svEPA
                           United States
                           Environmental Protection
                           Agency
                           Office of Emergency and
                           Remedial Response
                           Washington, DC 20460
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
                           Superfund
                           EPA/540/2-91/024
October1991
Engineering  Bulletin
Granular  Activated
Carbon  Treatment
Purpose

    Section 121(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, 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 technolo-
gies and related issues.  They provide summaries of and refer-
ences for the latest information to help remedial project man-
agers, 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 reme-
dial investigation scoping needs. Addenda will be issued peri-
odically to update the original bulletins.
Abstract

    Granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment is a physico-
chemical process that removes a wide variety of contaminants
by adsorbing them from liquid and gas streams [1, p. 6-3]. This
treatment is most commonly used to separate organic con-
taminants from water or air; however, it can be used to remove
a limited number of inorganic contaminants [2,  p. 5-1 7].  In
most cases, the contaminants are collected in concentrated
form on the CAC, and further treatment is required.

    The  contaminant (adsorbate) adsorbs to the surfaces of
the  microporous carbon granules until the GAC becomes ex-
hausted. The GAC may then be either reactivated, regenerated,
or discarded. The reactivation process destroys most contami-
nants. In  some  cases, spent GAC can be regenerated, typically
using steam to  desorb and collect concentrated contaminants
for further treatment.  If GAC is to be discarded, it may have to
be handled as a hazardous waste.
* [reference number, page number]
                                Site-specific treatability studies are generally necessary to
                             document the applicability  and  potential  performance of a
                             GAC system. This bulletin provides information on the tech-
                             nology applicability, technology limitations, a technology de-
                             scription, the types of residuals produced,  site requirements,
                             latest performance data, status of the technology, and sources
                             for further information.
                            Technology Applicability

                                Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use as
                            a treatment for municipal, industrial, and hazardous waste
                            streams. The concepts, theory, and engineering aspects of the
                            technology are well developed [3]. It is a proven technology
                            with documented performance data. GAC is a relatively non-
                            specific adsorbent and is effective for removing many organic
                            and  some inorganic contaminants from  liquid  and gaseous
                            streams [4].

                                The effectiveness of GAC as an adsorbent for general con-
                            taminant groups is shown in Table 1. Examples of constituents
                            within  contaminant groups are  provided  in  "Technology
                            Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges"
                            [5].  This table 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 effec-
                            tiveness  means that, at some scale, treatability was tested to
                            show that, for that particular contaminant and matrix, the
                            technology was effective. The ratings of potential effectiveness
                            and no expected effectiveness are based upon expert judge-
                            ment. Where potential effectiveness is indicated, the technology
                            is believed capable of  successfully treating the contaminant
                            group in a particular  matrix.  When  the technology is not
                            applicable or will probably not work for a particular combina-
                            tion of contaminant group and matrix, a no-expected-effective-
                            ness rating is given.

                                The effectiveness of GAC is related to the chemical com-
                            position and molecular structure of the  contaminant.  Or-

-------
                          Table 1
       Effectiveness of Granular Activated Carbon on
               General Contaminant Groups
                        Table 2
           Organic Compounds Amenable to
                 Adsorption by GAC [1 ]
Contaminant Groups



u
o
6




.0
o
ET
o
.c


1
u
o
ce
Halogenated volatiles
Halogenated semivolatiles
Nonhalogenated volatilesa
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
PCBs
Pesticides
Dioxins/Furans
Organic cyanides a
Organic corrosives a
Volatile metals-1
Nonvolatile metals a
Asbestos
Radioactive materials a
Inorganic corrosives
Inorganic cyanides b
Oxidizersb
Reducers
Liquid /Gas
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
T
•
•
•
j
•
j
•
m
j
• Demonstrated Effectiveness: Successful treatability test at some scale
completed
V Potential Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will work.
J No Expected Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will not work
a Technology is effective for some contaminants in the group; it may not
be effective for others.
b Applications to these contaminants involve both adsorption and chemical
reaction.
ganic wastes that can be treated by GAC include com-
pounds with high molecular weights and boiling points and
low solubility and polarity [6].  Organic compounds treat-
able by GAC are listed in Table 2.  GAC has also been used to
remove low concentrations of certain types of inorganics
and metals; however, it is not widely used for this application
[1, p. 6-13].

