USAtC

TECH INFO CTR

CIRCULATICN COPY
^ÖIPP
Windrow Composting
Engineering/Economic
in«. pne*^
Evaluation
US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNO MD 21010-5401

19950214 060
Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-93050
Contract No. DACA31-91-R-0009
Task Order No. 01 r\ T1 f*
ELECTE
FEB2 31995

May 1993 G

Prepared for:
U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC)
CET-HA-TD-5
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401

Prepared by:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380-1499
Cl086a oo«Mxaau.rMrs

"DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
Approved for public release;
AEC Form ^5, 1 Feb 93 replaces THAMA Form k5 which is obsolete.
Distribution Unlimited
The reviews, opinions, and/or findings
contained in this report should not be
construed as an official Department of
the Army position, policy, or decision,
unless so designated by other
documentation.

The use of trade names in this report

does not constitute an official
endorsement or approval of the use of
such commercial products. This report
may not be cited for purposes of
advertisement.

C1086b
 DCSOCnCOBULTINn

WINDROW COMPOSTING ENGINEERING/

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

Prepared for

U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC)

CET-HA-TD-5
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401

Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-93050

Contract No. DACA31-91-R-0009
Task Order No. 01 Accesion For
NTIS CRA&I
DTIC TAB
Unannounced D
Justification
May 1993
By
Distribution/

Availability Codes
Avail and/or
Dist Special

Prepared by
Bd
ROY F. WESTON, INC.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380-1499

MK01\EPT:02281012.001\windrow.fin
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A conceptual level development of the use of composting technology for the treatment
of explosives-contaminated soils and sediments has been conducted. These soils and
sediments exist at a variety of Army ammunition plants (AAPs) and Army depots (ADs)
as a result of post-industrial activities associated with the production of munitions.
Previous investigations of the technical aspects of explosives composting, including
recent U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC) field demonstrations, have shown
composting can significantly reduce explosives levels in contaminated soils.

This report presents a conceptual level facility design, including construction and
operating requirements, and an economic evaluation for a windrow composting facility.
All equipment specifically named by the vendor is for illustrative purposes. Equivalent
equipment could be used. This design reflects the current level of technology with
respect to both technical and regulatory aspects. Brief system descriptions and costs
are also presented for aerated static pile and mechanically agitated in-vessel
composting technologies.
Table ES-1 presents "treatment only" costs for windrow, aerated static pile, and
mechanical in-vessel composting systems as well as incineration. This table does not
include costs associated with soil excavation or final compost disposal.

All three composting technologies exhibit the potential for cost savings compared to
incineration. Although all three composting systems have demonstrated explosives
reduction in field demonstrations [4,5], windrow composting has shown the greatest
reductions in TNT, RDX, and HMX. Based on explosives reduction and economic
considerations, windrow composting is the most viable treatment approach. Based
upon the present state of technology, a windrow composting facility could be designed
and operated using previously demonstrated operating parameters.

Although all required research and development activities related to windrow

implementation have been completed, there are several areas that could be optimized
with further testing. These areas include increasing the compost soil loading,
decreasing the compost cycle time, and ehminating compliance to RCRA minimum
technology standards.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.fin ES-1 05/03/93

 Cost per
Ton ($)c
© © ©
00 00 © ©
Ol OJ CO

o © © ©
Total Project
o © © o
© o ©^ o
Cost ($)
of 1-T ©*
CM o o
c- t> 00 o
co ©"

e *t3
0 © o ©
O&M Cost ($)

M
■♦* © o o © '>
©
o © o o O
g0) (M
5-Year

CO eo ©" a
Iß © © ©
ä .ao IO © •S3
_ •«*
a (i 1-4 of of G
*s O
+s
IM

21 •
CD
a
ed'Tre atmen

© ©
o
O&M Cost ($)
Compc»sting

© © 3 OQ
1*4
© o o o
© u
QD of cxf
Annual

© Ol <D
© © © c
0)
co
I ■*»
CO o
u —;. *-
00
a
3
•aOJ
es es 03
to 0) es
a»OB
HM ©
©
©
©
© ©
© §.*
Cost ($)b

■** ■#* ©
o
Capital

09 09 ©^ © O c
H 0 r-4 ©" ©" W
OJ
OS
© CO © ©
© S
c ° "3a
■**
© OJ
1-T eo of
OJ
0) cr
"O £ 0J ^©
COO
CM
lO ©
es ej .-Ol
o >> T> €«■
,g e 2 0J
"■3
en
.2 a § o .5®
o es := «> .2S
a > 2
es °° OJ §
6
o
ü c^
X o "O O
Technology

bO
_C O 00
03 —< i
0J C
> TG .U CO
*-S -£ bo O C
CO
o a 'S3 -wo CO ° c o
o. CU '-3
6o to
o
"äC ©
° OJ S
es ©
*>s a —o ~s
es c co ©•>
Ü
o
-u
CO
T3
£o
O
o
'■S
eS
»-
U « c
C o co ©
ao
IM
CM
o
«- 0J 0J e^ E-
c es G CO ™
_S fll :3
F«
co _
a) °S ^
CO
0J
CO
3 co §e
c
< ~
*- U
u Da
03
5 CQ«
D2 <
» «IT*

ES-2
 :URITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
Unclassified
'-. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Unlimited

•ERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

CET-HA-TS-CR-93050

'• NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
(If applicable)
Roy F. Weston, Inc. U.S. Environmental Center (USAZC)
6c ADDRESS (City, Statt, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

I
& 1 Neston Way
West Chester, PA 19380-1499
CET-HA-TD-5
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401

NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ORGANIZATION (If applicable)
U.S. Army Environmental Center DACA31-91-R-R-0009
| «r ADDRESS (City. State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT
CETHA-TD-5 ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. (ACCESSION NO.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
T01
'TITLE (Include Security Classification)

Windrow Composting Engineering/Economic Evaluation

*" PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

Lowe, Marks, Myers, Hammell
13«. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15. PAGE COUNT
Final FROM 10/91 TO 5/93 1993, May 83
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

COSATI COOES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Composting; DNT; TNT; RDX; HMX; explosives; soil

ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

A conceptual level development of the use of composting technology for the treatment of explosives-
contaminated soils and sediments has been conducted. These soils and sediments occur at a variety
fjf Army ammunition plants (AAPs) and Army depots (ADs) as a result of post-industrial activities
associated with munitions production. Previous investigations, including recent USAEC field demonstrations,
have shown that composting can significantly reduce explosives levels in contaminated soils.
ihis report presents a conceptual level facility design, including construction and operating requirements,
ind an economic evaluation for a windrow composting facility. System descriptions and costs are also
presented for aerated static pile and mechanically agitated in-vessel composting, technologies. All three
composting technologies demonstrated cost savings versus incineration for comparable remedial project sizes.
Che "treatment only" windrow composting cost for treatment of 20,000 tons of explosives-contaminated soil in
i 5 year period was estimated to be $187 per ton of soil. An economic sensitivity analysis was conducted to
determine the effect of project duration (1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 year periods for 20,000 tons of soil) and
_facility size (2,000, 5,000, and 10,000 tons of soil processed in 2 years). It was found that increasing
:reatment period beyond 3 years offered little economic benefit.

20. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

00 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED D SAME AS RPT. Q QTIC USERS Unclassified
NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL
^apt. Kevin Keehan and Mr. Wayne Sisk 410-671-2054 ENAEC-TS-D
)0 Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

1 Unclassified
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Problem Statement 1-1

1.2 Objectives of Study 1-2

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-1

2.1 Review of Composting Technologies 2-1

2.2 Explosives Composting Technology 2-3
2.3 Kinetics and Reaction Parameters 2-4
2.4 Heat Transfer 2-8
2.5 Process Control 2-8

3 CONCEPTUAL PROCESS DEVELOPMENT 3-1

3.1 Objective 3-1

3.2 Design Basis and Assumptions 3-1
3.2.1 Compost Pad Configuration 3-1
3.2.2 Compost Pile Sediment Fraction 3-2
3.2.3 Composting Treatment Period 3-2
3.2.4 Regulatory Requirements 3-2
3.2.5 Facility Size 3-4
3.2.6 Water (Drainage) Management 3-4
3.2.7 Aeration Requirements 3-4
3.2.8 Mixing Requirements 3-5
3.3 Process Description and Materials Balance 3-5
3.3.1 Process Description 3-5
3.3.2 Process Flow Diagram/Material Balance 3-14
3.4 Facility Description 3-14
3.4.1 General 3-14
3.4.2 Site Layout 3-14
3.4.3 Site Operation/Management 3-15
3.5 Facility Design and Operating Requirements 3-17
3.5.1 Equipment List 3-17
3.5.2 Construction Requirements 3-17
3.5.3 Operating Requirements 3-19

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windiow.fin Üi 05/03/93
 ccsoo&coaiTJwn

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

Section Title Page

3.5.4 Site Closure 3-19

4 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 4-1

4.1 Economic Analysis - Base Case System 4-1

4.1.1 Capital Costs Estimate 4-1
4.1.2 O&M Cost Estimate 4-3
4.1.3 Total Project Cost 4-5
4.2 Sensitivity Considerations 4-8
4.2.1 Potential Capital and Operating Cost Changes 4-8
4.2.2 Project Duration 4-10
4.2.3 Facility Size 4-13
4.3 Alternative Composting Systems 4-19
4.3.1 Aerated Static Pile Composting 4-19
4.3.2 Mechanically Agitated In-Vessel Composting 4-23
4.4 Comparison of Treatment Alternatives 4-34

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1

6 REFERENCES 6-1

APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE WINDROW COMPOST TURNERS

APPENDIX B REGULATORY ISSUES

MKOttRPT: 02281012.00 l\windrow.fin iv 05/03/93

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page

3-1 Process Flow Diagram for Windrow Composting System 3-6

3-2 Cross-Section of Typical Windrow Turner and Compost Pile 3-11

3-3 Site Layout for Windrow Facility 3-16

4-1 Project Cost Per Ton of Soil Treated for Windrow Composting with
Varying Project Durations 4-15

4-2 Cross-Section of Typical Aerated Static Pile and Bin 4-20

4-3 Typical Mechanically Agitated In-Vessel Composting Reactor 4-28

4-4 Effect of Site Size on Incineration Costs 4-36

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windpowAi V 05/03/93
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page

2-1 Kinetic Parameter Estimates for Explosives Composting 2-5

3-1 Project Treatment Periods for Composting 3-3

3-2 Mass Balance for Windrow Materials Stream 3-8

3-3 Amendment Composition 3-10

3-4 Windrow Monitoring Frequency 3-13

3-5 Major Equipment List for Windrow System 3-18

4-1 Major Items Included in Potential Capital Costs for Windrow

Composting System 4-2

4-2 Estimated Capital Costs for Windrow Composting System 4-4

4-3 Operation and Maintenance Unit Costs 4-6

4-4 Estimated Annual O&M Costs for Windrow Composting System 4-7

4-5 Total Estimated 5-Year Project Cost for Windrow Composting System 4-9

4-6 Estimated Capital Costs for Windrow Composting of Varying Project

Durations 4-11

4-7 Estimated O&M Costs for Windrow Composting of Varying Project

Durations 4-12

4-8 Estimated Total Project Costs for Windrow Composting of Varying

Project Durations 4-14

4-9 Estimated Capital Costs for Windrow Composting of Varying Facility

Sizes for 2-Year Project Duration 4-16

4-10 Estimated Annual Costs for Windrow Composting of Varying Facility

Sizes for 2-Year Project Duration 4-17

4-11 Estimated Total Costs for Windrow Composting of Varying Facility

Sizes for 2-Year Project Duration 4-18

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.fin vi 05/03/93
 LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)

Table No. Title Page

4-12 Major Equipment List for Aerated Static Pile System 4-22

4-13 Estimated Capital Costs for Aerated Static Pile Composting System 4-24

4-14 Estimated Annual O&M Costs for Aerated Static Pile Composting
System 4-25

4-15 Total Estimated 5-Year Project Cost for Aerated Static Pile
Composting System 4-26

4-16 Estimated Capital Costs for MAIV Composting System 4-30

4-17 Estimated O&M Costs for MAT/ Composting System 4-31

4-18 Total Estimated 5-Year Project Cost for MAIV Composting System 4-32

4-19 Total Present-Worth Project Cost for MAIV Composting in Previous

Engineering Study 4-33

4-20 Estimated "Treatment Only" Project Costs for Composting and

Incineration 4-35

5-1 Demonstrated Percent Reduction of Explosives for Various

Composting Technologies 5-2

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.fin VÜ 05/03/93
 WMGHS %_,^ DCSOCRSCCKUTWTS

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The contamination of soils and sediments at Army ammunition plants (AAPs) and
Army depots (ADs) has occurred in areas where explosives and propellants were
produced and handled. One source of explosives-contaminated soils is lagoons and
sedimentation basins used to settle out the explosives from explosives manufacturing
and washout operations. These practices resulted in contamination of sediments with
various explosives, including2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-
triazine (RDX), and octahydro-l,3,5,7-tetranitro-l,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX), and n-
methyl-n-2,4,6-tetranitroaniline (tetryl).

Soils and sediments contaminated with explosives may require treatment to prevent
possible contaminant migration. Several treatment technologies have been investigated
by the U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC, formerly known as the U.S. Army
Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency or USATHAMA) for possible application during
remediation of soils and sediments contaminated with explosives.

One potential treatment technology for explosives and propellant-contaminated material

is composting. There are several potential advantages associated with composting,
which may encourage its development as a remedial technology. It generally requires
a relatively low level of manpower and energy for operation and, therefore, may prove
an economical alternative to other destructive treatment technologies. Furthermore,
emissions from the process are relatively minimal (so long as odors and leachate are
controlled) and the product (i.e., finished compost) is aesthetically acceptable.

The primary historical use for composting technology has been the treatment of
municipal solid wastes, agricultural wastes, and wastewater treatment plant sludges.
However, more recent interest has developed in its potential use for treatment of
industrial wastes.

Previously, USAEC has conducted several pilot-scale composting studies.to evaluate this
technology for explosives-contaminated soils and sediments. The Louisiana Army
Ammunition Plant (LAAP) field test demonstrated that aerated static pile composting
of explosives-contaminated soil at a field-scale is technically feasible. This study also
compared mesophilic and thermophilic (55 °C) composting conditions and concluded
that higher biotransformation rates for explosives were achieved under thermophilic
conditions than under mesophilic conditions [1].

