Geotech test facility in\\nNiagara Falls, New York, and from information obtained from Geotech. Costs have been placed in 12\\ncategories applicable to typical cleanup activities at Superfund and RCRA sites (Evans 1990). Costs\\nwere estimated using data in R.S. Means Environmental Restoration Unit Cost Book (1996) and R.S.\\nMeans Building Construction Cost Data: 55 th Edition (1997). Estimated costs are considered to be\\norder-of-magnitude estimates with an expected accuracy within 50 percent above and 30 percent below\\nthe actual costs.\\nThis section describes three scenarios selected for economic analysis (Section 3.1), summarizes the\\nmajor issues involved and assumptions made in performing the analysis (Section 3.2), discusses costs\\nassociated with using the Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification process to treat contaminated soil (Section 3.3),\\nand presents conclusions of the economic analysis (Section 3.4).\\n3.1 INTRODUCTION\\nThere are more than 150 chromium-contaminated sites in the northern New Jersey area. The amount of\\ncontaminated soil at most of the sites ranges from 100 to 500 cubic yards (cy); two or three of the sites\\nhave more than 1 million cy. The number and close proximity of these many sites presents a large\\nmarket potential in the area for a treatment system such as the Cold Top process. This economic analysis\\npresents costs based on treating contaminated soil at a newly constructed, fixed vitrification facility\\nlocated in or near Jersey City, New Jersey. As costs for a transportable vitrification system may vary\\nand the cost-effectiveness of such a system would depend on each site\u00e2\u0080\u0099s size, the economics of a\\ntransportable system are not addressed in this analysis.\\nTable 3 presents estimated costs per ton for soil treatment under three disposal scenarios. Under scenario\\n1, treated material is sold as road aggregate and clean backfill is used at the excavated site. This is the\\nmost economic scenario, and NJIT is conducting a concurrent investigation of the efficacy of this\\nscenario. Under scenario 2, treated material is suitable for use as backfill at the excavated site, thus\\nsaving\\n23", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "Table 3. Summary of Costs for the Geotech Cold Top Vitrification Process\\nCost Categories\\nSell Treated Material\\nas Aggregate and Use\\nClean Backfill\\n($/ton)\\nBackfill Treated\\nMaterial\\n($/ton)\\nLandfill Treated\\nMaterial and Use\\nClean Backfill\\n($/ton)\\nSite Preparation\\n-Excavation\\n5.72\\n$5.72\\n5.72\\n-Waste preparation\\n5.00\\n5.00\\n5.00\\nPermitting and regulatory\\n2.02\\n2.02\\n2.02\\nrequirements\\nCapital costs\\n8.03\\n8.03\\n8.03\\nFixed costs\\n6.79\\n6.79\\n6.79\\nLabor\\n11.75\\n11.75\\n11.75\\nMaterials\\n9.67\\n1.67\\n9.67\\nUtilities\\n23.28\\n23.28\\n23.28\\nDisposal\\n(12.50)\\n0.00\\n107.00\\nTransportation\\n-Excavated material\\n10.00\\n10.00\\n10.00\\n-Treated material\\n10.00\\n10.00\\nAnalytical costs\\n7.11\\n7.11\\n7.11\\nEquipment repair and\\n5.50\\n5.50\\n5.50\\nreplacement\\nSite demobilization\\n1.11\\n1.11\\n1.11\\nTotal cost per ton\\n$83\\n$98\\n$213\\n24", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "costs associated with obtaining and using clean backfill material and off-site disposal of treated material.\\nUnder scenario 3, treated material is landfilled at a nonhazardous solid waste disposal facility, and clean\\nbackfill is used at the excavated site; this is obviously the most costly scenario.\\n3.2 ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS\\n1 his section summarizes major issues and assumptions regarding site-specific factors, equipment, and\\noperating parameters used in this economic analysis of the Cold Top vitrification process. Key\\nassumptions are summarized as follows:\\nThe primary contaminant of concern is chromium, at concentrations up to\\n100,000 mg/kg.\\nContaminated soil has a moisture content of about 15 percent, and less than 5 percent of\\nthe material will be retained on a 1-inch screen.\\nThe typical site contains 450 tons (or 300 cy) of contaminated soil and is located about\\n20 miles from the vitrification facility.\\nGeotech will construct and operate the vitrification facility at one of the contaminated\\nsites near Jersey City, New Jersey.\\nThe proposed vitrification facility will process 300 tons per day (200 cy/day), or\\napproximately 109,000 tons per year, of contaminated soil, including pretreatment as\\nneeded (such as crushing, drying, and mixing with additives).\\n3.3 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS\\nThe cost analysis was prepared by breaking down the overall cost into the following 12 categories, some\\nof which do not have costs associated with them for this particular technology:\\nSite preparation costs\\nPermitting and regulatory costs\\nCapital costs\\n25", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "Fixed costs\\nLabor costs\\nMaterials costs\\nUtilities\\nDisposal costs\\nTransport costs\\nAnalytical costs\\nFacility modification, repair, and replacement costs\\nSite demobilization costs\\nThe 12 cost factors and any related assumptions for the Cold Top process are examined below. As\\nshown in Table 3, costs for many of the categories are the same for each scenario.\\n3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs\\nTypical site preparation costs associated with setting up a waste treatment system at a hazardous waste\\nsite include site design, planning and management, legal searches, access rights, and construction work\\nSince the Cold Top facility in this analysis is a stationary unit, requiring waste to be brought to the\\nfacility for treatment, these costs are not incurred on a site-specific basis, and they are included within\\nthe capital cost category.\\nFor this analysis, site preparation costs are associated with excavating contaminated soil. Mobilization\\ncosts for excavation, including clearing light brush, installing temporary fencing, establishing working\\nzones, and mobilizing equipment to the site, are estimated to be $1,000 for the small sites considered in\\nthis analysis. Excavation costs of $5.25 per cy are based on using a two-person crew with a backhoe or\\n26", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "tront-end loader for one 8-hour day, or approximately $1,575 to excavate the typical 300-cy (450-ton)\\nsite. This cost includes equipment, fuel, and labor costs. Therefore, the total site preparation cost for the\\ntypical site is approximately $2,575. For each of the three scenarios the site preparation cost is $8.58 per\\ncy or $5.72 per ton.\\nWaste preparation is assumed to be required before treatment in the Cold Top system. Geotech expects\\nto provide waste pretreatment services at its fixed facility and would include any costs associated with\\nthis activity in its contract price. However, for this analysis, it is assumed that this waste preparation will\\nbe a separate operation that may be conducted at the contaminated site. Furthermore, it is assumed that\\ncontaminated material will require screening, magnetic separation, and drying. Approximately\\n50 percent of the material will require crushing. Finally, silica will be added to the material, up to\\n25 percent by volume, and the material will be blended. Based on the SITE demonstration and published\\ncosts for these individual operations, the estimated cost for waste preparation is $5.00 per ton.\\n3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs\\nPermitting and regulatory costs will vary depending on whether treatment is performed on a Superfund or\\na RCRA corrective action site and the fate of the treated waste. Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended\\nby SARA, requires that remedial actions be consistent with ARARs of environmental laws, ordinances,\\nregulations, and statutes. ARARs include federal standards, as well as more stringent standards\\npromulgated under state or local jurisdictions. ARARs must be determined on a site-specific basis. For\\nthis analysis, the cost for permits associated with construction activities at the site are estimated to be\\n$500 or 1.67 per cy 1.11 per ton).\\nFor most pollution control facilities, the cost of keeping up with applicable regulations and permits is\\nsubstantial. However, in this economic analysis, sincethe Cold Top facility will not use contact cooling\\nwater and air emissions are expected to be low, the permitting cost for the facility are estimated to be\\nabout $100,000 per year, which includes professional services and regulatory fees. Based on the\\nprojected facility throughput of 109,000 tons per year, the permitting and regulatory cost is estimated to\\nbe $0.92 per ton for all cases. The total cost for this category is, therefore, $2.02 per ton.\\n27", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "3.3.3 Capital Costs\\nCapital costs are based on information provided by Geotech. Specifically, Geotech provided this\\ninformation as annual costs of $400,000 for depreciation and $475,000 for debt service on capital\\nexpenditures. Based on 109,000 tons per year, the estimated capital cost is $8.03 per ton.\\n3.3.4 Fixed Costs\\nFixed costs for the Cold Top system include other annual expenses not directly related to waste\\ntreatment. Geotech has estimated the annual costs for these to be $110,000 for building utilities;\\n$155,000 for insurance; $200,000 for general maintenance; and $275,000 for general administration.\\nBased on 109,000 tons per year, the estimated fixed costs are $6.79 per ton.\\nThese costs do not include any profit. To establish a price for treatment, Geotech will add such profit as\\na fixed cost per ton, based on market conditions. As a result, actual fixed costs may be significantly\\nhigher per ton.\\n3.3.5 Labor Costs\\nFor 24-hour per day operation, Geotech expects to employ a 21 full-time personnel. Based on\\nobservations during the SITE demonstration, a five-person crew during each shift should be adequate to\\nsafely operate the system. The crew would consist of a field engineer (approximately $25 per hour), an\\nequipment operator ($20 per hour), and three laborers ($15 per hour each). Four crews plus one overall\\nsupervising engineer 1,300 per week) would complete the 21 -person operating staff. Adding 50\\npercent for fringe benefits, including worker training, the total annual labor costs for the vitrification\\nfacility are estimated to be $853,840. Based on 109,000 tons per year, the estimated labor costs are\\n$11.75 per ton.\\n3.3.6 Materials Costs\\nMaterials costs are associated with site cleanup and treatment. The costs associated with this treatment\\n28", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "include carbon and silica addition during pretreatment, kaolin clay and glass frit addition during startup,\\nand electrode replacement. Pretreatment and startup material costs are generally minimal; electrode\\nreplacement costs are addressed in Section 3.3.11.\\nFor the three scenarios, the primary materials costs are associated with site backfilling, including labor,\\nbackfill material, spreading, and compaction. For the first and third scenarios, clean backfill will be used\\nat the excavation. The estimated cost for supplying, spreading, and compacting clean borrow and\\nbackfill material will be $14.50 per cy or $9.67 per ton of soil treated. For the second, it is assumed that\\ntreated material will be replaced as backfill at the individual sites excavated. The estimated cost for\\nspreading and compacting this material is $2.50 per cy or 1.67 per ton.\\n3.3.7 Utilities Costs\\nElectricity is the primary utility required for the Cold Top process. Only minimal drinking and service\\nwater is required for the system. Based on the SITE demonstration and other information provided by\\nGeotech, the technology uses about 776 kilowatt-hours (kWhr) per ton of soil treated. Geotech expects\\nto obtain a highly competitive rate of 3 cents per kWhr for its facility; however, this rate could be as high\\nas 6 or 7 cents per kWhr (see Section 3.4.3). Therefore, the utility cost for the system could range from\\n$23.28 to $54.32 per ton of soil treated.\\n3.3.8 Disposal Costs\\nDisposal costs represent the most significant difference among the three scenarios. In scenario 1, treated\\nmaterial is assumed to have a salable value as road aggregate. Standard costs for sand and stone\\naggregate are approximately $12.50 per ton, which will be assumed as a credit for this scenario. In\\nscenario 2, treated material will be used as backfill at the site excavations; therefore, disposal costs are\\nassumed to be zero. In scenario 3, disposal costs for landfilling the treated material would be $107 per\\nton, assuming a nonhazardous solid bulk waste.\\n3.3.9 Transportation Costs\\nTransportation costs will be incurred to transport soil from the contaminated sites to the vitrification\\nfacility. This analysis assumes an average distance of 20 miles from the site to (40 miles round trip),\\n29", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "with 300 cy of soil removed from the typical site. Based on these assumptions, it will take five 20-cy\\ndump trucks four trips to remove the excavated soil. Transportation costs are estimated to be $15.00 per\\ncy ($10.00 per ton) for each of the three scenarios.