EPA/540/5-91/004
September 1991
THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
EVALUATION PROGRAM
PROGRESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
FISCAL YEAR 1990
A Fourth Report to Congress
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
^g£) Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Preface
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Superfund Innova-
tive Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program in 1986, following passage of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Program's progress and accomplish-
man to •£rt*>'E*fixm1 'Vnn~ 1(\C\f\ «._-. *_j • *» ,• • .• . _ . _ r
- JT — —- ~ • «• • «*•" w*. «»w wj.j>j_f a. jtv/gicuii uivj.uuj.iig uic oLaiuiury auinoriLy and
history of the program and the four program components and goals. Section 2 discusses the
use of innovative alternative technologies for hazardous waste site remediation and the
impact the SITE Program is having on their increased use. Section 3 presents the SITE
Program's progress and accomplishments over the past year and specific goals for the
coming year. Section 4 proposes various program changes and recommends statutory
changes that can enhance SITE'S ability to meet its overall objectives. Several examples of
program products are appended to this report to highlight the technology transfer aspects of
the SITE Program.
iii
-------
-------
Contents
Notice
Preface "...
Exhibits ZZZZZZ!ZZZZZ"ZZ" •
Photographs 'n ' ' »
Acronyms ZZZZZZZZZZIZZZZZ" viii
Abbreviations
Trade Names ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. x
Executive Summary ZZZZZZZ".". xi
Use of Innovative Alternative Technologies ZZ!"!ZZ!!" xi
SITE Program Progress and Accomplishments ZZZZ.ZZZZZ xii
Recommendations and Proposed Changes ZZ.iZZZZ... xii
Section I. SITE Program Overview !
A. Statutory Authority .. i
B. History of the SITE Program ZZZZ.' 1
C. Program Components 3
Section II. Use of Innovative Alternative Technologies 7
A. Definition of Innovative Alternative Technologies 7
B. Barriers and Incentives to the Use of Innovative Alternative Technologies 7
C. Role of the SITE Program in Advocating Innovative Alternative Technologies 11
D. Innovative Monitoring and Measurement Technologies 13
Section HI. Progress and Accomplishments j5
A. Program Accomplishments to Foster Incentives and Overcome Barriers 15
B. Demonstration Program \g
C. Emerging Technologies Program 29
D. Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program 35
E. Technology Information Services 49
Section IV. SITE Program Proposed Changes and Recommendations 43
A. Statutory Mandate 43
B. Proposed Program Changes ZZZZ 43
C. Program Outlook 45
Appendices
A. Reports Available 47
B. Demonstration Program Participants 59
C. Emerging Technologies Program Participants 55
D. Sample Fact Sheets .....Z..Z 59
E. Sample Demonstration Bulletins
-------
r
Exhibits
I-l. Innovative Treatment Technologies in the Demonstration Program 5
1-2. Innovative Technologies in the Emerging Technologies Program 5
n-1. Innovative Alternative Technologies 8
II-2. Criteria for Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 9
III-l. Source Control Treatment—Fiscal Years 1987 -1989 .'.'. 17
IH-2. Summary of Demonstration Program Solicitations 18
ffl-3. Demonstrations Completed During FY 1990 19
HI-4. Summary of Emerging Technology Program Solicitations 30
m-5. The Electron Beam Research Facility, Miami, Florida 32
IH-6. Schematic of the Institute of Gas Technology's Fluidized Bed/Cyclonic
Agglomerating Incinerator 33
III-7. Schematic of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology's
Air-Sparged Hydrocyclone 34
ffl-8. Flow Diagram for Trinity Environmental Technologies, Inc.'s
Ultrasonic Detoxification Process 35
VI
-------
Photographs
AWD Technologies, Inc.'s Aquadetox/SVE System 20
DuPonl/Oberlin's Membrane Microfiltration Unit 21
Filter Cake Discharged from DuPont/Oberlin's Membrane Microfiltration Unit 22
RREL/PEI's Debris Washing System 23
Preparation Activities for RREL/PEI's Debris Washing System Demonstration 23
III-6. Enclosure at the McColl Superfund Site Demonstration of Excavation Techniques and
Foam Suppression Methods 24
ni-7. STC's Solidification/Stabilization Process 24
III-8. Mobile Mass Spectrometer 37
III-9. MDA's Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectrometer 39
111-10. MDA FTIR Remote Sensor 39
IH-1.
III-2.
IH-3.
IIL4.
IH-5.
vii
-------
Acronymns
AAR
API
AETS
ARAR
AREAL
ATTIC
BBS
BDAT
BTEX
CERCLA
CERI
CES
COUS
CROW
DCA
DOD
DOE
DQO
DSM
DWS
EMSL-LV
EPA
BSD
ETP
FTIR
FS
FY
GC/MS
HMCRI
HR-FT-IR
HSWA
IMS
IRF
IWT
JAWMA
KSU
LDR
MAH
MBS
Applications Analysis Report
American Petroleum Institute
Acid Extraction Treatment System
Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
Bulletin Board System
Best Demonstrated and Available Technology
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
Center for Environmental Research Information
Chemfix Environmental Services
Computerized On-Line Information System
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste
Dichloroethane
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Data Quality Objectives
Deep Soil Mixing
Debris Washing System
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Electroacoustic Soil Decontamination
Emerging Technologies Program
Fourier Transform Infrared
Feasibility Study
Fiscal Year
Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrophotometer
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute
High Resolution Fourier Transform Infrared
Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments
Ion Mobility Spectrophotometer
Incinerator Research Facility
International Waste Technologies
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association
Kansas State University
Land Disposal Restrictions
Monoaromatic Hydrocarbon
Methanotrophic Bioreactor System
VIII
-------
Acronymns (Continued)
MMTP
MMS
NETAC
NPL
NTIS
OEETD
OMMSQA
ORD
OSC
OSWER
OTA
PAH
PCB
PCP
PRP
QA/QC
RCRA
R&D
RD&D
RFP
RI
ROD
RPM
RREL
RTP
SARA
SAB
SITE
S/S
START
STC
SVOC
T&E
TCA
TCE
TCLP
TEM
TER
TIO
TIX
TOC
UCS
UV
voc
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program
Mobile Mass Spectrophotometer
National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation
National Priorities List
National Technical Information System
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration
Office of Modelling, Monitoring Systems and Quality Assurance
Office of Research and Development
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Solid Waste and Environmental Response
Office of Technology Assessment
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Pentachlorophenol
Potentially Responsible Party
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Research and Development
Research, Development, and Demonstration
Request for Proposal
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Remedial Project Manager
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Research Triangle Park
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Science Advisory Board
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Solidification/Stabilization
Superfund Technical Assistance Response Teams
Silicate Technology Corporation
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Test and Evaluation
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure
Transient Electromagnetic Method
Technology Evaluation Report
Technology Innovation Office
Technical Information Exchange
Total Organic Carbon
Unconfined Compression Strength
Ultraviolet
Volatile Organic Compound
IX
-------
Abbreviations
cm
Ibs
mg
mg/l
mm
ppb
ppm
psi
sec
Centimeter
Degrees Fahrenheit
Kilogram
Pounds
Milligram
Milligram/Liter
Millimeter
Parts Per Billion
Parts Per Million
Pounds Per Square Inch
Second
AlgaSORB®
BioGenesis™
BioVersal™
Chcmfix
CHEMSET9
Dccompozon
PACT®
RHM1000
Tyvek®
Urrichcm
Trade Names
-------
Executive Summary
"The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program is the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) principal program to advance the development,
evaluation, and implementation of innovative alternative technologies for the remediation
of contaminated hazardous waste sites." This mission statement, established by EPA's
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), is fully compatible with the legislative
mandate for the SITE Program. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) directs EPA "to carry out a program of research, evaluation, testing,
development and demonstration of alternative or innovative treatment and monitoring and
measurement technologies... which may be utilized in response actions to achieve more
permanent protection of human health and welfare and the environment" [SARA Section
209(b), Section 311(b)(l)].
The SITE Program was the first major program for demonstrating and evaluating full-
scale innovative treatment technologies at hazardous waste sites. Having concluded its
fourth year, the SITE Program is recognized as a leading advocate of innovative technol-
ogy development and commercialization for hazardous waste treatment and remediation.
In addition, through the demonstration of innovative monitoring and measurement tech-
nologies, EPA is promoting faster, more cost-effective site characterization and post-
cleanup monitoring methods for Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) corrective action sites.
This fourth report to Congress documents the impact of the SITE Program through
discussing the program's progress and accomplishments over the past year. The report also
sets goals for the coming years and makes specific recommendations on achieving those
goals.
Use of Innovative Alternative Technologies
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by SARA, sets forth requirements for selecting remedies for
Superfund sites. Remedial actions must:
• Be protective of human health and the environment.
Attain or waive applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR).
• Be cost-effective.
• Use permanent solutions and alternative hazardous waste treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Satisfy the preference for hazardous waste treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume.
Alternative treatment technologies are essential to meeting these requirements; how-
ever, sufficient information is often not available for a reliable analysis of alternatives
using these technologies. Innovative alternative technologies may lack an established track
record, have limited treatability and cost data and, as "unproven," may suffer public, state,
and private (potentially responsible party) acceptance problems.
The SITE Program is unique in its ability to generate appropriate and relevant
information on innovative alternative technologies needed by remedial project managers,
consultants, and other decisionmakers. SITE Program data are recognized as reliable, high
XI
-------
quality, and unbiased. The SITE testing and evaluation methods are founded in EPA's
research programs, and yet include practical field experience.
SITE Program Progress and Accomplishments
SITE is currently administered by the Office of Research and Development's (ORD)
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Over the past year, RREL's founding partner in
SITE, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), established a
Technology Innovation Office (TIO) to further advocate and promote the development and
use of innovative treatment technologies in the public and private sectors. Likewise, RREL
established its Superfund Technical Assistance Response Teams (START), the members
of which are often SITE project managers as well, to aid the Regions on complex site
remediation problems. Together, these three programs—SITE, TIO, and START—work-
ing as an integrated technical team, are a valuable resource on innovative technologies and
solutions to hazardous waste problems.
Specifically, the SITE Program integrates the following four components:
• Demonstration Program
• Emerging Technologies Program
• Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program (MMTP)
• Technology Information Services
Over the past year, SITE has conducted eight field demonstrations of innovative
treatment and monitoring and measurement technologies. Through fiscal year 1990, a total
of 23 demonstrations have been completed at Superfund remedial and removal sites,
private party cleanup sites, state cleanup sites, and EPA and developer test facilities. SITE
developers have completed seven emerging technologies projects; three of these develop-
ers have been invited to participate in the demonstration program. In addition, six new
technologies have been added to the demonstration program and 16 to the emerging
program. Currently, a total of 84 technologies are at various stages of completion within
the SITE Program.
At the same time, EPA is attempting to attract additional technologies and sites into
the program. Initiatives started last year with the Departments of Energy and Defense
(DOE and DOD) have resulted in three potential field demonstrations and an expanded
emerging technologies program with co-funding from DOE.
Most important, studies by EPA and others show that the program is achieving
positive results. Developers report increased client interest in their technologies, Superfund
records of decision (RODs) are including the use of innovative treatment technologies, and
Federal, state, and private remedial decisionmakers, as well as consultants, are relying on
the SITE Program for performance data.
Recommendations and Proposed Changes
Over the past year, RREL has implemented the recommendations in EPA's Manage-
ment Review of the Superfund Program, as discussed in the third report to Congress. Also,
in response to the Superfund program review, RREL conducted a Management Review of
the SITE Program. The purpose of the review was to evaluate the impact of the SITE
Program on Superfund remediation activities and to identify any changes needed to
improve the program.
Several program changes have been adopted that are directed at making the SITE
Program a more integral component of Regional Office Superfund site activities. The SITE
Program will make the design of SITE evaluations sufficiently flexible to meet the
Regional Offices' needs for testability studies before remedy selection is made. SITE
demonstration data will be presented to the remedial project manager (RPM) or on-scene
coordinator (OSC) on a fast turnaround basis so that the data is available to be factored into
the remedy selection decision. The annual SITE solicitation will focus on problem sites
rather than on technologies. The SITE Program will take advantage of ongoing remedia-
tion activities in the Regions as a source of technology evaluations and technology transfer.
XII
-------
In addition, the SITE Program will utilize sites that are being evaluated under the
Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team (START) Program as test sites for SITE
evaluations.
Other improvements in the SITE Program include streamlining the demonstration
planning process, working more closely with state and private party sites, and restructuring
the technology transfer products from the program. A Review Committee is being
established to help ensure that the SITE Program is relevant to the needs of the Superfund
Program. The Review Committee will be made up of representatives from EPA Regions,
Headquarters, developers, states, and the engineering community. The National Environ-
mental Technology Applications Corporation (NETAC) and private groups will be utilized
to help move technologies forward.
All initiatives are intended to make the SITE Program more responsive to Superfund
Program needs and to make information available on a more timely basis.
xiii
-------
-------
SECTION I
SITE PROGRAM OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the SITE Program.
The legislation mandating the formation of the SITE Pro-
gram is discussed first, followed by a brief history of the
program including selected highlights. The four components
of the SITE Program are introduced in this section and a
detailed discussion of the progress and accomplishments of
each component is provided in Section HI.
A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
define the national programs for managing hazardous waste
sites. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA) specifically states a preference for remedial
actions that permanently and significantly reduce the vol-
ume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances and con-
taminants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is required to "select a remedial action that is protective of
human health and the environment. . . and that utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable."
RCRA provides authority for EPA to require corrective
actions for past releases at facilities receiving permits for
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes. Thus, an
owner or operator of such a facility must clean up contami-
nation resulting from currentorpastactivitiesatthesite. Also
under RCRA, land disposal restrictions (LDRs) require that
hazardous wastes be treated using"Best Demonstrated Avail-
able Technology" (BOAT) for a specific waste before it can
be disposed in a land-based unit
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation, or
SITE, program was formally established as a requirement of
SARA. Section 31 l(b) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA,
directs EPA to establish an "Alternative or Innovative Treat-
ment Technology Research and Demonstration Program"
including a field demonstration program for testing innova-
tive treatment technologies at Superfund sites. In fulfilling
this legislative mandate, EF Vs SITE Program provides
valuable information to enviUmmental decisionmakers re-
sponsible for remediation of hazardous waste sites under
both CERCLA and RCRA.
As required by Section 311(e), this report presents the
program's accomplishments through Fiscal Year (FY) 1990
and is the fourth annual report to Congress.
B. HISTORY OF THE SITE PROGRAM
As it prepared to reauthorize CERCLA, Congress re-
quired the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to re-
view the Superfund program and to prepare a strategy for
improving the program. One of the three principal goals of
the review was "to understand future Superfund needs and
how permanent clean-ups can be accomplished in a cost-
effective manner for diverse types of sites."1
The OTAstudy concluded that land disposal approaches,
even though they may be proven technologies for their
original applications in construction engineering, are not
effective over the long term in containing hazardous wastes,
nor are their immediate costs indicative of the likely long-
term costs, including monitoring, operation and mainte-
nance, and the costs of future clean-up actions, especially for
cleaning up contaminated ground water. The OTA report
further concluded that not enough research, development,
and demonstration (RD&D) efforts are devoted to innovative
clean-up technologies and that many innovations exist, but
few have overcome institutional and other barriers. Consid-
ering the high cost of the Superfund program, committing
RD&D money for innovative clean-up and site characteriza-
tion technologies could offer considerable economic advan-
tages in the long term.
The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Environmental
Engineering Committee was concerned that enormous ex-
penditures were being made under Superfund without an
adequate technological database to support rehabilitation of
hazardous waste disposal sites. In a formal resolution, the
SAB committee expressed this concern to the EPA Admin-
istrator and to members of Congress who were considering
amendments to CERCLA. The resolution recommended a
comprehensive RD&D program to develop and demonstrate
effective, long-term solutions.
The reauthorized CERCLA established an RD&D pro-
gram for innovative alternative technologies. In response to
the legislation, and after considering the reports and recom-
1 Superfund Strategy, U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment,
OTA-ITE-252. April 1985. Washington, DC.
-------
mcndations discussed above, ORD and OSWER developed
a joint strategy for an RD&D program called the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program.
Significant events in the development of the SITE Pro-
gram are listed below:
fund site, in conjunction with the BioTrol
soil washing technology demonstration.
December 1989 RREL demonstrates its debris washing
system, developed by PEI Associates for
EPA, at Superfund sites in Hopkinsville,
Kentucky, and Lafayette, Georgia.
March 1986
EPA issues the first annual request for
proposals to the SITE Demonstration Pro- March 1990
gram (RFPSITE 001). Twenty technology
developers respond to theRFP, and 13 are
accepted into the program.
My 1987
July 1987
January 1988
October 1988
First SITE field demonstration is con-
ducted. The Shirco Electric Infrared Incin-
erator is tested at the Peak Oil Superfund
Site in Brandon, Florida.
EPA initiates the SITE Emerging Tech-
nologies Program as a feeder to the dem-
onstration program. Six developers are
accepted into the program, each receiving
up to $150,000 per year for two years to
develop and test their technologies at a
laboratory- or pilot-scale.
The first SITE demonstration at an EPA
test facility is conducted. American Com-
bustion Technologies, Inc., Pyretron Oxy-
gen Burner was demonstrated at EPA's
Incineration ResearchFacility in Jefferson,
Arkansas.
EPA co-sponsors the First International
Symposium on Field Screening Methods
for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemi-
cals.
May 1990
November 1988 EPApresentsSITEfindingsattheHazard-
ous Materials Control Research Institute
(HMCRI) Superfund '88 conference.
June 1989 EPA completes A Management Review of
the Superfund Program (90-Day Study),
which makes key recommendations for
the SITE Program (see below).
June 1989 OSWER and RREL sponsor the first Fo-
rumonlnnovativeHazardousWasteTreat-
ment Technologies: Domestic and Inter-
national in Atlanta, Georgia, to help intro-
duce promising international technologies
through technical papers and poster dis-
plays, and to showcase results of the SITE
Program.
August 1989 EPA conducts the first demonstration un-
der theMonitoringandMeasurementTech-
nologies Program. An immunoassay field
kit for pentachlorophenol was demon-
strated at the McGillis and Gibbs Super-
July 1990
August 1990
OSWER forms the Technology Innova-
tion Office (TIO) with key staff who have
been involved in the SITE Program. The
TIO will evaluate potential applications of
innovative technologies andother outreach
activities to promote their accelerated com-
mercial development and use.
RREL commissions a SITE Program Par-
ticipant Assessment in conjunction with
the Second Forum on Innovative Hazard-
ous Waste Treatment Technologies: Do-
mestic and International.
RREL initiates the Superfund Technical
AssistanceResponseTeams (START) pro-
gram to provide long-term technical engi-
neeringsupport,includingtreatability stud-
ies, to assist EPA Regional offices dealing
with complex sites. START staff include
SITE technical project monitors and, thus,
the program enhances RREL's outreach
efforts.
RREL completes its internal Management
Review of the SITE Program, which rec-
ommendsprogram andlegislativechanges.
Management Review of the Superfund
Program
In the third report to Congress, EPA discussed the
findings of the Agency's Management Review of the Super-
fund Program (90-Day Study) related specifically to the
SITE Program. The 90-day study strongly supported the
SITE Program and presented six major recommendations
aimed at strengthening it to more fully satisfy technology
information and development needs. Over the past year, the
EPA has addressed each of these recommendations, as fol-
lows:
Evaluate Performance and Cost of Technologies Al-
ready Being Used at Superfund Sites—OS WER's TIO
has begun assessing technologies being used at Super-
fund sites based on a review of records of decision
(RODs). TIO is also assessing the potential applications
for hazardous waste remediation technologies on the
National Priorities List (NPL) at Superfund sites.
• ConductAdditionalDemonstrations of Innovative Tech-
nologies—-EPA has conducted nine innovative technol-
ogy demonstrations over the past year, including physi-
cal, chemical, solidification/stabilization, and combina-
tion treatment processes, as well as excavation tech-
-------
niques and monitoring and measurement technologies.
Demonstration technologies have expanded to include
biological treatment technologies and mixed radiologi-
cal waste treatment In addition, EPA's efforts to coor-
dinate with DOE and DOD have resulted in plans for
future demonstrations at Rocky Flats (TechTran) and
Robins AFB (Wastech).
Support Development of Emerging Laboratory- and
Pilot-Scale Technologies—With me cooperation of the
DOE, EPA expanded the SITE Emerging Technologies
Program. DuringFY 1990,16 developers were accepted
into the program, bringing the total to 28 technologies
that are being funded at the laboratory- and pilot-scale.
Evaluate Combinations of Technologies in Addition to
Individual Technologies—The SITE Program has con-
tinued to solicit combinations of technologies for dem-
onstration. During FY 1990, EPA demonstrated the
AWD Technologies, Inc., integrated vapor extraction
and vacuum steam stripping system at Burbank, Califor-
nia. The system is treating ground water and soil con-
taminated with a variety of volatile organic compounds
(VOC). A recent addition to the SITE Program is
Bioversal's soil washing and biological treatment sys-
tem. In this case, the residual waste stream from the soil
washing step is treated in a bioreactor. This technology
is similar in concept to the BioTrol system that was
demonstrated in FY 1989.
Provide Rapid Reporting of Demonstration Results
through Performance Bulletins and by Placing Results
in an Information Clearinghouse, and Reduce Produc-
tion Time for Reports—Demonstration bulletins have
continued to be an important technology transfer me-
dium for SITEProgram results and are generally the first
written products following a demonstration. These bul-
letins are abstracted and compiled annually in the SITE
Program Technology Profiles document, which describes
all SITE technologies, provides the status of the projects
and other technology developments, and lists contacts
for information on the technologies. Computer on-line
services are also being used by SITE. OSWER's Bulle-
tin Board contains status information, and the Alterna-
tive Treatment Technology Information Center (AT-
TIC) system includes the results of SITE demonstra-
tions. To reduce report production time, EPA has imple-
mented a revised reporting system that places more
emphasis on the Applications Analysis Report (AAR).
The AAR provides information on process economics,
application to various waste sites, and operational expe-
rience. Because it is a shorter report with less detailed
data than the Technology Evaluation Report, which is
also produced after a demonstration, it can be produced
more quickly.
Suggest Ways to Eliminate Internal Barriers to the
Introduction of New Technologies into the Superfund
Program—OSWER's Technology Innovation Office
(TIO) was formed over the past year to "increase appli-
cations of innovative treatment technology by govern-
ment and industry to contaminated waste sites, soils and
groundwater... through the removal of regulatory and
institutional impediments and the provision of richer
technology and market information to targeted audi-
ences of Federal Agencies, States, consulting engineer-
ing firms, responsible parties, technology developers,
and the investmentcommunity."2 TIO will influence the
increased use of innovative treatment technologies by
working with and through knowledgeable individuals
and groups both inside and outside EPA, and as a partner
with other waste program offices, including the SITE
Program.
In conjunction with the Second Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International (May 15-17,1990), EPA met with developers
and asked them to assess the SITE Program. The findings of
the SITE Program Participant Assessment suggest that the
program has been moderately successful in achieving the
overall objective of bringing new technologies into use. To
improveon this modest success.RRELconductedaMa/wge-
ment Review of the SITE Program (August 1990) and has
implemented additional program changes in response to
specific review findings (see Section IV.B).
C. PROGRAM COMPONENTS
Currently, the SITE Program is administered by the
Office of Research and Development Risk Reduction Engi-
neering Laboratory headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The
SITE Program integrates the following four component pro-
grams:
• Demonstration Program
Emerging Technologies Program
• Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program
• Technology Information Services
In the Demonstration Program, innovative technolo-
gies are field-tested on hazardous waste materials. Engineer-
ing and cost data are gathered to assess whether the technol-
ogy is effective for site clean-up. An Applications Analysis
Report (AAR) is prepared to evaluate all available informa-
tion on the specific technology and analyze its overall appli-
cability to other site characteristics, waste types, and waste
matrices. A second report, called the Technology Evaluation
Report (TER), presents demonstration data such as testing
procedures, performance and cost data collected, and quality
assurance and quality control standards. Videos, bulletins,
and project summaries are also prepared to further define and
present demonstration data. This information is distributed to
the user community to provide reliable technical data for
environmental decisionmaking and to promote the
technology's commercial use.
The Demonstration Program currently has 43 develop-
ers providing 45 innovative technologies for demonstrations.
The projects are divided into the following categories: ther-
mal (9), biological (8), physical and chemical (19), solidifi-
cation/stabilization (8), and radioactive waste treatment (1).
2 from OSWER's Technology Innovation Office mission statement
-------
Several of the technologies involve combinations of these
treatment categories. Exhibit 1-1 shows the breakdown, by
percentage, of technologies currently in the Demonstration
Program. Through fiscal year 1990,18 technology demon-
strations have been completed at Superfund remedial and
removal sites, private party clean-up sites, state clean-up
sites, and EPA and developer test facilities; 17 reports have
been published, and others are in various stages of produc-
tion.
Before a technology can be accepted into the Emerging
Technologies Program (ETP), sufficientdatamustbeavail-
able to validate its basic concepts. Developers then conduct
laboratory- and pilot-scale testing under controlled condi-
tions to apply their innovative treatment processes and de-
velop equipment andoperatingparameters. The technology's
performance is documented, and a report is prepared. If
bench and pilot test results are encouraging, the technology
developer may be invited to participate in the Demonstration
Program.
Thirty-one technologies currently are in the ETP, which
may be divided into the following categories: thermal (4),
physical and chemical (19), solidification/stabilization (1),
andbiological (7).Theseprojects vary from electroacoustical
decontamination to laboratory- and pilot-scale studies of a
laser-stimulated photochemical oxidation process. Exhibitl-
2 displays the breakdown, by percentage, of technologies in
the ETP.
TheMonitoringandMeasurementTechnoIogies Pro-
gram (MMTP) explores new and innovative technologies
for assessing the nature and extent of contamination and
evaluating clean-up levels at Superfund sites. Effective mea-
surement and monitoring technologies are needed to accu-
rately assess the degree of contamination at a site; provide
data and information to determine impacts to public health
and the environment; supply data to help select the most
appropriate remedial action; and monitor the success or
failureofaselectedremedy. Theobjectives of this MMTP are
to;
• Identify existing technologies that can enhance field
monitoring and site characterization.
• Supportthedevelopmentof monitoring capabilities that
current technologies cannot address in a cost-effective
manner.
• Demonstrate technologies that emerge from the screen-
ing and development phases of the program.
• Prepare protocols, guidelines, and standard operating
procedures for new methods.
