vvEPA
US. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA/54Q/M-90/009 No. 2 October 7990
The applied technologies Journal for Superfund removals and remedial actions and KCRA corrective actions
Rummage
Through the
ATTIC
One-Stop Shopping
Fou can quickly enter EPA's
Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC) Data-
base when you need one-stop
shopping to match up a cleanup
problem at your site with the right
innovative technology. EPA's
ATTIC Database contains abstracts
of alternative and innovative tech-
nologies for hazardous waste
treatment from EPA, states, other
federal agencies and industry. It's
easy to use. Just search keywords
such as "PCB" and "soil," and titles
of documents about treating PCBs in
soil appear on your computer screen.
You can readily determine from
abstracts whether or not the technolo^
gies have been pilot or field tested
and if they're ready for you to use at a
site. You get the name of a person to
contact for further information.
With this issue of Tech Treads,
we begin a series of articles that
introduces yon to ATTIC October's
article, "Out of the ATTIC" {starting
on page 3), gives you an overall
introduction to the five reference
categories in ATTIC: thermal
technology, biological treatment,
solidificatiqn/stabilization processes,
chemical treatment and physical
treatment Succeeding issues will
highlight one reference category per
issue in more detail, with examples of
how your colleagues have used
ATTIC.
Phenols,-;NaOH,
cresois "
Soil flushing,
evaporation,
biodegradadon
Soil
Onsiie Treatment of Phenols and
Cresois in Soil
by Harry L Allen, Environmental Response Team
and Robert Mandel, OSC, Region IX _^
mm'.hen Bob Mandel in EPA's Region 9 called the Envi-
ronmental Response Team (ERT) in Edison, New Jersey, he
got the answers he needed. Bob was seeking an onsite
treatment technology to clean up the Poly-Carb Sujjerfund
site near Wells, Nevada. The arid, desert soil at the site was
contaminated with phenol, sodium hydroxide and cirtho-,
meta-, and para-cresols that had spilled from above -ground ^ ""
storage tanks two years earlier. The Poly-Carb site is in the recharge zone for the
ground-water aquifer that is the sole source of drinlnng water for Wells—and the site
presented a major imminent threat to the aquifer. So, Bob wanted to quickly and
effectively clean up the site, but without having to transport the hazardous wastes to
Oregon.
To meet the challenge, ERT performed treatability studies using innovative
techniques that had already been pilot tested in Edison. Based on the study results,
ERT suggested a combination of soil flushing, passive evaporation and biological
degradation to clean up the site. ERT had found soil flushing and passive evaporation
to be clearly effective. Since the waste had been in the environment for two years
prior to EPA's involvement, ERT assumed that acclimated microbes would have
developed at the site for biodegradation. _.
(see Phenols page 3)
Treatment Technology Citations
in ATTIC* Database
Chemical (199)
Physical (394)
Biological (158)
^Solidification (200)
Thermal (231)
' Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
-------
Removing
Halogenated
Compounds
with Base-
Catalyzed
Decomposition
by Charles Rogers
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
Halogenated
compounds
Base catalyzed
decomposition
Soil, wastes
in drums
it
theU.5.
Naval
Station
site on Guam, EPA and the Navy will
demonstrate a new way to chemically
destroy halogenated organic com-
pounds, such as PCBs, found in
contaminated soil at the site. The
cleanup technique, known as the base
catalyzed decomposition (BCD) process
overcomes a shortfall of incineration:
the small quantities of furans and
dioxins that remain. The BCD tech-
nique is'an evolution of the Potassium
Hydroxide Polyethylene Glycol
(KPEG) process used at the Guam site
and has been pilot tested in a small
scale reactor at EPA's Risk Reduction
Engineering Lab (RREL) in Cincinnati
Cost estimates indicate that it will cost
about S245 per ton versus several times
more per ton for landfill or incineration.
The beauty of the process is that it can
be used for all chlorinated or haloge-
nated compounds in contaminated soil
or in mixtures in drums. You also have
the option of running the process
continuously or in batches, depending
on the size and conditions of your site.
Here's how the process works.