The Badger Army Ammunition Plant (BAAP) field test demonstrated the technical
feasibility of aerated static pile composting of nitrocellulose [2]. Based upon these field
demonstration projects, USAEC conducted a composting technology development project
to evaluate full-scale implementation options and to develop conceptual level

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.sl 1-1 04/27/93

 MNMGENS ^^X 0C«««lCO*lTlirT?

engineering and cost information [3]. The composting technology development

presented ä design approach and economic analysis for aerated static pile and
mechanically agitated in-vessel (MAIV) composting. The technology development study
concluded that composting could become an economically attractive treatment option
for explosives-contaminated soils, and that optimization of several process parameters
was needed to achieve that promise. This study developed optimization parameters
based on the projected process economics.

The optimization parameters developed in the composting technology development were

tested and validated in a compost optimization field test at the Umatilla Army Depot
Activity (UMDA) [4]. The UMDA optimization study tested and validated the
optimization parameters recommended in the technology development study, resulting
in substantial improvements in process performance and projected economics. Both
aerated static pile and MAIV systems were tested. A subsequent optimization study at
UMDA examined the potential benefits of compost recycling, and provided the first test
of the windrow method of.composting for explosives-contaminated soils [5]. This test
demonstrated the feasibility of windrow composting and evaluated alternative windrow
operating strategies.

The purpose of the present study is to evaluate possible system configurations for full-
scale implementation of windrow composting as a remedial technology. This evaluation
will be based upon the previous technology development study [3] and the subsequent
composting optimization projects at UMDA [4,5].

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The objective of this project is to develop, at the conceptual level, a system or approach
for windrow composting of explosives-contaminated soils at Army facilities. The
windrow technology will be compared to aerated static pile and mechanically agitated
in vessel technologies evaluated in previous studies [3]. The information resulting from
this effort will be used both in planning full-scale implementation and in evaluating the
need for additional process development and optimization.

To accomplish these objectives, several tasks were required:

• A brief review of recent literature on the potential application for

windrow composting of industrial wastes and on composting parameter
optimization.

• Consideration of potential regulatory requirements for explosives-

composting operations.

• Development of conceptual level windrow facility descriptions, including

process flow diagrams and materials balances, conceptual facility layouts,
and operating requirements.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.sl 1-2 04/27/93

 NNMfiCtt ^^^ SESOCK&CIMUTwrs

• Development of general construction requirements and major equipment

lists.

• Conceptual level economic analysis, including capital cost estimates, and

operating and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates.

• Economic sensitivity evaluation to determine the effect of treatment

duration on process economics.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windpowjil 1-3 04/27/93

 SECTION 2

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 REVIEW OF COMPOSTTMft TECHNOLOGIES

Composting is a process by which organic materials are biodegraded by microorganisms

under controlled conditions. Microbial activity results in the production of organic
and/or inorganic byproducts and energy in the form of heat. Traditionally, composting
has been considered to occur under aerobic, thermophilic conditions (temperatures in
the ranee of 55 to 60 °C) [6]. Recent applications of composting technology to
industrial wastes have broadened the definition to include possible mesophihc as well
as thermophilic conditions [3, 18]. Disposal of organic wastes under conditions now
called composting has been practiced for many years. The advent of composting as an
engineered (i.e., controlled) process is more recent with most: interest,m the composting
of municipal and industrial sludges in the United States dating to the early 1970s [7].

Composting can be initiated by mixing biodegradable organic matter with bulking

agents and, possibly, other amendments. In conventional composting systems, the
bulking agents are added primarily to enhance the porosity of the mixture to be
composted, but may also provide additional carbonaceous substrate for the
microorganisms. As demonstrated in USAEC's previous work, materials of relatively
low total organic content, such as contaminated soils, may be composted through the
addition of other high organic carbon sources. In such cases, the added organic carbon
fraction, in addition to being degraded or stabilized itself, serves to maintain the
necessary microbial population in the compost mixture and to support the development
of thermophilic conditions.
Several parameters have been shown to be important in the design and operation of
conventional composting systems:

• Compost temperature.
• Compost oxygen content.
• Compost moisture content.
• Compost pH.
• Type and concentration of organic constituents.
• Concentration of inorganic nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus.

The primary control parameters for conventional aerobic, thermophilic composting are
temperature and oxygen, both typically controlled by the use of various aeration or
ventilation strategies. At least in part, this emphasis has resulted from the defined
goals of municipal waste composting, which include pathogen reduction by maintenance
of elevated temperatures and odor control by aeration (to prevent anaerobic conditions
in the compost). The remaining parameters are largely controlled by the formulation
of the compost mixture itself.

04/27/93
MK01\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.s2 2-1
 inwgw V^ ooawiauMn
Conventional composting is typically implemented at one of three general levels of
technology. These levels differ in the degree of manipulation required and the level of
process control achieved. As would be expected, costs generally increase with increasing
technology level. At the lowest technological level, the material to be composted is
shaped into a pile and allowed to self-heat. If needed, water and nutrients may be
added. At this level, air exchange is relatively poor, and temperatures may fluctuate
within the composting material; however, aeration and homogeneity may be increased
by periodically turning and mixing the pile with mechanical equipment. This level of
technology is referred to as a "windrow" system because of the long rows of narrow
compost piles typically employed.

At the next technological level, an aeration/heat removal system is used to increase

process control over the composting system. The aeration/heat removal system
typically takes the form of a network of perforated pipe underlying the compost pile.
The pipe is attached to a mechanical blower, and air is periodically blown or drawn
through the pile. This composting configuration is often referred to as "aerated static
pile." While this approach provides higher control of aeration and heat removal, the
lack of mixing may reduce the homogeneity of the compost mixture. Windrow
configurations may also be modified to include aeration piping, thus increasing the
degree of process control achievable.

At the highest technological level, a system of enclosed composting vessels and

automated materials handling and mixing equipment is used in conjunction with an
aeration/heat removal system. This type of system is known as "mechanical" or "in-
vessel" composting. Potential advantages often cited for mechanical composting include
more rapid or complete waste stabilization and improved aesthetics because the
compost material is largely contained in the reactor system; however, these potential
advantages, where achieved, may entail substantially higher capital and operating costs.

While these generalities regarding technology levels are useful rules of thumb, they
must be used with caution. For example, static pile composting can be conducted in
vessels or bins or in windrows. Windrows without instruments and blower-controlled
temperature regulation may be maintained within relatively narrow operating
parameters by the use of frequent turning based upon process monitoring.
Furthermore, the cited advantages of in-vessel composting are not always fully realized.
As with any environmental engineering treatment process, selection among the
alternative technical approaches should be based upon a case-specific definition of
treatment goals and constraints, process parameters to meet those goals, and process
economics.

Composting is widely used to stabilize wastewater sludges and municipal refuse in the
United States and Europe [7]. The primary objectives of refuse/sludge composting are
to:

• Reduce the volume of waste or sludge.

• Reduce the moisture content of the composting material.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s2 9-2 „.^,no

* & 04/27/93
 HHMGHS ^^^ OESaCNSCOejltANTS

• Destroy potentially odorous nitrogen and sulfur-containing organic

compounds.

• Destroy pathogenic microorganisms.

• Stabilize the compost material for ultimate disposal.

Operating experience has shown that these goals are met by maintaining aerobic,
thermophilic conditions within the compost matrix. In fact, the regulatory definition
of composting as a process to reduce pathogens in sludge include maintenance of
temperatures in excess of 55 °C for three consecutive days [18]. Many sludge
composting processes employ this as a primary criterion, with additional treatment as
needed to achieve the remaining process goals.

Because sludge and refuse are generated continuously, these objectives are best met by
a composting system designed for relatively rapid turnover of incoming wastes. The
rate of waste treatment and disposal must approximate the rate of waste generation for
wastewater and refuse facilities to operate efficiently.

In contrast, the primary objective of hazardous materials composting is to convert

specific hazardous substances into innocuous products for ultimate disposal. Rapid
processing is desirable but remains secondary to successful treatment of the
contaminants. Thus, while hazardous materials composting systems share many of the
characteristics of sludge and refuse composting systems, operational parameters will
differ according to the primary objective of the process.

Composting is a combination of biological and engineering processes. Biological aspects

of the process that require management include optimizing the environmental
conditions required to enhance microbial growth and to maximize contaminant
destruction within the compost pile. Engineering aspects that require attention include
materials handling, composting facility design and operation, and process control
systems. Both biological and engineering requirements must be addressed in order to
provide a cost-effective and successful treatment process.

2.2 EXPLOSIVES COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGY

Previous studies have demonstrated the susceptibility of explosives and propellants to

microbial transformation or degradation [1,2,4,5]. Routes of bioconversion,
intermediates, products, and analytical methods to assess the results have been largely
determined [1,4]. Field demonstrations of composting explosives-contaminated (TNT,
HMX, and RDX) and propellant-contaminated (NC) soils at LAAP, BAAP, and UMDA
[1,2,4] were successful in. terms of reducing explosive concentrations through
biotransformation, as well as achieving required soil loading levels and reducing
amendment costs to ensure the economic viability of composting. Composting of these
energetic compounds has been conducted on a pilot scale in reactor vessels and in
windrows sufficiently large to simulate field conditions. For nitroaromatic explosives,
biotransformation to organic end products, rather than mineralization to carbon

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrowj52 2-3 04/27/93

dioxide, is achieved. Additional testing has demonstrated that the endproducts are
bound in a nonextractable (nonleachable) form in the compost matrix and that
substantial reduction in toxicity is achieved in the process [17]. As such, composting
of explosives-contaminated soils and sediments may achieve the general goals of
reduction in toxicity and mobility for hazardous wastes under the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1981 (SARA).

2.3 KINETICS AND REACTION PARAMETERS

Because the design of a composting facility is strongly dependent on the kinetics of the
specific transformations that are being accomplished, data from past explosives-
composting studies will be used to estimate the size of various composting facility
configurations.

The pilot-scale experiments reported in the Atlantic Research Corporation study [12]
and the UMDA field demonstration conducted for USAEC by Roy F. Weston, Inc.
(WESTON®) [4] determined that, in some cases, the rate of disappearance of the target
explosives may be approximately described by first order reaction kinetics (i.e., a rate
equation of the form C = C^'* where C is the concentration at time t, C0 the
concentration at time 0, and k the specific rate constant).

Under first order kinetics, the half life of the constituent, or the time required for half
of the existing quantity of concentration to degrade, is constant. In many cases,
however, first order kinetics did not provide an adequate description of the observed
explosives removal data. The kinetic relationships governing explosives transformation
in compost systems have not been defined. For purposes of this study, empirical
observation of required treatment periods from previous tests will be used for purposes
of process evaluation. Although the calculated kinetic parameters may not precisely
predict concentration values over the entire composting period, they do represent a
reasonable approximation and are a good tool for comparison among composting
systems. It should also be noted that in some cases an apparent lag phase occurs before
explosives transformation begins. The length of this apparent lag phase must also be
considered in evaluating required treatment times.

Table 2-1 summarizes the experimental conditions from which kinetic data were
obtained in each study, as well as the first order rate constants and half-lives estimated
for each constituent.

Given the range of operating conditions in these experiments, the kinetic data obtained
appear to be reasonably consistent. It should be recognized that the effects of
explosives concentration, interactions among contaminants, and compost operating
parameters on microbial kinetics have not been fully defined.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s2 2-4 05/03/93

 WH«« ^^X OESOCR&COOUlTMfTS

The data in Table 2-1 indicate that, of the four explosives present in these experiments,
TNT is most rapidly transformed, while HMX is most slowly transformed.
Transformation rates for RDX typically he between these for TNT and RDX. The
single estimate of a tetryl degradation rate presently available indicates that its
degradation is approximately as rapid as TNT. As previously noted, the possible
presence of a lag phase prior to initiation of biotransformation must also be considered
in evaluating treatment time.

As with all waste treatment processes, the feasibility and economics of composting will
be directly influenced by the length of time required for treatment. Treatment
requirements may be specified in terms of final residual concentrations in the product
or in terms of required treatment efficiency (i.e., as percentage removed), and may be
developed on a site-specific basis. The treatment period is affected by many factors,
including soil loading and explosives concentrations. These factors are inter-related in
that for a given explosives concentration in soil, the compost explosives concentration
will increase with increasing soil loading.

As noted previously, the effect of initial explosives concentration on the rate and extent
of reaction is not fully understood. It is well known that the rate of microbial oxidation
of substrates is not always an increasing function of substrate concentration. For some
organics a concentration may exist above which microbial oxidation may decrease as a
result of inhibitory or toxic effects of the substrate. Even when not serving as a
substrate, toxic organics may inhibit microbial activity. An upper concentration limit
may exist for explosives composting, although its value has not yet been determined.

In terms of the potential toxicity of the explosives in the composting process, the
addition of carbon sources and bulking agents has the effect of diluting the bulk
explosives concentration to lower levels, possibly lowering the likelihood of toxic effects.
However, it should be noted that significantly higher localized concentrations are likely
to persist to the extent that the mixture is not truly homogenous. The mixing ratios
and resulting compost explosives concentrations at which previous studies have been
conducted provide one estimate of the raw sediment explosives concentrations that can
be successfully treated. The extent to which higher raw explosives concentrations
would necessitate lower ratios of sediment to compost or other changes will directly
affect engineering design and operating parameters. Even within the acceptable
concentration range, the specific rate constant may vary with initial concentration.

It should also be noted that a variety of factors other than substrate concentration may
limit the extent of transformation. Commonly cited examples include the accumulation
of inhibitory reaction products, certain microbial population effects, and other changes
in environmental conditions. To some extent such limitations are inherent in batch
treatment processes, and the heterogeneity of a compost mixture may also play a role.
Whether such interactions actually determine the extent of reaction, and whether
operational strategies exist that can mitigate such effects, is not yet known.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s2 2-7 04/27/93

 ■»«MS ^^ KSMKQUTM
2.4 TTFAT TRANSFER

During the composting process, heat is generated by microbiological activity. Heat is

lost from the compost pile by four distinct mechanisms: conduction, convection,
radiation, and evaporation [6]. In the absence of forced aeration (such as in
conventional windrow composting), conduction is the primary mechanism of heat
transfer within the pile. Heat generated within the pile is transported from one
compost particle in contact with another. Assuming the exterior pile temperature to
be lower than that in the center, a temperature gradient exists to drive the conductive
transfer.

