DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of the Ota Alternatives For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of the Ota Alternatives For 203360 ASSESSMENT OF THE OTA ALTERNATIVE FOR REMEDIATION OF THE ONSITE AREA OF LIPARI LANDFILL Introduct ion We have reviewed the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report entitled "A Review of EPA's Decision Under the Superfund Program for an Onsite Cleanup of the LiPari Landfill". The approach as outlined in OTA's report would consist of the following sequential steps: 1. Dewatering of the contained or "onsite" portion of the LiPari site 2. Enhanced volatilization 3. Partial excavation of contaminated materials 4. Backfilling of the excavated area with clean(ed) soil 5. Onsite treatment (incineration) of the excavated contaminated materials 6. Flushing of the contaminated soil This approach is estimated by OTA to cost approximately $65 million. The advantages associated with this increase in cost over the $8.9 million batch flushing alternative selected by EPA in the Record of Decision (ROD) are reported by OTA to be a decrease in the time required for clean-up of the site (estimated by OTA to be 5-7 years as opposed to the 15 years for the selected flushing alternative) and an increase in reliability, effectiveness, and certainty of the remedy. Our comments concerning OTA's approach are organized to address the six sequential steps which comprise this approach. o o •~v; . a> rH o J 0 . I o 1 272429 125 iiiiiiiinininiiii 1. Dewatering of the Containment As outlined in the "Final Draft Report - Onsite Feasibility Study for LiPari Landfill" (FS) prepared by the REM II team and dated August 1985, dewatering of the Upper Cohansey within the containment system is a feasible step. This conclusion was reached based upon the results of the hydrogeologic investigation of the LiPari Landfill in February and March 1985 and the successful extraction of over one million gallons of leachate from the containment by IT Corporation during September and October 1984. The major cost components for completing this step are as follows: o Capital costs for extraction wells, holding tank, prefabricated building and contingencies: $920,000. o Operation and maintenance costs including personnel, power, vapor- phase carbon, and off—site treatment of one pore volume at a per­ mitted industrial waste treatment facility: $880,000. o Total cost • $1.8 million. Dewatering time was estimated in the Feasibility Study at 6 months utilizing 10 extraction wells at a combined rate of 40 gallons per minute. This time period could be approximately halved utilizing 20 extraction wells at a combined rate of 80 gallons per minute without suffering yield loss in the extraction wells or pressurizing the containment system. This analysis is presented in more detail in later sections of this report which address flushing. 2. Enhanced Volatilization After an initial site dewatering, OTA proposes using an enhanced volatilization technique to extract volatile organics from the landfill prior to the commencement of the proposed partial excavation. This ±2ti 2 126 technique would utilize a combination forced air/vacuum system to extract the volatile organics and other gases and direct them to an on-site treatment system, presumably a vapor-phase carbon adsorption unit. OTA did not provide any details as to (1) the estimated costs for such a system other than to note it is "relatively inexpensive" or (2) the time period over which this system would be required to operate to extract enough volatiles before beginning excavation. Our comments concerning this system are: Based on experience with enhanced volatilization at a site in California, this technique was demonstrated to be effective in collecting compounds which volatilize at ambient temperatures in homogeneous soil. The effectiveness is dependent on establishing a "central flow path" consisting of air extraction and air inlet wells installed just above groundwater. The system as proposed will be operated at a negative internal pressure. Theoretically, a concentration gradient could be created by displacing the equilibrium gradient such that, in time, groundwater contaminants would also be volatilized into the soil and similarly be extracted by the wells. Enhanced volatilization has also been applied at three California sites with demonstrated recovery rates of 1 to 2 pounds per day, 25 pounds per day, and 200 pounds per day, respectively. However, these systems have been used at industrial sites where the toxic compounds are well defined and limited in number in homogeneous soil, unlike the conditions at LiPari where a wide variety of chemical compounds exist and the fill material is heterogeneous. Other experience to date has mainly revolved around two pilot systems. In one field experiment a homogeneous sandy soil in the unsaturated zone was contaminated with "low" concentrations of volatiles. After 17 weeks of operation over 99 percent of the volatiles were reported to have been re­ moved. In the second field demonstration a sandy soil in the unsaturated zone was contaminated with "high" concentrations of volatiles. In this instance "good" recovery was achieved after 12 months. Costs for using this technique over a 10 acre site were estimated in the $100,000-5200,000 range excluding a vapor recovery/treatment system. • r* */ ±w i 127 Although enhanced volatilization appears promising there are uncertainties regarding the length of time that such a system would be operated to effectively minimize public health risks during any excavation event at LiPari. In California, the systems researched have been designed to be coupled with groundwater treatment. However, the benefits of- implementa­ tion are questionable with respect