United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/540/R-92/081
December 1992
Superfund
&EPA Abstract Proceedings:
Fourth Forum on
Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies:
Domestic and International
sr,,,
«c
I
\
CAL/EPA
San Francisco, California
November 17-19, 1992
-------
-------
EPA/540/R-92/081
December 1992
ABSTRACT PROCEEDINGS
Fourth Forum on
Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies:
Domestic and International
San Francisco, CA
November 17-19, 1992
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION OFFICE
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
AND
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
The Abstracts contained in this Proceedings do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Fourth Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Technology Innovation Office (TIO) - Walter Kovalick, Director.
The Forum programs and activities were planned by a committee consisting of the following
Jim Allen, California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL/EPA)
Donald Alexander, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Washington, DC
Thomas De Kay, U.S. EPA, TIO, Washington, DC
Vance Fong, U.S. EPA, Region IX, San Francisco, CA
Deborah Griswold, U.S. EPA, Region VI, Dallas, TX
Paul Hadley, CAL/EPA, San Francisco, CA
Margaret Kelly, U.S. EPA, TIO, Washington, DC
Walter Kovalick, U.S. EPA, TIO, Washington, DC
Fran Kremer, U.S. EPA, Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI),
Cincinnati, OH
Lisa Kulujian, SAIC, Fort Washington, PA
Donna Kuroda, Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Robert Olexsey, U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL),
Cincinnati, OH
Donald Sanning, U.S. EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH
John Wesnousky, CAL/EPA, San Francisco, CA
Greg Williams, CAL/EPA, San Francisco, CA
in
-------
ABSTRACT
On November 17-19, 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology
Innovation Office and Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Department of Energy,
Corps of Engineers, and California Environmental Protection Agency sponsored an interna-
tional conference in San Francisco, California, to exchange solutions to hazardous waste
treatment problems. This conference, the Fourth Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies: Domesticand International, was attended by over 1,000 represen-
tatives from the U.S. and 25 foreign countries. During the conference, scientists and
engineers representing government agencies, industry, and academia attended 42 techni-
cal presentations and case studies describing domestic and international technologies for
the treatment of wastes, sludges, and contaminated soils at uncontrolled hazardous waste
disposal sites. Technologies included physical/chemical, biological, thermal, and stabiliza-
tion techniques. Presentations were made by EPA, their Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation(SITE) program participants, other federal and state agencies and their contrac-
tors, international scientists, and vendors. Over 70 posters explaining their treatment
methods and results were on display. This document contains abstracts of the presentations
from the conference and many of the posters that were on display.
IV
-------
PAPER PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS
ABR^CIS Bioremediation: an Effective System for In Situ Sludge Volume Reduction and
Pollutant Biodegradation in Harbours and Waterways
In Situ Bioventing of a Diesel Fuel Spill .;
Remediation of Ground Water Contaminated with Organic Wood Preservatives Using
Physical and Biological Treatment Technologies 2
Bioremediation of Soil-Bound PAHs in a Slurry-Phase Process 3
Design Criteria and Economics of Operating a Full-Scale Above- Ground Bioremediation
Facility for the Treatment of Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils 4
Biopur®, an Innovative Bioreactor for the Simultaneous Treatment of Groundwater and
Soil Vapour Contaminated with Xenobiotic Compounds 5
Optimizing Bioventing in Shallow Vadose Zones and Cold Climates: Bioremediation
of a JP-4 Spill at Eielson Air Force Base 6
Bio-Rem's Augmented In Situ Subsurface Bioremediation Process"" 7
Bioremediation of Soils at a Waste Oil Facility 8
Low Temperature Thermal Treatment LT3 SITE Demonstration 9
Plasma Arc Vitrification 10
Thermal Desorption of PCB-Contaminated Waste at the Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site:
a Case Study H
Development Status of the Babcock & Wilcox Cyclone Vitrification Technology for
Contaminated Soil H
The ECO LOGIC Process 12
Remediation of Contaminated Soil Using BioGenesistm Soil Washing 13
The Steam Enhanced Recovery Process (SERP) .14
Soil Venting to Remove DBCP from Subsurface Soil: a Case History 15
Full-Scale Soil/Sediment Washing Systems for Hazardous Material Waste Minimization 16
Five Years of Operational Experience with the HarbauerSoil Washing Plants 16
Field Demonstration of Soil Washing at the King of Prussia Superfund Site 17
Soil Washing with Water Under High Energy Input: Commercial Experience with the
Lurgi Deconterra® Process ..18
Radiolytic Remediation of a TCE Ground Spill Using an Electron Accelerator 19
Rethinking the Hydraulic Cage Concept for Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities and
Mitigation of Contaminated Sites ; 20
Soil Remediation at Schweizerhalle: a Case Study. 21
Concurrent On-Site Testing of UV/Oxidation Systems at a Superfund Site ....21
-------
Remediation of Groundwater Contaminated with VOCs in the Saturated Zone at a
Superfund Site in Mountain View, CA • 22
Soil Washing as a Remedial Technique at a Former Gun Club Site in Folsom, CA 23
Improvements in Conventional High Temperature Rotary Kiln Incineration Technology 24
Results of Prototype Studies for In Situ Containment Using a Paraffin-Bentonite Sealant 24
Potential Application of the Russian Grouting Technology in the Environmental Restoration Area ..25
Evaluation of Ukrainian Grouting Technology: DOE Perspective 26
Du Pont/Oberlin Microfiltration Technology 27
Composting of Explosives-Contaminated Soils at the U.S. Army Depot Activity, Umatilla.... 28
Advanced Technological Methodology for Ordnance Demilitarization 28
United States/German Bilateral Agreement On Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Projects 29
Groundwater Remediation: Extraction and Removal of TCE and Cr6* at an NPL Site 31
Jet Fuel Contaminated Groundwater Remediation Using Horizontal and Vertical Well
Extraction and Air Stripping Treatment 32
Evaluation of Thermal Extraction Technologies for Treatment of Soils Contaminated with
Coal Tars and Wood Preservatives at the Pacific Place Site, Vancouver, BC 33
CF Systems Solvent Extraction Technology for Site Remediation: Post-SITE Program Update ...34
Commercialization of Innovative Technologies: a Technology Vendor's Perspective 34
Bioremediation of Chromium (VI) Contaminated Solid Residues Using Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria ......35
POSTER PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS
Advanced Solid Waste Treatment with New and Complete Pyrolysis Technology 36
B.E.S.T. Solvent Extraction Treatment of PCB, PAH, and Pesticide Contaminated
Sludges, Sediments, and Soil 37
Colloid Filter Removal of Heavy Metals and Radionuclide Pollutants from Groundwater
and Wastewater 38
Contaminated Soil Treatment by Resin-ln-Pulp/Carbon-ln-Pulp Technology ...39
Decontamination of Polluted Soil and Waste Water by Ozone Treatment ;: 39
Demonstration of Mobile Mass Spectrometry Through the EPA SITE Program .....40
Design and Preliminary Performance Evaluation of a Full-Scale Debris Washing System 41
DESRT (Development and Demonstration of Site Remediation Technology) Program: Canada 42
i S
Disposal of Contaminated Soil by the Texaco Gasification Process: a Demonstration 43
vi
-------
Enhanced Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for the Photodegradation of Organic
Pollutants in Waste Streams... 43
Full-Scale Composting of Coke Tar Contaminated Soil in a Mine ..........44
Hydraulic Fracturing to Improve In Situ Remediation ......45
In Situ Application of the Envirometal Process: Metal-Enhanced Abiotic Degradation of
Chlorinated Organic Compounds ..45
In Situ Remediation Process for Treatment of Aquifers Contaminated with NAPLs (CROWtm) .............47
Laser-Induced Photochemical Oxidation of Toxic Organics in Waste Waters 48
Lead and Copper Fixation in Soil: a SITE Experience .48
Membrane Vapor Recovery Systems for Volatile Organic Compounds 49
Monitoring of Hydrogen in the Defense Waste Processing Facility by Gas Chromatography 49
Novel and Cost-Effective Treatment of Air or Water Contaminated with Hazardous Organics
Using TiO2 Photocatalytic Treatment Systems ...50
On-Site UV Oxidation of Saturated and Unsaturated VOCs 51
Operating Results from an Integrated Soil and Groundwater Remediation System: a SITE
Project in Operation for 3 Years ...51
Overview of the Destruction Efficiency of Six Organic Compounds of Interest to Superfund
Site Remediation Using High-Energy Electron Beam Irradiation .............;.....52
Oxidative Destruction with Chlorine Dioxide ........53
Photolysis/Biodegradation Treatment of PCB and PCDD/PCDF Contaminated Soils 53
Rapid In Situ Bio-Electrokinetic Remediation of Soils and Slurries 54
Removal of Heavy Metals from Ground Water 55
Sector Sampler for the Collection of Volatile Organics in Ambient Air 55
SITE Demonstration of Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas Injection 56
SITE Demonstration of the Rochem Separation Process 57
Solvent Extraction and Soil Washing Technology with the Soil Restoration Unit ..58
State of the Art RCRA and CERCLA Reporting: Accessing the Navy and MEW Superfund,
Site Data Using GIS\key...... .....58
SVVStm: Proven In Situ Biosparging Technology ..59
The Acid Extraction Treatment System 60
The Air-Sparged Hydrocyclone 60
The Campbell Centrifugal Jig 61
The Combined Biotogical Oxidation Tower for Wastewater Treatment 62
Thermal Desorption of Contaminated Soil: Laboratory to Full Scale — X*traxtm .63
Treatment of Mixed Waste Contaminated Soil 63
VII
-------
Treatment of Soil Contaminated with Heavy Metals .64
Two-Stage Fluidized-Bed/Cyclonic Agglomerating Incinerator .......65
Ultrox®UV/Oxidation Process 66
Use of Secondary Lead Smelting Technology for the Reclamation of Lead from Lead-Containing
Superfund Sites 66
Use of an FTIR Remote Sensor for Monitoring Air Toxics at Hazardous Waste Sites 67
Wastewater Treatment by Vibrational Shear Enhanced Processing (VSEP) 68
Water Treatment in a Cameroonian Petroleum Refinery . ....69
Wet Air Oxidation and Pact® Systems: Proven Processes for Treating Hazardous Wastewaters 69
X-Ray Treatment of Organic Waste in Aqueous Matrix 70
Effective Cleanup of Subsurface Contamination Using Vacuum Extraction 71
Appendix - List of Attendees
viii
-------
ABR-CIS BIOREMEDIATION: AN EFFECTIVE SYSTEM FOR IN SITU SLUDGE VOLUME
REDUCTION AND POLLUTANT BIODEGRADATION IN HARBOURS AND WATERWAYS
Bernard Malherbe
HAECON Harbour and Engineering Consultants
Deinsesteenweeg
110-B9031 Gent-Drongen
Ghent, Belgium
Tel: (091) 26 50 94
Fax:(091)276105
The accumulation of organic-rich muddy sediments in harbours and waterways can cause serious problems both
in dredging and the disposal of the dredged material. As available upland disposal capacity is frequently lacking, the
management of this dredged material becomes even more difficult when contamination is assessed.
On-line or off-line physicochemical treatment technologies do not offer appropriate solutions to this problem
because of prohibitive costs and technical feasibility problems. Microbiological treatment can present very attractive
solutions in some specific cases. The ABR-CIS (Augmented Bio-Reclamation Conditioning In Situ) in situ microbio-
logical system offers even more advantages because the following goals are achieved:
In situ reduction of the volume of the sediment accumulation i.e., "microbiological dredging" by degrada-
tion of organic matter and flock-structure disruption (up to 50% of original volume)
In situ biodegradation of organic contaminants such as mineral oils, PAKs, and phenols by the use of
natural and ecosystem-friendly processes
Cost savings when compared to the overall dredging/disposal cost; major savings are achieved by
decreased disposal costs
Restoration of natural trophic chain components in the aquatic ecosystem
The technique has been used in five different full-scale projects in the Netherlands and Belgium. Monitoring results
of these projects are available from the author.
IN SITU BIOVENTING OF A DIESEL FUEL SPILL
T.L. Bulman and M. Newland
Campbell Environmental
Suite 93, Havelock Mall, City West
PO Box 642
West Perth, West Australia
Australia 6005
Tel: 011619 2422 422
Fax: 011 6192421 822
A. Wester
Westrail
Midland, West Australia
A diesel fuel spill occurred at a state rail yard late in 1989. The leak occurred from a corroded buried pipe leading
from an above ground tank. Fuel accumulated at the surface of a shallow (2.5 m) unconfined aquifer comprising sand
and silty sands. An area of 2,000 m2, with a depth of 1.5 to 2.5 m, was contaminated with fuel. A total of 135,000 L
of fuel was recovered using oil skimmers in groundwater drawdown wells. An estimated 50,000 L (approximately 1.5%
w/w in soil) remained in situ, smeared in the areas of drawdown wells to a depth of 3.5 m.
The potential for active and passive in situ bioremediation was explored through laboratory assessment of oil
mobility and biodegradation rates and field assessment of contaminant distribution and groundwater flow. Oxygen
-------
supply was Identified as the factor most limiting biodegradation of the hydrocarbons, while the rate of degradation was
estimated to be increased by the addition of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous. Although the groundwater flow
velocity achievable under drawdown conditions was rapid (2 x 10"3 cm/sec), it would require many years to supply
sufficient oxygen in situ to effect bioremediation. In contrast, supply of oxygen (as air) to unsaturated aquifer material
was predicted to achieve bioremediation in approximately 18 months.
A plan for remediation was designed in which the contaminated area was dewatered, oxygen was supplied via
air extraction from cased bores slotted throughout the contaminated zone and nutrients were supplied by way of a
micro-irrigation system. A pilot-scale remediation on one quarter of the site is currently underway to confirm rates of
degradation achievable in the field. Progress to date has indicated carbon reductions of 2,000 to 4,000 mg/kg (10 to
30%) in the unsaturated soil to a depth of 3 m over a 6-month period of venting only. Dewatering in the 3 to 3.5 m zone,
however, was incomplete and subject to fluctuating water levels. A further reduction averaging 30% took place over
the subsequent 6 months of venting and nutrient addition, and extended to the 3.5 m depth.
Further Investigations to be carried out during the pilot period include:
An evaluation of the efficiency of oxygen supply via vacuum or air injection
The fate of nutrients in unsaturated and saturated zones ,
Extent of remediation in the unsaturated and saturated portion of the contaminated area
REMEDIATION OF GROUND WATER CONTAMINATED WITH ORGANIC WOOD
PRESERVATIVES USING PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Douglas P. Middaugh and Parmely H. Pritchard
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
Gulf Breeze, FL
James G. Mueller, Suzanne E. Lantz, and Ron Thomas
SBP Technologies, Inc.
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
Sabine Island
Gulf Breeze, FL
USA 32561-3999
Tel: (904) 934-9200 ;
Fax:(904)934-9201
Pilot-scale field studies at the American Creosote Works Superfund site, Pensacola,, FL, evaluated two
technologies for their ability to treat ground water contaminated with creosote and pentachlorpphenol (PCP):
hyperfiltration (volume reduction) and bioremediation using specially-selected microorganisms (terminal destruction)
(U.S. Patent No. 5,132,224).
The hyperfiitration system consisted of porous, sintered, stainless steel tubes coated with multilayered inorganic
and polymeric "formed-in-place" membranes. The filtration unit was operated in a cross-flow mode yielding
"concentrate" (containing excluded chemicals) and "permeate" (clean, aqueous material passing through the
membrane). Operating over a 6-day period on site, a total of 6,300 gallons of creosote- and PCP-contaminated ground
water (average total semi-volatile concentration was 88.5 mg/L) was processed, reducing the volume of contaminated
material by more than 80% while removing greater than 95% of the PAHs.
Simultaneously, the concentration of chlorinated dipxins and f urans was reduced from 22.5 ppb in the feed to 0.047
ppb (cumulative) in the permeate. Based on chemical analyses and biological toxicity and teratogenicity assays, the
permeate stream was acceptable for direct discharge.
A two-stage, continuous-flow, sequential inoculation bioreactor strategy for the bioremediation of ground water
contaminated with creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP) was also evaluated. Performance of continually stirred tank
reactors using specially-selected microorganisms was assessed. Chemical analyses of system influent, effluent and
bioreactor residues, a chemical mass balance, and comparative biological toxicity and teratogenicity measurements
were evaluated. When specially-selected bacteria capable of utilizing high-molecular-weight (HMW) PAHs as primary
-------
growth substrates were used in pilot-scale bioreactbrs (120 gallons), the concentration of creosote constituents was
reduced from ca. 1,000 ppm in the ground water feed (flow rate = 30 GPD) to less than 9 ppm in the system effluent
(removal efficiency of greater than 99%). :
Notably, the cumulative concentration of 8 HMW PAHs (containing four or more fused rings) was reduced from
368 ppm in the ground water feed to 5.2 ppm in the system effluent. Moreover, the toxicity and teratogenicity of the
bioreactor effluent was significantly reduced. Biodegradation of POP was limited (ca. 24%) due in large part to poor
inoculation and a high degree of abiotic loss (bioaccumulation and adsorption).
BIOREMEDIATION OF SOIL-BOUND PAHS IN A SLURRY-PHASE PROCESS
W.R. Mahaffey, Alan B. Jones, and Madonna R. Brinkmann
ECOVA Corporation
18640 NE 67th Court
Redmond, WA
USA 98052
Tel: (303) 279-9712
Soil contaminated with creosote was shown to be remediated by bacteria in controlled bench- and pilot-scale
reactor slurry studies. The target contaminants of concern for remediation were PAHs. The slurries were inoculated
with site-specific bacterial strains screened and characterized specifically forthe ability to degrade PAHs. Bench-scale
(125 mL flasks) slurries (30% soil, w/v) were variously amended with nutrients arid/or two different surfactants.
Samples were monitored forsoil PAH concentration, nutrient levels, pH, total heterotrophs, and specific bacterial PAH-
degrader populations. Pilot-scale bioreactors (5) were EIMCO 64-L stainless steel vessels incorporating an airlift
system and rotating rake attachment. Prior to charging the pilot-scale reactors, the creosote-contaminated soil was
treated in a ball mill. Slurry viscosity steadily increased over the course of the study.
Throughout the study, nutrients, bacteria, soil- and liquid-phase PAH levels, total volatile suspended solids, and
pH were monitored. Levels of PAHs in the aqueous phase of both bench-scale and pilot-scale studies were always
low (less than 5 ppm). Initial PAH levels of 13,500 ppm were reduced to nearly 500 ppm after only 2 weeks of treatment.
After 3 weeks, levels of soil-bound total PAHs increased. This phenomenon may reflect the increased bioavailability
of soil-bound PAHs. Factors contributing to the lack of further decline of total PAHs may be bacterial use of metabolic
intermediates as alternate carbon sources or the decline of easily degraded 2- and 3-ring PAHs and the low
bioavailability of the more intractable 4+ -ring PAHs.
During the last 2 weeks of the pilot-scale study, reactor slurries were variously amended by adding surfactant and/
or additional bacterial inocula with minimal treatment effects. The EIMCO slurry- phase reactors used in this study are
readily available in portable and fixed facility full-scale system designs. Based on the results of this and other studies,
the major factor in scale-up is materials handling associated with soil pretreatment. A full-scale process will consist
of a soil milling/washing plant and a series of EIMCO slurry reactors run in parallel as sequential batch treatments,
.followed by a dewatering plant. Treatment costs are estimated at $350/yd3 of soil, assuming on-site disposal of treated
material.
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND ECONOMICS OF OPERATING A FULL-SCALE ABOVE-
GROUND BIOREMEDIATION FACILITY FOR THE TREATMENT OF HYDROCARBON-
CONTAMINATED SOILS
Robert Mall
KJC Operating Company
41100 Highway 395
Boron, CA
USA 93516
Tel: (619) 762-5562
Fax:(619)762-5546
Due to Increasing hazardous waste disposal costs, rapid regulatory changes, and a corporate policy of sound
environmental practices, the operators of the world's largest solar electric generating systems (SEGS) embarked on
a program to reduce the annual volume of solid wastes being hauled off-site. Accidental releases of heat transfer fluid
(HTF) from the SEGS sometimes result in contamination of soil. Historically this meant excavation, transport, and
disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. In an effort to reduce the cost of disposal, conserve limited landfill space, and
implement a soils recycling program, bioremediation was studied as an on-site alternative treatment technology.
The technology employs solid phase bioremediation, environmentally controlled to optimize degradation
processes. By utilizing naturally occurring microorganisms, HTF soil contaminants can be metabolized into harmless
by-products. Treatment is conducted within a fixed containment structure.
Two pilot-scale projects, conducted over an 18-month period, were successful in reducing HTF concentrations
to below the target clean-up level of 1,000 ppm. A full-scale treatment demonstration project is currently being
conducted, under a variance by CAL-EPA.
The full-scale facility design incorporates primary and secondary containment features, leachate collection and
recovery systems (LCRS), equipment access requirements, and environmental control devices. The full-scale facility
was designed to treat 1,500 yd3 annually.