Convection occurs as a result of fluid motion. Examples of convective heat transfer in

a composting system include losses to a forced aeration stream, to natural convection
in the absence of forced aeration, and to a moving air stream on the compost surface
(wind).

Radiant losses from the system occur as a result of the higher temperature of the
compost pile relative to the surroundings. Additional heat removal also occurs by
evaporative losses from the compost mixture.

During composting, aeration rates and/or mixing are used to maintain the targeted
temperature range by empirically balancing the heat generated by microbial activity
against heat losses caused by conduction, convection, radiation, and evaporation [6].
The balance may be difficult to maintain as the air added to cool the pile through
evaporation and convection also supplies the oxygen needed to accelerate microbial
activity. In the case of windrow composting, the action of turning the composting
material serves to cool the pile by convection as well as supplying needed oxygen by
introducing air into the pile.

2.5 PROCESS CONTROL

With an understanding of the effects of reaction conditions on rate, the possibility of

controlling or manipulating these parameters in order to optimize performance can be
considered. Operating variables that may be under engineering control in a compost
system include temperature, aeration, mixing regime, nutrient conditions, and moisture
level. In the case of soils composting, the composition and characteristics of the organic
amendment mixture may also be manipulated to help control the process.

Several of these parameters are, of course, interrelated. Aeration will directly affect
moisture levels by evaporation and will affect temperature both through the direct
removal of heat and by evaporative cooling. In fact, for a given waste matrix, aeration
may be the major process operation parameter used.

Finstein et al. [8 to 11] argue that the most effective process control for composting
operations generally centers upon temperature. In municipal composting systems, this
temperature control is generally achieved by drawing or forcing air through the
compost with a mechanical blower.

MK01\RPT:02281012.00r,windrow.s2 2-8 04/27/93

 t»
f»lO oq © CN NMO* © .-* © © © CO 00 CN

•w es
ei as i-i <
»N »H eo >7
© CO CO
CN CO
t-^ t^ CO 00
-H (N
-* © CM GO ©
eo co ■* 2; CN --«g-
-it^NQ»

■sas

CO tO (N < <—i o <—• C» O © CM C4 CO © CO © oo © © Q eo

lO CO CN ^ C- CO N © ^" CO 00 co eN -< &; CN
,^v © © © ^« O O O © © © © © © © A © © © © Ä ©
Ö Ö Ö d ö © © © © © odd d odd d
*0
w
J*

C 8> $
>
»
s 8 1a.
3 "5.
CO K X
e —w — H
e
Ü E-XÜ £
zog Z O S -g "5
E* OS E E- E-i
H 05 S H E-05K kr« OS 53 fr«

e ^
3? *
p o o
IRa
ass'

00 ^H
© <s »■* •*• •*
*-H ^H •H CM es
oS
94 CO ~

I ^*
J«!
e
^**
CN
.*
e ^^ x:
.JJ
US
.o
is
es .« JS
E^ IS - o. _ o.
fc
£
s
*J
8
s
*J
e
£
H
if
e.fi
«8 .
8 |
s* s»
09
C
.a .a a 8 S 8
s s 8 £2 S>5
2.a
s.a
•3
e
o
1
CO
1 .a
s o S .2 ®
o o 8
9 Ss
1
cd 1 e
a
S e«2 g*
01
Ctt
1 1"8Ä
•o «2 w if-
t» <s ^
*> *» ■w
2 3> • 2 $ ®
o
Sib
s
o
o
2
>» CO
*-H
•o C
s
£2 S 2 (N
o
GO O
E- Ü
u o Pi
©
< O, W
s

2-5
 51
e<5
o

Life
00 O 00 00 lO «-«
■*" Ö 00 ■*« id oi

ys)
-^i ^ QÖ O
—i csi ^4
«M ed
■asas

eq .-* PH ■*« f- CO eq ^ -H
U3 OJ Tl" üb o co io in to
»a CN « •v io oo
* «-H O O -4 1-1 O w* — ©
odd odd odd
Jd

£
u 3
c .a
e0) g
OB
I 9

0
a S0 s
8
U O E-ttÜ E-XSÜ E-XÜ CO
CO 2QS 2Q§ ZG*
4) E- « E E- « B E* 05 B *E
>
CB G
0
oil Ratio

2
Mass %)

It
a^
o
oä
o
ei
o
CN.
1
■—
e
timates for'.

lO lO
(Continued

IO
■
W4
'£
N GO ~
8
£ eu
3
'S
09
jr2
3 of «
£ a
4-»
2 E cs £ C
es e 3 —' 3 at
u
0)
e s e u e u
es — I
es u . a.
E2
_ a
a.
*J
4) (B o
demo nstra tion, alfalfa
o peel mixt ure, thermo

demo nstra tion, alfalfa,

o peel mixt ure, thermo

a
demo nstra tion, ASPh
o mix ture, thennophili

e e
e
3
•3
e
irated wind row)

& 0 c
o
im
es
■+»
E
a
c e
5 o
row)

2? 2 ffl-g 2 eg es ai 2>
•mir
cabl

E s.
led.

£ 8/5 E 8.3
I.S
"5.3 g
es "O §
o
■**■£*» e
O O o
>> JO 222
3 II II II
2 < Q w
GO o
EH 222
c
CO ..
1
0]
0)
o e
2

2-6
 HMHOHtS ^, f* OESOCnCtMULTMirS

The need for process control parameters leads to a discussion of composting system
configuration. Many new municipal sewage sludge compost facilities are of the aerated
static pile configuration in which air is drawn or forced through a pile of composting
material by mechanical aeration equipment. Many examples still exist of windrow
composting in which large compost piles are periodically turned (by construction
equipment or specially designed composting equipment) to reintroduce oxygen and re-
establish composting conditions. More recent developments involve mechanical, in-
vessel (reactor) composting systems in which, generally, composting mixtures are
mechanically agitated. In theory, the intent of such systems is to provide a higher
degree of process control as compared to, for example, the aerated static pile system.
In order to be of practical value, however, a process control improvement must improve
reaction rates sufficiently to compensate for the associated increase in capital and
operating costs.

Simpler, alternative methods of improving process control may be postulated,

particularly in the case of temperature control. For example, the use of heat trapping
enclosures, such as greenhouses, and waste heat from other processes might conceivably
supplement microbial processes in maintaining compost temperatures. In cases such
as municipal composting systems, where excess metabolic heat is generated, these
alternatives would not be useful. However, in the case of contaminated soil composting,
self-heating does not occur in the absence of supplemental carbon. These supplemental
carbon sources contribute significant operating costs to contaminated soil composting
systems. Thus, economic incentives exist to reduce or optimize the amount of
supplemental carbon addition.

MK01\KPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.s2 2-9 04/27/93

 SECTION 3
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS DEVELOPMENT

3.1 OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of the conceptual process development section is to describe a

windrow composting system for the treatment of explosives-contaminated soils.
Although composting of soils will be described in this study, the technologies are also
applicable to other contaminated materials, including sediments. This process
development section will discuss the primary equipment, facilities, materials, personnel,
and regulatory requirements that comprise the conceptual treatment system.

This process development is based upon the use of a windrow composting system, with
general operating parameters derived from the previous field demonstration projects
[4, 5]. This approach will be compared with the aerated static pile approach previously
analyzed [3]. Some potential alternatives, modifications, and process sensitivities will
be addressed in Section 4.

3.2 DESIGN BASIS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Based on data collected during the field demonstration projects showing composting of
explosives-contaminated sediments at LAAP [1] and UMDA [4, 5], and on published
literature for composting of municipal and industrial sludges (see Subsection 2.2), a
conceptual design basis for windrow composting of explosives-contaminated soils was
developed. While this concept is reasonable in light of current windrow composting
experience, it should be recognized that a variety of technically acceptable variations
may exist.

3.2.1 COMPOST PAD CONFIGURATION

A windrow configuration located on a RCRA-approved pad in an enclosed structure

(approximately 300 ft by 75 ft) was established for the design basis. Potentially
applicable RCRA regulations are described in Appendix B. The trapezoidal windrows
would be 14 ft wide at the base and 240 ft long. Although it would be possible to
modify the basic windrow configuration by adding perforated pipe beneath the windrow
and mechanically forcing or drawing air through the compost, data from the UMDA
study [5] indicate that mechanical aeration does not improve explosives transformation;
thus, the additional capital and operating costs associated with the aeration equipment
are not justified.

Windrow composting offers the following potential advantages over other systems:

• Simplest facility design.

• Ease of operation.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s3 3-1 05/03/93

 • Short retention time for treatment of explosives, based on kinetics from
previous studies [4,5].

• Low field facility requirements, with the potential for reuse of mechanical
equipment at other sites.

3.2.2 COMPOST PILE SEDIMENT FRACTION

Based on data from the UMDA field demonstration [5], the contaminated sediment
fraction in the compost mixture is assumed to be 30% by volume for the baseline case.
This estimate does not consider the maximum allowable bulk explosives concentration
with respect to microbial toxicity and/or process kinetics.

Previous composting studies have been conducted at initial bulk explosives

concentrations up to 18,000 mg/kg.

3.2.3 COMPOSTING TREATMENT PERIOD

This conceptual development is based upon an assumed treatment requirement of 99.5%

removal of TNT. Based upon data from the UMDA study (presented in Table 2-1), the
minimum composting period for contaminated soils to achieve approximately 99.5%
removal of TNT for the windrow system would be slightly greater than 20 days.
Although the calculated half-life would indicate a faster reaction, the composting period
is based upon observed values. Therefore, for this study, a conservative compost cycle
time of 30 days was assumed. Data from the UMDA studies were used to determine
the composting periods for the aerated static pile (ASP) and mechanical configurations
for purposes of process comparison. The aerated static pile (ASP) system with 30%
contaminated soil achieved 99.5% TNT removal in 60 days [5]. The mechanically
agitated in-vessel (MATV) system requires a 30-day treatment time [4]. Table 3-1
summarizes the projected treatment periods for the three composting configurations
considered. Although the kinetic parameters used in this study were calculated solely
from TNT data, reduction of RDX levels may also be important. It should be noted
that the windrow system achieved the targeted 99.5% removal of RDX while the
aerated static pile system did not achieve this reduction. Additionally, the windrow
system demonstrated significantly greater HMX reduction than found in ASP or MAJV
systems [4,5].

3.2.4 REGUIJVTORY REQUIREMENTS

For purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that RCRA regulations may be applicable
to the composting facility. As such, minimum technology standards will be used for the
design. If RCRA requirements are not imposed, facility costs would be reduced. These
potential savings will be discussed in Subsection 4.2.1.

There are several situations in which RCRA standards may not strictly apply. For
example, CERCLA sites may not require all RCRA criteria, although the RCRA
requirements are generally ARARs under CERCLA. As currently understood, it is

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow^3 3-2 05/03/93

 Table 3-1

Project Treatment Periods for Composting

Compost Configuration Treatment Period* (days)

Windrow 30
Aerated Static Pile 60
Mechanically Agitated In-Vessel 30

"Treatment period based on achieving 99.5% TNT removal.

MK01\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.*3 3-3 05/03/93

possible that composting would meet the definition of a waste pile under RCRA, as
described in 40 CFR 264 Subpart L. These requirements were summarized in Appendix
B. It should also be recognized that the exact requirements for a given site may be
determined by the EPA Regional Administrator. However, for the purposes of this
report, a double-lined asphalt pad with a leak detection system is assumed to be
adequate. It may be possible to eliminate the liner and leak detection system as they
are not required for processing but are included as a conservative assumption to fulfill
regulatory requirements. Past projects have been conducted on an unlined asphalt pad
[5]. Runon and precipitation to the compost will be prevented by covering the asphalt
pad with a temporary structure.

Finally, it must be noted that regulations concerning facility requirements may change
in the future.

3.2.5 FACILITY SIZE

Composting facilities considered in this evaluation were sized to process 20,000 tons of
soil in 5 years using a compost mixture of 30 volume percent contaminated soil. Both
the volume of material to be treated and the allowable remedial period may vary widely
from site to site. Design and operating requirements for the windrow system are
presented in the following sections. Throughout these sections, quantities of soil will
be expressed in units of either tons or cubic yards, as appropriate.

3.2.6 WATER (DRAINAGE) MANAGEMENT

It is assumed that composting is essentially a water-consumptive process so that, if

rainfall and runon (any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid that drains over and onto
any part of a facility) are controlled, no net generation of drainage would occur from
the compost pile. Rather, the addition of small quantities of makeup water would be
required. This assumption is well supported by field demonstration experience. A
temporary (field erected) structure will be used to control precipitation runon (as well
as to help control environmental conditions for effective composting). A berm will be
provided to control any accidental spills of makeup water. No additional water
management systems will be needed except exterior site grading to provide surface
drainage of precipitation on uncontaminated surfaces.

3.2.7 AERATION REQUIREMENTS

Aeration (and mixing) would be accomplished through turning the windrow with a
commercially available compost turner. The amount of aeration would be determined
by turning frequency. Previous work at UMDA [5] has shown that the percent oxygen
maintained in this configuration is relatively low (generally 1 to 5%). It was also
shown, however, that the targeted TNT removal was accomplished by the process.
Additionally, RDX and HMX were reduced by 99.8% and 96.8%, respectively. Available
data also indicate that this mode of operation is acceptable in terms of toxicity and
mobility reduction as well [17].

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow^3 3-4 05/03/93

3.2.8 MIXING REQUIREMENTS

In addition to providing aeration for the windrow, mixing with the windrow turner also
homogenizes the compost. Initially, the windrow turner would be passed through the
compost several times to thoroughly mix the initial material. The windrow turner
would then be used to mix the compost daily throughout the composting period. The
turning frequency may be altered based on temperature requirements.

3.3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND MATERIALS BALANCE

A process flow diagram (Figure 3-1) and mass balance have been developed based on
the previously stated design basis.