to the time required to significantly decrease public health risks or reduce contaminant levels prior to excavation. If an enhanced volatilization system were to be coupled at the LiPari site with the groundwater treatment (i.e., flushing) system, then the operation of the two media treatment systems could be conducted concurrently. A combined treatment system may improve the overall cleanup by maximizing the removal of contaminants within the two media of transport. Implementation of an enhanced volatilization system may reduce the amount of risk encountered during excavation at LiPari. Some of the volatiles currently within the interstices of the landfill would be removed and therefore not be dispersed as the landfill is opened and excavated. This is particularly important with regard to methane generated within the site which during an excavation process would give rise to concern about fire and/or explosions. It is anticipated that some volatile compounds will not be removed by the enhanced volatilization process and therefore still be made available to the atmosphere as the landfill material is disturbed through excavation. This release of volatiles will be greatest in those portions of the landfill where, because of short-circuiting or channeliza­ tion due to the heterogeneous makeup of the fill, volatile organics have not been removed by the enhanced volatilization process. The quantity of these volatiles and associated health risks to on-site workers and the nearby residents cannot be accurately defined because of the varied nature of the materials disposed at the LiPari landfill during the 13 year operating history. Accordingly, at the time of excavation, measures to reduce the amount of volatilization must be implemented. Several techniques are discussed in the following section. 128 The capital cost to install an enhanced volatilization system at LiPari with a battery of thirty-six 6-inch PVC wells, varying from 20 to 35 feet deep at the minimal spatial distances of 100 feet apart would be approximately $150,000-$200,000. Additional costs for a vapor phase carbor recovery system utilizing granular activated carbon to treat the contaminated air prior to discharge to atmosphere is estimated at $100,000 resulting in a total cost estimate of $250,000 to $300,000. This estimate does not include operating and maintenance costs which would be dependent principally on carbon replacement requirements to meet ambient air quality criteria. 3. Partial Excavation of the Containment System The OTA report recommends, that only a portion of the LiPari Landfill be excavated and subsequently treated on-site, based on the assumption that only about 6 acres of the total 15 acre LiPari site was used originally as a landfill. Furthermore, OTA states "enough is known about the movement of the underground water to estimate what parts of the site area might be highly contaminated." "It should be possible to establish criteria for certain key contaminants so that areas with higher concentrations can be designated for excavation." Extent of Onsite Contamination: Examining this approach, the spatial distribution of LiPari's "indicator contaminants" may be utilized to ascertain which portions of the containment system are in fact con­ taminated. As noted in the Onsite Feasibility Study (FS), 13 indicator compounds were selected for the LiPari site based on concentration, mobility, and toxicity. These compounds were: bis (2-chloroethyl) ether; 1.2, dichloroethane; methylene chloride; toluene; benzene; phenol; chromium; nickel; lead; mercury; selenium; arsenic; and silver. Table 1 and Figure 1 indicate the distribution of these contaminants within the 15 acre containment system. It is apparent from the information presented that the extent of con­ tamination is more widespread than the original six acre landfill. Each of < o 129 TAAU I oismieuTion or ttoic*n4 oencAis vimm nc omvAiiMNr $vsu« lutlcitar
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Disinfection and Disposal WHO 2015.Docx.Docx
    Disinfection and Disposal fact sheet Pre-cleaning equipment Disinfectants will not work effectively if equipment has organic materials stuck to it (e.g. mud, fecal material, dried blood, feathers, hair). Therefore, it is important to pre-clean all equipment to remove organic materials. This can be done with a stiff brush and liquid detergent or (because some disinfectants are inactivated by detergents), pre-cleaning may be done with the same agent that will be used in the disinfection step. Check the label of the disinfectant you plan to use for guidance on pre-cleaning. Disinfecting equipment The appropriate disinfectant to use when cleaning equipment is determined by the biological agent potentially involved. Below are a few examples: 1. Influenza A viruses (e.g. Highly pathogenic avian influenza – HPAI) a. Liquid detergent, 10% bleach solution, Virkon®, Roccal D Plus® b. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/avian_flu_products.htm c. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/fad_epa_disinfectants.pdf 2. Prion diseases (e.g. Chronic wasting disease – CWD) a. Few effective decontamination techniques have been published, and no disinfectants or sterilants are registered by EPA for reducing the infectivity of prions. However, EPA has issued quarantine exemptions to several states for use of Environ™ LpH™ (a mixture of three phenolic active ingredients) for treatment of surfaces in commercial, government, and veterinary laboratories to reduce the infectivity of prions. Surfaces should be treated for more than 1 hour at 20°C (68°F). Overnight disinfection is recommended for equipment. http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/pdf/fad-prep-nahems-guidelines-cleaning-and-disinfection see page 31.