\\nThe same assumptions are used to estimate costs to (1) transport the treated material back to the site for\\nbackfilling in scenario 2 and (2) transport this material to a landfill in scenario 3. Again, these costs are\\nestimated to be $15.00 per cy ($10.00 per ton). Transportation costs for scenario 1 are assumed to be\\nbom by the purchaser.\\n3.3.10 Analytical Costs\\nAnalytical costs are associated with confirmation of site excavation activities and evaluation of treatment\\neffectiveness. While site-specific requirements may vary considerably, this analysis assumes that a total\\nof 20 confirmation samples will be analyzed for metals at a cost of $100 per sample. Therefore, the cost\\nfor site confirmatory samples is $6.67 per cy or $4.44 per ton.\\nAt a minimum, three samples of treated material should be collected for each site and analyzed for total\\nmetals and TCLP metals. These analyses will cost about $400 per sample. For the typical site, total\\nanalytical costs to evaluate treatment effectiveness will be $1,200, or $4.00 per cy ($2.67 per ton).\\nTherefore, total analytical costs for the technology are $10.67 per cy or $7.11 per ton.\\n3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs\\nThis cost category covers the general maintenance for the facility and the period replacement of\\nelectrodes and orifices for the vitrification units. Because the scope of the SITE demonstration limits the\\ntechnology evaluation to a short time frame, costs under this category are based on information supplied\\nby Geotech. For this analysis, costs are estimated based on a typical treatment campaign of 90 days, at\\nwhich time the system would be shut down for 1 day to replace equipment, as needed. Geotech has\\nestimated the annual repair and maintenance cost to be $400,000 for electrode and orifice replacement\\nand $200,000 for general maintenance and ancillary equipment replacement. Therefore, the total cost to\\ntreat 109,000 tons of contaminated soil is $600,000, or $5.50 per ton of treated soil.\\n30", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs\\nSite demobilization and restoration are limited to the removal of equipment from the site. The cost for\\nexcavation demobilization at the typical site is estimated to be $500. Requirements regarding the\\nbackfilling, grading, and recompaction of the material in the excavation are included in Section 3.3.6.\\nTherefore, demobilization costs are 1.67 per cy or 1.11 per ton.\\n3.4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS\\nThis section summarizes the costs for the Cold Top system for the three scenarios and the 12 cost\\ncategories. This section also presents an analysis of the impact of electricity rates on the technology\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\ncost.\\n3.4.1 Total Cost for a Typical Site under Three Scenarios\\nThe distinguishing factor in identifying the three treatment scenarios are based on the options for\\nhandling the contaminated soil after treatment: (1) reuse it as construction material, (2) return it to the\\nexcavated area, or (3) dispose of it at a landfill. Figure 2 compares the total costs for the three scenarios.\\n3.4.2 Cost Breakdown by Category\\nCosts for each of the twelve cost categories are summarized in Table 3 and shown in Figure 3 as costs per\\nton of soil treated, which range from $83 to $213 per ton of contaminated soil.\\n3.4.3 Cost Sensitivity to Electricity Rates\\nElectricity accounts for as much as 26 percent of the total technology treatment costs. Geotech expects\\nto negotiate a preferred rate of $0.03 per kWhr during development of the New Jersey facility. However,\\nelectricity rates vary considerably based on location and market conditions. Figure 4 depicts the impact\\nof electricity rates on total cost per ton for each of the three scenarios.\\n31", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "(000\u00e2\u0080\u0098 1$) tsoo |B \u00c2\u00bb01\\n32\\nFigure 2. Total Treatment Cost for Typical Site", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "Sell Treated Material as Aggregate and Use Clean Backfill\\nBackfill Treated Material\\n$25\\nFigure 3b. Cost Breakdown for Scenario No. 2\\nLandfill Treated Material and Use Clean Backfill\\n$25\\n$20\\nc $15\\no\\nt\\n$10\\n$5\\nFigure 3c. Cost Breakdown for Scenario No. 3\\nFigure 3. Cost Breakdown for Scenarios No. 1, 2, and 3\\nTotal Cost\\n$83/ton\\nTotal Cost\\n$98/ton\\nTotal Cost\\n$213/ton\\n33", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "250.00\\n34\\nFigure 4. Impact of Electricity Cost on Total Treatment Cost", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "SECTION 4\\nTREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS\\nIn 1994, the Stevens Institute of Technology (SIT), one of 2 universities involved in this project,\\nconducted a bench-scale study to determine the performance of the Cold Top vitrification process based\\non the leachability of chromium and the concentration of hexavalent chromium in the glass product.\\nThe study included the collection and subsequent analysis of soils from nine chromium-contaminated\\nsites in northern New Jersey (see Table 4 and Meegoda 1995). The soils were analyzed for total\\nchromium, hexavalent chromium, and pH; the soils also underwent TCLP analyses for chromium. The\\nconcentrations of hexavalent chromium in the soils ranged from less than 5.8 milligrams per kilogram\\n(mg/kg) to 4,800 mg/kg. The pH of the soils varied from 8.1 to 11.4, with three sites having a pH\\nabove 10. The results of the evaluation indicated that concentrations of chromium in the TCLP\\nleachate of the vitrified samples were generally less than 1.1 milligram per liter (mg/L), which is below\\nthe regulatory threshold concentration of 5 mg/L that would define the vitrified product as a hazardous\\nwaste.\\nContaminated soils from Liberty State Park and Site 130, both New Jersey Superfund sites, were\\nselected for the Cold Top demonstration based on site access and the concentrations of chromium in\\nuntreated soils. The two sites are located in Hudson County in northern New Jersey. Table 4\\nsummarizes the results of chromium analyses conducted before and after the SIT bench-scale treatment\\nof soil from these two sites. Contaminated soils from the sites were treated at the Geotech vitrification\\npilot plant in Niagara Falls, New York.\\n4.1 DEMONSTRATION OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH\\nThe general objective of the Cold Top SITE demonstration was to develop data needed to allow an\\nunbiased, quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of this technology. To ensure the\\nattainment of data that would allow such an evaluation, specific, performance-based objectives were\\ndeveloped. This technology demonstration had both primary and secondary SITE program objectives.\\nPrimary objectives (P) are considered critical for the technology evaluation. Secondary objectives (S)\\nprovide additional information that is useful but not critical. To obtain the data required to meet the\\n35", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "specified demonstration objectives, samples were collected and process measurements were made at the\\nlocations described in Section 4.3. The primary objective of this demonstration was as follows:\\nTable 4. Results of Chromium Analyses of Soils from Bench-Scale Study\\n(Stevens Institute of Technology Data)\\nSite\\nUntreated Soil\\nTreated Soil\\nTCLP\\nChromium\\n(mg/L)\\nHexavalent\\nChromium\\n(mg/kg)\\nTotal\\nChromium\\n(mg/kg)\\nTCLP\\nChromium\\n(mg/L)\\nHexavalent\\nChromium\\n(mg/kg)\\nTotal\\nChromium\\n(mg/kg)\\nSite 130\\n48.6\\n4,800\\n5,294\\n0.0254\\n5.2\\n48.4/15.2\\nLiberty State Park\\n32.4\\n1,240\\n1,544\\n0.0934\\n5.2\\n40.8/111.2\\nNote:\\n1 The two results are obtained from duplicate analyses.\\nP-1 Determine if the waste and product streams from the vitrification unit meet the RCRA\\ndefinitions of a characteristic waste due to their chromium content; this determination\\nshould be made based on a 95 percent confidence level. For comparison, the chromium\\nconcentrations in the untreated soils was determined.\\nFor wastes from each site, the demonstration evaluated the TCLP concentrations of chromium in the\\ndried, blended soil mixture; the process residuals; and the vitrified product from the treatment process.\\nThis evaluation determined if the untreated soil, the process waste streams, and the vitrified product met\\nthe regulatory definition of a hazardous waste, specifically whether they exhibited the toxicity\\ncharacteristic for chromium. To achieve this objective, the dried, crushed, blended, (but untreated) soil\\nmixture; process residuals (including vitrification baghouse dust and ferrofumace bottoms); and the\\nvitrified product were subjected to TCLP testing, and the extracts were analyzed to determine total\\nchromium concentrations. Chromium concentrations of 5.0 mg/L or less in the TCLP extracts would\\nindicate that the residuals would not be defined as hazardous wastes due to the presence of chromium.\\nSamples of untreated soil from each site were composited during soil collection; and one sample from\\neach site was analyzed to determine the approximate chromium levels in the TCLP extract. The data\\nshow that chromium concentrations in the TCLP extract, of the contaminated site soils exceeded the\\nRCRA hazardous waste criteria of 5.0 mg/L by factors of six to ten.\\n36", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "There were problems attaining these objectives. The problems are discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.\\nAnother purpose of the SITE demonstration was to accomplish the following five secondary objectives:\\nS-l Determine the partitioning of total and hexavalent chromium from the dried waste into\\nvarious waste and product streams.\\nMass balances were to be performed around the vitrification process for both total and hexavalent\\nchromium to determine the relative partitioning of chromium into baghouse dust, stack emissions,\\nferrofurnace bottoms, and vitrified product. The total chromium mass balance was attempted by\\nanalyzing the following seven streams using the rigorous hydrofluoric acid digestion method: (1) the\\nsand (silicon) and carbon additives; (2) the baghouse dust from the drying process; (3) the dried,\\ncrushed, and sieved, untreated soil blended with baghouse dust from the drying process and the sand\\nand carbon additives; (4) the vitrification baghouse dust; (5) stack emissions (filter and impinger\\nsolution); (6) ferrofurnace bottoms; and (7) vitrified product. The weight of each material was to be\\ndetermined, and the weights would then be multiplied by each material s respective concentration to\\ndetermine the total amount of chromium in each stream. The weights of the above numbers (3) and\\n(7) were not accurately determined due to weighing error and an inadequate supply of molds for the\\nvitrification product.\\nThe mass balance for hexavalent chromium was to be accomplished by sampling and analyzing for\\nhexavalent chromium in the same seven streams. The analytical results for hexavalent chromium were\\nto be compared to the results for total chromium to determine if hexavalent chromium is converted to\\nother oxidation states of chromium.\\nS-2 Evaluate the operating costs of the Geotech technology per ton of soil\\nThis objective was achieved by estimating the total costs of utilities, labor, maintenance, supplies, and\\nother necessary equipment or activities to treat a soil similar to those used in the demonstration (Evans\\n1991). Once these costs were estimated, the cost per ton for treatment for a typical chromium-\\ncontaminated site was estimated for several treatment scenarios with different quantities of\\ncontaminated soil.\\n37", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "S-3 Determine whether the vitrified product from the treatment process met NJDEP criteria\\nas fill material, such as for use as road construction aggregate. This involved sampling\\nand subsequent analysis of the vitrified product for (1) total chromium and the target\\nanalyte list (TAL) minor metals using EPA-approved methods and (2) hexavalent\\nchromium using a proposed EPA method.\\nAs a matter of policy, the State of New Jersey has employed soil cleanup standards for the TAL minor\\nmetals (antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium) and for chromium and hexavalent\\nchromium. New Jersey applies these standards to materials that will be placed on the land, such as the\\nvitrified product. When applied to the vitrified product, the present cleanup standards specify that it\\ncontain less than 500 parts per million (ppm) of chromium when analyzed by appropriate EPA\\nmethods. To determine if the vitrified product contains less than 500 ppm chromium, a sample of the\\nproduct was ground to pass through a 200-mesh sieve (75 micrometers [0.0029 inch]), digested, and\\nanalyzed for chromium by appropriate EPA SW-846 methods. To determine the applicability of the\\ntechnology to soil containing other TAL minor metals, the digested vitrified product was analyzed for\\nantimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium using EPA SW-846 methodology. The State of\\nNew Jersey also recommends that the treated vitrified product contain less than 10 ppm of hexavalent\\nchromium when analyzed using a modified version of proposed SW-846 Method 7196A.