In terms of actual materials flow through the system, system operations may be divided
into three categories: windrow construction, windrow operation, and finished compost
disposition. Although for a given windrow these phases are sequential, activity will be
ongoing in different phases for different windrows in the facility at any one time.

Several aspects of the system mass balance are presently indeterminate. In particular,
the fate of organic materials in the exit streams is unknown. Basic assumptions were
needed to perform the mass balance:

• Soil fraction - The biologically inert soil mass is expected to be conserved

and to exit the system completely in the final compost (Stream 5).

• Organic (amendment) mixture - The amendment mixture serves as a

substrate for microbial growth and heat generation. Therefore, a portion
of this material is metabolized during composting. Of the portion
metabolized, a fraction is mineralized to end products, including carbon
dioxide and water, expressed in the exit gases (Stream 4) and final
compost mixture (Stream 5). The degradable portion not mineralized
would be expressed as an increase in microbial mass in the final compost
mixture. Finally, the amendment material not degraded, as well as the
minor inorganic fraction, will be retained in the final compost mixture.

• Moisture - Moisture would leave the mixture primarily through

evaporation in the exit gas (Stream 4), assuming that the moisture
addition rate is controlled to prevent leachate generation.

The net effect of these factors on the final compost mass for disposal has not been fully
determined. There is some volume loss during composting as a result of loss of mass
from microbial metabolism as well as from settling and compaction.

3.3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

The windrow composting process is made up of five basic materials handling steps:

MK01\KPT:02281012.001\windrow.s3 3-5 05/03/93

 UJ
I-
(0
>
CO
C3
Z
<co
CEO
(50.
<S
5o
2§
U.CC
co Q
coz
UJ»
o>
ooc
ceo
d.U.

m
UJ
cc
o
CO
■a c
o
ill "© o
ti
CD

S°
u.-1
Ü
CO
CD
IE oi ■a
CD
«/>
ui
(0
c i ° <D
•6
6ra °
a- <
4- <s>
ID 1f c
S
55
=
a.
C
o

1 O)
CO
O
o
^M
CO —^
>•£
o
c
e
o

I -W

C 0)
"- E
■D
E x£
oiu
C
CO

u- c E
<D 3
"

"
Q.
c
o
o
(D
a
C
CD
EQ o s
E CD
< w

3-6
 1. Soil excavation/staging.
2. Amendment materials preparation.
3. Windrow construction.
4. Windrow operation.
5. Windrow removal and disposition of treated compost.

Two trapezoidal windrows (240 ft long by 14 ft wide at the base) will be processed at
a time. The windrows will be constructed on an asphalt pad (300 ft by 75 ft). Twelve
processing cycles per year will occur.

The following subsections provide a description of the major equipment and various
materials handling steps that are included in the conceptual compost system and based
upon the process flow and materials balance information provided in Figure 3-1 and
Table 3-2. In the description that follows, equipment sizes and capacities are provided
consistent with these requirements. References to specific equipment by manufacturer
or model number are used for illustrative purposes and do not exclude the use of other
similar equipment.

3.3.1.1 Soil Excavation/Staging

Contaminated soil would be excavated from the source area and loaded into a 12 yd3
lined dump truck. When the dump truck is filled with soil, it would be moved to the
composting area. The dump truck would be parked or staged adjacent to the
composting building and used as a storage and/or feed container for the soil prior to
their incorporation into the windrows. After the dump truck is emptied, any free
standing water remaining would be removed to the sump. Upon completion of its use
in the composting area, the dump truck would pass through a wheel wash to prevent
contamination.

For the baseline facility presented in previous sections, the estimated soil volume to be
excavated is 145 yd3 per windrow (3,500 yd3 per year). Twenty-four windrows (12
cycles of two windrows each) per year will be processed.

3.3.1.2 Amftndmi>nt Materials Preparation

For purposes of this evaluation, the amendment materials used during the composting
process would include alfalfa, sawdust, manure mixture, and potato waste. The mixture
was developed during the UMDA field study [5]. Other mixtures may be required at
other sites as a result of variations in local availability. The amendment delivery and
staging area would be located outside of the composting area and, thus, is isolated from
contact with the contaminated soils in order to minimize costs and materials associated
with decontaminating trucks and equipment. The amendment materials would be
staged on an asphalt pad and covered with plastic sheeting when windrows are not
being constructed. A front-end loader with a 2 yd3 bücket would be used to move the
amendments into the composting area. The uncontaminated front-end loader would
empty the amendments onto the edge of the pad without driving onto the pad. A front-
end loader inside the contaminated area would move the amendments from the pad

MK01\KPT:02281012.001\windrowj3 3-7 05/03/93

 0CaX«C9aU.TMTS

Table 3-2

Mass Balance for Windrow Materials Stream*

Stream
Component Units 1 2 3 4 5

MassFlowb pounds0 321,100 333,500 4,615 ue ue

Volume Flow1" cubic yards'1 338 145 3 ue ue

aRefers to Figure 3-1.

defers to one windrow,
bounds per day.
•küubic yards per day.
•Undetermined.

Note: Assumed densities:

• Soil - 2,300 lb/yd3

• Amendments - 950 IbArd3
• Compost - 1,355 Ibfrd3

MK01\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrowj3 3-8 05/03/93

edge to the windrow. The front-end loader located outside of the pad would not require
decontamination. The front-end loader on the pad would be decontaminated only if
leaving the pad. For the concept design, 338 yd3 of amendments would be required for
each windrow (8,120 yd3 per year). The proposed amendment composition is presented
in Table 3-3.

3.3.1.3 Windrow Formation an* Mining

Formation of the windrow would be accomplished with a front-end loader. Windrow

formation and mixing would typically be done as follows:

Stack bales of alfalfa in line along the intended axis of the windrow.

Cover alfalfa with sawdust.

Mix the windrow once by passing over it with the compost turner (Scarab
Model 14 or equivalent).

Add manure mixture and potato waste.

Mix with compost turner.

Add contaminated soil.

Mix with compost turner twice more to homogenize mixture.

If necessary, a front-end loader may be used to reform the edges of the windrow after
mixing.

The Scarab Model 14 was chosen for this study because vendor literature was available
describing windrow dimensions and projected operating costs [15]. This detailed
information was not readily available for other similar machines, such as Resource
Recovery Systems' KW-614, which was used in the UMDA field study [5]. A
compilation of available windrow turners is presented in Appendix A. A sketch of a
typical windrow turner and windrow cross-section are presented in Figure 3-2.

3.3.1.4 Windrow Turning

To provide thorough compost homogenization and ensure contact between micro-

organisms and contaminants, the compost would be turned daily. During turning,
oxygen would be introduced into the windrow and some heat removed from the
compost. This is accomplished using the compost turner described in Subsection
3.3.1.3. One pass through each windrow would be needed. As before, the windrow
edges may be reformed using a front-end loader. As composting progresses and
microbial activity declines, the turning frequency may be decreased. A relatively small
cost savings would result if less frequent turnings were required. The majority of the
cost associated with turning the windrows is in the acquisition of the windrow turning

MK01\BPT:02281012.001\windrowi3 3-9 05/03/93

 Table 3-3

Amendment Composition

Material Volume (%)

Sawdust 25
Alfalfa 25
Chicken manure 5
Cow manure 30
Potato waste 15
Total 100.0

MK01\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.«3 3-10 05/03/93

 Ill
-I
E
j-
(/)
o
0.
s
o
Ü
Q
z
<

UJ
z
oc
3

o
oc
D

<
Ü
E
>
H
U.
O
z
o
p
Ü
UJ
(0I
(0
C/5
O
OC
o
CM
I
CO
UJ
oc
3
C3

3-11
machine. Because one machine would be needed regardless of the turning frequency,
reduction of the frequency would only save the labor and fuel costs associated with
turning.

3.3.1.5 Windrow Monitoring

Windrows would be monitored for temperature, percent oxygen, percent moisture, pH,
and explosives concentration. Monitoring frequencies are presented in Table 3-4.

Temperature would be monitored using thermocouples in conjunction with a 6-ft

temperature probe (commonly known as a landfill probe) and a hand-held digital
controller. Temperature would be monitored at six points along the length of the pile
before turning. The number of monitoring locations may be increased if a large
variability is seen between the sampling points.

In previous studies [5], interstitial oxygen was seen to drop rapidly to an equilibrium
value soon after turning. The oxygen level at this equilibrium would be monitored daily
prior to turning using a hand-held oxygen meter. The meter would be attached to a
landfill probe inserted into the windrow. Air would be manually drawn through the
probe with a hand pump until a steady oxygen value is obtained.

Percent moisture would be monitored twice weekly. In each case, four samples per
windrow are needed (with three replicates each). Water would be added as needed to
maintain the required compost moisture content. Three pH samples per windrow
would be taken at the same time as the windrow samples.

Explosives concentrations would be analyzed at a laboratory on days 0, 10, 20, and 30.
In each case, one composite sample would be made from four discrete points and sent
off-site for analysis.

3.3.1.6 Windrow Removal and Disposition

After the composting period is complete, a front-end loader would be used to remove
the finished compost from the windrows and remove it to a staging area outside of the
structure. From the staging area, a covered dump truck would transport the finished
compost to its final disposition. It is assumed the compost would have been treated to
meet cleanup criteria and so could be replaced in the area from which the contaminated
soil was excavated and covered with soil. Because of the increase in volume that occurs
when the amendments are added for composting, there would be more finished compost
than contaminated soil by volume. Thus, a mound may be formed at the disposal site.
This mound would be covered, graded, and seeded at the close of the project. It should
be noted that during the composting process, a volume reduction occurs so that the
finished compost volume is less than that of the starting materials, although still
greater than the volume of original soil. At the final disposal site, the compost will be
graded to a 3% slope. The area would be covered with 18 inches of common borrow
and 6 inches of vegetative cover.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\wuidn>w.s3 3-12 05/03/93

 Table 3-4

Windrow Monitoring Frequency

Parameter Frequency Number of Locations

Temperature Daily 6
Percent Oxygen Daily 6
Percent Moisture Two times/week 4

pH Two times/week 3
Explosives concentration Day 0, 10, 20, and 30 Composite of four samples

MK01\RPT:02281012.001Windrow.s3 3-13 05/03/93

 3.3.2 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM/MATERIAL BALANCE

Figure 3-1 and Table 3-2 present the process flow diagram and material balance for a
windrow composting system operating under previously discussed conditions. As
windrow construction occurs only twice every 30 days, rates are presented in terms of
material for one windrow. Water addition flows are given as daily rates.

Contaminated materials would be excavated using a backhoe and transported from the
excavation area to the composting area in a dump truck. To construct one windrow,
145 yd3 of sediment would be required. Amendments (338 yd3) would be transported
from their staging area by a front-end loader to the composting area. After the
windrow is formed, a windrow turner would be used to thoroughly mix the compost.
During the composting period, approximately 560 gallons of water would be added to
each windrow. The windrow turner would be used to mix the compost daily.

After a composting period of 30 days, the compost would be removed from the windrow
with a front-end loader and transported to a staging area. The compost would then be
moved in a dump truck for final disposition.

3.4 FACTTJTY DESCRIPTION

3.4.1 GENERAL

This subsection describes a conceptualized compost facility used to treat explosives

contaminated sediments. This facility is based on the background review and
regulatory issues discussed in Section 2 and the conceptual process development
discussed in previous portions of Section 3.

These facilities have been developed on the conservative assumption that RCRA
minimum technology standards may be applicable to the soils. If this approach is
necessary, RCRA waste pile design standards would apply on positive control of
leachate generation (including a liner and leak detection system) and runoff would be
required. This design is likely the most costly approach to facility design and
operation. It will be shown in Section 4 that elimination or reduction of these RCRA
hazardous facility waste design standards would significantly decrease the facility cost.

A facility description and major equipment list are presented in the remainder of
Section 3. Estimated capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are
presented in Section 4.

3.4.2 SITE LAYOUT

The composting facility centers on the RCRA-approved asphalt pad where the windrows
would be constructed (300 ft by 75 ft). If required by RCRA, the entire paved area
would be built over a liner with a leak detection system and surrounded by a berm to
prevent runon to the site. Potential RCRA requirements are described in Appendix B.
A temporary structure covers the area so that precipitation would not reach the

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.«3 3-14 05/03/93

 mmctK \—S DUMBcaaiiam

compost and runoff would not be generated. A conceptual site layout is presented in
Figure 3-3.

Contaminated soils would enter the facility in a dump truck. The dump truck would
serve as a staging area adjacent to the composting facility until the soil is placed in the
windrow. If the truck would be required to enter the contaminated zone at any time,
wheels of the dump truck would be decontaminated in the wheel wash prior to leaving
the contaminated area. Amendments would be stored on an asphalt pad adjacent to the
composting structure. They would be transported to the windrow during construction
with a front-end loader. The wheels of the front end loader would be decontaminated
in the wheel wash prior to leaving the building.

Finished compost would be staged on an asphalt pad adjacent to the composting

structure prior to being moved in the dump truck to final disposal.

3.4.2.1 Compost Area

The composting area would be paved with asphalt. The pad would be designed to be
structurally sound beneath the weight of operating equipment.

The paved area would be surrounded by a containment berm. A sump would be located
at one end of the pad to contain any water generated inside the building. The entire
area encompassed by the berm would have a geomembrane liner with a leak detection
system under the asphalt to satisfy RCRA requirements as described in Appendix B.
The area would also be covered with a temporary structure, such as a clamshell
structure.

3.4.2.2 Site Support Facilities

The site support facilities have been minimized to reduce costs. The support facilities
consist of an office trailer for operating personnel and a portable toilet. The office
trailer would contain equipment for on-site process monitoring and maintenance,
showers, emergency eyewash equipment, first aid equipment, and potable water.

3.4.3 SITE OPERATION/MANAGEMENT

The facility layout has been designed for optimal control of materials handling and
composting operation. The following subsections describe the windrow operating cycle
and water management plan.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windpowj3 3-15 05/03/93

 Truck
Wheel Asphalt
Wash Pad

Amendment
Storage
Area
(clean)

Containment
Berm Temporary
Building

1306-791B 2/IOTO Not to Scale

FIGURE 3-3 SITE LAYOUT FOR WINDROW FACILITY

3-16
3.4.3.1 Windrow Operating Cycle

At the beginning of the operating cycle, amendments and soil would be formed into a
windrow and mixed with a windrow turner. Daily temperature readings would be
taken using thermocouples in conjunction with landfill probes and oxygen readings
would be taken using an oxygen meter. Percent moisture and pH would be monitored
twice weekly. The windrow turner would be used daily to mix the compost.