Three measuringandmonitoring technologies were dem-
onstrated in Fiscal Year (FY) 1990—a mobile mass spec-
trometer; an air sector sampler; and an infrared-based long-
path air monitor.
Technology Information Services include various ac-
tivities that support the SITE Program. Dataresults and status
updates from theDemonstrationandEmergingTechnologies
Programs are disseminated to increase awareness of alterna-
tive technologies available for use at Superfund sites. The
goal of technology transfer activities is to develop interactive
communication among individuals requiring up-to-date tech-
nical information, through various media, including:
• SITE brochures, publications, reports, videos, and fact
sheets.
• Monthly articles in the Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association (JAWMA).
• Pre-proposal conferences on SITE solicitations.
• Public meetings and on-site Demonstration Visitors'
Days.
• Seminar series with Regions and states.
SITE and Technology Innovation Office (TIO) exhibits
displayed at nationwide conferences.
• Networks established through associations, centers of
excellence, Regions, and states.
• Technical assistance to Regions, state, and clean-up
contractors.
• . On-line information clearinghouses such as:
- OSWER Electronic Bulletin Board System (BBS)
[Help line: 301/589-8368].
- Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center (ATTIC) including the Technology Infor-
mation Exchange/Computer On-line Information
System (TK-COLIS) [System operator: 301/816-
9153].
-------
Exhibit 1-1. Innovative Treatment Technologies In the Demonstration Program
normal
20%
Solidification/
Stabilization
18%
Radioactive
Waste Treatment
2%
Physical and
Chemical
42%
Biological
18%
Exhibit I-2. Innovative Treatment Technologies In the Emerging Technologies Program
Solidification/
Stabilization
3%
Thermal
13%
Biological
23%
Physical and
Chemical
61%
-------
-------
SECTION II
USE OF INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
One of the primary goals of the SITE Program is to
encourage the development and demonstration of new, inno-
vative alternative treatment and monitoring technologies.
This section first defines innovative alternative technologies
as a basis for how the SITE Program can effectively promote
their use. This is followed by discussions of the barriers and
incentives to the use of innovative technologies, and how the
SITE Program can facilitate their use. Finally, this section
discusses innovative alternative measurement and monitor-
ing technologies specifically, including the need for these
technologies and the SITE Program's involvement in the
promotion of their use.
A. DEFINITION OF INNOVATIVE
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Innovative technologies are not necessarily new tech-
nologies but may be new applications of existing technolo-
gies. Technology innovation strives to make things better and
cheaper. Technologies in the SITE Program vary in their
degree of innovativeness. Based on the 36 responses to
EPA's SITE Program Participation Assessment, only two
projects involve minor modifications to existing waste reme-
diation technology; these two projects can be classified as
"incremental." On the other hand, 18 projects are categorized
as moderate to radical innovations and use technology that
represents moderate to major shifts from existing waste
treatment approaches. In addition, 16 projects combine mul-
tiple technologies, five of which use newly developed tech-
nologies along with existing methods for waste treatment
Clearly, the SITE Program has attracted a variety of innova-
tive technologies.
The phrase "alternative technology" was originally de-
rived from the concept of an alternative to land disposal as a
means for treating hazardous source material (i.e., soil,
sludge, and solid waste, as opposed to ground water). SARA
defines alternative or innovative treatment technologies as
"those technologies, including proprietary or patented meth-
ods, which permanently alter the composition of hazardous
waste through chemical, biological, or physical means so as
to significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume (or
combination thereof) of the hazardous waste or contaminated
materials being treated. The term also includes technologies
that characterize or assess the extent of contamination, the
chemical and physical character of the contaminants, and the
stresses imposed by the contaminants on complex ecosys-
tems [CERCLA Section 31 l(b)(10)]." Under the SITE Pro-
gram.technologiesareclassifiedby their development status
as follows:
Available (or Existing) Technology—technologies that
are fully proven in routine commercial use at hazardous
waste sites and for which sufficient performance and
cost information are available.
Innovative Technology—any fully developed technol-
ogyforwhichcostorperformanceinformationis incom-
plete, thus hindering routine use at hazardous waste
sites. An innovative technology requires field testing
and evaluation before it is considered proven and ready
for commercialization and routine use.
Emerging Technology—a technology in an earlier stage
of development Documentation has involved some labo-
ratory testing, but the technology requires additional
laboratory- or pilot-scale testing prior to field testing at
hazardous waste sites.
Exhibit H-l depicts the process of technology develop-
ment from initial concept to commercial use, and shows the
interrelationship between the SITE demonstration andemerg-
ing technologies programs. Similar concepts can also be
applied to demonstrating and evaluating monitoring and
measurement technologies, as defined by SARA and in-
cluded in the SITE Program.
Commercialization of innovative technologies at haz-
ardous waste sites also requires an understanding of the
marketplace for these technologies. Market surveys, such as
those by National Environmental Technology Applications
Corporation (NETAQ and OSWER's TIO, are important to
this final stage of technology development. The SITE Pro-
gram can then provide the scientific, engineering, and cost
data needed to bridge the gap between research and commer-
cial use of innovative technologies.
B. BARRIERS AND INCENTIVES TO THE
USE OF INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
The most critical step in the CERCLA remediation
process is the selection of a cleanup remedy for a Superfund
site. During the selection process, each potential remedial
-------
Exhibit 11-1. Innovative Alternative Technologies
COMMERCIALIZATION
TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER
PERFORMANCE DATA
EVALUATED
Field-Scale Demonstration
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED
Pilot-Scale Testing
Bench-Scale Studies
CONCEPTUALIZATION
alternative is assessed according to a set of nine evaluation
criteria, which are depicted in Exhibit H-2. Some of these
factors impede theuseofinnovativealtemative technologies,
while others will favor the selection of innovative technolo-
gies for future cleanups. Once the alternatives have been
evaluated against the criteria, the selected remedy is outlined
in a document called a Record of Decision (ROD).
The following briefly describes the nine evaluation
criteria that have been developed to address the CERCLA
requirements for remedy selection, as well as specific barri-
ers and incentives to the use of innovative alternative tech-
nologies for CERCLA site remediation. These criteria are
listed in OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, Guidance for Con-
ductingRemediallnvestigationsandFeasibilityStudiesUnder
CERCLA.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
This criterion assesses how the selected alternative is
protective of human health and the environment The overall
protectiveness incorporates many of the other criteria listed
below. It evaluates how site risks are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment or engineering controls.
The main barrier preventing use of innovative alterna-
tive technologies based on this criterion is the uncertainty
associated with the use of a new technology. The lack of an
established performance record affects all selection criteria,
but most important cannot assure that performance can be
achieved on a consistent basis. Because the "overall protec-
tiveness" criterion relates to other criteria, specific barriers
and incentives to overall protection are included in the
criteria discussions below.
2. Compliance with ARARs
Section 121 of CERCLA mandates that Superfund re-
medial actions must comply with any Federal and state laws
and regulations that are determined to be legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) or justify a
waiver from such requirements. Three types of ARARs are as
follows:
Location-specific. Example: A requirement prohibiting
the location of a RCRA treatment or disposal facility in
a fioodplain.
• Chemical-specific. Example: Drinking water standards
for a particular contaminant.
-------
Exhibit 11-2. Criteria for Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives
OVERALL PROTECTION OF
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
How Alternative Provides Human
Health and Environmental Protection
| COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs |
Compliance with Chemical-Specific ARARs
Compliance with Action-Specific ARARs
Compliance with Location-Specific ARARs
Compliance with Other Criteria
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
AND PERMANENCE
Magnitude of
Residual Risk
Adequacy and
Reliability of
Controls
REDUCTION OF
TOXICITY MOBILITY,
AND VOLUME
THROUGH TREATMENT
• Treatment Process
Used and Materials
Treated
• Amount of Hazardous
Materials Destroyed or
Treated
• Degree of Expected
Reductions in Toxicity,
Mobility, and Volume
• Degree to Which
Treatment is
Irreversible
• Type and Quantity of
Residuals Remaining
After Treatment
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
Protection of Community
During Remedial Actions
Protection of Workers
During Remedial Actions
Environmental Impacts
Time Until Remedial Action
Objectives are Achieved
IMPLEMENTABILITY
• Ability to Construct and
Operate the Technology
Reliability of the
Technology
Ease of Undertaking
Additional Remedial
Actions, if necessary
Ability to Monitor
Effectiveness of Remedy
Ability to Obtain
Approvals from Other
Agencies
Coordination with Other
Agencies
Availability of Off-Site
Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Services and
Capacity
Availability of Necessary
Equipment and
Specialists
Availability of Prospective
Technologies
COST
Capital
Costs
Operating
and
Maintenance
Costs
Present
Worth Cost
STATE
ACCEPTANCE
COMMUNITY1
ACCEPTANCE
Note:
1 These criteria are assessed following comment on the RI/FS report and the proposed plan.
Source: OSWER Directive 9355.3-01.
-------
• Action-specific. Example: A requirement for a specific
technology, such as incineration, for specific types of
wastes.
Compliance with ARARs may inhibit the widespread
use of innovative alternative technologies at CERCLA sites.
For example, a drinking water standard requiring extremely
low concentrations of volatile organics may be a relevant and
appropriaterequirement ata site. However, specific data may
be lacking showing that such an ARAR is attainable for a
complex arrayofmixedchemicals.Therefore,decisionmakers
may not want to consider the use of an innovative technology
in light of this uncertainty. Also, some action-specific ARARs
that require the use of a specific "Best Demonstrated Avail-
able Technology" may preclude selection of a new, unspeci-
fied technology.
Conversely, incentives favoring theuseof an innovative
technology may also result from the application of certain
ARARs. For instance, a site may not be suitable for long-term
isolation of wastes due to its location on a floodplain, thus
rendering a RCRA-approved landfill cap unsuitable as a
remedial alternative. In this case, a permanent remedy in-
volvingremoval and recycling of the waste materials may be
the only way to achieveall applicable requirements. In many
cases, the recovery of recyclable materials may entail an
innovative separation technology. Similarly, land disposal
restriction treatment standards forbid the land disposal of
solid wastes in excess of certain concentrations. If an innova-
tive alternative technology is capable of reducing these
concentrations below the applicable regulatory levels, then a
costly incineration remedy may be avoided.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
This criterion measures the risks associated with a site
after remediation. In many cases, wastes are left on-site, thus
committing response personnel to long-term monitoring.
Two components are addressed: (1) the magnitude of the
residual risks, which assesses toxicological properties and
migration pathways, and (2) the adequacy and reliability of
controls that address the need for long-term monitoring
techniques and any resulting controls that may be required.
For some technologies, such as solidification/stabiliza-
tion (S/S), it is difficult to model and evaluate long-term
effects. Factors such as stability and permanence cannot be
evaluated in a short-term laboratory setting. These concerns
act as significant barriers to the selection of many promising
S/S technologies, both within and outside of the Superfund
program. In other situations, however, the requirement for a
permanent solution can be a strong incentive to the use of
innovative alternative technologies. For example, very few
technologies are available to permanently remove heavy
metal contamination from soils. Such contamination is com-
mon at many sites. However, it may be possible to transfer
existing separation methods from the mining industry into
the environmental engineering practice, thus leading to ef-
fective and permanent recycling alternatives. Because many
innovative alternative technologies involve separation or
destruction of hazardous materials, the requirement for per-
manent treatment can, if applied uniformly across all sites,
strongly favor the use of such technologies.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume Through Treatment
An important new requirement of SARA is the prefer-
ence for treatment in the technology selection process. This
statutory preference focuses on many factors such as the type
and quantity of residuals remaining after treatment, the
degree to which mobility has been reduced by, for example,
precipitation of toxic metal species, and to what extent the
effects of treatment are irreversible.
The most important barrier this criterion poses to the use
of innovative alternative technologies is the lack of reliable
and verified treatability data. A technology's ability to reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume cannot be evaluated without
high quality data from similar applications of the technology.
Moreover, technologies must be tested using matrices (soil
and water) highly similar to those at the actual site in
question. Conventional containmentalternativesaddressonly
the requirement for reducing contaminant mobility. Innova-
tive solidification/stabilization and vitrification technologies
reduce contaminant mobility and toxicity or volume. Other
innovative treatment technologies are needed to address
these requirements for the variety of contaminants and media
found at Superfund sites.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion evaluates alternatives in terms of their
effects on human health and the environment during imple-
mentation. For example, dust from excavation of contami-
nated soils may adversely affect a nearby population.
A barrier to the use of innovative alternative technolo-
gies is short-term environmental impact. Because many
technologies are developed in laboratories on bench-scale
apparatus, emissions of residual wastes are not often evalu-
ated. Also, very few treatment systems are completely closed;
therefore, there is always the potential that some hazardous
materials may be released during processing. In many cases,
the only way to evaluate such releases and their potential
effects is through field testing. Regulators and industry.
personnel may be unwilling to use an innovative technology
in the absence of such data. SITE demonstrations provide
high quality data addressing all releases and residual wastes
from the innovative technology being tested.
6. Implementability
Implementability refers to the technical and administra-
tive feasibility of constructing and operating the alternative,
as well as the reliability of the technology in question. Also
addressed in implementability evaluations are availability qf
specialized equipment and services, and trained personnel.
The implementability of a technology is very important
in determining whether a particular remedy is suitable for a
given site. As stated above, innovative alternative technolo-
gies are often first developed in small-scale laboratory ex-
10
-------
periments, where the primary emphasis is on obtaining tech-
nical data such as treatment efficiency. Implementability
information, however, is highly site-specific. The lack of
such information acts as a barrier to innovative alternative
technology development.
The implementability criterion also considers the avail-
ability of the required equipment and materials. Innovative
technologies may be available from only one vendor, and that
vendor may have a limited sizes and numbers of treatment
units.
However, certain physical, regulatory, or administrative
constraints at a site may inhibit the implementation of con-
ventional treatment methods. This provides incentives for the
development and implementation of innovative alternative
technologies that are not limited by those constraints.
7. Cost
CERCLA remedial actions must be cost-effective. Costs
are broken down into direct capital costs and annual opera-
tion and maintenance costs. The distribution of costs over
time is critical in determining the tradeoffs between capital-
intensive technologies (such as treatment or destruction
technologies) and less capital-intensive technologies (such
as pump-and-treat systems).
The cost factor is a significant barrier to the use of
innovative alternative technologies. Research and develop-
ment (R&D) costs are generally very high, and thus must be
included in the overall cost of a remedial action. Rather than
distributing costs among many cleanup operations, R&D
costs are often applied to a single site, leading regulatory
personnel to conclude that many innovative alternative tech-
nologies are too expensive on a site-specific basis. Private
sector PRPs often remove innovative alternative technolo-
gies from consideration due to the unknown costs of scale-up
and field implementation, citing SARA's requirement that
remedies be cost-effective. Because of this requirement, a
known containment solution such as capping, or treatment
alternative such as incineration, may be selected as the
alternative at many sites.
However, the site may require extensive remediation in
the event of a cap failure. Thus, a very important financial
incentive for implementing innovative alternative technolo-
gies is that future liabilities can be avoided by specifying
solutions involving permanent removal or treatment options.
8. State Acceptance
This criterion evaluates the state's acceptance of the
remedial alternative in light of technical, regulatory, and cost
concerns. States may hesitate to use innovative technologies
given their perceived unreliability. Also, a CERCLA cost-
sharing requirement that states pay 10 percent or more for
remedial actions may eliminate innovative alternative tech-
nologies from consideration.
In other cases, state environmental officials are inter-
ested in more stringent cleanup criteria than are technically
feasible with currently available technology. Such stringent
criteria may act as incentives because they often can be met
only through an innovative separation or destruction technol-
ogy.
9. Community Acceptance
This assessment evaluates issues and concerns the pub-
lic may have regarding the remedial alternative. Experience
has shown that the public is extremely wary of technologies
involving conventional thermal destruction, such as incin-
eration, due to a widely held public perception that incinera-
tion is a major contributor to air pollution. A common
impediment to the use of innovative alternative technologies
is public resistance to the siting of industrial or chemical
plants, including those intended for the remediation of haz-
ardous waste sites. Onceaprocess is sited,communities often
have serious concerns with process releases, even if such
releases do not entail significant risk to human health or the
environment. The public may also resist the selection of a
"new" technology due to uncertainty regarding its overall
performance.
On the other hand, the public may want more permanent
remedial actions for hazardous waste sites than conventional
methods, such as capping, can provide. This provides incen-
tive for the development and use of innovative alternative
technologies that provide more permanent solutions to haz-
ardous waste problems.
C. ROLE OF THE SITE PROGRAM IN
ADVOCATING INNOVATIVE
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
The success of the SITE Program in advocating the use
of innovative alternative technologies depends on the
program's ability to generate and disseminate information
and provide technical assistance for use by remedial project
managers in selecting remedial actions. SITE's core Demon-
stration Program is unique in that it provides information on
each of the nine selection criteria described above under
actual field conditions. In addition, the SITE Emerging
Technologies Program and Monitoring and Measurement
Technologies Program (MMTP) provide immediately useful
information to decisionmakers. The following paragraphs
describe how the SITE Program provides information on
innovative alternative technologies so that they can be evalu-
ated against the nine criteria.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
The measure of overall protection is based on avoidance
of risk. By their nature, innovative alternative technologies
require a certain amount of risk-taking. PRPs and others
responsible for evaluating remedial alternatives understand
the liabilities associated with an unsuccessful remedial action
and, thus, tend to favor "proven" technologies. However, the
Superfund program has determined that many proven tech-
11
-------
nologtes, such as capping and slurry walls, do notprovide the
degree of permanence afforded by treatment alternatives.
That is, they may result in a significant residual risk. SITE
demons trationreportsdocumentthepermanentreductions in
contaminant levels that can be achieved by a technology,
thus, providing data that can be used to predict a given level
of permanent protection and reduced overall cost.
2. Compliance with ARARs
Thedemonstrationplandevelopedfor each SITE project
lists the ARARs for the demonstration site. In fact, those
ARARs often provide the basis on which the success of the
technology demonstration is measured. Compliance with
federal, state, and local ARARs can all be evaluated by
predemonstration screening, treatability studies, and field-
scale demonstrations.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
This criterion evaluates the magnitude of risk associated
with treatment residuals. As part of the SITE demonstration
process, both treatability studies and field testing provide
high quality data on treatmentresiduals; such data can then be
used in a risk assessment Reviewers of the program agree
that the production of high quality, unbiased data is a strong
element of the program thatmustnot be compromised. Also,
many emerging technologies in the SITE Program focus on
how to handle treatment residuals resulting from the use of
other technologies.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and
Volume Through Treatment
The SITE demonstration program uses state-of-the-art
field and laboratory analytical procedures to provide high
quality data for its technology evaluations. In addition, SITE
demonstrations include engineering field measurements to
assess volume reductions or, in the case of solidification/
stabilization, increases due to treatment. This type of infor-
mation on toxicity, mobility, and volume is essential to
evaluating a technology's potential use at other sites.
In addition, the SITE MMTP is designed to further
EPA's ability to determine the toxicity and mobility of
contaminants in the environment (see Section n.D).
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term impacts of a siteremediation are difficult
to assess withoutactualfieldexperience. To gain information
to support this criterion, each SITE demonstration plan
includes a detailed health and safety plan to assure protection
of workers and the surrounding community during the dem-
onstration. Through on-site health and safety monitoring
during the demonstration, EPA can draw conclusions on the
potential impact of an innovative alternative technology
during actual site remediation.
6. Implementability
The SITE Program is designed to expand the availability
of implementable, innovative alternative technologies. In
addition, the demonstration program develops valuable in-
formation on the technical and administrative feasibility of
these technologies. Mobilization for a SITE demonstration
requires all the elements of an actual siteremediation, includ-
ing site preparation, local and state permitting (or variances),
arrangements for utilities and other supplies, waste handling,
and waste pretreatment, if needed. The results and any
problems are then reported to future users of the technology.
7. Cost
The SITE Program addresses cost and financial issues in
several ways. In the applications analysis process, EPA
evaluates 12 cost categories for using the technology.
Decisionmakers and remedial design engineers can evaluate
these cost data based on the conditions at a given site. EPA
also attempts to verify costs reported by the developer by
monitoring all materials and utilities during the demonstra-
tion and through comparison with similar technologies. Ac-
curate cost estimates are essential when attempting to justify
an innovative approach.
The SITE Program also assists with financing the devel-
opment of new technologies. The Emerging Technologies
Program provides up to $150,000 per year (maximum 2
years)todevelopersthroughacost-sharingcooperativeagree-
menL In the Demonstration Program, EPA pays for site
preparation and sampling and analysis, two significant com-
ponents of any field test. By offsetting some of these devel-
opment costs, capital costs of developing the technology may
be reduced, and the technology is brought to the market
sooner.
8. State Acceptance
State preferences and concerns must be considered in
selecting aremedy. The issue of state acceptance is addressed
after the feasibility study (FS), which includes the evaluation
of remedial technologies, is complete. The inter-governmen-
tal review process in the SITE Demonstration Program
allows both the developer's state and the site's state agencies
toreviewandcommentonaproposeddemonstration. Twenty-
five states have requested to be included in this review
process. EPA prepares a fact sheet for state review, and
provides additional documents such as the demonstration
plan, as requested.
In addition, the SITE Program works with state environ-
mental agencies, such as California's Department of Health
Services, in finding demonstration sites and coordinating
with state remedial project managers during demonstrations.
SITE intends to expand its involvement with state innovative
technology assessment programs, as well.
Finally, through SITE'S technology transfer activities,
information on innovative alternative technologies is dis-
seminated to state personnel to further their understanding,
and possible acceptance, of these technologies. State partici-
12
-------
pation and attendance at on-site Visitors' Days is strongly
encouraged.
9. Community Acceptance
The SITE Demonstration Program addresses commu-
nity acceptance in many ways. First, SITE Program staff
coordinate with ongoing EPARegional community relations
activities for the demonstration site, as described in the site's
community relations plan. EPA may prepare feet sheets,
issue public notices, hold public meetings and workshops,
and conduct other community outreach activities in coordi-
nation with ongoing activities. (Sample fact sheets are pro-
vided in Appendix D.)
The SITE Program also documents the demonstration on
videotape and conducts a Visitors' Day for each SITE dem-
onstration. The on-site Visitors' Days is attended by such
groups as local officials, press, students, and the general
public, as well as technical personnel such as state and
regional RPMs and remedial engineering contractors. This
provides an opportunity for individuals and groups to view
the technology in operation, thus promoting its acceptance.
D. INNOVATIVE MONITORING AND
MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Monitoring and measurement technologies play a num-
ber of critical roles in the EPA process for identifying,
characterizing, and remediating hazardous waste sites. The
Superfund remedial process begins with initial site discovery
and, in such case as a site becomes included on the National
Priorities List (NPL), ends with removal from the NPL and,
if necessary, an operation and maintenance agreement
Site characterization is important in remedial investiga-
tions. EPA, through its various Superfund contractors and the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs), use whatever means
are available to gather data and information on the nature and
extent of contamination at each site. Site specific information
on the nature and extent of contamination is required for use
in the Hazard Ranking System (during site assessment), for
use in preparing risk assessments, and for selecting the
appropriate remedy(s) for the site during the remedial inves-
tigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) phase.
In addition to their role in remedial investigations, moni-
toring, measurement, and other site characterization tech-
nologies play a critical part in evaluating the progress and
effectiveness of a selected remedy(s) and in the follow-up
monitoring activities after the site is removed from the NPL.
Monitoring, measurement, and site characterization tech-
nologies also are used in emergency situations (removal
actions).
1. Need for Faster and More Cost-
Effective Field Methods
Experience has shown that site characterization during
the remedial investigation process can take a very long time
and is costly. This is due, in large part, to the limited
sophistication of the equipment used to collect environmen-
tal samples, analytical costs, and quality control require-
ments. Analytical costs can range from $200 to over $2,000
per sample. The users of site characterization technologies
realize that there are tremendous costs associated with data
and information gathering during the Superfund remedial
process, particularly during the remedial investigation. It has
become apparent that faster and more cost-effective means
are needed to acquire comparable or better site characteriza-
tion data directly in the field. In response to this need, a new
environmental technology market has evolved that is focused
on producing instruments and methods that can be used to
generate real-time or near-real-time data and information in
the field.
However, site engineers are often reluctant to use any
method, other than generally accepted conventional ones, for
generating critical data on the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a site. It is generally understood that the data
generated with conventional laboratory methods are those
recognized by the courts. To meet this stringent requirement,
EPA Regions must identify new approaches, and seek assur-
ances through verifiable testing on the capabilities of emerg-
ing field screening technologies. Currently, the only sources
of information on innovative or alternative technologies
available to the Regional staffs are the vendors and the pilot
testing that the Regions may be able to conduct during site
activities. However, the Regions generally do not have the
resources to plan and conduct these demonstrations, nor are
they prepared to transfer that information to the other Re-
gions, the states, and others in the user community.
2. The SITE Monitoring and
Measurement Technologies Program
The goal of the SITE Monitoring and Measurement
Technologies Program (MMTP) is to accelerate the recogni-
tion and use of those technologies that have the potential to
provide more cost-effective, better, faster, or safer means to
detect and monitor contaminants and the geophysical charac-
teristics of Superfund sites. Candidate technologies may
come from within theFederal government or from theprivate
sector. Through the program, developers are provided with
the opportunity to rigorously evaluate the performance of
their technologies. By distributing the results andrecommen-
dations of that evaluation the market for the technologies is
enhanced. The MMTP is administered by ORD's Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Ne-
vada (EMSL-LV).
Technology developers continually inquire as to how
they can get approval or endorsement from EPA for their
product Although the Agency does not intend to formally
approve or endorse any product, most developers recognize
that an evaluation of the technology that their product repre-
sents under the Demonstration Program can have a signifi-
cant positive impact on the commercial success of their
product The developers often note that without recognition
by EPA, the Regions are reluctant to use an alternative
technology (through various remedial response contracts) or
allowits use by others (PRPsandstates). The MMTP is, to the
best of our knowledge, the only program that exists at the
13
-------
Federal, state, or private level for demonstrating the perfbr-
manceofmonitoring,measurement,andsitecharacterization
technologies under field conditions, reporting on the perfor-
mance, and communicating the results to the user commu-
nity.