Treatability studies have shown that the most critical limiting factors are: soil pH — 6 to 8; moisture — 40 to 60%
of saturation; temperature—70to 90"F; nutrients and oxygen supply—variable. The ability of the operatorto manage
these conditions will determine whether an ideal environment can be created to stimulate bacterial population growth
and enhance the degradation process.
An economic comparison of landfilling costs and the operation of a bioremediation facility shows it is cost effective
to construct and operate a bio-facility. This assumes, however, that either a substantial volume of waste exists or is
expected to be generated over the operating life of the project.
Pilot scale testing, permitting, and construction costs were about $15,000 over 18 months. The full- scale facility
has so far required variance and permitting fees totalling $85,000. Facility design, plan check fees, material and labor,
as well as administrative oversight costs, resulted in a capital expenditure of approximately $270,000. Actual costs
may be higher if the purchase of earth moving and tilling equipment is required. Annual treatment costs are relatively
low in comparison to other methods and options employed. Operating costs will also be contingent upon the size of
the facility and number of treatment batches completed. For this facility, processing 1,500 yd3 a year, the cost of
operation will be approximately $35,000. ;-
-------
BIOPUR®, AN INNOVATIVE BIOREACTOR FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS TREATMENT OF
GROUNDWATER AND SOIL VAPOUR CONTAMINATED WITH XENOBIOTIC
COMPOUNDS
J.M.H. Vijgen, B.A. Bult, and H.B.R.J. van Vroo
TAUW Infra Consult B.V.
PO Box 479
7400 AL Deventer
The Netherlands
Tel: 05700 99911
Fax: 05700 99444
In many places in The Netherlands, the soil, groundwater, and soil vapour are contaminated with organic
compounds. An aerobic fixed film bioreactor, Biopur®, was developed to treat groundwater and soil vapour
simultaneously. Unlike conventional physicochemical methods, biological treatment does not cause waste problems
and is therefore an attractive method.
Biological groundwater in fixed-film reactors has been used by TAUW Infra Consult B.V. since 1986. Trickling
filters were used initially, followed by rotating biological contactors (RBC). Groundwater heavily contaminated with
benzene, mono-chlorobenzene, and HCH could be treated. Removal efficiencies as high as 98% were obtained. The
area in the trickling filter and the RBC was relatively small. A new carrier media with a high specific surface was found.
Furthermore, a system to treat soil vapour in combination with groundwater at in situ remediation sites was needed.
The flow of air and water is co-current to prevent the volatile compounds from being stripped.
Pilot-Scale Plant Results. At a former asphalt production plant, groundwater contaminated with PAHs, BTEX, and
phenolic compounds was treated on site in a small Biopur* system. With a hydraulic retention time of 30 minutes the
following percent removals were achieved: napthalene, 100%; BTEX, 70%; 16 EPA PAH, 95%; o.m.p-cresol 68 to
79%; and dimethylphenol, 70%. Other pilot plant scale results are available from the authors.
!
Full-Scale Plant Results. Groundwater at several petrol station sites, where the soil was contaminated with BTEX,
volatile and nonvolatile compounds, and mineral oil, was treated in a Biopur* system. Currently, Biopur* is used
successfully at 15 soil sanitation sites. BTEX removal rates of more that 99% were achieved; mineral oil, greater than
85%; and napthalene, greater than 95%.
In Situ Remediation and On Site Biological Treatment. At a petrol site, soil vapour (60 Nm3/h, 21 Og hydrocarbons/
h) and groundwater (15 m3/h, 10g hydrocarbons/h) were treated simultaneously in a Biopur® system. The mass
balance shows that 5 kg of petrol was removed daily with hydraulic retention times of less than 15 minutes. The exhaust
fumes did not contain any organic compounds and could be disposed of without treatment. Groundwater from the site
was discharged into the surface water.
The treatment costs of soil vapour and groundwater were less than DM 0.40 per m3 of groundwater. Treatment
of the soil vapour was free of charge for calculation purposes only. The authors will provide a comparison of treatment
costs of four types of groundwater purifying plants upon request.
The Biopur® reactor has proven suitable for full-scale treatment of groundwater and/or soil vapour contaminated
with BTEX, PAHs, or mineral oil. Loads varied considerably (1 to 100 g/m3 day), indicating the flexibility of the system.
Removal efficiencies were greater than 90 to 95%, with elimination capacities of as much as 40 g/m3 d An adaption
period must be taken into account for the first 2 to 3 weeks.
The Biopur® reactor offers good perspectives in cases where groundwater and/or soil vapour are contaminated
with BTEX, PAHs, mineral oil, or other readily available compounds. Treatment of chlorinated hydrocarbons has not
yet been proven on full scale, but research is currently being carried out.
-------
OPTIMIZING BIOVENTING IN SHALLOW VADOSE ZONES AND COLD CLIMATES:
BIOREMEDIATION OF A JP-4 SPILL AT EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE
Gregory D. Sayles and Richard C. Brenner
U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH
USA 45268
Tel: (513) 569-7607
Fax: (513) 569-7787
Robert E. Hinchee
Battelle
Columbus, OH
Catherine M. Vogel
U.S. Air Force Civil Engineering Services Agency
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
Ross N. Miller
U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Brooks Air Force Base, TX
The U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, with resources provided by the U.S. EPA Bioremediation
Field Initiative and the U.S. Air Force, began this 3-year field study of in situ bioventing in the summer of 1991 in
collaboration with Eielson Air Force Base. The field site is located at Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, AK. Under
study are bioventing in shallow soils in a cold climate in conjunction with soil warming methods to enhance the average
blodegradation rate during the year.
Approximately 1 acre of soil is contaminated with JP-4 jet fuel from a depth of roughly 2 ft to the water table at 6
to 7 ft. Initial (pre-bioventing) soil gas measurements taken in July 1991 ranged from 600 to 40,000 ppm total
hydrocarbons, 0 to 13% O2, and 10 to 18% CO2 — indicating oxygen-limited biological activity and a high degree of
contamination. Bioventing, the addition of oxygen by forced air, would be expected to increase the rate of
biodegradation. •,.'..'
The test area was established by relatively uniform distribution of air injection/withdrawal wells and construction
of three 50-ft square test plots within the test area. Monitoring is conducted with soil gas probes and temperature
probes. One plot is a control, using bioventing without heating. Two plots are being used to evaluate the following two
strategies, which combine bioventing with warming of the soil above ambient temperature to increase the rate of
blodegradation year-round. The passive warming strategy enhances solar warming in late spring, summer, and early
fall by using plastic covering (mulch) and passive heat retention the rest of the year by applying insulation on the
surface. An active warming strategy employs warming by heated water from soaker hoses 2 ft below the surface.
Temperatures maintained in the plots and the associated biodegradation rates based on in situ respirometry tests
as a function of time during the first year of this study were tracked. Active warming maintained summer-like
temperatures of about 10° C during winter 1991 -92 when the ambient air temperature was about -20° C. The passive
solar warming during summer 1992 yielded a soil temperature of 17° C, relative to the unheated plot temperature of
about 13° C.
Biodegradation rates measured in the plots were consistent with those reported in the literature and ranged from
0.5 to 10 mg TPH/kg-day. The unheated control plot maintained significant biodegradative activity during the winter
despite a soil temperature of about 0° C. It is expected that the heated plots will show faster biodegradation rates than
the unheated plot, but the data are inconclusive to date. Data gathered during 1993 and 1994 will provide additional
information.
-------
BIO-REM'S AUGMENTED IN SITU SUBSURFACE BIOREMEDIATION PROCESS™
Paul A. Groves
Bio-Tech, Inc.
5144 N. Academy Blvd. #122
Colorado Springs, CO
USA 80918
Tel: (719) 661-7630
David 0. Mann
Bio-Rem, Inc.
Butler, IN
Bio-Rem, Inc., was selected to demonstrate its commercially available technology underthe SuperfUnd Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program in March 1992. Williams Air Force Base, AZ, was selected for the
demonstration site.
Bio-Rem utilizes a proprietary formulation of microaerophilic bacteria and micronutrients called "H-10" to
remediate hydrocarbon-based contamination in soil and groundwater. Bio-Rem's Augmented In Situ Subsurface
Bioremediation Process™ allows direct placement of the H-10 into an underground contaminant plume. The H-10
product.and Augmented In Situ Subsurface Bioremediation Process™ do not require additional oxygen loading or
nutrient loading. This process and product are commercially available and have been used in more than 75 sites
located in 12 states.
The primary contaminants treated by H-10 and the Augmented In Situ Subsurface Bioremediation Process
include: gasoline, diesel fuel, Jet-A, JP-4, hydraulic oil, and waste oil. Numerous industrial solvents have been
evaluated and shown to be amenable to treatment by the H-10 product. Such solvents include: PCE, TCE, acetone
and MEK. " ., '
'"'• •'" ' ' • . . , - ' ' •;*-.' •'"*',,
The primary contaminant at the Williams AFB fuels storage area was JP- 4, a kerosene-like aviation fuel, initial
concentrations of contamination were 88,000 ppm. Four weeks after remediation of the plume, laboratory evaluations
found a reduction in BTEX compounds of more than 30%. Reduction of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) was seen
in more than 80% of the test borings. A second series of test borings was completed at the end of August.- Field
evaluations indicated significant reductions in TPH. Laboratory evaluation of the test boring samples is underway.
. The Bio-Rem process and product can treat contaminant plumes of varying sizes. Approximately 16,000 yd3 of
soil were treated at the Williams Air Force Base site. The Bio-Rem product may be affected by heavy metals dissolved
in water. Dissolved metals such as copper, nickel, and chromium can halt the remediation if in heavy concentrations.
Free metals do not affect the product or process. Chlorine, bromine, and fluorine can also slow the remediation. Heavy,
tight clay-type soils and extremely fine sands slow the bioremediation process and require additional application
methods., ;
The by-products of the H-10 remediation are residual biomass, which breaks down into naturally occurring
elements, carbon dioxide, and water. Average treatment costs are in the $25 to 50/yd3 range.
-------
BIOREMEDIATION OF SOILS AT A WASTE OIL FACILITY
John Matthews and Bert Bledsoe GaryGuerra
U.S. EPA OSC
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory U.S. EPA, Region VI
PO Box 1198
Ada, OK
USA 74820
Tel: (405) 332-8800x408
Fax: (405) 332-8800x301
Remediation data from a pilot-scale land treatment system for bioremediation of soils contaminated with waste
oil and sludges were discussed. There are no cost data available for the pilot system. The contaminants were the result
of operation of a waste oil facility which blended slop or heavy oils with solvents for purchase by oil brokers.
The Baldwin Waste Oil Site is an abandoned waste oil facility in South Texas occupying slightly more than 1 acre.
The facility is surrounded by agricultural land. The north half of the facility is occupied by two tank farms surrounded
by earthen containment dikes and a caliche drive. The south half is a low area with vegetation and debris, bordered
on three sides by an internal drainage ditch.
During operation the facility received a large portion of its waste oil from the local navigation district ballast pits.
The ballast pits were used to store waste oil collected from slop tanks of ocean-going oil tankers. The waste oil was
transported to the site and pumped into one of several mixing tanks where the oil was blended with solvents (benzene,
toluene, or xylene) for resale.
The initial step in the removal plan forthe site involves removal of tanks, barrels, buried piping, debris, and sludges.
The next step in the removal plan is concerned with remediation of the remaining 1,500 to 2,200 yd3 of contaminated
soils, using either incineration or in situ bioremediation by way of land treatment.
Land treatment involves use of natural biological, chemical, and physical processes in the soil to transform organic
contaminants of concern. Biological activity accounts for most of the transformations of organic contaminants in soil.
Bioremediation is carried out by utilizing defined management techniques for enhancing the development of
indigenous microorganisms and bringing them in contact with the contaminants of concern. Land treatment has been
shown to be a viable treatment alternative for soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. The primary question
to be answered during this study was whether or not there were any compounds or elements present which could inhibit
microblal activity if in situ land treatment was selected as the final remedy.
Aprepared-bed, pilot-scale land treatment system was designed to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing bioremediation
for treatment of the contaminated soils. The pilot system was constructed outside the current site's bermed area so
the system could be left in place during removal operations associated with disposal of waste oil from site tanks and
their subsequent demolition. The treatment plot constructed was approximately 33 x 12 feet. A 2 ft high berm
surrounding the plot was installed to prevent run-on and run-off. A high density polyethylene liner was placed within
the bermed area and anchored. Five in. of pea gravel was placed on the liner and then covered with 8 in. of sand. A
slotted PVC pipe was also installed down the medial axis of the plot for leachate collection.
Contaminated soils underneath the thin surface layer of oily sludge were selected as the treatment media. There
are two different soil types on the site: a native clay and a caliche fill material. The two contaminated soil types were
located separately within the treatment plot. Eight in. of contaminated soil were placed on the plot. Two in. of composted
chicken manure were then added and tilled and completely mixed with the contaminated soil for conditioning as well
as to provide a source of nutrients.
All soil samples, including the samples for initial concentrations, were taken after tilling the compost into the test
plot. For sampling, the plot was divided into six cells, 6 x 10 ft, with three cells representing each of the two soil types.
The initial soil samples were analyzed for nutrients, pH, oil and grease, total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile
organics, semi-volatile organics, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and total organic carbon. Principal operational
parameters which were run periodically included pH, oil and grease, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. Nutrients were
-------
also analyzed periodically to ensure that these were sufficient for optimal microbial activity. Once the operational
parameters reached a steady state, the full suite of analyses was performed.
The proposed study plan called for the project to end by the 12th week; however, the test period was extended
to 43 weeks due to an extended atypical weather pattern. The Gulf Coast of Texas had an unnatural amount of rainfall
for the duration of this project. During much of this time, proper operations such as tilling and irrigation could not be
performed, but significant degradation of oil and grease and of petroleum hydrocarbons still occurred. Treatment of
the contaminated soils using in situ treatment has been selected as the full-scale alternative for this removal action.
The pilot-scale demonstration study was a cooperative effort between the U.S. EPA Region VI Superfund Removal
Program and the Office of Research and Development's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Technology Support Center.
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL TREATMENT LT3 SITE DEMONSTRATION
Michael G. Cosmos
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA
USA 19380-1449
Tel: (215) 692-3030
Fax:(215)430-3124
Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON®) owns and operates transportable thermal treatment systems, such as rotary kiln
incinerators and low temperature thermal desorption processes for the on-site treatment of contaminated soil, sludge,
and sediments. Weston's patented low temperature thermal treatment process or LT3 system has been used to treat
a variety of volatile and semivolatile organic chemical contaminants.
The LT3 employs an indirectly heated screw conveyor to heat the solid matrix to temperatures up to 550° F. The
heat vaporizes moisture and the contaminant from the soil. The off-gases from the soil are drawn under vacuum to
an emission control system that consists of a baghouse dust collector, two condensers, and carbon adsorption
columns. The treated off-gases are then discharged to the atmosphere. The treated soil is quenched and suitable for
on-site or off-site disposal.
The LT3 recently completed a rigorous demonstration test as part of the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. The demonstration was conducted at the Anderson Development Company
Superfund site located in Adrian, Ml. The contaminant of concern at the Anderson site was 4,4-methylene-bis (2-
chloroaniline) or MBOCA, a semivolatile chemical intermediate used in the production of urethane forms. The system
was used to treat lagoon sludge and clay soil underlying the lagoon that contained up to 1,600 ppm MBOCA.
The SITE demonstration program was conducted to characterize process influent, effluent, and intermediate
streams. Eight process streams including solids, liquids, and vapors were characterized for concentrations of volatile
organics, semivolatile organics, metals, dioxin, and furans. In addition, stack emissions tests were conducted to
demonstrate compliance with paniculate and hydrochloric acid emissions criteria. .
-------
PLASMA ARC VITRIFICATION
Rob Haun and Richard Eschenbach
Retech, Inc.
PO Box 997
100 Henry Station Road
Ukiah, CA
USA 95482
Tel: (707) 462-6522
Fax:(707)462-4103
Dan Battleson and Corry Alsberg
MSB, Inc.
Trevor Jackson
SAIC
San Diego, CA
This presentation updated results obtained with Retech's Plasma Centrifugal Furnace (PCF) process for treating
hazardous waste. Data from three Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program demonstration tests
with a PCF-6 in Butte, MT, were reported, as well as activities in, Europe.
The PCF is a thermal technology that uses heat from a plasma torch to treat hazardous waste containing metals
and/or organics. Metal-bearing solids and soil are melted by the process, and organic contaminants are thermally
destroyed. The molten material forms a hard, glass-like leach-resistant mass on cooling. The major elements of the
process are the feeder, plasma torch, rotating reactor well or centrifuge, secondary combustion chamber, and off-gas
treatment system. .
The process operates as follows: contaminated soil is placed in a bulk screw feeder and gradually,fed into the
centrifuge. Solid material is retained in the well by centrifugal force while a plasma arc heats the material in an enriched
oxygen atmosphere to temperatures sufficient to melt soil (typically about 3,000° F). At this temperature organic
contamination is volatilized, then burned. Any incompletely burned gases or products of incomplete combustion
formed are incinerated by an afterburner located downstream. Once all the feed material has been treated, the
centrifuge is slowed and the molten mass of treated solids flows into a slag collection chamber.
The extern extracting chromium and nickel from polluted ground water at 450 L/min were detailed. In the SITE
work, a pilot-scale unit was installed at a location at which ground water was polluted with various species of me
cury. The unit contained a mixture of two adsorbents, packed in columns arranged in series. Over 500 bed volumes of
The demonstration tests of Retech's plasma furnace took place during the weekof July 22,1991 atthe Department
of Energy's Component Development and Integration Facility (CDIF) located in Butte, MT, which is operated by MSE,
Inc. The waste consisted of heavy metal-bearing soil from the Silver Bow Creek Superfund site mixed with 10% by
weight No. 2 diesel fuel. The mixture was spiked to provide 28,000 ppm of zinc oxide and 1,000 ppm of
hexachlorobenzene. Zinc was added as a tracer to determine the teachability of the slag and the hexachlorobenzene
was the Principal Organic Hazardous Constituent (POHC) used to determine organic destruction.
The destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) was determined by analyzing the feed soil and the stack gas for
hexachlorobenzene. No hexachlorobenzene was detected in the stack gas, therefore, all DREs determined are based
on the detection limit from the appropriate tests. The DREs ranged from 99.9968% to 99.9999%.
The level of total hydrocarbons exiting the system has been low (less than 4 ppm) even with at least 19% organics
in the feed soil, a good indication that effective thermal destruction of the organic compounds is occurring. Another
indication of the ability of the process to treat organic contaminated media is the low level of CO in the exhaust,
approximately 1.4 ppm. High levels of NOX are a consequence of this process when air is used as the torch gas.
TCLP analysis of the feed soil for metals showed that the only elements which exhibited significant teachability
characteristics were calcium and the spiked zinc. Both tracer metals, calcium and zinc, showed significant reductions
in leaching properties in the treated soil as compared to the feed. No organic compounds were found to leach from
the treated slag. Since the PCF produces a monolithic slag after treatment, the surface area per pound of treated soil
is much smaller than that for the TCLP test. The TCLP results, therefore, present a conservative assessment of the
actual teachability of the monolithic slag.
The post-test scrubber liquor did not contain any significant quantities of organic compounds. The particulate
emissions during each of the three tests were three to five times the RCRA regulatory limit of 0.08 gr/dscf. Improving
the air pollution control system is necessary before effective implementation of this technology can be achieved.
10
-------
The PCF-6 at Butte has been used to treat surrogates of wastes at the Idaho National Engineering Lab; lab
analyses indicate that very desirable results would be achievable when treating radioactive mixed wastes. Qualifica-
tion of a PCF-8 in Muttenz, Switzerland foradditional categories of hazardous wastes is continuing. Engineering design
for two additional European applications is underway.
THERMAL DESORPTION OF PCB-CONTAMINATED WASTE AT THE WAUKEGAN
HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE: A CASE STUDY
Joseph H. Hutton and Robert Shanks
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.
94 Inverness Terrace East
Suite 100
Englewood, CO
USA 80112
Tel: (303) 790-1747
Fax:(303)799-0186
In June 1992, SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc., completed the soil treatment phase of the Waukegan Harbor
Superfund Project in Waukegan, IL, after approximately 5 months of operation. SoilTech successfully treated 12,700
tons of PCB-contaminated sediments using a transportable SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP) System
nominally rated at 10 tons per hour throughput capacity. The SoilTech ATP Technology anaerobically desorbs
contaminants such as PCBs from solids and sludges at temperatures over 1,000° F. Principal products of the process
are clean treated solids and an oil condensate containing all of the hydrocarbon contaminants.
At the Waukegan Harbor Superfund site, PCB concentrations in the sediments excavated and dredged from a
ditch, lagoon, and harbor slip averaged 10,400 ppm (1.04%), but were as high as 23,000 ppm (2.3%). Treated soil
contained less than 2 ppm PCBs and was backfilled in an on-site containment cell. The removal efficiency of PCBs
from the soil averaged 99.98%, relative to the project performance specification of 97%.
