United States
                            Environmental Protection
                            Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, DC 20460
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
                            Superfund
EPA/540/2-90/014
September 1990
                            Engineering Bulletin
     EPA             Mobile/Transportable
                            Incineration Treatment
Purpose

    Section  121(b) of the  Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to select remedies
that "utilize  permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in which
treatment "permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants as a principal element." The Engineering Bulletins
are a series of documents that summarize the latest information
available on  selected treatment and  site remediation
technologies and related issues. They provide summaries of
and references for the latest information  to help remedial
project managers, on-scene  coordinators, contractors, and
other site cleanup managers understand the type of data and
site characteristics needed to evaluate a technology for potential
applicability to their Superfund or other hazardous waste site.
Those documents  that describe individual treatment
technologies focus on  remedial investigation scoping needs.
Addenda  will be issued periodically to update the  original
bulletins.
Abstract

    Incineration  treats organic contaminants in solids and
liquids by subjecting them to temperatures typically greater
than 1000F in the presence of oxygen, which causes the
volatilization, combustion, and destruction of thesecompounds.
This bulletin describes mobile/transportable incineration systems
that can be moved to and subsequently removed from Superfund
and other hazardous waste sites.  It does not address other
thermal processes that operate at lower temperatures or those
that operate at very high temperatures, such as a plasma arc.
It is applicable to a wide range of organic wastes and is generally
not used in treating inorganics and metals. Mobile/transportable
incinerators exhibit essentially the  same environmental
performance as their stationary counterparts. To date, 49 of the
95 records of decision (RODs) designating thermal remedies at
Superfund sites have selected onsite incineration as an integral
part of a preferred treatment alternative.  There are 22
  commercial-scale units in operation [5]*. This bulletin provides
  information on the technology applicability, the types of residuals
  resulting from the use of the technology, the latest performance
  data, site  requirements, the status of the  technology,  and
  where to go for further information.
  Technology Applicability

      Mobile/transportable incineration has been shown to be
  effective in treating soils, sediments, sludges,  and liquids
  containing primarily organic contaminants such as halogenated
  andnonhalogenatedvolatilesandsemivolatiles, polychlorinated
  biphenyls(PCBs), pesticides, dioxins/furans, organic cyanides,
  and organic corrosives.  The process is applicable for the
  thermal treatment of  a  wide range of  specific Resource
  Conservation  and Recovery  Act (RCRA) wastes and other
  hazardous waste matrices that include pesticides and herbicides,
  spent halogenated and  nonhalogenated solvents, chlorinated
  phenol and chlorinated  benzene manufacturing wastes, wood
  preservation  and wastewater sludge, organic chemicals
  production residues, pesticides production residues, explosives
  manufacturing wastes, petroleum refining wastes, coke industry
  wastes, and organic chemicals residues [1 ] [2] [4] [6 through 11 ]
  [13].

      Information on the physical and chemical characteristics of
  the waste matrix is necessary to assess the matrix's impact on
  waste preparation, handling, and feeding; incinerator type,
  performance,  size, and  cost; air pollution control (APC) type
  and size; and residue  handling.  Key  physical parameters
  include waste matrix physical characteristics (type of matrix,
  physical form, handling properties, and particle size), moisture
  content, and heating value. Key chemical parameters include
  the type and concentration of organic compounds including
  PCBs and dioxins, inorganics (metals), halogens, sulfur,  and
  phosphorous.

      The effectiveness of mobile/transportable incineration on
  general  contaminant groups for various matrices is shown in
  Table! [7, p. 9]. Examples of constituents within contaminant
  groups are provided  in Reference 7, "Technology Screening
  Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges." This table
* [reference number, page number]

-------
                        Table 1
  Effectiveness of Incineration on General Contaminant
      Groups for Soil, Sediment, Sludge, and Liquid
Contaminant Croups



u
c
Q
O





*£
o
s>
o
Jt

SJ
O
£
Halogenated votatiles
Halogenated semivolatiles
Nonhalogenated volatiles
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
PCBs
Pesticides (halogenated)
Dioxins/Furans
Organic cyanides
Organic corrosives
Volatile metais
Nonvolatile metals
Asbestos
Radioactive materials
Inorganic corrosives
Inorganic cyanides
Oxidizers
Reducers
Soil/
Sediment Sludge Liquid
•
•
•
•
•
V
•
V
V
a
a
a
Q
a
V
T
*
•
•
•