\\nNJDEP cleanup criteria are established for both residential and non-residential direct contact scenarios\\nfor five TAL minor metals. According to NJDEP, the appropriate are criteria are 14 and 340 ppm for\\nantimony, 1 and 1 ppm for beryllium, 1 and 100 ppm for cadmium, 250 and 2400 ppm for nickel, and\\n370 and 7100 ppm for vanadium for the residential and non-residential direct contact scenarios,\\nrespectively.\\nS-4 Determine the final air emissions of dioxins, furans, trace metals, particulate, and\\nhydrogen chloride to determine adherence to compliance requirements.\\nWith one exception, exhaust gas sampling was performed downstream of the APCS during both of the\\ndemonstration test runs to fulfil this objective. During the second test run, the dioxin and furan sample\\nwas only collected before the APCS as data from the first test run showed that the dioxin and furan data\\ndid not differ before and after the APCS. Stack gas samples were collected and analyzed for dioxins\\nand furans, trace metals, particulate and hydrogen chloride by EPA test methods. Data to meet this\\n38", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "objective were considered to be observational.\\nS-5 Determine the uncontrolled air emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO x sulfur dioxide\\n(S0 2 and carbon monoxide (CO) from the vitrification unit.\\nContinual on-line analyses of the flue gases, using continuous emissions monitors (CEMs), was\\nconducted upstream of the system baghouse to determine the emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur\\ndioxide, and carbon monoxide from the vitrification furnace. During the second demonstration test\\nrun, total hydrocarbon emissions were also monitored. Data to meet this objective were considered to\\nbe observational.\\n4.2 DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES\\nDuring the demonstration, two tests were performed, one for each of the two chromium-contaminated\\nsites (Liberty State Park and Site 130). To evaluate the developer s claims, the test matrix was\\ndesigned to yield the following types of data for each of the tests:\\nEmissions\\nChromium leachability\\nChromium partitioning\\nOperating cost estimate per ton of soil\\nThe primary objective of the SITE demonstration was to determine if waste and products produced by\\nthe Cold Top technology meet the RCRA definition of a characteristic waste because of their chromium\\ncontent. The TCLP was performed on both treated product and untreated soil to meet this objective.\\nData were also obtained from other waste components, including sand and carbon additives and\\nbaghouse dust, and oven preparatory components, including sand and Mulcoa, to assess treatment\\nefficiency of the technology and to obtain process information.\\nThis section summarizes activities performed before and during the demonstration, procedures required\\nto evaluate the Cold Top process, and discusses the types of samples and measurements collected during\\n39", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "the demonstration. The section also describes sampling locations, sampling frequency, collection\\nprocedures, decontamination, sample designation and tracking, and deviations from the demonstration\\nQAPP.\\n4.2.1 Predemonstration Activities\\nAbout 3 tons of contaminated soil were excavated from each of the two chromium-contaminated sites.\\nAfter screening to pass through a 1- to 1,5-inch sieve, the soil was placed in drums for initial shipment to\\nChem Pro Inc., the crushing-drying-and-blending facility. At this facility, the soils from the two sites\\nwere handled separately. Geotech claimed that the soil feed must be sized to a powder to be effectively\\nvitrified. Additionally, for the drying furnace feed to operate without clogging, the soil had to be ground\\nto approximately 0.375 inch. After removal of the soil from the drums and grinding, the soil was\\nscreened through a 0.375-inch sieve. In addition, Geotech claimed that the vitrification furnace could not\\nhandle the large mass of steam that would be produced during treatment of the soil, which was estimated\\nto be about 20 percent water. Therefore, the crushed-and-sieved soil was dried to less than 5-percent\\nmoisture. A continuous-loop or toroidal-flash dryer, operating at 300 to 450 \u00c2\u00b0F (150 to 230 \u00c2\u00b0C) inlet\\ntemperature with approximately 175\u00c2\u00b0F (80\u00c2\u00b0C) outlet or exhaust temperature, was used to dry the soils.\\nA baghouse captured the dust emitted by this drying process. After drying, the soil was mixed with sand\\n(to increase the silica content and facilitate vitrification), carbon (to facilitate reduction of metals in the\\nmixture), and the dust from the soil-dryer baghouse. The mixing provided a dried, well-blended mixture.\\nThe dried, blended soil mixture was placed in polypropylene bags (called supersacs and transported to\\nthe Geotech facility in Niagara Falls, New York.\\n4.2.2 Demonstration Activities\\nThe soil collected from NJDEP Site 130 and Liberty State Park was prepared as discussed in Section\\n4.2.1 and shipped to the Geotech pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New York. Two separate test runs were\\nplanned, each using the soil from one of the two New Jersey chromium sites. Geotech determined the\\noperating conditions for their system based on their vitrification experience and the flow characteristics\\nof the molten Mulcoa and contaminated soil.\\n40", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "The furnace was prepared for each test run by lining it with sand and Mulcoa and then adding\\ncontaminated soil. The furnace was turned on and when it was at the proper temperature, as determined\\nby the characteristics of molten Mulcoa, first molten Mulcoa and then molten soil were tapped and allowed\\nto flow into either a water-cooled sluice or into carbon-lined molds for slow cooling and testing. Each of\\nthe two test runs was planned to last for 10 hours. After all the Mulcoa was vitrified and discharged,\\nmolten soil samples for analysis were collected at the beginning, middle, and end of each test run. Stack\\ngas sample collection was to begin one hour after vitrified soil started to flow from the furnace.\\n4.3 SAMPLING PROGRAM\\nThis section describes procedures for collecting representative samples at each of the 11 EPA SITE\\nsampling locations. These locations include sampling points for dryer baghouse dust; carbon additive;\\nsand additive; dried, blended soil mixture; vitrification furnace baghouse dust; stack emissions;\\nferrofurnace bottoms; vitrified product; sand added to the vitrification furnace; and Mulcoa. These are\\npresented in Table 5.\\n4.3.1 Soil Dryer Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S4)\\nSoil was collected from two New Jersey chromium sites, placed in drums, and shipped to Chem Pro Inc.,\\nin Camden, New Jersey, for crushing, sieving, drying, and blending. The drying apparatus included a\\nbaghouse to collect any particulate dust. The baghouse dust was then blended back into the dried soil.\\nUsing a plastic scoop, one sample of the baghouse dust was collected for each of the soils being treated.\\nThese two samples were analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium.\\n4.3.2 Carbon Additive (Sampling Location S5)\\nCarbon powder was used as an additive to the vitrification process to promote reduction of metals in the\\nvitrification furnace. The carbon was added to the process during blending of the dried soil. The carbon\\nproduced by burning methane gas was certified by the producer as pure carbon; nevertheless, one bag of\\ncarbon was opened and sampled, using a plastic scoop. This sample was analyzed for chromium and\\nhexavalent chromium.\\n41", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "4.3.3 Sand Additive (Sampling Location S6)\\nSand (silica) powder was used as an additive to the vitrification process to promote vitrification in the\\nfurnace. The sand was added to the process during blending of the dried soil. The sand was certified by the\\nproducer as pure silicon dioxide; nevertheless, several bags were opened and sampled, using a plastic scoop.\\nThis composited sample was analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium.\\n4.3.4 Dried, Blended Soil Mixture (Sampling Location S7)\\nThe soil was crushed, sieved, dried, and blended with carbon and sand additives and the dust collected in\\nthe soil-dryer baghouse was then placed in supersacs for transport to the Geotech facility. Four composite\\nsoil samples were collected from the Site 130 dried, blended soil mixture, and three composite soil\\nsamples were collected from the Liberty State Park dried, blended soil mixture. Each composite soil\\nsample was composited from 10 or 15 grab samples from two or three supersacs, respectively. After each\\nsupersac was filled, five grab samples were collected by taking five cores over the entire depth of each\\nsupersac (one core in each corner and a fifth core in the center) using a grain thief; the grab samples were\\nthen placed in a 2-gallon Ziploc\u00e2\u0084\u00a2 bag. Two or three supersacs were sampled and composited in the\\nZiploc\u00e2\u0084\u00a2 bag, thoroughly mixed, and placed into appropriate sample containers, resulting in a single\\ncomposite sample. This procedure was repeated for all of the supersacs for both of the soil types.\\nSamples were analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium. Samples also were extracted by the\\nTCLP, and the extract was analyzed for chromium.\\n4.3.5 Vitrification Furnace Baghouse Dust (Sampling Location S8)\\nThe vitrification furnace included a baghouse to collect particulate dust from the vitrification furnace. At\\nthe end of each vitrification test run, the baghouse was shaken down, and all dust was removed. A plastic\\nscoop was used to collect three samples of the dust. These samples were analyzed for chromium and\\nhexavalent chromium. For each soil, three samples also were extracted using the TCLP, and the extract\\nwas analyzed for chromium.\\n42", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "Table 5. Sampling Locations\\nMatrix\\nSampling\\nLocation\\nMethod of\\nCollection\\nPurpose\\nSoil dryer baghouse\\ndust\\nS4\\nGrab sample\\nDetermine partitioning of chromium and\\nCrA\\nCarbon additive\\nS5\\nGrab sample\\nAssess whether additive contains\\nchromium or Cr +6\\nSand additive\\nS6\\nComposite sample\\nAssess whether additive contains\\nchromium or CrA\\nDried, blended soil\\nmixture\\nS7\\nComposite sample\\nDetermine partitioning of chromium and\\nCr +6 and RCRA characteristic for\\nchromium.\\nVitrification furnace\\nbaghouse dust\\nS8\\nGrab sample\\nDetermine partitioning of chromium and\\nCrA and RCRA characteristic for\\nchromium.\\nStack emissions\\nS9 and S13\\nComposite and\\ngrab samples\\nDetermine partitioning of chromium and\\nCrA the final air emissions of dioxins,\\nfurans, and trace metals; particulate and\\nHC1; and uncontrolled air emissions of\\n0 2 C0 2 NO x SO,, CO, and THC.\\nFerrofumace bottoms\\nS10\\nGrab sample\\nDetermine partitioning of chromium and\\nCr +6 and RCRA characteristic for\\nchromium.\\nVitrified product\\nSll\\nGrab sample\\nDetermine partitioning of chromium and\\nCr +6 and RCRA characteristic for\\nchromium.\\nSand added to\\nvitrification furnace\\nS14\\nGrab sample\\nAssess whether additive contains\\nchromium or CrA\\nMulcoa\\nS15\\nGrab sample\\nAssess whether additive contains\\nchromium or Cr +6\\nNotes:\\nCO\\nCarbon monoxide\\nco 2\\nCarbon dioxide\\nCr +6\\nHexavalent chromium\\nNO x\\nNitrogen oxides\\no 2\\nOxygen\\nso 2\\nSulfur dioxide\\nTHC\\nTotal hydrocarbons\\nRCRA\\nResource Conservation and Recovery Act\\n43", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "4.3.6 Stack Gas (Sampling Locations S13 and S9)\\nStack gas sampling occurred at two locations in the APCS; the first location was at the baghouse inlet\\n(Sampling Location SI3), and the other location was at the baghouse outlet (Sampling Location S9).\\nFurthermore, sampling was conducted at two places at Sampling Location S9: upstream (Sampling Location\\nS9A) and downstream (Sampling Location S9B) of the induced draft (ID) fan. These sampling locations are\\ndiscussed below.\\n4.3.6.1 Sampling Location S13 Vitrification Hood Exhaust APCS Inlet\\nThe vitrification unit exfiaust was modified to provide a sampling location meeting the minimum\\nrequirements of EPA Method 1. A circular duct, with a diameter of 15 inches, was inserted horizontally\\nbetween the vitrification hood and the APCS. Three sampling locations were placed on this length of duct\\nso that upstream and downstream disturbances could be minimized. A schematic of the circular duct\\nshowing the sampling locations is presented in Figure 5. Sampling ports were located on the bottom and the\\nside of the duct. Sampling was conducted using a 2 by 6 sampling matrix (12 sampling points in each\\nsampling axis) at all locations. The stack-emissions traverse layout, determined following EPA procedures,\\nis shown in Figure 6 and the locations presented in Table 6.