    Almost all organic compounds can be adsorbed onto
GAC to some degree [2, p. 5-1 7]. The process  is frequently
used when the chemical composition of the stream is not fully
analyzed  [1, p. 6-3].  Because  of its wide-scale use,  GAC has
probably been inappropriately selected when an alternative
technology may have been more effective [7].  GAC  can  be
used in conjunction  with other treatment technologies.  For
example, GAC can be used to remove contaminants from the
offgas from air stripper and soil vapor extraction operations
[7] [8, p.  73] [9].
                                                               Class         	

                                                               Aromatic solvents

                                                               Polynuclear aromatics

                                                               Chlorinated aromatics


                                                               Phenolics


                                                               Aromatic amines and
                                                               high molecular weight
                                                               aliphatic amines

                                                               Surfactants

                                                               Soluble organic dyes

                                                               Fuels

                                                               Chlorinated solvents

                                                               Aliphatic and aromatic acids

                                                               Pesticides/herbicides
                             Example	

                             Benzene, toluene, xylene

                             Naphthalene, biphenyl

                             Chlorobenzene, PCBs, endrin,
                             toxaphene, DDT

                             Phenol, cresol, resorcinol,
                             nitrophenols, chlorophenols,
                             alkyl phenols

                             Aniline, toluene diamine
                             Alkyl benzene sulfonates

                             Methylene blue, textile dyes

                             Gasoline, kerosene, oil

                             Carbon tetrachloride,
                             perchloroethylene

                             Tar acids, benzoic acids

                             2,4-D, atrazine, simazine,
                             aldicarb, alachlor, carbofuran
Limitations

    Compounds that  have low molecular  weight and high
polarity are not recommended for GAC treatment.  Streams
with high suspended solids (> 50 mg/L) and oil and grease (>
10 mg/L) may cause fouling of the carbon and require frequent
backwashing.  In  such cases,  pretreatment prior  to GAC,  is
generally required. High levels of organic matter (e.g., 1,000
mg/L) may result in rapid exhaustion of the carbon.  Even lower
levels of background organic matter (e.g., 10-100 mg/L) such
as fulvic and humic acids may cause interferences in the adsorp-
tion  of specifically targeted organic contaminants which are
present in lower concentrations. In such cases, GAC may be
most effectively employed as a polishing step in  conjunction
with other treatments.

    The amount of carbon required, regeneration/reactivation
frequency, and the potential need to handle the discarded GAC
as a hazardous waste are among the important economic con-
siderations.  Compounds not well adsorbed often require large
quantities of GAC, and this will increase the costs.  In some
cases the spent GAC may  be  a hazardous waste,  which can
significantly add to the cost of treatment.
Technology Description

    Carbon is an excellent adsorbent because of its large surface
area, which can range from 500-2000 m2/g, and because its
diverse surfaces are highly attractive to many different types of
contaminants [3]. To maximize the amount of surface available
                                              Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment

-------
                                Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Fixed-Bed GAC System
                     (CONTAMINATED
                        LIQUID)
                                                          CARBON BED
                                                (3)
                       EFFLUENT
                                                                                (TREATED WATER)
                                                                                      (2)
                                                      SPENT CARBON
for adsorption, an activation process which increases the sur-
face-to-volume ratio of the carbon is used to produce an exten-
sive network of internal pores.  In this process, carbonaceous
materials are converted to mixtures of gas, tars, and ash. The tar
is then burned off and the gases are allowed to escape to produce
a series of internal micropores [1, p. 6-6]. Additional processing
of the CAC may  be  used to render it more  suitable for certain
applications (e.g.  impregnation for mercury or sulfur removal).

    The process of  adsorption takes place  in three steps [3].
First the contaminant migrates to the external surface of the
GAC granules.  It then diffuses into the GAC pore structure.
Finally, a physical or chemical bond forms  between the con-
taminant and the internal carbon surface.

    The two most  common reactor configurations for GAC
adsorption systems are the fixed bed and the pulsed or moving
bed [3]. The fixed-bed configuration is the most widely used
for adsorption  from liquids, particularly for low to moderate
concentrations of contaminants.  GAC treatment of contami-
nated gas streams is done almost exclusively in fixed-bed reac-
tors.  The following technical discussion applies to both gas and
liquid streams.