At the end of the composting period, the windrow would be disassembled and the
finished compost taken to a final disposal area. Approximately 1 day will be required
to assemble and 1 day to disassemble each windrow.

3.4.3.2 Water Mflnagfimmt

Water runon and runoff from the windrows will be prevented by installation of a
containment berm and a temporary structure to prevent precipitation and runon onto
the compost. The composting process itself is water-consumptive and thus will not
generate leachate.

3.5 FACILITY DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS

3.5.1 EQUIPMENT LIST

The major equipment list for the facility is presented in Table 3-5. This list includes
all major operating equipment required for soil excavation, materials handling, and
windrow construction and turning.

3.5.2 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

It is assumed that the windrow-composting system will utilize the RCRA facility design
requirements including a liner system. Facility features in compliance with RCRA
include:

• Site preparation

Clearing and grubbing.

Excavation for area system.
Subgrade preparation.
Final site grading.
Seeding and mulch.

• Asphalt work

Site paving (6 inches crushed gravel, 6 inches asphalt).

Containment berm.

• Building

MK01\KPT:02281012.001\windrowj3 3-17 05/03/93

 Table 3-5

Major Equipment List for Windrow System

Quantity Capacity/
Equipment Required Dimensions Type
Backhoe 1 1yd3 Caterpillar 225 or equivalent
Dump Truck 1 12 yd3 —

Front-End Loader 2 2 yd3 Caterpillar 926 wheel loader or

equivalent
Water Pump 1 10 gpm Centrifugal; explosion-proof
Windrow Turner 1 14 ft base Scarab Model 14 or equivalent

MKO 1\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.s3 3-18 05/03/93

 ttNWZffi ^^ DE9GWBCOSULT1NTS

Temporary structure to prevent precipitation from reaching the

windrows and for site security.

• Geosynthetic lining system

Including a 40-mil geomembrane liner, a 12-inch sand layer, and a

leak detection system.

3.5.3 OPERATING REQUIREMENTS

3.5.3.1 Control Parameters

The primary control parameters for windrow composting would be:

• Windrow-turning frequency.
• Water addition.

Windrow-turning frequency determines the rate of oxygen addition as well as lowering

of the windrow temperature. Water addition would be used to maintain an optimal
moisture content and also slightly lowers the compost temperature.

3.5.3.2 Utilities Requirements

The primary utilities required on-site for operation would be:

• Water for addition to compost and for equipment decontamination.

• Diesel fuel for heavy equipment.
• Electric power for lighting and equipment.

3.5.3.3 Personnel

The size of the baseline faculty would require a small crew of two operators and one
technician. Because of the limited number of employees, they must be versatile
individuals, trained in heavy equipment operation, compost monitoring, facility
maintenance, reporting, and other tasks required during windrow operation. Explosives
analysis would be conducted at an off-site laboratory.

3.5.4 SITE CLOSURE

Finished compost would be returned to the area where the contaminated soil was
excavated. Because the volume of compost returned would be greater than the volume
of soil excavated, a mound would be formed. At the end of the treatment period, the
disposal site would be capped and a vegetative cover applied. Closure procedures could
be altered by regulatory requirements.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s3 3-19 05/03/93

 SECTION 4

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The applicability of windrow composting as a viable alternative for treatment of

explosives-contaminated soils will be partly determined by its relative cost. Cost
information is available for conventional (MSW and sludge) composting systems.
Additionally, cost information is available for aerated static pile or mechanically
agitated in vessel explosives composting based on the experiences gained in the
previous field demonstrations [3].

In this section, potential costs associated with windrow composting of explosives-

contaminated soil are developed. These estimated costs are based on the processing
equipment and parameters developed in Section 3 and experience gained in the UMDA
field demonstration [5]. This analysis is intended to evaluate and illustrate the
potential economic feasibility of windrow composting as a treatment technology and to
identify areas where process optimization may be economically favorable.

4.1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS - BASE CASE SYSTEM

4.1.1 CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE

4.1.1.1 Methodology «"d Assumptions

Capital costs for the windrow system presented in Section 3 were developed using
conventional construction cost estimating procedures. Facility dimensions, material
requirements and quantities, and methods of construction were based on the site layout
and process development presented in Section 3. Unit and total prices for facility
construction were based on a standard construction cost reference [13]. Unit prices for
equipment were obtained either from standard references for conventional equipment
or from vendor quotes for agricultural or specialized compost equipment. Cost
estimates are considered to be accurate in the range of +30% to -15%. Table 4-1
presents major items included in the capital cost estimate.

4.1.1.2 Geographic/Site-Specific Ass"i«p*i"««

The conceptual technical approach developed in this report is applicable to a variety of

sites and situations. However, the specific geographic, meteorological, and
environmental conditions and location-specific factors at any given site may affect
system costs. For purposes of this analysis, the following generalizations were made:

• Site costs were developed based on level topography. Substantial

deviations in land elevation would increase the cost for site preparation.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrowj4 4-1 05/03/93

 Table 4-1

Major Items Included in Potential Capital Costs

for Windrow Composting System

Equipment Buildings and Structures

• 1-yd3 backhoe. • Temporary structure (one structure -

• 12-yd3 dump truck. 300 ft x 75 ft)
• 2-yd3 front-end loader.
• Windrow turner. • Liner system.
• Water pump (for sump).
• Monitoring equipment. Mechanical/Piping

Sitework • Site drainage and storm runoff

control.
• Clearing and grubbing.
• Bulk excavation. Electrical
• Grading
• Paving. • Equipment power distribution.
• Seeding and mulching. • Site lighting.
• Cap for finished compost backfill.

MKO 1\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.s4 4-2 05/03/93

 • The composting site was assumed to be located in close proximity to the
contaminated area to minimize hauling requirements. If this close
proximity is not possible, the costs would increase for transport of
contaminated soil and finished compost.

• Necessary site utilities (e.g., electric and water) are assumed to be

provided to the site by the facility. Cost for providing utilities to the site
are not included.

• The potential cost for permitting or regulatory approval of the composting

treatment facility are not included in these estimates, Although compost
disposition and facility decontamination costs are included, no costs have
been included for facility demolition or removal. These costs may be
variable.

4.1.1.3 Contingency

A contingency factor (generally as a percentage of total capital) is conventionally added

to various types of cost estimates to allow for unknown and unforeseeable factors or
changes which may develop. Costs in this report are presented with a 15% contingency
factor.

4.1.1.4 Project Financing

It has been assumed that construction funds would be obtained through government
appropriations on a fiscal year basis. Therefore, no costs associated with project
financing are included.

4.1.1.5 Results

Potential capital costs associated with a 20,000 ton windrow-composting facility are
presented in Table 4-2. Within the previously discussed constraints, the total capital
costs are estimated at $2,118,000.

4.1.2 O&M COST ESTIMATE

4.1.2.1 Methodology and Assumption

Estimates of potential O&M costs were developed based upon the conceptual layouts
presented in Section 3. The following description presents the basic procedure used in
developing this estimate.

The potential materials requirements and materials handling requirements were

estimated from the process description in Section 3. Productivity and fuel consumption
rates were obtained from equipment vendor sources [14,15,16], published data [13], or
previous experience [5], and used to estimate total operational hours and fuel for such
activities as windrow construction, windrow turning, and windrow dismantling.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-3 05/03/93

 Table 4-2

Estimated Capital Costs for Windrow Composting System

Cost ($)

Equipment 567,000
Site Work 280,000
Buildings/Structures 322,000
Mechanical/Piping 26,000
Electrical 129,000
First Subtotal Capital 1,324,000
Project Construction Facilities/Mobilization/Demobilization @ 8% 111,000
Construction Equipment, Consumable Items @ 5% 69,000
Fees @ 1.5% 20,000
Second Subtotal Capital 1,524,000
General and Administrative Overhead Costs @ 9.5% 150,000
Contractor Markup and Profit @ 10% 168,000
Contingency @ 15% 276,000
Total 2,118,000

MK01\RPT: 02281012.00 l\windrowj4 4-4 05/03/93

Manpower requirements for these activities, including equipment operators and
laborers, were estimated based upon previous operating experience. From these
estimates, annual operating costs associated with compost production were estimated
using the unit costs presented in Table 4-3.

The total cost of amendment materials was estimated based upon quantities presented
in Section 3. Unit prices are based on prior experience at UMDA [5]. These costs are
based on the purchase price of the amendments and the delivery fees.

It was assumed that finished compost would be backfilled on-site in the original
excavation. If the more costly option of off-site disposal (e.g., landfilling) after
treatment is required, the economic viability of this process would be impaired,
particularly because the total material requiring off-site transportation and disposal
would be greater than the original volume of contaminated soil. Therefore, it is
assumed that the finished compost would be used on-site. The costs of excavation and
backfilling are included in the annual operating costs. It is assumed that soil would be
excavated and finished compost returned to the excavation area as needed.

Maintenance was estimated at 3% of the total capital cost. This represents the
scheduled preventive maintenance on all mechanical equipment (e.g., oil change and
fluids change) and other routine activities (e.g., equipment servicing and calibration)
required to maintain full scale operation of the facility equipment.

A 5-year project length was assumed in these analyses. The useful life of the facility
would likely be significantly longer than this period, so equipment replacement costs
are not considered. If salvage values resulting from equipment reuse at other sites are
considered, cost savings will result. These savings are described in Subsection 4.1.3.

O&M costs were converted to present worth assuming an 8% annual interest and 5 year
project life. Present worth calculations assumed equal annual O&M costs each year for
5 years and are presented in 1993 dollars. Capital costs were assumed to be in terms
of present value. As with the capital costs, a 15% contingency was applied to the
annual O&M costs.

4.1.2.2 Results

The windrow composting system estimated operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are
presented in Table 4-4. The total annual O&M cost (including 15% contingency) is
estimated at $527,000. This corresponds to a 5-year present worth of $2,104,000
(including 15% contingency).

4.1.3 TOTAL PROJECT COST

The total 5-year project cost of the windrow composting system as presented herein is
estimated to be $4,222,000. For treatment of 20,000 tons of soil (5,000 tons/year) in
this period, this translates to a cost of $211 per ton. This estimate includes costs

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrowj4 4-5 05/03/93

 Table 4-3

Operation and Maintenance Unit Costs

Area Unit Costs ($)

Labor«
Operators 20/hour
Technician 16/hour
Electric 0.07/Kwhr
Diesel Fuel 1.10/gallon
Amendments 50/ton
Analytics (off-site)c 220/sample

a
Does not include overhead costs.
b
Based on a previous experience for delivered amendments [5].
°Based on previous experience.

MKO 1\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow ^4 4-6 05/03/93

 Table 4-4

Estimated Annual O&M Costs for Windrow Composting System

Area Annual Cost ($)

Power 1,000
Amendments 195,000
Wood Chips 0
Diesel Fuel 19,000
Labor 116,000
Analytics (off-site) 21,000
Maintenance 64,000
Subtotal Annual O&M 416,000
Contractor Markup and Profit @ 10% 42,000
Contingency @ 15% 69,000
Total Annual O&M 527,000
Total 5-Year O&M (P/W) 2,104,000

MKO 1\KPT:02281012.00 l\windrow M 4-7 05/03/93

 —waow ^^ auacMcamAiMK

associated with excavation and final disposition in addition to treatment costs.

Approximately 50% of these costs are attributable to capital expenditures and 50% to
total present-worth O&M costs.

Much of the major equipment would still be usable at the close of the 5-year project.
As such, a salvage value may be calculated and its present worth subtracted from the
project capital costs in order to more accurately determine the costs of the project.
Based on vendor information [14,15], a 10-year useful life was assumed for the windrow
turner and temporary structure. Based on common estimating practices, a 10-year
useful life was also assumed for the backhoe, dump truck, and front-end loader. Using
the straight-line depreciation method over the 10-year useful life of the equipment, a
total salvage value was determined. At the end of the 5-year period, this equipment
could be used at another composting site or sold as construction equipment.

After salvage values were included in the project costs, the total 5-year project cost was
calculated as $3,977,000. This corresponds to $199 per ton (including salvage values).
Project costs with and without salvage values are presented in Table 4-5.

4.2 SENSITIVITY CONSIDERATIONS

The capital and O&M estimated costs developed in this study are based on particular
equipment and operating parameters. By varying some of the equipment and
parameters, system operation and economics may be changed.

4.2.1 POTENTIAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST CHANGES

The conceptual system presented in Section 3 is based on conservative assumptions
with respect to system performance goals and regulatory requirements. Depending on
the specific site for project implementation, some site-specific physical or climatological
conditions may alter capital items to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Items to be
considered include:

• Elimination of the RCRA liner under the composting area would represent
a significant cost savings. This modification must take regulatory
requirements into account. Previous pilot-scale work at UMDA [5] was
performed on an unlined asphalt pad. Elimination of the liner and leak
detection system assumed in the baseline case translates to a cost savings
of approximately $5 per ton of soil. This cost does not account for salvage
values.

• One front-end loader may be eliminated if the composting area is

reconfigured to allow amendment staging in the contaminated area. This
modification translates to a savings of approximately $5 per ton of soil
treated.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.«4 4-8 05/03/93

 Table 4-5

Total Estimated 5-Year Project Cost

for Windrow Composting System

Cost ($)
Without Salvage Values
Total Capital 2,118,000
Total 5-Year O&M (P/W) 2,104,000
Total 5-Year Project cost (P/W) 4,222,000
Soil Treated in 5 Years (Tons) 20,000
Cost Per Ton of Soil 211
Including Salvage Values
Total Capital (including Salvage) 1,873,000
Total 5-Year O&M (P/W) 2,104,000
Total 5-Year Project Cost (P/W) 3,977,000
Soil Treated in 5 Years (Tons) 20,000
Cost Per Ton of Soil 199

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-9 05/03/93

 s
• In areas where appropriate climatic conditions exist (dry climates without
harsh winters), the temporary structure may possibly be eliminated. This
modification would result in a cost savings of approximately $10 to $15
per ton of soil. The need to use the temporary structure for dust control
must be evaluated.