Approximately 30,000 gallons of PCB oil desorbed from the feed material were returned to the potentially
responsible party trust for subsequent off-site disposal. After modifications to the emissions control equipment,
compliance with the 99.9999% destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) for PCBs in stack emissions required by the
U.S. EPA was achieved. Feed rate averaged 8 tons per hour at a mechanical availability of 85%. SoilTech revenues
for the project were $700,000 in fixed costs and $185 per ton of soil processed.
DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF THE BABCOCK & WILCOX CYCLONE VITRIFICATION
TECHNOLOGY FOR CONTAMINATED SOIL
Jean M. Czuczwa, James J. Warchol, Hamid Farzan, William F.Musiol, and Stanley J. Vecci
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
; Contract Research Division
1562 Beeson Street
Alliance, OH
USA 44601
Tel: (216) 829-7576
Fax:(216)829-7801
The Babcock & Wilcox 4 to 6 million Btu/h pilot cyclone furnace was successfully used in a U.S. EPA Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program demonstration to vitrify an EPA synthetic soil matrix (SSM). The
SITE demonstration took place in November 1991. The wet synthetic soil matrix was spiked with heavy metals
(cadmium, chromium and lead), organics (anthracene and dimethyl phthalate), and simulated radionuclides (stron-
tium, bismuth, and zirconium) and was used at a feed rate of 170 Ib/hr.
11 .
-------
Results include:
The slag passed TCLP regulatory requirements
Almost 95% of the non-combustible portion of the SSM was incorporated into the slag
Less than 75% of the lead, 88% of the strontium, and 96% of the zirconium were captured in the vitrified
slag, suggesting excellent capture of low-volatility defense site-related radionuclides such as uranium and
thorium
Volume reduction was 28% (dry basis)
Destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs) for anthracene and dimethyl phthalate were less than
99.99%
An average of 0.001 gr/dscf of particulate (at 7% oxygen) were emitted, which is less than RCRA regula-
tory limit of 0.08 gr/dscf
The simulated radionuclides were immobilized as measured by the American Nuclear Society Method
16.1. Vitrification results in an easily-crushed, glassy product.
THE ECO LOGIC PROCESS
Douglas J. Hallett and Kelvin R. Campbell
ELI Eco Logic International Inc.
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, ON
Canada NOB 2KO
Tel: (519) 856-9591
Fax:(519)856-9235
The ECO LOGIC Process is a high-efficiency destruction alternative to incineration, particularly suitable for
hazardous wastes with a substantial water content. The process is based on the gas-phase thermo-chemical reaction
of hydrogen with organic and chlorinated organic compounds. At 850° C or higher, hydrogen combines with organic
compounds in a very efficient reaction known as reduction to form smaller, lighter hydrocarbons, primarily methane.
For chlorinated organic compounds, such as PCBs, the reduction products include methane and hydrogen chloride.
This reaction is enhanced by the presence of water, acting as a reducing agent and a hydrogen source. Bench-scale,
lab-scale, and pilot-scale testing has shown that destruction removal efficiencies (DREs) of 99.9999% can be
achieved.
This high efficiency has been demonstrated with PCBs, PAHs, chlorobenzenes, and organochlorine pesticides.
During the demonstration testing of the pilot-scale system at Hamilton Harbour (summer 1991), coal-tar PAHs at levels
of 30% (dry basis) in the harbour sediment were effectively eliminated. DREs of 99.99999% were calculated based
on the total organic input and the PAHs analysed in the stack emission. During one test, the liquid waste input was
spiked with 500 ppm PCBs; there were no detectable levels of PCB in the air emission, the processed solids, or the
liquid effluents. Based on detection limits forthe stack sampling trains, a PCB DRE of at least 99.9999% was achieved.
A distinct advantage of the ECO LOGIC Process over incineration is that there is no possibility of dioxin or furan
formation. These compounds can be formed by the incomplete oxidation of PCBs, but in an actively reducing
atmosphere with an abundance of free hydrogen and no free oxygen, the possibility of their formation is eliminated.
The use of hydrogen as an active reducing agent also creates a product gas of low molecular weight without the
formation of heavier hydrocarbons common to pyrolysis processes. This product gas is suitable for continuous
monitoring. The process control design includes a very sophisticated on-line mass spectrometer which can monitor
12
-------
organic compounds continuously in the ppb range, allowing the operator and the process control system to effectively
monitor destruction efficiency by selectively analyzing for trace concentrations of known breakdown products of the
hazardous waste.
Finally, the ECO LOGIC Process has a high degree of mobility and a reasonable operating cost. The process is
mounted on two standard drop-deck highway trailers, easily set up and taken down. The relatively small size and
capital cost help keep the operating cost per tonne fairly low.
The ECO LOGIC Process has been accepted into the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program, with a demonstration program in the autumn of 1992 in Bay City, Ml, at the Middlegrounds Landfill.
The site is contaminated by a dense oil containing approximately 40% PCBs. This oil will be processed along with
contaminated groundwater and contaminated soil, in separate streams, and the evaluation will be performed by the
U.S. EPA.
REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL USING BIOGENESIS™ SOIL WASHING
Charles Wilde
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc.
Fairfax Station, VA
Mohsen Amiran
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc.
330 S. Mt. Prospect Rd.
Des Plaines, IL
USA 60016
Tel: (708) 827-0024
Fax:(708)827-0025
BioGenesis™ soil washing is an ex situ, on-site, extraction technology for organic pollutants. The process uses
a specialized washertruck, water, and a complex, bioremediating surfactant to clean soil. Auxiliary equipment includes
gravity oil and water separators, coalescing filters, and a bioreactor. The cleaning rate for oil contamination of 5 000
ppm is 25 to 35 tons per hour. A single wash removes 85 to 99% of hydrocarbon contamination of up to 15,000 ppm.
High contaminant levels require multiple washes.
The BioGenesis cleaning chemical is a light alkaline mixture of ionic and non-ionic surfactants and bioremediating
agents which act like a biosurfactant. The proprietary cleaner contains no hazardous or petrochemical ingredients.
To begin the wash sequence, 35 tons (22 yd3) of contaminated earth are loaded into the washer unit containing
water and BioGenesis cleaner. For 15 to 30 minutes, aeration equipment on the washer truck agitates the mixture,
thus washing the soil, and encapsulating oil molecules with BioGenesis cleaner. After washing, the extracted oil is
reclaimed, wash water is recycled or treated, and the soil is dumped from the soil washer. All equipment is mobile and
treatment is normally on-site.
Advantages of BioGenesis include:
Treatment of soils containing both volatile and nonvolatile oils
Treatment of soil containing clays
High processing rates
On-site operation
Production of reusable oil, treatable water, and soil suitable for on-site backfill
Absence of air pollution, except during excavation
Accelerated biodegradation of oil residuals in the soil
13
-------
For oils and non-hazardous organics, costs range from $40 to 140 per ton depending on the type and amount of
pollutant, the soil classification, cleanup objective, and the size of the job. Treatable contaminants include asphalteens,
heating oils, diesel fuel, gasoline, PCBs, and PAHs.
BioGenesis technology was commercialized in Europe during 1990 and was accepted into the U.S. EPA
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Demonstration Program in June 1990. Applied research
continues to extend application of the technology to acid extractables, base and neutral extractables, pesticides, and
acutely hazardous materials. Continuous process washing equipment with capacity of 75 to 100 tons per hour is in
advanced development.
THE STEAM ENHANCED RECOVERY PROCESS (SERP)
William R. Van Sickle
Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.
1240 Rosecrans Avenue
Bldg A20, MS 2E268
Manhattan Beach, CA
USA 90266
Tel: (714) 536-6547
Fax:(310)536-5434
In situ steam enhanced recovery utilizes formation tailored injected low pressure steam to establish temperature
and pressure gradients to enhance the migration of hydrocarbons through the soil. Vapor, free-liquid hydrocarbons
and condensate are removed using specially designed vapor extraction wells. Steam enhances removal of
hydrocarbons and allows extraction of heavier petroleum products by elevating the vapor pressure and reducing the
viscosity, thereby inducing greater hydrocarbon mobility. The time required to remove hydrocarbon vapors and liquids
Is reduced and removal efficiency is increased, with consequent reductions in project cost. Vapors and liquids are
treated at the surface using thermal oxidation and wastewater treatment respectively.
The remediation start date was setfor April, 1992. Construction was completed and all operating permits received.
The project site is in an industrial area and is under constant use 2 shifts per day, 5 days a week. The hydrocarbon
impacted area was estimated to cover about 1 acre, much of it under a paved area. Sediments of the contaminated
formation consist of several feet of fill material, partially cemented sands, and clayey silts with lenses of fine to medium
sand.
According to previous site characterization, up to 135,000 gallons of diesel fuel may have leaked from ruptured
underground feed piping to a fuel pump over a 2-year period. The fuel leak formed a column approximately 100 ft in
diameter that migrated downward, spreading laterally as less permeable muds were encountered. Upon penetrating
the muds, downward migration continued, where ground water was encountered.
System design was based upon soil characteristics, estimated soil volume, well spacing and quantity, and
temperature/pressures necessary forvaporization. The design was selected to accelerate the remediation of the large
area Impacted.
Applied to appropriate substances, SERP offers the following advantages over other techniques:
Enhanced removal of volatile and semivolatile hydrocarbons
Effective for heavy hydrocarbons
Not limited by soil concentrations
Process is easily monitored and verified ,
In situ process has minimal surface impact
14
-------
The following disadvantages of SERP should be considered:
Significant capital costs ; ,.,.
A cap may be necessary for remediation of sites with high vertical permeability surface conditions
Extensive permitting is required
Trained boiler technicians are needed as part of the O&M team
Vapors captured from the remediation effort are destroyed in a heat efficient thermal oxidation system Liauid
contaminant recovered is routed to storage through an oil/waterseparatorfor hydrocarbon recycling. Separated water
is treated through an activated carbon system. oBM«*euBuwc««*i
AM s "F?" th? °riginal assumPtions of 275,000 yd3 of contaminated soil, project costs are estimated at $35 to
40/yd3. Capital equipment costs were approximately $1.5 million. . . .• *-~ iu
SOIL VENTING TO REMOVE DBCP FROM SUBSURFACE SOIL: A CASE HISTORY
Nancy Bishop
Western Farm Service
Carolyn R. Kneiblher, M.B. Bennedsen, and Felipe Gomez
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
500 12th Street, Suite 100
Oakland, CA
USA 94607-4014
Tel: (51 0)874-3050
Fax:(510)874-3268
Ho^JheuCOmpound 1'2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) was a pesticide widely used for nematode control until
1 979 when it was restricted by the USDA, primarily because of its toxicity to mammals. DBCP has a specific gravity
of 2.5 at 20° C/20° C, a melting point of 6.7° C, a boiling point of 1 95.5° C, and a molecular weight of 236.33
Hictr -, aoef m?'ed 7'°?° 9allons of DBCP were accidentally released at an agricultural chemical
distribution facility in the Central Valley of California. Site soils are alluvial, varying from silty fine to coarse sands, with
some stratification. DBCP has been detected in the area groundwater, which is at a depth of about 1 00 ft Also soil
samples collected in the late 1 980s from throughout the vadose zone in the area of the spill contained significant DBCP
concentrations.
A soil venting/vapor extraction system (VES) installed near the release area at the site has operated essentially
continuously since January 1 4, 1 992. The system includes three extraction wells, completed with screens at 20 to 40
40 to 60, and 60 to 80 ft, respectively, below ground surface. The system will produce about 220 to 260 ft3 per minute'
at wellhead vacuums in the range of about 1 to 5 in. mercury column, depending on the well or combination of wells
Deing pumped.
An on-line gas chromatograph connected to an automatic, programmed sampling pump and multiport sampling
valve measures the DBCP concentrations in the extracted gas and in the gas discharged from each carbon canister
three times a day. Typically, the extracted gas contains about 2 to 12 ppmV DBCP. Gastec tube analyses have
consistently indicated that the extracted gas also contains about 2.5 percent CO2, 18.5 percent O2, and 3,000 ppmV
*,, ^!ln£ the f irst 8 months of operation, the system extracted an average of about 1 1b per day of DBCP and more
than 200 Ibs per day of carbon tied up in CO It is possible that the CO2 is being generated as a consequence of the
ongoing soil venting. Also, it seems possibfe that some fraction of the carbon is derived from processes that are
breaking down the DBCP. If, in fact, the soil venting is inducing breakdown of the DBCP, atthe presumed rate of several
hundred Ibs per day, then this remediation technology is remarkably cost-effective: 1 year of system operation will
cost 3D out $200,000.
15
-------
FULL-SCALE SOIL/SEDIMENT WASHING SYSTEMS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
WASTE MINIMIZATION
Robert E. Ennis, Richard P. Traver, and Scott C. O'Brien
Bergmann USA, Inc.
Brookside Professional Centre
72-11 West Stafford Road
Stafford Springs, CT
USA 06076-0535
Tel: (203) 684-6844
Fax: (203) 684-6855
With the recognition that large tracts of land are currently unusable as the result of either accidental chemical spills,
intentional releases, or previously acceptable industrial practices, the hazardous waste site remediation community
and potentially responsible parties are seeking alternative, cost-effective, real world alternatives to the current
"excavate and rebury" approach to site restoration. The application of traditional mining and mineral ore processing
technology which has been fine-tuned for the separation of cleanable coarse soil fractions from highly contaminated
fine silt, clay, and colloidal materials has been very successfully demonstrated within the European community.
Twenty full-scale transportable plants ranging in process capacities of 10 to 350 tons per hour are currently in
operation. Ten of these installations are dedicated to contaminated sediment treatment and volumetric reduction
receiving spoils from harbor, river, bay, and canal dredging operations.
Two Bergmann 5 to 10 ton per hour soil and sediment washing plants are being evaluated during the winter/spring
of 1992 by the Toronto Harbor Commission for heavy metal and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and by the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers forthe separation and concentration of PCB-contaminated fines from dredge sediments. The
U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program is conducting independent sampling and
engineering analyses programs on both Bergmann plants in Toronto, ON, and Saginaw, Ml.
FIVE YEARS OF OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE HARBAUER SOIL WASHING
PLANTS
Winfried Groeschel
Harbauer GmbH & Co. KG
Flughafenstr. 21
1000 Berlin 44
Germany
Tel: 01149 30 613730 224
Fax: 01149 30 613730 230
Hansgeorg Balthaus
Philipp Holzmann AG
Duesseldorf, Germany
The first large scale Harbauer soil washing plant began operation during early 1987 in Berlin. A second plant was
erected in 1990 in Vienna. So far more than 170,000 tons of soil contaminated with organics, heavy metals, and
cyanides have been treated successfully. This year a third generation of soil washing plants is under construction in
Berlin and in mid 1993 a sophisticated soil washing plant for the removal of mercury will begin operation in Bavaria.ln
principle the soil washing process consists of washing and separation steps. First the contaminants are dislodged from
soil particles using multi-step mechanical agitation. After that the cleaned soil particles are separated from the washing
liquid which contains dissolved, emulsified, and solid contaminants. Silts and clays with high adsorption capacities for
contaminants are separated using hydrocyclones and classification screens. Contaminated solid organic matter such
16
-------
?n™ P arate?|;''om the cleaned so.l particles together with the washing liquid using multi-step rinsing
9-,? roc,?sse|-Thel"tensiverinsmgProcess ensures thatno contaminated waterisdischargedalon
HaitaU6r SOH W3Shin9 P'antS are equipped With treatment stepsKe
of fint*!laSh K 9 'S f fLr°?esi^hLCh concentrates *» contaminants in the fine particle fraction. To reduce the amount
* iSiSS1 aVf t(? S landf"led °r P,ost-treated' e-9- °V incineration, the Harbauer soil washing technique reaches
riiSS «„£ * Th-5 Rmt°r T" IOWer F°r further c°ncentration a new development is the use of a vacuum
d.stllat.pn system Th,s system has proven successful in handling a large number of volatile or semi-volatite
SSSJS?" f f T™?' PAH?' °r °ther °r9anics in bench sca'e testin9- Bother new Hart>aue deve oprnent
heaver metaTs S° "9 3' 6Xtraction with vety low concentrated acids for soil contaminated with
of r^!S m?nl°! S°H ^ing depends on parameters such as total amount to be treated, distribution and binding forms
of contaminants, gram size distribution, and site conditions. With an annual volume of at least 50 000 tons treatment
soKe±^
soil treatment plant can be attributed to special environmental restrictions and requirements.
FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF SOIL WASHING AT THE KING OF PRUSSIA SUPERFUND
SITE
Michael J. Mann Frank J.Opet
Alternative Remedial Technologies, Inc. Johnson Matthey
14497 North Dale Highway, Suite 140 W. Deptford NJ
Tampa, FL
USA 33618
Tel: (813) 264-3571
Fax:(813)962-0867
The King of Prussia Technical Corporation Site (KOP) is located in WinslowTownship, NJ, and consists of 10 acres
i rural area The now-defunct KOP Corporation operated the site for approximately 3 years with the intention of
I industrial sludges into materials that could be marketed as construction-grade materials. That plan failed
ho nnorat,™*! neriod, about 15 million gallons of sludges were transported and treated at the site. The
jntified soil and groundwater contamination, a feasibility study was completed, and a
* Parties (PRP) Group chose to take the lead responsibility in remediating the site. The ROD
^ • . wash'ng as the remedial technology to be used to treat the source materials. In the soils, five key
contaminants were identified and treatment standards were established.
;acti,ve aPProach was taken by the PRP Group, the U.S. EPA, and the N JDEPE to move forward
f T'y manner' - With this goal' several contractors performed initial soil evaluations and found
L^^T-f™!? **».•**'• Ia9°ons witn P^e sludge, lagoons with sludge and soil-Hke
nc rfa f ° na ural so,ls with sludge intermittently disposed. Additionally it was found that the soil matrix,
in terms of its particle size distribution, was a good candidate forvolume reduction activities, with about 10 to 15% fines.
Aitomn, -& M!"er' lnc" and Heidemij Restoffendiensten (The Netherlands), incorporated as
Alternative Remedial Technolog.es, Inc., was selected to perform a detailed treatability study in accordance with the
SrP^rIUldaHCe docum!Tt- The treatability study first defined the particle size/contaminant relationship f for each
°™\e£ particle/soil relationships using scanning electron microscopy/electron
1"8?-316 W.?? ,WaS c°nducted to evaluate specific screening, separation, and treatment steps that could
train was <£ hSn^^iff??"'- ^ ^ ^ Unit °perati°ns W6re Selected' tne combin^d {re*™*
nmviriPri w SS^ s®qufential batch basis !n tne laboratory in a process simulation run. The results of this study
rnnHnH J develoPment of a system mass balance and design operational parameters. The treatability study
concluded soil washing as proposed and configured in the report could meet the ROD requirements
17
-------
To confirm the findings of the treatability study, it was proposed that a demonstration be performed on the soils
at the Heidemii full-scale fixed facility in Moerdjik, The Netherlands. After approvals for a demonstration run on actua
KOP materials were received from the U.S. EPA and its Dutch equivalent, VROM, the project team (PRP, EPA, soil
washing contractor, and a consultant) developed a detailed plan and excavated 165 tons Representative soils. This
material was packaged in "Super Sacks", loaded into transportation containers, and shipped to the Port of Rotterdam.
There the material was downloaded to the Heidemij plant and prepared for the demonstration.
The Heidemii plant is a TSDF equivalent with an annual treatment capacity of 80,000 tons. The plant consists of
all the unit operations to be used at the KOP site and was configured in exactly the same manner as proposed in the
KOP treatability study. This treatment included feed preparation, loading, wet screening hydrocyclone separation,
surfactant addition, flotation and dewatering on the sand fraction, and sedimentation, thickening, and dewatering on
the fines. Three process residuals — oversize material, sand, and a dense sludge cake — were produced, staged,
examined, sampled, and analyzed. The oversize and sand products are intended for placement back in the site and
were analyzed for the target contaminants. The sludge cake was analyzed to confirm compliance with applicable land
disposal restrictions and will be disposed of at an off-site facility.
The KOP plant is in the design process; performance and cost data were described in this presentation.
SOIL WASHING WITH WATER UNDER HIGH ENERGY INPUT: COMMERCIAL
EXPERIENCE WITH THE LURGI DECONTERRA® PROCESS
Ted J. Pollaert
Lurgi Corporation
666 Kindermack Rd.
River Edge, NJ
USA 07661
Tel: (201) 967-4905 ,
Fax:(201)967-7646
In the search for lower-cost alternatives to incineration, interest in soil washing technology is increasing A
limitation to the utilization of soil washing is that, in most processes all the silt and ^^n <" » ™£™™^
residue. By the utilization of a high energy input, Lurgi has been able to clean up to 50% of the clay/silt residue, as
well as the coarser fraction.
Two 27.5 ton per hour commercial plants are in operation: one since the spring of 1992 and one since the summer
of 1992. The plants are designed for the removal of complex contaminations, including PAHs and dioxms. hirst
operating results were disclosed and discussed at this conference.