      Figure 1 is  a schematic diagram of a typical single-stage,
fixed-bed GAC system for use on a liquid stream.  The contami-
nant stream enters the top of the column  (1). As the waste
stream flows through the column, the contaminants are ad-
sorbed.  The treated  stream (effluent) exits out the bottom (2).
Spent carbon is reactivated,  regenerated, or  replaced once the
effluent  no longer meets the treatment objective (3). Although
Figure 1 depicts a downward flow, the flow direction can be
upward, depending on  design considerations.
    Suspended solids in a liquid stream or paniculate matter in
a gaseous stream accumulate in  the column, causing an  in-
crease in pressure drop. When the pressure drop becomes too
high, the accumulated solids must be removed, for example by
backwashing. The solids removal process necessitates adsorber
downtime, and may result in carbon loss and disruption of the
mass  transfer zone.  Pretreatment for removal of solids from
streams to be treated by GAC is, therefore, an important design
consideration.

    As a GAC system  continues to operate, the mass-transfer
zone moves down the column.  Figure 2 shows the adsorption
pattern and the corresponding effluent breakthrough curve [3].
The breakthrough curve is a plot of the ratio of effluent concen-
tration (Ce) to influent concentration (C0) as a function of water
volume  or air volume treated per unit time. When a predeter-
mined concentration appears in the effluent (CB), breakthrough
has occurred. At this point, the effluent quality no longer meets
treatment  objectives. When the carbon becomes so saturated
with the contaminants that they can no longer be adsorbed,
the carbon is  said to be spent  (Ce=C0). Alternative design
arrangements may allow individual adsorbers in multi-adsorber
systems to be operated beyond the breakpoint as far as com-
plete exhaustion. This condition of operation is defined as the
operating limit (Ce=CL) of the adsorber.

    The major design variables for liquid phase applications of
GAC are empty bed contact time (EBCT), GAC usage rate, and
system configuration.  Particle size and hydraulic loading are
often  chosen to minimize pressure drop and reduce or elimi-
nate backwashing.   System  configuration  and EBCT  have an
impact on  GAC usage rate.  When the bed life is longer than 6
months  and the treatment objective is stringent (Ce/C0 < 0.05),
Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment

-------
                                                       Figure 2
                             Breakthrough Characteristics of Fixed-Bed GAC Adsorper [3]
                             C(z,t)
                                  Co
                                    Saturated
                                     Zone
                                     (S)
                                  Adsorption
                                    Zone
                                     (A)
Co
                                          ce=o
 Co
_L
         T
        Ce 0.3), blending of
effluents from partially saturated adsorbers can be used  to
reduce GAC usage rate.  When stringent treatment objectives
are required (Ce/C0 < 0.05) and GAC bed life is short (less than
6 months) multiple beds in series may be used to decrease GAC
usage rate.

    For gas-phase applications, the mass transfer zone is usu-
ally very short if the relative humidity is low enough to prevent
water from filling the GAC pores. The adsorption  zone (Figure
2) for gas-phase applications is small relative to bed depth, and
the GAC is nearly saturated at the  breakpoint.   Accordingly,
EBCT and  system  configuration have  little impact on GAC
usage rate and a single bed or single beds operated in parallel
are commonly used.

    GAC can be reactivated either onsite or offsite.  The choice is
usually dictated by costs which are dependent on the site and on
the proximity of offsite facilities that reactivate carbon. Generally
onsite reactivation is not economical unless more than 2,000
pounds per day of GAC are required to be reactivated. Even so,
an offsite reactivation service may be more cost effective  [10].

    The basic evaluation technique for initial assessment of the
feasibility of GAC treatment is the adsorption isotherm test.
This test determines if a compound is amenable to GAC adsorp-
tion and can be used to estimate minimum GAC usage rates.
More detailed testing such as small-scale column tests and pilot
tests should be conducted  if the isotherms  indicate GAC can
produce an  effluent of acceptable quality at a reasonable carbon
usage rate [10].
                   Process Residuals

                       The main process residual produced from a GAC system is
                   the spent carbon containing the hazardous contaminants. When
                   the carbon is regenerated, the desorbed contaminants must be
                   treated or  reclaimed.  Reactivation of carbon is typically accom-
                   plished  by thermal processes. Elevated temperatures are em-
                   ployed in the furnace and afterburners to destroy the accumu-
                   lated  contaminants.  If the  carbon cannot be economically
                   reactivated, the carbon must be discarded and may have to be
                   treated  and disposed of as a  hazardous waste. In some cases,
                   the influent to GAC treatment must be pretreated to prevent
                   excessive head loss. Residues from pretreatment (e.g. filtered
                   suspended solids) must be treated or disposed. Solids collected
                   from backwashing may need to be treated and disposed of as a
                   hazardous waste.
                   Site Requirements

                       GAC equipment generally has  small space requirements
                   and  sometimes can  be  incorporated in mobile units.  The
                   rapidity of startup and shutdown also makes GAC amenable to
                   mobile treatment. Carbon beds or columns can be skid-mounted
                   and transported by truck or rail [2, p. 5-19].