• If the soil fraction in the compost could be increased from 30 volume

percent to 40 volume percent, a cost savings of approximately $5 to $6 per
ton of soil is possible. This is based on the assumption that process
kinetics would be equivalent at the two soil loadings. This assumption
would need to be verified experimentally.

• Reduction of the compost treatment time from 30 days to 20 days would

result in a cost savings of approximately $5 per ton of soil. Explosives
reduction at the 20-day treatment time would need to be verified
experimentally.

• Reduction of the turning frequency from daily to three times per week
would result in a savings of approximately $1 per ton of soil.

The potential savings are all relatively small in comparison to the overall project cost.

4.2.2 PROJECT DURATION

The cost per ton of soil processed is dependent on the duration of the remediation
period. An analysis was conducted to determine if cost savings could be realized by
varying the total project duration from the 5-year baseline case. Capital and annual
O&M costs were calculated for treatment periods of 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 years,
corresponding to 20,000, 6,700, 4,000, 2,500, and 2,000 tons of soil/year, respectively.
The assumptions and methods used in the 5-year baseline case were extended to all of
the cases.

Table 4-6 presents the potential capital cost for the five treatment periods considered.
Equipment costs increase as the project duration is shortened. For periods less than
5 years, an additional dump truck (for a total of two) is required. For periods less than
3 years, an additional front-end loader (for a total of 3) is needed. Site-work costs also
increase with decreasing treatment period as larger pads and temporary buildings are
required. In longer duration projects, equipment may not be fully utilized because of
the small volume of compost treated at any one time. Equipment salvage values are
not considered.

Table 4-7 presents annual O&M costs for the five treatment periods. Some O&M costs
(labor, analytics) appear to reach a relatively constant value at around a 5-year
treatment period. At this system size, the minimal crew and sampling frequency for
safe, efficient operation is reached. Although the laborers may not be fully utilized at
all times, there are times, such as during windrow formation, that three workers are

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrowj4 4-10 05/03/93

 Table 4-6

Estimated Capital Costs for Windrow

Composting of Varying Project Durations

Project Duration (years)

1 3 5 8 10

Soil Treated Per Year (Ton) 20,000 6,700 4,000 2^00 2,000

723,000 634,000 567,000 565,000 564,000

Equipment ($)
Sitework ($) 846,000 357,000 280,000 171,000 '136,000

1,498,000 349,000 322,000 320,000 281,000

Structures ($)
Mechanical/Piping (S) 122,000 53,000 26,000 52^00 16,000

Electrical ($) 209,000 143,000 129,000 123,000 120,000

First Subtotal Capital ($) 3,398,000 1,536,000 1,324,000 1,231,000 1,117,000

Construction 272,000 123,000 111,000 98,000 89,000

Facilities/Mobilization/
Demobilization @ 8% ($)

Consumable Items @ 5% ($) 170,000 77,000 69,000 62,000 56,000

Fees @ 15% ($) 51,000 23,000 20,000 18,000 17,000

Overhead @ 95% ($) 323,000 146,000 150,000 117,000 106,000

Contractor Markup @ 10% ($) 421,000 190,000 168,000 153,000 139,000

Contingency @ 15% ($) 695,000 314,000 276,000 252,000 229,000

Total Capital ($) 5,330,000 2,409,000 2,118,000 1,931,000 1,753,000

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrowj4 4-11 05/03/93

 Table 4-7

Estimated O&M Costs for Windrow

Composting of Varying Project Durations

Project Duration (years)

1 3 5 8 10
Soil Treated Per Year (Tons) 20,000 6,700 4,000 2,000 1,000
Power ($/year) 4,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Amendments ($/year) 980,000 327,000 195,000 122,000 98,000
Fuel ($/year) 88,000 30,000 19,000 11,000 9,000
Labor ($/year) 229,000 154,000 116,000 116,000 116,000
Analytics ($/year) 106,000 42,000 21,000 21,000 21,000
Maintenance @ 3% of Capital ($/year) 160,000 72,000 64,000 58,000 52,000
Subtotal Annual O&M ($/year) 1,567,000 627,000 416,000 329,000 297,000
Contractor Markup and Profit @ 10% 157,000 63,000 42,000 33,000 30,000
Contingency @ 15% ($/year) 259,000 104,000 69,000 54,000 49,000
Total Annual O&M ($/year) 1,983,000 794,000 527,000 416,000 376,000
Total Project O&M (P/W) ($) 1,983,000 2,046,000 2,104,000 2391,000 2,523,000

MK01\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.«4 4-12 05/03/93

 mwuiw \^y nriwnnnwii—

needed. If temporary or part-time workers are available, the number of employees may
be reduced. For this analysis, only full-time employees are considered.

Total present worth project costs for 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10-year treatment periods are
summarized in Table 4-8 and Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1 represents these total costs in
terms of cost per ton of soil treated. Significant cost savings are seen by increasing the
treatment period from 1 to 3 years. The savings become much less significant with
increasing treatment period. Figure 4-1 shows that the costs per ton level off at
approximately 3 years treatment time. This curve indicates that relatively small cost
savings are achieved by increasing the treatment period beyond 3 years. Within the
estimating accuracy in this analysis, the total project costs calculated for 3, 5, 8, and 10-
year project durations are indistinguishable.

4.2.3 FACILITY SIZE

As a further study of the effect of remedial project size on project cost, an analysis was
conducted to determine the costs associated with processing 2,000 (1,000 tons/year),
5,000 (2,500 tons/year), and 10,000 (5,000 tons/year) tons of soü m a 2-year period.
This 2-year treatment period represents a reasonable schedule for an expedited cleanup.
As indicated in Subsection 4.2.2, extension of the operating period beyond 3 years offers
relatively little economic advantage. Unless otherwise specified, the assumptions used
in these calculations are the same as those used in previous subsections.

Table 4-9 presents the estimated capital costs associated with each of the three
alternatives. Because of the small facility size required, it is more cost-effective to lease
a backhoe and dump truck as needed for the 2,000 (1,000 tons/year) and 5,000-ton
(2,500 tons/year) faculties. A backhoe and dump truck would be purchased for the
10,000-ton (5,000 tons/year) option. The facility pad and structure size increase with
increasing throughput. Equipment salvage values are not considered.

Table 4-10 presents the estimated annual O&M costs for the three options. Equipment
rental costs are included in the 2,000 (1,000 tons/year) and 5,000-ton (2,500 tons/year)
options for the 10,000 ton (5,000 tons/year) option, all needed equipment was
purchased. Minimal analytics and labor charges have been used. For the purposes of
this analysis, only full-time employees have been considered. Cost savings may result
if part-time labor is available. The present worth of estimated annual O&M costs was
calculated using an 8% annual interest rate.

Total present-worth project costs for the 2,000 (1,000 tons/year), 5,000 (2,500
tons/year), and 10,000-ton (5,000 tons/year) options are presented in Table 4-11. As
seen in previous analyses, the cost per ton of soil processed increases with decreasing
facility size. The cost per ton of soil is higher than the costs estimated in Subsection
4.2.2.
In this evaluation, the size of the windrow composting facility was varied to achieve the
desired soils throughput. For certain of the facility requirements, such as the
construction of the composting pad itself, total cost may vary more or less directly with

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrowj»4 4-13 05/03/93

 OtSOtMXXmLTMm

Table 4-8

Estimated Total Project Costs for Windrow

Composting of Varying Project Durations

Soil
Project Treated Total Project Total Project Cost Per Ton
Duration Per Year Capital Cost Annual P/WO&M Cost P/W of Soil
(years) (tons) ($) O&M ($) ($) ($) ($)•
1 20,000 5330,000 1,983,000 1,983,000 2^13,000 366
3 6,700 2,409,000 794,000 .2,046,000 4,455,000 223
5 4,000 2,118,000 527,000 2,104,000 4,222,000 211
8 2300 1,931,000 416,000 2391,000 4322,000 216
10 2,000 1,753,000 376,000 2323,000 4,276,000 214

*Assumes 20,000 tons of soil processed.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrowj4 4-14 05/03/93

4-15
 Table 4-9

Estimated Capital Costs for Windrow Composting of Varying

Facility Sizes for 2-Year Project Duration

Tons Treated in 2 Years

2,000 5,000 10,000
Equipment ($) 230,000 319,000 634,000
Sitework ($) 92,000 183,000 224,000
Buildings/Structures ($) 155,000 235,000 325,000
Mechanical/Piping ($) 14,000 20,000 35,000
Electrical ($) 64,000 81,000 141,000
First Subtotal Capital ($) 555,000 838,000 1,359,000
Construction Facilities/ 44,000 67,000 109,000
Mobilization/Demobilization @
8% (%)
Consumable Items @ 5% ($) 28,000 42,000 68,000
Fees @ 1.5% ($) 8,000 12,000 20,000
Overhead @ 9.5% ($) 53,000 80,000 129,000
Contractor Markup @ 10% ($) 69,000 104,000 168,000
Contingency @ 15% ($) 114,000 165,000 278,000
Total Capital ($) 871,000 1,266,000 2,131,000

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-16 05/04/93

 s
Table 4-10

Estimated Annual O&M Costs for Windrow Composting of Varying

Facility Sizes for 2-Year Project Duration

Tons Treated in 2 Years

2,000 5,000 10,000
Equipment Rental ($) 24,000 24,000 —

Power ($) 1,000 1,000 1,000

Amendments ($/year) 48,000 120,000 241,000
Fuel ($/year) 9,000 11,000 21,000
Labor ($/year) 75,000 108,000 141,000
Analytics ($frear) 21,000 21,000 32,000
Maintenance @ 3% of Capital 26,000 37,000 68,000
($/year)
Subtotal Annual O&M ($/year) 204,000 322,000 504,000
Contractor Markup and Profit 20,000 32,000 50,000
@ 10% ($/year)
Contingency @ 15% ($/year) 34,000 53,000 83,000
Total Annual O&M ($/year) 258,000 407,000 637,000
Total Project O&M (P/W) ($) 460,000 726,000 1,136,000

MK01\KPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-17 05/03/93

 OE3O0SOMU.TINT3

Table 4-11

Estimated Total Costs for Windrow Composting of Varying

Facility Sizes for 2-Year Project Duration

Tons Treated in 2 Years

2,000 5,000 10,000
Capital Cost ($) 871,000 1,266,000 2,131,000
Annual O&M ($) 258,000 402,000 637,000
Total Project P/W O&M ($) 460,000 726,000 1,136,000
Total Project Cost P/W ($) 1,331,000 1,992,000 3,267,000
Cost Per Ton of Soil ($) 666 398 326

MKO 1\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.s4 4-18 05/04/93

the size of the facility (economy of scale in these cost items was not considered in this
analysis). Some components, such as the temporary structures, are available in
modular form so that reasonably close adjustment of the size to the specific project need
is possible. Other components may be available only in fixed sizes and capacities (such
as the windrow turner), and the purchase costs for these components may be the same
over a wide range of facility sizes. For example, all project sizes up to the maximum
capacity of a single windrow turner would incur the same purchase price for this
component, and all larger projects would incur a multiple of this price, depending upon
the number of such machines required. To some extent, this unit price effect is
disadvantageous for small project sizes that do not fully use the capacity of such
equipment. One option to minimize this effect would be to lease such equipment for
small projects where technically feasible and economically advantageous.

To some extent this effect may also be seen in operating costs, particularly in operating
labor. While certain labor tasks may be amenable to the use of part-time labor, it is
likely that a minimal full-time staff may be required, particularly in light of the
technical requirements for hazardous waste work and what may be somewhat remote
project locations.

In this sensitivity evaluation, as with those presented previously, costs for various size
projects were developed by varying capital and operating requirements from the
baseline developed in Subsections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 to provide a comparison among
remedial project sizes. Costs for each specific project size were not fully optimized by
detailed design analysis for purposes of this cost comparison.

4.3 ALTERNATIVE COMPOSTING SYSTEMS

This section will discuss composting using the aerated static pile and mechanical in-
vessel systems. This analysis is based upon the previous technology development study
[3] and information obtained in the composting optimization field study [4]. In both
cases, brief descriptions of system operation and economics are presented.

4.3.1 AERATED STATIC PILE COMPOSTING

The aerated static pile system considered for this analysis is based on a rectangular bin
configuration (three wooden walls) with dimensions of 60 ft long by 40 ft wide by 8 ft
high (711 yd3) [3]. For bins of this size, three operating pads (with a fourth inactive
pad) would be needed to process 20,000 tons of soil in 5 years (4,000 tons/year). The
compost mixture considered would be the same as that described in Section 3. The
treatment period of 60 days selected was based on results of the UMDA field study [5].
Although several aerated static pile trials in the UMDA studies [4, 5] achieved the
targeted 99.5% removal of TNT, this goal was not consistently met in the 40-day
composting period. Therefore, to ensure treatment to the targeted level, a 60-day
composting period was assumed. As with the windrow system, a RCRA facility was
assumed. A description of potential RCRA requirements is presented in Appendix B.
A cross-section of a typical aerated static pile system is shown in Figure 4-2.

MK01\RPT.02281012.001\windrowj4 4-19 05/04/93

 s
u
o
o
c
a
c
S
■ '

(|BO|dAi) ZI CD
a
z
<
UJ
E
a

i
o
UJ

OC
UJ
<
_J
<
a
E
u.
O
O
P
o
■D UJ
to
CL 0)
ffi cfe
(A
0} O
a > OC
TJ
»
<D
OC
O
"D
o
u
ra Mi
HJ2§ 0.
«COT «
£(0 0)
3
5" "o
m Ul
OC
w _CO
i g
||?
?-.i o —
(D
w
3
(0 U
u>
C\Jl-< 3
Q.
01
<
to
o
a.
E
a>

4-20
An equipment list for the aerated static pile system is presented in Table 4-12. The
windrow turner found in the windrow composting system description is not needed for
aerated static pile composting and has been eliminated for this analysis. An alfalfa tub
grinder (used to debale and chop the straw and alfalfa) and compost mixer (a batch
mixer to blend the amendments and soil) have been added. These pieces of equipment
were used in the aerated static pile system in the previous engineering study [3].
Design and costing assumptions for this analysis are consistent with those described
for the windrow composting system. Excavation and backfilling costs are included on
an annual basis. Equipment for these efforts as well as covering the finished compost
in the backfill area are included as capital costs. O&M unit costs are the same as those
presented in Table 4-3 for the windrow composting system. The same assumptions and
methods described in Subsections 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.3 have been used in calculating
present worth and salvage values.

