United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA/540/R-92/074 B
September 1992
&EPA
Guide for Conducting Treatability
Studies under CERCLA:
Thermal Desorption
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS-220
QUICK REFERENCE FACT SHEET
Section 121 (b) of CERCLA mandates EPA to select remedies that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable" and to prefer remedial
actions in which treatment that "permanently and significantly reduces the volume toxfcrty, or mobility of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants is a principal element." Treatability studies provide data to support remedy
selection and implementation. They should be performed as soon as it becomes evident that the available in ormation
is insufficient to ensure the quality of the decision. Conducting treatability studies early in the remedial ..vest,gation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) process should reduce uncertainties associated with selecting the remedy and should provide a
sound basis for the Record of Decision (ROD). Regional planning should factor in the time and resources required for
these studies.
This fact sheet provides a summary of information to facilitate the planning and execution of thermal desorptionremedy
screening and remedy selection treatability studies in support of the RI/FS and the remedial desl9^re^
RA) processes. Detailed information on designing and implementing remedy screenmg and remedy selectoon treatebdrty
studies for thermal desorption is provided in the 'Guide for Conducting Treatab.l.ty Studies Under CERCLA: Thermal
Desorption," Interim Guidance, EPA/540/R-92/074 A, September, 1992.
INTRODUCTION
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PRELIMINARY
SCREENING
There are three levels or tiers of treatability studies:
remedy screening, remedy selection, and remedy design.
The "Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under
CERCLA: Thermal Desorption" discusses all three levels
of treatability studies.
Remedy screening studies provide a quick and relatively
inexpensive indication of whether thermal desorption is a
potentially viable remedial technology Remedy selection
studies provide data that permit evaluation of thermal
desorption's ability to meet expected site cleanup goals
and provide information in support of the detailed analysis
of the alternative (i.e., seven of the nine evaluation criteria
specified in EPA's RI/FS Interim Final Guidance Document,
EPA/540/G-89/004, 1988). Remedy selection tests
generally have moderate costs, and may require weeks to
months to complete. Remedy design testing provides
quantitative performance, cost, and design information for
remediating the operable unit. Remedy design studies are
of moderate to high costs and may require months to
complete.
Technology Description
Thermal desorption includes any number of ex situ
processes that use either direct or indirect heat exchange
to vaporize organic contaminants from soil and sludge. Air,
combustion gas, or inert gas is used as the transfer
medium for the vaporized components. Thermal desorption
systems are physical separation processes and are not
specifically designed to provide organic decomposition.
Thermal desorption is not incineration, since the
decomposition of organic contaminants is not the desired
result, although some decomposition may occur. The
concentrations of contaminants and the specific cleanup
levels for the site will influence the technology's applicability
for that site. System performance is typically measured by
comparison of untreated soil/sludge contaminant levels
with those of the processed soil/sludge. For the purpose
of clarity and brevity in this report, the term medium will
refer to contaminated soil, sludge, and sediment or
combinations of these. The medium is typically heated to
200 to 1,000°F; based on the thermal desorption system
selected, certain systems operate at higher temperatures.
-------
An important operating design parameter is time-at-
temperature, which is defined as the elapsed time that the
average medium temperature is at or above the target
temperature. Figure 1 is a general schematic of the
thermal desorption process.
Materials handling (1) requires excavation and transport
of the medium to the system. Typically, large objects
greater than 1.5 inches are screened from the medium and
rejected. Classified medium is conveyed, via belt or screw
conveyor, to a feed hopper, and then metered into the
desorber.
Significant system variation exists in the desorption
step (2). The desorber can be a rotary dryer, a thermal
screw, a distillation chamber, or a vapor extractor
Contaminants are intimately contacted with a heat
transfer surface or hot gases, and highly volatile components
(including water) are driven off. An inert gas, such as
nitrogen or steam, may be injected to convey the vaporized
contaminants and water and to ensure contaminants are
not oxidized by reducing the source of oxyuen.
The actual medium temperature and residence time
are the primary factors affecting performance in thermal
desorption. These parameters can be controlled in the
desorption unit by using a series of increasing temperature
zones, multiple passes of the medium through the desorber
where the operating temperature is sequentially increased,
or separate compartments where the heal transfer fluid
temperature is higher.
Offgas from desorption (3) will contain entrained dust
(particulate) from the medium, vaporized Contaminant 5,
and water vapor. Particulatesare removed by convention li
equipment such as cyclones, fabric filters, or wet scrubbers.