                       As previously stated, spent carbon from the treatment of
                   streams containing hazardous substances is generally considered
                   hazardous, and its transportation and handling requires that a
                   site safety plan be developed to provide for personnel protection
                   and special handling measures.  Storage may have to be provided
                   to hold the GAC-treated liquid until its acceptability for release
                   has been determined. If additional treatment is required, ad-
                   equate space must be provided for these systems.
                                               Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment

-------
 Performance Data

     Performance data  on full-scale GAC systems have been
 reported by several  sources  including  equipment vendors.
 Data on GAC  systems at several Superfund sites  and other
 cleanup sites are discussed in this section. The data presented
 for specific contaminant removal effectiveness were obtained
 from publications developed  by the respective GAC  system
 vendors. The quality of this information has not been deter-
 mined; however, it does give an indication of the efficiency of
 GAC.

     A GAC system was employed for leachate treatment at the
 Love Canal Superfund  site  in  Niagara Falls, New York.  The
 results of this operation are listed in Tables 3 and 4 [11 ].

     Table 5 summarizes a number of experiences  by Calgon
 Corporation in treating  contaminated groundwater at many
 other  non-Superfund sites.  Table 5  identifies the  sources of
 contamination  along with  operating parameters and  results
 [12]. While these sites were not regulated  under CERCLA, the
 type and concentration  of  contaminants are typical of those
 encountered at a Superfund site.

     The Verona Well Field Superfund site in  Battle Creek, Michi-
 gan used  GAC  as a  pretreatment  for the air stripper.  This
 arrangement reduced the influent concentrations which allowed
 the air stripper to comply with the National  Pollution Discharge
 Elimination System (NPDES) permit.  The system had two paral-
 lel trains: a single unit and two units in series.  Approximately
 one-third of the total flow was directed to  the first train while
 the remaining flow went to  the other train. Performance data
 for removal of total volatile organic  compounds (TVOC) on
 selected operating days are given in Table 6 [1 3].

     A remediation action at the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station in
 Traverse City,  Michigan, resulted  in GAC being used to treat
 contaminated  groundwater.  The groundwater was pumped
 from the extraction well system to the GAC system. The treated
 water  was then  discharged to the municipal sewer system.
 Concentrations of toluene in  the monitoring  wells were reduced
 from 10,329 parts per  billion (ppb)  to less than  10 ppb  in
 approximately 100 days [14].
Technology Status

    GAC is a well-proven technology. It has been used in the
treatment of contaminated groundwater at a number of Super-
fund sites. Carbon adsorption has also been used as a polishing
step following other treatment units at many sites. In 1988, the
number of sites where activated carbon was listed in the Record
of Decision was 28; in 1989, that number was 38.

    Costs associated with GAC are dependent on waste stream
flow rates, type of contaminant, concentrations, and  site and
timing requirements. Costs are lower with lower concentration
levels of a  contaminant of a given type.  Costs are also lower at
higher flow rates.  At liquid flow rates of 100-million gallons per
day (mgd), costs range from $0.10 -1.50/1,000 gallons treated.
At flow rates of 0.1 mgd, costs increase to $1.20 -  6.30/1,000
gallons treated [12].
                        Table 3
Love Canal Leachate Treatment System0 (March 1979) [11]
 Priority Pollutant
 Compounds Identified
 Hexachlorobutadiene
 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
 Hexachlorobenzene
 a-BHC
 y-BHC
 (3-BHC
 Heptachlor
 Phenol
 2,4-dichlorophenol
 Methylene chloride
 1,1 -dichloroethylene
 Chloroform
 Carbon tetrachloride
 Trichloroethylene
 Dibromochloromethane
 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene
 Chlorobenzene
Carbon System
   Influent
                Carbon System
                   Effluent
  109
   23
   32
  184
  392
  548
  573
4,700b
   10
  180
   28
  540
   92
  240
   21
  270
1,200
                       <20
                       <20
                       <20
                      <0.01
                       0.12
                      <0.01
                      <0.01
                        <5b
                        <5
 ' Samples were analyzed by Recra Research, Inc., according to EPA
  protocol dated April 1977 (sampling and analysis procedures of
  screening for industrial effluents for priority pollutants).
 b The data represent phenol analysis conducted by Calgon in June 1979,
  as earlier results were suspect.