\\n4.3.6.2 Sampling Location S9A and B APCS Outlet\\nSampling was performed at the APCS outlet before and after the ID fan for Run 1 and before the ID fan for\\nRun 2. The Method 23 sampling train at the APCS outlet was eliminated for dioxins and furans during Run\\n2 because the results from Run 1 were nearly identical, as expected, for both locations. Sampling was\\nconducted at both locations using a 2 by 6 sampling matrix. More information regarding traverse points is\\npresented in Table 6.\\n44", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "45\\nFigure 5. Sampling Locations S13 in Circular Duct after Vitrification Furnace", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "46\\nFigure 6. Traverse Point Layout for Sampling Locations S13 and S9", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "S9A Upstream of the ID Fan\\nSampling was performed on the upstream side of the ID fan through two ports 90\u00c2\u00b0 to one another on an 18-\\ninch-diameter vertical duct exiting the APCS. Prior to the test program, a honeycomb flow straightener\\nwas inserted between this sampling location and the ID fan to eliminate any swirl or cyclonic flow that may\\nbe imparted on the flue gas by the ID fan. The nearest downstream disturbance was the bend before the ID\\nfan, which was 36 inches away (2 diameters), and the nearest upstream disturbance was the APCS, which\\nw as 49 inches away (2.7 diameters). Figure 7 illustrates the layout of the location. Prior to testing, flow in\\nthis duct was checked for cyclonic flow, and none was found to be present at greater than 20\u00c2\u00b0.\\nS9B Downstream of the ID Fan\\nSampling was performed on the downstream side of the ID fan through two ports 90\u00c2\u00b0 to one another on a 15-\\ninch-diameter vertical duct exhausting to atmosphere. The nearest upstream disturbance was the ID fan,\\nwhich was 51 inches away (3.4 diameters), and the nearest downstream disturbance was a bend in the duct,\\nwhich was 20 inches away (1.3 diameters). The location is shown in Figure 7. Prior to testing, the flow\\nwas checked and no significant swirl was found to be present at greater than 20\u00c2\u00b0.\\nTable 6. Traverse Point Location in Inches from Duct Wall\\nTraverse Points\\nSampling Locations S13 and\\nS9B (15-Inch Diameter)\\nSampling Location S9A\\n(18-Inch Diameter)\\n1 and 12\\n0.31\\n0.38\\n2 and 11\\n1.0\\n1.21\\n3 and 10\\n1.77\\n2.12\\n4 and 9\\n2.66\\n3.19\\n5 and 8\\n3.75\\n4.5\\n6 and 7\\n5.34\\n6.4\\n47", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "TO\\nATMOSPHERE\\nFROM\\nBAGHOUSE\\n20\\nINCHES\\nP\\n51\\nINCHES\\n-15 INCHES-*\\n7\\nID\\nFAN\\n49\\nINCHES\\n18 INCHES\\nS9A\\n36\\nINCHES\\nFLOW\\nSTRAIGHTENER\\ny\\nAIR FLOW\\ny\\nFigure 7. Sampling Locations S9A and S9B in the APCS Outlet\\n48", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "4.3.7 Ferrofurnace Bottoms (Sampling Location S10)\\nDuring a test run, a dense vitrified product, referred to as ferrofurnace bottoms, may collect in the bottom\\not the vitrification furnace. These ferrofurnace bottoms may separate from the vitrified product because\\nof greater density. No ferrofurnace bottoms were produced during the Site 130 demonstration. About\\n200 pounds of ferrofurnace bottoms were manually removed after the Liberty State Park demonstration.\\nA sample of ferrofurnace bottoms was collected, sized to pass a 0.375-inch sieve, and mixed. The\\nsample was analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium. TCLP extraction, followed by chromium\\nanalyses of the extracts, was also performed.\\n4.3.8 Vitrified Product (Sampling Location SI 1)\\nDuring each test run, a vitrified product was produced and tapped from the middle of the vitrification\\nfurnace. This vitrified product was placed into insulated molds, where it was allowed to cool slowly,\\nforming solid castings of vitrified product. To obtain representative samples, three complete castings,\\none each from the beginning, middle, and end of each of the test-run pours, were labeled and transported\\nto NJIT by NJDEP personnel. Because the vitrified product may separate according to density, samples\\nfrom various locations in each of the castings for each test run were collected and ground to pass a\\n200-mesh sieve (75 micrometers [urn] [0.0029 in.]). The samples of ground material were shipped to the\\nanalytical laboratory for chromium and hexavalent chromium analysis and TCLP extraction, followed by\\nchromium analyses of the extracts.\\n4.3.9 Sand Added to Vitrification Furnace (Sampling Location S14)\\nSand was added to the vitrification furnace before system startup to protect the bottom of the furnace and\\nto help with the entrapment and separation of molten metals that might form from the high concentration\\nof iron in the treatment soil and the reducing conditions of the furnace. One sample of sand was\\ncollected from a freshly opened bag using a plastic scoop. This sample was analyzed for chromium and\\nhexavalent chromium.\\n49", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "4.3.10 Mulcoa (Sampling Location S15)\\nMulcoa was added to the vitrification furnace before system startup to allow calibration of the heat input\\nto the furnace. Using a plastic scoop, one sample of Mulcoa was collected from a freshly opened bag\\nand analyzed for chromium and hexavalent chromium.\\n4.3.11 Sample Mass Measurements\\nThe masses of waste and product streams were determined as follows:\\nSite\\nCarbon\\nSand\\nDried\\nBlended Soil\\nMixture\\nVitrification\\nBaghouse Dust\\nFerrofumace\\nBottoms\\nVitrified\\nProduct\\nSite 130\\n148 lb\\n1,8301b\\n9,298 lb\\n4.5 lb\\nNR\\nLiberty State Park\\n100 lb\\n1,226 lb\\n6,226 lb\\n20 lb\\n200 lb\\nNR\\nNotes:\\nFerrofumace bottoms were not generated during vitrification of Site 130 soil,\\nlb Pounds\\nNR Not recorded\\nThe sand and Mulcoa were added to the vitrification furnace prior to placing the dried, blended soil\\nmixture in the furnace. The masses of the sand and Mulcoa were not measured and are not included in\\nthe above table. Sand was added as thermal insulation to protect the furnace walls. According to\\nGeotech, little or no sand was removed from the furnace when the vitrified soil was tapped. Mulcoa was\\nadded to allow the system operators to calibrate the energy input to the furnace. According to Geotech,\\nonce the Mulcoa was vitrified, it was completely tapped from the furnace before demonstration testing\\noccurred.\\nThere are some discrepancies in the weight of the dried, blended soil mixtures. Measurements\\nindicated that approximately 6,000 pounds of soil were collected at each site, yet when this soil was\\ncrushed, dried, and amended with a very small amount of carbon and 25 percent sand, over 9,000 pounds\\nof material resulted for Site 130 but only 6,000 pounds for Liberty State Park. These masses were\\n50", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "weighed as the dried, blended soil mixtures were readied for shipping to the vitrification facility as a part\\not the SITE demonstration and are accurate. Clearly there is a discrepancy that the SITE program has not\\nbeen able to resolve. Possibilities include other material being mixed in with the Site 130 soil, extra sand\\nhaving been added, or other mistakes. For this reason, along with various operational changes to the\\nCold Top system, we have concluded that calculation of an accurate mass balance is not possible.\\n4.4 DEMONSTRATION RESULTS\\nThis section summarizes sampling data collected during the SITE demonstration. Due to the lack of\\ncertainty of the mass of the dried, blended soil mixture (see Section 4.3.11); changes to the furnace\\nAPCS between the two test runs (see Section 4.4.5.0); and the unexpected system shutdown early in the\\nfirst test run (see Section 4.4.5.1), all demonstration data are considered to be observational data.\\nObservational data are data that are adequate to make rough comparisons of results but not adequate to\\nmeet the high degree of confidence specified in the SITE demonstration project objectives.\\n4.4.1 RCRA TCLP Chromium Standard\\nThe Cold Top technology vitrified chromium-contaminated soil from the two New Jersey sites,\\nproducing a product meeting the RCRA TCLP chromium standard (see Tables 7 and 8). Vitrification of\\nsoil from one of the two sites also produced ferrofurnace bottoms, a potentially recyclable metallic\\nproduct, that also met the RCRA TCLP chromium standard.\\n4.4.2 Chromium\\nWith the exception of the vitrification-baghouse-dust and the ferrofurnace-bottoms samples, chromium\\ncontent of the vitrified product did not differ significantly from that of the untreated soil.\\nThe concentrations of chromium in the vitrification-baghouse-dust and ferrofurnace-bottoms samples\\nwere about two and five times greater, respectively, than those found in the untreated soils. These data\\nare summarized in Tables 7 and 8.\\n51", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "Table 7. Contaminant Concentrations in Samples from Site 130\\no\\ncn\\nc/5\\nE\\no\\no\\nCO\\nc\\no\\nCd\\nO\\ns\\nOX)\\nD C\\nx: c\\no\\nE\\n4\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nT3 E\\nD Z3\\ncj\\n3 E\\n2\\nk-g\\nofe\\nC 4-i\\nD\\n4)\\nCO\\nE\\no\\ne\\no\\nJD\\n0\\no\\nCO\\nE\\na\\no\\nfc\\nu_\\nT3\\n0)\\nCJ\\nu\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0n Z\\nc\\nH co\\n5 CO\\no\\nu\\no\\no\\nu\\nQi\\ncd\\nO\\nc\\nl-\\nD\\nCL\\nC/3\\nE\\n3\\nE\\ncd\\nc\\ncd\\nc\\n03\\nC/3\\nCd\\nE\\no\\ni\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n0X)\\no\\nu.\\no\\ncd\\ncu\\nJ\\nC/3\\n-C\\nCJ\\n12\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a04\u00e2\u0080\u0094*\\nu\\nU\\nH\\nCd\\nr\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n4\\nC\\nU\\nCl\\nu-\\nL\\nCL\\nCO\\nC\\nO\\ncd\\nCO\\nC/3\\nco\\nU\\nu\\nE\\nE\\nD\\nU\\nc\\nco\\nX\\ncd\\ncd\\nu-\\no\\n0^\\n0)\\nop\\nop\\n3\\nc o\\nO Z\\n2 2\\nl_i\\n3\\n-a\\nD\\na\\no\\ni_\\nCL\\nox)\\nc\\nIE\\no\\nCO\\nJ2\\nu\\nc .2\\n.2 U\\n4 _-\\nCO J\\nCO\\nL.\\nu co\\nn x;\\nL 1 CJ\\n-O o\\nS x\\no\\non H\\ncl\\n_j\\ng Q U\\nE E oC tn f\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nCO\\n4\\no\\n2\\n52", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "Table 8. Contaminant Concentrations in Samples From Liberty State Park\\nj\\ns\\n-o\\no\\nCl\\n-o\\nE\\nu\\n5/5\\nE\\nO\\nea\\n0)\\n3\\ns\\nu\\n5\\nu\\nLa\\nU.\\nQ\\nOO\\nc\\n03\\n03\\no\\n5/5\\n3\\n03\\nQ\\nc/o\\nc\\n03\\n03\\nC/5\\no3\\nQi\\nON\\no\\noo\\nNO\\nCN\\nfS\\nON\\nri\\nON\\nm\\no\\nV\\no\\nV\\noo\\nNO\\n(N\\nN\\nV\\nO\\nV V\\nr-\\n\u00c2\u00bbT/\\no\\no\\nfO\\n*N\\no\\no\\no\\no\\no\\no\\no\\no\\no\\no\\no\\nON\\no\\no\\nON\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0^t\\no\\no\\nr\\\\\\no\\nm\\no\\no\\noo\\nr.\\nr-\\nr~)\\no\\ntn\\nr\\nON\\nC/5\\n5/5\\n3\\n-3\\n\u00c2\u00a9JD\\nea\\n3\\n_\u00c2\u00a9\\nQ\\nGO\\nC\\n03\\n00\\nID\\nS\u00e2\u0080\u00993\\n03\\nc o S\\nN\\nO\\nNO\\nr*N\\nO\\no\\no\\nrs\\nNO\\nC/5\\n-a\\nU*\\nQ\\n00\\nrO\\n\u00c2\u00a9n\\nra\\no\\ns\\no\\no\\nON\\no\\nro\\nIT)\\no\\no\\nON\\nNO\\n03\\nC/D\\n_ 5\\nC/D\\n03\\nU\\n3\\na:\\nNO\\nN\\nO\\nro\\nCN\\nro\\nO\\nNO\\nr-\\no\\ncn\\nON\\nO\\nOO\\nON\\no\\no\\nm\\nrs\\nNO\\no\\no\\no\\no\\nCO\\nr-\\nc\\n3\\nC\\nc\\n3\\nC\\nU\\nCl\\nE\\n3\\nE\\no\\nr\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nU\\nJ\\nSx\\nc\\n_\u00c2\u00a9\\n03\\n03\\nX\\nE\\n3\\no\\nl.\\n-e\\nO\\nox\\nox\\nE\\n3\\n_C\\nU\\nox\\nox\\nE\\nJ\\nSx\\nE\\nE\\n.2 -6\\nE 52\\nO\\nu.\\nf=\\n-O\\nu. E\\no E\\nP-g S\\nl3 6\\nT3\\nC 5/5\\n03 03\\nts\\no\\ncC\\nT3\\nC\\n03\\n3\\nC3\\nC\\nE\\nX)\\no\\no\\nu,\\no\\ni\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nD\\nJO\\n^2\\n4\\nU\\nD\\nt\\nt\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nU.\\nC/D\\nc\\nD\\na-)\\nc\\nD\\na-\\nCu\\nO\\nI\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n3\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2o\\no\\noo\\nc\\n!E\\n03\\n5/1 5/5 (J\\nEE\u00c2\u00a9\\n03 03\\nl-.l-.l-i\\nOX 00 3\\nE E O\\nHI\\nC\\n.2\\n03 O\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2r*\\nU 03\\nn\\n1 o\\n_ o\\nGO H\\n03\\n-a\\nc\\n03\\n00 C CL\\nK 3\\noo oo O Q O\\nE E c7j H\\nc/d\\nD\\nO\\nz\\n53", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "4.4.3 Hexavalent Chromium\\nHexavalent chromium was not detected in the ferrofurnace-bottoms samples and was only detected in\\none of six vitrified-product samples (see Tables 7 and 8).\\nHexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from one-half to about the same concentration in the\\nvitrification-baghouse dust as in the untreated soil. The baghouse dust was presumed to be mainly\\nfine-sized, untreated soil that was carried over from the dust caused by introducing the dried, blended soil\\nmixture into the vitrification furnace and carried through the APCS.