•
•
•
T
V
a
a
a
a
a
T
V
*
•
•
•
•

•
•
T
T
Q
a
a
a
a
T
V
V
• Demonstrated Effectiveness: Successful treatability test at some scale
completed
V Potential Effectiveness; Expert opinion that technology will work
Q No Expected Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will not work
is based  on current available information  or professional
judgment when no information was available.  The proven
effectiveness of the technology for a particular site or waste
does not ensure that it will be effective at all sites or that the
treatment efficiency achieved will be acceptable at other sites.
For the ratings used for this table, demonstrated effectiveness
means that, at some scale, treatability was tested to show that
the technology was effective for a particular contaminant and
matrix. The ratings of potential effectiveness or no expected
effectiveness are based upon expert judgment. Where potential
effectiveness is indicated, the technology is believed capable of
successfully treating the contaminant group in a  particular
matrix. When the tech nology is not applicable or wilt probably
not work for a particular combination of contaminant group
and matrix, a no-expected-effectiveness rating is given. Other
sources of general observations and average removal efficiencies
for different treatability groups are the Superfund LDR Guide
#6A, "Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for
Remedial Actions," (OSWER Directive 9347.3-06FS [13],  and
Superfund  LDR Guide  #6B,  "Obtaining  a Soil and  Debris
Treatability Variance for Removal Actions," (OSWER Directive
9347.3-07FS[14].
Limitations

    Toxic metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, and
chromium are not destroyed by combustion. As a result, some
will be present in the ash while  others are volatilized  and
released into the flue gas [1, pp, 3-6].

    Alkali metals, such as  sodium and potassium, can cause
severe refractory attack and form a sticky, low-melting-point
submicron particulate, which causes APC problems. Afowfeed
stream concentration of sodium and potassium may beachieved
through feed stock blending [1, pp. 3-11].

    When PCBs and dioxins are present, higher temperatures
and longer residence times  may be required to destroy them to
levels necessary to meet regulatory criteria [7, p. 34].

    Moisture/water content of waste materials can create the
need to co-incinerate these materials with higher BTU streams,
or to use auxiliary fuels.

    The heating value (BTU content) of the feed  material
affects feed  capacity and fuel usage of the incinerator.   In
general, as the heating value of the feed increases, the feed
capacity and fuel usage of the incinerator will decrease. Solid
materials with high calorific values also may cause transient
behaviors that further limit  feed capacity [9, p. 4].

    The matrix  characteristics  of the waste affect  the
pretreatment required and  the capacity of the incinerator and
can cause APC problems. Organic liquid wastes can be pumped
to and then atomized in the incinerator combustion chamber.
Aqueous liquids may be suitable for incineration if they contain
a substantial amount of organic matter. However, because of
the large energy demand for evaporation when treating large
volumes of aqueous liquids,  pretreatment to dewater the waste
may be cost effective [1, pp. 3-14].  Also, if the organic content
is low, other methods of treatment may be more economical.
For the infrared incinerator, only solid and solid-like materials
within a specific size and moisture content range can  be
processed because of the unique conveyor belt feed system
within the unit.

    Sandy soil is  relatively easy to feed and generally requires
no special handling procedures. Clay, which may be in large
clumps, may require size reduction.  Rocky soils usually require
screening to  remove oversize stones and boulders. The solids
can then be fed by gravity, screwf eeder, or ram-type feeder into
the incinerator.  Some types of solid waste may  also require
crushing, grinding, and/or  shredding prior to incineration [1,
pp. 3-1 7].

    The form and structure of the waste feed can cause periodic
jams in the feed and  ash handling systems.  Wooden pallets,
metal drum closure rings, drum shards, plastics, trash, clothing,
and mud can cause blockages if poorly prepared.  Muddy soils
can stick to waste processing equipment and plug  the feed
system [9, p.  8].
                                       Engineering Bulletin; Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment

-------
     The particle size distribution of the ash generated from the
 waste can affect the amount of particulate carry-over from the
 combustion chamber to the rest of the system [9, p. 16].