The chemicals required for the BCD
process are thoroughly mixed with the
contaminated soil. The soil/chemical
(see BCD, page 4)
SITE Subjects
In Situ Steam/Hot Air Treats
Soil from Below Water Table
by Mary Gaughan v
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
VOCs
Steam/hot
air stripping
Soil, ground
water
^n innovative mobile in situ soil stripping
technology was used at the Annex Terminal Site in
San Pedro, California. The technology overcomes
many of the traditional stumbling blocks to
cleanup of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
soil. Under EPA's SITE program, Toxic Treat-
ments Inc. demonstrated their steam/hot air
technology at the site. This technology can treat
saturated or unsaturaied soil down to a depth of 30 feet as well as ground water.
Most existing technologies treat either the soil or the water, not both soil and water.
Additionally, the way the treatment unit is constructed enables it to collect the
contaminants as they volatilize from the soil, thus avoiding the problem of off- .
gassing of VOCs into the air that often occurs during cleanup of sites. The process
eliminates the need for any excavation of the contaminated soil.
The in situ steam/hot air technology unit was the perfect match for the condi-
tions at the Annex Terminal Site. The site stored VOCs such as hydrocarbons and
solvents which had spilled from tanks into the soil. The steam/hot air equipment
used in the cleanup sits on crawlers that move across the soil. The unit consists of
three connected components: (1) a steam generator; (2) a box, called a shroud, with
a drill; and (3) a gas processing unit At the site, the drill moved down through the
shroud into the soil column where it injected steam and hot air from the steam
generator into the soil column. The steam and hot air caused the contaminants to
volatilize and be forced up through the column into the shroud on top of the ground.
The gas was then piped into a gas processing unit, condensed into liquid waste and
collected in another unit for recycling, incineration, or disposal. The hot air and
steam were recovered from the gas processing unit and recycled back into the steam
generator to be used in the next soil column injection, as the unit moved on its
crawlers across the site.
Based on the SITE demonstration test results, it is believed that greater than
90% of the VOCs can be removed. At this site, concentrations of VOCs were
reduced, on average, from 466 ppm to 71 ppm with a removal of 85%. There was
negligible migration of the organics. That is, the steam/hot air process was able to
strip the contaminants from the soil with almost no forcing of the contaminants
either laterally or downward into the surrounding soil or water. The technology has
other advantages as well. Soil handling costs are eliminated because there is no need
to excavate the soil. The technology is not limited, as many traditional technologies
are, by soil conditions such as particle size, initial porosity, chemical concentration,
or viscosity.
For more information, contact Paul dePercin at FTS-684-7797 or 513-569-7797.
-------
Out of the
by Myles E. Morse
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration
•he Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) Database is the database you want for the most up-to-date
information available on alternative and innovative technologies for hazardous waste treatment. These technologies are grouped
into five major categories: (1) Thermal Treatment; (2) Biological Treatment; (3) Solidification/Stabilization Processes;
(4) Chemical Treatment; and (5) Physical Treatment
The ATTIC Database contains abstracts and executive summaries from over 1200 technics! documents and reports. Currently,
231 citations hi the ATTIC Database (20% of the database) include thermal treatment technologies such as rotary kiln incineration,
fluidized bed combustion, infrared incineration, pyrolysis and plasma heat systems. Some form of biological treatment or
bioremediation technologies are found in 158 citations in the ATTIC Database (13% of the database). Biological processes include
aerobic and anaerobic treatment, composting, biodegradation and microbial degradation of hazardous constituents.
The ATTIC Database contains 200 citations (17% of the database) for solidification/stabilization processes including alumi-
num silicate and cement-based fixation, pozzolanic-based fixation and vitrification. There are currently 199 citations for chemical
treatment processes in the ATTIC Database (16% of the database). Typical chemical treatment: processes include oxidation-
reduction reactions such as ozonation, alkaline chlorination, electrolytic oxidation and chemical dechlorination. Physical treatment
is highlighted in 394 citations in the ATTIC Database (34% of the database). Various physical processes include adsorption,
distillation and filtration.
The ATTIC Database is the core of the Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center system. The system also includes
other hazardous waste data from literature search databases, expert lists, treatability databases, cransport and fate databases, cost
models, case histories and expert systems. The ATTIC system is accessible to all members of the federal, state and private sectors
involved in site remediation. ATTIC can be accessed through an online system, a system operator or through a disk-based version.
For help on how to use ATTIC, as well as information, call the ATTIC operator at 301-81(5-9153; Bill Sproat and his staff are
ready to assist you. For general information on ATTIC, you can also call Myles E. Morse at FrS-475-7161 or 202-475-7161.