\\n4.4.4 NJDEP Soil Cleanup Standards\\nComparison of metal concentrations in the vitrified product to the NJDEP soil cleanup standards\\nindicated that the vitrified product met the non-residential soils standard for hexavalent chromium,\\nantimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, and vanadium, but not for chromium. For residential soils the\\nvitrified product met the NJDEP standard for hexavalent chromium, beryllium, and possibly cadmium,\\nbut not for chromium, antimony, nickel, and vanadium. Table 9 presents the metal concentrations found\\nin the vitrified products from each site and the NJDEP soil cleanup standards for non-residential areas.\\n4.4.5 Stack Emissions\\nThe test program consisted of two separate runs. Sampling for chromium and hexavalent chromium was\\ncompleted at Sampling Locations S9 and SI3 during both runs. Method 23 was completed at Sampling\\nLocations S9A and SI3 during Run 1 and at Sampling Location S13 for Run 2. Method 23 sampling was\\nnot conducted during Run 2 at Sampling Location S9 because the dioxin and furan results from Run 1\\nwere similar, as expected from their proximity. Method 29 sampling was completed at S9 during both\\nRuns 1 and 2. CEM measurements for oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and\\nsulfur dioxide were taken during Runs 1 and 2 at Sampling Location SI3. Although not a planned\\nmeasurement, during Run 2 total hydrocarbon (THC) CEM measurements were also taken at Sampling\\nLocation SI3.\\n54", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "Table 9. New Jersey Soil Cleanup Standards\\nVitrified Product (mg/kg)\\nNew Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria 1 (mg/kg)\\nSite 130\\nLiberty State Park\\nResidential\\nNon-Residential\\nChromium\\n5500\\n10,000\\n500 2\\n500 2\\nHexavalent\\nchromium\\n0.41\\n0.39 to 1.8 3\\n10 2\\n10 2\\nAntimony\\n61\\n29\\n14\\n340\\nBeryllium\\n0.80\\n0.78\\nl 4\\nl 4\\nCadmium\\n2.2\\n2.1\\n1\\n100\\nNickel\\n420\\n1,600\\n250\\n2,400 5,6\\nVanadium\\n380\\n440\\n370\\n7,100 s\\nNotes:\\nState of New Jersey Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:23E), Criteria for\\nResidential and Non-Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup and Impact to Groundwater, revised\\nJuly 11, 1996.\\n2 Currently under revision.\\nValues range from below detection limit (0.39 to 0.41 mg/kg) for five samples to 1.8 mg/kg for\\none sample.\\n4 This health-based criteria is lower than analytical limits; the cleanup criteria is based on practical\\nquantitation level.\\nThe level of the human health based criterion is such that evaluation for potential environmental\\nimpacts on a site-by-site basis is recommended.\\nThis criterion is based on the inhalation exposure pathway which yielded a more stringent\\ncriterion than the incidental ingestion pathway.\\nND Not defined.\\n4.4.5.1 Field Test Changes\\nRun 1\\nA process upset occurred midway through the Run 1 test, and only one of the two required traverses was\\ncompleted. Because of the incomplete test, the data throughout this report have been qualified as\\nobservational due to this sampling deviation.\\n55", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "Post-test calibrations were conducted on two probes with suspect pitot calibrations. A leak in the pitot\\ntubes that was missed during initial calibrations was found prior to sampling. On the sampling run sheet\\nfor Method Cr +6 (hexavalent chromium) at Sampling Location SI3, the pitot tube calibration was 0.876\\nand the post-test calibration value was 0.848. This latter value was used for all calculations. On the\\nsampling run sheet for Method Cr +6 at Sampling Location S9A, the pitot tube calibration was 0.880 and\\nthe post-test calibration value was 0.823. This latter value was used for all calculations.\\nRun 2\\nPrior to the start of Run 2, a damper in the duct connecting the vitrification furnace hood to the APCS\\nwas opened by the technology developer. The sampling team were not aware of this deviation, which\\nallowed much more dilution air to enter the APCS. All results from Run 2, while analytically sound,\\nwere not obtained with the system operating under the same conditions as the Run 1 results. The Run 2\\nresults should also be considered observational.\\n4.4.5.2 Results of Critical Parameters\u00e2\u0080\u0094Fluegas\\nTables 10 and 11 present chromium and hexavalent chromium results at Sampling Locations S13 and\\nS9A.\\n4.4.5.3 Results of Non-Critical Parameters\u00e2\u0080\u0094Fluegas\\nTables 12 through 17 present concentrations and emission rate results, as well as measurement\\nparameters, for non-critical parameters, including dioxins and furans, trace metals, particulate, and\\nhydrogen chloride gas (HC1) at Sampling Locations S13 and S9A.\\n56", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "Table 10. Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S13\\nParameter\\nUnit\\nSite 130\\nLiberty State Park\\nCr 6 Concentration, uncorrected\\nmg/dscm\\n3.22\\n0.503\\nCr~ 6 Concentration 7% 0 2\\nmg/dscm\\n195\\n77.7\\nCr +6 Emission rate\\ng/hr\\n6.02\\n2.17\\nChromium concentration,\\nuncorrected\\nmg/dscm\\n24.4\\n7.43\\nChromium concentration 7%\\no 2\\nmg/dscm\\n1,480\\n1,150\\nChromium emission rate\\ng/hr\\n45.7\\n32.0\\nMoisture content\\n2.69\\n1.35\\nIsokinetic variation\\n102 1\\n97.4\\nDry gas volume\\ndscm\\n1.05\\n3.80\\nFluegas temperature\\n\u00c2\u00b0F\\n137\\n81.5\\nVelocity\\nft/s\\n17.7\\n36.0\\nStack gas flow rate\\ndscm/hr\\n1,870\\n4,310\\nOxygen content\\n%V\\n20.7\\n20.8\\nCarbon dioxide content\\n%V\\n0.64\\n0.34\\ni\\nBased on an incomplete test run\\nCr +6\\nHexavalent chromium\\ndscm/hr\\nDry standard cubic meter per hour\\ng/hr\\nGrams per hour\\nmg/dcsm\\nMilligrams per dry standard cubic meter\\no 2\\nOxygen\\n%v\\nPercent by volume\\n57", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "Table 11. Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Test Results at Sampling Location S9A\\nParameter\\nUnit\\nSite 130\\nLiberty State\\nPark\\nCr +6 Concentration,\\nuncorrected\\n/ig/dscm\\n0.321\\n-0.322 1\\nCr +6 Concentration 7% 0 2\\n/ig/dscm\\n20.3\\n-56.0 1\\nCr +6 Emission rate\\nyug/hr\\n729\\n-1,410 1\\nChromium concentration,\\nuncorrected\\nyWg/dscm\\n2.59\\n13.7\\nChromium concentration\\n7% 0 2\\n//g/dscm\\n164\\n2,380\\nChromium emission rate\\nyug/hr\\n5,900\\n60100\\nMoisture content\\n2.86\\n0.751\\nIsokinetic variation\\n104 2\\n95.0\\nDry gas volume\\ndscm\\n1.41\\n2.61\\nFluegas temperature\\n\u00c2\u00b0F\\n102\\n74.1\\nVelocity\\nft/s\\n14.1\\n24.9\\nStack gas flow rate\\ndscm/hr\\n2,270\\n4,380\\nOxygen content\\n%V\\n20.7\\n20.8\\nCarbon dioxide content\\n%V\\n0.61\\n0.34\\nNotes:\\ni\\nNegative numbers due to sample dilution\\n2\\nBased upon an incomplete test run\\nCr +6\\nHexavalent chromium\\ndscm\\nDry standard cubic meter\\nft/s\\nFeet per second\\no 2\\nOxygen\\n^g/dscm\\nMicrogram per dry standard cubic meter\\nyug/hr\\nMicrogram per hour\\n%V\\nPercent by volume\\n58", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "Table 12. Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Parameters\\nParameter\\nUnit\\nSampling Location S13\\nSampling\\nLocation S9A\\nSite 130\\nLiberty State\\nPark\\nSite 130\\nMoisture content\\n4.84\\n1.31\\n4.21\\nIsokinetic variation\\n99.0 1\\n96.5\\n104 1\\nDry gas volume\\ndscm\\n1.10\\n2.60\\n1.07\\nFluegas temperature\\n\u00c2\u00b0F\\n129\\n82.7\\n103\\nVelocity\\nft/s\\n16.8\\n38.9\\n14.4\\nStack gas flow rate\\ndscm/hr\\n1,760\\n4,650\\n2,300\\nOxygen content\\n%V\\n20.7\\n20.8\\n20.7\\nCarbon dioxide content\\n%V\\n0.61\\n0.34\\n0.61\\nNotes:\\nBased on an incomplete test run\\ndscm Dry standard cubic meter\\ndscm/hr Dry standard cubic meter per hour\\nft/s Feet per second\\n%V Percent by volume\\n59", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "Table 13. Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Concentration at 7 Percent Oxygen\\nSampling Location S13\\nSampling\\nLocation S9A\\nParameter\\nUnit\\nSite 130\\nLiberty State\\nPark\\nSite 130\\n2,3,7,8-TCDF\\nng/dscm\\n58\\nQ, 7.6\\nJ, 2.2\\n2,3,7,8-TCDD\\nng/dscm\\nND, 9.7\\nND, 4.6\\nND, 2.6\\n1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF\\nng/dscm\\n28\\nJ, C, 4.0\\nJ, 1.7\\n2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF\\nng/dscm\\nQ, 31\\nJ, 4.5\\nJ, 1.8\\n1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD\\nng/dscm\\nQ, 8.0\\nJ, Q, 2.6\\nND, 2.2\\n1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF\\nng/dscm\\nJ, C, 64\\nJ, Q, 5.9\\nJ, 1.9\\n1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF\\nng/dscm\\nQ, 24\\nJ, Q, 2.8\\nJ, Q, 1-1\\n2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF\\nng/dscm\\n20\\nJ, 3.6\\nJ, 0.82\\n1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF\\nng/dscm\\nJ, 4.4\\nND, 2.7\\nND, 1.0\\n1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD\\nng/dscm\\nJ, 6.6\\nND, 3.9\\nND, 3.1\\n1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD\\nng/dscm\\nJ, Q, 8.9\\nJ, 2.1\\nND, 3.0\\n1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD\\nng/dscm\\nJ, 14\\nJ, 2.1\\nND, 2.8\\n1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF\\nng/dscm\\n76\\nJ, 8.8\\nJ, 2.6\\n1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF\\nng/dscm\\nJ, 7.6\\nND, 4.4\\nND, 2.0\\n1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD\\nng/dscm\\n48\\nJ, 10\\nJ, Q, 1-7\\n1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF\\nng/dscm\\n34\\nJ, 7.9\\nJ, Q, 2.0\\n1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD\\nng/dscm\\nJ, Q, 290\\nb, 79\\nJ, Q, 10\\nTotal TCDF\\nng/dscm\\nJ, Q, 920\\nQ, 78\\nQ, 38\\nTotal PeCDF\\nng/dscm\\nQ, 470\\nJ, Q, 48\\nJ, Q, 13\\nTotal HxCDF\\nng/dscm\\nQ, 250,\\nJ, Q, 28\\nJ, Q, 7.4\\nTotal HpCDF\\nng/dscm\\nQ, 100\\nJ, 10\\nJ, 2.7\\nTotal TCDD\\nng/dscm\\nQ, 57,\\nQ, 14\\nJ, Q, 2.8\\nTotal PeCDD\\nng/dscm\\nQ, 47\\nJ, Q, 14\\nJ, Q, 1-3\\nTotal HxCDD\\nng/dscm\\nQ, 65\\nJ, Q, 20\\nJ, 2.1\\nTotal HpCDD\\nng/dscm\\n93\\nJ, 21\\nJ, Q, 3.1\\nMinimum 2,3,7,8-TCDD\\nTEQ (not including ND)\\nMaximum 2,3,7,8-\\nng/dscm\\n39\\n5.3\\n1.2\\nTCDD TEQ (including\\nND)\\nng/dscm\\n56\\n13\\n6.8\\n60", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "Table 13 (Continued). Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Concentration at 7 Percent Oxygen\\nNotes:\\nb\\nC\\nHpCDD\\nHpCDF\\nHxCDD\\nHxCDF\\nJ\\nND\\nng/dscm\\nPeCDD\\nPeCDF\\nOCDD\\nOCDF\\nQ\\nTCDD\\nTCDF\\nTEQ\\nEstimated result/result is less than reporting limit\\nCo-eluting isomer\\nHeptachloro dibenzodioxins\\nHeptachloro dibenzofuranss\\nHexachloro dibenzodioxins\\nHexachloro dibenzofurans\\nDetected at less than laboratory reporting limit, result is considered an estimate\\nNot detected, value reported is the detection limit\\nNanogram per dry standard cubic meter\\nPentachloro dibenzodioxins\\nPentachloro dibenzofurans\\nOctachloro dibenzodioxins\\nOctachloro dibenzofurans\\nEstimated maximum possible concentration\\nTetrachloro dibenzodioxins\\nTetrachloro dibenzofurans\\nToxicity equivalency factor\\n61", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "Table 14. Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Mass Emission Rates\\nSampling Location S13\\nSampling\\nLocation S9A\\nParameter\\nUnit\\nSite 130\\nLiberty State\\nPark\\nSite 130\\n2,3,7,8-TCDF\\n/ig/hr\\n1.6\\nQ, 0.22\\nJ, 0.079\\n2,3,7,8-TCDD\\n/ug/hr\\nND, 0.27\\nND, 0.14\\nND, 0.093\\n1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF\\n/ug/hr\\n0.79\\nJ,C, 0.12\\nJ, 0.062\\n2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF\\n/ig/hr\\nQ, 0.85\\nJ, 0.13\\nJ, 0.067\\n1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD\\n/ig/hr\\nQ, 0.22\\nJ, Q, 0.08\\nND, 0.080\\n1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF\\nA^g/hr\\nQ, C, 1.8\\nJ, Q, 0.18\\nJ, 0.068\\n1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF\\nMg/hr\\nQ, 0.66\\nJ, Q, 0.084\\nJ, Q, 0.039\\n2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF\\nMg/hr\\n0.57\\nJ, 0.11\\nJ, 0.030\\n1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF\\nyug/hr\\nJ, 0.12\\nND, 0.08\\nND, 0.037\\n1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD\\nA^g/hr\\nJ, 0.18\\nND, 0.12\\nND, 0.11\\n1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD\\nA^g/hr\\nJ, Q, 0.25\\nJ, 0.060\\nND, 0.11\\n1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD\\nMg/hr\\nJ, 0.39\\nJ, 0.070\\nND, 0.10\\n1,2,3,4,6,7,8-PhCDF\\n/ugfhr\\n2.1\\nJ, 0.27\\nJ, 0.096\\n1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF\\nA^g/hr\\nJ, 0.21\\nND, 0.13\\nND, 0.073\\n1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD\\nMg/hr\\n1.3\\nJ, 0.31\\nJ, Q, 0.062\\n1,2,,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF\\nA^g/hr\\n0.95\\nJ, 0.24\\nJ, Q, 0.073\\n1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD\\nA^g/hr\\nJ, Q, 8.0\\nb, 2.4\\nJ, Q, 0.37\\nTotal TCDF\\nA^g/hr\\nJ, Q, 26\\nQ, 2.4\\nQ, T4\\nTotal PeCDF\\n/ig/hr\\nQ, 13\\nJ, Q, 1.5\\nJ, Q, 0.45\\nTotal HxCDF\\nA^g/hr\\nQ, 7.0\\nJ, Q, 0.84\\nJ, Q, 0.27\\nTotal HpCDF\\nMg/hr\\nQ, 2.9\\nJ, 0.30\\nJ, 0.098\\nTotal TCDD\\nyug/hr\\nQ, 1.6\\nQ, 0.42\\nJ, Q, 0.10\\nTotal PeCDD\\nA^g/hr\\nQ, 1-3\\nJ, Q, 0.42\\nJ, Q, 0.047\\nTotal HxCDD\\nyug/hr\\nQ, 1-8\\nJ, Q, 0.61\\nJ, 0.075\\nTotal HpCDD\\nyug/hr\\n2.6\\nJ, 0.63\\nJ, Q, 0.11\\nMinimum 2,3,7,8-TCDD\\nyug/hr\\n1.1\\n0.16\\n0.043\\nTEQ (not including ND)\\nMaximum 2,3,7,8-TCDD\\nTEQ (including ND)\\nyug/hr\\n1.5\\n0.39\\n0.25\\n62", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "Table 14 (Continued). Dioxins and Furans Fluegas Mass Emission Rates\\nNotes:\\nb\\nEstimated result/result is less than reporting limit\\nC\\nHpCDD\\nHpCDF\\nHxCDD\\nHxCDF\\nJ\\nptg/hr\\nND\\nPeCDD\\nPeCDF\\nOCDD\\nOCDF\\nQ\\nTCDD\\nTCDF\\nTEQ\\nCo-eluting isomer\\nHeptachloro dibenzodioxins\\nHeptachloro dibenzofurans\\nHexachloro dibenzodioxins\\nHexachloro dibenzofurans\\nDetected at less than laboratory reporting limit, result is considered an estimate\\nmicrograms per hour\\nNot detected, value reported is the detection limit\\nPentachloro dibenzodioxins\\nPentachloro dibenzofurans\\nOctachloro dibenzodioxins\\nOctachloro dibenzofurans\\nEstimated maximum possible concentration\\nTetrachloro dibenzodioxins\\nTetrachloro dibenzofurans\\nToxicity equivalency factor\\n63", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "Table 15. Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Average Fluegas Values\\nParameter\\nUnit\\nSampling\\nLocation S9B\\nSampling Location\\nS9A\\nSite 130\\nLiberty State Park\\nMoisture content\\n3.41\\n1.21\\nIsokinetic variation\\n107 1\\n96.7\\nDry gas volume\\ndscm\\n1.06\\n1.43\\nFluegas temperature\\n\u00c2\u00b0F\\n98.2\\n72.6\\nVelocity\\nft/s\\n19.5\\n25.8\\nStack gas flow rate\\ndscm/hr\\n2,250\\n4,530\\nOxygen content\\n%V\\n20.7\\n20.8\\nCarbon dioxide content\\n%V\\n0.61\\n0.34\\nNotes:\\n1 Based on an incomplete test run\\ndscm Dry standard cubic meter\\ndscm/hr Dry standard cubic meter per hour\\nft/s Feet per second\\n%V Percent by volume\\n64", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "Table 16. Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas\\nConcentrations at 7 Percent Oxygen\\nSampling Location\\nSampling Location\\nS9B\\nS9A\\nParameter\\nUnits\\nSite 130\\nLiberty State Park\\nAntimony\\nmg/dscm\\n2.46\\n1.86\\nArsenic\\nmg/dscm\\n10.7\\n12.8\\nBarium\\nmg/dscm\\n6.81\\n7.7\\nBeryllium\\nmg/dscm\\n0.179\\n0.214\\nCadmium\\nmg/dscm\\n0.179\\n0.088B\\nChromium\\nmg/dscm\\n0.394\\n0.421\\nCobalt\\nmg/dscm\\n1.79\\n2.14\\nCopper\\nmg/dscm\\n1.11\\n0.564\\nLead\\nmg/dscm\\n15.0\\n3.97\\nManganese\\nmg/dscm\\n1.80\\n0.64\\nMercury\\nmg/dscm\\n0.314\\n0.378\\nNickel\\nmg/dscm\\n1.11\\n1.71\\nSelenium\\nmg/dscm\\n8.96\\n10.7\\nSilver\\nmg/dscm\\n0.358\\n0.428\\nThallium\\nmg/dscm\\n71.6\\n85.7\\nVanadium\\nmg/dscm\\n1.39\\n2.14\\nZinc\\nmg/dscm\\n23.0\\n2.97\\nParticulate\\nmg/dscm\\n1,130\\n425\\nHydrogen\\nchloride gas\\nmg/dscm\\n12.3\\n5.72\\nNotes:\\nB Blank contamination\\nmg/dscm Milligram per dry standard cubic meter\\nNot detected, value reported is detection limit\\n65", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "Table 17. Trace Metals, Particulate, and Hydrogen Chloride Fluegas Mass Emission Rates\\nParameter\\nUnits\\nSampling\\nSampling Location\\nLocation S9B\\nS9A\\nSite 130\\nLiberty State Park\\nAntimony\\nmg/hr\\n87.6\\n48.6\\nArsenic\\nmg/hr\\n383\\n335\\nBarium\\nmg/hr\\n242\\n201\\nBeryllium\\nmg/hr\\n6.38\\n5.59\\nCadmium\\nmg/hr\\n6.38\\n2.29B\\nChromium\\nmg/hr\\n14.0\\n11.0\\nCobalt\\nmg/hr\\n63.8\\n55.9\\nCopper\\nmg/hr\\n39.6\\n14.7\\nLead\\nmg/hr\\n533\\n104\\nManganese\\nmg/hr\\n64.0\\n16.6\\nMercury\\nmg/hr\\n11.2\\n9.87\\nNickel\\nmg/hr\\n39.6\\n44.7\\nSelenium\\nmg/hr\\n319\\n279\\nSilver\\nmg/hr\\n12.8\\n11.2\\nThallium\\nmg/hr\\n2550\\n2230\\nVanadium\\nmg/hr\\n49.6\\n55.9\\nZinc\\nmg/hr\\n820\\n77.5\\nParticulate\\ng/hr\\n40.2\\n11.1\\nHydrogen\\nchloride gas\\nmg/hr\\n438\\n149\\nNotes:\\nB Blank contamination\\ng/hr Grams per hour\\nmg/hr Milligrams per hour\\nNot detected, value reported is detection limit\\n66", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "4.4.S.4 Continuous Emissions Monitoring\\nIn order to determine the uncontrolled air emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides,\\nsulfur dioxide, and THC from the vitrification unit, on-line CEMs were used. For both Run 1 and Run 2,\\nthe CEMs were extracting uncontrolled exhaust gases at sampling location SI3. The gases being analyzed\\nduring Run 1 were carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide.\\nAdditionally, THC was analyzed during Run 2 to determine if the high carbon monoxide that was\\nencountered during Run 1 was the result of incomplete combustion of any organic compounds in the soil.\\nTable 18 presents the CEM sampling matrix.\\nTable 18. CEM Sampling Matrix at Location S13\\nRun 1\\nRun 2\\nNitrogen oxides\\nX\\nX\\nSulfur dioxide\\nX\\nX\\nCarbon monoxide\\nX\\nX\\nTotal hydrocarbons\\nX\\nOxygen\\nX\\nX\\nCarbon dioxide\\nX\\nX\\nRun time\\n15:16-16:02\\n10:29-18:00\\nDuring Run 1 the CEMs were on-line only during the time that was spent pouring the molds from the\\nvitrification unit. During Run 2 the CEMs were on-line for the entire vitrification process. Figure 8a-c\\nand Figure 9a-c illustrate the results of Run 1 and Run 2 respectively. Table 19 shows the averages of the\\nflue gas concentrations for each gas for Run 1. Table 20 shows the average flue gas concentration for\\neach of the gases with the damper open and closed (see Section 4.4.5.1) during Run 2.\\n67", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "s?\\nC\\nV\\n00\\nFigure 8a. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide\u00e2\u0080\u0094RUN 1\\nTime\\n1.60\\n1.40\\n1.20\\nTOO\\n0.80\\n0.60\\n0.40\\n0.20\\n0.00\\nOxygen\\nCarbon Dioxide\\nTime __\\n-Oxides of Nitrogen\\n.Sulfur Dioxide\\nFigure 8c. Carbon Monoxide\u00e2\u0080\u0094RUN 1\\nTime\\nCarbon Monoxide\\nFigure 8. Run 1 Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulfur Dioxide, THC and Carbon Monoxide\\nCEM Data\\n68", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "Figure 9a. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide\u00e2\u0080\u0094RUN 2\\n1.4\\n1.2\\n1.0\\na j\\nJO\\n0.8\\nQ\\n0.6\\n5\\n0.4\\na\\no\\n0.2\\n-2\\nU\\n0.0\\nu\\nFigure 9. Run 2 Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulfur Dioxide, THC and Carbon Monoxide\\nCEM Data\\n69", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "Table 19. CEMs-Run 1\\nEntire Sampling Time\\n(15:16-16:02)\\nDuring Mold Pour Only\\n(15:16-15:40)\\nContaminant\\nAverage\\nMaximum\\nMinimum\\nAverage\\nMaximum\\nMinimum\\nNitrogen oxides\\n5.51\\n26.3\\n2.69\\n7.11\\n26.3\\n3.85\\nSulfur dioxide\\n29.6\\n116\\n1.70\\n46.2\\n116\\n21.6\\nCarbon monoxide\\n282\\n725\\n95.4\\n398\\n725\\n180\\nTotal hydrocarbons\\nOxygen\\n20.7\\n20.8\\n20.3\\n20.7\\n20.8\\n20.3\\nCarbon dioxide\\n0.49\\n1.5\\n0.21\\n0.63\\n1.5\\n0.41\\nTable 20. CEMs-Run 2\\nDamper Open\\n(10:29-17:10)\\nDamper Closed\\n(17:11-18:00)\\nContaminant\\nAverage\\nMaximum\\nMinimum\\nAverage\\nMaximum\\nMinimum\\nNitrogen oxides\\n0.96\\n4.67\\n0.00\\n2.32\\n3.81\\n1.19\\nSulfur dioxide\\n0.15\\n0.49\\n0.00\\n0.49\\n0.49\\n0.33\\nCarbon monoxide\\n547\\n2650\\n142\\n1770\\n8490\\n469\\nTotal hydrocarbons\\n5.39\\n21.3\\n2.01\\n18.7\\n29.0\\n10.4\\nOxygen\\n20.8\\n20.9\\n20.4\\n20.6\\n20.9\\n20.3\\nCarbon dioxide\\n0.30\\n0.62\\n0.14\\n0.77\\n1.2\\n0.19\\nThe decrease in the flue gas concentrations of the contaminants that is evident from Run 1 to Run 2 was\\ncaused by an open damper during the beginning of Run 2. This open damper allowed more dilution air to\\nenter upstream of sampling location SI 3, thereby reducing the concentration of the contaminants. At the\\ncompletion of the manual methods sampling this damper was closed as is noted on Figures 9a-c. When\\n70", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "the damper was closed the concentration of each of the gases increased to values similar to Run 1 with the\\nnotable exception of carbon monoxide which increased to approximately tenfold the carbon monoxide\\nconcentration of Run 1.\\n4.4.5.5 Compliance with NYSDEC\\nFlue gas sampling was conducted at Sampling Location S9 to determine adherence to the New York State\\nDepartment of Environmental Conservation s (NYSDEC) guidelines for air emissions. Trace metals,\\nchromium, and hexavalent chromium were sampled during Runs 1 and 2. Dioxins and furans were\\nsampled at location S9A during Run 1. Dioxin and furan results from Run 1 were much lower than\\nexpected, theretore, the more conservative dioxin and furan results from SI3 were used during Run 2.\\nMass emission rates for each of the contaminants tested at Sampling Location S9 are shown in Tables 14\\nand 17.\\nNew York State employs ambient air guidelines for air emissions based on annual, potential annual, and\\nshort-term air quality impacts. The annual impact is based on the annual mass emission rate for a\\ncompound. In this case, 12 hours was used to determine the annual emission rate for each of the runs.\\nThe potential annual impact is calculated using the hourly mass emission rate for a compound and the\\nmaximum hours of operation in 1 year or 8,760 hours. The short-term impact is based on the impact that\\nthe mass emission rate of a compound has on the environment in 1 hour. These impacts are calculated\\nusing the NYSDEC air guide (NYSDEC 1995).\\nAll compounds were below the NYSDEC annual guideline concentration (AGC) for Runs 1 and 2;\\nhowever, several compounds apparently failed to meet the potential annual guideline concentration\\n(PGC). Because the results of arsenic analysis were below the detection limit of the laboratory analysis,\\nthe actual detection limit was used to determine a conservative mass emission rate. Using this detection\\nlimit, arsenic failed to meet the criteria for PGC for Runs 1 and 2. Hexavalent chromium and total\\ntetrachlorinated dibenzofurans failed to meet the PGC during Run 1. The PGC assumes that the\\nvitrification unit emits the same hourly mass emission rate as was tested for 8,760 hours per year. Permit\\nconditions restricting the hours per year of operation would be considered in a commercial setting. Using\\nthe arsenic detection limit, short-term guideline concentration (SGC) results show that arsenic also failed\\n71", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "to meet the SGC criteria for Runs 1 and 2. The conservative mass emission rate based upon the\\nlaboratory detection limit, coupled with the low SGC for arsenic, would explain this failure to meet the\\nSGC.\\n4.4.6 Other Analyses\\nThis section discusses the results of additional analyses that were performed on the untreated soil, the\\nvitrified product, or the ferrofumace-bottoms product.\\n4.4.6.1 Chloride Analysis\\nPrior to the demonstration there was concern that chloride present in the untreated soil might, along with\\nthe organic compounds present in the soil, lead to the formation of dioxins and furans. To assess whether\\nchloride was present in the untreated soil from Site 130 and Liberty State Park, soil samples from both of\\nthese sites were collected and analyzed for chloride. The results are presented in Table 21. The chloride\\nconcentrations found in the untreated soil from both sites did not correlate with the dioxins and furans\\nmeasured the offgas system during the demonstration.\\nTable 21. Chloride in Dried, Blended Soil Mixture\\nSite\\nChloride (mg/kg)\\nAnalytical\\nResults\\nMean SD\\nSite 130\\n35\\n67\\n65/29\\n93\\nLiberty State\\n34\\nPark\\n42\\n54/27\\n85\\nNote:\\nSD Standard Deviation\\n72", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "4.4.6.2 Metallurgy of Ferrofurnace Bottoms\\nFerrofumace bottoms, a metallic product rich in iron, was formed during the vitrification of the Liberty\\nState Park soil. Samples of this material were sent to a laboratory for analyses. The results of the\\nanalyses are presented in Table 22.\\n4.4.6.3 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure\\nAfter completion of the demonstration an EPA reviewer requested that SW-846 Method 1312, the\\nSynthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) be performed on the vitrified product as that would be\\none result that regulators would want to have available. The test was performed and the results are\\npresented in Table 23. No metals were found at concentrations that would cause regulatory concern.\\nTable 22. Metal Composition of Ferrofurnace Bottoms from Liberty State Park Soil 1\\nSample #1\\nSample #2\\nSample #3\\nHexavalent\\nchromium\\nND\\nND\\nND\\nChromium\\n3.03\\n3.78\\n3.95\\nArsenic\\n0.03\\n0.04\\nNA\\nIron\\n53.8\\n56.3\\n63.4\\nMolybdenum 2\\n30.1\\n27.1\\n18.6\\nNickel\\n0.29\\n0.31\\n0.33\\nSilicon\\n0.03\\n0.07\\n0.07\\nNotes:\\nAll samples were digested in nitric acid and hydrofluoric acid and analyzed\\nby flame atomic absorption.\\nMolybdenum was a component of the electrodes used during the\\ndemonstration.\\nND Not detected\\nNA Not analyzed\\n73", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "4.4.7\\nCost\\nCold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to the soils treated during the SITE\\ndemonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal costs and potential\\ncredits for the vitrified product. The three scenarios evaluated included (1) use of the vitrified product as\\naggregate, (2) backfilling of the aggregate on site, and (3) landfilling of the aggregate. Costs for these\\nthree scenarios were $83, $98, and $213 per ton, respectively. Because of the uncertainty of their\\nformation, potential credits for ferrofumace bottoms were not considered in this economic analysis.