3. Promoting the Use of Innovative
Monitoring and Measurement
Technologies
Technology developers have directly benefitted from
participation in the Program. There have been three technol-
ogy demonstrations conducted. They include: a side-by-side
demonstration ofcommerciallyavailablegaschromatographs;
the testing of a portable long-path infrared spectrometer for
measuring VOC concentrations in ambient air; and the field
testing of a portable mass spectrometer. These technologies
have been and will continue to be used by the Agency to
support decision making in the field.
In addition to the technologies demonstrated under the
Program, the development of emerging technologies has
been, in part, supported with resources available through the
Program. These technologies include: a field portable x-ray
fluorescence spectrometer, a data telemetry/geo-position
system, a field portable luminiscope, various immunoassay
field kits, ion mobility spectrometers, and innovative meth-
ods for the analysis of contaminants in ambient air. The
support of emerging technologies is essential for ensuring
that a steady stream of technologies are ready for demonstra-
tion and made available to the Agency and other potential
users. The Agency will directly benefit from having a variety
of alternative field screening methods and the environmental
technology market will be enhanced.
Finally, as a result of the implementation of the MMTP,
EPA has established a central focal point within the Agency,
EMSL-LV, where technology developers and users (EPA,
other Federal agencies, and private parties) can direct in-
quires about current and emerging monitoring, measure-
ment, and site characterization technologies. Specifically,
this has provided EPA with the means to interact with about
100 technology developers, thereby enhancing the list of
candidate technologies forpotential users. It has also resulted
in theestablishmentof an extensive communication network
between (and within) the EPA, other Federal agencies, and
the states. This network has been particularly useful for
conveying information on demonstrated and emerging tech-
nologies, for avoiding redundancy in research, for planning
technology development and demonstration activities, for
prioritizing needs, and for exchanging ideas and expertise.
14
-------
SECTION III
PROGRESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
This section discusses the progress and accomplish-
ments of theSITE Program over the pastyear. The program's
overall accomplishments to foster incentives and overcome
barriers are discussed first. This is followed by discussions of
the progress of the four major components of the SITE
Program: (1) the Demonstration Program, (2) the Emerging
Technologies Program, (3) theMonitoringandMeasurement
Technologies Program, and (4) the Technology Information
Services.
A. PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO
FOSTER INCENTIVES AND
OVERCOME BARRIERS
As discussed in Section II, the success of the SITE
Program must be measured by the increased use of innovative
technologies for hazardous waste treatment and site monitor-
ing and measurement. SITE provides developers (1) assis-
tance in funding their technology development, (2) the op-
portunity to test technologies under actual site conditions,
and (3) vast information resources and capabilities to dis-
seminate the results of these efforts. The following para-
graphs discuss the program's attempts to foster incentives
and overcome barriers to the use of innovative technologies.
1. Impact on Developers
Over the past year, EPA has investigated the impact of
the SITE Program on developers' success in the marketplace.
Through the University of Cincinnati's Center for the Man-
agement of Advanced Technology and Innovation, a pro-
gram assessment was conducted on 45 developers in the
emergingtechnologiesanddemonstration programs. Twenty-
six of the developers reported one or more applications of
their technology subsequent to their SITE Program participa-
tion. Of the remaining technologies, seven were not yet ready
for commercialization; therefore, more than 68 percent of the
viable technologies have had some success in the market-
place.
In a follow-up survey of the 20 developers that had
completed SITE demonstrations, respondents reported 14
Superfund projects started since the SITE demonstration. In
addition, excluding Terra Vac (see paragraph below), these
developers reported 13 RCRA corrective actions, 23 other
cleanups, and over 300 treatability studies that could poten-
tially lead to other remediation projects.
15
Individually, several technologies have done extremely
well in the marketplace. For example, Terra Vac's in-situ
vapor extraction system has been applied at more than 200
sites in the U.S. since 1988. In general, vapor extraction has
received increased attention in the selection of remedial
alternatives since Terra Vac's system was demonstrated un-
der the SITE Program (December 1987 through April 1988
at the Groveland Wells Superfund Site).
Commercial units of CF Systems Corporation's solvent
extraction technology have been sold to Clean Harbors of
Braintree,Massachusetts,forwastewaterclean-up;andEnsco
of Little Rock, Arkansas, for incineratorpretreatment. A unit
is also in operation at Star Enterprise of Port Arthur, Texas,
treating American Petroleum Institute (API) separate sludge
to meet Best Demonstrated and Available Technology
(BOAT) standards for organics.
InternationalWasteTechnologies(IWT)/Geo-Con,Inc.'s
in-situ solidification/stabilization process was selected as the
remedial method at a PCB-contaminated G.E. facility in
Hialeah, Florida. Full-scale implementation of the technolo-
gies is scheduled to begin in December 1990. IWT/Geo-Con,
Inc. is also pursuing work in the Netherlands and Norway,
demonstrating theSITEProgram'sinternational significance.
Other examples of SITE'S impact on developers include
the increased interest in ultraviolet oxidation processes, spe-
cifically the Ultrox Industries system. The Ultrox system was
selected as the remedial technology at the Lorenz Barrel and
Drum site, where theSITE demonstration tookplace.Shirco's
infrared incinerator was sold to three remediation contractors
that are actively marketing the technology for site clean-ups.
Three emerging technologies in the program are now ready
for field demonstration: Bio-Recovery Systems' AlgaSORB®
process, Colorado School of Mines' wetland-based treat-
ment, and Western Research Institute's Contained Recovery
of Oily Wastes system.
2. Evolution of START and TIO
The Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team
(START) program was formed within RREL to provide
assistance toEPARegional office staff on complex sites. The
purpose of the program is to increase the use of treatment
technologies, as opposed to containment options, and better
ensure the quality of the decision through engineering sup-
port to theRegions. EPA understands that complex problems
-------
often require innovative solutions, and RREL can apply the
resources of the SITE Program directly to site problems.
START program staff, many of whom are also SITE project
managers, assistin state-of-the-art technology reviews.tech-
nical reviews of PRP generated documents, and in the perfor-
mance of treatability studies, which may employ innovative
technologies. START also provides opportunities for future
SITE demonstration sites, and the potential for long-term
involvement and evaluation of innovative treatment tech-
nologies.
TheTechnology Innovation Office (TIO) was formedby
thcOfficeofSolidWasteandEmergencyResponse(OSWER)
from its SITE Program staff. As SITE demonstration and
technology evaluation responsibilities shifted to RREL, the
TIO staff evolved to fill a need for a better understanding of
the market for innovative treatment technologies. In August,
TIO conducted areview of RODs signed for National Priori-
ties List (NPL) sites to assess the use of innovative technolo-
gies. Exhibit ffl-l portrays the extent to which treatment
technologies have been specified for source control remedia-
tion at these sites.
As part of OS WER, the TIO has a direct link to EPA's
Regional offices as well as a headquarters perspective of
overall Superfund program needs. Both START and TIO
represent significant efforts in "mainstreaming" the findings
of the SITE Program and, thus, providing incentives and
overcoming barriers to the use of innovative technologies.
B. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The SITE Demonstration Program develops reliable
engineering performance and cost data on innovative treat-
ment technologies so that potential users can evaluate each
technology's applicability for a specific waste site. Demon-
strations are conducted at hazardous waste sites or under
situations that closely simulate actual wastes and site condi-
tions; these include Superfund remedial and removal sites,
privateparty clean-up sites, state clean-up sites, and EPA and
developer test facilities.
Data collected during a demonstration are used to assess
the pcrformanceof the technology, thepotentialneed for pre-
and post-processing of the waste, applicable types of wastes
and media, potential operating problems, and the approxi-
mate capital and operatingcosts-Demonstrationdatacan also
provide insight into long-term operating and maintenance
costs and long-term risks.
Technologies are selected for the Demonstration Pro-
gram primarily through annual requests for proposals (RFPs).
Although the process is non-competitive, proposals are re-
viewed by EPA to determine those that fit into the Demon-
strationProgram andhavepromiseforuse at hazardous waste
sites. In addition, several technologies have entered the
program on a fast-track basis. These technologies were
primarily ongoing Superfund projects or private sector ac-
tivities in which innovative techniques of interest were iden-
tified for evaluation.
Cooperative agreements between EPA and the devel-
oper set forth responsibilities for conducting the demonstra-
tion and evaluating the technology. Developers are generally
responsible for operating their innovative systems at a se-
lected site, and are expected to pay the costs to transport
equipment to the site, operate the equipment on-site during
the demonstration, and remove the equipment from the site.
EPA is responsible for project planning, site preparation,
sampling and analysis, quality assurance and quality control,
reporting, and technology transfer. If the developer is unable
to obtain financing elsewhere, EPA may consider bearing a
greater portion of the total project cost.
Through fiscal year 1990, five solicitations have been
completed, SITE 001 in 1986 through SITE 005 in 1990. The
RFP for SITE 006 will be issued in January 1991. A summary
of the five completed solicitations is presented in Exhibit III-
2. The Demonstration Program has 43 active participants (45
projects), including several fast-track projects. A complete
list of the current participants is presented in Appendix B.
The progress and accomplishments of the Demonstra-
tion Program can be measured through (1) its ability to attract
technologies and sites to participate in the program, (2) the
success of completed demonstrations, (3) the evaluations of
the completed demonstrations, and (4) the number and qual-
ity of new projects for FY 1990. These issues are discussed
in the following sections, along with the future needs and
direction of the Demonstration Program for continued suc-
cess.
1. Attracting Technologies and Sites to
the Program
As stated above, technologies have been selected for
participation primarily through annual solicitations pub-
lished in the Commerce Business Daily and advertised in
various environmental trade journals. Proposals are reviewed
by a panel of EPA experts based on the following selection
criteria:
• Technology Factors—including the unit size, transport-
ability, treatment capacity, and availability of the tech-
nology; the types and concentrations of waste the tech-
nology can handle; materials handling needs of the
technology; and the types and quantities of waste streams
or residues generated by the technology.
Performance Factors—including the history or back-
ground at technology development, available pilot- or
field-scale data, applicability to Superfund sites, and
advantages over similar technologies.
• Developer Factors—includingtheexperienceandavail-
ability of key personnel, Superfund-related experience,
subcontracting needs, marketing strategy, and projected
unit costs.
Due to the low response to the SITE 005 solicitation,
EPA increased its efforts in FY 1990 to attract technologies
to the program through other means. This increased flexibil-
ity has also been recommended in various reviews of the
16
-------
Exhibit 111-1. Source Control Treatment—Fiscal Years 1987-1989*
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SPECIFIED - 210
NUMBER OF RODS - 165
On-site Incineration** (36)
In-situ Vitrification (2)
X-i^Tfji.]. X. Off-site Incineration (28)
Solidification/
Stabilization (52)
Thermal Desorption (9)
Soil Washing (7)
Chemical Extraction (6)
Chemical Destruction (2)
Other (7)
Bioremediation (22)
Vacuum/Vapor
Extraction (29)
In-situ Soil Flushing (10)
**
()
Sources include solids, soils, sludges and liquid wastes; waste sources do not include ground
water or surface water
Also includes sites where location of incineration is to be determined
Number of times this technology was selected
Source: "Selected Data on Innovative Treatment Technologies: For Superfund Source Control and
Groundwater Remediation," U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation Office, August 1990.
17
-------
Exhibit IH-2. Summary of Demonstration Program
Solicitation*
Solicitation
SITE 001
SITE 002
SITE 003
SITE 004
SITEOOS
Date RFP
Issued
March 1986
January 1987
January 1988
January 1989
January 1990
Number of
Responses
Received
20
29
31
24
12
Number
Technologies
Selected
13
11
12
12
6
program. Oneway to attract technologies is through outreach
to EPA Regional offices. RREL's internal management re-
view found thatEPA's Regional offices and PRPs are using
some innovative technologies at sites and' that the SITE
Program should move to bring these projects into the pro-
gram. One recent example of this approach is the demonstra-
tion of excavation techniques and foam suppression at the
McColl Superfund site in California. RREL had previously
demonstrated theOgdencirculatingbedcombustoron wastes
from the site, and continued its support to Region 9 on
evaluating a method to control emissions from excavation of
the waste for the full site remediation.
The START program has also provided this type of
outreach to the Regions. This has resulted in a potential
demonstration of the Colorado School of Mines wetlands
technology at the Clear Creek site. This project also repre-
sents the success of the Emerging Technologies Program as
a feeder to the Demonstration Program. As an example of
state outreach, the AWD Technologies demonstration com-
bined two proven technologies—in-situ vapor extraction and
steam stripping—in an innovative way. The technology was
accepted into the SITE Program as an operating system, and
was approved by the State of California Department of
Health Services for the Burbank Well Field Superfund site.
Other methods that are being implemented to attract
technologies to the program include:
• Incorporating market survey information into subse-
quent solicitations to guide technology developers.
• Inviting developers to address specific site problems,
such as those found at wood-preserving, town-gas, or
lead-battery sites, thus adding the potential for future
work at the site.
• Using the STARTprogram to identify sites and technol-
ogy needs for specific site problems.
• Advertising that technologies may enter the program at
any time if the developer has a technology that meets the
criteria for selection and has a demonstration site.
• Working with more than one developer to build innova-
tive treatment trains for specific site problems.
• Conducting treatability studies on potential technolo-
gies at EPA test facilities.
2. Completed Demonstrations
Over the past year, five demonstrations of innovative
treatment technologies have been completed under the Dem-
onstration Program. Additionally, three demonstrations were
conducted as part of the Monitoring and Measurement Tech-
nologies Program (MMTP). The technologies demonstrated
during the past year as part of the Demonstration Program, as
well as available preliminary results from the demonstra-
tions, are discussed below. A summary of demonstrations
completed during FY1990 is presented in Exhibit ffl-3. All
demonstrations completed through fiscal year 1990 are high-
lighted in the lists provided in Appendix B. Those technolo-
gies demonstrated under the MMTP are discussed in Section
m.D of this report.
AWD Technologies, Inc., San Francisco, California,
developed an integrated AquaDetox/SVE System that si-
multaneously treats groundwater and soil contaminated with
volatile organic compounds, including chlorinated hydrocar-
bons such as trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. The
integrated system consists of two basic processes: (1) an
AquaDetox moderate vacuum stripping tower that uses low-
pressure steam to treat contaminated ground water, and (2) a
soil gas vapor extraction/reinjection (SVE) process to treat
contaminated soil. The two processes form a closed-loop
system that provides simultaneous in-situ remediation of
contaminated groundwater and soil with no air emissions.
The AWD AquaDetox/SVE System is currently being
used at the Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company in
Burbank, California At this site, the system is treating
ground water contaminated with up to 2,200 parts per billion
(ppb) trichloroethylene and 11,000 ppb perchloroethylene;
and soil gas with a total volatile organic compound concen-
tration of 6,000 parts per million (ppm). A SITE demonstra-
tion project of this system was evaluated as part of the
ongoing remediation effort at the San Fernando Valley
Groundwater Basin Superfund site in Burbank, California.
Demonstration testing was conducted in September 1990.
Demonstration results are currently being prepared and are
expected to be published in early 1991.
E J. Dupont deNemours and Company/Oberlin Fil-
ter Company, Newark, Delaware, developed a Membrane
Microfiltration system using Oberlin's automatic pressure
filter combined wimDuPont'sspecialTyvek® filter/material
(Ty vek® T-980) made of spun-bonded olefin. This system is
designed to remove metals and other particulates from liquid
wastes. Oberlin's automatic pressure filter has two cham-
bers: an upper chamber for feeding waste through the filter,
and a lower chamber for collecting the filtered liquid (fil-
trate). At the start of a filter cycle, the upper chamber is
lowered to form a liquid-tight seal against the filter. The
waste feed is then pumped into the upper chamber and
through the filter. Filtered solids accumulated on the Ty vek®
surface, forming a filter cake, while filtrate is collected in the
lower chamber. Air is fed into the upper chamber at about 45
pounds per square inch, and used to further dry the cake and
remove any liquidremaining in the upper chamber. When the
cake is dry, the upper chamber is lifted and the filter cake is
automatically discharged. Clean filter material is then drawn
18
-------
Exhibit 111-3. Demonstrations Completed During FY 1990
Developer
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
AWD Technologies, Inc.
San Francisco, CA
E.I. DuPont deNemours and Co.,
Newark, DE/Oberlin Filter Co.,
Waukesha, Wl
EPA Risk Reduction & Engineering
Lab/PEI Associates, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH
EPA Risk Reduction & Engineering
Lab/Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory/Region 9 Superfund Program
Silicate Technology Corporation,
Scottsdale, AZ
Technology
Integrated Vapor
Extraction and Stream
Vacuum Stripping
Membrane Microfiltration
Debris Washing System
Excavation Techniques and
Foam Suppression
Solidification/Stabilization
with Silicate Compounds
Demonstration Site
San Fernando Valley Ground-Water
Basin Superfund Site, Burbank, CA
Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site,
Palmerton, PA
Shavers Farm Superfund Site in
Lafayette, GA, and Gray PCB Site in
Hopkinsville, KY
McColl Superfund Site,
Fullerton, CA
Selma Pressure Treating Superfund
Site, Fresno, CA
Date
September
1990
April 1990
December
1989
June/July
1990
November
1990
EPA ORD
Contact
Gordon Evans
513/569-7684
Norma Lewis
513/569-7565
John F. Martin
513/569-7758
Naomi Barkley
513/569-7854
S. Jackson
Hubbard
513/569-7507
Edward R. Bates
513/569-7774
Regional
Contact
Alison Greene
EPA Region IX
415/744-1890
Tony Koller
EPA Region III
215/598-6906
Chuck Eger
404/347-3931
John Blevins
Region IX
415/974-9103
Dave Roberts
Region IX
415/744-2227
MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Bruker Instruments, Inc.,
Billerica, MA
Xontech Corporation,
Van Nuys, CA
MDA Scientific,
Norcross, GA
Mobile Mass Spectrometer
Air Sector Sampler
Infrared-based Long-path
Air Monitor
Resolve Inc. Superfund Site
North Dartmouth, MA, and
Westborough Township Superfund
Site, Westborough, MA
Shavers Farm Superfund Site,
Lafayette, GA
Shavers Farm Superfund Site,
Lafayette, GA
August/
September
1990
August
1990
August
1990
Steve Billets
702/798-2232
William McClenny
919/541-3158
William McClenny
919/541-3158
Robert Leger
Lorenzo Thonto
Region I
617/565-1720
NA
NA
-------
MM. AWD Technologies, Inc.'* Aquadetox/SVE System
20
-------
III-2. DuPont/Oberlin's Membrane Microflltration Unit
from a roll into the system for the next cycle. Both the filter
cake and the filtrate can be collected and treated further prior
to disposal, if necessary. The system can be manufactured as
an enclosed unit, requires little or no attention during opera-
tion, is mobile, and can be trailer-mounted.
This technology was demonstrated over a four-week
period in April and May 1990 at the Palmerton Zinc Super-
fund site in Palmerton, Pennsylvania. Ground water from the
shallow aquifer at the site, contaminated with dissolved
heavy metals (such as cadmium, lead, and zinc), was selected
as the feed waste for the demonstration. A Demonstration
Bulletin summarizing the results of the demonstration was
prepared in August 1990. A Technology Evaluation Report,
Applications Analysis Report, and video of the demonstra-
tion are currently being finalized.
The demonstration results are summarized below:
Removal efficiencies for zinc and total suspended solids
ranged from 99.75 to 99.99 percent.
Solids in the filter cake ranged from 30.5 to 47.1 percent.
Dry filter cake in all test runs passed the RCRA paint
filter liquids test.
• Filtrate met the applicable National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System standard for zinc.
A composite filter cake sample passed the Extraction
Procedure Toxicity and Toxicity Characteristics Leach-
ing Procedure tests for metals.
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
(RREL) and PEI Associates, Inc. (PEI), Cincinnati, Ohio,
developed a Debris Washing System (DWS) for treating
metallic, masonry, or other solid debris contaminated with
pesticides, PCBs, metals, and other contaminants. The sys-
tem will be commercialized under the Federal Technology
Transfer Act with PEI. The DWS consists of 300-gallon
spray and wash tanks, surfactant and rinse water holding
tanks, and an oiVwater separator. In this system, a basket of
debris is placed in the spray tank, where it is sprayed with a
high-pressure, aqueous detergent solution that is recycled.
The debris is then placed in the wash and rinse tank, and
sprayed with water at 140 F and 60 psig. The contaminated
wash and rinse waters are collected and separated in the oil/
water separator. The oil phase from the separator can be
disposed or treated, and the aqueous phase is treated by
paniculate filtration, activated carbon adsorption, and ion
exchange.
Field-scale demonstration of the DWS was conducted in
EPA Region 4 at the Gray PCB site in Hopkinsville, Ken-
tucky, during December 1989. The results for the demonstra-
tion were promising. PCB levels on the surfaces of metallic
transformer casings were reduced to less than or equal to 10
micrograms PCB/100 cm2. All 75 contaminated transformer
casings on-site were decontaminated to EPA acceptable
clean-up criteria, and sold by Region 4 to a scrap-metal
dealer.
TheDWSunitwas also field-demonstrated at theShaver's
Farm Superfund site in Walker County, Georgia. The con-
taminants of concern here were the herbicide Dicamba and
21
-------
111-3. RIter Cake Discharged from DuPont/Oberlln's Membrane MicroflKration Unit
I--. **J
bcnzonitrile. Fifty-five-gallon drums were cut into sections
and run through the DWS. Results from this demonstration
are currently being prepared.
In a joint EPA effort involving the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, the Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Tri-
angle Park, North Carolina, and Region 9 Superfund Pro-
gram, a demonstration of Excavation Techniques and
Foam Suppression Methods was conducted at the McColl
Superfund site in FuUerton, California, during June and July
1990. In this demonstration, an area to be excavated was
temporarily enclosed. Air from the enclosure was vented
through an emission control system. A vapor suppressant
foam was applied to the soil before and after excavation. The
purpose of the demonstration was to evaluate the control of
emissions during the excavation of soil contaminated with
volatile organic compounds and sulfur dioxide.
Preliminary results showed that contaminant concentra-
tions within the enclosure were higher than expected, due in
part to the foam's inability to form an impermeable mem-
brane over the exposed wastes. The foam reacted with the
highly acidic waste, causing degradation of the foam. A
complete report of the demonstration results is currently
being prepared.
Silicate Technology Corporation (STC), Scottsdale,
Arizona, developed a technology for Solidification/Stabili-
zation with Silicate Compounds. This combined technol-
ogy uses silicate compounds for two applications: (1) the
fixation and solidification of organics and inorganics in
contaminated soils and sludges, (2) the removal of organics
from contaminated water. For soils and sludges, proprietary
silicate reagents selectively adsorb organic and inorganic
contaminants before the waste is mixed with a cement-like
material to form a high-strength, non-leaching cement block •
(monolith). For water, the same reagents can be used in
conjunction with granular activated carbon to remove organ-
ics. The resulting waste material is then solidified by the first
technology. The type and dose of reagents depend on the
waste characteristics. The technology can be applied to soils.
22
-------
111-4. RREL/PEI's Debris Washing System
fc r- (~ J-"™ • js§*y™ ^^—-«e"««s™^i«^™w«™»i «••» *»»>««&
:- * ' fo>- '*•'*•*****"' ' ,' . ****'3
•j^Bt ;•• '." ~ .;\l.iJ-^ ' '- ^U
= --::' n-%',;^i tX-fis.J-'-r.'"'*
•:u^H-'|';--!iHv^^V^
r^'j; {?!ff!-3^:S|*^1^
J,1'>-\//,f? ^'^^Jv^, ^* -| /,, ^£-^^.3^ > Jj \ M '*
; ?*';-!; ri. Jti, .y-^'-" ii^*J.awM jc-Lii
b...
?U»
^ ~,| ^ , ^| „ ,««.*'- ,. ., * 4 aji^/ I '-1 ^"' & »
j^ v^l-4; :|i • ;>i ^«? -f^ >t :I4
,>»-l^i '^'?f'i • • !i.-~" t;,-,-? »:r-^:
• ;44|M^f Sf|l^ife^
23
-------
III-6. Enclosure at the HcColl Superfund Site Demonstration of Excavation Techniques and Foam Suppression Methods
111-7. STC'colIdlflcatlon/Stablllzatlon Process
24
-------
and sludges contaminated with high molecular weightorgan-
ics, metals, and other inorganics. Water contaminated with
high molecular weight organics can also be treated.
A demonstration of the STC technology was conducted
during November 1990 at the Selma Pressure Treating Su-
perfund site near Fresno, California. Contaminants at the site
includedpentachlorophenol, chromium, copper, andarsenic.
Results from the demonstration have not yet been released.
3. Completed Evaluations of
Demonstrations
As discussed earlier, the objective of the Demonstration
Program is to develop reliable engineering performance and
cost data on innovative, alternative technologies, so that
potential users can evaluate each technology's applicability
for a specific waste site. Therefore, an important measure of
the progress of the program is the evaluation reports of the
demonstrated technologies, which are later reviewed by
potential users. These reports include the (1) Applications
Analysis Report (AAR), which presents information on a
technology to help those responsible for selecting and imple-
menting remedial actions determine if the technology merits
further consideration as an option for cleaning up a specific
site, and (2) the Technology Evaluation Report (TER), which
presents a comprehensive description of the demonstration
and its results to assist those responsible for a detailed
technical evaluation of the technology relative to a specific
site and waste. During the past year, six technology demon-
strations were evaluated, and reports summarizing the results
were prepared. The six technologies and the demonstration
results are discussed below.
CF Systems Corporation, Waltham, Massachusetts,
demonstrated its Solvent Extraction technology. This tech-
nology uses liquified gas solvent to extract organics (such as
hydrocarbons), oil, and grease from contaminated wastewa-
ter, sludges, sediment, and soil. Carbon dioxide is the gas
solvent used for aqueous solutions, while propane or butane
is used for sediment, sludges, and soils. The contaminated
waste stream is fed into an extractor. Solvent (gas condensed
by compression) is also fed to the extractor, making
nonreactive contact with the waste. Following phase separa-
tion of the solvent and organics, treated water is removed
from the extractor while the mixture of solvent and organics
passes through a valve to the separator where pressure is
partially reduced. In the separator, the solvent is vaporized
and recycled as fresh solvent. The organics are drawn off
from the separator, and either recycled or disposed. The
extractor design is different for contaminated wastewaters
and semisolids. For wastewaters, a tray tower contactor is
used. For semisolids, a series of extractor/decanters operated
countercurrently is used.