Phenols (from page 1)
The treatment system design
required careful planning so that no one
treatment technique would hamper
another. The leach field was designed
to contain the contaminated soil and
leachate that would be generated by the
soil flushing operation. A half-acre pit
was excavated, graded and lined with a
double liner of high density poly-
ethylene with twelve inches of pea
gravel between the liners as a leachate
collection media, should the upper liner
leak. Then, twelve inches of clean
native soil were placed on the upper
liner, followed with 30 inches of
contaminated soil. For the leaching
operation, sprinklers were placed in the
center of the field to irrigate the
contaminated soil. Water came from
onsite wells, thereby eliminating the
need for materials handling. The water
dissolved the contaminants and flowed
downhill to a pump that transferred the
leachate to a holding tank, where it passed
through granular activated carbon filters to
remove the organics and through panicu-
late filters to remove particulates. The
filters were later incinerated. The treated
leachate was then recycled to the soil with
a sprinkler system. Passive evaporation
and biodegradation then took over. Evap-
oration was enhanced because the layer of
soil in the pit was relatively shallow, thus
exposing the maximum soil surface area to
the air. The dry and windy weather and
high desert temperatures converted the
soil-bound contaminants into air-bound
vapor. There was no population down-
wind to be exposed to the evaporated
contaminants.
Altogether, phenols and cresols were
reduced by 99% after two months of
flushing. Additional soil column studies
indicated that biodegradation was
leading to further reduction of contami-
nants. The cleanup results demonstrate
that multiple complementary treatment
options should be considered rather than
one single approach. However, bench or
pilot scale engineering and treatability
studies are essential prior to choosing
among treatment options. Further,
simplicity in design and operation, such
as the Poly-Carb site, can reduce project
construction and labor costs. Cost
analysis indicated that treatment costs
will Ibe $266/cubic yard—very competi-
tive 'with the traditional approach of
excavation, transportation and land
disposal costing approximately $250/
cubic yard at a commercial offsite
facility.
For more information, contact Harry
Allen at FTS-340-6747 or 201-321-6747.
-------
New for the
Bookshelf
nt EPA publications are available from ORD's Center for Environ-
mental Research Information {CERI) In Cincinnati. You can order them
electronically on the OSWER Electronic Bulletin Board or directly from
CERI. To contact CERI's Publication* Untt, call FTS 684-7562 or 513-569-
7562. You must have the EPA report numoeror the exact title to order a
document. ••, " •*"- .-,-,•.,
Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies,
Domestic and International. Contains abstracts of the proceedings and technical
papers delivered at EPA's recent Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treat-
ment Technologies in Philadelphia, PA. Document No. EPA/540/2-90/009
Innovative Operational Treatment Technologies for Applications to Superfund
Sites. Presents nine case studies, with operational data from ongoing and com-
pleted remediation efforts such as incineration of explosives in contaminated
soils, ground-water extraction, etc. Document No. EPA/540/2-90/006
Emerging Technology Report: Removal and Recovery of Metal Ions from
Groundwater. Discusses SITE program lab tests and onsite pilot scale demonstra-
tion of Biorecovery Systems' AlgaSorb Technology for removal and recovery of
mercury-contaminated ground water. Document Nos. EPA/540/5-90/005a and
EPA/540/5-90/005b
(from page 2)
mixture is then placed into a vessel called
a reactor, which can be constructed at the
site or brought in from another location.
The reactor is heated, causing the BCD
chemicals to react with the mixture to
break down the pollutants by removing all
the chlorine atoms from the compounds.
The volatile contaminants removed from
the soils are broken down further in
another smaller batch scale reactor.
BCD typically uses only 100 Ibs. of
reagent per 2000 Ibs. of soil and takes
from 1/2 to 4 hours (with a norm of one
hour) to clean up the contaminated soil.
BCD removes all the chlorine atoms from
the pollutant mixture. The design of the
BCD reactor permits the option of
continuous feeding and removal of the
soil. These BCD test results are based on
pilot tests in a small scale reactor at
RREL, using soil from the Guam site.
The soil contamination levels at the Guam
site range from 600 to 43,000 ppm of
PCBs. BCD treatment reduced the levels
to less than 2 ppm.
For more information, contact
Charles Rogers at FTS-684-7757 or 513-
569-7757.
- Tech Trends welcomes readers' comments, suggestions for future articles and cpntributlpns.
Address correspondence to: Managing Editor, Tech Trends (OS-110),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
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/540/M-90/009
------- |