Volatiles in the offgas may be condensed and then pass* cl
through a carbon adsorption bed orother treatment system.
Emissions may also be destroyed in an offgas combustion
chamber or catalytic oxidation unit. The selection of the
gas treatment system will depend on the concentrations of
the contaminants, cleanup standards, and the economics
of the offgas treatment system(s) employed.
Thermal desorption is most applicable for separation
of organic contaminants from soils or sludges. Thermal
desorption units have been selected in the ROD for one or
more operable units at approximately 14 Superfund sites.
These sites include: McKin (Maine), Ottati & Goss (New
Hampshire), Cannon Engineering (Massachusetts),
Resolve (Massachusetts), Wide Beach (New York), Fulton-
Terminals (New York), Metaltec/Aerosystems (New Jersey),
Caldwel! Trucking (New Jersey), Outboard Marine/
Waukegan Harbor (Illinois), Reich Farms (New Jersey),
Waldick Aerospace Devices (New Jersey), Wamchem
(South Carolina), and two Stauffer Chemical sites in
Alabama.
Prescreening Characteristics
The determination of the need for and the appropriate
tier of treatability study required is dependent on the
literature available on the technology, expert technical
judgement, and site-specificfactors. The first two elements
- the literature search and expert consultation - are critical
factors of the prescreening phase in determining whether
adequate data are available or whether a treatability study
is needed.
Information on the technology applicability, the latest
performance data, the status of the technology, and sources
for further information are provided in one of a series of
engineering bulletins being prepared by EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Excavate
Material
Handling
Desorption
Gas Treatment
System
Residuals
Oversized Rejects
Treated
Medium
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Thermal Desorption
-------
A literature search should be performed to determine
the physical and chemical properties of the contaminants
of interest. Contaminant characteristics such as volatility
and density are important for the design of remedy screening
studies and related residuals treatment systems. Particle
size distribution and moisture content may be important to
determine pretreatment needs. If enough information is
obtained by prescreening to allow a decision to be made
regarding the potential success of thermal desorption,
remedy screening may be skipped.
If contamination exists at different soil zones a soil
characterization profile should be developed for each soil
type or zone. Available chemical and physical data
(including averages and ranges) and the volumes of the
contaminated soil requiring treatment should be identified,
For "hot spots," separate characterizations should be done
so they can be properly addressed in the treatability tests
if quantities are such that blending will not provide a
homogeneous feed stream. Thermal desorption may be
applicable to some parts of a site, but not to other parts
Characterization test samples should be broadly
representative of the contaminant profile of the site. Grab
samples taken from the site ground surface may represent
only a small percentage of the contaminated soils requiring
remediation. Deeper, subsurface strata affected by
contaminants may vary widely in composition, soil
classification, total organic carbon, and contamination
levels from those found at the surface, and should also be
characterized so that the fractions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) can be identified as to their location and
concentration The quantity and distribution of rubble and
debris at the site should also be determined as part of the
characterization process. This material may have to be
removed from the feedstock material during any full-scale
treatment operations.
Technology Limitations
Thermal desorption limitations may be defined as
characteristics that hinder cost-effective treatment. The
primary technical factors affecting thermal desorption
performance are the maximum bed temperature achieved,
total residence time, organic and moisture content,
contaminant characteristics, and medium properties. Since
the basis of the process is physical removal from the
medium by volatilization, bed temperature directly
determines the endpoint concentration. The degree of
mixing, where applicable, and the sweep gas rate also
affect removal rate. In some cases, achieving and
maintaining the desired results are too costly for sites that
are heavily contaminated with organics or that have a high
moisture content. Sf the system isdirect-heated.flammability
of the contaminant must also be considered in order to
prevent explosions. As in most systems that use a reactor
or other equipment to process wastes, media exhibiting a
very high pH (greater than 11) may corrode the system
components. Media exhibiting lowpH may similarly corrode
system components during processing.
THE USE OF TREATABILITY STUDIES IN REMEDY
EVALUATION
Treatability studies should be performed in a systematic
fashion to ensure that the data generated can support the
remedy evaluation process. The results of these studies
must be combined with other data to fully evaluate the
technology.
There are three levels or tiers of treatability studies:
remedy screening, remedy selection, and remedy design.