     Incineration of halogens,  such as fluorine and chlorine,
 generates acid gases  that can affect  the capacity, the water
 removal and  replacement rates that control  total  dissolved
 solids in the process water system, and the particulate emissions
 [9, p. 12]. The solutions used to neutralize these acid gases add
 to the cost of operating this technology.

    Organic phosphorous compounds form phosphorous pent-
oxide, which attacks refractory material,  causes slagging prob-
lems and ARC problems. Slagging can be controlled by feed
blending or operating at lower temperatures [1, pp. 3-10].
Technology Description
    Figure 1  is  a schematic of the mobile/transportable
incineration process.

    Waste preparation (1) includes excavation and/or moving
the waste to the site. Depending on the requirements of the
incinerator type for soils and solids, various equipment is used
to obtain the necessary feed size.  Blending is sometimes
required to achieve a uniform feed size and moisture content or
to dilute troublesome components [1, pp. 3-19].

    The waste feed mechanism (2), which varies with the type
of the incinerator, introduces the waste into the combustion
system.  The feed mechanism sets the requirements for waste
preparation and is a potential source of problems in the actual
operation of incinerators if not carefully designed [1, pp. 3-19].

    Different incinerator designs (3) use different mechanisms
to obtain the temperature at which the furnace is operated, the
time during which the combustible material is subject to that
temperature, and the turbulence required to ensure that all the
combustible material is exposed to oxygen to ensure complete
combustion. Three common types of incineration systems for
treating contaminated soils are rotary kiln, circulating fluidized
bed, and infrared.

    The rotary kiln is a slightly inclined cylinder that rotates on
its horizontal axis. Waste is fed into the high  end of the rotary
kiln and passes through the combustion chamber by gravity. A
secondary combustion chamber (afterburner) further destroys
unburned organics in the flue gases [7, p. 40].
                                                      Figure 1
                                     Mobile/Transportable Incineration Process
                                                                                                          Treated
                                                                                                          Emissions

                                                                                                          Stack
                                                                                                          Emissions
                                                                                                          Solids
  Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment

-------
    Circulating fluidized bed incinerators use high air velocity
to circulate and suspend the fuel/waste particles in a combustor
loop.  Flue gas  is separated from heavier particles in a solids
separation cyclone.  Circulating fluidized beds do not require
an afterburner [7, p. 35].

    Infrared processing systems use electrical resistance heating
elements or indirect fuel-fired radiant  U-tubes to  generate
thermal radiation [1, pp. 4-5]. Waste is fed into the combustion
chamber by a conveyor belt and exposed to the radiant heat.
Exhaust gases pass through a secondary combustion chamber,

    Offgases  from  the incinerator are treated by  the ARC
equipment to remove particulates and capture and neutralize
acids (4).  Rotary  kilns and infrared processing systems may
require both external paniculate control and acid gas scrubbing
systems. Circulating fluidized beds do not require scrubbing
systems because limestone can  be added  directly into the
combustor loop but may require a system to remove particulates
[1, pp. 4-11 ] [2, p. 32]. ARC equipment that can be used include
venturi  scrubbers, wet electrostatic precipitators, baghouses,
and packed scrubbers.
Process Residuals

    Three major waste streams are generated by this technology:
solids from the incinerator and APC system, water from the ARC
system, and emissions from the incinerator.

    Ash and treated soil/solidsfromtheincinerator combustion
chamber may be contaminated with heavy metals. APC system
solids, such as fly  ash, may contain high concentrations of
volatile metals. If these residues  fail required leachate toxicity
tests, they can be treated by a process such as stabilization/
solidification and disposed of onsite or in  an approved landfill
[7, p. 126].

    Liquid  waste from the APC  system may contain caustic,
high chlorides, volatile metals, trace organics, metal particulates,
and inorganic particulates. Treatment may require neutralization,
chemical precipitation, reverse osmosis, settling, evaporation,
filtration, or carbon adsorption before discharge [7, p. 127].