\\nTable 23. Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure Results\\nSPLP Metal\\nSite 130\\n(mg/L)\\nLiberty State\\nPark\\n(mg/L)\\nAntimony\\n0.050\\n0.050\\nArsenic\\n0.050\\n0.050\\nBarium\\n0.075\\n0.11\\nBeryllium\\n0.0010\\n0.0010\\nCadmium\\n0.0046\\n0.0046\\nChromium\\n0.0056\\n0.016J\\nLead\\n0.034\\n0.034\\nNickel\\n0.025\\n0.025\\nSelenium\\n0.078\\n0.078\\nSilver\\n0.0032\\n0.0032\\nVanadium\\n0.0076\\n0.0076\\nNote:\\nJ Estimated value, below practical quantitation limit.\\n74", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "4.4.8\\nSummary of Demonstration Results\\nThe following are the observational findings of the Cold Top SITE demonstration at the Geotech facility:\\nThe Cold Top technology vitrified chromium-contaminated soil from two New Jersey sites,\\nproducing a product that met the RCRA TCLP chromium standard. Vitrification of soil from\\none of the two sites produced, in addition to the vitrified product, a potentially recyclable\\nmetallic product meeting the RCRA TCLP chromium standard. Dust collected in the\\nbaghouse of the APCS failed to met the RCRA TCLP chromium standard.\\nWith the exception of the vitrification-baghouse-dust and ferrofumace-bottoms samples, the\\nchromium content of the vitrified product did not differ significantly from that of the\\nuntreated soil. The concentration of chromium in the vitrification-baghouse-dust and\\nferrofumace-bottoms sample were about two and five times, respectively, the concentrations\\nfound in the untreated soil.\\nThe hexavalent chromium concentrations in the vitrified-product and ferrofumace-bottoms\\nsamples were either not detected or present at a concentration of 500 times less than that\\nfound in the untreated soil. The hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from one half to\\napproximately the same in the vitrification baghouse dust as in the untreated soil.\\nCold Top treatment of chromium-contaminated soil, similar to the soils treated during the\\nSITE demonstration, is estimated to cost from $83 to $213 per ton, depending on disposal\\ncosts and potential credits for the vitrified product.\\nComparison of metal concentrations in the vitrified product to the NJDEP interim standards\\nrevealed that antimony, beryllium, cadmium, nickel, vanadium, and hexavalent chromium\\nmet the non-residential soil standards while chromium did not.\\nAlthough the Cold Top technology has nothing to do with incineration, stack emissions from\\nthe demonstration were compared to Subpart O incinerator regulations, and the results were\\nmixed.\\nData collected during the SITE demonstration were entered into complex modeling\\ncalculations for the NYSDEC air emission regulations. The modeling required that site- and\\nwaste-specific analyses be performed to assess the environmental impact of Cold Top stack\\nemissions. Modeling results were found to be dependent on the soil, APCS configuration,\\nand detection limits of the various analytes.\\nThe chloride concentrations found in the untreated soil from both sites did not correlate with\\nthe dioxins and furans measured the offgas system during the demonstration. The dioxin and\\nfuran results were generally below the laboratory reporting limits.\\nAnalyses of the ferrofurnace bottoms produced from the Liberty State Park soil indicated that\\nthe samples contained 53 to 64 percent iron, 3 to 4 percent chromium, and less than\\n0.4 percent nickel, as well as molybdenum from the furnace electrodes.\\n75", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "One sample of vitrified material from each of the soils was extracted and analyzed by the\\nSPLP procedure for 11 metals. Low amounts of barium were found in both samples and a\\nvery low amount of chromium (0.0056 mg/L) was found in the sample from Liberty State\\nPark.\\n4.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL\\nQC checks and procedures were an integral part of the Geotech SITE demonstration to ensure that QA\\nobjectives were met. These checks and procedures focused on (1) the collection of representative samples\\nthat were free of external contamination and (2) the analysis of comparable data. Two kinds of QC checks\\nand procedures were conducted during the demonstration: (1) checks controlling field activities, such as\\nsample collection and shipping, and (2) checks controlling laboratory activities, such as extraction and\\nanalysis. A detailed discussion of the QA/QC program is provided in the Geotech Technology Evaluation\\nReport (TER) (EPA 1999).\\nDue to an unexpected system shutdown during Run 1, a change to the vitrification furnace APCS during\\nRun 2, and an unexplainable discrepancy in the mass of untreated soil for Run 1, all data and conclusions\\nfrom this demonstration are considered to be observational and do not meet the stringent levels of statistical\\nsignificance established for this project.\\n4.5.1 Conformance With Quality Assurance Objectives\\nThe overall quality assurance goal for the Cold Top SITE Demonstration, was to produce\\nwell-documented data of known quality, as indicated by the data\u00e2\u0080\u0099s precision, accuracy, representativeness,\\ncomparability, and completeness, and the target reporting limits for the analytical methods. Specific\\nQuality Assurance Objectives (QAOs) were established as benchmarks by which each criterion would be\\nevaluated. These QAOs were presented in the demonstration QAPP and are shown in Table 24. (EPA\\n1996). This section discusses the quality assurance data for the demonstration.\\n4.5.1.1 Method Blanks\\nMethod blanks evaluate the representativeness of the data by checking for laboratory-induced\\ncontamination. Method blanks were analyzed with each sample batch and consisted of an aliquot of reagent\\n76", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "water carried through all preparation and analysis steps. Ideally, method blanks should not contain analytes\\nat concentrations above the method detection limit (MDL). Should the blank show contamination,\\ncorrective actions vary, depending on the specific contaminant, its concentration, and whether the\\ncontaminant is also detected in the sample. Chromium was detected in one of three method blank samples\\nat an estimated concentration of 3.9 mg/kg. Samples associated with this blank were the S4 (soil dryer\\nbaghouse dust) and S7 (dried, blended soil mixture) samples collected on January 29, 1997.\\nTCLP chromium was detected in one method blank sample at an estimated concentration of 0.0062 mg/L.\\nThe samples associated with this blank were the SI 1 (vitrified product) samples collected on February 10\\nand 11, 1997. Chromium was also detected in one TCLP blank at an estimated concentration of\\n0.0056 mg/L, the same concentration as the MDL; the S7 (dried, blended soil mixture) samples collected on\\nJanuary 27, 1997, were associated with this blank. Barium was detected in only one SPLP blank at a\\nconcentration of 0.085 mg/L; the SI 1 (vitrified product) samples were associated with this blank.\\n4.5.1.2 Analytical Quality Control Categories\\nThis section discusses the types of analytical QC applied to the data collected during the demonstration.\\nThese QC checks determined the data\u00e2\u0080\u0099s accuracy, precision, representativeness, completeness, and\\ncomparability.\\n4.5.1.2.1 Accuracy\\nAccuracy is a measure of the analytical system s achievement of the true value. Accuracy is determined by\\ncalculating percent recovery from samples spiked with a known concentration of a selected compound or\\nanalyte\\nAll but three recoveries were within QC limits. One sample of dried, blended soil mixture and one sample\\nof vitrification furnace baghouse dust had MS and MSD percent recoveries of 0 for TCLP chromium due\\nto dilution of the extract. Another sample of dried, blended soil mixture had an MS percent recovery of\\n157.5 for TCLP chromium. Analytical results for these samples are considered to be acceptable without\\nqualification.\\n77", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "Table 24\\nQA Objectives for Accuracy, Precision, and Completeness\\nCompound\\nMatrix\\nAnalytical Method\\nAccuracy\\nRec)\\nPrecision\\nRPD)\\nTRL\\nCompleteness\\nChromium\\nSolid\\nSW-846 3052 and\\n6010A\\n75 to 125\\n25\\n14 mg/kg\\n90\\nCr +6\\nSolid\\nSW-846 3060A and\\n7196 A\\n70 to 130\\n30\\n0.41 mg/kg\\n90\\nChromium\\n(TCLP) 1\\nSolid\\nSW-846 1311, 3010A,\\nand 6010A\\n75 to 125\\n25\\n0.56 mg/L\\n90\\nChromium\\nStack\\nemissions\\nEPA Method\\nCr +6 /3052/6010A\\n75 to 125\\n20\\n1.2 ug/ dscm\\n90\\nCr +6\\nStack\\nemissions\\nEPA Method Cr +6\\n70 to 130\\n25\\n16 ng/dscm\\n90\\nChromium\\nVitrified\\nproduct\\nSW-846 3052 and\\n6010A\\n75 to 125\\n25\\n14 mg/kg\\n90\\nCr +6\\nVitrified\\nproduct\\nNJIT/XPS 2\\n90\\nChromium\\n(TCLP)\\nVitrified\\nproduct\\nSW-846 1311, 3010A,\\nand 6010A\\n75 to 125\\n25\\n0.56 mg/L\\n90\\nAntimony\\nVitrified\\nproduct\\nSW-846 3051 and\\n6010A\\n75 to 125\\n25\\n60 mg/kg\\n90\\nBeryllium\\nVitrified\\nproduct\\nSW-846 3051 and\\n6010A\\n75 to 125\\n25\\n20 mg/kg\\n90\\nCadmium\\nVitrified\\nproduct\\nSW-846 3051 and\\n6010A\\n75 to 125\\n25\\n60 mg/kg\\n90\\nNickel\\nVitrified\\nproduct\\nSW-846 3051 and\\n6010A\\n75 to 125\\n25\\n50 mg/kg\\n90\\nVanadium\\nVitrified\\nproduct\\nSW-846 3051 and\\n6010A\\n75 to 125\\n25\\n30 mg/kg\\n90\\nNotes:\\nA critical parameter\\nThe New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) performed X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy\\n(XPS).This analysis was not performed as part of the SITE demonstration.\\nCr +6 Hexavalent chromium\\nRPD Relative percent difference\\nTCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure\\nTRL Target reporting limit\\nREC Percent recovery\\npg; mg microgram; milligram\\nng; kg nanogram; kilogram\\nL; dscm liter; dry standard cubic feet\\n78", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "4.5.1.2.2\\nPrecision\\nPrecision is a measure of the variability associated with the measurement system. Analytical precision is\\nestimated by analyzing samples in pairs, either the unspiked sample and its duplicate or the MS and MSD\\nsamples. The degree of variability between a sample and its duplicate is expressed in terms of the relative\\npercent difference (RPD).\\nOne RPD exceeded the 25 percent QC criteria. A sample of dried, blended soil mixture that had MS and\\nMSD percent recoveries of 97.5 and 157.5 had an RPD of 47.\\n4.5.1.2.3 Completeness\\nCompleteness is an assessment of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared\\nto the amount of data expected to achieve a particular statistical level of confidence. The percent\\ncompleteness is calculated by the number of valid points divided by the planned number of measurements\\nand multiplying the result by 100. Completeness was greater than the quality assurance objective of 90\\npercent for each set of parameters.\\n4.5.1.2.4 Representativeness\\nFor this demonstration, representativeness involved sample size, sample volume, sampling times, and\\nsampling locations. A sufficient number of samples were collected to analyze all of the parameters\\nrequired; therefore, the QC objective for representativeness was met.\\n4.5.1.2.5 Comparability\\nAll parameters were measured using standard methods. Therefore, demonstration data are considered to be\\ncomparable to any other performance data generated using standard methods.\\n79", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "4.5.2 Stack Emissions Sampling\\nTwo separate mobilizations were required to complete the two-run project program. Run 1 was not\\ncompleted because of a process upset; that is, only one of two traverses was completed at each of the\\nsampling locations. Run 2 was completed in full; however, the flow condition was different from Run 1\\nresulting from a damper on the vitrification hood being open.\\n4.5.2.1 EPA Method Cr 6\\nFluegas concentrations of hexavalent chromium were determined using EPA Method Cr +6 (40CFR Part 266,\\nAppendix IX) at both Sampling Locations S13 and S9A.\\nDuring Run 1, a 0.1-normal potassium hydroxide absorbing solution was used in accordance with the\\nmethod. The concentration of sulfur dioxide during Run 1 was detected at levels approaching 50 ppm,\\nmuch higher than expected. The pH check that is conducted during the train recovery yielded a pH of 9.5\\nfor both the inlet and outlet trains; therefore, the increase in the acidity of the fluegas did not decrease the\\neffectiveness of the absorbing solution. An increase in the normality of the absorbing solution was decided\\nupon for Run 2, because the concentration of sulfur dioxide was expected to be similar to that of Run 1.\\nUsing the average value for the concentration of sulfur dioxide during the stack sampling of Run 1, it was\\ncalculated that a 5-normal potassium hydroxide absorbing solution should be used. The sulfur dioxide did\\nnot reach the expected concentration during Run 2 because a damper in the vitrification hood exhaust was\\nleft open. The increase in normality of the potassium hydroxide solution causes interference in the\\nlaboratory analysis and because of this, reagent blank values were greater in Run 2 than Run 1, resulting in\\nnegative Cr+6 results.