18
-------
™ REMEDIATION OF A TCE GROUND SPILL USING AN ELECTRON
ACCELERATOR
S.M. Matthews, A.J. Boegel, D.W. Camp, R.A. Caulfield, J.O Cunningham, P.P. Daley, J J Greci M C
Jovanovich, J.A. Loftis, and P.O. Soran ' ' '
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Environmental Restoration Division
Mail Code L-619
Livermore, CA
USA 94550
Tel: (51 0)423-3052
Fax:(510)422-9203
«,hn^f a!0^xp?t[!ments? sh°wthattrichloroethvlene (TCE) can be radiolytically decomposed by ionizing radiation
when dissolved .n either groundwater or in air. A portable electron accelerator was brought to the site of a TCE ground
spill to demonstrate both technical and economic feasibility of electron beam irradiation as a remediation technology.
Site-300 at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is listed as a Superfund site because of a TCE
ground spill. Remediation of this spill has recently begun using vacuum extraction of TCE vaporfrom the subsurface
soil of the spill area Nine vacuum extraction wells are connected in a manifold to one pump that removes subsurface
air containing a TCE concentration of approximately 50 ppmv at a rate of 270 cfm. Standard remediation technology
II £ activated charcoal filter that reduces
-------
RETHINKING THE HYDRAULIC CAGE CONCEPT FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
FACILITIES AND MITIGATION OF CONTAMINATED SITES
Charles F. Voss
Colder Associates, Inc.
4104148th Avenue, NE
Redmond, WA
USA 98052
Tel: (206) 883-0777
Fax: (206) 883-5498
In conventional hazardous waste disposal facilities, containment is achieved by preventing the flow of water
through the facility by using low conductivity barriers such as plastic and clay liner systems. The primary difficulty in
this approach is ensuring the integrity of the barriers over long time periods.
In the hydraulic cage concept, containment is achieved by decreasing the gradient through the disposal facility
by creating a zone of increased hydraulic conductivity around the control region. This approach is potentially more
reliable since it is easier to demonstrate that high conductivity zones can be maintained than low conductivity ones.
This presentation described an investigation of the cost and performance of alternative hydraulic cage designs
for hazardous waste containment and remediation. "Hydraulic cage" refers to a zone of increased hydraulic
conductivity where groundwater preferentially flows. The high conductivity zones are typically engineered, i.e.,
manmade. The approach was first proposed for containment of high-level radioactive waste but to date has been
implemented primarily for control of mine tailings.
The original concept relies on a series of concentric boreholes to create the preferential flow zone. Three
enhancements of the concept were considered in the study, all based on benefits derived from improving the hydraulic
connectivity of the boreholes. The three methods are tunnels, hydraulic fractures, and blast rubblization. Numerical
modeling studies were used to evaluate the performance of the alternative hydraulic cage designs in a range of
geologic settings. Discrete-fracture modeling was carried out to assess the feasibility of the concept in fractured rock
while two-dimensional continuum analyses were used to evaluate the performance in porous media.
The results indicate thatthe most important factors in determining the efficiency of a hydraulic cage are the contrast
between conductivity in the cage and the site. Performance improves as the contrast increases. In the case of cages
where the hydraulic connectivity between boreholes was increased using hydraulic fracturing or blasting techniques,
the performance improved as the coverage and connectivity of the induced fractures increased. The results
demonstrate that hydraulic cages can be effective, even in fractured rock. Flow reductions of at least 70% were
observed for cages having a conductivity three orders of magnitude greater than the surrounding medium.
Conventional methods are available for constructing the different cages designs at costs commensurate with
conventional disposal facilities. The approach has the advantage of greater long-term reliability due to difficulty in
maintaining low conductivity barriers in conventional disposal facilities.
20
-------
SOIL REMEDIATION AT SCHWEIZERHALLE: A CASE STUDY
A. Bachmann
MBTUmwelttechnikAG
Vulkanstrasse110
CH-8048 Zurich
Switzerland
Tel: 01/730 60 77
Fax: 01/730 70 35
«hn,^ QennnSL°^P **?% f°/ * c.hf mi°al P^ caught fire, an area of approximately 1 0,000 m* was contaminated with
about 9,000 kg of pesticides (mainly phosphoric esters) and about 1 30 kg of mercury in the form of organic compounds
that leached into the ground with part of the water used to control the fire.
Risk Analysis. The goal of a risk analysis is to evaluate the degree of damage and estimate the hazard potential
for humans, animals, and plants. The decision whether or not a clean-up is necessary and to what degree, is based
on the risk analysis. The risk analysis required approximately 2 years.
Soil Remediation Processes. While the chemical risk analysis was organized and implemented, various studies
were performed on diverse in situ and on-site soil remediation processes, thermal treatment methods, and chemical
immobilization. A wet mechanical process with a so-called flotation step was considered the most effective and —
viewed from the technical side, the time and energy requirements, and its cost-effectiveness — optimal process.
The soil treatment plant with a capacity of 1 5 tons per hour was tested and optimized during a 4-month pilot phase
with soH contaminated at various degrees and started operating in July 1990. The successful operation of the plant
resulted in a clean-up efficiency of about 90%. The project was completed by the end of October 1 992.
Logistics. All activities and the entire data are stored in a central computer and continuously updated, so that the
whereabouts of every soil container can be determined at all times (excavation, storage 1, plant, storage 2
remcorporation, etc). This guarantees a flawless coordination of the various activities (excavation, soil washing'
analytics, disposa^ and reincorporation). The clean-up capacity of the plant and the material flow analysis (including
contaminants) of the overall system are also recorded automatically with the logistics program created by the project
iccim .
Costs .It is i estimated that a total of 40,000 tons of soil will be excavated, of which approximately 20,000 tons must
be cleaned. The costs for the entire clean-up will approach 50 million Swiss Francs. The process engineering costs
approach about 300 Swiss Francs ($250 US) per ton of treated soil. a«»»
CONCURRENT ON-SITE TESTING OF UV/OXIDATION SYSTEMS AT A SUPERFUND SITE
Ted H. Streckfuss
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District
21 5 North 17th Street
Omaha, NE
USA 68102
Tel: (402) 221 -3826
Fax: (402) 221-3030
During September/October 1 991 , three UV/oxidation vendors conducted an on-site pilot test at the Bofors Nobel
superf und site in Muskegon M I. The information gathered during the pilot test was used in the design of a groundwater
HSJSIS^ £°* 1 ,? I 6 V?n^°/S was given an equal °PP°rtunity to optimize its system around the site
groundwater and obtain the data required for a full-scale treatment system. Based upon individual performance data
and estimated full-scale costs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers selected the most appropriate vendor for the
treatment plant design.
21
-------
Each vendorwas contracted to be on-site for 14 days during the same time period. Water from the existing purge
well system was provided to each vendor from a common manifold. The contaminated groundwater was processed
by the individual vendors and monitored for specific analytical parameters to define system performance.
During project development, specific volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds were identified as requiring
removal The discharges from the UV/oxidation systems were evaluated for these specific compounds to ensure that
they had been adequately treated. Water quality parameters such as hardness and alkalinity were monitored to
determine their effect on the vendor systems and evaluate the need for pretreatment. The use of pretreatment for both
the pilot- and recommended full-scale systems was based upon individual vendor experience.
This presentation discussed the methodology used to conduct the on-site testing and the sampling and analysis
performed to document the results obtained from each pilot system. The primary purpose of this UV/oxidation pilot
study was to select the most cost effective system capable of meeting the required discharge standards. A proprietary
specification and system design was prepared around the selected vendor based upon the results of the pilot testing.
Sampling and analysis was conducted to verify individual system performance. Pretreatment was the responsi-
bility of each vendor and varied based upon the perceived needs of the individual equipment. Pretreatment during the
test period varied from cartridge filters for solids removal to pH elevation for metals removal.
Preliminary discharge standards for the on-site testing as defined by the State of Michigan and the results of the
volatile organic compound testing are available from the author.
REMEDIATION OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATED WITH VOCS IN THE SATURATED
ZONE AT A SUPERFUND SITE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA
R.F. Battey, D.A. Burbank, and M.M. Milani
Aqua Resources, Inc.
2030 Addison St., Suite 500
Berkeley, CA
USA 94704
Tel: (510)540-6954
Fax:(510)540-7496
A site located in California's "Silicon Valley", Mountain View, was used for the manufacture of printed circuit
boards from the mid-1960s to 1981. Various rinse waters were collected in five underground storage tanks along one
sideof a rowof buildings. Washing and rinsing operations reportedly used chlorinated and oth6^?.1^8-^concrete
storage tanks have been recently removed and replaced with clean fill. The buildings on the site are now occupied
by a variety of small industries and service establishments.
During the remedial investigation, approximately 30 monitoring wells and 25 soil borings; wereBC°mpleted at the
site to characterize the extent of contamination. Contamination extends through the vadose zone into> two distinct
aquifers, which are separated by a clay layer aquitard. There are two separate plumes; only the eastern plume was
Sussed Two extraction wells have been installed and used to field test an ultraviolet light hydrogen peroxide (UV
PX) groundwater treatment process. Wells have been monitored for more than 2 years. Typical concentrations of
principal contaminants in the groundwater included: ethylbenzene, 300 ug/L; perchloroethylene, 400 ng/L; tnchloro-
ethylene, 8,000 ug/L; xylenes, 700 ug/L; and 1,2- dichloroethylene, 600 ug/L.
A feasibility study considered a number of cleanup scenarios for both soil and groundwater. Chemical oxidation
by means of ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide was selected as the treatment method. Extensive field testing has
shown an LV-60 UV/PX unit, manufactured by Peroxidation Systems, Inc., to be effective ,n reducing concentrations
of VOCs to less than 1 ppb and meeting the discharge limits set by an NPDES perm, The treated water w I be
dscharged to the city storm sewer which ultimately flows into San Francisco Bay. The UV/PX un. was tested atfows
up to 50 gpm, with hydrogen peroxide concentrations in the feed as high as 300 ppm and power inputs up to 50 MW.
Selected initial conditions will be 50 gpm feed, 200 ppm hydrogen peroxide and 50 MW power (^n
Hydrogeologic modeling studies have shown that pumping from the Zone B aquifer at a sufficient rate
22
-------
The estimated construction cost is $185,000; this does not include the UV/PX unit or anv enaineerina cos*;
IS! o«ASi!!,NG AS A REMED|AL TECHNIQUE AT A FORMER GUN CLUB SITE IN
rOLSOM, CA
Christine Parent
State of California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control
10151 Croydon Way, Suite 3
Sacramento, CA
USA 95827-2106
Tel: (91 6) 855-7862
Fax:(916)855-7852
Anthony Saracino ' . -
Wallace-Kuhl & Associates, Inc.
West Sacramento, CA
* n nin?18^ S'te operated as a rif|e ran9e' P'sto1 range, and trapshooting area from 1 976 to 1 985. As a result of
fnfm ?3 h 1,afSeSHmr ' * was d.etermined that surface soil contamination by paniculate elemental lead in he
form of spent bullets and shot existed in certain areas of the site.
tho S?eU!?ie? perform®d on representative soil samples indicated that it would be feasible to separate and remove
f A '• t9!' andnragmfnts from {[}e stockPiled soil us^g a modified sand and gravel plant as the treatment
. ;hPPi°XimaKely 1 5'°00 yd contaminated soil were excavated from various areas of the site and ftoM screened
9 1n-,rbrBJ°^ SS-«en' The f iner- 9rained material (approximately 9,000 yd') was processed in the treatment
f th^ dlfferencf in sPecific 9ravity between the particulate lead and the native rock and soil to
physically separate and remove the lead from the processed soil.
nH
and two
plant confisted of a hopper feeder above a jigging box used to capture the larger lead slugs and
-ft long sand screws which fed the contaminated soil onto three stacked screens (3/4 1/4 1/8 in )
fS !!? th^smallestscre.e^was^nt through a 3-ft diameter centrifugal separator. The^lant utilized
H, 9? ^ °* Wa*er Per mm^e' which was stored in two recirculation settling ponds. Clarified water
r n tng-P,°/tdS Wf re,(?l!;pulated as part of the soil washing and material transport water in the plant. The
remaining material (treated soil) flowed along a drag tank and discharged to ground (beached).
tlnt9^3' °f ^e treatment process was to remove the particulate elemental lead from the fine-grained soil so that
« S, H C°nf « 3 -°n °f I68S ^an 1 7° mg/kg for a given volume of samP|e would be achieved The data showed
fit 9clv 9and iSffST?8 '" thfTm°V,al °t tne f ree lead' althou9h some lead remained chemically bound to the
»nAr?-y' 3 ? ?$* ° Lractlons of the soil. Elemental lead particles ranging in size from coarse slugs down to
was i7fTmg/kg "" W6re recovered from the contaminated soil. The mean lead concentration for the treated soil
drums (31.-970 'bs) of recovered lead were transported to a metal recycler. The treated soil arid the
* material from the screening operation were used as backfill beneath a road being
^t^the^'^ashing operation was approximately one milliondollars.Theprojectteam
23
-------
IMPROVEMENTS IN CONVENTIONAL HIGH TEMPERATURE ROTARY KILN
INCINERATION TECHNOLOGY
Markku Aaltonen
Ekokem Limited
PO Box 181
SF-11101 Riihimaki
Finland
Tel:+358-14-7151
Fax:+358-14-715300
Ekokem Ltd. operates two rotary kiln incinerators for hazardous wastes in Finland. Since 1984, when the first kiln
began operation, the company has been developing the technology with Outokumpu Ecoenergy, a Finnish
engineering firm. As a result of this cooperation, a second incinerator began operation in 1991.
The most significant difference from other types of kilns is the extremely high temperature used in rotary kilns:
1 300 to 1 400° C (2,400 to 2,600° F). These high temperatures have several advantages: high combustion efficiency,
improved slag vitrification, and increased capacity. As refractory linings are normally damaged when using increased
temperatures,- a special cooling system has been installed around the kiln.
One problem that must be addressed is the lack of homogeneity in the waste feed. A shredder and a feed
homogenizerhave been designed and, as a result, more solid organic material can be fed and less auxiliary fuel (waste
oil or solvents) is needed.
RESULTS OF PROTOTYPE STUDIES FOR IN SITU CONTAINMENT USING A PARAFFIN-
BENTONITE SEALANT
Charles F. Voss
Golder Associates, Inc.
4104-148th Avenue, NE
Redmond, WA
USA 98052
Tel: (206) 883-0777
Fax: (206) 882-5498
In the past several years, researchers from MIBRAG (Vereinigte Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlenwerke AG) and DBI-
Gas Umwelttechnik have been developing barrier materials to address some of the environmental problems facing
the Halle-Bitterfeld-Leipzig area. MIBRAG was responsible for lignite coal production in the former German
Democratic Republic and many of the old open pit mines were used by the chemical industry for waste disposal. The
pits were typically unlined and lacked other engineering measures to prevent contaminant migration into the
groundwater. The area is regarded as the most contaminated area in Germany. MIBRAG and DBI are proposing to
use a natural material, Montan wax, to mitigate the effects of the contamination and to support site remediation.
Montan wax is a natural paraffin that occurs in three large deposits near Halle. The material can be a derivative
of tropical plants that grew in the area during the early Paleozoic period. The wax protected against excessive water
loss during prolonged periods of dryness and has withstood decomposition for millions of years. The material is mixed
with water to form an emulsion for constructing subsurface barriers in unconsolidated soils.
The emulsion is formed by injecting melted Montan wax into water with a surfactant additive. Particle size is
regulated by controlling the temperature of the melted wax and is adjusted for local soil conditions (e.g., porosity)
Bentonite clay is added to the emulsion for use in soils containing large void spaces. The emulsion contains from 13
24
-------
to 1 5% wax, 2% surfactant, and the remaining is water
S^
SE ! and tested in the laboratory-
S'plS^^^
R. Mac Hartley and Tilak R. Verma
Morrison Knudsen Corporation
Environmental Services Division
POBox73
Boise, ID
USA 83729
Tel: (208) 386-61 45
GROUTING TECHNOLOGY
Ernest J.Kipko
Spetstamponazhgeologia
Ukraine
s.oviet 9overnr"ent agency called Spetstamponazhgeologia (STG) has developed a Kaolin-based
n,- ?9xforgr^wa^^
fn m«nw an !Vev dramat!?allv reducin9 Permeability in fractured rock media. It has als bee . ied ver
^ ** unconsolidated rock for-the creation of barriers to
l^SSfS^'ffl
fSS 5 countries over the past 20 years. Most of these projects were performed to control aroundwater
rr h Hr°Und m'ne Ppenings and shafts- STG has also aPP»ed th|s grouting technology to oihel Sem
Srofp?^
appro,Xim,ately 89% clay- 1 0% cement' and 1 % sPedal addmves.
fl-
.e., 94% cement, 5% clay, and 1% other ingredients). The STG grout formulation and its
are customized for each project and the entire process is integrated, based on the . nature^ of the
Ihl SSSf e applicationi and detailed site-specific in^rmation on 9eol°9y-
25
-------
The economic advantages of the STG technology are obvious, due to the small amount of cement required. The
clay portion of the grout can be obtained from nearly any source available in the vicinity of the construction site. This
has significant economic advantages because the transportation of the material is not a high cost factor. Another
important feature is that this particular grout remains plastic throughout its history. STG has laboratory samples that
were cast over 20 years ago which still exhibit the same qualities of flexibility and durability they initially displayed. The
grout material is also inert and nontoxic which allow its use in many various applications.
Potential applications of the STG grouting technology include modifying and customizing geochemical environ-
ments for stabilizing and isolating radioactive and toxic wastes in deep geologic media as well as in soils and
unconsolidated rock. Some of the more common problems encountered with high-cement grouts are avoided. The
low cement content of STG's normal grouting formulation creates a barrier which is less susceptible to cracking and
enablesthegroutto remain plastic. Furthermore, STG can formulateagroutwithaverylowwatercontent which, under
high grouting pressures, results in very little loss of water, enabling the grout to continue to move and fill the microscopic
openings.
EVALUATION OF UKRAINIAN GROUTING TECHNOLOGY: DOE PERSPECTIVE
A. DuCharme
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM
W. Roberds
Colder Associates Inc.
4104148th AveNE
Redmond, WA
USA 98052
Tel: (206) 883-0777
Fax: (206) 882-5498
The U S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for waste management and environmental restoration (WM/
EFO at a variety of sites throughout the U.S. A wide range of technologies are currently available for conducting the
various WM/ER activities and satisfying DOE's needs. The various technologies can accomplish specific activities and
satisfy specific needs to various degrees, depending on a variety of factors (e.g., waste type, site conditions, etc.). For
example, incineration can be used to treat primary organic wastes, thereby reducing the volume for disposal.
Each technology thus has a specific set of relevant attributes, which include:
Effectiveness in satisfying the specific activity/need
Application cost
Rate of application
Hazards associated with its application
Acceptability (i.e., to regulatory agencies, institutions, public, etc.) of application
These attributes can be generic (i.e., if the technology is applied to the range of sites within the DOE complex)
or site-specific. Technologies can be meaningfully compared on the basis of their attributes, with tradeoffs made
among those attributes. For example, one technology might be preferred over another even though it is less effective
because it can be applied more quickly and at less expense. If the optimum technology is not yet available then the
cost and time associated with it becoming available (e.g., through research and development) and the likelihood of
tt ever becoming available must also be considered. However, the cost of making such a technology available should
not necessarily be borne by any one site, but spread among all those sites where it would be used.
DOE has instituted the International Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) primarily to transfer foreign WM/ER
technologies which are better, cheaper, faster, safer, or more acceptable to apply to DOE's WM/ER activities/needs
in the U.S. than those currently available. Within ITEP, a methodology has been developed for definitively evaluating
candidate technologies. Such evaluations are done at two levels:
26
-------
eva"atiors
generic, system wide applications for screening a large number
and transfer:(2) Detailed evaluations
T ecific evaluations will be accomplished through a computerized relational data base fl'e
is being developed within ITEP by Sandia National Laboratories for DOE? '
•n, ',n,,?rde-r t0 d,emonstrate the methodology, similar but different technologies have been evaluated at earh IPVPI
These evaluations demonstrate use of the methodology in assisting the DOE to make rational anri infnrmoH
dec^ons regarding the development and transfer of foreign9tLhnologiesVn^
DU PONT/OBERLIN MICROFILTRATION TECHNOLOGY
Ernest Mayer
E. I. du Pont de Nemqurs, Inc.
Engineering Department, Louviers 1359
PO Box 6090
Newark, DE
USA 19714
Tel: (302) 366-3652
Fax:(302)366-3220
The novel Du Pont/Obertln Microfiltration Technology has recently been demonstrated in EPA's Suoerfund
newT±^
a icaNv
the ''pairt ter
stabiSonal
Suited for contaminated heavy metal wastewaters and groundwaters
' °U' °J ?6' ^? Pb from the palmerton, PA, Zinc smelting SuperfundsIS
n susPended solids £88); and firm, dry (41 % solids) cakes that passed both
ThUS ^ "^ teChn0l°9y pr°VideS '°W C0st ^etals removal/
27
-------
COMPOSTING OF EXPLOSIVES-CONTAMINATED SOILS AT THE U.S. ARMY DEPOT
ACTIVITY, UMATILLA
Kevin R. Keehan and Wayne E. Sisk
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
USA 21010-5401
Tel: (410)671-1558
Fax:(410)671-1675
Composting is an innovative bioremediation technology which has been proposed for remediating a Nattered
Priority ListNPL) site. The currently proven technology for explosives-contaminated soils is W^g**™
Miration; however, it is publicly undesirable and essentially uneconomical for small sites. The U-S-Amy T«oc areJ
Hazardous Materials Agency has been developing the application of composting ° so.te contaminated wrth
trinitrotoluene (TNT), cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine (RDX), and cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) since
1982.