    The flue  gases from the incinerator  are treated by APC
systems such as electrostatic precipitators or venturi scrubbers
before discharge through a stack.
Site Requirements

    The site should be accessible by truck or rail and a graded/
gravel area is required for setup of the system. Concrete pads
may be required for some equipment (e.g., rotary kiln). For a
typical 5 tons per hour commercial-scale unit, 2 to 5 acres are
required for the overall system site including ancillary support
[10, p. 25].

    Standard 440V three-phase electrical service is needed. A
continuous water supply must be available at the site. Auxiliary
fuel for feed BTU improvement may be required.
    Contaminated soils orother waste materials are hazardous
and their handling requires that a site safety plan be developed
to provide for personnel protection  and special handling
measures.

    Various ancillary equipment may be required, such  as
liquid/sludge transfer and feed pumps, ash collection and solids
handling equipment,  personnel and maintenance facilities,
and process-generated waste treatment equipment. In addition,
a feed-materials staging area, a decontamination trailer, an ash
handling area, water treatment facilities, and a parking  area
may be required [10, p. 24].

    Proximity to a residential neighborhood will affect plant
noise requirements and may result in more stringent emissions
limitations on the incineration system.

    Storage area and/or tanks for fuel, wastewater, and blending
of waste feed materials may be needed.

    No specific onsite analytical capabilities are necessary on a
routine basis; however, depending on the site characteristics or
a specific Federal, State, or local requirement, some analytical
capability may be required.
Performance Data

    More than any other technology, incineration is subject to
a series  of technology-specific regulations,  including the
following Federal requirements: the Clean Air Act 40 CFR 52.21
for air emissions; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 CFR
761.40for PCB treatment and disposal; National Environmental
Policy Act 40 CFR 6; RCRA 40 CFR 261/262/264/270 for
hazardous waste generation, treatment performance, storage,
and disposal standards; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System 33 U.S.C. 1251 for discharge to surface waters; and the
Noise Control Act P.L 92-574. RCRA incineration standards
have been proposed that address metal emissions and products
of incomplete combustion. In addition, State requirements
must  be met if they are more stringent than  the  Federal
requirements [1, p. 6-1].

    All incineration operations conducted at CERCLA sites on
hazardous waste must comply with substantive and defined
Federal  and  State applicable  or  relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) at the site.  A substantial body of trial
burn results and other quality assured data exists to verify that
incinerator operations remove and destroy organic contaminants
from a variety of waste matrices to the parts per billion or even
the parts per trillion level, while meeting stringent stackemission
and water discharge requirements. The demonstrated treatment
systems that will be discussed in the technology status section,
therefore, can meet all the performance standards  defined by
the applicable Federal and State regulations on waste treatment,
air emissions, discharge of process waters, and residue ash
disposal [1, p. A-1 ] [4, p. 4] [10, p. 9].

    RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) that require
treatment of wastes to best demonstrated available technology
(BDAT)  levels prior  to  land  disposal may sometimes be
determined to be ARARs for CERCLA response actions. The solid
                                       Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment

-------
 residuals from the incinerator may not meet required treatment
 levels in all cases.  In cases where residues do not meet BOAT
 levels,  mobile incineration still may be selected, in  certain
 situations, for use at the site if a treatability variance establishing
 alternative treatment levels is obtained.  EPA has made the
 treatability variance process available in order to ensure that
 LDRs do not unnecessarily  restrict the use of alternative and
 innovative treatment technologies. Treatability variances may
 be justified for handling complex soil and debris matrices. The
 following guides describe when and  how to seek a treatability
 variance for soil and  debris:  Superfund LDR  Guide #6A,
 "Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial
Actions," (OSWER Directive 9347.3-06FS) [13] and Superfund
 LDR  Guide #6B, "Obtaining a Soil and  Debris Treatability
Variance for Removal Actions," (OSWER  Directive 9347.3-
 07FS)[14].
    Table 2 lists the site  experience of the various mobile/
transportable incinerator systems. It includes information on
the incinerator type/size, the site size, location, and contaminant
source or waste type treated [5] [3, p. 80] [8, p. 74].