Some or all of the levels may be needed on a case-by-case
basis. The need for and the level of treatability testing are
management-based decisions in which the time and cost
of testing are balanced against the risks inherent in the
decision (e.g., selection of an inappropriate treatment
alternative). These decisions are based on the quantity
and quality of data available and on other decision factors
(e.g. .state and community acceptance of the remedy, new
site data, or experience with the technology).
Technologies generally are evaluated first at the remedy
screening level and progress through remedy selection to
the remedy design level. A technology may enter the
selection process at whatever level is appropriate based
on available data on the technology and site-specific
factors. Figure 2 shows the relationship of the three levels
of treatability study to each other and to the RI/FS process.
Remedy Screening
Remedy screening is the first level of testing. It is used
to establish the ability of a technology to treat a waste.
Remedy screening is generally low cost (e.g., $8,000 to
$30 000) and requires several days to several weeks to
complete. Time must be allowed for project planning,
chemical analyses, interpretation of test data, and report
writing. Limited quality control is required for remedy
screening studies. These tests yield data indicating a
technology's potential to meet performance goals and
applicability to the specific waste sample. Remedy
screening tests can identify operating parameters for
investigation during remedy selection or remedy design.
They generate little, if any, design or cost data and should
not be used as the sole basis for selection of a remedy.
Screening tests are conducted using laboratory- scale
equipment. These tests are generic, not vendor- specific,
and can be performed at any laboratory with the proper
equipment and qualified personnel.
In some instances, thermal desorption remedy
screening treatability studies can be skipped, if enough
information about the physical and chemical characteristics
of the contaminants and medium allow for evaluation of the
potential success of thermal desorption at a site. Information
on past performance with similar contaminants is useful in
evaluating the potential applicability of thermal desorption.
In such cases, remedy selection tests are normally the first
level of treatability study executed.
-------
Remedy Selection
Remedy selection is the second level of testing.
Remedy selection studies identify the technology's
performance for a site. These studies have a moderate to
high cost (e.g., $10,000 to $100,000) and require several
months or more to plan, obtain samples, and execute.
Remedy selection studies yield data that verify that the
technology can meet expected cleanup goals, provide
information in support of the detailed analysis of alternatives,
and give indications of optimal operating conditions.
The remedy selection tier of thermal desorption testing
consists of either bench-scale tests or pilot tests. Frequent ly
these tests will be technology-specific. The key question
to be answered during remedy selection testing is whether
the treated medium will meet the cleanup goals for this site.
The exact removal efficiency or acceptable residual
contaminant level specified as the goal for the remedy
selection test is site-specific. A remedy design study would
follow a successful remedy selection study, although they
are usually not conducted until after a Record of Decision
(ROD) has been issued.
Remedy Design
Remedy design is the third level of testing and is done
after the ROD. It provides quantitative performance, cost,
and design information for an operable unit. This testing
also produces the remaining data required to optimize
performance. These studies are of moderate to high cost
(e.g., $50,000 to $200,000) and require several months to
complete. Forcomplexsites(e.g., sites with different types
or concentration of contaminants in different medium such
as soil, sludges, and sediments), longer testing periods
may be required, and costs can be higher. Remedy design
tests yield data that verify performance to a higher degree
than the remedy selection and provide detailed design
information. They are most often performed during the
remedy design phase of a site cleanup.
TREATABILITY STUDY WORK PLAN
Carefully planned treatability studies are necessary to
ensure that the data generated are useful for evaluating
the validity or performance of the technology. The Work
Plan sets forth the contractor's proposed technical approach
to the tasks outlined in the RPM's Work Assignment. It also
assigns responsibilities, establishes the project schedule,
and estimates costs. The Work Plan must be approved by
the RPM before work begins. A suggested organization of
the thermal desorption treatability study Work Plan is
provided in the "Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA: Thermal Desorption."
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
Identification
of Alternatives
Scoping
- the -
RI/FS
Literature
Screening
and
Treatability
Study Scoping
Site
Characterization
and Technology
Screening
REMEDY
SCREENING
to Determine
Technology Feasibility
Record of
Decision
(ROD)
Remedy
Selection
Remedial Design/
Remedial Action
(RD/RA)
Evaluation
of Alternatives
REMEDY SELECTION
to Develop Performance
and Cost Data
Implementation
of Remedy
REMEDY DESIGN
to Develop Scale-Up, Design,
and Detailed Cost Data
Figure 2. The Role of Treatability Studies in the RI/FS and RD/RA Process
-------
Test Objectives and Goals
The overall thermal desorption treatability study
objectives must meet the specific needs of the RI/FS.