    [Show full text]
  • I8-M15 Medical Incinerator the I8-M15 Is Our Smallest , Plug and Play Medical Incinerator
    i8-M15 Medical Incinerator The i8-M15 is our smallest , plug and play medical incinerator. Developed for use in smaller health clinics, laboratories and regional hospitals. It is well suited for use as a mobile incinerator due to its small footprint and simple setup. 3mm 850°C EASY SETUP CORETEX TEMP PLUG ‘N’ PLAY IN 5 SMIN INSULATION GAUGESTEEL AS STANDARD 2 SECOND RETENTION Plug ’n’ Play Setup & Operation Industry Leading Insulation Long Lasting Construction Designed to excel This model boasts the quickest Coretex© insulation is a specially The i8-M15 internal frame is Each of our incinerators has been setup time of any of our models. formulated substrate containing constructed from British made tested to exacting standards Simply remove from packaging, various levels of material that high quality 3mm mild steel ensuring they meet our strict connect electricity and add some ensure almost all of the heat plate. They are fully welded for guidelines. fuel to the tank - Making this generated within our incinerators maximum strength by our time- an ideal model to have trailer stays inside them - increasing served coded welders and now This machine can reach in mounted so you can relocate your performance and efficiency to fully clad in steel. Meaning you get excess of 850°C in the secondary incinerator to where it is needed another level. years of trouble-free operation. chamber and also retains the most week by week. gases for the 2 seconds required. Designed to burn Type I - IV pathological waste and infectious and contaminated “red bag,” surgical dressings, plastic test devices and other wastes.
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Practice for Small Incinerators
    Code of Practice for Small Incinerators September 2005 made under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act © Published by Alberta Queen’s Printer Queen’s Printer Bookstore 5th Floor, Park Plaza 10611-98 Avenue Edmonton, AB T5K 2P7 Phone: 780-427-4952 Fax: 780-452-0668 Email: [email protected] Shop on-line at www.qp.alberta.ca 1 ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT CODE OF PRACTICE FOR SMALL INCINERATORS (made under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c.E-12, as amended and Waste Control Regulation (AR 192/96), as amended) Table of Contents 1. Definitions 2. General Requirements 3. Analytical Requirements 4. Registration Application/Administration Requirements 5. Design Requirements 6. Operational and Emission Requirements 7. Monitoring Requirements 8. Closure Requirements 9. Reporting Requirements 10. Record Keeping Requirements 11. Code of Practice Administration Schedule 1 Registration Information for Small Incinerators 2 Section 1: Definitions 1.1 All definitions in the Act and the regulations under the Act apply except where expressly defined in this Code of Practice. 1.2 In this Code of Practice: (a) “Act” means the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c.E-12, as amended; (b) “auxiliary burner” means a burner that fires auxiliary fuel in a small incinerator for the purpose of: (i) preheating, (ii) drying and igniting solid waste, or (iii) maintaining adequate operating temperatures; (c) “ISO 17025” means the international standard, developed and published by International Organization for Standardization
    [Show full text]
  • Ocean Incineration: Its Role in Managing Hazardous Waste (Part 9
    Chapter 7 Comparison of Land-Based and Ocean Incineration Technologies Contents Page Composition of Incineration Products . .. ....119 Plume Gases . ...119 Residual Parent Compounds and Products of Incomplete Combustion (PICs) . ........119 Metals and Particulate. .1’20 Solid Residues . ............121 Comparison of ’Technical and Regulatory Requirements. ........122 Waste Analysis and Waste Limitations. ..122 Performance Standards . , . .......123 Operating Conditions . , . 