                        Table 4
 Love Canal Leachate Treatment System0 (June 1979) [11]

                                Raw       Carbon System
 Priority Pollutant               Leachate        Effluent
 Compounds Identified              \\g/l           y.g/1

 2,4,6-trichlorophenol                 85         <10
 2,4-dichlorophenol               5,100         N.D.
 Phenol                          2,400         <10
 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene              870         N.D.
 Hexachlorobenzene                 110         N.D.
 2-chloronaphthalene                510         N.D.
 1,2-dichlorobenzene              1,300         N.D.
 1,3 & 1,4-dichlorobenzene           960         N.D.
 Hexachlorobutadiene              1,500         N.D.
 Anthracene and phenanthrene         29         N.D.
 Benzene                        28,000         <10
 Carbon tetrachloride             61,000         <10
 Chlorobenzene                  50,000         12
 1,2-dichloroethane                  52        N.D.
 1,1,1-trichloroethane                 23        N.D.
 1,1-dichloroethane                  66        N.D.
 1,1,2-trichloroethane                780         <10
 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane         80,000        <10
 Chloroform                     44,000        <10
 1,1-dichloroethylene                 16        N.D.
 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene         3,200        <10
 1,2-dichloropropane                 130        N.D.
 Ethylbenzene                       590        <10
 Methylene chloride                 140         46
 Methyl chloride                    370        N.D.
 Chlorodibromomethane              29        N.D.
Tetrachloroethylene              44,000         12
Toluene                         25,000        <10
Trichloroethylene                 5,000        N.D.

 a Samples were analyzed by Carborundum Corporation according to EPA
  protocol dated April 1977 (sampling and analysis procedures for screening
  of industrial effluents for priority pollutants).
N.D. = nondetectable.
Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment

-------
                                                        Table 5
                                       Performance Data at Selected Sites [12]
  Source of
  Contaminants

Truck spill
Methylene chloride
1,1,1-trichloroethane

Rail car spills
Phenol
Orthochlorophenol
Vinylidine chloride
Ethyl acrylate
Chloroform

Chemical spills
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloroethyl ether
Dichloroisopropyl ether
Benzene
DBCP
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Trichlorotrifloroethane
Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
Onsite storage tanks
Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Isopropyl alcohol
Acetone
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethylene
Xylene
Landfill site
TOC
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Gasoline spills, tank leakage
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Methyl t-butyl ether
Di-isopropyl ether
Trichloloethylene

Chemical by-products
Di-isopropyl methyl phosphonate
Dichloropentadiene
Manufacturing residues
DDT
TOC
1,3-dichloropropene

Chemical landfill
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1 -dichloroethylene
    21
    25


    63
    100
    2-4
    200
   0.020


    3.4
  130-135
    2-3
    70
    1.1
    0.8
    0.4
    2.5
   0.42
   5.977
    .005


    0.5
    7.0
    1.5
 0.30-0.50
    3-8
    0.2
    0.1
    12
    0.5
    8.0


    20
    1.4
    1.0


    9-11
    5-7
    6-10
0.030-0.035
0.020-0.040
0.050-0.060


    1.25
    0.45


   0.004
    9.0
    0.01
0.060-0.080
0.005-0.015
                          <10.0
                          <100
                          <100
                          <1.0
                          <10.0
                          <10.0
                          <5.0
  <5000





<100 Total

   <5.0




   <50



   <0.5





  0.005
Carbon Usage
Rate
(Ib./IOOOgal.)
3.9
3.9
5.8
5.8
2.1
13.3
7.7
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
0.45
0.45
1.9
0.7-3.0
1.5
1.5
0.25
0.8
0.8
4.0
1.19
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.15
1.15
1.15
<1.01
<1.01
<1.01
0.62
0.10-0.62
0.62
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.1
1.1
<0.45
<0.45
Total Contact
Time
(min.)
534
534
201
201
60
52
160
262
262
262
262
16
16
112
21
53
53
121
64
64
526
26
36
36
36
52
52
52
41
41
41
214
214
214
12
12
12
30
30
31
31
31
30
30
                                                Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment

-------
                        Table 6
              TVOC Removal with GAC at
            Verona Well Superfund Site [13]