The pilot-scale system was demonstrated on PCB con-
taminated sediments from the New Bedford (Massachusetts)
Harbor Superfund site during September 1988. PCB concen-
trations in the harbor ranged from 300 to 2,500 ppm. The TER
and AAR were published in 1990. Commercial systems have
been sold to Clean Harbors of Braintree, Massachusetts, for
wastewater clean-up; and Ensco of Little Rock, Arkansas, for
incinerator pretreatment A unit is in operation at Star Enter-
prise, Port Arthur, Texas, treating API separator sludge to
meet Best Demonstrated and Available Technology (BDAT)
standards for organics.
The applications analysis results are summarized below:
Extraction efficiencies of 90 to 98 percent wereachieved
on sediments containing between 350 and 2,575 ppm
PCBs. PCB concentrations were as low as 8 ppm in the
treated sediment
• Operating problems included solids being retained in
the system hardware and foaming in the receiving tanks.
The vendor identified corrective measures that will be
implemented in the full-scale commercial unit.
• Projected costs for PCB clean-ups are estimated at
approximately $150 to $450 per ton, including material
handling and pre- and post-treatment costs. These costs
are highly sensitive to the utilization factor and job size,
which may result in lower costs for large clean-ups.
Chemflx Technologies, Inc., Metairie, Louisiana, de-
veloped a Solidification/Stabilization technology. The
Chemfix technology is an inorganic system in which soluble
silicates and silicate setting agents react with polyvalent
metal ions and other waste components in a reaction vessel,
to produce a chemically and physically stable solid material.
It can be used to treat soils, sludges, and other solid wastes
contaminated with extractable organics of high molecular
weight or heavy metals. The treated waste matrix displays
good stability, a high melting point, and a friable texture, and
may be similar to soil, depending upon the water content of
the feed waste.
This technology was demonstrated in March 1989 at the
PortableEquipmentSalvageCo.SuperfundsiteinClackamas,
Oregon. Preliminary results are available in a Demonstration
Bulletin (October 1989). A single draft report describing the
demonstration and future application of this technology was
completed. The final demonstration report was completed in
early 1990.
The demonstration results are described below:
• The lead and copper concentrations in the TCLP
extracts from the treated wastes were 94 to 99
percent less than those from the untreated wastes.
The volume of the excavated waste material in-
creased from 20 to 50 percent after treatment.
In the durability tests, the treated wastes showed
little or no weight loss after 12 cycles of wetting and
drying, or freezing and thawing.
• The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the
wastes varied from 27 to 307 pounds per square inch
(psi) after 28 days, and permeability decreased by
more than one order of magnitude.
25
-------
« The air monitoring data suggested there was no
significant volatilization of PCBs during the treat-
ment process.
From Fall 1989 through Winter 1990, Chemfix Tech-
nologies,Inc.'ssubsidiaryChemfixEnvkonmentalServices,
Inc. (CES), applied a high solids CHEMSET® reagent pro-
tocol approach to the treatment of about 30,000 cubic yards
of heavy metal-contaminated waste. The goal of reducing
Icachable hexavalent chromium to below 0.5 ppm in the
TCLP leaching test was met, as well as the goal of producing
a synthetic clay cover material with low permeability (less
than 1 x 10"* cm/sec). The production goal of exceeding 400
tons per day was also met, including production during many
subfrcezing days in December, January, and March. In Sum-
mer 1990,CES engaged inanotherhighsolidsprojectinvolv-
ing lead; results are not yet available.
International Waste Technologies/Geo-Con, Inc.,
Wichita, Kansas and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, developed an
In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization Process to immobilize
organic and inorganic compounds in wet or dry soils, using
reagents (additives) that stabilize the contaminants in a
cement-like mass. The basic components of this technology
are: (1) Geo-Con's deep soil mixing system (DSM), which
uses an auger to deliver and mix the chemicals and the soil in-
situ; and (2) a batch mixing plant, which supplies Interna-
tional Waste Technologies' (IWT) proprietary treatment
chemicals.
A SITE demonstration of the IWT/Geo-Con, Inc. pro-
cess was conducted at a PCB-contaminated site in Hialeah,
Florida, in April 1988.Two 10x20-foottestsectorsof thesite
were treated: one to a depth of 18 feet, and the other to a depth
of 14 feet. Ten months after the demonstration, long-term
monitoring tests were performed on the treated sectors. The
TER and AAR have been published.
The applications analysis results are summarized below:
• Microstructural analyses of the treated soils showed
high unconfined compressive strengths and low
permeabilities, indicating the potential for long-term
durability.
• Data provided by IWT indicate some immobilization of
volatile and semivolatile organics, due to organophilic
clays present in the IWT reagent.
• The process is economic: $194 per ton of soil for the
one-auger machine used in the demonstration; and $ 111
per ton of soil for a commercial four-auger operation.
Soliditech, Inc., Houston, Texas, developed a Solidifi-
cation/Stabilization technology that immobilizes organic
and inorganic compounds, metals, and oil and grease in soils
and sludges by binding them in a concrete-like, leach-resis-
tant matrix. In this technology, contaminated waste materials
arc collected, screened to remove oversized material, and
introduced to the batch mixer. The waste material is then
mixed with: (1) water, (2) Urricheni (a proprietary chemical
reagent), (3) proprietary additives, and (4) pozzolanic mate-
rial (flyash), kiln dust, or cement (cement was used for the
demonstration). Once thoroughly mixed, the treated waste is
discharged from the mixer.
The Soliditech process was demonstrated in December
1988 at the Imperial Oil Company/Champion Chemical
Company SuperfundsiteinMorganville.New Jersey. Wastes
treated during the demonstration were soils and filter cake
contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, other
organic chemicals, and heavy metals. A TER was published
in February 1990 in two volumes. Volume I is the report and
Volume II contains the data to accompany the report. An
AAR is currently being published.
Significant results from the Soliditech demonstration
are summarized below:
• Chemical analyses of extracts and leachates showed
that heavy metals in the untreated waste were immobi-
lized.
• The process solidified both solid and liquid wastes with
high organic content (up to 17 percent), as well as oil and
grease.
• Volatile organic compounds in the original waste were
not detected in the treated waste.
Physical test results of the solidified waste samples
showed: (1) unconfined compressive strengths ranging
from 390 to 860 psi, (2) very little weight loss after 12
cycles of wet/dry and freeze/thaw durability tests, (3)
low permeability, and (4) increased density after treat-
ment.
The solidified waste increased in volume by an average
of 22 percent The bulk density of the waste material
increased by approximately 35 percent due to solidifica-
tion.
Semivolatile organic compounds (phenols) were de-
tected in the treated waste and the TCLP extracts from
the treated waste, but not in the untreated waste or its
TCLP extracts. The presence of these compounds is
believed to result from chemical reactions in the waste
treatment mixture.
Toxic Treatments (USA) Inc., San Francisco, Califor-
nia, developed a technology that uses a transportable
"detoxifier" treatment unit for In-Situ Steam and Air Strip-
ping of soils contaminated with organics such as hydrocar-
bons and solvents. The two main components of the on-site
treatment equipment are the process tower and process train.
The process tower contains two counter-rotating hollow-
stem drills. Steam is piped to the top of the drills and injected
through the cutting blades. The steam heats the ground being
remediated, increasing the vapor pressure of the volatile
contaminants and thereby increasing the rate at which they
can be stripped. Both the air and steam serve as carriers to
convey these contaminants to the surface. A metalbox, called
a shroud, seals the process area above the rotating cutter
blades from the outside environment, collects the volatile
26
-------
contaminants, and ducts them to the process train. In the
process train, the volatile contaminants and the water vapor
are removed from the off-gas stream by condensation. The
condensed water is separated from the contaminants by
distillation, then filtered through activated carbon beds and
subsequently used as make-up water for a wet cooling tower.
Steam is also used toregenerate the activated carbon beds and
as the heat source for distilling volatile contaminants from the
condensed liquid stream. The recovered concentrated or-
ganic liquid can be recycled or disposed.
A SITE demonstration was performed during the week
of September 18,1989 at the Annex Terminal, San Pedro,
CA. Twelve soil blocks were treated for VOCs and SVOCs.
Various liquid samples were collected from the process
during operation, and the process operating procedures were
closely monitored and recorded. Post-treatment soil samples
were collected and analyzed. Currently, the TER has ob-
tained EPA clearance for publication. The AAR is currently
being prepared.
The following results were obtained during me SITE
demonstration of the technology:
Greater that 85 percent of the VOCs in the soil were
removed.
As much as 55 percent of SVOCs in the soil were
removed.
• Fugitive air emissions from the process were very low.
• No downward migration of contaminants occurred due
to the soil treatment
Ultrox International, Santa Ana, California, developed
an Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation/Oxidation Process which
uses UV radiation, ozone (OJ and hydrogen peroxide (Hp2)
to destroy toxic organic compounds, particularly chlorinated
hydrocarbons, in water. This technology is used to treat
contaminated groundwater, industrial wastewaters, and
leachates containing halogenated solvents, phenol, penta-
chlorophenol, pesticides, PCBs, and other organic com-
pounds. The Ultrox system consists of a reactor module, an
air compressor/ozone generator module, and a hydrogen
peroxide feed system. It is skid-mounted and portable, per-
mitting on-site treatment of a wide variety of liquid wastes.
Influent to the reactor is simultaneously exposed to UV
radiation, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide to oxidize the or-
ganic compounds. Off-gas from the reactor passes through an
ozone destruction (Decompozon) unit, which reduces ozone
levels before air venting. The Decompozon unit also destroys
gaseous volatile organic compounds (VOC) stripped off in
the reactor. Effluent from the reactor is tested and analyzed
prior to disposal.
A field-scale demonstration was completed in March
1989 at the Lorenz Barrel and Drum Superfund site in San
Jose, California. The test program was designed to evaluate
the performance of the Ultrox System at several combina-
tions of five operating parameters: (1) influent pH, (2) reten-
tion time, (3) ozone dose, (4) hydrogen peroxide dose, and (5)
UV radiation intensity. The Technology Evaluation Report
was published in January 1990. The Applications Analysis
Report is currently being published.
The demonstration results are summarized below:
Removal efficiencies for were about 99 percent for
trichloroethene (TCE); about 58 to 85 percent for 1,1-
dichloroethane(DCA)andl,l,l-trichloroethane(TCA),
respectively; and about 90 percent for total VOCs.
Forsomecomppunds.including 1,1,1,-TCA, 1,1-DCA,
and vinyl chloride, removal from the water phase was
due to both chemical oxidation and stripping.
• The Decompozon unit, reduced ozone to less than 0.1
ppm (OSHA standards), with efficiencies greater than
99.9 percent. VOCs present in the air within the treat-
ment system, at approximately 0. 1 to 0.5 ppm, were not
detected after passing through the Decompozon unit
Very low total organic carbon (TOC) removal was
found, implying that partial oxidation of organics oc-
curred without complete conversion to CO2 an
4. New Projects for FY 1990
Six technologies from the SITE-005 solicitation were
accepted into the Demonstration Program for FY 1990.
These included two biological technologies, two chemical/
physical treatment technology, one solidification/stabiliza-
tion technology.andone thermal treatment technology. These
technologies are briefly discussed below.
Bioversal USA, Inc., Mount Prospect, Illinois, devel-
oped its BioGenesis™ Soil Cleaning Process, which uses a
specialized truck, gravity and cyclone separators, and a
bioreactor to wash soil contaminated with volatile and non-
volatile hydrocarbons, including PCBs. Removal efficien-
cies of 95 to 99 percent can be achieved for soil contaminated
with hydrocarbon concentrations of up to 16,000 parts per
million (ppm) with a single wash, and up to 45,000 ppm with
one or two additional washes. After washing, liquid products
are recycled or treated, clean soil is dumped out, and the
minimal amount of wastewater produced is sent to the
bioreactor. Subsequent biodegradation in the washed soil
occurs atan accelerated rate due to contact with BioVersal™,
a light, alkaline, organic formula used to reduce oil contami-
nation. All equipment is mobile, and treatment can be con-
ducted on-site. Site selection for the demonstration is cur-
rently underway.
In-Situ Fixation Company, Chandler, Arizona, devel-
oped an In-Situ Bioremediation Process for treating soil
contaminated with volatile and non-volatile organic com-
pounds. A specialized dual-auger system injects microorgan-
ism mixtures, along with required nutrients, and mixes them
into contaminated soils for treatment by biodegradation. This
injection and mixing process effectively breaks down fluid
and soil strata barriers, eliminating pockets of contaminated
soil that would otherwise remain untreated. Emission of
volatile organics during remediation is minimized by placing
27
-------
a hood around the auger assembly to capture any off-gases.
EPA is currently locating a site to demonstrate this process.
InternationalEnvironmentalTechnology/YWCMid-
west,North Canton, Ohio, usesacombinationoftwosystems
in its Geolock/Biodrain Treatment Platform for the in-situ
biological treatment of soils contaminated with most organic
compounds. First, Geolock, a high density polyethylene tank
structure, is installed to define the treatment area, minimize
the intrusion of off-site clean water, minimize the potential
for release of microorganisms outside the treatment area, and
maintain contaminant concentration levels that facilitate
treatment. Second, the Biodrain application system is in-
stalled within the treatment area. Biodrain delivers bacterial
cultures, nutrients, and oxygen, or any other proprietary
chemical to the soil, and creates an aerobic environment in
the air pore spaces of the soil. Existing or new wells are used
to as the water recovery system for removing contaminated
water. Preparation of the Quality Assurance ProjectPlan and
site selection for the demonstration have begun.
Sanivan Group, Anjou, Quebec, developed a mobile
solvent extraction technology for Soil Treatment with
Extraksol. The process extracts organic contaminants, such
as PCBs, PCP, PAHs, pesticides, and oils, from soils using
non-chlorinated, non-persistent, organic solvents. The three-
step process, involving (1) soil washing, (2) soil drying, and
(3) solvent regeneration, occurs on a flatbed trailer. After
washing the contaminated soil with extraction fluid (sol-
vent), solvents are regenerated by distillation and the con-
taminants are concentrated in the distillation residues. The
two major advantagesof this process are: (l)itminimizes the
amount of solvent required to perform the extraction by
regenerating it in a closed loop; and (2) it significantly
reduces the volume of contaminants requiring further treat-
ment or off-site disposal by concentrating them in the still
bottoms. Site selection for demonstrating this process has
begun.
TechTran, Inc., Houston, Texas, uses a Combined
Chemical Binding/Precipitation and Physical Separation
of Rndionuclides process to treat water, sludges, and soils
contaminated with heavymetalsandradioactive wastes. This
method involves rapid, turbulent, in-line mixing of a propri-
etary fine powder (RHM iQOO) containing complex oxides
and other reactive binding agents, which absorb, adsorb, and
chemisorb contaminants from the waste stream. The precipi-
tated, flocculated, and coagulated contaminants are then
separated from the water using a two-stage process: (1)
particle size and density separation, using clarification and
microfiltration; and (2) dewatering, using a filter press. The
70 to 85 percent dry filter cake containing the concentrated
contaminants is then collected and stabilized for disposal.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is working with EPA to
demonstrate and evaluate TechTran's treatment process.
Thermal Waste Management, New Orleans, Louisi-
ana, developed a process for the Production of Fossil Fuel
from Petroleum-Based Sludges. This is a mobile, low-
temperature, recyclingprocess thatproduces solid fossil fuel,
which can be easily handled, from otherwise hazardous, oily
petroleum sludges. A screw-flight (auger) dryer is used to dry
the petroleum sludges. A light hydrocarbon liquid and water
condense from vapors emitted during the drying stages of the
process. Hydrocarbons are recycled and the water is treated
prior to release. Pilot-scale tests have been conducted on
hazardous petroleum refinery sludges, and EPA is working
on site selection to conduct a full-scale demonstration of the
process.
In addition to the above-mentioned new technologies,
three projects have progressed through the Emerging Tech-
nologies Program and were invited to participate in the
DemonstrationProgram. These technologies arediscussedin
Section III.C of this report.
5. Future Needs and Direction
Documentation of viable, cost-effective, innovative al-
ternatives to land disposal of hazardous waste continues to be
the driving force behind the SITE Demonstration Program.
As the program matures, however, it is apparent that data are
needed to not only define individual technologies, but to
show how two or more treatment (and monitoring) steps may
be combined to tackle complete remediation of a site. Efforts
such as the two BioTrol demonstrations have linked soil
washuig,biological treatmentof product water and soil fines,
and advanced on-site monitoring; but efforts such as this will
need continued emphasis in the future. Plans for FY 1991
include demonstrating technology combinations such as in-
situ hot water flushing, in-situ biodegradation, and on-site
biological water treatment, as well as integration of water
treatment and air treatment technologies.
To further enhance the capability of the program to
provide data on treatment trains for specific environmental
pollutants, summary reports are needed to analyze results and
residuals from completed demonstrations to suggest technol-
ogy combinations. In some cases it may be necessary to visit
complex demonstration sites with additional technologies
that may have applicability to differing portions of the waste
matrix.
The definition of specific types of waste sites will also be
necessary for future operations to target regional needs. The
Demonstration Program is in the process of identifying three
classes of sites (tentatively, wood-treating, town-gas, and
battery reclamation sites) for which clean-up authorities need
complete treatment options. Developers will be sought to
provide specific and complete site remediation techniques
rather than treatment units that only decontaminate portions
of the problem area.
In the area of specific unit operations for treating hazard-
ous contaminants, the Program will become more flexible in
identifying problem sites or wastes that may be treated a
federal or private test facility. This increased flexibility will
allow for an increased number and wider variety of demon-
stration locations. Of more importance than the site location
is the documentation of performance that a technology can
achieve. Through greater use of both federal and private sites
for study, the Program will attempt to maximize the number
of clean-up techniques that can be demonstrated and for
which high quality treatability data can be reported.
28
-------
C. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
PROGRAM
The Emerging Technologies Program (ETP) provides a
framework for encouraging bench- and pilot-scale testing
and evaluation of technologies that have been proven at the
conceptual stage, but require further development. The ETP
is essential to the growth of the SITE Program because it
helps maintain a flow of viable technologies for consider-
ation in the Demonstration Program, and ultimately as alter-
natives for use in Superfund site remediation. This becomes
more important as the duration of the SITE Program extends,
and technologies from the ETP replace completed Demon-
stration Program projects.
Technologies are solicited for the ETP through Requests
for Proposals. Each July, EPA advertises in the Commerce
BusinessDailyand tradejournals for submittal ofpreproposals.
Following a technical review of these preproposals by a panel
of four (two EPA and two external reviewers), 15 to 20 are
invited to submit full proposals. Selected technology devel-
opers receive a maximum of two years' funding, under
cooperative agreement with EPA, to enable them to move
their technologies toward commercialization. The program
provides awards of up to $ 150,000 per year, with a maximum
of $300,000 over 2 years. However, second-year funding
depends on the achievement of significant progress during
the first year. Four solicitations have been issued in Novem-
ber 1987 (E01), July 1988 (E02), July 1989 (EOS), and July
1990 (E04).
Through cooperative efforts and funding between EPA
and DOE, SITE has expanded the ETP by 17 to a total of 31
technologies during the past year. A complete list of partici-
pants in the program is presented in Appendix C. Continued
expansion is shown by the excellent response to the most
recent solicitation (E04). After technical review of the 74
preproposals submitted, 20 were asked to submit full propos-
als. A summary of the four ETP solicitations is presented in
Exhibit III-4. The selection of the E04 projects is expected in
early 1991.
The progress and accomplishments of the ETP can be
measured through the success of completed projects and the
number and quality of newprojects for FY1990. These issues
are discussed in the following sections, along with the future
needs and direction for ETP to continue moving in a positive
direction.
1. Completed Projects in the Emerging
Technologies Program
Work under the ETP has been completed for seven E01
projects. These projects included technologies designed for
chemical treatment/ultrafiltration, in-situ electroacoustic
decontamination, biological sorption, wetlands-based treat-
ment, laser-induced photochemical destruction, soil wash-
ing, and contained recovery of oily waste using steam and hot
water. Of the seven completed E01 projects, three have been
invited to participate in the SITE Demonstration Program,
one is working on funding toward full-scale demonstration,
one has been demonstrated at the pilot scale, and two did not
receive second-year funding. The invitation of three tech-
nologies to the Demonstration Program shows that the ETP
provides a flow of technologies into that program.
Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., Chalk River, Ontario,
prepared a laboratory-scale demonstration technology to
extract dissolved toxic metals from groundwater. The tech-
nology uses a Chemical Treatmenf/Ultrafiltration combi-
nation to selectively remove dissolved metal ions from dilute
aqueous waste solutions.
Results from bench-scale tests conducted during the first
year showed removal efficiencies of up to 99 percent for
cadmium and mercury, 90 percent for lead, and 10 to 35
percent for arsenic. During the second year of funding, a
pilot-scale unit achieved metal removal efficiencies ranging
from 85 to 90 percent, depending on the operating conditions.
Unlike the bench-scale results, some metal loss occurred
within the pilot-scale unit, and higher polyelectrolyte con-
centrations were required. A field demonstration of the pilot-
scale unit was conducted in September 1990 on groundwater
at a uranium tailings site near Elliot Lake, Ontario. Results
from the field demonstration are not yet available.
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, investi-
gated the Electroacoustic Soil Decontamination (ESD)
process for in-situ treatment of soils contaminated with fuel
oil, organic compounds, and heavy metals. This technology
decontaminates soils through the application of electrical
(direct current) and acoustic fields, which facilitate the trans-
port of liquids through soils. The process consists of elec-
trodes and an acoustic source.
The developer was unable to acquire second-year fund-
ing; therefore, the project had to be discontinued. Phase I
results indicate that ESD is technically feasible for the
removal of inorganic species, such as zinc and cadmium,
from clayey soils, butonlymarginallyeffectivefor hydrocar-
bon removal. An EPA report for the first-year investigation
is available through the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS).
Bio-Recovery Systems, Inc., Las Cruces, New Mexico,
tested its AlgaSORB™ technology for the removal and
recovery of heavy metal ions from ground water. AlgaSORB™
is a Biological Sorption Process based on the affinity of
algae cell walls for heavy metal ions.
The AlgaSORB™ sorption process was tested on mer-
cury-contaminated groundwater at a hazardous waste site in
Oakland, California, during Fall 1989 to determine optimum
flow rates, binding capacities, and the efficiency of stripping
agents. A final EPA report of the results from this testing is
now available. Bio-Recovery Systems, Inc. has been invited
to participate in the SITE Demonstration Program.
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, investi-
gated a constructed Wetlands-Based Treatment technol-
ogy that uses natural geochemical and biological processes
inherent in a man-made wetland ecosystem to accumulate
and remove metals from influent waters.
29
-------
Exhibit IIJ-4. Summary of Emerging Technology Program
Solicitations
Solicitation Date
Number of Number of Number of
Preproposals Proposals Projects
Submitted Submitted Selected
E01
E02
E03
E04
November 1987
July 1988
July 1989
July 1990
80
60
47
74
15
17
18
20
7
7
17
E04 projects were expected to be selected in March 1991.
Under first- and second-year funding, a pilot-scale sys-
tem was built to assess the effectiveness of constructed
wetlands in treating the effluent from the Big Five Tunnel
near Idaho Springs, Colorado. Optimum results from two
years of operation showed that concentrations of zinc were
reducedby97percent;aluminum,cadmiumandlead concen-
trations were reduced by 90 to 100 percent; iron concentra-
tions were reduced by 80 percent; copper concentrations
were reduced to below detection limits; and pH was raised
from 2.9 to 6.5. The Colorado School of Mines has been
invited to participate in the SITE Demonstration Program.
Energy and Environmental Engineering, Inc., East
Cambridge, Massachusetts, investigated a technology de-
signed to photochemically oxidize organic compounds in
wastewater by applying ultraviolet radiation using a laser.
The Laser Induced Photochemical Oxidative Destruction
Process is envisioned as a final treatment step to reduce
organic contamination in groundwater and industrial waste-
water to acceptable discharge limits.
Testing of the pilot-scale system under the ETP showed
greater than 95 percent destruction removal efficiency for
several target compounds, including chlorobenzene,
chlorophenol, phenol, benzene, and dichloroethene. Prelimi-
nary cost evaluation shows the process to be competitive
compared to other ultravioletoxidation processes and carbon
adsorption. The process is now entering the initial phases of
commercialization, with the company offering to conduct
treatability studies for prospective clients. Full-scale pilot
facility for a SITE Program demonstration will be proposed.
Harmon Environmental Services, Inc. (formerly
Envirite Field Services, Inc.), Auburn, Alabama, conducted
a series of laboratory tests on a Soil Washing Process that
uses a blend of solvents to wash soil contaminated with high
molecular weight organic compounds, such as PCBs. The
solvents are removed from the soil by steam stripping. The
solvent from each wash is then delivered to a reclamation
system, where it is distilled and the contaminants collected in
the still bottom for disposal.
The developer was unable to acquire second-year fund-
ing; therefore, the project had to be discontinued. Phase I
testing showed the technology successfully cleaned metal
foil, paper and sand, clay soils, high-organic soils, and soils
mixed with organic matter (such as leaves). Although the
testing emphasized PCB decontamination, results showed
that the technology can alsoremovechlorodibenzofuransand
most types of petroleum products and oils. An interim report
of the first-year test results has been prepared.
Western Research Institute, Laramie, Wyoming, de-
veloped a its Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW)
Process to recover oily hazardous waste from soils by adapt-
ing technology presently used for secondary petroleum re-
covery and primary production of heavy oil and tar sand
bitumen. Steam and hot water displacement are used to move
accumulated oily wastes and water aboveground for treat-
ment
This technology was tested at the laboratory- and pilot-
scale. A final draft report of the results of these tests was
prepared and is currently undergoing EPA review. This
technology has been invited to participate in the SITE Dem-
onstration Program.
3. New Projects for FY 1990
The seven projects accepted under the E02 solicitation
have received second-year funding (see the third Report to
Congress for descriptions). Inaddition to theE02 projects, 17
new bench- or pilot-scale technologies were accepted under
theEOS solicitation inJuly 1989,andwillbeactiveintheETP
during FY 1990. These include five biological, six chemical/
physical, one solidification/stabilization, two materials han-
dling, and three thermal treatment methods. Each new project
is briefly described below.
ABB Environmental Services, Inc., Wakefield, Mas-
sachusetts, has proposed a Two-Zone Plume Interception
In-Situ Treatment Strategy foramixtureof chlorinated and
non-chlorinated organic solvents in saturated soil and ground-
water. The first zone is anaerobic and promotes the reductive
dechlorination of highly chlorinated solvents, such as per-
chloroethylene. Immediately downgradient is the second
zone, where special aerobic conditions encourage the bio-
logical oxidation of the partially dechlorinatedproducts from
the first zone, as well as other compounds. In preparation for
eventual field testing, two-zone in-situ treatment was applied
in bench-scale aquifer simulators to determine optimal treat-
ment parameters. These investigations began in September
1990.