125 Air Pollution Control Technology . ..............127 Sampling and Monitoring Requirements and Procedures . .. ...128 .Additional Provisions Not Required of Land-Based Incineration . ..129 Chapter 7 References . ..129 Table Table No. Page 12. Performance Standards Applicable to Land-Based and Ocean Incineration. .124 Chapter 7 Comparison of Land-Based and Ocean Incineration Technologies Although liquid organic wastes are currently This chapter describes the nature of the combus- managed in various ways, ocean incineration’s pri- tion products arising from both land-based and mary competition and closest analog is land-based ocean incineration and compares and contrasts their incineration. Therefore, it is important to compare respective technical and regulatory requirements. and contrast their technical features, the nature and extent of their regulation, and their relative risks of environmental release and adverse impacts. COMPOSITION OF INCINERATION PRODUCTS The products resulting from incineration of haz- waste incineration may contribute significantly to ardous waste, whether on land or at sea, can re- the risks posed by hazardous air pollutants. sult from complete or partial thermal oxidation of waste components. The products can be grouped Residual Parent Compounds and Products as follows: plume gases, residual parent com- pounds, products of incomplete combustion (PICs), of Incomplete Combustion (PICs) metals and particulate, and solid residues.
    [Show full text]
  • Disposal of Bulk Quantities of Obsolete Pesticides in Developing Countries 1
    The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechani- cal, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. © FAO 1996 iii Foreword These guidelines have been prepared jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organiza- tion of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The technical information and recommendations presented in these guidelines have been approved by a panel of experts nominated by the three organizations. The guidelines are published by FAO under project GCP/INT/572/NET: “Prevention and Disposal of Unwanted Pesticide Stocks in Africa and the Near East”, funded by the government of the Netherlands. The guidelines are considered generally applicable and of interest to many countries, aid agencies and the pesticide industry. New disposal methods are continually being developed. The intention is to revise these guidelines or to issue addenda when important new disposal methods become available that can be used safely in developing countries and are cost-effective.
    [Show full text]
  • INCINER8 Waste Incineration Mobile Incinerators
    INCINER8 Waste Incineration Mobile Incinerators Animal & Waste Incinerators We can now offer our range of incinerators exclusively throughout Europe and the rest of the world through our dealer network. Our range of units are fully CE certified, ensuring that we meet the highest standards in safety and construction. The mobile incinerator range of are ideal for shared facilities or remote places. Mobile Incinerators Our latest range of mobile units lend themselves to a variety of uses, whether it is for shared facilities, camps, farms or even for disease control (Avian Influenza) in remote areas. One of the unique features of this range is the natural secondary burn characteristics of the primary chamber. The design of this model ensures extra air is drawn into the main chamber aiding primary combustion to ensure the efficient disposal of waste or carcasses at minimum cost. These units are the highest standards for waste disposal, and benefit from being extremely durable for a long working life. Mobile A850 KEY FEATURES Ease of Use • Galvanised twin axle trailer with ramp Auto ignition. No pilots to light. Set the • Integral fuel tank timer and walk away. • Diesel generator set Built-in skid facilitates placement • Low running and maintenance costs • Fully Automatic and simple to operate Fuel Efficiency control panel Rapid incineration means low fuel • Incineration Temperatures in Excess of consumption. 1300 degrees C Higher burn rate than smaller models. • Dense Refractory Concrete Lining Rated Thick refractory lining in main chamber to 1600 degrees C retains heat, increasing efficiency. • Solid Hearth to Allow Maximum Burnout • Top Opening Lid For Easy Loading Quality Built to Last • Stainless Steel Flue as standard Heat resistant 5mm steel.