                                     Effluent
                                                       REFERENCES
Influent
Feed
Concentration
(ppb)
18,812
12,850
9,290
6,361
7,850
7,643
7,577
5,591
10,065
6,000
3,689
4,671
Train (1)
Concentration
(ppb)
NA
11
41
260
484
412
405
452
377
444
13
246
Train (2)
Concentration
(ppb)
25
7
17
426
575
551
524
558
475
509
702
263
  Operating
  Day


   1

   9

   16
   27
   35
   42

   49
   57
   69
   92
   106

   238

  NA = not available
 EPA Contact

    Technology-specific questions regarding GAC treatment
 may be directed to:

    Dr. James Heidman
    U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
    Risk  Reduction Engineering Laboratory
    26 West Martin Luther King Drive
    Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
    FTS 684-7632 or (51 3) 569-7632

 Acknowlegements

    This  bulletin was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD),
 Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio,
 by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under
 contract No. 68-C8-0062.  Mr. Eugene Harris served as the EPA
 Technical Project Monitor.  Mr. Gary Baker was SAIC's Work
 Assignment Manager. This bulletin was authored by Ms. Mar-
 garet M.  Groeber of SAIC.  The author is especially grateful to
 Mr. Ken Dostal and Dr. James Heidman of EPA, RREL, who have
 contributed significantly by serving as a technical consultant
 during the development of this document.

    The following other Agency and contractor personnel have
 contributed their time and comments  by participating  in the
 expert review meetings and/or peer reviewing the document:
   Dr. John C. Crittenden
   Mr. Clyde Dial
   Mr. James Rawe
   Dr. Walter J. Weber, Jr.
   Ms. Tish Zimmerman
Michigan Technological University
SAIC
SAIC
University of Michigan
EPA-OERR
 1.  Voice, T.C.  Activated-Carbon Adsorption. In: Standard
    Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal,
    H.M. Freeman, ed.  McGraw-Hill, New York, New York,
    1989.

 2.  Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes.
    EPA/540/2-86/003 (f), U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.

 3.  Weber Jr., W.J.  Evolution of a Technology.  Journal of the
    Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of
    Civil Engineers, 110(5):  899-91 7, 1984.

 4.  Sontheimer, H., et.al. Activated Carbon for Water
    Treatment.  DVGW-Forschungsstelle, Karlsruhe, Germany.
    Distributed  in the US by  AWWA Research Foundation,
    Denver, CO. 1988.

 5.  Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA
    Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/1004, U.S. Environmen-
    tal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1988.

 6.  A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment
    of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/625/8-87/014, U.S. Environ-
    mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1987.

 7.  Lenzo, F., and K. Sullivan. Ground Water Treatment
    Techniques  - An Overview of  the State-of-the-art in
    America. Paper presented at  First US/USSR Conference
    on Hydrology. Moscow,  U.S.S.R.  July 3-5, 1989.

 8.  Crittenden,  J.C. et. al. Using GAC to Remove VOC's  From
    Air Stripper  Off-Gas, journal AWWA, 80(5):73-84, May
    1988.

 9.  Stenzel,  M.H. and Utpal Sen Gupta.  Treatment of
    Contaminated Groundwaters with Granular Activated
    Carbon and Air Stripping, journal of the Air Pollution
    Control Association, 35(12):  1 304-1 309, 1985.

 10. Stenzel,  M.H. and J.G. Rabosky. Granular Activated
    Carbon - Attacks Groundwater Contaminants. Marketing
    Brochure for Calgon Carbon Corporation, Pittsburgh,
    Pennsylvania.

 11. McDougall,  W.J. et. al., Containment and Treatment of
    the Love Canal Landfill Leachate,  Journal WPCF, 52(12):
    2914-2923, 1980.

 12. O'Brien, R.P. There is an Answer to Groundwater
    Contamination. Water/Engineering & Management,
    May 1983.

 1 3. CH2M Hill. Thomas Solvent-Raymond Road Groundwater
    Extraction Well Treatment System Monitoring Report.
    June 1988.

 14. Sammons, J.H. and J.M. Armstrong.  Use of Low Flow
    Interdiction Wells to Control Hydrocarbon Plumes in
    Groundwater. In: Proceedings of the Natural Conference
    on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Control
    Research Institute. Silver Spring, Maryland, 1986.

15. Adams, j.Q.  and R.M. Clark.  Evaluating the Costs of
    Packed Tower Aeration and GAC for Controlling Selected
    Organics. Journal AWWA, 83(1 ):49-57, January 1991.
Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment

-------
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

-------