In December 1991, a composting optimization field study was completed using efP'os'yes-contaminated soils
from the explosives washout lagoons at the U.S. Army Depot Activity, Umatilla (UMDA) This pilot-scale field
demonstration proved that aerobic, thermophilic composting was able to reduce the concentration of explosives and
SStoxSioacceplable health-based cleanup levels. The results of this demonstration ateo 'nd.cated that
another composting technology, windrowing, may be the most cost-effective approach to applying th.s technology. In
3Sr1892?!Sidrow composting field demonstration was initiated to investigate the process parameters required
for full-scale implementation. This field demonstration is scheduled to be completed in December 1992.
In APril1992,afeasibilitystudyfortheUMDAexplosiveswashoutlagoonssoils was completed^
CERCLA This feasibility study evaluated the following alternatives: no action excavation followedby me™erat.on,
andI excava on followed by composting. After a detailed analysis, excavation followed by composting was recom-
mendedas thpreferred remedial alternative. The Proposed Plan issued by the U.S Army the U^ Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Oregon Department of Environmental quality received laudatory comments and the
agencies are currently in the process of negotiating a Record of Decision.
Relevant information from previous composting studies which will assist in the transfer of this technology to the
commercialsector"ere presented as well as current information on the current windrow composting field demonstra-
tion.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY FOR ORDNANCE DEMILITARIZATION
James R. Watford
TALON Ordnance Technologies, Inc.
PO Box 26303
Indianapolis, IN
USA 46226-0303
Tel: (317) 898-9141
Fax:(317)897-5327
TALON Ordnance Technologies, Inc., in conjunction with GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville PA, and several
othe environmental remediation firms, is developing an alternative solution to the currently acceptable Department
^eSro?o5?5practice of open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) of obsolete or ^^^I^SSS
Sunttions. The ordnance demilitarization process the TALON team to devj^^J^^^^^flSS1
and allows forthe recovery and further recycling of the metal components of the munition as well as the explosive Tillers.
28
-------
Each year, DoD demilitarizes thousands of tons of obsolete and unserviceable ordnance projectiles stored at
military ordnance depots throughout the U.S. and overseas. Using the OD/OB procedures has caused tremendous
damage to the environment through the contamination of the air, soil, and groundwater, and virtually nothing is
recovered. To provide some perspective regarding the amount of recyclable metal lost, consider that one 8-in
Howitzer projectile weighs about 200 Ibs, 170 Ibs of which are high-grade steel. The remaining 30 Ibs are explosive
Illlci*
The high production, remotely operated system being developed by the TALON team uses high pressure water
and robotic technology to expose and remove the explosive fillers and at the same time capture, filter, and recycle all
by-products of the process. The end results of the demilitarization process are a completely recyclable empty projectile
metal casing and captured loose explosives. The explosive filler is further processed and then composted with other
materials for use as an environmentally safe soil amendment by the agricultural and horticultural industries.
_ The TALON team is looking not only at the U.S. market but also at the need for this type of "demil" process in
Eastern Europe where there are great quantities of unserviceable ordnance left behind in former Soviet ordnance
depots by the Soviet military. Steel and fertilizer are two commodities that emerging countries need and which may
be provided by the TALON process.
UNITED STATES/GERMAN BILATERAL AGREEMENT ON HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
H.Stietzel
Federal Ministry for Research and Technology
Refevat523
Heinemannstr 2
5300 Bonn 2
Germany
D. Sanning
U.S. EPA, RREL
Cincinnati, OH
G. Berberich and K. Steffens
focon Ingenieurgesellschaft GmbH
Duren, Germany
A United States/German Bilateral Agreement on hazardous waste site cleanup projects has been developed The
two lead agencies are the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and
Development (ORD), and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), Federal Ministry for Research and Technology
(BMFT). By leveraging existing resources and programs within the bilateral agreement each agency will enhance the
potential impact of these activities to solving hazardous waste site problems within their respective countries.
The goals of this bilateral agreement are:
Facilitate understanding of each side's approach to the remediation of contaminated sites
("as if-approach": as if the foreign project had taken place in their own country)
Demonstrate innovative remedial technologies
Compare quality assurance programs
Facilitate technology transfer ,
The technical approach to remediating a hazardous waste site is subject to a different set of environmental and
social factors in each country; therefore, the usefulness of a particular technology can only be determined if it has been
evaluated in the light of these considerations within both countries.
. Six sites on each side were selected for the cooperation. Detailed executive summary reports on each of the
German sites are being prepared by the contractors working for the BMFT. These reports will be reviewed by
designated USEPA/RREL Technical Program Managers to determine what additional analytical-type Quality
Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) measures should be incorporated into the remedial action demonstration
by the Germans to meet the USEPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) criteria for determining the
effectiveness of the individual technologies.
29
-------
TheUSEPA/RRELhas prepared similar reports forthe U.S. sites.The BMFTwill review these reports to determine
what additional analytical QA/QC measures should be implemented into these remedial action demonstrations to meet
German criteria for determining the effectiveness of the individual technologies being utilized at the EPA sites.
The German technologies will be selected from a variety of technologies applied on sites, where remediation is
funded by the BMFT in the Program "Innovative Soil Remediation". In order to obtain results within a given time frame
the schedule of the remediation projects affects the selection. The German project sites, the remediation technologies
being applied.andthetypesof contamination being remediated are asfollows: (The technologies likely to start in 1993
and therefore that will be preferentially studied in the bilateral agreement are underlined):
Gaswerke, Munchen. Soil washing and volume reduction of residuals. Contaminants of interest are PAHs,
cyanides, and lead.
Varta Sud, Hanover. Soil-washing (and acid extraction). Types of contaminants are Pb, Sb, As, and Cd.
Kertess, Hanover. In situ soil washing and soil vapor extraction, groundwater pump and treatment.
Contaminants of interest are CHC and degradation products, CFCs, HCs, and monoaromatics.
Haynauerstrasse 58, Berlin. Soil washing, ex situ microbiology, rotary kiln thermal treatment, fluidized bed
fncineration of residuals. Contaminants are CHCs, PHCs, monoaromatics, PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs, and
PCDFs.
Burbacher Hutte, Saarbrucken. Thermal treatment, soil washing, microbiology. Contaminants are sulfides,
cyanides, Pb, Hg, phenols, HC monoaromatics.
TNT Stadtallendorf. Soil washing and incineration of residuals. Contaminants are munitions, TNT and
degradation products, and heavy metals.
The U.S. project sites are as follows:
Waukegan Harbor Site (Outboard Marine Corp.), IL. Anaerobic thermal treatment on site. Contaminants
of interest are PCBs, oil and grease.
Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, TX. Radio frequency and induced heating. Contaminants are VOCs,
SVOCs, and TPHs.
Electro-Voice NPL Site, Buchanan, Ml. Subsurface volatilization and ventilation system (SVVS). Contami-
nants of interest are BTEX, PCE, TCE, 1 and 1DCE.
Lawrence Livermore, Site 300, GSA, Altmont Hill, CA. Advanced oxidation and perox-pure. Contami-
nants are VOCs, TCEs, and PCEs.
Indiana Wood Preservers Site, Bloomington, IN. Bioremediation. Contaminants of interest are creosote/
coal tar, PAHs, naphthalene, and anthracene.
Pennsylvania Power & Light (PP&L) Brodhead Creek Site, Stroudsburg, PA. Contained Recovery of Oily
Waste (CROW). Contaminants are organic liquids, coal tars, PAH, and phenols.
This presentation discussed the latest progress of the bilateral agreement and highlighted some of the successes
and failures that have occurred to date.
30
-------
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION: EXTRACTION AND REMOVAL OF TCE AND CR6* AT
AN NPL SITE
Subijoy Dutta
U.S. EPA
OSW/CAPB/PSPD/ATS, OS-341
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC
USA 20460 • . -
Tel: (202) 260-1371
Fax: (202) 260-0096
This case study focuses on the engineering analysis of a treatment process used in a National Priority Listed (NPL)
site in a midwestern state. The primary contaminants to be removed from the groundwater at this site are
trichloroethylene (TCE) and hexavalent chromium (Cr6*). The groundwater treatment plant (GWTP) forthis site, which
belongs to an aircraft repair and paint company, is designed for a flow rate of 150,000 gallons per day (567 m3/day)
The cleanup period is estimated to be 30 years. The treated water is planned for industrial reuse at the same facility!
The waste characteristics of this NPL site are common to many aerospace industries and other industrial sites
The cleanup method used at this site for TCE and Cr6* removal could be used in similar other sites since it renders
a high (99.99%) contaminant removal efficiency and offers an environmentally clean method with minimal sludae/
waste generation.
Based upon a study involving a complete engineering analysis of several different processes that are available
for removal of organics (mainly trichloroethylene) and metals (primarily hexavalent chromium—Cr8*), a treatment train
was selected forthis NPL site: organic removal would be followed by metals reduction, then metals precipitation, and
final polishing processes. These processes are summarized in the following paragraphs.
The organic removal process consists of the Aquadetox system, developed by Dow Chemical and patented for
removal of organic compounds with high boiling points. This process has been found to be effective in removal of most
of the organic compounds listed as hazardous by the U.S. EPA. The effluent from this process is expected to have
non- detectable concentrations (less than 1 ppb) of organic contaminants. The Aquadetox process is also accepted
under the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program.
In the first stage of the metals removal process, the pH is lowered to 2.5 by the addition of 98% sulfuric acid (H SO )•
a pH probe in the tank controls this addition. The stream is made acidic to facilitate the reduction reaction. The reducing
agent to be used in the process is sodium metabisulfite (Na2S2Os). This chemical reduces the hexavalent chromium,
Cr8*, to trivalent chromium, Cr3*.
After being reduced, the stream from the first stage flows to the second stage tank for primary precipitation
treatment. The pH is raised to 9.0 to precipitate the trivalent chromium as a chromium hydroxide. The sludge generated
by this process is expected to be 75% less than that generated by the ferrous sulfate process, which is commonly used
in old metal processing/plating industries.
The fine filtration process involves polymer enhanced cross flow sand filtration. This sand filtration system,
Dynasand™ is a patented process. It has some unique features in sand filtration.
For an effluent of 10 ppb to 20 ppb at a flow rate of 65 to 70 gpm, a filter with a polyblend emulsion polymer feed
system is recommended for the polishing process. This proven process has been successfully used at plants in Texas
and California. An effluent chromium level of 10 ppb has been attained using just the sand filters.
The annual operating costs of this system are very low compared to the reverse osmosis or ion exchange systems
since the Dynasand™ system is continuously regenerated. The only operational costs involved in this process are for
the electric utility and the polymer. Labor costs are minimal in this operation.
31
-------
JET FUEL CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION USING HORIZONTAL AND
VERTICAL WELL EXTRACTION AND AIR STRIPPING TREATMENT
Mark S. Thacker
COM Federal Programs Corporation
800 Oak Ridge Turnpike
Suite 500
Oak Ridge, TN
USA 37380
Tel: (615) 482-1065
Fax:(615)481-3835
William B. Lopp
U.S. EPA
San Francisco, CA
Daniel Oakley
Sci Tek
Oak Ridge, TN
Jack Koelsch
Martin Marietta
Oak Ridge, TN
Bill Mabson
Dynamas
Randolph AFB, TX
Williams Air Force Base, AZ, is a Superf und NPL site. Ih a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) negotiated between
the Air Force, the Arizona Department of Water Resources, and EPA Region 9, remediation of a JP-4 jet fuel spill to
groundwater was included as part of the Superfund cleanup. The Air Force estimates that between 0.65 and 1.4 million
gallons of fuel leaked from underground piping and tanks and are floating on the water table below the Liquid Fuels
Storage Area (LFSA). The water table at the 4.4 acre site is 220 to 225 ft below land surface and a locally continuous
20 ft thick aquitard 245 ft below land surface has prevented contamination of the deeper regional aquifer.
As part of the remedial investigation, COM Federal Programs Corporation was tasked by the Air Force to conduct
a Pilot Study/Demonstration Study (PS/DS) at the site. This PS/DS is part of an Interagency Agreement between the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE) and is being administered by the Hazardous
Waste Remedial Actions program (HAZWRAP), a division of Martin Marietta Energy Systems. The PS/DS involves
the design, construction, and operation of the following systems:
Groundwater extraction systems (two horizontal wells, a 4 in. vertical well, and a 10 in. vertical well)
Monitoring system to assess the cones/troughs of depression caused by the extraction systems
Treatment system to remove dissolved contaminants from the extracted groundwater before disposal
and/or reinjection
Reinjection system to allow discharge of the treated water into the uppermost aquifer
Startup of the systems is expected in the fall of 1992. Once implemented, the PS/DS will be operated for
approximately 1 year. It will be used to compare and evaluate the ability of horizontal and small- and large-diameter
vertical wells to intercept and recover the dissolved contaminant plume in groundwater underlying the LFSA. Based
on the findings of the PS/DS, a system will be designed and constructed as needed to fully remediate groundwater
contamination at the LFSA.
32
-------
EVALUATION OF THERMAL EXTRACTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR TREATMENT OF
SOILS CONTAMINATED WITH COAL TARS AND WOOD PRESERVATIVES AT THE
PACIFIC PLACE SITE, VANCOUVER, BC
Sandra Whiting, Gregory Helland, and John Kinsella
SOS Engineers.
2950 Northup Way
Bellevue, WA
USA 98004
Tel: (206) 822-5800
Fax:(206)889-2267
The British Columbia Ministry of Environment, in cooperation with Environment Canada's Demonstration of Site
Remediation Technologies (DESRT) Program, recently completed an evaluation of hazardous waste treatment
technologies for the Pacific Place site in Vancouver, BC. The site is contaminated with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, chlorophenols, metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Treatability studies were performed to evaluate
the ability of various technologies to treat soils and achieve remediation criteria and environmental standards.
Of the processes evaluated, thermal extraction represented an innovative treatment alternative for soils
contaminated with organics. The X*TRAX™ system (Chemical Waste Management, Inc.) and the AOSTRA Taciuk
Processor (ATP) (UMATAC Industrial Processes, of Calgary, AB) were evaluated in treatability studies, using soils
from the Pacific Place site.
Both thermal extraction processes are essentially volume reduction techniques and operate on the principle that
organics can be removed from soils or sludges by heating the soils to sufficient temperatures to vaporize the organic
compounds, without actual incineration. The vaporized organics (and water vapor) are passed through a gas treatment
train and are condensed and collected. Water is then separated from the free oil product. The condensed water is
treated, if required, and the condensed oil is recycled as fuel or incinerated as hazardous waste. The two processes
differ in design and operating conditions however.
The X*TRAX process consists of an externally fired rotary dryer that operates at an average temperature of 454°
C and a gas treatment system; nitrogen is used as a carrier gas. The results from laboratory-scale testing indicated
that the reductions in organic compounds generally met the clean up goals for the study. Condensed water was not
significantly contaminated. No information was obtained from the study on the characteristics of emissions or
condensed oils, due the small (bench-scale) sample sizes.
The ATP consists of a rotary kiln divided into three zones: preheat, reaction, and combustion. Heating and
vaporization occur in the first two zones, which are operated under pyrolytic conditions. Solids then move into the
combustion zone, where oxygen is added to the system and coke is burned off the solids. The combustion zone gases
pass through an emissions treatment system. Operating temperatures within the system range between 260 and 815°
C. In bench- and pilot-scale testing, nearly 100% removal efficiency of organics was demonstrated and the reduction
in concentration met the treatment goals. Problems were experienced in meeting emissions criteria during the testing.
Also, condensed water was significantly contaminated, requiring treatment to meet effluent standards. Condensed oil
also contained contaminants of concern.
Unit costs fortreatment using thermal extraction, including mobilization, sampling and analysis, and treatment and
disposal of condensates and filtrates, were estimated to range from $300 to 1,200(CDN)/tonne or $259 to 1020 (U.S.).
33
-------
CF SYSTEMS SOLVENT EXTRACTION TECHNOLOGY FOR SITE REMEDIATION: POST-
SITE PROGRAM UPDATE
Chris Shallice
CF Systems
3D Gill Street
Woburn, MA
USA 01801 :
Tel: (617) 937-0800
Fax:(617)937-5610 :
The effectiveness of the CF Systems solvent extraction process was first demonstrated at pilot-scale through the
field operations of a Mobile Demonstration Unit (MDU). The MDU has operated at 12 locations since November 1987,
including several petrochemical facilities, two Superfund sites, and a centralized waste treatment (TSD) facility. One
of these pilot-scale field studies was performed under the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site and demonstrated that the process was successful in
removing PCBs from harbor sediment. ;
Since the SITE demonstration, CF Systems has developed the technology much further and now has been
selected on a sole-source basis in the Record of Decision for full-scale remediation of 80,000 yd3 of soil at the United
Creosoting Superfund site in Conroe, TX. The large body of data now available establishes solvent extraction as a
major treatment method for contaminated soils and sludges.
At commercial scale, CF Systems operated a 25 ton per day sludge treatment unit at the Texaco (Star Enterprise)
refinery, located in Port Arthur, TX. This installation successfully treated petroleum sludge wastes containing as much
as 25% solids and operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with an on-line availability exceeding 90%, from March
1991 to 1992. CF Systems has also made delivery on a second commercial scalewaste treatment unit, which has been
operating at a centralized waste treatment facility in Baltimore, MD, since November 1991.
At this time, CF Systems has completed a field demonstration of its new commercial scale design for remediation
projects. The pilot unit operated at the O'Connor Superfund site in Augusta, ME, this summer. Operation of the unit
demonstrated the capability to achieve treatment to less than 2 ppm consistently. The economics of the new designs
are significantly more favorable than the designs available during the initial SITE program.
COMMERCIALIZATION OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES: A TECHNOLOGY VENDOR'S
PERSPECTIVE
Frederic A. Eidsness, Jr., Michael J. Taylor, and Alistair H. Montgomery .
Canonie Environmental Services Corp. ;
6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 300
Englewood, CO
USA 80111
Tel: (303) 290-8336 ,
Fax:(303)290-8013
Introducing innovative technologies into the hazardous waste remediation marketplace is fraught with obstacles
and challenges. These obstacles and challenges include, among others, gaining acceptance by the public,
responsible parties, and regulatory agencies; risking the company's assets to meet clean-up goals and residual waste
stream performance standards on an unproven technology or an untested waste; and defending oneself once a project
commences and expectations are not met.
The biggest obstacle to successful commercialization of innovative on-site waste treatment or separation
technologies is the current regulatory system. This system has as its mindset the false assumption that complex sites
34
-------
with complex wastes can be adequately understood by studies that justify a selected design of a total site remediation
system. Corporate America is being asked to commit to implementation of "total solutions" with imperfect knowledge
unproven technology, and astronomical costs. These risks typically pass from the site owners to remediation
contractors and vendors in the form of contracts.
The approach taken to develop commercial-scale innovative technologies, the staying power of the vendor and
the ability to share risk with owners and the regulators are significant factors in overcoming obstacles. Borrowing
techno ogies from other industries and applying them to the hazardous waste remediation field for example (applying
the SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor or "Taciuk" Process developed to extract oil from tar sands and shales to
the Wide Beach and Waukegan Harbor Superfund sites) is a workable alternative in contrast to creating a new
technology. Also, developing technologies and innovative approaches that fit a particular unique set of site conditions
(such as accelerated vacuum extraction at the San Jose Superfund site) is an alternative approach to developing a
technology that is proficient at treating certain specific waste types at a variety of sites. Each alternative poses its own
unique set of risks and benefits.
In the final analysis, what the regulatory system will allow will dictate the extent to which innovative solutions and
technologies will be implemented.
This presentation reviewed some of the experiences of Canonie Environmental Services Corp. in successful
commercialization of two thermal desorption technologies (SoilTech ATP and the Low Temperature Thermal Aeration
Processor), the battery waste recycling technology at the NL Gould Superfund site, and other innovative approaches.
A modification in the decision process was recommended to allow selection of technologies that will be expected to
perform according to the level of decontamination desired in a phased approach to remediation referred to as
"Sequential Risk Mitigation". Also recommended was a flexible regulatory approach that will allow innovative and
standard technologies to operate uninterrupted on the basis of their demonstrated "best technical performance" but
in a manner that is both protective of the health of the public nearby and does not make the on-site condition worse.