    [Show full text]
  • What's in Our Gasoline Is Killing Us Mobile Source Air Toxics (Msats)
    ETHYLBENZENE What’s in our gasoline is killing us Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) and the Threat to Public Health A Fact Book from In cooperation with DEAR READER: Today’s gasoline additives share the same storyline and shameless history of deceit with lead (i.e., a now banned additive to gasoline1), tobacco and #Dieselgate. This Fact Book, What’s in Our Gasoline is Killing Us: Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) and the Threat to Public Health, is intended to educate and inform the reader that the public has been victim to 25 years of exposure to mobile source air toxics (MSATs) since the phase out of lead in gasoline, only to be replaced by even more dangerous additives. We cannot allow the tobacco/lead/gasoline history to continue without toxic and carcinogenic aromatic compounds being properly regulated. Popular petroleum-based additives used to increase octane include benzene, toluene, xylene and several derivatives of benzene referred to as BTX or BTEX. These comprise almost half the aromatic compounds in gasoline and are classified as known, probable or possible carcinogens. These various forms of benzene are present both in volume in the fuels as well as being created through the combustion of all aromatics. We believe there is a demonstrated history of private interest manipulating government responsibility to protect the public interest–with personal health left hanging in the balance. The American Petroleum Institute (API) stated in 1948 that “it is generally “There is no safe exposure level to considered that the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero.”3 benzene; even tiny amounts can Despite the clear and present danger of benzene, it was not until the 1990 Clean Air Act cause harm.
    [Show full text]
  • Vertac Dioxin Waste Disposal Options
    VERTAC DIOXIN WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS Site History The Vertac Chemical Corporation, Jacksonville, Arkansas, plant has been the continuing object of EPA scrutiny since dioxin-contaminated wastes were found there in 1979. Because of the extremely toxic nature of these wastes, a suit was filed by the United States and the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology against Vertac and its predecessor. Hercules, Incorporated, for injunctive relief to clean up the facility. One of the problems at the facility involved the disposal of approximately 4,000 drums containing 2,4,5-T wastes. These wastes were highly contaminated with tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), one of the most toxic man-made substances known. In 1982 a Consent Decree was entered in the Vertac case. Part of this Consent Decree required Vertac to submit and implement a waste management C\J plan to dispose of the containerized waste on site. r<^ 0 Prior to entry of the Consent Decree, EPA was concerned that these wastes^ might be disposed of in an unregulated land disposal facility. As a result, a^ rule was promulgated under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act. This so called "Vertac Rule" prohibited off-site disposal of the 2,4,5-T waste or other dioxin contaminated waste. Vertac was required to store the waste until an acceptable disposal method could be found. The acceptable method for dioxin disposal was promulgated on January 14, 1985, as part of the new Dioxin Listing Rule, a regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This rule allows disposal of some dioxin only at facilities with a RCRA permit, or by incineration or thermal treatment at facilities which have interim status under RCRA and have received, a special certification to dispose of dioxin waste from EPA.
    [Show full text]
  • Re: Final Record of Decision OU1 Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant Site
    2023291 Final Record of Decision Operable Unit 1 Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant Site Mead, Nebraska U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VII Kansas City, Kansas Department of the Army U.S. Army Engineer District Kansas City Corps of Engineers Kansas City, Missouri oo August 1995 •-* cL i" OU 1 Record of Decision/Responsiveness Summary Fanner Nebraska Ordnance Plant TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1.0 DECLARATION ...................................... 1 2.0 DECISION SUMMARY .................................. 5 2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION ............. 5 2.2 SITE HISTORY AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS .......... 6 2.2.1 Site History ............................... 6 2.2.2 Previous Investigations ......................... 7 2.2.3 Summary of OU 1 RI Results .................... 8 2.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ....................... 9 2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 1 REMEDIAL ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY .......................... 11 2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............... 12 2.6 REMOVAL ACTIONS ............................. 12 2.7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS ......................... 13 2.7.1 Potential Human Health Risks ................... 13 2.7.2 Potential Environmental Risks ................... 18 2.8 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ...................... 18 2.8.1 Alternative 1 - No Action ...................... 19 2.8.2 Alternative 2 - Biological Treatment ............... 19 2.8.3 Alternative 3 - Rotary Kiln Incineration ............. 20 2.8.4 Alternative 4 - On-Site Landfill .................. 21 2.8.5 Alternative 5 - Off-Site Landfill .................. 21 2.9 TREATABILITY STUDIES .......................... 22 2.10 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 22 2.10.1 Introduction .............................. 22 2.10.2 Comparison of Alternatives ..................... 23 2.10.3 Summary ................................ 27 2.11 THE SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION .................. 28 2.12 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS ..................... 28 2.12.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment ......