There are nine evaluation criteria specified in EPA's RI/FS
Interim Final Guidance Document (OSWER- 9335:301).
Treatability studies can provide data from which seven of
these criteria may be evaluated.
Setting goals for the treatability study is critical to the
ultimate usefulness of the data generated. Objectives
must be defined before starting the treatability study. Each
tier of treatability study needs performance goals
appropriate to that tier. For example, remedy selection
tests are used to answer the question, "Will thermal
desorption work on this medium/contaminant matrix?" It is
necessary to define "work" (e.g., set the goal of the study).
The remedy selection test measures whether the process
has the potential to reduce contamination to below the
anticipated performance criteria to be specified in the
ROD. This may indicate that further testing for remedy
design is appropriate.
When remedy screening tests are performed, defining
the minimum temperature of the medium and residence
time needed to achieve the required cleanup criteria are
the desired goals. The remedy screening treatability study
goals must be determined on a site- specific basis. Typically,
achievement of 75 percent or higher separation efficiencies
in the remedy screening tier would justify proceeding to the
next tier. RREL's Remedy Screening Lab has used 50
percent as a goal in the past.
The main goals of the remedy selection tier of testing
are to obtain information on operating parameters relevant
to a full-scale thermal desorption system. Inclusive in
these goals are determining actual contaminant
concentrations achieved after treatment, definition of the
heat input requirements and average bed temperatures
achieved, as well as limited performance data for the
offgas treatment system(s) thought to be applicable to the
medium/contaminant matrix. The actual goal for separation
efficiency must be based on site- and process-specific
characteristics. Typical separation efficiencies are 90
percent and higher. The specified separation efficiency
must meet site-specific cleanup goals, which are based on
a site risk assessment.
Experimental Design
Careful planning of experimental design and procedures
are required to produce adequate treatability study data.
The experimental design must identify the critical
parameters and determine the number of replicate tests
necessary. System design, test procedures, and test
equipment will vary among vendors. The information
presented in this section provides an overview of the test
equipment and procedures as these relate to each type.
When considering remedy screening tests, a number
of systems can be used such as a static tray or differential
bed reactor (DBR). In the tray test, contaminated medium
is heated in a muffle furnace equipped with an electronic
temperature controller. The furnace should be capable of
achieving an internal temperature up to 1,400'F with a
relatively fast heat-up rate. The depth of the soil should be
kept at a minimum to eliminate temperature and
concentration gradients within the soil bed. The temperature
of the medium should be monitored very closely, and care
should be taken that the thermocouple(s) are completely
immersed in the solid material. The time to reach a target
treatment temperature should be minimized to practical
laboratory timeframe such as 5to 10 minutes. Longertime
may be required depending on the specific contaminants
present in the soil.
In a DBR, a thin bed of medium is placed in a furnace
between two screens. Preheated gas passes through the
bed which eliminates concentration and temperature
gradients within the bed. In this reactor, the temperature
of the medium should also be monitored and the bed
should reach its target temperature within 5 to 10 minutes.
Remedy screening tests alone do not produce enough
information to perform an economic analysis of a thermal
desorption process, but do generate data on time-at-
temperature requirements. (Time-at-temperature isdefined
as the elapsed time that the average medium temperature
is at or above a target temperature.) To reduce analytical
costs during the remedy screening tier, the list of known
contaminants must be reduced to a few key compounds
selected as indicators of performance. Mass balance
calculations are usually limited by analytical results on
solids and liquid feed and discharge streams during remedy
screening. Normally, gaseous emissions are not tested at
this level.
Remedy selection testing is intended to more accurately
estimate the performance of a full-scale thermal desorption
system. The tests may be conducted in either batch or
continuous treatment systems that simulate the heat and
mass transfer characteristics of specific full-scale thermal
desorption processes. Data collected at this level can be
used to model thermal desorption under various
experimental conditions. Information from modeling can
then be used to predict time and temperature requirements
in full-scale operating systems. Remedy selection test
systems are able to simulate the performance
characteristics of the various desorption systems.
Remedy selection testing should define the time- at-
temperature and residual concentrations as a function of
heat input and bed mixing characteristics for a thermal
desorption device.