The facility would be covered with a portable structure (approximately 200 ft by 75 ft),
such as a clamshell structure to prevent runon to the system. The amendments would
be staged on asphalt and the excavated soils would be staged in the dump truck.

Several changes in assumptions have been made in this analysis compared to the
previous engineering study [3]. These changes have been based on experience gained
[4, 5] since the publication of the previous study. The assumption changes are:

• The design basis for the composting system has been set at 20,000 tons
of soil to be processed in 5 years (4,000 tons/year) in keeping with the
facility size used in the windrow composting system.

• A 30 volume percent soil compost mixture is used in the current study

compared to a 10 volume percent soil mixture in the previous study. This
change allows for an increased throughput for a given facility size.

• The straw/manure and alfalfa amendment mixture from the previous

study was replaced with the straw/alfalfa, potato waste, and manure
mixture developed during the UMDA field demonstrations [4, 5].

• The compost cycle time of 90 days used in the previous study has been
changed to 60 days, based on observed TNT removal during the UMDA
field demonstrations [4, 5].

• A temporary structure has been added to control runon and precipitation

to the site.

• The pad used for composting is now an asphalt pad as opposed to a

reinforced concrete pad. The liner and leak detection system have been
retained. This assumption is consistent with those used in the windrow
composting system and complies with current RCRA regulations.

MK01\KPT:02281012.001\windrow^4 4-21 05/03/93

 wwflw ^^X oaoBwaaxTim

Table 4-12

Major Equipment List for Aerated Static Pile System

Equipment Quantity
1 yd3 Backhoe 1
12 yd3 Dump Truck 1
Alfalfa Tub Grinder 1
2 yd3 Front-End Loader 2
Batch Mixer 1
30-hp Blowers 4
10-gpm Water Pump (for sump) 1

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-22 05/03/93

 ■MOBB^^ KSOBBCaUlon

• The aeration trenches in the composting pad from the previous study have
been eliminated. The aeration pipes will be placed on top of the asphalt
pad in a bed of wood chips.

• Compost final disposal costs were not included in the previous study but
have been included in this analysis, as on-site backfill and cover.

• No contingency was added in the previous study. In keeping with the

assumptions made in the windrow study, a 15% contingency was used in
this analysis.

4.3.1.1 Aerated Static Püe Costs

Capital costs for the aerated static pile composting system are presented in Table 4-13.
With the exception of the equipment changes described in Subsection 4.3, the items
included in the capital costs are the same as those presented in Table 4-1 for the
windrow composting system. A 15% contingency was added to the capital costs.

Annual O&M costs for the aerated static pile composting system are presented in Table
4-14. A 15% contingency was added to the annual costs. The present worth of a 5-year
project was calculated assuming an 8% annual interest rate.

As with the windrow composting analysis, much of the equipment used in the aerated
static püe system is assumed to have a 10-year useful life. The straight-line
depreciation method was used to determine the salvage value of the temporary
structure, backhoe, dump truck, front-end loader, alfalfa tub grinder, and batch mixer
at the end of the 5-year project life. Total project cost with and without salvage values
are presented in Table 4-15. The total 5-year project cost without salvage is estimated
to be $5,659,000, or $283 per ton of soil treated. Accounting for salvage values lowers
the 5-year present worth project cost to $5,431,000 or $272 per ton of soil treated.

This system is sized to treat 20,000 tons of soil in 5 years, or 4,000 tons of soil per year.
For comparison, in the previous engineering study [3], the comparable size aerated
static pile system processed 3,600 tons of soil per year. The previous study presented
a 5-year present worth total project cost of $6,067,000 or $337 per ton of soil treated
for this system.
The difference in cost between the two analyses is a result of the assumption changes
discussed in Subsection 4.3.1.

4.3.2 MECHANICALLY AGITATED IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING

For purposes of comparison, a mechanical composting system was also considered. In

keeping with the previous Engineering Study [3], the Fairfield digester unit was chosen.
This is the only mechanical system for which performance data are available; however,
other mechanical systems may also prove suitable. A 30 volume percent soil compost
mixture using the amendment mixture from Section 3 was assumed. Based on the

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-23 05/03/93

 Table 4-13

Estimated Capital Costs for

Aerated Static Pile Composting System

Cost ($)

Equipment 561,000
Site Work 268,000
Structures 323,000
Mechanical/Piping 36,000
Electrical 195,000
First Subtotal Capital 1,383,000
Project Construction Facilities/Mobilization/ 111,000
Demobilization @ 8%
Construction Equipment Consumable items @ 5% 69,000
Permits and Fees @ 1.5% 20,000
Subtotal Capital 1,583,000
General and Administrative Overhead @ 9.5% 150,000
Contractor Markup and Profit @ 10% 174,000
Contingency @ 15% 286,000
Total Capital 2,193,000

MK01\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.«4 4-24 05/03/93

 xsatnctmumtn

Table 4-14

Estimated Annual O&M Costs

for Aerated Static Pile Composting System

Cost ($)
Power 8,000
Amendments 195,000
Wood Chips 138,000
Diesel Fuel 14,000
Labor 166,000
Maintenance 66,000
Analytics (off-site) 99,000
Subtotal Annual O&M 686,000
Contractor Markup and Profit @ 10% 69,000
Contingency @ 15% 113,000
Total Annual O&M 868,000
Total 5-Year O&M (Present Worth) 3,466,000

MK01\RPT:02281012.00 Uwindrow M 4-25 05/03/93

 fcsocmaMuTiNT?

Table 4-15

Total Estimated 5-Year Project Cost

for Aerated Static Pile Composting System

Cost ($)
Without Salvage Values
Total Capital 2,193,000
Total 5-Year O&M (P/W) 3,466,000
Total 5-Year Project cost (P/W) 5,659,000
Soil Treated in 5 Years (Tons) 20,000
Cost Per Ton of Soil 283
Including Salvage Values
Total Capital (Including Salvage) 1,965,000
Total 5-Year O&M (P/W) 3,406,000
Total 5-Year Project cost (P/W) 5,431,000
Soil Treated in 5 Years (Tons) 20,000
Cost Per Ton of Soil 272

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-26 05/03/93

 tmaK >_• tcaac«a»uuw!

results of the UMDA study [4], a 30-day retention time was chosen. The amendments
will be staged on a pad and the soils will be staged in the dump truck. The compost
will be prepared and mixed initially with a batch mixer prior to entering the system.

The MAIV composting facility centers on the Fairfield digester unit. A typical MAIV
system is shown in Figure 4-3. According to vendor information [16], the cost of the
unit would include the reactor itself, the associated mechanical equipment, a concrete
foundation, and installation. A reactor diameter of 78 ft was chosen from the sizes
provided by the vendor. Although the reactor size would be optimized during actual
system design, this provides an approximation of equipment size and costs. Materials
preparation and handling equipment such as that found in the aerated static pile
composting system are also needed. This equipment includes a backhoe, front-end
loader, dump truck, batch mixer, alfalfa tub grinder.

Excavation and redisposal costs associated with labor and fuel changes are included on
an annual basis. Equipment for these efforts as well as covering of the compost in the
excavation area are included in the capital costs.

O&M unit costs are the same as those presented in Table 4-3 for the windrow
composting system. Equipment power requirements were provided by the vendor [16].
Equivalent assumptions and methods described in Subsection 4.1.2.1 have been used
in calculating present worth.

4.3.2.1 Tvr^hgwi^ny Agitated In-Vessel Composting System Cost

The assumption changes in this analysis as compared to the MAIV analysis in the
previous engineering study [3] are as follows:

• A 30 volume percent soil compost mixture is used in the current study.

Soil volume fractions of 10,25, and 40% were tested in the previous study.
This change allows direct comparison of the three systems described in
this study.

• As with the aerated static pile system, the amendment mixture was
changed to reflect the mixture developed during the UMDA field
demonstrations [5].

• A compost cycle time of 30 days was assumed based on observed TNT

removal in the UMDA field demonstration [4]. This retention is
significantly longer than the 14-days assumed in the previous study.

• Finished compost disposal costs were not included in the previous study,
but have been included in this analysis as on-site backfill.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrowj4 4-27 05/03/93

 5

Mechanically Agitated In-Vessel System

Source: Fairfield Service Co.

1344.1124 2/18183

FIGURE 4-3 TYPICAL MECHANICALLY AGITATED

IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING REACTOR
4-28
 »muii. V-j/ caaBuaaum

The capital costs associated with the MAIV composting system are presented in Table
4-16. Equipment costs include a backhoe, dump truck, front-end loader, batch mixer,
and alfalfa tub grinder. The sitework costs include the costs associated with preparing
the site (clearing and grubbing, grading) as well as the costs for covering the finished
compost in the excavation area.

The reactor costs include the reactor itself, mechanical equipment, and the reactor
concrete foundation. Any sitework specifically associated with the reactor installation
are assumed to be included in the reactor cost. The mechanical/piping costs account
for site drainage and storm run-off control. Finally, the electrical costs include
equipment power distribution and site lighting.

Annual O&M costs for the MATV system are presented in Table 4-17. A 15%
contingency was added to the annual costs. The present worth of a 5-year project was
calculated assuming an 8% annual interest rate.

As with the windrow and aerated static pile composting systems, much of the
equipment used in the MAIV composting system is expected to have a portion of its
useful life remaining at the end of the 5-year project. In keeping with the assumptions
used in the other composting systems in this study, a 10-year useful life was assumed
for the backhoe, front-end loader, dump truck, batch mixer, and alfalfa tub grinder. A
straight-line depreciation method was used to determine the worth of these items at the
end of the 5-year project. Based on vendor information [16], the reactor was treated
separately. The reactor and associated mechanical equipment is assumed to have a 20-
year useful life. Approximately 50% of the reactor capital costs (before depreciation)
may be considered for salvage cost calculations if the equipment is to be used for
another composting project. If the equipment must be sold to an outside source, only
about 5% of the capital costs (before depreciation) are salvageable [16]. Assuming that
the salvaged equipment may be used at another remediation site, a salvage value was
calculated for the MATV reactor. Fifty percent of the capital investment for the reactor
was straight-line depreciated over a projected 20-year useful life. Table 4-18 presents
total 5-year present worth project costs with and without salvage values. Without
accounting for salvage values, the total 5-year present worth cost is $6,280,000, or $314
per ton of soil treated. If salvage values are considered, the total 5-year present worth
cost is $5,969,000 or $298 per ton of soil treated.

The costs developed in the previous engineering study [3] are not directly comparable
to the costs presented here as different soil volume fractions and retention times were
used. Table 4-19 presents a summary of the total project costs and costs per ton of soil
treated which were determined in the previous study. Given the previously discussed
differences in assumptions between the two studies, costs developed in this study
appear to be somewhat less than those presented in the previous study. Again, changes
in assumptions can account for these differences.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-29 05/03/93

 iii«i MI» \—S uuuvaujaknm

Table 4-16

Estimated Capital Costs for MAIV Composting System

Cost ($)

Equipment 510,000

Site Work 138,000

Reactor 1,367,000

MechanicaiyPiping 4,000

Electrical 201,000

First Subtotal Capital 2,220,000

Project Construction Facilities/Mobilization/ 178,000

Demobilization @ 8%
Construction Equipment Consumable items @ 5% 111,000

Permits and Fees @ 1.5% 33,000

Second Subtotal Capital 2,542,000

General and Administrative Overhead @ 9.5% 242,000

Contractor Markup and Profit @ 10% 278,000
Contingency @ 15% 450,000

Total Capital 3,512,000

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-30 05/03/93

 ■HOBS \—S oaonsauun!

Table 4-17

Estimated O&M Costs for MAIV Composting System

Cost ($)

Power 51,000
Amendments 195,000

Wood Chips 0

Diesel Fuel 17,000

Labor 154,000
Analytics (off-site) 23,000
Maintenance 106,000
First Subtotal Annual O&M 546,000
Contractor Markup and Profit @ 10% 55,000
Contingency @ 15% 90,000
Total Annual O&M 691,000
Total 5-Year O&M (Present Worth) 2,759,000

MK01\RPT:02281012.00 l\windpowjs4 4-31 05/03/93

 oooeacMmrMfn

Table 4-18

Total Estimated 5-Year Project Cost

for MATV* Composting System

Cost ($)

Without Salvage Values

Total Capital 3,521,000
Total 5-Year O&M (P/W) 2,759,000
Total 5-Year Project cost (P/W) 6,280,000
Soil Treated in 5 Years (Tons) 20,000
Cost Per Ton of Soil 314
Including Salvage Values
Total Capital (Including Salvage) 3,210,000
Total 5-Year O&M (P/W) 2,759,000
Total 5-Year Project cost (P/W) 5,969,000
Soil Treated in 5 Years (Tons) 20,000
Cost Per Ton of Soil 298

MK01\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.«4 4-32 05/03/93

 0OOOKO6U.TWT3

Table 4-19

Total Present-Worth Project Cost

for MAIV Composting in Previous Engineering Study [3]

Retention Time Capital Costs Tons Treated Cost Per Ton

(days) Soil Fraction ($) in 5 Years ($)

14 20 6,313,000 23,000 274

14 40 6,122,000 45,000 136

90 40 5,200,000 4,000 1,300

90 40 5,170,000 7,000 739

MK01\KPT:02281012.001\windrowj»4 4-33 05/03/93

4.4 COMPARISON OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

This study has presented economic analyses for windrow, aerated static pile, and
mechanically agitated in-vessel (MAIV) composting systems. All systems were sized to
process 20,000 tons of explosives-contaminated soils in a 5-year treatment period. An
initial compost mixture of 30 volume percent soils is assumed in all cases. Cycle times
for each system were determined based on previous composting experience [4, 5].