Alcoa Separations, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, is de-
veloping a Bioscrubber technology that digests organic
emissions from soil, water, or air decontamination processes.
The bioscrubber contains Alcoa's activated carbon medium
as a support for microbial growth. This unique medium with
increased microbial population and enhanced bioactivity
provides effective conversion of diluted organics into carbon
dioxide, water, and other non-hazardous compounds. Initial
project preparations, such as equipment purchase and pre-
liminary experimental design, are underway. During 1991,
data from bench-scale testing should be available. A pilot-
scale installation is scheduled for completion in late 1991 or
early 1992.
BioTrol, Inc., Chaska, Minnesota, is testing its
Methanotropbic Bioreactor System (MBS), which is an
30
-------
aboveground remedial technology for water contaminated
with halogenated hydrocarbons. This system is designed to
treat chlorinated aliphatic compounds, such as trichloroeth-
ylene and vinyl chloride, whose degradation depends on the
process of cometabolism, which is attributed to the specific-
ity of certain enzyme systems. BioTrol claims that the meth-
ane monooxygenase enzyme of methanotrophic bacteria has
the most promise. Bench-scale experiments on two system
configurations of the MBS will be conducted during the first
several months of the program. Later in the first year of the
project, pilot-scale testing of the more promising configura-
tion will be initiated in the field to show the feasibility if this
bioreactor technology.
Boliden Allis, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is develop-
ing the Pyrokiln Thermal Encapsulation Process, which is
designed to improve conventional rotary kiln hazardous
waste incineration by introducing inorganic additives with
the waste to promote slagging or thermal encapsulation
reactions near the kiln discharge end. The thermal encapsu-
lation is augmented using other additives in the kiln or in the
air pollution control baghouse to stabilize metals in the
flyash. The process thermally treats soils and sludges con-
taminated with both organics and metals. The system will be
further evaluated in bench-scale tests and a continuous-flow
pilot-scale kiln at Boliden Allis, Inc.'s Process Research and
Test Center in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.
Centerfor Hazardous MaterialsResearch.Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, is testing its Acid Extraction Treatment
System (AETS). This system is a soil washing process that
uses concentrated hydrochloric acid as the washing medium
to extract contaminants from soils. Following treatment, soil
may be disposed or used as fill material. AETS has been
tested in the laboratory on a limited, bench-scale basis. Plans
for further testing include using the system on samples of
contaminated soils from Superfund sites to establish optimal
operating parameters and refine the acid regeneration/recov-
ery process.
Electrokinetics, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is developing
an in-situ separation/removal process for extracting heavy
metals and organic contaminants from soils. The process
involves Electro-Osmosis, which uses electricity to affect
chemical concentrations and groundwater flow by facilitat-
ing the movement of fluid between soil particles. Bench-
scale laboratory studies of electro-osmosis, investigating the
removal of heavy metals, radionuclides, and organics, will be
completed by the end of 1991. Pilot-scale field studies
investigating the removal of radionuclides and organics are
scheduled for completion by the end of 1992, after which the
technology will be available for full-scale implementation.
Electron Beam Research Facility, Florida Interna-
tional University, is working in conjunction with the Univer-
sity of Miami to develop a technology that involves High
Energy Electron Irradiation of contaminated aqueous so-
lutions and sludges (Exhibit III-5). Upon irradiation, a large
number of very reactive chemical species, including hydro-
gen peroxide, are formed and react with organic contami-
nants, transforming them to non-toxic by-products. A full-
scale facility in Miami, Florida, will be used for testing to
determine removal efficiency for complex mixtures of haz-
ardous organic contaminants, and the organic reaction by-
products formed.
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation,
Irvine, California, is developing a Hybrid Fluidized Bed
System designed to treat contaminated soils and sludges by
incinerating all organic compounds, and extracting and de-
toxifying volatile metals. The system consists of threestages:
(1) a spouted bed, which rapidly heats solids and sludges to
extract volatile organic and inorganic compounds; (2) a
fluidized bed afterburner, which incinerates the organic com-
pounds that escape the spouted bed; and (3) a high tempera-
ture participate soil extraction system, which removes clean,
processed soil from the effluent gas stream.
Ferro Corporation, Independence, Ohio, is investigat-
ing Waste Vitrification Through Electric Melting. The
technology involves placing electrodes in contaminated soil,
sediments, or sludges to supply electric current, which con-
verts the contaminated media into oxide glasses, rendering
them non-toxic and suitable for landfilling. The low toxic
emission rate of an electric melter may make it more advan-
tageous than fossil-fuel melters for vitrifying toxic wastes.
Initial testing of the electric melting technology is scheduled
for late 1990 to early 1991. This testing will focus on
developing a glass composition suitable to meet EP Toxicity
and TCLP leaching protocols, and determining emission
rates for the system.
Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, Illinois, is de-
veloping a three-stage Fluid Extraction-Biological Degra-
dation Process for the remediation of organic contaminants
from soil (Exhibit ffl-6). The process involves three distinct
technologies: (1) fluid extraction and separation, which re-
moves organics from contaminated solids; (2) separation,
which transfers pollutants from an extract to a biologically-
compatible solvent; and (3) biological treatment, which de-
grades organic pollutants to innocuous by-products. Testing
of the process is scheduled to begin upon U.S. EPA approval
of the developer's work plan and quality assurance project
plan.
Institute of Gas Technology is also developing a two-
stage, Fluidized Bed/Cyclonic Agglomerating Incinera-
tor based on a combination of technologies. In this combined
system, solid, liquid, and gaseous organic contaminants from
soils and sludges can be efficiently destroyed, while solid
inorganic contaminants are confined within a glassy matrix
suitable for disposal in a landfill. A batch fluidized-bed unit
is currently being modified for testing to establish operating
parameters for soil agglomeration, upon U.S. EPA approval
of the quality assurance project plan. A pilot-plant unit is also
being designed.
IT Corporation, Knoxville, Tennessee, is investigating
a two-step, in-situ Photolytic/Biological Detoxification
Process for shallow soil contamination. The first step in the
process is to degrade organic contaminants using ultraviolet
(UV) radiation. Degradation is enhanced by adding deter-
gent-like chemicals (surfactants) to mobilize the contami-
nants. Biological degradation, the second step, is then used to
31
-------
Exhibit 111-5. The Eloctron Beam Research Facility, Miami, Florida
Window
Exhaust
Fan
-------
Exhibit 111-6. Schematic of the Institute of Gas Technology's Fluidlzed Bed/Cyclonic Agglomerating Incinerator
CYCLONIC
COMBUSTOR/
SEPARATOR
160
-------
Exhibit 111-7. Schematic of the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology's Air-Sparged Hydrocyclons
PARTICLE
BUBBLE
UNDERFLOW
SLURRY
OVERFLOW
HEADER
VORTEX
FINDER
POROUS
TUBE
CYLINDER
JACKET
FROTH
FROTH
PEDESTAL
UNDERFLOW
34
-------
Exhibit 111-8. Flow Diagram for Trinity Environmental Technologies, Inc.'s Ultrasonic Detoxification Process
Double Batch Volum*
Single Batch Volume
PCB Soil Mixing Tank
Ultrasonic Reactor
Water
Recyde
Stream
Incomplete
Processing
Recyde
Stream
Decontaminated Soil
Mixing Tank
Primary Settling
Secondary Settling
Soil Neutralization ''
(Saltvl Wastewater
Soil Dewatering
Dried, Non-PCB& Non-Hazardous Soil
35
-------
University of South Carolina, Columbia, is developing
an innovative strategy for the In-Situ Mitigation of Acid
Water. The strategy works by modifying the hydrology and
geochemistry of the site. This is accomplished through land
surface reconstruction and selective placement of limestone.
Pilot-scale studies of this technique are expected to be com-
pleted by the summer of 1991.
4. Future Needs and Direction
The goal of the Emerging Technology Program is to
support the development of innovative alternative technolo-
gies by assisting in the research and development of bench-
to pilot-scale technologies. Responses from the 1990 solici-
tation forpreproposals totaled 74, indicating a high interest
among the private sector to further develop their processes.
This strong response illustrates a trend for the program that
identifiesaneedforthedeveloper to establish theknowledge
and information to create a commercial process applicable
for clean-up actions. Ultimately, the motivating force for the
developer is commercialization. A variety of innovative
processes are currently being developed and show promise as
valuablefuture technologies. Thekey factor to success for the
ETP will be the flexibility in the magnitudes of research
capabilities. Through the Emerging Technology Program, a
variety of facilities are available to meet researchers' needs
as well as program needs. These facilities include DOD,
DOE, and EPA laboratories and pilot facilities.
Since the beginning of the Emerging Technology Pro-
gram four years ago, six projects have completed their
research efforts and are ready to enter the Demonstration
Program. Currently, three developers have been invited to
demonstrate their processes. In FY 1991, the streamlining
procedure for "graduating" technologies from one program
to the other will be implemented. Alternative options will
also be developed for those technologies that contain field-
ready segments for demonstration but require further devel-
opment in other areas under the existing project plan.
D. MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT
TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Monitoring, measurement, and other site characteriza-
tion technologies are an integral part of and required in
several phases of the Superfund remedial process. The costs
to characterize a Superfund site are substantial. As much as
80 percent of the costs of the remedial investigation/feasibil-
ity study process are attributable to site characterization.
These costs are a direct result of sampling, analysis, and the
associated quality assurance activities. Therefore, the capa-
bilities of field screening and field analytical methods to yield
immediate or quick-turnaround environmental data will (1)
result in major savings in both cost and time for Superfund
remediation, (2) will decrease the human and ecological risks
associated with contaminants at Superfund sites, and (3) will
enhance the Agency's ability to manage such risks. In addi-
tion to the obvious advantages offered by field methodolo-
gies (e.g., generation of real-time data, higher sampling
density, and effective detection of hot spots), they also
improve the pace of clean-up at a reduced cost and instill a
higher degree of confidence in the clean-up.
The two categories of technologies included in the SITE
Program are (1) treatment technologies which may serve as
alternatives to land disposal of hazardous wastes, and (2)
monitoring and measurement technologies for contaminants
occurring at hazardous waste sites. The Monitoring and
Measurement Technologies Program (MMTP) is a much
smaller component of SITE which addresses the very critical
needs of field screening. It is administered by the Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Ne-
vada (EMSL-LV). Historically, EMSL-LV, and the other
Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems and Quality Assur-
ance (OMMSQA) laboratories, have been supporting the
development and demonstration of innovative monitoring
and measurement techniques as part of OMMSQA's mis-
sion. The monitoring and measurement technologies demon-
stration portion of the SITE Program provides a special
opportunity and allows synergism to occur in identifying and
demonstrating relevant technologies that exist within and
outside the federal government and which may provide less
expensive, better, faster, and/or safer means to characterize
contamination at hazardous waste sites.
Products from the various research, development, and
demonstration activities conducted under this Program en-
hance the Agency's ability to perform statistically-valid
sampling and field analytical programs that yield effective
site characterization coupled with immediate or quick-turn-
around environmental data acquisition.
The MMTP has focused on emerging technologies as
well as those that are ready for field demonstration. The
following sections discuss the FY 1990 technology demon-
stration activities and the plans for FY 1991 and beyond.
1. Technology Demonstration Activities
One of the most prominent Program activities that oc-
curred during the fiscal year was the demonstration of a
mobile mass spectrometer. Currently, laboratory-based gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometers (GC/MSs) are the pre-
ferred EPA analytical tools for identifying and quantifying
organic contaminants in samples collected from Superfund
sites. The development of a mobile mass spectrometer that is
rugged enough to withstand a variety of field conditions has
attracted considerable interest for use as a field method.
The purpose of the MMS demonstration was to evaluate
the technology for on-site detection of polychlorinated bi-
phenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) under field con-
ditions. The MMS demonstration focused on the analysis of
soil and water samples and was designed to assess whether
the technology is capable of yielding rapid, accurate, and
cost-effective analyses of the above-mentioned pollutants in
soil and water at Superfund sites. Bruker Instruments, Inc. of
Billerica, Massachusetts was identified by EPA as having a
promising candidate for a demonstration under the MMTP.
Two Superfund sites were selected, both located in
Region I. One site was the Re-Solve, Inc. facility located in
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. Samples from this site
were analyzed for VOCs in water (e.g., carbon tetrachloride,
36
-------
111-8. Mobile Mass Spectrometer
benzene, methylene chloride, acetone, 1,2-dichloroethylene)
and PCBs in soil. The other site was the Westborough
Township Superfund site located in Westborough, Massa-
chusetts. The samples at this site were analyzed for PAHs,
including benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, naphthalene!
acenapthalene, fluorene, and pyrene.
The results of the analyses from the samples collected at
the two sites are being compared to analyses of splits of those
same samples by GC/MS at off-site, fixed laboratory loca-
tions. The preliminary results show that the MMS worked
well for the analysis of PCBs in soil. The method perfor-
mance factors, such as sensitivity, linear range, andreproduc-
ibility were found to be equivalent to that obtained using a
conventional GC/MS instrument. The Project Report de-
scribing the demonstration, the results, recommendations,
and conclusions will be available in FY 1991.
The potential of immunoassays as cost-effective alter-
natives to gas chromatography and mass spectrometry proce-
dures for use in rapid, large-scale environmental monitoring
studies is under active investigation. Investigators in the
EMSL-LV immunoassay research and development pro-
gram works with developers under SITE to characterize and
evaluate new immunoassay methods in the laboratory and
when appropriate, in the field.
In FY 1989 the MMTP successfully demonstrated two
immunoassay methods in conjunction with a treatment tech-
nology demonstration. The jointdemonstrationofabioreactor
and an immunoassay field kit (for pentachlorophenol) was
conducted at the McGillis and Gibbs Superfund site in New
Brighton, Minnesota, and set a precedent for future ventures.
In FY 1990, an immunoassay field kit for measuring
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, andxylene(BTEX) in water
was identified as an excellent candidate for a SITE demon-
stration. Early in the second quarter, EMSL-LV and RREL-
CI began to discuss conducting another joint treatment tech-
nology/monitoringtechnology demonstration. Unfortunately,
the company that owned the treatment technology opted not
to continue in the SITE Demonstration Program. Although
the demonstration of the immunoassay technology is not
dependent on a specific treatment technology, it was judged
that, in at least the case involving immunoassays, the most
cost-effective approach to evaluating technologies is to con-
duct joint technology demonstrations when possible. There-
fore, EMSL-LV decided to postpone the immunoassay dem-
onstration until FY 1991, when another joint demonstration
can be pursued.
The research, development, and demonstration of air
monitoring technologies is another important facet of the
MMTP. In FY 1990, two technologies were tested at the
37
-------
Shavers Farm Supcrfund site in Lafayette, Georgia, to moni-
tor ambient concentrations of organics during remediation.
The testing at Shavers Farm was administered by the Atmo-
spheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
(ARE AL-RTP) in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
One of the technologies tested was a sector sampler
which consists of a wind direction sensor and a whole air
sampler that is capable of supplying a constant flow of
ambient air into one of two SUMMA canisters. One canister
is used to measure in-sector concentrations and the other is
used to measureout-sector concentrations of contaminants in
ambient air. Sector sampling is an extremely important and
useful tool for identifying contributions from landfills when
numerous point sources of contamination coexist in an area
being monitored. Xontech Corporation of Van Nuys, Cali-
fornia, was identified by EPA as having a promising candi-
date for testing under the Program. Xontech Corporation
provided prototype instruments for use in the FY 1989
Delaware SITE Study (as described in the third SITE Report
to Congress). The instruments tested at Shavers Farm repre-
sented an improved version and one which has begun to find
a place in the commercial market
Preliminary results from the Shavers Farm exercise
indicate that the sector sampling equipment performed very
well in delineating emissions from the Superfund site in the
presence of other sources of contamination. A draft report on
the performance of the technology is expected in FY 1991.
The other technology used at Shavers Farm was an
FTIR-based, long-path monitor. This type of system is used
to make open, long-path length spectroscopic measurements
of chemical emissions from sites. The operating principle of
the monitor is based on selective absorption of infrared
radiation by target gases. Increasing the path-length en-
hances detection limits for particular gases at low concentra-
tions. The configuration of the system is to have the source
and receiver at one end of a monitoring path and a retro-
reflcctor at the other end. The pathlength is typically 300
meters long, giving a total pathlength of 600 meters. Sample
collection and analysis is not required, however, canister
samplers can be used to collect point samples along the path
length to confirm the spectroscopic measurements. MDA
Scientific of Norcoss, Georgia (formerly Tecan Remote
Environmental Monitoring Systems) was identified by EPA
as having a suitable candidate for testing under the Program.
As with the sector samplers, MDA Scientific also par-
ticipated in the FY 1989 Delaware SITE Study. The system
tested at Shavers Farm was a modified version of that used in
the Delaware Study. Preliminary results indicate that there
was significant improvement in the signal to noise ratio
(factor of 7) and that the detection limits over the experimen-
tal pathlength were single to double digit ppbv, depending on
the compound. MDA Scientific has begun marketing the
improved version of the FHR-based system.
In addition to thelong-path monitor testingadministered
from AREAL-RTP, EMSL-LV has also supported funda-
mental research, development, and testing of a long-path IR
system through a cooperative agreement with Kansas State
University (KSU). FY 1990 was the second year of a three-
year cooperative agreement with KSU. A small portion of
SITE resources went to support additional testing of the
system at a number of sites with differing contaminant
compositions. Preliminary results indicate thatthe calculated
detection limits for 20-25 of the most commonly used indus-
trial solvents range from 6 to 130 parts per million .The
technology enhancements that occurred as a result of this
effort have had a direct, positive impact on the commercial
market, as MDA Scientific has improved its commercial
system based on the work supported at both AREAL-RTP
and EMSL-LV.
Ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) is another novel
technology that was identified during FY 1990 as a potential
candidate for a SITE Program demonstration. Initial investi-
gation into the feasibility of using IMS technology for on-site
contaminant analysis looked promising. However, it was
determined that none of the commercially available ion
mobility spectrometers (six different developers, four of
which had units that were potential candidates for the pro-
gram) were engineered for environmental monitoring appli-
cations Therefore, it was decided to conduct a pilot demon-
stration in the developers laboratories in lieu of a full-scale
field demonstration. This provided the developers with an
opportunity to analyze performance evaluation materials
(prepared and shipped to each developer by the EMSL-LV)
in their own laboratories to determine the applicability ot
their instruments to environmental samples. Of the four
candidateionmobility spectrometer developers, twochoseto
participate during FY 1990. Results from the laboratory
demonstration are expected in the first quarter of FY 1991.
Preliminary results showed theneedformoreattenaonby the
developers to sampling procedures, though the overall tech-
nology looks very promising for field use.
Late in FY 1990, the EMSL-LV entered into an
InteragencyAgreementwiththeU.S.DepartmentofEnergy's
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory to evaluate the performance
and applicability of a relatively new transient electromag-
netic method (TEM), and the associated numerical interpre-
tive models, for use in characterizing Superfund or other
hazardous waste sites. This geophysical method is used to
identify and map conductive bodies in the subsurface (e.g.,
buried drums and contaminant plumes).
The TEM SITE Program activity is designed to evaluate
the effectiveness of new 3-D interpretation methods and
promote their acceptance if merited. The workplan was
completed and it was judged that the project can:
provide insights to develop procedures and policies that
encourage informed selection and use of TEM measure-
ments;
will lead to the identification of constraints and limita-
tions on the use of TEM measurements during theRI/FS
process, and;
demonstrate the application of 3-D modeling tech-
niques for the interpretation of electromagnetic data.
38
-------
111-9. MDA's Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectrometer
111-10. MDA FTIR Remote Sensor
39
-------
The activity is scheduled to be completed by the end of
FY1992.
2. Future Activities
There are a number of exciting demonstrations and
research and development (emerging technologies) opportu-
nities that are under consideration.
• Aside-by-sidedemonstrationofcommerciallyavail-
able high resolution long-path Fourier-transform infrared
(HR-FT-IR) spectrometers is being planned for the second or
third quarter. HR-FT-IR is used to detect ambient concentra-
tions of volatile organic compounds emitted from sites. This
demonstration will be a joint activity involving AREAL-
RTP, the U.S. EPA Region VH Environmental Services
Division, and the EMSL- LV.
• A demonstration of a prototype field portable global
positioning system is being considered. The technology
is used to determine the latitude and longitude of sam-
pling locations. The demonstration will be a joint effort
between the technology developer, DOE's Los Alamos
National Laboratory, and the EMSL-LV.
• A number of commercially available field kits for mea-
suring various contaminants hi soil, water, and air were
identified during FY 1990. Some of these kits will be
demonstrated in conjunction with other SITE demon-
strations, as resources and time permit.
• Some of the SITE Program resources will be used to
support emerging site characterization technologies. A
few of the candidates being considered include:
a novel method for installing contaminant detection
technologies in the vadose zone.
- a new method for sampling ground-water from
monitoring wells.
the use of personal sampling devices in air monitor-
ing applications.
- a laser, microbial assay for the detection and mea-
surement of contaminants in soil and water.
an electromagnetic borehole flowmeter for the de-
termination of ground-water now velocity and di-
rection.
the development of quality assurance/quality con-
trol procedures for FTIR systems.
E. TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION
SERVICES
Technology Information Services are an integral part of
the SITE Program, involving public participation, informa-
tiondissemination.andtechmcallyassistingother parts ofthe
SITE Program.The purpose of technology transfer activities
is to develop a framework for exchanging information about
existing innovative treatment technologies to help those
environmental decisionmakers evaluate hazardous waste
clean-up options. The information that is distributed dis-
cusses the benefits and short-comings of specific technolo-
gies. Initially, the SITE Program's primary audience for such
information was Regional and State managers of Superfund
clean-up activities, the audience for data generated by SITE
Program activities has grown and evolved to include Re-
gional and State Managers of RCRA Corrective Action
Clean-up Activities, other Federal and State agencies in-
volved in hazardous waste mitigation and clean-up, poten-
tially responsible parties (PRPs), the engineering commu-
nity, the pollution control industry, and the public, including
affected communities, public interest groups, and local offi-
cials. SeveralofthedevelopersinvolvedintheFY 1990 SITE
Program have indicated to EPA that information generated
by program activities have greatly helped potential users/
buyers familiarize themselves with the innovative technolo-
gies and their capabilities.
The major accomplishments of the Technology Infor-
mation Services component of the SITE Program during FY
1990 include:
• EPA hosted an international forum on innovative haz-
ardous waste treatment technologies that was attended
by approximately 680 representatives from the U.S. and
several foreign countries. The purpose of the of the
conference was to introduce promising international
technologies through technical papers and poster dis-
plays, and to discuss the status and results of the tech-
nologies tested under the SITE Program.
• Numerous publications were prepared and distributed
including nine Technology Evaluation Reports, eight
Applications Analysis Reports, seven SITE videos, two
program status brochures, and numerous project fact
sheets, technical project update bulletins, technical pa-
pers and posters.
Visitors' Days for three demonstrations including on-
site briefings, were held to introduce the public to the
technology, and to observe field activities. Attendance
ranged from 25 to 130 visitors.
1. SITE Reports, Brochures,
Publications, and Videos
SITE reports, including Technology Evaluation Reports
and Applications Analysis Reports, are prepared following
the completion of each demonstration and analysis of labora-
tory findings. Seventeen of these reports were completed in
FY 1990. The Technology Evaluation Report documents the
performance data resulting from the demonstration. This
report includes a description of the process and site character-
istics, the objectives of the demonstration, sampling and
analysisprocedures,performance data, and information about
the QA/QC program. This report evaluates how and whether
the objectives ofthe demonstration were met. The Applica-
tions Analysis Report evaluates available information on the
technology and presents the applicability of each technology
to other site and waste characteristics. The scenarios pre-
40
-------
sented in the AAR can be applied to both Superfund and
RCRA Corrective Action clean-up activities. Limited copies
and summaries of these reports are distributed by EPA, and
additional copies are available through the National Techni-
cal Information Service for a fee. A list of publications,
including information on obtaining the documents, is pro-
vided in Appendix A.
SITE Program status brochures contain brief descrip-
tions of the SITE Program, technologies currently being
tested, and theprogress and accomplishments of theprogram
to date. Additionally, the brochure discusses how an inter-
ested party can obtain information about the SITE Program,
who should apply, how to apply, what transpires under the
program, and when the next solicitation for new participants
will occur. The brochures are prepared annually for the
RREL Symposium and the Superfund Conference and exhi-
bition. Each year approximately 500 to 900 participants
attend the RREL Symposium and 3,000 participants attend
the Superfund Conference. The brochures have provided an
opportunity forpotentialSITE Program participants to famil-
iarize themselves with the program's objectives andrequire-
ments and prepare their technologies for potential inclusion
in theprogram. Approximately 15,000 copies of each of these
brochures were printed and distributed in FY 1990.
Monthly articles concerning SITE Program are pub-
lished in the Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association. The articles present the SITE Program and its
progress and accomplishments to a variety of audiences.
EPA has updated the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles originally pub-
lished in 1988. The document includes an overview of the
SITE Program.alist of theprogram participants, andprofiles
on each of the technologies, including a description of the
technology, a discussion on waste applicability, the status of
the demonstration, and an EPA and technology developer
contact for further information. The purpose of the III - 51
Technology Profiles is to provide environmental
decisionmakers and other interested individuals with a ready
reference on technologies participating in the SITE Demon-
stration and Emerging Technologies Programs. Developers
indicated to EPA that the technology profiles were a very
useful and primary source for inquiries about their technolo-
CTIAC
part of the clean-up remedy for their sites. Videotapes for E.
I. DupontdeNemours and Company/OberlinFilter Company
(Membrane Microfiltration) and AWD Technologies, Inc
(AquaDetox/Seil VaporExtraction) arecurrently in the post-
production phase.
2. Public Participation and Visitors'
Days
Public participation is an integral part of the SITE
Program. Public participation allows the program the oppor-
tunity to disseminate information widely and encourage
interaction about innovative technologies to a variety of
interested individuals and groups. Prior to the final selection
of a demonstration site, a public notice and public comment
periodabouttheproposed demonstration are initiated. Public
notices announcing the public comment period are usually
presented in local newspapers and also in fact sheets distrib-
uted to individuals on the mailing list for the site and to other
potentially interested parties. Public notice fact sheets have
been sent to up to 3,200 persons for a particular demonstra-
tion. Following completion of the public comment period, a
responsiveness summary addressing any public concerns is
developed.