More precision is used in weighing and mixing of the
sample with an associated increase in QA/QC costs as
compared to remedy screening tests. Further care must be
takento ensure homogeneity of the sample(s) being treated.
Holding time of media and offgas samples in the lab before
extraction and analysis can be an important consideration
for some contaminants. At this phase of remedy selection,
it is recommended that duplicate (ortriplicate) test runs are
completed to ensure reproducibility of the results. This is
extremely important when non-vendor (generic) tests are
performed (i.e., DRB or static trays). This series of tests is
considerably more costly than remedy screening tests, so
only sites with contaminated medium that show promise in
-------
the remedy screening phase should be carried forward into
the remedy selection tier.
Variables that should be documented and/or controlled
during this level of treatability testing include:
moisture content of medium
contaminant concentration in medium
particle size of medium
treatment temperature or minimum solids temperature
time-at-temperature or total residence time
medium physical or chemical characteristics
thermal properties of medium
degree of agitation (solid/gas mixing).
The moisture content of the medium affects throughput
rate due to the energy requirements for drying. A high
water concentration delays contaminant volatilization or
requires larger heat inputs to remove contaminants from
the medium if the same throughput is to be maintained.
Treatability testing should be performed with medium
samples that represent the average moisture content
expected during full-scale thermal desorption operations.
Samples should be representative of site conditions
for the range of concentration of contaminants. Variability
in contaminant concentration should be expected within
individual samples used to characterize the extent of
contamination at the site. Blending waste material into a
more homogeneous mixture is useful for treatability testing.
The particle size distribution of the medium for the test
must approximate that expected for the contaminated
volume to be treated. If a significant amount of foreign
objects; large, consolidated chunks of medium; or significant
medium heterogeneity exist at the site, this may impact the
selection. This may also indicate the need for additional
materials handling equipment if the next tier of testing is
conducted. Thermal desorption treatability tests are
normally conducted at temperatures within the operating
ranges of full-scale thermal desorption systems. This
temperature range is normally between 200 T and 1 ,OOOT
for the medium.
The decision on whether to perform remedy selection
testing on hot spots or composite soil samples is difficult
and must be made on a site-by-site basis. Hot spot areas
should be factored into the test plan if they represent a
significant portion of the waste site. However, it is more
practical to test the specific waste matrix that will be fed to
the full-scale system over the bulkof its operating life. If the
character of the medium changes radically over the depth
of contamination, then tests should be designed to
separately study system performance on each medium
type. It may be necessary to identify extreme conditions
and determine the degree of blending required.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) consists of two
partsthe Field Sampling Plan (FSP) and the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The RI/FS requires a
SAP for all field activities. The SAP ensures that samples
obtained for characterization and testing are representative
and that the quality of the analytical data generated is
known and appropriate. The SAP addresses fie Id sampling,
waste characterization, and sampling and analysis of the
treated wastes and residuals from the testing apparatus or
treatment unit. The SAP is usually prepared after Work
Plan approval.
Field Sampling Plan
The FSP component of the SAP describes the sampling
objectives; the type, location, and number of samples to be
collected; the sample numbering system; the equipment
and procedures for collecting the samples; the sample
chain-of-custody procedures; and the required packaging,
labeling, and shipping procedures.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
The QAPP should be consistent with the overall
objectives of the treatability study.
The Project Description clearly defines and
distinguishes the critical measurements from other
observations and system conditions (e.g., process controls,
operating parameters, etc.) routinely monitored. Critical
measurements are those measurements, data gathering,
or data generating activities that directiy impact the technical
objectives of a project. At a minimum, the determination of
the target compound in the initial and treated solids samples,
medium temperature, and time-at-temperature will be critical
measurements for remedy selection tests. Concentration
of target compounds in all fractions will be critical
measurements for remedy design tests.
The purpose of the remedy selection treatability study
is to determine whether thermal desorption can meet
cleanup goals and provide information to support the
detailed analysis of alternatives (i.e., seven of the nine
evaluation criteria). A higher level of QA/QC is required
because the consequences of an incorrect decision are
more serious. Concentrations of the target contaminants
in the soil should be verified by using matrix spikes. The
QAPP should address the measurement of critical variables,
including the concentrations of target compounds in the
initial and treated soil for remedy selection column tests.