BIOREMEDIATION OF CHROMIUM (VI) CONTAMINATED SOLID RESIDUES USING
SULFATE-REDUCING BACTERIA
Louis J. DeFilippi
Allied-Signal Research and Technology
50 E. Algonquin Rd.
Des Plaines, IL
USA 60017-5016
Tel: (708) 391-3251
Fax:(708)391-3776
Cr(VI)-containing residues are of concern when present in the environment. Chromate [hexavalent chromium,
Cr(VI)] is a strong oxidant and has toxic potential. Dissolved Cr(VI) has a propensity to pass through mammalian cell
membranes and, due to its water solubility, also has the potential forgroundwatermigration. Residues of the chromium
roasting process usually contain Cr(VI) in a highly alkaline environment arising from the presence of high levels of lime
(CaO). An extreme pH necessitates pH adjustment prior to microbiological treatment, but this often leads to saline
conditions that are not conducive to bacterial proliferation.
The naturally occurring reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(lll) by hydrogen sulfide produced by sulfate-reducing bacteria has
been noted. (References are available from the author.) However, until recently sulfate-reducing bacteria were
considered to be unsuitable for treating chromium-containing industrial waste waters because of the inherent toxicity
of chromium to microorganisms.
A bioremediation system based upon the generation of H2S by sulfate-reducing bacteria to effectively reduce
Cr(VI) present in saline aqueous fractions to the low toxicity, low solubility state Cr(lll) is described. This approach can
be extended to include bioremediation of solid residues in contact with a liquid aqueous fraction, especially when
salinity is high. Use of a sulfide intermediate to effect bioremediation is superior to direct bacterial reduction for a
number of reasons. In particular, H2S may "seek out" Cr(VI) by diffusing to microerivironments poorly accessible or
inhospitable to microorganisms or their nutrients.
35
-------
A similar approach was field-tested on an aquifer producing 2,000 gallons per week. As the pH of the groundwater
was in the neutral range, no pH adjustment of the groundwater was necessary. The heart of the bioremediation system
was a 1,000 gal fermenter. In it a molasses carbon source was fermented, and the bioremediation of Cr(VI) on site
was successful within certain limitations. The most critical factor in success is the geology of the site. Where
remediation was most complete, the conductivity properties of the soil or residue were consistent with the presence
of high conductivity and, therefore, preferential paths of flow. Where there was lack of maintenance of anaerobic
conditions of vadose zone areas due to rapid draining of fermented broth there was less than optimal reduction of
Cr(VI).
Cost estimates forthe main raw materials used forthe bioremediation of lime-laden sites are available. By titration
of existing surface residue, about 4.3 mEq/g are required to attain a pH of 8. For a site containing 1,000,000 tons of
residue this translates to 3.9 x 109 equivalents, and the same number of moles of the monoprotic acid HCI. This is
equivalent to 16,700 tons pure HCI or 46,400 tons of 22° B6 (12 M HCI) material. At $68/ton this is $3.2 x 108. Waste
acid is often available for a considerably lower price.
The concentration of Cr(VI) is typically 3.5 g/kg, wet weight. Again, for a site containing 1,000,000 tons of residue
this translates to 6.1 x 107mol of Cr(Vl). The stoichiometry of the reduction of Cr(VI) [as CrO4=] to Cr(lll) [as Cr(OH)J
is as follows:
2CrO4"
3H2S
2H20
—> 3S
2Cr(OH).
4OH-
thus requiring 9.2 X107 mol H,S. Since H2S is generated from SO4= on a one to one molar basis, an equivalent number
of moles SO4* is needed. At $90/ton this is $1.3 x 106 plus shipping. A portion of this cost is defrayed by the use of sulfate
naturally present in sea or estuarine water.
The cost of the carbon source is quite variable. Waste molasses is possibly obtainable at nearly shipping costs.
Items such as "sugar water" are available free in the Industrial Waste Exchange Program. When these are not
available, corn syrup, 43 B6, is available for $11.22/100 Ibs. Although one mole of glucose is required forthe production
of three moles sulfide, taking into account metabolic needs there is a requirement for 3.8 x 107 mol glucose. At $0.207
Ib this comes to $3 x 106. Capital costs as well as ongoing pumping and analytical needs would be an additional factor.
ADVANCED SOLID WASTE TREATMENT WITH NEW AND COMPLETE PYROLYSIS
TECHNOLOGY
Edward Someus
Product Control®, Ltd.
La Plaiderie
St. Peter Port
Guernsey, Channel Islands
United Kingdom
Tel: UK 0481 726426
Fax: UK 0481 726526
Product Control® Limited, a company specializing in waste material management technology, research, technical
development, and mechanical engineering design, presented a new type of closed rotary kiln system with permanent
feeding and indirect heating of basic material between 0 and 5 mm. Feed capacities of up to 3 tons per hour are
reductively treated at a maximum temperature of 1,000° C in a low vacuum. The system is automated by Honeywell
Product Control electronic process control instrumentation.
36
-------
Product Control technology comprises three main areas based on a similar pyrolysis-dry distillation principle.
s However, the various basic materials require different modular constructions and the quality of the end products
depends on the quality of the input material.
The Activated Pure Carbon system is for the one-phase treatment of pure organic basis materials such as
wood and straw waste, coconut and rice shells, peats, and nuts, and produces high quality activated
carbon.
The Pure Chemical system is for the treatment of solid hazardous waste polluted by heavy metals,
halogens, and other pollutants with unstable chemical structures such as: household wastes; plastics;
rubber; organic and oil sludge; impregnated and contaminated wood; high sulphur content lignite; con-
taminated packaging material from food, chemical, and agricultural industries; mercury- based lumines-
cent lights; etc.
The Pure Nuclear system is for the treatment of solid organic low-radioactive nuclear waste to obtain very
low volume products for final deposit and lowers the total cost of the treatment, especially gas treatment.
A pilot plant with a capacity of 100 kg/hour is being developed for this system.
The automatic input of the material is controlled by weight and moisture content instrumentation together with the
metal detection. The closed dryer is heated directly to lower the moisture content to under 15%. This dried material
is fed into the dry distillation reactor. The main chemical phase separation into solid and gas phases takes place
continuously inside the reactor.
The gas phase is combusted separately in a special combustion chamber. The solid contaminated soil phase is
recovered or the pure carbon is further treated in a gas activation reactor at a maximum temperature of 1,000° C. The
flue gases are purified by a scrubber and the available overflow energy is recovered in a boiler as a secondary end
product. Meanwhile, the primary end product, the Activated Pure Carbon, is selected and discharged.
The Activated Pure Carbon and the Pure Chemical systems are expected to have a basic industrial capacity of
2 tons per hour input with continuous feeding for 7,200 hours/year. The required electric power is 220 kW/hour for a
complete system. The area required to house a complete main process program is approximately 600 sq m, all on one
level.
B.E.S.T. SOLVENT EXTRACTION TREATMENT OF PCB, PAH, AND PESTICIDE
CONTAMINATED SLUDGES, SEDIMENTS, AND SOIL
Lanny D. Weimer
Resources Conservation Company
3630 Cornus Lane
Ellicott City, MD
USA 21043
Tel: (301) 596-6066
Fax:(301)465-2887
This presentation described the current status of Resources Conservation Company's (RCC) B.E.S.T. solvent
extraction process, presenting the latest bench- and pilot-scale treatability test data that demonstrate the removal
efficiency of the process for a wide range of contaminants including PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides.
Development of the B.E.S.T. process for treating hazardous oily wastes began in 1984 following the reauthori-
zation of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Laboratory work by RCC demonstrated that the
process can separate RCRA-listed petroleum refining oily sludges into three fractions: oil-free water, oil suitable for
recycling, and dry oil-free solids.
37
-------
A sepond generation pilot plant was designed, constructed, and operated to demonstrate the feasibility of the
process for treating oily sludges. Based on data from the operation of this second generation pilot unit, RCC
constructed a commercial scale B.E.S.T. unit designed to treat petroleum refining sludges (pumpable sludges). In
1987, this transportable B.E.S.T. unit completed the cleanup of 3,700 yd3 of acidic, oily, PCB-contaminated sludges
at the General Refining Superiund site near Savannah, GA.
Recently, RCC constructed a third generation pilot unit to develop data for a B.E.S.T. process to treat non-
pumpable wastes, such as soils and sediments. This unit successfully completed on-site pilot-scale testing of PAH-
and PCB-contaminated sediments from the Grand Calumet River in Gary, IN. This project was conducted in
cooperation with the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. The pilot unit has
successfully demonstrated the B.E.S.T. for treating soils, sludges, and sediments contaminated with PCBs and
solvents at the Alcoa Facility in Massena, NY. Pilot scale testing was completed with PAH contaminated soils from
wood treating sites at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. This project is part of the
EPA's soil and debris BOAT development program.
COLLOID FILTER REMOVAL OF HEAVY METALS AND RADIONUCLIDE POLLUTANTS
FROM GROUNDWATER AND WASTEWATER
Tod S. Johnson Robert 0. Hoffland
Filter Row Technology, Inc. ACS Environmental
3027 Marina Bay Drive, Suite 110 Conroe.TX
League City, TX
USA 77573
Tel: (713) 334-6080
Fax:(713)334-5993
Removal of industrial and environmental heavy metal and radionuclide pollutants from groundwater and
wastewaterto meet the increasingly stricter MCL compliance and remediation standards requires efficient removal
of macro- and micro-particles and soluble forms. A new type of polishing filter, the Colloid Filter, was developed by
Filter Flow Technology, Inc., to remove metals and radioactive ions, colloids, colloidal aggregates, and chelated forms
to ultrapure concentrations. The pollutants are removed from water by highly efficient surface sorption and chemical
complexing phenomena using an inorganic, insoluble filter bed that mimics a thick filter. The porosity, pollutant
oxidation-reduction state, pH, and bed transit times are important factors.
Both in-line and mobile equipment configurations have been engineered, fabricated, and tested. The methodology
has proved efficient for removing a wide range of heavy metal species from a variety of industrial wastewaters and
groundwater. Laboratory and field test data have demonstrated utility of the equipment and method for removal of
uranium, plutonium, and americium nuclear-weapons-derived radionuclide pollutants, in addition to naturally occur-
ring radioactive material (NORM) pollutants such as natural uranium, thorium, and radium.
The methodology is being used as a polishing filter for heavy metals in industrial wastewater streams and for
environmental cleanup and remediation of metals and radionuclide contaminated water. The results of Colloid Filter
bench-scale tests, field demonstrations, and commercial applications were presented.
38
-------
CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATMENT BY RESIN-IN-PULP/CARBON-IN-PULP
TECHNOLOGY
D. Naden and G. Wightman
Davy Research and Development Limited
Stockton-on-Tees, England
J. R. Donnelly
Davy Environmental
2440 Camino Ramon, Suite 100
San Ramon, CA
";.. USA 94583
i Tel: (510)866-6363
t Fax:(510)866-6520
Resin-in-pulp and carbon-in-pulp (RIP/CIP) processes have been successfully developed and commercialized for
the recovery of metals in the nonferrous minerals processing industries. RIP is used to recover uranium leached from
ore. CIP, using activated carbon, is used to recover gold and silver leached as cyanide complexes. Davy Research
and Development is developing RIP/CIP processes for treating soils, sediments, dredgings, and solid residues
contaminated with organic and inorganic constituents. The RIP and CIP technologies are based on resin ion exchange
and resin or carbon adsorption of contaminants from a leached soil slurry mixture.
The RIP/CIP process is similar to soil washing or solvent extraction. The feed material is sized (and/or crushed)
prior to entering an agitated tank, where a leach reagent is added to extract the contaminants. The leached solids are
then passed through cyclones to separate coarse and fine material. The coarse material is washed and sent to
disposal. The fine fraction and the wash solution pass to the RIP/CIP contactor, where the contaminants are adsorbed
on ion exchange resins or activated carbon. The resin or carbon pulp is separated from the fine fraction and sent to
a second contactor for elution of the contaminants. The regenerated resin or carbon is then reused, and the
concentrated contaminants are further treated or recovered. The cleaned fines fraction is dewatered and disposed of
or recycled.
Davy is employing bench-scale proprietary RIP/CIP technology to develop design criteria for a 2-ton per day
demonstration plant capable of treating a wide range of contaminated solids, sediments, and sludges. The test work
performed to date has resulted in the successful development of process schemes to meet targets for the removal of
a number of heavy metal contaminants. The program is continuing with the development of process knowledge for
treating soils containing both metals and organic materials.
DECONTAMINATION OF POLLUTED SOIL AND WASTE WATER BY OZONE
TREATMENT
R. Voigtlander
TELAB
Techniklabor GmbH
Ostrasse7
4417Attenberge
Germany
Tel: (0 25 02) 87 03
Fax: (0 25 05) 34 09
Industrial development greatly influences natural resources, including soil and water. Pollution of soil and water
is widespread and in many cases constitutes a serious hazard to man and nature in general. Consequently the need
for decontamination techniques has led to various methods for cleaning soil and water, such as removal of PAHs and
other hydrocarbons by the incineration of the soil or the washing of the soil with adequate solvents to obtain
decontamination.
A new method for cleaning soil is ozone treatment, particulary if PAHs and other hydrocarbons are the
contaminants of concern. This patented technique is usable on site as well as in a stack or reactor. A demonstration
39
-------
project at a former gas filling station area has been completed successfully in Germany. High concentrations of diesel
fuel were reduced. The cleaning process was carried out on site with the device stationed on a parking lot.
"-t
Cleaning of water using ozone has a long tradition. Drinking water and water for swimming pools is often treated
with ozone as a germicid. Even the oxidation of organic substances in water can be performed using ozone. Carbon
dioxide is the main product. In this way polluted water can be decontaminated, especially if biological cleaning is not
easily performed. In one case of water polluted with pesticides, ozone treatment proved the least expensive method.
It is also very effective for PAHs in water and can be used for cleaning industrial waste water.
The ozone treatment can be tested for its usefulness for a particular kind of pollutant in soil or water by special
TELABGmbH laboratory experiments.
DEMONSTRATION OF MOBILE MASS SPECTROMETRY THROUGH THE EPA SITE
PROGRAM
PaulJ. Kowalski
Bruker Instruments, Inc.
Mass Spectrometry Division
Fortune Drive
Manning Park
Billerica,MA
USA 01821 '
Tel: (508) 667-9580
Fax:(508)663-9177
The purpose of the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program is to accelerate the
development, demonstration, and use of alternative or innovative treatment and monitoring technologies at Superfund
sites. Bruker's Mobile Environmental Mass Spectrometer (MEM) is a rugged, field-deployable electron impact
ionlzation quadrupole mass spectrometer that is resistant to outdoor environmental changes. The MEM not only has
the performance characteristics similar to laboratory-based GC/MS systems, but more importantly, offers unique
sample inlet devices and rapid analytical routines which are desirable for field analysis.
During September and October 1990, the performance of the MEM was evaluated for its potential to supplement
oraugment laboratory- based GC/MS analyses by yielding rapid, accurate, and cost- effective analyses at Superfund
sites. The demonstration involved the analysis of actual samples taken from two Superfund sites in Massachusetts.
Soil samples were analyzed for PCB and PAH contamination, and water samples were analyzed for VOC
contamination. Newly developed field analytical methods specific for mobile GC/MS were used for the analyses. The
data produced by the MEM were evaluated in terms of data quality and compared to standard EPA laboratory-based
analyses.The samples were split between the MEM and a confirmation laboratory participating in the Contract
Laboratory Program.
Additional evaluation criteria included the ability of the MEM to perform under ambient environmental conditions,
instrument reliability and performance factors, ease of use, and operating costs. Data Quality Objectives included five
indicators of data quality: precision, bias (accuracy), completeness, representativeness, and comparability. In addition
to real-world sample analyses, a study consisting of the analysis of Standard Reference Material (SRM) and
Performance Evaluation Material (PEM) samples was performed to establish data quality indicators of accuracy and
net bias.
Comparison of the MEM data to the confirmation laboratory data generally indicated acceptable agreement and
similar data quality. These comparisons indicate that the MEM achieved approximately equivalent precision to that
obtained by the confirmation methods. With some exceptions, most notably acenaphthylene, accuracy as determined
by SRMs were approximately equivalent between the MEM and the confirmation laboratory for PCB and PAH
analyses. In the case of VOCs, comparison to theoretical concentrations of spiked samples indicated the accuracy
40
-------
of the MEM is equivalent to or betterthan the confirmation laboratory method at higher concentrations. The advantages
of mobile mass spectrometry include offering unambiguous bn-site identification of contamination immediately, with
high sample throughput and a low cost per sample ratio compared to laboratory-based mass spectrometry analyses.
DESIGN AND PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A FULL-SCALE DEBRIS
WASHING SYSTEM
Naomi P. Barkley
U.S. EPA, RREL
Cincinnati, OH
Majid A. Dosani, Michael L. Taylor, Avinash N. Patkar,
and John A. Wentz
IT Corporation
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH
USA 45246-4012
Tel: (513) 782-4700
Fax:(513)782-4807
Under the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, the EPA's Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory has funded IT to develop a transportable debris decontamination process. Various bench- and
pilot-scale processes were designed, constructed, and successfully tested in the laboratory and at actual Superfund
sites. Based on the favorable results achieved, EPA provided funding for the design, construction, and testing of a full-
scale, transportable, debris washing system (DWS).
The full-scale design of a DWS is based on the following goals:
The process should efficiently decontaminate debris using only aqueous solutions of biodegradable
surfactants
The overall daily throughput of debris is to be at least 10 tons
The process water must be recycled to minimize generation of wastewater
The system should be mounted on two flat-bed trailers
The system must be rugged enough to be transported from site to site with minimal time and'costs for
mobilization/ demobilization
The system must include features that ensure the safety of workers operating the system and the contain-
ment of emissions potentially harmful to the environment.
This poster presentation described the preliminary results of initial shake down and performance of the full-scale
DWS.
41
-------
DESRT (DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION OF SITE REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGY) PROGRAM: CANADA i
G. Hardy
Technology Development Branch
Block 100, Asticou Centre
241 CM de Jeunes Blvd.
Hull.PQ
Canada KIA OH3
Tel: (819) 953-0962
Fax:(819)935-4705
DESRT (Development and Demonstration of Site Remediation Technology) is a component of the Canadian
National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program (NCSRP). Established in 1989, the NCSRP provides a consistent
national approach for the classification and cleanup of contaminated sites in Canada. The program is supported and
administered by the joint federal-provincial-territorial Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
The principal objective of DESRT is to accelerate the development of new and innovative technologies having the
potential to resolve problems which are critical to the environmental remediation of contaminated sites. The program's
focus is primarily on technologies, processes, methods, and procedures that offer benefits in the areas of
characterization, assessment, remediation, and compliance monitoring of contaminated sites. Priority is given to
projects that require on-site field evaluation and demonstration, although research and development projects can also
be considered under DESRT. .
The DESRT program supports ashare of the total estimated costs of approved projects, by bringing an incremental
value to a project that might otherwise not be able to proceed. To date, projects approved under DESRT include;
Soil treatability studies involving innovative technologies for stabilization, bioremediation, and thermal
extraction of a site contaminated with PAHs, metals, and PCP (British Columbia)
Pilot-scale demonstration of gravel washing technology for creosote contamination within the gravel
overlying bedrock (Alberta)
In situ enhanced biodegradation of PCP contamination in fractured till and leachate capture in the under-
lying bedrock aquifer (Alberta)
Field demonstration in situ/on-site bioremediation of soils contaminated with chlorinated phenols and
PAHs (Ontario)
Soil washing/solvent extraction and bioslurry reactor treatment of PCB and heavy metal contamination
(New Brunswick)
DESRT is also supporting an innovative technology developed by the Canadian firm ELI EcoLogic International
forthe reduction of PCB contamination. This project is also being supported underthe U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. The EcoLogic project represents a unique partnership between the Canadian
and U. S. governments and the private sectorto share the risks and costs associated with demonstrating an innovative
technology that may offer a real solution to some of the current hazardous organic waste problems worldwide.
In general, DESRT represents an unprecedented opportunity forthe Canadian environmental industry to take the
initiative in developing world-class remediation technologies and to transfer information on these new technologies
to all interested parties throughout Canada and abroad.
42
-------
DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED SOIL BY THE TEXACO GASIFICATION PROCESS: A
DEMONSTRATION
Richard B. Zang
Texaco, Inc.
2000 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY
USA 10650
Tel: (914) 253-4047
Jamie E. Miranda and John S. Stevenson
Texaco, Inc.
Montebello, CA
The Texaco Gasification Process (TGP) is a partial oxidation process that originated in the 1940s as a method
of converting natural gas to syngas, a mixture primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. There have been over 100
commercial plants licensed to use the TGP, with a variety of feeds such as light and heavy oils, coal, and coke. Because
of the environmentally acceptable nature of the TGP effluents regardless of the feed, applications in waste gasification
are attractive, particularly for organic wastes. Several TG P plants gasify wastes such as "off-spec" oxochemicals and
waste oil. The disposal of California-regulated petroleum production tank bottoms, oil/water separator sludge, and
several municipal sewage sludges have been successfully demonstrated.