\\nHigh particulate loading was present at Sampling Location SI3, but because the sampling tram does not\\nutilize a filter, this did not pose a problem during sampling.\\nTreatment of Blank Results\\nReagent blanks for EPA Method Cr +6 were collected during both test runs. A field blank for Sampling\\nLocations S13 and S9A was also collected after Run 2. The following approach for the treatment of results\\n80", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "was used:\\nReagent blank results that were above detection limits were subtracted from the run data, resulting\\nin negative values.\\nReagent blank results that were below detection limits were not used in the correction of the test\\nsample results (for example, results below detection limits were treated as zeros).\\nNo corrections were made in the test data for field blanks.\\n4.5.2.2 EPA Method 23\\nFluegas concentrations of PCDDs/PCDFs were determined using EPA Method 23: Determination of\\nPolychlormated-Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlormated-Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources (40CFR\\nPart 60; Appendix A 1994). During Run 1, sampling for PCDD/PCDF was conducted at both Sampling\\nLocations S13 and S9A. During Run 2, sampling for PCDD/PCDF was only conducted at Sampling\\nLocation SI3.\\nTreatment of Results Below Detection Limits\\nTarget analytes were present at concentrations both above and below detection limits of Method 23. The\\nfollowing procedures were used to sum the two sample train fractions:\\nBoth Values Detected. When positive values are detected for both sample fractions, the results for\\nthe two fractions are summed. The data are not qualified.\\nBoth Values Below Detection Limit. When both reported values are below the detection limit, the\\ndata are flagged as not detected (ND), and the sum of the detection limits for the analytes are used in\\nall of the calculations.\\nSome Values are Detected, and Some are Nondetected. As an approximation of the true value, one-\\nhalf of the detection limits for the nondetected values, and the actual values for the detected values\\nare used to calculate reported values. In reporting the sums of mixed values, the data are not\\nqualified.\\nTreatment of Blank Results\\nReagent blanks for EPA Method 23 were collected during both test runs and archived. A field blank for\\nSampling Location S13 was collected after Run 2. No correction to the test data was made for field blanks\\n81", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "or reagent blanks, because these results were below detection limits.\\n4.5.2.3 EPA Method 29\\nFluegas concentrations of trace metals, hydrogen chloride gas, and particulate were determined using\\nmodified EPA Method 29: Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources (40 CFR Part 60,\\nAppendix A 1996) at Sampling Location S9. During Run 1, sampling was conducted at Sampling Location\\nS9B, and during Run 2, sampling was conducted at Sampling Location S9A.\\nTreatment of Results Below Detection Limits\\nTarget analytes were present at concentrations both above and below detection limits of Method 29. The\\nfollowing procedures were used to sum the two sample train fractions:\\nAll Values Detected. When positive values are detected for all fractions, the results for the fractions\\nare summed. The data are not qualified.\\nAll Values Below Detection Limit. When all reported data are below the detection limit, the data\\nare flagged as ND, and sum of the detection limit for the analytes are used in all of the calculations.\\nSome Values are Detected, and Some are Nondetected. As an approximation of the true value, one-\\nhalf of the detection limits for the nondetected values, and the actual values for the detected values\\nare used to calculate reported values. In reporting the sums of mixed values, the data are not\\nqualified.\\nTreatment of Blank Results\\nReagent blanks for EPA Method 29 were collected during both test runs and archived. A field blank for\\nSampling Location S13 was collected after Run 2. The following approach for treatment of results was\\nused:\\nThe reagent blank results that were above detection limits were subtracted from the run data as per\\nMethod 29. The reagent blank results that were below detection were not used in the correction of\\nthe test sample results (i.e. results below detection limits were treated as zeros).\\nNo correction was made in the run data for field blank results.\\n82", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "SECTION 5\\nTECHNOLOGY STATUS\\nThe center of the Geotech technology is a water-cooled, double-wall, steel furnace that uses submerged\\nelectrode resistance melting. The furnace and associated equipment are capable of a range of melting\\ntemperatures up to 5,200 \u00c2\u00b0F. The technology can be used to vitrify chromium-contaminated soil,\\nmunicipal solid waste incinerator ash, fly ash, asbestos and asbestos-containing materials, ceramic\\nminerals, and a range of other materials, including soils contaminated with heavy metals such as lead and\\ncadmium. The vitrified product can be formed into granular non-porous solids of 3/8 inch or smaller or\\nglassy blocks of up to 300 pounds. These products have potential economic value as shore erosion block,\\nroadbed fill, aggregate for concrete or asphalt, or other uses where a high-density, solid material is\\nneeded. The product can also be spun into mineral or ceramic fiber, which may have economic value as\\ninsulation, wall board, industrial furnace linings, and ceramic fiber.\\nGeotech currently operates a 50-ton-per day Cold Top vitrification pilot plant in Niagara Falls, New\\nYork. This facility was used for over 34 research and customer demonstrations, including the SITE\\ndemonstration. Geotech says this plant is capable of melting any mineral or combination of minerals that\\nis present in a relatively dry condition. The molten stream can be collected in an inert, amorphous,\\nglass-like condition in either large blocks or grit-sized particles or, if the mineralogy is correct, the\\nmolten stream can be introduced to a spinner, and fiber can be produced. Materials fused in this plant\\nrange from high purity zirconia and magnesite, requiring fusion temperatures in excess of 5,000 \u00c2\u00b0F, to\\ncontaminated soils that melt at 1,800 \u00c2\u00b0F.\\nGeotech has built or assisted with the construction or upgrading of five operating vitrification plants.\\nThe first of these is the Sklo Union plant located in Teplice, Czechoslovakia. This plant was built in\\n1981 to produce alumina silica ceramic fibers from the vitrified material. The plant has also melted and\\npoured basic basalt and coal fly ash to produce mineral-fiber products. The plant mainly produces\\nceramic fiber, as the commercial value of the ceramic fibers is nearly 20 times that of mineral fiber. The\\nproduction capacity of this plant ranges from 800 pounds per hour for ceramic fiber to 4,000 pounds per\\nhour for\\nfly-ash residue. Power consumption ranges from 0.78 kilowatt hour per pound (KWH/lb) for ceramic\\nfiber to 0.23 KWH/lb for fly-ash residue.\\n83", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "Geotech has assisted with the design and construction of another ceramic fiber facility at Fibertek S.P.A.\\nin Atella, Italy, in 1985. The general configuration of this plant was very similar to the Czechoslovakian\\nplant. This plant was also designed with the capability of converting municipal solid waste and fly ash to\\nmineral-wool-grade fiber but, due to the economics, only ceramic fiber has been produced.\\nIn 1983 Geotech supplied molten stream control, high-speed spinning, and fiber-collection equipment to\\nthe LaFarge Refractaires facility in Lorete, France. The equipment was used to upgrade the\\nmanufacturing efficiency and product quality of the facility.\\nIn 1985 Geotech contracted with Nichias Corporation of Nagano, Japan, to upgrade their melting and\\nfiber-forming process. Geotech furnished a melting furnace, electrical controls, high-speed spinning\\nequipment, and fiber-collection equipment for a plant that produces ceramic fibers.\\nIn 1992 Geotech installed mineral-fusion and fiber-formation equipment in a proprietary plant in Nagoya,\\nJapan. The plant is designed to vitrify a wide variety of solid mineral waste materials, including clam\u00c2\u00ac\\nshell residue, sludge-ash residue, and coal-ash residue.\\nGeotech plans to build a commercial Cold Top vitrification facility near the northern New Jersey\\nchromium sites. The facility will use electricity to vitrify solid waste including chromium-contaminated\\nwastes. The planned capacity of this facility is 300 tons per day. The facility will be able to receive,\\nprepare, and vitrify waste material, and dispose of the vitrified product from the chromium sites as well\\nas from municipal solid waste incinerators and other producers of hazardous and non-hazardous waste.\\n84", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "REFERENCES\\nEPA, 1999. Geotech Development Corporation Cold top Ex-Situ Vitrification Technology: Technology\\nEvaluation Report.\\nEvans, G. 1990. Estimating Innovative Technology Costs for the SITE Program. Journal of Air and\\nWaste Management Association, 40:7, pgs 1047 1051.\\nMeegoda, J., W. Kamolpornwijit, D. Vaccari, A. Ezeldin, L. Walden, W. Ward, R. Mueller, and S.\\nSantora. 1996. Aggregates for Construction from Vitrified Chromium Contaminated Soils.\\nProceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology, Voll.\\npgs 405-415.\\nMeegoda, J., B. Librizzi, G. McKenna, W. Kamolpornwijit, D. Cohen, D. Vaccari, S. Ezeldin, L.\\nWalden, B. Noval, R. Mueller, and S. Santora. 1995. Remediation and Reuse of Chromium\\nContaminated Soils Through Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification. Proceedings of the 27th\\nMid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, pgs 733-742.\\nNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1995. Guidelines for the\\nControl of Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants.\\nR.S. Means Company, Inc. 1996. Means Site Cost Data, 15th Annual Edition. Construction Consultants\\nand Publishers, Kingston, MA.\\nR.S. Means Company, Inc. 1997. R.S. Means Building Construction Cost Data: 55 th Edition.\\nConstruction Consultants and Publishers, Kingston, MA.\\nU. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Geotech\\nDevelopment Corporation Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification System Technology Demonstration in\\nNiagara falls, New York; New Jersey Chromium Sites.\\n85", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "United States\\nEnvironmental Protection Agency\\nCenter for\\nEnvironmental Research Information\\nCincinnati, OH 45268\\nPlease make all necessary changes on the below label,\\ndetach or copy, and return to the address in the upper\\nleft-hand corner.\\nIf you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HEReD\\ndetach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the\\nupper left-hand corner.\\nPRESORTED STANDARC\\nPOSTAGE FEES PAID\\nEPA\\nPERMIT No. G-35\\nOfficial Business\\nPenalty for Private Use\\n$300\\nEPA/540/R-97/506\\nlibrary of congress", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "*7 A\\nA, V\\nbJETZfjP\\nV\\n\u00e2\u0099\u00a6w\\nVv^\\n.w\\n*o\\nr 3f\\n1 r v\\nTP\u00c2\u00abf\u00c2\u00bb\\nA*V VV\\nt O.\\nk V 0 ^H0 4 /V L, l/V\u00c2\u00b0 ^/U-Ao^ V^\u00c2\u00ab ^Vto C 4\\nn m ^vH* ,m vo o, *Kp^\u00c2\u00b0;\\n0h\\\\\\\\f A\\\\//j\\n_ t\\nn*, .A\\ngt S 4 v \u00e2\u0080\u0099k kJ yv v y \u00c2\u00abT\\nv y*- J^J%\u00c2\u00b0 J?\\nv l\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0v-ts\\n3 A\\nsa A\\nr ov\\ncJ?\\\\}WP/ f\\\\ WJ\\nV\u00c2\u00b0.oX ^l^S\\no.V^4\u00c2\u00b0,.\\nV\\nAO.\\nI,\u00c2\u00bb \u00e2\u0080\u0099A. \u00c2\u00b0o/*\u00c2\u00bb\\nr ov\\nW; W/ \\\\W* ^V%W/ s oTO/ ^VvW\\n^gi^K \u00e2\u0080\u0098X\u00e2\u0080\u009cS X a\\n.V^i\\nV\u00c2\u00bb\u00e2\u0080\u009d V u 7 r|1\\nA y\u00c2\u00ab*V/)i i A\u00e2\u0080\u0099+Jta*.*\\nv- y :ffli!\\nV\\n4 0 V* X\\nO v v\\nA y. v v c\\nO\\n3 JV\\nvVA*\\nJY\\nV o **.^Wr* *v \u00e2\u0080\u00a2W* .r r* c tyji/^ o *o .A V* r.\\no, Vom t *3*/,. O o 4.\u00e2\u0080\u0098o\u00e2\u0080\u009e\\n7 w r y^a,_.\u00c2\u00abssx r 5S^ nr:j; ^2 2 u r* 2 J j c 3 w\\no c W^vW \u00c2\u00b0^?W\\n,u, /v\u00c2\u00b0 .V 11 \u00e2\u0080\u0098/v 0 ^A o t o 0 0 *t f v o X\\nov\\nr ov\\nO no\\nV 0^4 \u00c2\u00abM^ V*\\no\\nJ\u00c2\u00bb\\nV\\nO V\\nr- V\u00e2\u0080\u009c A.\\nr e5? J\\\\ J\\n4 (io\\nSI .0 X)-\\nV\\n-V J bv t\\nX c\\nS jMi** Va. a V .v f5\\nr V V\\nr t53^o J\\na* \\\\,V\\niECKMAN\\nBINDERY, INC.\\nBound-To-Please 8\\n02-T02212\\nN. MANCHESTER, INDIANA 46962\\nov *M Ad 4\\n^5*\\n\u00c2\u00b0o A P c,^\\nCpv r\\no vVA. o WAsn^$ r c?3^r. J\\n^o a l \\\\0 O 4 J, _ 4\\nca rA co nc ^4,\\n4. c 0 ^b^^ c 5\\no bA\\nm, jA W/k o jA^Al r ^a\\n*0^v", "height": "4319", "width": "3117", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4338", "width": "3183", "jp2-path": "geotechinccoldto00nati_0120.jp2"}}