The methodsforanalyzingthetreatability study samples
are the same as those for chemical characterization of field
samples. Preference is given to methods in "Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste", SW-846, 3rd. Ed., November
1986. Other standard methods may be used, as appropriate.
Methods other than gas chromatography/spectroscopy
(GC/MS) techniques are recommended to conserve costs
when possible.
-------
TREATABILITY DATA INTERPRETATION
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
To properly evaluate thermal desorption as a
remediation alternative, the data collected during remedy
screening and remedy selection phases must be compared
to the test goals and other criteria that were established
before the tests were conducted.
Remedy screening treatability studies are designed to
gain fundamental information regarding the proof of concept
for the technology. Tests are typically conducted using
laboratory equipment such as a static tray, or DBR, or other
screening devices. The contaminant concentration in the
medium, before treatment is compared to the contaminant
concentration after treatment. If the measured separation
efficiency is sufficient, additional treatability studies are
warranted. If the operating parameters are properly
selected, separation efficiency can be high. This would
indicate success on the screening level, and testing should
proceed to remedy selection. If remedy screening tests are
conducted at lower temperatures and/or shorter treat ment
times than those discussed in the experimental design,
removal efficiencies may be lower. It may not be appropriate
to eliminate thermal desorption as a treatment alternative
under such cases, since screening tests may be redesigned
under different conditions to demonstrate higher removal
efficiencies. At certain sites, removal efficiencies lessthan
90 percent may be acceptable in meeting expected cleanup
goals and testing can proceed to remedy selection. Before
and after concentrations can normally be based on duplicate
samples for each test run. The mean values from these
analyses are compared to assess the success of the study.
The goals of remedy selection are to address general
medium pretreatment and materials handling requirements,
to estimate performance and cost data of full scale systems,
to verify that thermal desorption can meet cleanup levels at
normal operating conditions, and to define heat input
requirements, and to address general offgas treatment
and residuals disposal requirements.
Data obtained from remedy selection need to be
interpreted with a scale-up tool (i.e., past experience or
computer simulation). Vendors use past experience to
scale-up to their own systems. A computer simulation
scale-up tool is the GRI/NSF Thermal Treatment Model
being developed at the University of Utah to describe the
decontamination of a solid medium when heated in a rotary
kiln, The model describes the heat transfer to the
contaminated medium and the desorption of the
contaminant from the medium and its subsequent late in
the gas phase.
The model, which is not vendor specific, has been
used to predict the performance of full-scale systems from
data generated in treatability studies. It provides an ideal
method for the interpretation of both remedy selection and
remedy design data, but it is relevant to rotary dryer
desorption systems only.
Additional literature and consultation with experts are
critical factors in determining the need for and ensuring the
usefulness of treatability studies. A reference list of sources
on treatability studies is provided in the "Guide for
Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Thermal
Desorption."
It is recommended that a Technical Advisory Committee
(TAG) be used. This committee includes experts on the
technology who provide technical support from the scoping
phase of the treatability study through data evaluation.
Members of the TAG may include representatives from
EPA (Region and/or ORD), other Federal Agencies, States,
and consulting firms.
OSWER/ORD and the regions operate the Technical
Support Project (TSP) which provides assistance in the
planning, performance, and/or review of treatability studies.
For further information on treatability study support or the
TSP, please contact:
Engineering Technical Support Center
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL)
Cincinnati, OH
Contact: Ben Blaney
(513)569-7406
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
In addition to the contacts identified above, the
appropriate Regional Coordinator for each Region located
in the Hazardous Site Control Division/Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response or the CERCLA Enforcement
Division/Office of Waste Programs Enforcement should be
contacted for additional information or assistance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This fact sheet and the corresponding guidance
document were prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
(ORD), Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL),
Cincinnati, Ohio by Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) under Contract No. 68-C8-0062. Mr.
Mark Meckes served as the EPA Technical Project Monitor.
Mr. Jim Rawe was SAIC's Assignment Manager. These
documents were authored by Mr. Gary Baker, Ms. Margaret
Groeber, and Mr. Jim Rawe of SAIC. The authors are
especially grateful to Mr. PauldePercinof EPA, RREL who
contributed significantly by serving as a technical consultant
during the development of these documents.
Many other Agency and independent reviewers have
contributed their time and comments by participating in the
expert review meetings and/or peer reviewing the guidance
document.
'U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992 648-080/60137
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand comer.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE D;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand comer.
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/R-92/074B
------- |