The subject experiment was conceived to demonstrate the gasification of contaminated soils. A surrogate soil was
made by dosing topsoil with heavy vacuum gas oil from a refinery. The contaminated soil was added to coal and slurried
to 65% solids in water. This feedstock was successfully converted into useful syngas and an inert slag.
In the gasifier, the feed and an oxidant auto-ignite at evaluated temperatures. The oxidant may be oxygen, air,
or enriched air, depending on the feed. The feed rates are carefully controlled to provide a fuel-rich atmosphere —
the process is classified as partial oxidation. For example, most of the carbon is oxidized to carbon monoxide rather
than to carbon dioxide. Sulfur species are present in reduced form, mainly as hydrogen sulfide, and can be removed
from the syngas, usually by absorption, and converted to high-purity sulfur.
The reactions occur rapidly and carbon conversion usually exceeds 98%. The production of syngas is highly
exothermic — the temperature of the gasifier is maintained without external heating. The process temperatures are
normally in excess of 2,200° F, above the melting point of ash in the feed. The molten ash, or slag, flows off the gasifier
wall and is cooled by dripping into quench water causing the slag to solidify into an inert glass-like material. The slag
is non-toxic by Federal and California standards for teachable metals, and can be used for roadfill, paving, or other
building materials. The slag is also suitable for use as a growth medium in hydroponic gardening.
ENHANCED OXIDATION AND REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE
PHOTODEGRADATION OF ORGANIC POLLUTANTS IN WASTE STREAMS
Ali Safarzadeh-Amiri, James R. Bolton, J. Adele Buckley, and Stephen R. Cater
Solarchem Environmental Systems
40 West Wilrhot Street, Unit 5
Richmond Hill, ON
Canada, L4B 1H8
Tel: (416) 764-9666
Fax:(416)764-9669
The use of highly efficient UV lamps, an effective lamp cleaning apparatus, and fail-safe on-line control, e.g., for
the addition of chemical additives, are the characteristics of Solarchem's RAYOX® process, which involves the
photolysis of H2O2 and other additives to achieve virtual destruction of organic pollutants in waste streams: Industrial-
scale treatment includes chemical process effluent and contaminated ground water.
Photochemical degradation processes, called Enhanced Oxidation Processes (EOP), have almost exclusively
been based on oxidative reactions initiated by very reactive radicals, such as hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are usually
43
-------
generated by the photolysis of hydrogen peroxide or ozone. The »OH radicals attack organic pollutants and initiate a
cascade of oxidative reactions leading to mineralization of the organic pollutants. EOPs have had good success in the
treatment of waters containing pollutants, such as aromatic and olefinic compounds, resulting in over 30 full-scale
industrial installations. However, there are a number of more refractory substances (e.g., haloalkanes and certain
aliphatic ketones) that degrade slowly underthese oxidative conditions. Solarchem has developed a new photochemi-
cal process (RAYOX®-R), based on the use of reducing agents, that destroys and effectively detoxifies waste streams
containing haloalkane pollutants. The effectiveness of this process for polluted ground waters as well as synthetic
mixtures has been demonstrated.
In simulated experiments with tap water spiked with 20 ppm of chloroform, rate improvements of over a factor of
4 have been demonstrated with RAYOX-R treatment against a control experiment with RAYOX (UW H2O2). With a
contaminated ground water containing 40 ppm chloroform and 40 ppm TCE, a rate improvement of over a factor of
4 was again obtained.
For waters that contain a mixture of easily oxidized pollutants (aromatics, olefins, etc.) and more refractory
haloalkanes, a combination of oxidation and reduction offers the most economical treatment approach. In simulated
experiments with tap water spiked with 20 ppm benzene and 50 ppm TCA, the mixture was first treated with UV/H2O2,
during which the benzene was removed rapidly but the TCA was removed only to a small degree. Then the process
was switched to RAYOX-R, during which the TCA was removed almost as rapidly as the benzene in the first phase.
Demonstration has shown the reverse sequence can also be used, Solarchem's preferred configuration.
FULL-SCALE COMPOSTING OF COKE TAR CONTAMINATED SOIL IN A MINE
James D. Berg
Aquateam - Norwegian Water Technology Centre A/S
PO Box 6326 Etterstad
0604 Oslo
Norway
Tel: (47 2) 67 9310
Fax:(472)672012
Hugo Selfors and Trine Eggen
Terrateam - Norwegian Environmental
Technology Centre
Mo i Rana, Norway
Pilot bioremediation studies were conducted in northern Norway at an abandoned coke works site in 1990. The
results, reported at this forum in 1991, were very positive. In summary, it was determined that the predominant organic
contaminants, PAHs, could be treated in 6 to 8 weeks at relatively low temperatures. Composting was chosen because
it is a relatively simple technology for this remote location.
Thefull-scale contract, and concession by the Norwegian E.P.A. (SFT), were awarded to a local contractor, Oijord
and Aanes A/S, late this summer. The composting technology developed in the pilot study will be used. The
remediation work was scheduled to begin in autumn 1992. Three contaminated materials will be treated initially:
20,000 tonnes of soil (approx. 500 mg/kg PAH) from the site
Approximately 3,000 m3 of tar-saturated soil from a landfill on the site
The non-recyclable sludge remaining from processing 180 tonnes of tar, estimated to be approximately
30 tonnes
Owing to the cold climate, an abandoned mine near the site will be used to house the treatment facility. The
contaminated solids will be treated in 2,700-tonne batches. Locally available pine bark will be mixed in a 1:1 (V/V) ratio
with the crushed and sieved soil. Nitrogen and phosphorous will be added in liquid form. Addition of a dispersant is
also being considered. The material will be placed in rows, ca. 1.5 m high x 2 m wide on concrete pads. The pads have
electrical warming cables as an optional heat source.
The piles will be watered with recirculated leachate, as needed. Heated, forced aeration will also be available. The
tar-saturated soil and sludge will be lime-dispersed, pH adjusted, and mixed with bark and soil for composting. The
44
-------
treatmenttime forthe low-PAH level soil is planned for8 weeks; the lime-treated high PAH level solids will require more
time, and will first be evaluated on pilot-scale. The duration of the entire remediation job is scheduled for 2 5 years
* Stabilization of arsenic and copper-containing soils, approximately 20,000 tonnes, will take place simultaneously.
_;.- The treatment requirement is 16 mg/kg total PAH. The final deposition plans for the treated soil are still under
discussion. However, alternatives include use as cover material at the local landfill, or for landscaping soil alonq non-
residential area highways, ray
Treatment costs are priced at NOK 1,000/tonne ($160/tonne). The cost estimate from the pilot study had been
$200/tonne. (Lower labor and material costs will likely prevail outside of Scandinavia.) Costs include pile-to-pile
material handling, materials, operations, and analytical control.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TO IMPROVE IN SITU REMEDIATION
Larry Murdoch, Mark Kemper, and Allen Wolf
U.S. EPA/UC Center Hill Research Facility
5995 Center Hill Rd.
Cincinnati, OH
USA 45224
Tel: (513) 569-7897
Naomi Barkley
U.S. EPA, RREL
Cincinnati, OH
A method of creating hydraulic fractures in soil has been developed and tested at seven sites underlain by silty
clay glacial drift. In most cases the fractures are gently dipping fractures that grow away from the borehole and climb
toward the ground surface. Fractures that measure 20 to 35 ft in maximum dimension have been created at depths
of 5 to 15 ft. They are filled with between 5 and 12 ft3 of well-sorted, coarse-grained sand, which provides an average
thickness of 0.2 to 0.4 in. Hydraulic fractures can be created one on top of another, stacked at vertical spacings of 0.5
Field tests have been conducted using hydraulic fractures to increase the rate of bioremediation and vapor
extraction. During several tests in uncontaminated ground at the Center Hill Research Facility, hydraulic fractures have
been shown to increase yield and the area affected by a well during vapor extraction markedly. Pressure heads of 1
(in. of water) were observed in monitoring points 20 to 30 ft. from wells intersecting hydraulic fractures, whereas similar
pressure head was observed 2 to 3 ft from a conventional vapor extraction control well. Flow rate from the fractured
well fluctuated with rainfall but averaged approximately an order of magnitude greater than the unfractured well.
Preliminary data from another site where VOCs are being removed from glacial drift indicate relative areas of
influence and vapor recovery rates that are similar to those cited previously. Contaminant mass removal rate from
fractured wells is more than an order of magnitude greater than from an unfractured control.
IN SITU APPLICATION OF THE ENVIROMETAL PROCESS: METAL-ENHANCED ABIOTIC
DEGRADATION OF CHLORINATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
David W. Major
Beak Consultants Limited
Guelph, ON
John C. Quayle
EnviroMetal Technologies, Inc.
42 Arrow Road
Guelph, ON
Canada N1K1S6
Tel: (519) 824-0432
Fax:(519)763-2378
_ Laboratory tests conducted at the Waterloo Centre for Groundwater Research indicate that various metallic
formulations can reproducibly decrease the observed concentrations of halogenated methanes, ethanes and ethenes
The metallic formulation induces conditions that cause the substitution of halogen atoms by hydrogen atoms
45
-------
Features of application configurations include an in.situ enyirometal permeable treatment wall, which consists pf
a coarse-grained metallic formulation installed in an excavated trench across the flow path of a plume of VOC-bearing
groundwater. Specifically-designed above-ground envirometal treatment canisters will replace air strippers, activated
carbon canisters, and photo or thermal oxidation units in existing groundwater treatment systems.
The Implementation procedure for the process consists of five phases.
Phase 1 - Preliminary Assessment. The site is screened relative to the current knowledge level of the
technology.
Phase 2 - Bench-Scale Feasibility Evaluation. Tests using representative ground water taken from the site
are used to define and verify the rates of reaction, geochemical limitations, flow performance parameters,
and degradation products.
Phase 3 - Pilot-Scale Simulation. The pilot-scale field test will provide the data required for full-scale
implementation of the process. Verification of the design parameters requires the monitoring of the
changes in the geochemical conditions. Of specific concern are those conditions that can affect the long
term performance of the system, such as biofouling or precipitation reactions.
Phase 4 - Full-Scale Implementation. The results from Phase 3 are used to engineer the system. The final
design is based upon the flow, transport, geophysical, and geochemical conditions.
Phase 5 - Long Term Performance Monitoring. Status reports will include standards, testing frequency,
and performance results.
Compounds treated to date include: methanes—CT, TCM, TBM; ethanes—HCE, TECA, TCA; ethenes—PCE,
TCE, DCE, VC; and others — trichloropropane, Freon 113, NDMA. The process has a number of advantages and
innovative features:
Complete degradation of a wide range of halogenated VOCs
High rates of degradation for many compounds. The half lives range from a few minutes for CT and HCE,
to a few hours for TCA, PCE, and TCE, to tens of hours for DCE and VC.
Low cost and long operational life of reactive material
No contaminated residue, sludge, or other materials requiring disposal are produced
No persistent hazardous breakdown products are produced
Treatment process requires no external energy source
The process will effectively combine with other remedial technologies to achieve both source control and
active treatment.
It is a destructive treatment technology and therefore does not simply transfer chemicals from one me-
dium to another as is the case with air stripping, activated carbon, and advanced photo or thermal oxida-
tion systems.
46
-------
/BorMx FOR TREATMENT OF AQUIFERS CONTAMINATED
(CHOW ) :
John L. Fahy
Western Research Institute
POBox3395
University Station
Laramie, WY
USA 82071-3395
Tel: (307) 721-2011
Fax:(307)721-2345
Western Research Institute (WRI) has been developing technologies for recovery of hydrocarbons from
underground formations or the past 50 years. In the 1980s,WRI beganI to adapt technologies for energy production
to remediate industrial sites contaminated with dense, nonaqueous-phase liquids (NAPLs). One such process the
w°£^^^^^^
wastes in subsurface soils and underlying rock. In this process, the contaminated area is hydraulically isolated so that
rf^HK 1 n?,?!?re? Int? ""contaminated areas. The downward penetration of dense organic liquids is
reversed by controlled heating of the subsurface to float the oily wastes in water. The buoyant wastes are displaced
to production wells by sweeping the subsurface with hot water, reducing waste concentrations to residual saturation.
in a 5 nate' ?e eff¥MXe'??ss'°!™s technology has been demonstrated in one-dimensional laboratory flow tests and
in a 30-day, two-well pilot test. The pilot test consisted of injecting hot, potable water into the NAPL-saturated area
sewera(SscharPe0 9rour>dwaterand NAPLs from a production well, and treating the produced water for sanitary
Based on the results from the laboratory flow tests and the pilot test, the following conclusions and observations
C3PI DG 171306* , - ,
The use of the CROW process can achieve over.60 wt % removal of coal tars and over 80 wt % removal
of creosote-wood treatment waste from contaminated soils.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) concentrations in a soil contaminated with a wood-treatment waste can be
reduced by over 99%.
During the pilot test the entire thickness of the aquifer reached the target temperature range; containment
of the injected hot water was achieved.
Pretest injection and production rate predictions were achieved.
The microbial assay of the post-test samples found an encouraging increase in microbial population
compared to data collected before the pilot test.
Removal efficiency of coal tars can be increased to over 80 wt % by adding chemicals to the injected
water.
47
-------
LASER-INDUCED PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDATION OF TOXIC ORGANICS IN WASTE
WATERS
James H. Porter and William M. Jackson
Energy and Environmental Engineering
PO Box 215
E. Cambridge, MA
USA 02141
Research conducted over the past 9 years has led to the development of an ultraviolet (UV) light stimulated
process which causes the complete oxidation of dissolved, unsaturated organics in water when hydrogen peroxide
is added to the waste water as an oxidant. Unlike existing UV processes using hydrogen peroxide and/or ozone as
the oxidant, this reaction proceeds in the absence of light as a chain reaction once the process has been initiated by
a UV light source.
Initial organic concentrations can be as high as the saturation limit of the organic in water and oxidation is always
complete, leading to the formation of carbon dioxide and water, and in the case of halogenated organics, the
corresponding halogen acid.
The initial reactions were initiated with an excimer laser emitting in the UV range. Current efforts are focused on
using less expensive, higher efficiency UV sources to initiate these reactions.
LEAD AND COPPER FIXATION IN SOIL: A SITE EXPERIENCE
Phillip N. Baldwin, Jr. and Lisa B. Kistler
Chemfix Environmental Services
3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 2500
Metairie, LA
USA 70002-1767
Tel: (805) 654-1900
Fax:(805)654-1802
In 1988 when CTI and the EPA agreed to a joint participation in the 1989 U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, CTI was looking for a site that could accomodate demonstration of some of
the newest expressions of stabilization technology. The plan was to tackle a very high level of a heavy metal in a high
solids matrix. It should be noted that since 1988, the CHEMSET® concept has moved forward substantially and
although the chemistries used at Clackamas, OR, in March 1989 were successful overall, they would not be repeated
today on similar wastes without current refinements. Regardless of the more advanced stage of the technology today
the results of the CTI/EPA1989 SITE Program stand on their own as impressive indication that the family of CHEM Fix
process technologies are viable for application to very high concentrations of heavy metal in a high solids waste matrix.
The high solids processing equipment taken to the Clackamas site demonstrated an ability not only to successfully
treat high solids, but also the capacity to treat an average of 400 tons of contaminated soil per one shift day. Peak
production rates exceeded 600 tons per day during a late 1989 commercial job. During the actual SITE program, four
Individual areas, designated A, C, E, and F by the EPA, were to be treated. Treatment of only a total of 40 yd3 was
requested by the EPA, a low volume which posed an unexpected control problem.
The pre-production laboratory treatability data for the key analytes are available from the author. These data
indicate that a very high metal content in a high solids waste, both total and mobile, can be handled by the CHEMSET/
CHEMFIX technology. Despite a computer control malfunction that did not allow pre-production figures to be
reproduced, the mean TCLP treated waste values for Area E still represented a 94% reduction in lead mobility and
a 99% reduction for copper. The results from Area C represented a 99% TCLP mobility reduction for lead and 95%
48
-------
for copper. Less- contaminated areas A and F reached well over 99% in mobility reduction for both metals. These are
remarkable results in light of the extremely high total and leachable metals levels within the waste soil matrix.
«, PT!'S Chall®n9,es .and solutions at the Clackamas site re-emphasized the fact that the chemistries designed into
the fixation technologies are not random but waste-specific. A particular chemistry design can address a wide variety
of cations, anions, mixtures of each, and more recently, non-ionic organic compounds, but the chemistries must be
monitored and mixed properly to achieve the consistent and dramatic TCLP mobility reductions that are possible
There is a great deal yet to learn, but the CHEMSET/CHEMFIX processes are an excellent format for unlocking waste
stabilization problems. CTI also continues to work on improved chemical delivery and mixing systems
MEMBRANE VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEMS FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
R.W. Baker, J. Kaschemekat, V.L Simmons, and J.G. Wijmans
Membrane Technology and Research, Inc.
1360 Willow Road
MenloPark, CA
USA 94025
Membrane Technology and Research, Inc., (MTR) has developed organic-selective composite membranes that
have been successfully demonstrated for the separation and recovery of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided significant funding for the research and development work through
Phase I andIII SBIR contract in 1988 to 1992. The initial projects involved the construction of MTR's first vapor
separation pilot unit and its demonstration on an industrial stream. Since then, MTR has optimized the vapor separation
process, developed specific applications for the technology, and established the engineering capabilities to supply
membrane systems. Ten VaporSep units have been sold commercially; the units operate on a variety of industrial
process streams.
The vapor separation process developed at MTR typically consists of two steps: compression-condensation and
membrane vapor separation. The compression-condensation step is conventional. The membrane step is new and
is based on high performance composite membranes that are 10 to 100 times more permeable to organic compounds
than to air. The membrane separation step enhances the recovery possible with compression and condensation alone
allowing the process to operate at much higher recovery rates, or allowing the temperature and pressure conditions
to be re axed. This technology is emerging as the best available method for VOC recovery in several applications such
as v'ny" c,™oride recovery from polyvinyl chloride manufacture, recovery of refrigerants, and recovery of ethylene
oxide/CFC-112 stenlant gas. By using specific examples of installed systems, the advantages of the membrane process
were highlighted.
MONITORING OF HYDROGEN IN THE DEFENSE WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY BY
GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
John R. Zamecnik
Building 704-1T
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Aiken, SC
USA 29802
The Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) will be the first facility in the
U.S. to process high- level radioactive waste (HLW) into glass for storage in an off-site geologic repository During the
chemical processing of the waste prior to vitrification, hydrogen is generated. In order to maintain safe operation the
hydrogen concentration in the off-gas from the process is monitored by high-speed chromatography The hydro'qen
concentration and a calculated benzene evolution rate are then used to calculate the % Lower Flammable Limit (LFU
The process must be controlled to less than 25% of the LFL during pre-radioactive testing and to less than 60% of the
49
-------
LFL during radioactive operations.
Two gas chromatographs (MicrosensorTechnology, Inc., M200D) are used in each of two systems. Each pair can
measure O2, N5, NO, CO., benzene, and N2O in addition to hydrogen, with redundant measurement of H2,O, N2, and
NO. Knowledge of O,, N,, NO, CO,, benzene, and NO aid in monitoring process performance. The gas chromato-
graphs (GC) are interfaced to the facility's distributed control system (DCS) via 4-20ma analog signals provided by
a KeHhley Metrabyte D/A board in the GC control computer. The concentrations of any four components can be output
to the DCS from each GC.
This information was developed during the course of work under Contract No. DE-AC09-89SR18035 with the U.S.
Department of Energy.
NOVEL AND COST-EFFECTIVE TREATMENT OF AIR OR WATER CONTAMINATED WITH
HAZARDOUS ORGANICS USING TIO2 PHOTOCATALYTIC TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Brian Butters and Hussain AI-Ekabi
Nutech Environmental
London, ON
Canada N5W4C3
Tel: (519) 457-2963
The versatility of Nutech TiO2 photocatalytic systems for removal or organic pollutants in water or air streams at
ambient temperature were presented.The following areas were addressed:
Special emphasis focused on successful commercialization and application of the technology. Process improve-
ments include increased throughput, ability to operate over a range of temperatures and pressures, elimination of by-
products, extended service life, and flexible installation of incremental capacity.
This technology has been successfully demonstrated in four challenging applications:
TOC removal in plant effluents to meet discharge requirements ,
BTEX removal from groundwater for a drinking water supply
Manufacture of ultrapure water for the semiconductor industry
Purification of organically contaminated air
Each application was discussed. System schematics helped demonstrate how challenges such as alkalinity,
process fluid temperature, capacity, suspended solids, and particulates were overcome. Levels of treatment,
capacities, and direct costs were also presented.
50
-------
ON-SITE UV OXIDATION OF SATURATED AND UNSATURATED VOCS
Christopher L. Giggy '
Peroxidation Systems, Inc.