    The cost of incineration includes fixed and operational
costs.  Fixed costs include site  preparation, permitting, and
mobilization/demobilization. Operational costs such as labor,
utilities, and fuel are dependent on the type of waste treated
and the size of the site. Figure 2 gives an estimate of the total
cost for incinerator systems based on  site size [12, pp. 1-3].
Superfund  sites contaminated  with  only  volatile organic
compounds can have even lower costs for thermal treatment
then the costs shown in Figure 2.
Technology Status

    To date, 49 of the 95 RODs designating thermal remedies
at Superfund sites have selected onsite incineration as an
integral part of a preferred treatment alternative.
EPA Contact

    Technology-specific questions  regarding  mobile/
transportable incineration may be directed  to  Donald A.
Oberacker, U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, 26
West  Martin  Luther  King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268,
telephone: FTS 684-7510 or (513) 569-7510.
                                                      Table 2.
                                                 Technology Status

Treatment
System/
Vendor
Rotary Kiln
fnsco





Rotary Kiln
IT



Rotary Kiln
Vesta









Capacity
(MM BTU/Hr)
35





100
56




8

12






Experience

»
Site, Location
Sydney Mines, Valrico, FL4
Lenz Oil NPL Site, Lemont, )LA
Naval Construction Battalion
Center (NCBC), Gulfport, MS
Union Carbide, Seadrift, TX*
Smithiville, Canada*
Bridgeport Rental, Bridgeport, N|*A
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
(CMP), Grand Island, NE*
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant
(LAAP), Shreveport, LA*A
Motco, Texas City, TX*4
Fairway Six Site, Aberdeen, NC

Fort A.P. Hill, Bowling Green, VA
Nyanza/Nyacol Site, Ashland, MA4
Southern Crop Services Site
Delray Beach, FL
American Crossarm & Conduit Site
Chehalis, WAS
Rocky Boy, Havre, MT*
Waste Volume
(torn)
10,000
26,000
22,000

N/A
7,000
100,000
45,000

100,000

80,000
50

200
1,000
1,500

900

1,800
Contaminant Source or
Waste Type
Waste oil
Hydrocarbon - sludge/solid/liquid
Dioxin/soil

Chemical manufacturing
PCB transformer leaks
Used oil recycling
Munitions plant redwater pits

Munitions plant redwater lagoon

Styrene tar disposal pits
Pesticide dump

Army base
Dye manufacturing
Crop dusting operation

Wood treatment

Wood treatment
 NA - Not available   * Contracted, others completed    A Superfund Site
                                [Source: References 3, 5, 8]
Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment

-------
                                                 Table 2
                                       Technology Status (Continued)
Treatment
System/
Vendor
Rotary Kiln
Weston
Rotary Kiln
AET
Rotary Kiln
Boliden
Rotary Kiln
Harmon
Rotary Kiln
Bell
Rotary Kiln
Kimmins
Rotary Kiln
USEPA
Rotary Kiln
Vertac
Shirco Infrared
Haztech
Shirco Infrared
CDC Engr.
Shirco Infrared
OH Materials
Shirco Infrared
U.S. Waste
Circulating Bed
Combustor
Qgden
Thermal
Capacity
(MM BTU/Hr)
35
20
40
82
30
100
10
35
30
NA
30
12
10
10
Experience
Site, Location
Lauder Salvage, Beardstown, IL
Paxton Ave., Chicago, IL*
Valdez, AK
Oak Creek, WI
Prentis Creosote fit Forest Products
Prentis, MS
Bog Creek, Howell Township, NJ4
Bell Lumber&Pole,
New Brighton, MNd
Lasalle, IL*4
Denney Farm, MO
Vertac, Jacksonville, AR*a
Peak Oil, Tampa, FU5
Lasalle, IL*
Rubicon, Geismar, LA*
Florida Steel, Indiantown, FLa
Twin City AAP, New Brighton, MN
Coosebay, Canada
Gas Station Site, Cocoa, FL
Private Site, San Bernadino, CA
Arco Swanson River Field
Kenai, AK*
Stockton, CA*
Waste Volume
(torn)
8,500
1 6,000
NA
50,000
9,200
22,500
21,000
69,000
6,250
6,500
7,QDO
30,000
52,000
18,000
2,000
4,000
1,000
5,400
80,000
16,000
Contaminant Source or
Waste Type
Metal scrap salvage
Waste lagoon
Crude oil spilt
Dye manufacturing
Creosote/soil
Organics
Wood treatment
PCB capacitor manufacturing
Dioxin Soils
Chemical manufacturing
Used oil recycling, PCBs/Lead
Transformer reconditioning
Chemical manufacturing
Steel mill used oils
Munitions plant
PCBs
Petroleum tank leak
Hydrocarbons
Oil pipeline compressor oil
Underground tank oil leak
NA - Not available   * Contracted, others completed    ASuperfund Site
[Source: References 3, 5, 8]
                                  Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment

-------
                                                     Figure 2
                                      Effect of Site Size on Incineration Costs
                                  Very Small      Small       Medium       Large
                                    <5,000    5,000-15,000  15,000-30,000   >30,000
Source: The Hazardous Waste Consultant [12, pp. 1-3]
Site Size-Tons
                                              REFERENCES
1.    High Temperature Thermal Treatment for CERCLA
     Waste:  Evaluation and Selection of On-site and Off-site
     Systems. EPA/540/X-88/006, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and
     Emergency Response, December 1988.
2.    Gupta, G., A. Sherman, and A. Gangadharan,
     Hazardous Waste Incineration: The Process and the
     Regulatory/Institutional Hurdles, Foster Wheeler
     Enviresponse, Inc., Livingston,  N)., (no date).
3.    Cudahy, J., and A. Eicher. Thermal Remediation
     Industry, Markets, Technology, Companies, Pollution
     Engineering, 1989.
4.    Stumbar,)., et al. EPA Mobile Incineration
     Modifications, Testing and Operations, February 1986
     to June  1989.  EPA/600/2-90/042, U.S Environmental
     Protection Agency, 1990.
5.    Cudahy, )., and W. Troxler. Thermal Remediation
     Industry Update II, Focus Environmental, Inc. Knoxville,
     TN,  1990.
6.    Experience in Incineration Applicable to Superfund Site
     Remediation. EPA/625/9-88/008, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency Risk Reduction Engineering
     Laboratory and Center for Environmental Research
     Information, 1988,
7.    Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA
     Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004, U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.
        8.   Johnson, N., and M. Cosmos.  Thermal Treatment
            Technologies for Haz Waste Remediation, Pollution
            Engineering, 1989.
        9.   Stumbar, )., et al. Effect of Feed Characteristics on the
            Performance of Environmental Protection Agency's
            Mobile Incineration System. In Proceedings of the
            Fifteenth Annual Research Symposium, Remedial
            Action, Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes.
            EPA/600/9-90/006, 1990.
        10.  Shirco Infrared Incineration System, Applications
            Analysis Report.  EPA/540/A5-89/010, U.S.
            Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.
        11.  Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes.
            EPA 540/2-86/003(f), U.S. Environmental Protection
            Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
            1986.
        12.  McCoy and Associates, Inc., The Hazardous Waste
            Consultant, Volume 7, Issue 3, 1989.
        1 3.  Superfund LDR Guide #6A:  Obtaining a Soil and
            Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions.
            OSWER Directive 9347.3-06FS, U.S, Environmental
            Protection  Agency, 1989.
        14.  Superfund LDR Guide #6B:  Obtaining a Soil and Debris
            Treatability Variance for Removal Actions. OSWER
            Directive 9347.3-07FS, U.S.  Environmental Protection
            Agency, 1989.
Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment

-------
Additional Reference:
     Oppelt, E.T. Incineration of Hazardous Waste-A Crtitical
     Review. J. Air Poll. Cont. Assn. 37(5):558-586, 1987.
  United States                               Center for Environmental Research                     BULK RATE
  Environmental Protection                    Information                                    POSTAGE & FEES PAID
  Agency                                    Cincinnati, OH 45268                                   EPA
                                                                                            PERMIT No. G-35


  Official Business
  Penalty for Private Use $300

-------