During the demonstration, a Visitors' Day is sponsored
by EPA to provide first-hand observation of the technology
during field use and discussions with the SITE Program
Managers, developers and technical personnel. During the
past six months, Visitors' days were conducted for two
demonstrations and wereattended by Federal, state, and local
agency personnel, PRPs, individuals from the engineering
and pollution control industry, technology competitors, the
media, public interest groups, and citizens from the affected
communities. The Visitors Days were attended by up to 110
persons, with many other individuals expressing interest but
unable to attend. EPA provides a Visitors' Day packet to all
individuals expressing interest in the technology demonstra-
tion. This community outreach tool is rather comprehensive
providing descriptions of the technology, the site, the waste'
the goals and objectives of the demonstration, the sampling
and the analysis parameters of the site, diagrams of the
technology, and a list of contacts.
gies.
As partof each technology demonstration, a videotape is
prepared documenting demonstration activities and discuss-
ing the result of the documentation. The purpose of the
videotape is to give Regional and state site remediation
manages and other interested parties a brief (10-15 minute)
synopsis of the SITE Program, the technology being tested
documentation goals and objectives, and the results of the
tests performed at the demonstration. Each videotape in-
cludes actual footage of the treatment system in operation at
the demonstration site, and uses computer animation to
further characterize the components of and processes within
the system. Final videotapes of each of the completed dem-
onstrations are distributed to each of the Regions, that inter-
ested remediation managers can initially familiarize them- PPA^nri A 1 •
selves with a particular technology that may be suitable as T . EPA.con^"uedPlanningand coordination of theSecond
gy uui may oe suitaoie as international Symposium on Field Screening Methods
3. Conferences, Meetings, and Seminars
OnMay 15-17,1990,EPAhostedtheSecondForumon
Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies-
Domestic and International in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The conference was attended by approximately 680 repre-
sentatives from the U.S. and several foreign countries. Dur-
ing the conference, scientists and engineers representing
government agencies, industry, and academia, attended 35
presentations describing successful case studies of physical/
chemical, biological, thermal, and stabilization treatment
methods. In addition, case studies of applied technologies
were presented by EPA's Superfund contractors. Domestic
and International scientists and vendors presented over 50
posters explaining their treatment methods and results.
41
-------
for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, which is
scheduled for February 12-14,1991 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The purpose of the symposium is to bring an international
view to the problems and potential solutions involved with
the characterization and monitoring of hazardous wastes and
toxic chemicals. By the close of FY 1990, EPA received
about 150 abstracts. The Symposium program will have one
plenary session, ten technical sessions, 60 poster presenters,
and 70 technology exhibitors. EPA expects about 800 del-
egates to attend the conference, representing various Federal
and state agencies, technology developers, academicians,
and venture capitalists.
Last year, in an effort to speed up the site selection
process.EPAinitiatedRegionalSrrECoordinator'sMeet-
ings, with thepurpose to identify potential site demonstration
sites for new technologies recently accepted into the pro-
gram. These meetings continued in FY 1990, with one taking
place in Cincinnati, Ohio, following the receipt of proposals
from the SITE-005 solicitation. The objective of these meet-
ings was expanded in FY 1990 to include obtaining informa-
tion from the regions about the kind of alternative technolo-
gies they most need to remedy regional hazardous waste
clean-up operations. To accomplish this objective, RREL
designated members of its staff to serve as Regional Coordi-
nators.
Prcproposal Conferences on SITE Solicitations are
held annually. These conferences present the SITE Program
to developers in an effort to attract new participants to the
program.
In FY 1989, Atmospheric Research and Exposure As-
sessment Laboratory demonstrated and tested five air moni-
toring technologies at a number of Superfund sites near New
Castle, Delaware (the Delaware SITE Study). The results of
the Delaware SITE Study were presented in a special session
of the 1990 EPA Air and Waste Management Association
International Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and
Related Air Pollutants (April 30 - May 4,1990).
4. Electronic Information Systems
To facilitate the transfer of information on alternative
technologies, EPA scheduled a seminar series for FY 1990.
The objective of the seminar series is to further educate
regional and state personnel on the alternative technologies
in the SITE Program. The seminars were one-day sessions,
during which detailed information on completed SITE dem-
onstrations was be presented. Two seminars tookplace in FY
1990: one in Region IV on December 14,1989 and a second
in Region m on Januaty 11,1990. Each region chose five
completed demonstrations of interest to the region for pre-
sentation.
All the community outreach and technology transfer
activities will continue through FY 1991.
AHernativeTreatmentTechnology Information Cen-
ter (ATTIC) is a comprehensive, automated information
retrieval system that integrates data on hazardous waste
treatment technologies into a centralized, searchable source.
Initiated in November 1987, a prototype version became
operational in May 1989. ATTIC'S four major components
include a hotline, an electronic bulletin board, a reference
library, and a computerized information network. Addition-
ally, hard copies of information are provided upon request
The purpose of ATTIC is to provide users with technical'
information on alternative methods hazardous waste treat-
ment The usercommunity is comprisedofEPAheadquarters
and regional staff, participating state environmental agen-
cies, and numerous remediation contractors. ATTIC is avail-
able through any modem-equipped IBM compatible PC
using standard communications software. Users can employ
the system independently, or can use an ATTIC system
operator to assist them.
ATTIC contains data obtained from the SITE Program
and other federal and state agencies, including abstracts and
executive summaries from over 900 documents and reports,
which are the core of the ATTIC Database. Contributors to
the ATTIC Database are the SITE Program, states, industry,
NATO,DOD/DOE,RecordsofDecisions(RODs),and treat-
ability studies. In addition to the ATTIC Database, the
ATTIC system contains resident databases already devel-
oped, as well as an online commercial database. The ATTIC
resident databases include RREL (Water) Treatability Data-
base, RSKERL Soil Transport and Fate Database, EPA
Library Hazardous Waste Collection Database, Cost of Re-
medial Action Model, and Geophysics Advisor Expert Sys-
tem.
The OSWER electronic bulletin board system (BBS)
was set up to facilitate communication and technology trans-
fer among EPA staff in Regional offices, headquarters, state
and local government personnel, EPA contractors, and re-
search laboratories. The BBS offers up- to-date information
about the current status of each of the SITE technology
demonstrations, as well as providing messages, files, com-
puter programs, databases, and information on conferences.
EPA's Technical Information Exchange (TIX) Com-
puterized On-Line Information System (COLIS) provides
technical information involving hazardous waste technolo-
gies and assists users in locating materials from other sources.
The system contains the complete text of each published
SITE Program Applications Analysis Report
42
-------
SECTION IV
SITE PROGRAM PROPOSED CHANGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section summarizes the importance of the SITE
Program in achieving the Nation's goal of cleaning up
Superfund and.other hazardous waste sites. SITE has worked
towards fulfilling its statutory mandate, and is implementing
program changes to further its mission. This report concludes
with EPA's outlook for the SITE Program in view of the
recent reauthorization of CERCLA.
A. STATUTORY MANDATE
Since its inception in 1986, the SITE Program has been
pursuing its legislative mandate. The program structure and
operation have been in conformance with and committed to
the spirit of SARA. EPA has established a demonstration
program [Section 311 (b)(5)(A) of CERCLA], conducted
annual solicitations [subparagraph B], received applications
[C], selected projects [D], selected Superfund sites fE],
developed demonstration plans [F], and conducted demon-
strations [G and BQ. Funding has been offered to developers
in compliance with the restrictions in Section 311 (b)(5)(J).
The program has attempted to initiate 10 field demonstra-
tions per year as called for by Section 311 (b)(6). In fact, in
most years, more than 10 technologies have been brought into
the program.
In the period between establishment of the SITE Pro-
gram through passage of SARA in 1986 and today, the
Superfund program has come under increasing pressure to
speed up the decisionmaking and cleanup processes. While
the Superfund program has been called upon to adopt more
cost-effective innovative technologies, the individual reme-
dial project manager (RPM) is often held accountable to
complete a given site's remedial investigation and feasibility
study (Rl/FS) in 22 months. While there may be time within
this 22-month process for small- scale treatability studies, it
is, even under the best of circumstances, difficult to manipu-
late the larger (in many cases full-scale) equipment desired
for SITE demonstrations. Thus, in the push of day-to-day
activities, the RPMs are reluctant to assume the additional
voluntary "burden" of hosting a SITE demonstration.
The SITE Program suffers, too, from many of the field
problems that have hampered the Superfund program. Site
characterization andcleanupcangomuchslowertnanplanned.
Cautious states, PRPs, and local air and water authorities can
hold up theprocess. Community relations can be complicated
by bringing in untested equipment Complex test plans and
data reports require planning and interpretive time, and the
demand for speed in the Rl/FS process forces RPMs (and
their support contractors) to lean heavily on established
technologies. Only in rare circumstances will a Region con-
sider a SITE demonstration after arecord of decision (ROD)
has been signed for the site. Since EPA Regions have long
since begun the Rl/FS process for most of their priority sites
it is unlikely that these sites will be offered to host SITE
demonstrations. In this context, the prospect that multiple
sites can be considered for any one demonstration is an
extremely remote possibility.
B. PROPOSED PROGRAM CHANGES
In August 1990, RREL completed its Management Re-
view of the SITE Program. The study was initiated as a
follow-up to the Administrator's 90-day Management Re-
view of the Superfund Program, and subsequent Manage-
ment Review of the Superfund Program-Implementation
Plan.
While all these efforts dealt with theSITE Program from
a broad perspective, EPA believed that a more thorough
assessment was required on the part of those individuals most
familiar with the program. The process used in conducting
the study was to interview knowledgeable, involved, and
experienced EPA personnel at the headquarters level, Office
of Research and Development (ORD), Office of Solid Waste
andEmergencyResponse(OSWER),OfficeofEnvironmen-
tal Engineering and Technology (OEETD), and the Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory and several Regional
Offices. Other groups that were interviewed included select
Centers of Excellence, several state and other government
agencies, and private sector groups. Questions covering
broad categories of the SITE Program were used as discus-
sion topics for the interviews. These categories included: (1)
program structure, (2) managementissues, (3) marketing and
outreach, (4) technology transfer, and (5) recommendations
for consideration as part of CERCLA reauthorization in
November 1991.
The interview responses were analyzed by SITE person-
nel. These responses and the knowledge of the SITE Program
personnel were then used to formulate conclusions and
recommendations presented in the study report. The SITE
Program personnel who conducted the review were im-
43
-------
pressed with degree of interest all respondents showed in
making the SHE Program work.
The one aspect of the SITE Program appreciated by all
participants is the high quality of unbiased data generated
under this program. EPA Regions, in spite of their desire to
have more data more quickly, do not wish to see this achieved
through sacrifices in quality. The SITE Program does not
intend to reduce the level of quality assurance of the core
demonstration program. Rather, the goal of faster data turn-
around will be pursued through more intense emphasis on
applications analyses, as opposed to detailed data presenta-
tions, and through lower level intermediate studies, such as
treatability studies.
As a result of RREL's management review, the SITE
Program has begun to implement the following 15 program
changes in the study areas described above:
1. Initiate a SITE Treatability Program
OSWER guidance to theRegipns places a heavy empha-
sis on the need to conduct treatability studies. There should
be a marked increase both in general treatability studies and
in treatability studies of innovative technologies as the Re-
gions move to implement this guidance. This movement
represents a marked opportunity for the SITE Program to
provide service to the Regions. A SITE treatability program
could:
• Conducttreatabih'tystudiesbydevelopersacceptedinta
the SITE Program.
• Incorporate treatability studies of innovative technolo-
gies planned by the Regions into the SITE Program.
2. Conduct Pilot Programs of Close
Support with Selected EPA Regions
Under this proposed pilot program, the Regions and
SITE would agree to work closely together. The Regions
would examine the SITE technologies for fits to demonstra-
tion sites. RPMs who participate would be allowed some
relief from time schedules for participation in the SITE
Program. The SITE Program would evaluate the Region's
RODs to determine if any proposed cleanup technologies
would qualify as SITE demonstration projects. In addition,
the SITE Program would conduct SITE treatability studies
where there are sites and SITE matches.
3. Initiate a Cooperative Effort with the
State of California
California has conducted an innovative technology as-
sessment program for several years. While it differs in many
respects frornEPA's SITE Program, its prpgram'sobjectives
arc very similar to SITE'S. In order to facilitate its pursuit of
"targets of opportunity," the SITE Program will meet with
officials of the California program.
4. Establish an Advisory Committee for
the SITE Program
An advisory group, consisting of Federal and state
regulatory personnel, technology developers' representa-
tives, hazardous waste remediating contractors, and private
company representatives, will be established to oversee the
operation of the SITE Program and provide recommenda-
tions for methods to improveits operation and "track-record."
This committee would meet twice a year at the RREL where
a current program orientation would be conducted for the
members. They, in turn, would provide a critique or debrief-
ing on their observations at the end of the day. Within 2 weeks
of the meeting they would provide formal written comments
of the program that would highlight the strong and weak
points and provide recommendations for future directions.
5. Shift the Emphasis of the Solicitation
Process to Sites Rather than
Technologies
Within the universe of Superfund sites, most can be
grouped into various categories. One option would be to issue
requests for technologies to work at specific sites, for ex-
ample, wood treating facilities, coal gasification plants, or
lead storage battery sites.
6. Streamline the Demonstration
Planning Process
SITE management intends to use the data quality objec-
tives (DQO) process for planning demonstrations. This pro-
cess involves the use of an early planning meeting among all
interested parties to clearly define a demonstration and, thus,
sampling and analytical objectives. In this manner, the dem-
onstration plan can be compressed into a usable, concise
document requiring only the essential sampling and analysis.
7. Utilize the START Program as a
Source of Test Sites and
Technologies for the SITE Program
The START program works very closely with Regional
Superfund personnel to provide technical assistance on rem-
edy selection. There are currently 22 sites in the START
program with additional sites to be added each year. The
START team leaders are in a position to appreciate any
confluence of needs between START sites and the SITE
Program. As Regional personnel become more comfortable
with, and reliant on, the START team leaders, opportunities
to mesh SITE and site needs can be pursued.
8. Pursue Opportunities to have Multiple
Demonstrations at a Single Site or a
Single Facility
In most cases a single remedial action technology or unit
operation will not be adequate to remediate an uncontrolled
hazardous waste site. Several individual technologies need to
be combined in order to effectively clean-up the site. This
recommendation would take advantage of various institu-
44
-------
tional approaches to demonstrate multiple technologies. Cer-
tain sites like Rocky Mountain Arsenal and the Petro Proces-
sors site in Louisiana offer the opportunity of having a wide
range of types and quantities of contaminants which would
readily lend themselves to a "treatment-train" concept
Also, ORD's Test and Evaluation (T&E), Center Hill,
and Incineration Research (IRF) facilities are single con-
trolled environmental testing facilities, where a waste can be
brought in and treated by a multiple treatment system ap-
proach. SITE management feels strongly that both of these
options offer promise and they will be pursued at the earliest
opportunity.
9. Emphasis to Evaluation Contractors
that Quality and Timeliness Will
Affect Their Award Fees
Two new evaluation contracts will be in place before the
beginning of FY 1991. Quality and timeliness will be the
major parameters in determination of award fees under these
contracts. SITE management will meet with its project man-
agers to emphasize the importance of fully utilizing the award
fee process.
10. Prepare an "Information Document"
for RPMs, OSCs, PRPs and Their
Related Associations on the Benefits
of Participation in the SITE Program
This document would consist of a listing of all technolo-
gies that need site matching, a brief abstract of the technol-
ogy, the kind of contaminants it proposes to treat, and some
of the benefits of participating in the SITE Program, such as
providing all of the analytical support not only for full-scale
demonstrations, but also for treatability studies.
11. Designate Program Staff to Regional
SITE Coordination
RREL Regional SITE coordinators wouldfacilitateSITE
Program activities in the Region, assist in technology transfer
activities, and identify areas of mutual benefit The imple-
mentation would involve assigning one individual for each of
EPA's 10 Regions. These individuals would continue to
serve as project managers on SITE demonstration projects.
12. Utilize NETAC to Help Move
Successful Graduates of the
Emerging Technologies Program to
the Demonstration Program
The NationalEnvironmental Technologies Applications
Corporation (NETAC) was established in 1988 through a
Cooperative Agreement between the University of Pitts-
burgh Trust and EPA. NETAC is a unique organization
designed to provide an integrated and systematic approach
for accelerating the development, regulatory acceptance and
commercialization of priority environmental technologies
from various public and private sources. NETAC provides a
wide rangeofclientservices to technology developers. These
services include third-party technical evaluations, market
andcompetitivepositionassessments.businessdevelopment
assistance, regulatory advice, and assistance in leveraging
financial investments for promising ventures.
13. Explore the Use of Centers of
Excellence, Associations, and Clean
Sites to Gain Access to Private Sites
and Technologies
SITE Program management will meet with officials at
research centers, trade associations, and private consulting
groups to pursue "targets of opportunity" for the SITE
Program. In many instances, private firms may have signifi-
cant economic incentive to utilize innovative technologies
for cleanup of sites. While most of these sites are not Super-
fund sites the problems encountered are equivalent to those
found at Superfund sites.
14. Develop Summary Reports for
Technology Types and Waste-
Specific Treatment Trains
First a technology summary report will be generated to
abstract and compare similar technologies. The first attempt
at this activity will be to produce a general profile of solidi-
fication/stabilization technologies already demonstrated. This
profile will address effectiveness of each system, pollutants
controlled, long-term data, and analysis of applicability.
In the second type of document, a treatment train will be
developed for cleanup of a characteristic site using one or
more SITE technologies. The treatment system presented
will cover excavation/site preparation, primary treatment
treatment or disposal of residuals, scrubbing of air streams,
polishing of wash and decontamination water, and site resto-
ration. This report will be directed at the design of a complete
clean-up system to illustrate methods by which various
technologies can complement each other and provide a total
remediation concept.
15. Improve Data Feed-Back on
Demonstration Projects
In an effort to improve the benefits that Regions can
derive from participation in the SITE Program, emphasis lust
be placed on timely turn around of the demonstration's
analytical results. Given the time span between theendof the
demonstration and the publication of official SITE results,
efforts must be made to share data as soon as possible.
C. PROGRAM OUTLOOK
EPA implemented the SITE Program in accordance with
the SARA mandate, as well as its perceived legislativeintent
SITE is providing a valuable resource to the Superfund
remedial and removal and RCRA corrective action pro-
grams, and has grown to meet the changing needs of these
programs. The reauthorization of CERCLA offers EPA's
ORD the opportunity to continue its cooperative efforts with
45
-------
EPA Regions, states, other federal agencies, private parties,
and developers in providing the technologies needed for site
cleanups. The investment of time and money in the SITE
Program by EPA and the commercial developers should
continue to show long-term dividends through the availabil-
ity of more permanent solutions to hazardous waste site
problems. The SITE Program is fulfilling a need of the
Superfund program in accordance with its statutory mandate.
The SITE Program has become an integral part of the EPA's
effort to use innovative alternatives for hazardous waste site
cleanups.
46
-------
APPENDIX A
REPORTS AVAILABLE
47
-------
&EPA
Documents Available from the
U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Superfund Technology Demonstration Division*
General Publications
Technology Profiles (EPA/540/5-90/006)
Demonstration Project Results
American Combustion—
Oxygen Enhanced Incineration
Q Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/008)
Q Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/008)
CF Systems Corp.—Solvent Extraction
Q Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-90/002)
Q Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-90/002)
Chemjix Technologies, Inc.—
Chemical Fixation/Stabilization
Q Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/011a)
Q Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/011)
Hazcon—Solidification
Q Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/001a)
Q Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/001)
I}VT In-Situ Stabilization
Q Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/004a)
Q Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/004)
Shirco—Infrared Incineration
Q Technology Evaluation—Peake Oil
(EPA/540/5-88/002a)
Q Technology Evaluation—Rose Township
(EPA/540/5-89/007a)
Q Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/010)
Soliditech, Inc.—Solidification
Q Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/005a)
Q Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/005)
Terra Vac—Vacuum Extraction
Q Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/003a)
Q Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/003)
Ultrox International—UV Ozone Treatment for Liquids
Q Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/012)
Q Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/012)
Emerging Program Reports
Bio-Recovery Systems—Removal and Recovery of Metal Development of Electro-Acoustic Soil Decontamination
Ions from Groundwater (ESD) Process for In Situ Applications
Q EPA/540/5-90/005a Q EPA/540/5-90/004
Check hereif you would like your name placed on the SITE mailing list
Your Name, Mailing Address, and Phone (please print)
MAIL THIS FORM TO:
ORD Publications
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr. (G72)
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
1 Documents ordered through ORD Publications are free of charge.
48
-------
&EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
RREL/RCB Videotape Library
rnnn m ^S> *?A u1Sk Redllc.tlon Engineering Laboratory (RREL) SITE Demonstrations as well as Releases
%S5ranch(RC B)Projects have te*n combined into two 1/2-inch VHS (NTSC) format tapes. Each tape is available at a cost
of $35.00 per copy, shipping and handling fee included. (Note: $10.00 additional charge per tape for international shipments)
Copies Number
SI*
Rl
Videotape Title
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program—compilation of six technology
demonstrations, including:
Shirco Infrared Incineration System, Peak Oil, Brandon, FL, August 1987
Shirco Infrared Incineration System, Demode Road Site, Rose Twp., MI, Nov. 1987
Hazcon Solidification Process, Douglassville, PA, October 1987
IWT/GEO-CON In-Situ Stabilization/Solidification, Hialeah, FL, April 1988
Terra Vac Vacuum Extraction System, Groveland, MA, January 1988
CF Systems Solvent Extraction Unit, New Bedford, MA, March 1989
RREL/RCB Research Program, including
Synthetic Soils Matrix
Dioxin and the Mobile Incineration System
Mobile Carbon Regeneration System
Mobile Soils Washing System
Mobile In-Situ Containment/Treatment Unit
* A Second SITE Program compilation video (S2) will be released soon.
These tapes can be requested in two ways:
(1) Send personal or company check, payable to "Foster Wheeler Enviresponse," to:
Foster Wheeler Enviresponse Videotape Request
8 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livingston, NJ 07039
Attn: Ms. Marilyn Avery (Allow 2-3 weeks for delivery)
(2) Send personal or company check, payable to "United States Department of Treasury," to:
U.S. EPA, Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
RREL, FOIA Videotape Request
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (Allow 6-8 weeks for delivery)
(REQUESTS WILL NOT BE HONORED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT BY CHECK)
Tapes should be sent to the following (Please print or attach business card):
Name:
Company:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
49
-------
APPENDIX B
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
50
-------
Developer
Allied Signal Corporation
[formerly Detox, Inc.]
Morris town, NY
(003)
American Combustion
Technologies, too;
lfafc«j$&, GA
<001)
AWD Technologies, Jnc.
San Francisco, CA
(004)
Chaska,MN
(003)
Chaska,MN
(003)
BioVersal USA, Inc.
Mount Prospect, IL
(005)
CF Systems Corporation
Wattham, MA
(002)
Chemfix Technologies,
tn&
MetaWe, LA
(002)
Chemical Waste
Management, Inc.
Geneva, IL
(003)
Dehydro-Tech
Corporation
East Hanover, NJ
(004) \
£1 , DuPont deftemours J
and Cft/Obertin Piter Co. t
Newark, Di
(003)
Ecova Corpoartion f
Redmand, WA l
(003)
Fresno, CA K
(004) S
C
NA = Non ADDlicable
SITE Demonstration Program Participants
Technology
Submerged
Aerobic
Fixed-Film
Reactor
Pyretron Oxygen
Burner
- 1"V" !• '".'•;•;
integrated Vapor
Extraction and
Steam Vacuum
Stripping
Biological
Aqueous
Treatment
System
Soil Washing
System
BioGenesis
Processor
Extraction of
Hydrocarbons
Solvent Extraction
Solidification/
Stabilization
X'TRAX™ Low-
Temperature
Thermal
Desorption
Darver-Greenfield
3rocess for
Extraction of Oily
/Vaste
vfembran©
^icrofiltration
n-Situ Biological 1
"reatment I
recipitation and 1
licrofiltration, and Z
ludge
ewatering
Technology
Contact
David Allen
201-455-5595
Gregory Gitrngn
404-663-8156
David Bluesteln
4*S-e76vlS04
John Sheldon
612-448-251S
John Sheldon
$12-449-2515
Mohsen C. Amiran
708-228-7316
Chrfe ShaTlice
617-890-1200
Philip Baldwin
504HB3M600
Carl Swanstrom
708-513-4578
Thomas
4olcombe
201-887-2182
=mest Mayer v
302-366-3652 £
F
Michael Nelson ^
>06-883-1900 5
F
Ray Groves S
.09-291-8144 I-
5
F
EPA Project
Manager
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
FTS 684-7856
Laurel Staley
513-S60-7863
FTS 684-7863
Norma Lewis/
Gordon Evans
5-t3-569-7665/
S13-5697694
MaryStinson
908-321-6683
FTS 340-6683
Mary Stinson
008^1^693
FTS 340-6683
Diana Guzman
513-569-7819
FTS 684-781 9
Laurel Staley
5t3-569-7863
FTS 684-7863
Edwin Barth
513-669-7669
FTS 684-7669
Paul dePercin
513-569-7797
FTS 684-7797
-auref Staley
513-569-7863
=TS 684-7863
ohn Martin
513-569-7758
TS 684-7759
I
laomi Barkley \
13-569-7854 J
TS 684-7854 {
. Jackson £
ubbard V
13-569-7507 L
TS 684-7507 S
Waste Media
Ground Watei
Wastewater
Soil, Sludge+
SolkfWasle.
Ground Water
«oil
Liquid Waste,
Ground Water
Soil
Soil
Soil, Sludge^
Wastewater
Soil, Sludge,
Solids, Waste,
Electroplating
Wastes
Soil, Sludge,
Other Solids
Soil, Sludge
Ground Wafer, 1
.eachate,
Wastewater, <
Electroplating (
^insewaters
Water, Soil,
sludge,
Sediment
Jludge, 1-
Vastewater, ^
.each able
k5il
Applicable Waste
Inorgani
, Certain
Metals
Inhibit the
Process
NA
NA
Nitrates
Metals
NA
NA
Heavy
Metals
NA
NA
Heavy
Metals,
Cyanide,
Jranium
NA (
1
(
teavy F
Petals s
: Organic
Readily
Biodegradable
> Organic
Compounds
Non-specific
Volatile Orgarifc
Compounds
Chlorinated and
Nonchlorinated
Hydrocarbons,
Pesticides
High Molecular
Weight Organics,
PAHs, POP,
PCBs, and
Pesticides
Volatile and
Nonvolatile
Hydrocarbons
PCBs, Volatile, :
and Semivolatile
Organics,
Petrofeum
By-products
High Molecular
Weight Orgartics
Volatile and
Semivolatile
Organics, PCBs
PCBs, Dioxin,
Oil-Soluble
Organics
Non-specific
Chlorinated and
Nonchlorinated
Drganic
'esticides, Oil,
md Grease
Completed Demortafraftons
(Continued)
51
-------
SITE Demonstration Program Participants (Continued)
Developer
Excalibur Enterprises, Inc.