An alternative technology that could be used in the treatment of explosives-

contaminated soils is incineration. Previous WESTON experience [19] shows an on-site
incineration remediation to have a mobilization/demobilization cost of approximately
$2,000,000. The additional processing cost is then approximately $200 per ton of soil
treated. These costs are for treatment only and do not reflect excavation and final
disposal costs. Using a basis of 20,000 tons of soil treated, this would mean a total
project cost of $6,000,000, or $300 per ton of soil. This cost includes mobilization/
demobilization of the incinerator, but does not include excavation or compost redisposal.

Therefore, in order to evaluate the costs associated with using composting technology
versus other incinerator remediation technologies, a "treatment only" cost was
calculated. These costs, presented in Table 4-20, differ from those presented in
previous sections in that they do not include excavation and final compost disposal
charges. Incineration treatment costs are presented for comparison with the three
composting alternatives. MAIV composting shows a slight cost savings over
incineration. More significant savings are seen for aerated static pile and windrow
composting.

Figure 4-4 [20] illustrates a range of incineration costs associated with various remedial
project sizes. For the project size described in this report, all fall in the lower range of
costs for similarly sized incineration projects.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s4 4-34 05/03/93

 fr* o-
as z ^.
o
o.e t*
00
©
CO
©
©
©
©
Cost
Ton
1—1 CN tN CO

^j o © © ©
o o O © o
• 0> —.
^^ /"^ o © ©, o
cree- ■<* ©~ T-T ©
«-. ^ Tf CN © ©•
OH -W t>- t- oo ©
CO
eo Tf lO ©
73 r2
o
E*
•vCD
o ^ •3
MM
«A-
o © © © >
■** ^m**
o o © © o
© ©_ ©
2 is w eo eo" t>
©, u
a
U5 © © ©
|5 °°- i-i -
c»
CN
us
of
©
•^
.2
3
O
-w
08
O u
CO
a
o © o 3 CO
0) 130
-, §
o ©
© © ou
ai © © ©
ao~
Annual
MCost

CN +3
09 © CN CO
es 0 © © © 3
0)
1S
•
&
0 Q3
3
O
a
3
U O
0) "3
■**fa a
es 0 CS EC

a
KM
«M
IB ji
©
o
©
©
©
©
©
O
o
a
CQ CS
.3.
■*» ■*>
V) BO ©_ ©, O © 09
CS «9- 8
H 0 *J N—' »-T ©" "«* ©" a) o
U
**
'S. -w
« s
©
oo
©
°t
©
CN
©
o ■a
CS g
a
ej
0)
•2»
^c5 i-H* i-T ec CN
£•*eu 3
o*
0 G00
cu ^©
lO o
u S • .«CN
cu bo
c
CO

c £
5j
° __>
co e
-3 ««■
CO

■+J
CO
.2 a
"*» _.
§ o 1®
cs 33
o
a > 2
es 1°
1 § *-< O
ao ü <*- ■S "
bo X o
ö O CO •<-<

ja '-3 CD bo
> 33 .U
O 3
CO
09
Ic
"o
c
CO
o
a
£
a« '■S
eo
o
"3 ©
3 ©
:i 2g
I
ü
CD o a
— o CS ©
~. ©
E-* CS s 09 _•>
U
02 £ ■ #o 3 o 'S
§ °CN
o "-3 ec
N
Ü CCJ " 3
o T3
CD
IM
.8 8 O
CM
O

T3 cd £ 3
CD
CQ XI cs
3 'V BLi

8 a
C u CB
a> 09 09
5 <
3
M
O
U CQ
cS 3 cs
09

< .CQ s

4-35
 1,600-

1,400
xr-:-.,;^-&^l*y..A

i 1,200

1,000
8
CO
z>I 800

8 600

to 400

200 J;W>-*S.* ■■>■

Very Small Small Medium Large

<5,000 5,000-15,000 15,000-30,000 >30,000

Site Size-Tons

Source: The Hazardous Waste Consultant

1429-1871 4/27/93

FIGURE 4-4 EFFECT OF SITE SIZE ON INCINERATION COSTS

4-36
 SECTION 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective of this study was to evaluate economics for using windrow composting
technology remediation of explosives-contaminated soil at various Army ammunition
plants (AAPs) and Army depots (ADs). This included the development of a conceptual
design and operating requirements and an economic evaluation of the potential costs
associated with facility construction and operation. The process development was based
largely on previous work conducted by USAEC at LAAP [1], BAAP [2], and UMDA
[4,5]. Capital and O&M cost estimates were based on conventional construction
estimating practices in conjunction with experience gained during the UMDA field
demonstrations [4].

As shown in Table 4-20, the results of this economic evaluation show that windrow
composting treatment costs are less than aerated static pile or mechanical composting.
The MAIV composting system is comparable on a cost-per-ton basis to incineration at
$290 per ton of soil treated compared to $300 per ton for incineration. The greatest
cost savings in comparison to incineration are seen by the windrow composting system
at $187 per ton. The aerated static pile system "treatment only" costs are estimated at
$236 per ton. All estimates were based on treating 20,000 tons of soil in a 5-year
period. If the amount of soil or treatment time were varied, the costs would be altered.

In addition to the cost savings demonstrated by windrow composting in comparison to

other composting methods, there are other, less quantifiable, advantages associated
with the use of a windrow system. For example, the windrow system has significantly
less process control requirements, and so has less equipment subject to downtime that
could lead to system performance variations. Also, the windrow system has
demonstrated RDX (99.8% removal) and HMX (96.8% removal) reduction [5] The other
composting systems have not shown this level of destruction. Table 5-1 presents
percent reductions of TNT, RDX and HMX for windrow, aerated static pile, and MAIV
composting systems. These data were obtained from UMDA composting field
demonstrations [4, 5]. Note that the MAIV data presented are for 25 volume percent
soil because data at 30 volume percent is not available. If RDX or HMX removal is
necessary, longer treatment periods than those presented in this study may be needed
for the aerated static pile and MAIV composting systems. Because this increased
removal of RDX and HMX has not been demonstrated, the required composting period
for a given percent explosives reduction would need to be determined through further
testing if aerated static pile or MATV composting is used.

Based on the results presented in this study and past field demonstrations, it is
recommended that the use of windrow composting be pursued and developed further
for possible use in remediation of explosives-contaminated soil. Although all of the
basic research and development needed for implementation has been completed, several
areas that could possibly be optimized with further testing. These include:

MK01\KPT:02281012.001\windrowj5 5-1 04/27/93

 s
Table 5-1
ocsocnamiriMrs

Demonstrated Percent Reduction of Explosives

for Various Composting Technologies

% Reduction
Technology TNT RDX HMX
Windrow 99.7 99.8 96.8
Aerated Static Pile 99.7 93.7 61.8
MAIV 99.5 85.1 50.0

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s5 5-2 04/27/93

 HMMGERS ^^^ KSG«KCOPeuTMrTS

The compost treatment time could be reduced from the 30-day baseline
case. Tests would be needed to confirm system performance at shorter
times.

The soil volume fraction in the compost mixture could be increased.

Although the process appears to be economically viable at 30% soil
loadings, tests could be conducted to find if the higher soil fraction can be
successfully composted in windrows.

Regulatory requirements that govern the composting facility should

continue to be monitored. If it is found that RCRA facilities minimum
technology design standards are not required, cost savings of
approximately $5 per ton are possible. Additionally, the burden of
regulatory approval may be eased substantially.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s5 5-3 04/27/93

 SECTION 6

REFERENCES

1. WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1988. Field Demonstration of Explosives-

Contaminated Sediments at the Louisiana Armv Ammunition Plant (LAAP).
Final Report, prepared for USAEC, Report No. AMXTH-IR-TE-88242.

2. WESTON. 1989. Field Demonstration - Composting of Propellants-

Contaminated Sediments at the Badger Armv Ammunition Plant (BAAP). Final
Report, prepared for USAEC, Report No. CETHA-TE-CR-89216.

3. WESTON. 1989. Composting of Explosives-Contaminated Soil Technology.

Final Report, prepared for USAEC, Report No. CETE-CR-90027.

4. WESTON. 1991. Optimization of Composting for Explosives Contaminated Soil.

Final Report, prepared for USAEC, Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-91053.

5. WESTON. 1993. Demonstration of Windrow Composting. Final Technical

Report. May 1993, Report No. CET-HA-TS-CR-93043.

6. Haug, R.T. 1980. Compost Engineering Principles and Practice. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc.

7. The Biocvcle Guide to Composting Municipal Wastes. 1989. The J.G. Press, Inc.

8. Finstein et al. (Finstein, M.S., F.C. Miller, JA. Hogan, and P.F. Strom). 1987.
"Analysis of EPA Guidance on Composting Sludge, Part I - Biological Heat
Generation and Temperature," Biocvcle. 28 January 1987.

9. Finstein et al. 1987. "Analysis of EPA Guidance on Composting Sludge, Part

II -Biological Heat Generation and Temperature," Biocvcle. 28 February 1987.

10. Finstein et al. 1987. "Analysis of EPA Guidance on Composting Sludge, Part
III - Biological Heat Generation and Temperature," Biocvcle. 28 March 1987.

11. Finstein et al. 1987. "Analysis of EPA Guidance on Composting Sludge, Part
IV - Biological Heat Generation and Temperature," Biocvcle. 28 April 1987.

12. Atlantic Research Corporation. 1986. Composting Explosives/Organics

Contaminated Soils. Final Technical Report, prepared for USAEC, Contract No.
DAAK11-84-C-0057.

13. Richardson Engineering Services, Inc. 1988. Process Plant Construction

Estimating Standards. Volumes III and IV.

14. Clamshell Buildings, Inc. 1993. Personal communication, Ventura, California.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.g6 6-1 05/03/93

 8
15. Scarab Manufacturing and Leasing, Inc. Personal communication, White Deer,
Texas.

16. Fairfield Service Company. 1993. Personal communication, Marion, Ohio.

17. Oak Ridge National Laboratories. 1990. Characterization of Explosives

Processing Waste Decomposition Due to Composting, prepared for U.S. Army
Medical Research and Development Command, Report Number ORNL/TM-
11573.

18. "Biocycle Journal of Waste Recycling," The Biocvcle Guide to Composting

Municipal Wastes. The J.G. Press, Inc. 1989.

19. WESTON. 1993. Personal communication, January 1993.

20. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. "Mobile/Transportable

Incineration Treatment", Engineering Bulletin. EPA/540/2-90/014, September
1990.

MKO 1\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrow.»6 6-2 05/04/93

 APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE WINDROW COMPOST TURNERS

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrow.s6 05/03/93
 Table A-l

Summary of Available Windrow Compost Turners

Belt/Hydraulic Flau/ Typical

Model Drive Flight Windrow Size
Manufacturer

Sims 2000 Hydraulic Hail 12-14 ft wide

A-l Environmental
5-6 ft high

500 Hydraulic Auger 12 ft wide

Brown Bear Corporation
4ft high

Straddle Master II Hydraulic Flau 14 ft wide

Eagle Crusher Co.
4-6 ft high

Straddle Master II Belt Flau 14 ft wide

4-6 ft high

KW614 Hydraulic Flau 14 ft wide

Resource Recovery
6ft high
Systems of Nebraska

KW614 Hydraulic Hail 14 ft wide

6ft high

Scarab Manufacturing Model 14 Belt Flail 14 ft wide

6 ft high

Model 14 Hydraulic Flail 14 ft wide

6ft high

Valoraction, Inc. Sittler 1012 N/A Flail 10-12 ft wide

4'8" high

Wildcat Manufacturing CM750-AME- N/A Flail 17 ft wide

SPECIAL 5fthigh |

Note: An explosive hazard analysis has been performed for the KW614 (used in the UMDA field
demonstration [5]). This analysis would be required if any of the windrow turners were used.

MK01\RPT: 02281012.00 l\windrowJ6 A-l 05/03/93

 APPENDIX B
REGULATORY ISSUES

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\wiadrow^6 05/03/93
 APPENDIX B
REGULATORY ISSUES

The sediments resulting from or soils contaminated with the accumulation of pink
water from explosives manufacturing and washout operations are classified as a listed
hazardous waste from specific sources — K047 (pink/red water from TNT operations)
as defined in 40 CFR 261.32. The RCRA classification of contaminated sediments
should be reviewed on a site-specific basis for final determination. If these soils are to
be composted in a windrow or aerated static pile system, the soils are mixed with
amendments and formed into piles. These piles may be considered to be waste piles
from a regulatory viewpoint.

As defined in 40 CFR 260.10, "pile" means any noncontaminated accumulation of solid,

nonflowing hazardous waste that is used for treatment or storage. On the basis of this
definition, Subpart L regulations appear to apply to composting. Under Subpart L of
40 CFR 264, the treatment facility (waste pile) must meet RCRA facility design
requirements. These requirements include a double liner system and a leachate
collection system. These requirements, however, may be waived at the Regional
Administrator's discretion (40 CFR 264, Subpart L).

Additionally, 40 CFR Subpart F regulates the groundwater monitoring requirements

for treatment facilities that treat hazardous waste in piles. Exemptions from the
Subpart F monitoring requirements may be possible if it is demonstrated that neither
runoff nor leachate is generated from the pile. Specifically, the following should be
demonstrated during construction of the compost piles (40 CFR 264.250(c)):

• Protection from precipitation — Demonstrate that the pile is inside or

under a structure that provides complete protection from precipitation.

• Free liquids — Demonstrate that neither liquids nor materials are placed
in the pile.

• Runon protection — Demonstrate that the pile is protected from surface

water runon by the structure or in some other manner.

MK01\RPT:02281012.001\windrowj6 B-l 05/03/93

 • Wind dispersal control — Demonstrate how the pile design and operation
controls wind dispersal of wastes.

• Leachate generation — Demonstrate that the pile will not generate

leachate through decomposition or other reactions.

After evaluation of these factors, it is possible that the composting system would be
exempted by the Regional Administrator from the requirements of a liner system, a
leachate collection system, and 40 CFR 264 Subpart F monitoring requirements.

Additional standards that may warrant investigation on a case-specific basis include:

RCRA facility closure requirements applying after the facility ceases

operation.

State RCRA requirements (where approved by EPA) may be more

stringent than federal standards.

State solid waste regulations, if the soils are determined to be

nonhazardous.

Local erosion and sedimentation (E&S) plan requirements for facility

construction and operation.

MK01\RPT:02281012.00 l\windrowj6 ß-2 05/03/93