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Investigation of a Portable Incinerator: a Parametric Study
    processes Article Numerical Investigation of a Portable Incinerator: A Parametric Study Mohsen Saffari Pour 1,2 , Ali Hakkaki-Fard 1,* and Bahar Firoozabadi 1 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 79417, Iran; [email protected] (M.S.P.); fi[email protected] (B.F.) 2 KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 114 28 Stockholm, Sweden * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +98-216-616-5525 Received: 18 June 2020; Accepted: 21 July 2020; Published: 2 August 2020 Abstract: The application of incinerators for the municipal solid waste (MSW) is growing due to the ability of such instruments to produce energy and, more specifically, reduce waste volume. In this paper, a numerical simulation of the combustion process with the help of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) inside a portable (mobile) incinerator has been proposed. Such work is done to investigate the most critical parameters for a reliable design of a domestic portable incinerator, which is suitable for the Iranian food and waste culture. An old design of a simple incinerator has been used to apply the natural gas (NG), one of the available cheap fossil fuels in Iran. After that, the waste height, place of the primary burner, and the flow rate of the cooling air inside the incinerator, as the main parameters of the design, are investigated. A validation is also performed for the mesh quality test and the occurrence of the chemical reactions near the burner of the incinerator. Results proved that the numerical results have less than 5% error compared to the previous experimental and numerical approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Report: 1973-06-30 (Part 2) Study Of
    Study of Abatement Methods and Meteorological Conditions for Optimum Dispersion of Particulates from Field Burning of Rice Straw Rice Straw Incinerator Evaluation ARB Project 1-102-1 University of California Davis, California Principal Investigators George E. Miller, Jr. John R. Goss June 30, 1973 Abstract The project was initiated in December, 1970, to determine the potentials of mobile incineration as a practical means of reducing particulate emissions from combustive disposal of rice field residues. Previous studies on inciner­ ators indicated improved combustion is possible under controlled conditions. Capacity, mobility, durability, economics, wild fire control and other pro­ blems existed. However, information on the state of the art was needed under California rice field conditions because of the continuing need to reduce all contributions to the statewide air pollution problem. An experimental mobile field sanitizer (incinerator} was transported from Oregon to California. Test runs and modifications were made on the unit for use on rice field residues in California in the fall of 1971 and spring of 1972. Tests were also conducted in barley fields during the spring and summer of 1972 on a mobile straw burner prototype developed by an inventor in California. Results of the tests of both units indicate that the state of the art is not sufficiently developed for use in rice field residue disposal. Projected overall costs of operation are not within the limits of economic feasibility at this time. Under reasonably good climatic conditions in California, well managed open field burns will have less particulate emissions than the incin­ erator tested. Under poor climatic conditions, the mobile incinerator cannot be operated in rice fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Carcass Management Desk Reference Guide (DRG)
    EMERGENCY CARCASS MANAGEMENT DESK REFERENCE GUIDE JUNE 2017 Contents Applicability Statement ..................................................................................................................................................I Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................................................II USDA Response Process ................................................................................................................................................III SECTION 1: RESPONSE PROCESS Operations Procedures .............................................................................................................................................1-1 SECTION 2: DECISION TOOL Information Needed for Carcass Management Decisions ..............................................................................2-1 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................2-2 HPAI Carcass Management Decision Tool..........................................................................................................2-4 Carcass Management Decision Cycle ..................................................................................................................2-7 Carcass Management Options Checklist ............................................................................................................2-8
    [Show full text]