Now York, NY
004)
ePAHhBt/Alrand
sttorgy Engineering
tosoarch
.aboratoiy/Regtona
Superfund Program
Exxon Chemicals, Inc./
&> Unda Chemical Co.
.ong Boach, CA
(004) [2 Demonstrations]
Freeze Technologies
Corp. Raleigh, NC
(003)
QooSafe Corporation
KitWand. WA
(002)
torsehead Resources
>ovotopmont Co. Inc.
(004)
IM-Toch
formerly Hazcon, foe.]
OaKwood,TX
(001)
In-Situ Fixation Co.
Chandler, AZ
(005)
n to matronal
Environmental
recbnology/YWC
Midwest
North Canton, OH
005)
ntomatjonal Waste
Toohnotogtos/Geo-Oon,
nc,
WfcNta,KS(001}
Oflden Environmental
Services
San Diego, CA
(001)
QUAD Environmental
Technologies Corp.
Northbrook, IL
(004)
Recycling Sciences
International, Inc.
Chicago IL
(004)
Technology
aOil
Washing/Catalytic
Ozone Oxidation
xcavation
feennkjuesatid
^Qam
uppresston , ,
Methods
Chemical
Oxidation/Cyanide
Destruction
reezing
Separation
n-Situ Vitrification
Flame Reactor
Solidification/ s
Stabilization
n-Situ
Jioremediation
Geotock/Bio-drain
Treatment
In-Situ
Solidification/
Stabilization -
Circulating „
Buidtzsd Bed
Combustor
Chemtact
Gaseous Waste
Treatment
Desorption and
Vapor Extraction
System
Technology
Contact
ucas Boeve
12-484-2699
Dick Gerstle
13-782-4700
Tony Kurpakus
213-597-1937
ames A. Heist
919-850-0600
James Hansen
206-822-4000
John Pusater
412-773-2279
Ray Funderburk
800-227-6543
Richard P. Murra
602-821-0409
Lynn D. Sherman
216-499-8181
Jeff Newton
316-269-2660
Brian Jasperse
412-8S6-77QQ
Harold Dlot
619*455-2613
Harold Rafson
312-564-5070
William C.
Meenan
312-559-0122
EPA Project
Manager
orma Lewis
13-569-7665
FTS 684-7665
S,Jacksor>
Hubbard
$3-669-750?
FTS 684-7507
Ten Shearer
13-569-7949
FTS 684-7949
S.Jackson
-lubbard
513-569-7507
FTS 684-7507
Teri Shearer
513-569-7949
FTS 684-7949
Donald Oberacker
513-569-7510
FTS 684-7510
Paul dePerdn
513-569-7797
FTS 684-7797
Edward J. Opatken
513-569-7855
FTS 684-7855
Randy Parker
513-569-7271
FTS 684-7271
Mary Stinson
908-321-6683
FTS 340-6683
Joseph MoSoriey
919-541-2920
FTS 629-2920
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
FTS 684-7856
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
FTS 684-7863
Waste Media
Soil, Sludge,
.eachate,
Ground Water
sail'-
Ground Water,
Wastewater,
.eachate
Liquids
Soil, Sludge
Soil, Sludge,
ndustrial Solid
Residues
Soil, Sludge
Soil, Sludge
Soil
Soil, Sedimen
Soil, Sludge,
Slurry
Gaseous
Waste
Streams
Soil, Sludge,
Sediment
Applicable Waste
norganic
yanide
olatile
norgantcs
Cyanide
Non-
pecific
Non-
specific
Metals
^eavy
Petals
NA
NA
Non-
specific
NA
Non-
specific
Volatile
Organ ics
Organic
semivolatiles,
esticides, PCBs,
CP, Dioxin
Volatile Or gahlcs
Non-specific
Non-specific
Non-specific
NA
Non-spec'rfh?:
Biodegradable
Organics
Most
PCBs, PCP,
Other
Non-specific
Organic
Compounds
Hafbgenated and
Nonhafogenated
Organic
Compounds
Volatile Organics
Volatile and
Semivolatile
Organics
including PCBs,
PAHs, PCP, some
Pesticides
NA -Non Applicable (Continued,
Completed Demonstrations
52
-------
SITE Demonstration Program Participants (Continued)
Developer
Technologies, Inc.
[formerly MoTec]
Austin, TX
(002)
Resources Conservation
Co.
Bellevue, WA
(001)
Ukiah, CA
(002)
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
Sanivan Group
Anjou, Quebec
(005)
S.M.W. Seiko, Inc.
Redwood City, CA
(004)
Separation and Recovery
Systems, Inc.
Irvine, CA (002)
Shirco Infrared Systems,
nte
tedmorioV WA
Oof ) [2 Demonstrations]
Silicate Technology Corp,
Scottsdale, AZ
(003)
QJluliGCDj. {nC,.
Houston, TX
(00$)
Houston, TX
(005)
Thermal Waste
anagement
New Orleans, LA
(005)
San Juan, PR
(001)
NA = Non ADolicahlfi
Technology Technology EPA Project Waste Media
Contact Manager
Liquid/Solid
Contact Digestio
Solvent Extraotio
(BEST)
Plasma Reactor
Debris Washing
Systerrr
Soil Treatment
with Extrasol
In-Situ
Solidification/
Stabilization
Solidification/
Stabilization
Infrared Thermal
Destruction
Solidfficatfon/
Stabilization with
Silicate
Compounds
Solidification/
tabilization
hemical Binding/
'recipitation and
hysical
Separation
reduction of
ossil Fuel from
etroleum-Based
udges
•Situ Vacuum
-Xtractfon
Randy Kabrick
512-477-8661
Paul McGough
206-828-2400
R.C. Eschenbac
707-462-6522
Michaet Taylor
513-782-4801
Peter Z. Colak
514-355-3351
David Yang
415-591-9646
loseph
)eFranco
714-261-8860
Several Vendors
see Technology
Profile)
Steve Pegler
602-941-1400
Bill Stallworth
13-497~8$S8
od S. Johnson
13-896-8205
George Lane
04-525-9722
ames Malot
09-723-9171
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
FTS 684-7856
Edward Bates
513-569-7774
FTS 684-7774
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
FTS 684-7863
Naomi Barkley
513-569-7854
FTS 684-7854
Mark Meckes
513-569-7348
FTS 684-7348
S. Jackson
-lubbard
513-569-7507
FTS 684-7507
Walter Grube
513-569-7798
FTS 684-7798
Howard Wall
513-569-7691
FTS 684-7691
Edward R, Bates
513-569-7774
FTS 684-7774
Walter Grube
5l$-$$9-?799
FTS 684-7708
Annette Gatchett
13-569-7697
FTS 684-7697
aul dePercin
13-569-7797
FTS 684-7797
Wary Stirison
08-321-6683
T$ 340-6683
Soil, Sludge,
Liquid Waste
Soil, Sludge
Liquids, Soil
Sludge
Sot Debris
Soil
Soil
Sludge
Soif, Sediment
Soil, Stodge,
Oround Water
Soil, Sludge
queous
Solutions
ludge
Soil
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
NA
NA
Metals
Nort-
spectfje
NA
Metals
Low Level
Metals
NA
MetaTs,
Cyanide,
Ammonia
Metals
Heavy
Metals
NA
NA i
;
<
<
: Organic
Halogenated and
Nonhalogenated
Organic
Compounds,
Pesticides
Non-specific
Organics, Oil
Non-specific
Non-specific
Organfcs, PCBs,
Pesticides
PCBs, PCP, PAH,
MAH, Pesticides,
Oils,
Hydrocarbons
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
Acidic Sludges
with at Least 5%
Hydrocarbons
Non-specific
High Motecufar
Weight Organtcs
Non-specific
Non-specific
Petroleum Sludge
/olatile and
3emivo)atile
^rgarttc
Compounds
Completed Demonstrations
(Continued)
53
-------
SITE Demonstration Program Participants (Continued)
Developer
Toxte Treatments (USK)
nc,
San Francisco. CA (003)
Ulirox International, !r>c.
Santa Ana, CA
(003)
Wastoch, Inc.
Oak Ridge. TN
(004)
ZImpro/Passavant, Inc.
Rothschild. Wl
(002)
Technology
n-Situ steam/Air
Stripping
Ultraviolet
Radiation and
Dzone Trealmenl
Solidification/
Stabilization
PACT®/Wet Air
Oxidation
(Powdered
activated carbon
and biological
treatment)
Technology
Contact
Philip la MOH
415-391-S113
David Fletcher
71^-645-5567
E. Benjamin
Peacock
615-483-6515
William Copa
715-359-7211
EPA Project
Manager
pa«i (tePefdh
513-569-7797
FTS 684-7797
Norms, ijftwte
613-569-7665
rrS.684-7^66
Edward R. Bates
513-569-7774
FTS 684-7774
John Martin
513-569-7758
FTS 684-7758
Waste Media
soff !
Qirouaii Water,
teachate,
Wastewater
Soil, Sludge,
Liquid Waste
Ground Water,
Industrial
Wastewater,
Leachate
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
WA
WA
specific,
Radio-
active
Organic
V«tatil»<3r08ntc
Compounds WK<
HydccKiarbons
Halogenated
HydKXSSrbona,.
Volatile Organic
Compounds,
pestlqIdeB»PC&?
Non-specific
Biodegradable
Volatile and
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
NA - Non Applicable
Completed Dombnstrattons
54
-------
APPENDIX C
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
55
-------
SITE Demonstration Program Participants
Developer
ABB Environmental
Services, Inc.
WakoRold, MA
(E03)
Alcoa Separations
Warrendale, PA
(E03)
Atomic Energy of Canada.
Ltd
Chalk River, Ontario
(E01) [Project Completed]
Babcock & Wilcox Co.
AlIance.OH
(E02)
Battalia Memorial Institute
Columbus, OH
(E01) [Project Completed]
3k>- Recovery Systems,
Inc., Las Cruces, NM
(E01) [Project Completed]
BtoTrol, Ina
Chaska, MN
(E03)
BolidenAHis, Inc.
Mlwaukoo.Wl
(E03)
Center for Hazardous
vtatorials Research
Pittsburgh, PA
(E03)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO
(E01) [Project Completed
Electrokinetics
Baton Rouge, LA
(E03)
Eloctron Beam Research
Fadty, Florida
International University
and University of Miami
Miami, FL
(E03)
Boctro-Pure Systems,
Ina, Amherst, NY
(E02)
• - -A*
Technology
Two-Zone Plume
nterceptkm
n-Situ Treatment
Strategy
Bioscrubber
Chemical
Treatment/
Ultrafiltration
Cyclone Furnace
n-Situ
•lectroacoustic
Decontamination
Biological
So notion
Methanotrophic
3ioreactor
System
Pyrokiln Thermal
Encapsulation
3rocess
Acid Extraction
Treatment
System
Wetlands-Based
Treatment
Electro-Osmosis
High Energy
Electron
Irradiation
Alternating
Current Electro-
coagulation
Process
Technology,
Contact
Dr. Margaret
^ndley
617-245-6606
Paul K.T. Liu
412-772-1332
Leo P. Buckley
613-584-3311
Lawrence P. King
216-821-9110
H.S. Muralidhara
614-424-5018
Dennis W. Damall
505-646-5888
Jeffrey Petola
612-488-2515
John Lees
414-475-3862
Stephen W. Paff
412-826-5320
Thomas
Wildeman
303-273-3642
Yalcin B. Acar
504-388-3992
William J. Cooper
305-554-3049
Clifton W. Farrell
716-691-2610
EPA Project
Manager
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
FTS 684-7856
Naomi P. Barkley
513-569-7854
FTS 684-7854
John F. Martin
513-569-7758
FTS 684-7758
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
FTS 684-7863
Diana Guzman
513-569-7819
FTS 684-7819
Naomi P. Barkley
513-569-7854
FTS 684-7854
David L. Smith
513-569-7856
FTS 684-7856
Marta K. Richards
513-569-7783
FTS 684-7783
Diana Guzman
513-569-7819
FTS 684-7819
Edward Bates
513-569-7774
FTS 684-7774
Diana Guzman
513-569-7819
FTS 684-7819
Frank Alvarez
513-569-7631
FTS 684-7631
Naomi P. Barkley
513-569-7854
FTS 684-7854
Waste Media
Solids,
Liquids
Soil, Water, Air
Ground Water
Solids, Soil
Soil
Ground Water,
Leachate,
Wastewater
Water
Soil, Sludge
Soil
Acid Mine
Drainage
Soil
Aqueous
Solutions and
Sludges
Ground Water
Wastewater,
Leachate
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
NA
NA
Heavy
Metals
Non-
specific
Heavy
Metals
Heavy
Metals
NA
Most
Metallic
Com-
pounds
Heavy
Metals
Metals
Heavy
Metals
and
Other
Inorgan-
ics
NA
Heavy
Metals
Organic
Chlorinated and
ijonchlorinated
Solvents
Most Organics
NA
Non-specific
NA
NA
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons
Most Organics
Most Organics
NA
NA
Most Organics
Petroleum
By-products,
Coal-Tar
Derivatives
NA -Non Applicable (uononueaj
56
-------
Developer
Energy and
Environmental
Engineering, Inc.
East Cambridge, MA
(E01) [Project Completed
Energy and
Environmental Research
Corporation
rvine, CA
(EOS)
Enviro-Soences, Inc
Randolph, NJ
(E02)
Ferro Corporation
Independence, OH
(E03)
Harmon Environmental
Services, Inc. (formerly
Envirite Field Services,
Inc.)
Auburn, AL
(E01) [Project Completed
Institute of Gas
Technology
Chicago, IL
(E03)
Technology
Chicago, IL
(E03)
IT Corporation
Knoxville, TN
(E02)
IT Corporation
Knoxville, TN
(E03)
Membrane Technology
and Research, Inc.
Menlo Park, CA
(E02)
(
5
Montana College of ;
Mineral Science I
Butte, MT
(£03)
New Jersey Institute of C
Technology p
Newark, NJ (
(E03) E
NA = Non Aoolicable
SITE Demonstration Program Participants (Continued)
Technology
Laser Induced
Photochemical
Oxidize
Destruction
Hybrid Fluid Bed
System
Low Energy
Solvent Extraction
Process
Waste Vitrification
Through Electric
Melting
Soil Washing
! Fluid Extraction-
Biodegradation
Process
Fluidized Bed
Agglomeration/
Incineration
Batch Steam
Distillation/ Metal
Extraction
Photolytic/
Biological Soil
Detoxification
Membrane
3rocess for
Removal of
/olatile Organics
ram
Contaminated Air
Streams
\ir-Sparged
tydrocyclone ,
t
Shea Associates <.
•recess 'e
Surfactant
'xtraction)
__
Technology
Contact
James H. Porter
617-666-5500
D. Gene Taylor
714-859-8851
Werner Steiner
201-361-8840
Emilio D. Spinosa
216-641-8580
William C.
Webster
205-821-9253
W. Kennedy
Gauger
312-567-3947
Amir Rehmat
312-567-5899
Robert D. Fox
615-690-3211
Robert D. Fox
615-690-3211
Dr. J.G. Wijmans
415-328-2228
rheodore I
Johnson £
106-496-4112 F
oe Bozzelli /
!01 -596-3459 5
F
EPA Project
Manager
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
FTS 684-7856
Ten" Shearer
513-569-7949
FTS 684-7949
S. Jackson
Hubbard
513-569-7507
FTS: 684-7507
Randy Parker
513-569-7271
FTS: 684-7271
S. Jackson
Hubbard
513-569-7507
FTS 684-7507
Annette Gatchett
513-569-7697
FTS 684-7697
Ten Shearer
513-569-7949
FTS 684-7949
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
FTS 684-7856
Randy A. Parker
513-569-7271
FTS 684-7271
Paul R. dePercin
513-569-7797
FTS 684-7797
=ugene F. Harris i
> 13-569-7862 !
TS 684-7862
knnette Gatchett f
13-569-7697
TS 684-7697
Waste Media
Ground Watei
Wastewater
Solids,
Sludges
Soil,
Sediments,
Sludge
Soils,
Sediments,
Sludges
Soils
Soil
Solid, Liquid,
Gas
Soil, Sludge
Soil
Gaseous
Waste
Streams
\queous I
Solutions <
t
1
fixtures f
c
Applicable Waste
,., Inorganii
NA
Volatile
Inorgan-
ics
NA
Most In-
organics
NA
NA
Most
Solid In-
organics
Heavy
Metals
NA
NA
-OW-
:oncen-
ration
Petals
i/lost In- 1
irganics
; Organic
Non-specific
Most Organics
PCBs, Other
Non-specific
Organic
Compounds
Non-specific
Heavy Organic
Compounds
Most Organics
Most Organics
Non-specific
PCBs, Other
Non-Specific
Organic
Compounds
Halogenated and
Nonhalogenated
Compounds
NA
Most Organics
(Continued)
57
-------
SITE Demonstration Program Participant* (Continued)
Developer
J.R. stmplot Company
Boise, ID
(E03)
Trinity Environmental
Technologies, Inc.
Mound Valley, KS
(£03)
University of South
Carolina
Columbia, SO
(E03)
University of Washington,
DepL of Ch/ll Engineering
Seattle, WA
(E02)
WastawatarTech. Centre
Burilngton, Ontario
(E02)
Western Research
Institute
Laram!0,WY
(E01) [Project Completed'
Technology
Anaerobic
Biological
Process
Ultrasonic
Detoxification
n-SItu Mitigation
of Acid Water
Adsorpflve
Filtration
Cross-Flow
Pervap oration
System
Contained
Recovery of Oily
Wastes
Technology
Contact
Douglas K. Sell
208-389-7265
Duane P.
Koszalka
316-328-3222
Frank T.Carucclo
803-777-4512
Mark Benjamin
206-543-7645
Abbas Zaldl
416-336-4605
James Speight
307-721-2011
EPA Project
Manager
Wendy
Davis-Hoover
513-569-7206
FTS 684-7206
Norma Lewis and
Kim Krelton
513-569-7665
FTS 684-7665
Roger C. Wllmoth
513-569-7509
FTS 684-7509
Norma Lewis
513-569-7665
FTS 684-7665
John Martin
513-569-7758
FTS 684-7758
Eugene F. Harris
513-569-7862
FTS 684-7862
Waste Media
Soil, Sludge
Solids
Acid Drainage
Ground Water,
Leachate,
Wastewater
Ground Water
Leachate,
Wastewater
Soil
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
NA
Most
Metals
Metals
NA
NA
Organic
Chlorinated
Compounds
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Coal Tar
Derivatives,
Petroleum
By-products
NA « Non Applicable
58
-------
APPENDIX D
SAMPLE FACT SHEETS
59
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency
Response
Office of
Research and
Development
9380.1-03AFS
May 1991
vvEPA
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation
Program
SITE Program Fact Sheet
SITE PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program supports development of technologies for assessing and
treating waste from Superfund sites. The SITE program was
authorized by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 with the goal of identifying technologies, other than
land disposal, that are suitable for treating Superfund wastes. The
program provides an opportunity for technology developers to
demonstrate their technologies* capability to successfully proc-
ess and remediaxe Superfund waste. EPA evaluates the technol-
ogy and provides an assessment of potential for future use for
Superfund cleanup actions. The SITE program has currently
evaluated and/or supported RD and D efforts for more than 100
Innovative treatment technologies. TheSITE program is admini-
stered by EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL)
In Cincinnati, Ohio.
This fact sheet describes the four components of the SITE
Program with particular emphasis on the Demonstration Pro-
gram, which conducts evaluation demonstrations of operating
alternative technologies. This page of the fact sheet summarizes
the overall SITE Program. Subsequent pages provide additional
detail about each program component. This fact sheet also
contains a list of contacts for further information, and an order
form for technology transfer publications and videos.
COMPONENTS OF THE SITE PROGRAM
The SITE program integrates four related components, the
Demonstration Program, the Emerging-Technologies Program,
the Measurement and Monitoring Technologies Program, and the
Technology Transfer Program.
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The Demonstration Program provides engineering, cost,
reliability, and applicability data on new Superfund remediation
technologies by sponsoring field demonstrations of pilot or full-
scale technologies. Technology developers demonstrate their
methods on selected wastes, and EPA analyzes, evaluates and
disseminates the test results. Typically, no funding is made
available to the developer during this process. Figure 1 illustrates
the categories of technologies currently enrolled in the Demon-
stration Program.
Innovative Technologies Program
This supplement to the Demonstration Program was estab-
lished toencourageprivatesector development and commerciali-
zation of EPA-developcd hazardous waste treatment technolo-
Currant Program Technology Mix
56 Technologies
Physical/Chemical
48% (27)
Thermal 13% (7)
Biological Technologies
21% (12)
Radtonudides
Solidification
16% (9)
Figure 1
gies for use at Superfund sites. The Federal Technology Transfer
Act of 1986 authorized the EPA/industry partnership that is
necessary to bring these technologies to commercialization. This
will enable EPA laboratories to collaborate with industry, thus
facilitating development of the technologies and reducing the
market risk.
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
The Emerging Technologies Program (ETP) supports the
development of new, innovative technologies by following
laboratory and bench-scale technologies through pilot-scale test-
ing. The ETP provides up to two years of financial assistance to
private developers for technology research and development
through cooperative agreements.
MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING
TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
The Measurement and Monitoring Technologies Program
(MMTP) is designed to improve the accuracy of Superfund site
characterization efforts. The MMTP tests the ability of advanced
technologies to assess the nature and extent of contamination, and
evaluate cleanup levels. Funding is generally not provided to
developers under this program.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
The Technology Transfer portion of the SITE program
disseminates information from the other three programs to in-
crease awareness and use of alternative technologies for assess-
ing and remediating Superfund sites. Technology transfer occurs
through reports, brochures, videos, seminars, public meetings
and site visits, conference exhibits, and technical support to EPA
Regions, States, and Superfund contractors.
60
-------
SITE Demonstration Program Process
Select
Technologies
Match
Technologies
with Sites
Prepare
Demonstration
Plan
Conduct Community
Relations
Activities
Conduct
Demonstration
Technology
Transfer
Figure 2
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROCESS
The Demonstration Program selects technologies and
conducts field demonstrations through the process illustrated in
Figure 2. Each step in the process is discussed below.
Select Technologies: In January of each year EPA solicits
applications for the demonstration program. Developers submit
proposals which are reviewed and accepted by EPA.
Match Technologies with Site: EPA and the developer
select a site for the demonstration based on several considera-
tions: the developer's waste and location preferences, relevance
of the technology to the site cleanup, and Regional needs. EPA
meets with Regional and State representatives, the developer and
other interested parties to visit sites prior to making a final
selection.
Prepare Demonstration Plan: EPA develops a Demon-
stration Plan that details how to sample waste for testing, prepare
the -selected site for the demonstration,' dispose of residual
materials, and evaluate the technology in the field. Both EPA and
the technology developer must approve the Demonstration Plan.
Conduct Community Relations Activities: In most cases,
opportunity for public comment is required prior to the actual
demonstration. EPA prepares fact sheets on the demonstration,
designates a period for the public to comment, and may hold local
public meetings and/or land site visits.
Conduct Demonstrations: The demonstration of the se-
lectedtechnologycanlastfrom afewdaystoseveralmonths. The
technology developer is financially responsible for mobilizing
and operating the technology. EPA prepares the site, provides
utilities, collects samples, performs QA field and laboratory
audits, and evaluates the results. EPA also handles the logistical
arrangements for a Visitor's Day where the Regional and State
officials, the public and interested professionals are invited to
view the demonstration.
Conduct Technology Transfer: After the demonstration,
EPA prepares an Applications Analysis Report that assesses the
overall applicability of the technology to other sites and wastes,
and includes technology cost, performance, and reliability infor-
mation. In addition, EPA prepares a Technology Evaluation
Report which presents a summary of the demonstration and
evaluation results. Contact John Martin at 513-569-7758 for
further information.
Innovative Technologies Program
EPA Labs/Industry
Partnerships
in R&D
Through cooperative research and devel-
opment agreements (CRDAs), EPA labo-
ratories will work closely with industry
to develop and commercialize on-site de-
struction and hazardous waste cleanup
technologies. Through the program, EPA
is involved in the development of a vari-
ety of technologies. Examples include:
Q Mobile Debris Washer;
Q Base Catalytic Destruction System (BCD - APEG -KPEG);
Q Volume Reduction Unit (VRU); and
Q Excavation Technique and Foam Suppression Methods.
For further information on this program, contact Steve
James at (513) 569-7877.
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
PROGRAM (ETP) HIGHLIGHTS
The Emerging Technologies Program is
supporting 30 technologies and is currently
planning to fund 13 projects from the 1990 so-
licitation. Solicitation for prcproposals occurs
in July of each year, the selected developers are
then invited to submit a Cooperative Agreement Application for
review. Final selection of projects is made in March of each year.
61
-------
Table 1
Completed Reid Demonstrations
REGION SITE/
DEVELOPER
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT
MANAGER
J Groveland Wells,
MA; Terra Vac.
Inc.
In-Situ vacuum
extraction of
VOCiinioil
Miiy Siinson
FTS: 340-6683
201-321-6683
1! New Bedford Harbor,
MA; CF Systems
Corp.
Solvent Extraction to
Remove PCBs from
sediments
Laurel Staley
FTS: 684-7863
513-569-7863
Imperial Oil. NJ;
Soli Jitcch. Inc.
Solidification/
stabilzation of heavy
metali and organic:
Walter Grube
FTS: 684-7798
513-569-7798
111 Douglassvillc.PA;
Hazcon, Inc.
(IM-TECH)
Solidification/
stabilization of volatile
and semi-volatiles,
organics, PCBs, and
heavy metals
Paul dePerein
FTS: 684-7797
513-569-7797
Palmenon, PA;
El. DuPont
DcNcmours & Co.
Membrane
Micro filtration
John Martin
FTS: 684-7758
513-569-7758
Monaca.PA;
Horsehead Resource
Development Co.
Flame Reactor
Donald Oberacker
FTS: 684-7510
513-569-7510
IVG.RHialcah.FL:
International Waste
Technology
In-situ solidification of
PCBs
Mary Stinson
FTS: 340-6683
201-321-6683
Peak Oil. FLjShirco
Infrared System, Inc.
Transportable IR
thermal processing
systems forucatmcnt
of PCBs, organics, lead,
and other metals in soil
and sludge material
Howard Wall
FTS: 684-7691
513-569-7691
Risk Reduction
Engineering Lab,
Cincinnati, OH
(Kentucky and Georgia locations)
Debris Washing System
Naomi Barldey
FTS: 684-7854
513-569-7854
V Rose Township, MI;
ShircoIR Systems,
Inc.
Infrared Incinerator
System
Howard Wall
FTS: 684-7691
513-569-7691
McGillis&Gibbs,
MN; Biotrol
Soil washing
Mary Stinson.
FTS: 340-6683
201-321-6683
McGillis & Gibbs.
MN; Biotrol
Biolreatment of
groundwaler
Mary Stinson
FTS: 340-6683
201-321-6683
VI EPA's Combustion
Research Facility,
AR; American
Combustion
Technologies, Inc.
Pyretron oxygen and
airbumcr for use with a
rotary kiln
incinerator
Laurel Staley
FTS: 684-7863
513-569-7863
DC Lorcntz Barrel and
Drum, CA; Uluox
International, Inc.
UV/ozone oxidation of
orgaincs in groundwaler
Norma Lewis
FTS: 684-7665
513-569-7665
McColl Site
Fullcrton, CA;
Excavation Techniques
Excavation & Foam
Suppression of Volatile*
Jack Hubbard
FTS: 684-7507
513-569-7507
Lockheed Site
Burbanfc,CA;AWD
Technologies, Inc.
Integrated In-Situ Vapor
Extraction & Steam
Vacuum Stripping
Process
Gordon Evans
FTS: 684-7684
MeColl Site, CA; Circulating fluidized Douglas Grosse
Oedcn Environmental bed combustor FTS: 684-7844
Services 513-569-7844
Annex Terminal, San
Pedro, CA; Toxic
Treatments, Inc.
In-situ steam -
aintripping of volatile
organics in soil
Paul DePerein
FTS: 684-7797
513-569-7797
Sclma Site, Frcs no,
CA; Silicate
TechnoJojy Corp.
Silicate Compounds by
Solidification/
Stabilization
Edward Bales
FTS: 684-7774
513-569-7774
Portable Equipment
Company, OR;
Chernfix
Technologies, Inc.
Chemical fixation/
stabilization of organics
and inorganics in
waste slurries
EdBanh
FTS: 684-7669
513-569-7669
SITE PROGRAM DOCUMENTS
The following SITE demonstration project publications
arc available from EPA. Indicate your choice by checking the
appropriate box(es) on the order form below. The form may be
copied.*
General Publications
D Technology Profiles (EPA/540/5-90/006)
Protect Results
American Combustion - Oxygen Enhanced Incineration
D Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/008)
D Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/008)
CF Systems Corp. - Solvent Extraction
D Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-90/002)
D Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-90/002)
Chemftx Technologies, Inc. • Chemical Fixation/Stabilization
D Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/011)
D Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/011)
Hazcon - Solidification
O Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/001a)
D Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/001)
IWTIn-Situ Stabilization
D Technology Evaluation (EPAy540/5-89/004a)
D Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/004)
Shirco-tnfrared Incineration
D Technology Evaluation - Peak Oil (EPA/540/5-88/002a)
D Technology Evaluation - Rose Township (EPA/540/5-89/
007a)
D Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/007)
Soliditech. Inc. - Solidification
D Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/005a)
D Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-90/005)
Terra Vac - Vacuum Extraction
D Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/003a)
D Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/003)
Ultrox International - Ultraviolet Ozone Treatment for Liquids
D Technology Evaluation (EPA/540/5-89/012)
D Applications Analysis (EPA/540/A5-89/012)
D Check here if you would like your nameplacedonthe SITE
mailing list
Your Name and Mailing Address (please print)
62
MAIL TO: ORD Publications
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive (G72),
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
* Documents ordered through ORD Publications are free of
charge.
SITE VIDEOCASSETTES
SITE Program videos arc also available on selected sites
for a small fee. These videos contain footage of actual field dem-
onstration activities, including Visitor Day programs. For further
information contact Marilyn Avery, Foster Wheeler Envirc-
sponse. Inc., 8 Peach Tree Hill Rd., Livingston, N.J. 07039,
Phone: 908-906-6860.
-------
This is a co-funding effort between the developer and EPA, with
EPA. funding up to 5150,000 each year. Funding for the second
year is determined by the progress of the first year's research.
Funding support for the program has also been received from the
Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense (Air
Force).
Several projects completed from the first year solicita-
tion are being invited into the Demonstration Program. Program
emphasis is being placed on innovative processes, that may be
capable of field scale efforts in the second year of research. This
provides a stronger basis for moving into the Demonstration
Program. Contact Norma Lewis at 513/569-7758 for further
information.
MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING
TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The Measurement and Monitoring Technologies Program,
based at EPA's Environmental Monitoring System Laboratory in
Las Vegas, Nevada, sponsors research on advanced Superfund
site assessment technologies. MMTP objectives include:
Q Identifying existing technologies that can enhance field
monitoring and site characterization;
Q Supporting development of monitoring capabilities that
cannot be cost-effectively addressed with current
technology;
Q Demonstrating those technologies that emerge from the
screening and development phases of the program; and
Q Preparing protocols, guidelines and standard operating
procedures for new methods.
For further information on MMTP, please contact Eric
Koglin, FTS 545-2432 or (702) 798-2432.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITIES
Technical information gathered through
all of the SITE programs is exchanged
through a variety of activities. Data
results and status updates are dissemi-
nated to increase awareness of alterna-
tive technologies available for use at
Superfund sites. Awidearrayofmedia
are utilized to reach decision makers
involved in Superfund sites including:
Q SITE brochures, publications, reports, videos and fact
sheets;
Q Pre-proposal conferences on SITE solicitations;
Q Public meetings and on-site visitors' days;
Q Seminar series;
Q SITE exhibit displayed at nationwide conferences;
Q Innovative technologies program exhibition;
Q Networking through forums, professional associations,
centers of excellence, regions, and states; and
Q Journal articles.
Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center (ATTIC)
The Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC) is an infor-
mation retrieval network that can provide
up-to-date technical information on inno-
vative treatment methods for hazardous
•wastes. Information available through the
ATTIC database includes abstracts and executive summaries
from over 1200 technical documents and reports. These abstracts
and summaries, delineated by technology, are categorized into
five groups: (1) Thermal Treatment; (2) Biological Treatment;
(3) Solidification/Stabilization Processes; (4) Chemical Treat-
ment; and (5) Physical Treatment The Attic Database provides
the user with access to innovative technology demonstration
studies, a variety of treatability, cost analysis models, migration
and sampling databases, underground storage tank case histories
and remediation ideas. The ATTIC network can also enable
access to expert assistance, a calender of events, and a list of
publications.
ATTIC can be accessed through an online system, a system
operator or through a disk-based version. For assistance and/or
information call the ATTIC operator at 301-816-9135.
SITE PROGRAM CONTACTS
ORD/RHET, Contacts*
Done
Program
•John Martin'
FTS 684-7758.:
513-569-7758
Emerging
Program
Norma Lewis
FTS 684-7665
513-569-7665
Regional Contacfcir
REGION
1
2
3
4'
5
OSWER
mo
NAME
Diana King
::FTS 833-1676
617-573-9676
PeierMon
FTS 264-4703
212-264-4703
Paul Leonard
FTS 597-8485
215-597-8485
'JohnRiaher
FTS 347-1586
404-347-1586
Steve Otuodlca
FTS 886-3011
312-886-3011
Hcffow
, JohnQuander
FTS 398-8845
703-308-8845
REGION
6
7
8
9
10
ORD/'
OEETD
NAME
Don Williams
FTS 255-2197
214-655-2197
DanaTragley
FTS 276-7705
913-551-7705
Gerald Sriyder
FTS 330-7504 .
303-294-7405
John Blevini
FTS 484-2241-
415-744-2241
John Bench
FTS 399-8562
206-533-8562
Si
Richard Nalonflc
FTS 382-2583 ,
202-382-2583
SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Agency has successfully completed 20 field tech-
nology demonstrations at Superfund sites as indicated in Table 1.
In addition, four measurement and monitoring technologies have
been field demonstrated. SITE project results may be obtained by
contacting the EPA Center for Environmental Research Informa-
tion (CERI) at (513) 569-7562 or FTS 684-7562.
63
-------
^ EPA FACT SHEET
SEPTEMBER 1990
sw
Itt
WWtOCV CVAU/AHON
Proposed Demonstration of the
Carver/Greenfield Process
PAB Oil Site, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing a technology demonstration at the PAB Oil
site under its Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) program. The SITE program was
created to evaluate new and promising treatment
technologies for addressing hazardous waste sites.
The proposed technology to be demonstrated is the
Carver-Greenfield (C-G) process, developed by
Dehydrotech Corporation of East Hanover, New
Jersey. The demonstration will measure the
effectiveness of the technology in separating oily
wastes into their oil, water, and solid phases. The
technology is designed to reduce the volume of wastes
requiring final treatment or disposal by concentrating
hazardous organics into the oily phase.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Carver-Greenfield (C-G) process (Figure 1) is a
physical process designed to separate oil-soluble
organic contaminants from sludges, soils, and liquids.
The process involves adding a "carrier" oil to the
waste, which removes hazardous organics from
contaminated soil particles and concentrates them into
the oil phase. First, the waste and carrier oil are mixed
together in a tank. The mixture is fed into a high-
efficiency evaporator where the water is removed.
Finally, the dry mixture is transferred to a centrifuge
that separates the oil from the soil particles. The oil is
then distilled to recover reusable oils. Solids undergo
an additional step for further decontamination.
By-products from the process include: (1) a clean, dry
solid, (2) a water product virtually free of solids and
oils, and (3) a concentrated mixture of the extracted
oil-soluble compounds.
Commercially, the C-G process has been used to treat
meat by-product waste, municipal sewage, paper mill
waste, brewery wastes, pharmaceutical plant wastes,
and leather dying wastes.
PURPOSE OF FACT SHEET:
• Notify the public of a proposed
technology demonstration.
• Announce a 30-day comment period to
obtain community fnput (see Public
Involvement section).
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION
The PAB Oil site was selected for this proposed
demonstration because the site contains petroleum
wastes and contaminated soils. The C-G process is
well-suited for the treatment of such materials and is
capable of dewatering liquid wastes, as well as
decontaminating solid particles. Therefore, this site is
considered highly compatible with the capabilities of
the technology.
The proposed demonstration is tentatively scheduled
for January 1991, and will last for about two weeks.
Approximately 400 gallons of oily waste and
contaminated soil is proposed to be treated during the
technology demonstration. Three test runs will be
conducted. All process equipment will be installed in
an 8 by 50 foot trailer.
EPA is preparing a detailed demonstration plan that
outlines the methods and procedures for testing and
evaluating this technology. All treatment by-products
will be disposed in accordance with all applicable local,
state, and federal regulations. After the
demonstration, EPA will compile and analyze the data
and publish it in a Technology Evaluation Report and an
Applications Analysis Report. The results from this
demonstration may be useful in identifying remedies
for similarly contaminated sites across the country.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The 17-acre PAB Oil site is located on Route 167,
between Lafayette and Abbeville, in Vermilion Parish,
64
-------
Louisiana. From 1979 until 1982, the site operated as
a disposal facility for oilfield waste, and contains three
surface impoundments that were used to separate oil
and water from drilling muds. As a result of this
operation, site soils became contaminated with
petroleum hydrocarbons and hazardous substances.
Because of the contamination and potential threat to
local ground water the site was placed on the National
Priority List (NPL) on March 31, 1989. The NPL is
EPA's list of top priority sites that are eligible for a
remedy under the Superfund program.
Currently, a Remedial Investigation (Rl) work plan is
being developed. The Rl will identify the nature and
extent of contamination at the site.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Because public participation is an important part of this
project, the EPA is sponsoring a 30-day public
comment period from September 23 through
October 23, 1990. You are encouraged to give your
written or oral comments to:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA SITE Project Manager
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7665
All comments will be carefully considered. A
Responsiveness Summary that addresses the public's
comments will be prepared.
Specific questions about the PAB Oil site should be
directed to:
Verne McFarland
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA (6H-MC)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
(214) 655-2240
1-800-533-3508
or
Jamie Van Buskirk
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA (6H-EA)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
(214) 655-6582
Media inquiries should be directed to Roger Meacham,
U.S. EPA Region 6 Press Officer at (214) 655-2200.
Vox to
Trauma* V.
^
Pcod
siDd^soa/ V1f"=1
W«. ™"P
J
O-1
C«ricr
iUto.
— * n r«-
' T t
Ftaidiifeg
Tmk
V
i—*r
C«ierO3
o-
f
s —
^_ _ CBrier 03 Vtpor «nd Stem
1 '
L_ra,.
^1 1
sz 6 's? &
' ' Sfcc
1 '
"*^ ^^ r-*
a>nt
< . i '
o, i — d
1 RecvdodCunerOil
oa-wuor 1
Scp«u [— d| , ,
J 03
M T- 33
-T^J1
i *
I J
id Oi>tffl«tlca
rrtirm -
t
Id process flow diagram.
- IfyAo- -*1
ttttMar
IT,.
0
i>y
Sdid.
Fnxka
^ft Lltta
^I"'v' OiSoiabJ.
f*ra .
EltFWDd
Ca"ftraa>
65
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE DEMONSTRATION BULLETINS
66
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
EPA/540/M5-89/005
August 1989
Demonstration Bulletin
Solidification/Stabilization Process
Soliditech. Inc.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION: The Soliditech
solidification/stabilization technology mixes hazardous
waste materials in soils or sludges with pozzolanic
material (cement, fly ash, or kiln dust), a proprietary
additive called Urrichem, other proprietary additives,
and water. The process is designed to aid in the
physical and chemical immobilization of the hazardous
waste constituents by binding them in a leach-
resistant matrix.
After the contaminated waste material is collected and
screened to remove oversized material, it is
introduced to a batch mixer. Each waste material is
mixed with proprietary chemical reagents and
additives, water, and cement. Figure 1 is a schematic
of the process.
V J
WASTE
w
A
T
E
R
Figure 1. SoHdttoch proems schematic.
Once thoroughly mixed, the treated waste is
discharged from the mixer and allowed to harden. The
treated waste is a solidified mass with significant
unconfined compressive strength, high stability, and a
rigid texture similar to concrete. Batch mixers of
various capacities are available to treat different
volumes of waste.
WASTE APPLICABILITY: This technology is intended
for the treatment of soils and sludges contaminated
with organic compounds, metals, inorganic
compounds, and oil and grease.
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS: The Soliditech
process was demonstrated December 5-8, 1988, at
the Imperial Oil Company/Champion Chemicals
Superfund site in Morganville, New Jersey. In the
past, this location contained both chemical processing
and oil reclamation facilities.
Physical test results of the solidified waste samples
were very good. Unconfined compressive strengths
ranged from 390 to 860 psi. Wet/dry and freeze/thaw
durability test results were excellent, showing no or
very little weight loss after 12 cycles. Permeability of
the treated waste was very low.
TCLP extraction tests indicated reduced leaching of all
metals except those contributed by the cement or
other additives (aluminum, calcium, chromium, and
sodium). No volatile organic compounds were
detected in the TCLP leachates of the treated wastes.
Several semivolatile organic compounds (phenols)
were detected in the treated wastes that were either
not present or present at lower concentrations in the
untreated waste. The presence of these compounds
has not been explained but may be due to a chemical
reaction. Oil and grease was found to leach from the
treated waste at the same or at slightly higher
concentrations than from the untreated waste. Raw
67
-------
waste contained from 2,000 to 50,000 times more oil
and grease than leachates from the treated waste.
Key findings from the Soliditech demonstration are
summarized below.
• Chemical analyses of TCLP, EP, BET, and ANS
16.1 leachates showed that heavy metals
present in the untreated waste were immobilized
by treatment.
• The process solidified solid and liquid wastes
with high organic content (up to 17%) containing
oil and grease.
• Volatile organic compounds were not detected in
the treated waste and were assumed to be lost
during waste collection, screening, and
treatment.
• Excellent physical properties were measured in
the treated waste including low permeability, high
unconfined compressive strength, and resistance
to weathering.
• Semivolatile organic compounds (phenols) were
detected in the treated waste and the TCLP
leachate from the treated waste; but not in the
untreated waste or its TCLP leachate.
• Oil and grease content of the untreated waste
ranged from 2.8 to 17.3 percent. Oil and grease
content of the solidified waste ranged from 4.6 to
7.7 percent. Oil and grease content of the TCLP
leachate of both the untreated and treated
wastes was in the 1.4 to 12 ppm range.
• The solidified wastes increased in volume an
average of 22 percent. The bulk density of the
waste material increased by approximately 35
percent due to solidification.
• The pH of the solidified waste ranged from 11.7
to 12.0. The pH of the untreated waste ranged
from 3.4 to 7.9.
• PCBs were not detected in any TCLP leachates,
whether the waste was treated or not.
• Visual observation of the broken pieces of the
solidified waste showed the presence of dark
inclusions approximately 1 mm in diameter,
which may be untreated waste. Microstructural
studies are ongoing.
A Technology Evaluation Report and an Applications
Analysis Report describing the complete
demonstration will be available in the Winter of
1989/1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
EPA Project Manager:
Walter E. Grube, Jr.
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7798 (FTS: 684-7798)
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/540VM5-89/005
68
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/540/M5-89/012
November 1989
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Demonstration Bulletin
Ultraviolet Radiation and Oxidation
Ultrox International
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION: The ultraviolet (UV)
radiation/oxidation treatment technology developed by
Ultrox International uses a combination of UV
radiation, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide to oxidize
organic compounds in water. Various operating
parameters can be adjusted in the Ultrox® system to
enhance the oxidation of organic contaminants. These
parameters include hydraulic retention time, oxidant
dose, UV radiation intensity, and influent pH level.
A schematic of the Ultrox system is shown in Figure
1. The treatment system is delivered on four skid-
mounted modules, and includes the following major
components:
• UV radiation/oxidation reactor module
• Ozone generator module
• Hydrogen peroxide feed system
• Catalytic ozone decomposer (Decompozon) unit
for treating reactor off-gas
Catalytic
Ozone Decomposer"""'
Treated Off Gas
Reactor Off Gas
Cooling Water,
Water Chiller.
Makeup
Water
Treated
Effluent
] Ultrox
UV/Oxidation
Reactor
Ground Watery,
Dryer "Ozone Hydrogen Peroxide
X Generatoi
Compressed Air
Cooling Water
Return
Air Compressor
Figure 1. Isometric viaw of Ultrox System.
The commercial-size reactor used for the SITE
Demonstration is 3 feet long by 1.5 feet wide by 5.5
feet high. The reactor is divided by five vertical baffles
into six chambers. Each chamber contains four UV
lamps as well as a diffuser which uniformly bubbles
and distributes ozone gas into the groundwater being
treated.
WASTE APPLICABILITY: This treatment technology
is intended to destroy dissolved organic contaminants,
including chlorinated hydrocarbons and aromatic
compounds, that are present in wastewater or
groundwater with low levels of suspended solids, oils,
and grease.
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS: The SITE Demon-
stration was conducted at a former drum recycling
facility in San Jose, California, over a 2-week period in
February and March 1989. Approximately 13,000
gallons of groundwater contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from the site were treated
in the Ultrox system during 13 test runs. During the
first 11 runs, the 5 operating parameters were
adjusted to evaluate the system. The last 2 runs were
conducted under the same conditions as Run 9 to
verify the reproducibility of the system's performance.
To evaluate the performance of each run, the
concentrations of indicator VOCs in the effluent were
analyzed overnight. Three of the 44 VOCs identified in
the groundwater at the site were selected as indicator
VOCs. These indicator VOCs were trichloroethylene
(TCE); 1,1 dichloroethane (1,1-OCA); and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA). TCE was selected
because it is a major volatile contaminant at the site,
and the latter two VOCs were selected because they
are relatively difficult to oxidize.
69
-------
Key findings from the
summarized as follows:
Ultrox demonstration are
• The groundwater treated by the Ultrox system met
the applicable National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards at the 95
percent confidence level. Success was obtained
by using a hydraulic retention time of 40 minutes;
ozone dose of 110 mg/L; hydrogen peroxide dose
of 13 mg/L; all 24 UV lamps operating; and
influent pH at 7.2 (unadjusted).
• There were no volatile organics detected in the
exhaust from the Decompozon unit.
» The Decompozon unit destroyed ozone in the
reactor off-gas to levels less than 0.1 ppm (OSHA
Standards). The ozone destruction efficiencies
were observed to be greater than 99.99 percent.
• The Ultrox system achieved removal efficiencies
as high as 90 percent for the total VOCs present
in the groundwater at the site. The removal
efficiencies for TCE were greater than 99 percent.
However, the maximum removal efficiencies for
1,1 -DCA and 1,1,1-TCA were about 65 and 85
percent, respectively (Table 1).
Tab!* 1. Performance Data During Reproducible Runs
Mean Influent
(PSA.)
Run Number: 9
TCE
1,1 -DCA
1,1,1-TCA
Total VOCs
Run Number: 12
TCE
1,1 -DCA
1,1,1-TCA
Total VOCs
Run Number: 13
TCE
1,1 -OCA
1,1,1-TCA
Total VOCs
65
11
4.3
170
52
11
3.3
150
49
10
3.2
120
Mean Effluent
(W/U
1.2
5.3
0.75
16
0.55
3.8
0.43
12
0.63
4.2
0.49
20.
Percent
Removal
98
54
83
91
99
65
87
92
99
60
85
83
• Within the treatment system, the removals of 1,1-
OCA and 1,1,1-TCA appear to be due to both
chemical oxidation and stripping. Specifically,
stripping accounted for 12 to 75 percent of the
total removals for 1,1,1-TCA, vinyl chloride, and
other VOCs.
• No semivolatiles, PCBs, or pesticides were found
in the groundwater at the site. Among the VOCs,
the contaminant present at the highest
concentration range (48 to 85 ug/L) was TCE.
The groundwater also had contaminants such as
1,1-OCA and 1,1,1-TCA in the concentration
ranges of 10 to 13 ug/L and 3 to 5 ug/L,
respectively.
• The organics analyzed by Gas Chromatography
(GC) methods represent less than 2 percent of
the total organic carbon (TOC) present in the
water. Very low TOC removal occurred, which
implies that partial oxidation of organics (and not
complete conversion to carbon dioxide and water)
took place in the system.
A Technology Evaluation Report and an Application
Analysis Report describing the complete
demonstration will be available in the Spring of 1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
EPA Project Manager:
Norma Me Lewis
U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7665 (FTS: 684-7665)
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/8CXWM-89/014
70 .
-------
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/540/M5-90/003
February 1990
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Demonstration Bulletin
In-Situ Steam/Hot-Air Soil Stripping
Toxic Treatment (USA) Inc.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION: This technology
uses steam and hot air to strip volatile organics from
contaminated soil. The treatment equipment is mobile
and treats the soil in-situ without need for soil
excavation or transportation. The organic
contaminants volatilized from the soil are condensed
and collected by the process treatment train, resulting
in a small volume of concentrated organic liquid waste
for transportation, disposal, or recycle.
A process tower supports and controls a pair of hollow
augers (Rgure 1) which are moved vertically through
the soil. The augers are rotated synchronously in
opposite directions during the treatment process to
break up the soil and ensure through-flow of gases.
Steam, at 400°F, and compressed air, at 2758F, are
piped through the augers to nozzles located on the
cutter blades. Heat from the injected steam and hot
air vaporizes the volatile organics, and the gas flow
carries the contaminants to the soil surface. A steel
shroud (a 10' by 6' by 7' box) covers the 7'4" by 4'
area of soil undergoing treatment. The suction port of
a blower keeps the area underneath the shroud at a
COMPRESSOR
vacuum to assist the flow of gases from the soil, and
to ensure against leakage to the outside environment.
The off-gases are pulled by the blower from the
shroud to the treatment train, where water and
organics are removed by condensation in coolers and
carbon adsorption beds. The air is filtered and
recycled to the soil by a compressor. Water is
removed from the liquid stream with a 4-stage
separator followed by batch distillation, and is then
recycled to a cooling tower. The condensed organics
are collected and held for removal and transportation.
WASTE APPLICABILITY: This technology is
designed to be used on soil contaminated with volatile
organics to a maximum depth of 30 feet. Semivolatiles
may potentially be removed by this technology.
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS: Demonstration of this
technology was conducted at the Annex Terminal site
in San Pedro, California, in September 1989 as part of
an extensive testing program. Site characterization
investigations indicated that the soil was contaminated
Off «nto«
of Tr««tm«nt/
WJGERS-I
Ihr«v4 1
„.——L-£~
Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram.
71
-------
with significant amounts of chlorobenzene,
trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, phthalates, and
other volatile and semivolatile organics. Twelve soil
blocks (7/4" by. 4') were treated to 5-foot depth during
the SITE Demonstration. Pre- and post-treatment
composite soil samples were collected from 5-foot
vertical corings. Ruorescein dye was added to four
blocks to evaluate migration of contaminants from the
treated blocks. In addition, air emission monitoring
was conducted at the soil surface for potential off-gas
emissions. Extensive process operating data were
collected, such as steam and air flow rates, and
organic concentration in the gases collected in the
shroud. Laboratory activities conducted for the
Demonstration included analysis of volatile and
semivolatile organic compounds, soil physical
characteristics, and dye concentrations.
The Demonstration showed that:
Removal efficiencies of volatile organic
compounds were greater than 90%.
Semivolatile organic compounds were also
removed, but at a lower efficiency.
* Downward migration of compounds is not
significant.
* Fugitive emissions around the area being
treated and previously treated areas are low.
A Technical Evaluation Report describing the
complete Demonstration will be available in the Fall of
1990.
For Further Information:
EPA PROJECT MANAGER
Paul R. de Percin
USEPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7797 (FTS 684-7797)
Unhod States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
' BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/S40/M5-90/003
fU.3. Govtmmint Printing Offic*: 1881 — 648-187/40587
72
------- |