5151 East Broadway, Suite 600
Tucson, AZ
USA 85711
Tel: (602) 790-8383
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation has become an established watertreatment technology in the United States and Europe
One such UV oxidation process is the perox-pure™ Process which was developed by Peroxidation Systems Inc The
perpx-pure Process uses UV radiation and hydrogen peroxide (H2O.) to destroy the contaminants on-site without air
emissions or waste by-products. The only chemical additive, H2O2, is itself consumed in the process. The by- products
of contaminant destruction, dissolved carbon dioxide, water, and salts, are harmless.
UV oxidation has been applied to the destruction of a wide variety of organic contaminants in groundwaters
wastewaters, potable waters, and landfill leachates. In many cases, UV oxidation has been found to be more
economical than treatment by way of air stripping with vapor phase carbon or liquid phase carbon adsorption. However,
the most favorable application of UV oxidation has been to waters containing unsaturated VOCs such as
tnchloroethene. Saturated VOCs, such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane, have been more difficult to destroy with UV oxidation
and therefore more expensive to treat than with conventional technologies.
Recent improvements in the design of the perox-pure UV oxidation system have resulted in substantial increases
in the destruction rates of those organic contaminants which are more difficult to oxidize, particularly saturated VOCs
making UV oxidation economically competitive with other processes for these contaminants. The new generation of
perox-pure equipment was recently evaluated by the EPA during an on-site demonstration as a part of the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. The SITE demonstration was conducted on groundwater
containing saturated and unsaturated VOCs. The results from on-site groundwater treatment applications, including
the SITE demonstration, were presented along with the corresponding treatment economics.
Fouling of the quartz tubes in UV oxidation equipment due to scaling is an area of concern: Degradation in the
performance of full-scale UV oxidation installations has been noted in less than 24 hours when scaling conditions exist.
An automatic quartz tube cleaning device incorporated in the perox-pure system prevents tube fouling, thereby
ensuring consistent treatment performance. Supporting data from real-time performance monitoring during operation
of the perox-pure quartz tube cleaner were presented.
OPERATING RESULTS FROM AN INTEGRATED SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
REMEDIATION SYSTEM: A SITE PROJECT IN OPERATION FOR 3 YEARS
Robert G. Hornsby
AWD Technologies, Inc.
400 W. Sam Houston Pkwy.
South Houston, TX
USA 77042-1299
Tel: (713) 978-2960
David J.Jensen
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co.
Burbank, CA
Simultaneous cleanup of soil and groundwater was required at the Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Company's site in Burbank, CA. Air permitting issues and a short implementation schedule mandated by the Los
Angeles Water Quality Board made noncompliance a high probability. An unconventional approach seemed to be the
only way to avoid economic penalties.
The integrated AQUADETOX™/SVE system provided the following benefits:
Cost: Less than conventional technology, easy to operate and maintain
51
-------
Environment: Met CRWQCB requirements
Permitting: Obtained in 3 weeks
Time: Designed and constructed within 7 months
The patented system integrates two technologies: An AQUADETOX Moderate Vacuum Steam Stripping Unit for
removing VOCs from the groundwater and a soil gas venting system for extracting VOCs from the vadose zone. While
the AQUADETOX unit treats about 1,000 gpm of water, the soil gas treatment system removes volatiles from
approximately 300 ft3 per minute of air passing through the contaminated soil. Both systems operate at negative
pressure, which prevents air emissions.
This presentation described operating results obtained during tests conducted by the EPA and the State of
California; costs, and the unique technology used to tie the systems together. In a little more than 3 years, the process
has reduced soil contamination to 5% of initial levels and groundwater contamination to about 30% of initial
concentrations.
OVERVIEW OF THE DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY OF SIX ORGANIC COMPOUNDS OF
INTEREST TO SUPERFUND SITE REMEDIATION USING HIGH-ENERGY ELECTRON
BEAM IRRADIATION
C.N. Kurucz and T.D. Waite
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL
W.J. Cooper, M.G. Nickelsen, and K. Lin
Drinking Water Research Center
Florida International University
University Park Campus
Miami, FL
USA 33199
Tel: (305) 348-2826
Fax:(305)348-3894
High-energy electron beam irradiation is being developed as an innovative treatment process for the destruction
of toxic organic compounds of interest to Superfund. The underlying chemistry of the process results from bombarding
water with high- energy electrons. When the high energy electrons interact with water and dissipate their energy, highly
reactive transient species are formed. The species of interest in the removal of toxic organic chemicals are the hydroxyl
radical, the aqueous electron, and the hydrogen atom. The bimolecular reaction rate constants of these species with
most toxic organic compounds are near-diffusion controlled, and as such the process is extremely rapid.
The studies described in this presentation were conducted at the electron beam research facility in Miami, FL,
where there is a 1.5 MeV, 50 mA horizontal electron beam. All of the studies were conducted at 100 to 120 gallons
per minute. The variables that have been identified as affecting the ultimate destruction of organic compounds are
solute concentration, water quality, and dose. All six compounds studied — trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
chloroform, benzene, toluene, and phenol — have been studied at three concentrations.
The parameter identified that affects the process the most is alkalinity. Therefore, at each solute concentration
experiments were conducted at three pHs where the alkalinity varied from 0 to 50 mg/L as calcium carbonate. Studies
in which 3% clay was added to the solution to determine the effect of solids were also conducted. In most cases, pH
has had a minimal effect on removal efficiency. In all cases, the addition of 3% clay had no effect on removal efficiency.
As the solute concentration increases, higher doses are required to achieve the same percent removal.
All six compounds were shown to be effectively destroyed using the electron beam process, and the reaction by-
products which have been identified are very low concentrations of aldehydes such as formaldehyde, acid aldehyde,
and formic acid. I n every case the concentration of these reaction by-products is so small as to exert no adverse effect
on a receiving stream. Preliminary cost estimates have shown that this process is equivalent to or cheaper than
commonly-used advanced oxidation processes.
52
-------
OXIDATSVE DESTRUCTION WITH CHLORINE DIOXIDE
Brent Bourland
Exxon Chemical Company
PO Box 4321
Houston, TX
USA 77210-4321
Tel: (713) 460-6822
Fax: (713) 460 6850
This technology uses chlorine dioxide generated on site by a patented process to oxidize contaminants in water
or solid media. Chlorine dioxide is an ideal oxidizing agent because it chemically alters contaminants to salts and
nontoxic organic acids. Chlorine dioxide gas is generated by reacting sodium chlorite solution with chlorine gas or by
reacting sodium chlorite solution with sodium hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid.
In aqueous treatment systems, the chlorine dioxide gas is fed into the waste stream through a venturi, which is
the driving force for the generation system. The amount of chlorine dioxide required depends on the contaminant
concentrations in the waste stream and the concentrations of compounds which can be oxidized, such as sulfides
In soil treatment applications, the chlorine dioxide maybe applied in situ through conventional injection wells or surface
flushing. The concentration of chlorine dioxide used depends on the levels of contaminants in the soil.
Chlorine dioxide treatment systems have been applied to:
Drinking water disinfection
Food processing sanitation
Waste remediation
Chlorine dioxide has also been used as a biocide in industrial process water. Because chlorine dioxide reacts by
direct oxidation ratherthan by substitution (as does chlorine), the process does not form undesirable trihalomethanes.
This technology may be applied to aqueous waste streams, liquid storage vessels, soils, contaminated
groundwater, or any leachable solid media contaminated by a wide range of waste materials. Cyanides, sulfides
organosulfur compounds, phenols, aniline, and secondary and tertiary amines are examples of contaminants that can
be remediated with this process.
PHOTOLYSIS/BIODEGRADATION TREATMENT OF PCB AND PCDD/PCDF
CONTAMINATED SOILS
E. S. Alperin and Arie Groen
IT Corporation
304 Directors Drive
Knoxville, TN
USA 37923
Tel: (615) 690-3211
The primary project objective of this study was to perform a laboratory-scale evaluation and demonstration of a
two-stage detoxification process for the treatment of soils contaminated with RGBs, PCDDs (dioxins), and other
chlorinated aromatics. Earlier work showed a practical rate of photolytic destruction of PCBs and TCDDs on soil when
the soil surface was treated with a surfactant solution and irradiated by ultraviolet (UV) light. It is expected that such
a treatment would produce photolytic by-products that would be less resistant to further degradation by biological
treatment.
53
-------
The first stage of this process involved in situ photolytic degradation by periodic tilling, application of a surfactant,
and Irradiation of the soil surface for up to 30 hours. After photolysis, the second stage consisted of the soil being re-
inoculated with indigenous microorganisms enriched from the original soil and supplied with nutrients to cause in situ
biodegradation of less recalcitrant contaminants.
The results of the initial experiments indicate that the ability of surface irradiation to destroy RGBs or TCDDs
depends on the soil type. Soils with higher content of humic materials or clay were less successful than on sandy soil.
Natural sunlight was also found to be ineffective. Surface irradiation was found to remove chlorine from the highly
substituted PCBs and form the bi- and tri-chlorinated PCBs. The initial biotreatment studies show that these
compounds are more readily degraded.
RAPID IN SITU BIO-ELECTROKINETIC REMEDIATION OF SOILS AND SLURRIES
Robert Marks
Electrokinetics, Inc.
Louisiana Business and Technology Center
Louisiana State University
South Stadium Drive
Baton Rouge, LA
USA 70803-6100
Tel: (504) 388-3992
Fax:(504)388-3928
Electrokinetics, Inc., (EK) is a small business corporation devoted to commercial use of the electrokinetic process
In soils and slurries. The Electrochemical Decontamination of Soils and Slurries technology is patented by Louisiana
State University (US Patent NO 5,137,608) and EK operates under a licensing agreement with the university. EK is
also developing a patented process for Rapid Insitu Bio-Electrokinetic Remediation of Soils (RIBEROS) which is a
sealed process for extraction and transport of hazardous organic compounds from subsurface soils to the surface
where a sealed biodegradation process rapidly destroys the organic compounds. The process is tailored to be
applicable to concentration or destruction of mixed wastes composed of hazardous heavy metals, organic pollutants,
and radionuclides. The sealed RIBEROS process will control the volatile organic compounds for ozone mitigation. EK
is also developing a technology for removal of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) for aquifer remediation.
The company has embarked on an aggressive research and development program for electrokinetic removal of
specific hazardous contaminants from soils. This effort has focused on recovery of the following hazardous pollutants
from contaminated soils: radionuclides including uranium, thorium, and radium; heavy metals including cadmium,
chromium, and lead; and organic compounds including hexachloro-butadiene, trichloroethylene, phenol, and
halogenated phenol derivatives. EK is commencing feasibility studies using the electrokinetic process for the recovery
of precious metals from mine tailings and the desalination of a salt-contaminated drinking water recharge aquifer. EK
is involved in a lead contaminated field demonstration site where the initial lead content tested 100,000 u.g/g.
The company is also marketing a range of bench-scale equipment which provides the opportunity for both
government departments/agencies and private corporations to carry out their own electrokinetic treatability studies
on contaminated soil or sediment samples. EK equipment is designed to provide ranges of test cell sizes and choices
of test cell materials. A user can select an equipment option that meets his or her specific applications: inexpensive
manual testing equipment, manual equipment with some degree of flexibility and automation, and a fully flexible testing
apparatus with automated data acquisition.
54
-------
REMOVAL OF HEAVY METALS FROM GROUND WATER
Godfrey A. Crane and J.Michael Hosea "" "!
, Bio-Recovery Systems, Inc.
2001 Copper Avenue
Las Cruces, NM
USA 88005
Tel: (505) 523-0405
Fax:(505)523-1638
A graphical overview of Bio-Recovery Systems' technology for the removal of heavy metals from ground water
was presented; a summary of bench-level work on actual ground watersamples which contained mercury and uranium
performed for the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program and for the Department of
Energy (DOE) was provided; and a summary of the cost savings and performance of a full-scale system extracting
chromium and nickel from polluted ground water at 450 L/min was detailed.
In the SITE work, a pilot-scale unit was installed at a location at which ground water was polluted with various
species of mercury. The unit contained a mixture of two adsorbents, packed in columns arranged in series/Over 500
bed volumes of the water were passed through the unit before the mercury level in the effluent exceeded 10 ug/L At
this point the mercury was chemically stripped from the adsorbent and treatment resumed.
n^iS" lihe DOE Work' bencl>toPtests were dor|e on water samples from the Hanford, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River
DOE plants. These contained uranium, chromium, and mercury. All of the tests showed successful removal of these
metals to a level of a few p.g/L with good regenerability in the adsorbents used.
A remediation plant at a Michigan site has been operating 24 hours a day at about 450L/min for almost 2 years
This ion exchange unit replaced a precipitation system at an annual savings of $250,000 in costs of chemicals and
of sludge disposal. The chromium and nickel removed from the ground water are recycled to a stainless steel
manufacturer.
SECTOR SAMPLER FOR THE COLLECTION OF VOLATILE ORGANICS IN AMBIENT AIR
Matthias Yoong
XonTech, Inc.
6862HayvenhurstAve.
Van Nuys, CA
USA 91406
Tel: (818) 787-7380
Joachim Pleil
U.S. EPA, AREAL
Research Triangle Park, NC
A constant flowrate, sector sampling system has been developed that is capable of collecting gaseous samples
into a stainless steel 'Summa' electropoiished canister. The sampler is portable, AC or battery operated, durable and
has shown good reliability under field conditions, making it useful for sampling a wide variety of gases and applications
The sample is exposed to passivated stainless steel surfaces except for the viton or teflon diaphragm in the pump
At 25 psi back pressure, the pump delivers 1 L of sample per minute through a manifold. A constant differential flow
controller directs a sample stream into a canister and pressurizes it. This device is excellent for controlling low gas
flows at constant mass flow rates with changes in downstream pressure.
An auxiliary connector interfaces the sampler to a wind direction sensor or an external meteorological gear This
allows modulation of the solenoid shut-off valve and fills the canister only when wind is blowing from a pre-selected
direction or wind sector. This arrangement also allows the collection of air samples into an out-sector canister when
wind is not from the pre-selected direction. A wind speed cut-off option is also available that enables the instrument
to sample only when the wind speed is above a selected threshold value.
55
-------
This versatile sampling system has proven to meet the requirements of USEPA TO-14 sampling method, the
California Health and Safety Code, section 41805.5 (AB 3374, Calderon 1986) Testing Guidelines for Waste Disposal
Sites, and the Enhanced Ozone Monitoring program (Title 1, Section 182 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) for
the collection of volatile organics. Two kinds of sampling have been documented; these are short-term monitoring to
determine VOC emission concentrations from hazardous waste sites and other emission sources and long-term
monitoring at fixed sites to provide information for diurnal or variable VOC concentrations.
SITE DEMONSTRATION OF PNEUMATIC FRACTURING EXTRACTION AND HOT GAS
INJECTION
John J. Liskowitz
Accutech Remedial Systems
Cass Street at Highway 35
Keyport, NJ
USA 07735
Tel: (908) 739-6444
Fax:(908)739-0451
On September 9, 1992, Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc., (ARS) together with the Hazardous Substance
Management Research Center (HSMRC) located at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), completed a 4-
week demonstration of Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction (PFE) and Hot Gas Injection (HGI) remedial technologies.
The industrial site, located in central New Jersey, historically housed operations for computer ceramic wafer
manufacturing and specialty chemical formulation for the health care industry. A fire on October 26,1985 destroyed
everything except the concrete building pad. As a result of the fire, the New Jersey Environmental Cleanup
Responsibility Act (ECRA) process was initiated, resulting in environmental assessment and evaluation of the former
building and surrounding area.
Subsurface investigations resulted in the identification of trichloroethylene and other chlorinated contaminants in
the soil, bedrock, and ground water. An approved cleanup plan, developed by McLaren/Hart Environmental
Engineering, proposed vapor extraction for the residual contamination in the vadose zone. However, site feasibility
indicated very low air extraction rates, limiting the effectiveness of the proposed technology.
Vapor extraction is a commercially available technology for the removal of volatile organic contaminants from the
subsurface. Air circulates under vacuum through subsurface formations to volatilize organic contaminants and then
Is extracted by wells. In formations with low permeability (10"s cm/sec or less), vapor extraction and other in situ
processes are ineffective. Limited volatilization occurs and contaminants are extracted at such low rates that the
technology can be impractical and uneconomical.
The PFE/HGI process consists of a high-pressure gas introduced down a borehole through a proprietary injector
and monitoring system. The pressurized gas creates fractures or airflow pathways emanating from the injection point.
Injections in fractured rock have shown subsurface airflow connectivity as much as 40 ft from the injection well. During
the fracture event, surface heave and pressure gradients in surrounding wells are carefully monitored to evaluate the
effectiveness of the PFE process. Once the permeability of the formation has been increased so that a significant
subsurface air flow can be attained, the application of HGI process occurs in the fracture well. The HGI process is
applied to increase the temperature of the subsurface airflow and fracture channel walls where the contaminant
compounds exist. By increasing the temperature of the subsurface environment, contaminant volatilization rates are
significantly increased.
During the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration, a centrally located
fracture well was located in an area adjacent to the site sources area. Eleven monitoring wells were installed at varying
radial distances from the fracture well. Conventional vapor extraction was applied to assess "prefracture" air flowrate,
vacuum radius of influence and contaminant mass removal conditions. Preliminary demonstration data indicated pre-
fracture extraction of airflowrates at less than 1 cfm and contaminant mass removal rates at less than 1/2 Ibm of TCE
permonth. Afterapplying the PFE process overan 8-ft interval of borehole, extraction airflow rates increased as much
56
-------
SSS?rad£SS£fhIS!!il!SS8 re™f' fes were estimated to increase more than 1,000%. In addition, the effective
reSrtwfh estS
report with test results is scheduled to be released by the U.S. EPA in the spring of 1993.
Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction has been shown to dramatically increase subsurface air permeability and
SuSS2SS TT'In w ge?og,ic strata such as silts' clavs'and bedrock- BV a|s° in<^J!22ScS2
Pnlnm V c * 6-°f ^? r^0very we"'there ls a reduction In the total number of wells required to remediate a site
anJiSSS^SSS^ fa<$ '°n ^l?68" 1h°Wn W«6n integrated With °ther in situ Process*s such as bToremedtalon
and thermal processes to offer an extremely cost effective clean-up solution at sites with low permeable formations
SITE DEMONSTRATION OF THE ROCHEM SEPARATION PROCESS
Ann K. Yamauchi
Rochem Separation Systems
3904 Del Amo Blvd., Suite 801
Torrance, CA
USA 90503
Tel: (31 0)370-31 60
Fax:(310)370-4988
Pr°C6f S JS -a membrane filtration technology which allows the separation of
? ' ,? technol°9y IS a concentration process for the volume reduction of hazardous
^ HHd? US "JfP0""* in a much smal|er volume, the discharge and disposal of the
treatment Costs for the sma» vo— °' haZardouPs materiais
-DiSC Tub,f Sy-Stem CS"sists of a series of membrane cushions stacked between spacer discs. The
nh nn th hCH are,- hT '"Sert?d mt° a pressure vessel to allow operation at high pressures. The open channel
occuf th, moH^f VaU"C deIS'gn.0f the T° dule allow efficient °Peration with minimal fouling. When fouling does
occur, the module cleans easily and completely, without disassembly.
Rochem currently has commercial systems treating landfill leachate at over 25 landfills in Europe The first
9, in 1 988' After 4 years of operation' the unit continues to surpass desig,1 /^ifKSoS?
TK at6 Processes over 20° 9all°ns Per minute of leachate. That system has been in operation
^
During the week of July 27, 1 992, Instability tests were conducted at the Rochem facility in Torrance CA These
ne?ZrTho °» raw HleBa*ate- lhs be? result= «"• °"ained from a combination of two revise osmosfe membranel
presentation gave a complete description of the technology and included more complete analytical
57
-------
SOLVENT EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING TECHNOLOGY WITH THE SOIL
RESTORATION UNIT
Alan B. Cash
Terra-Kleen Corporation
7321 N. Hammond Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK
USA 73132
Tel: (405) 728-0001
Fax:(405)728-0016
Terra-Kleen offers the Soil Restoration Unit forthe removal of organic contaminants from soil. The unit can be used
in either of two modes: solvent extraction mode or soil washing mode. In the solvent extraction mode, organic
contaminants are dissolved and separated from the soil by non-toxic organic solvents. Spent solvent is regenerated
in aclosed-loop process that yields both solvent and concentrated waste. The waste concentrate is placed in 55 gaHon
drums for off-site disposal, whether by recycling or incineration. The cleaned soil, still wet with solven, is placed in
a closed-loop dryer where remaining solvent is removed from the soil for reuse in the system. The soil then exits the
system and is ready for use as backfill at the site.
Orqanic solvents are also used in the unit's soil washing mode to separate the fines from the soil. In addition to
removing fines, the organic solvents also dissolve and remove contaminants from the bulk soil. This makes possible
a more thorough removal of organic contaminants. The fines, which typically contain a higher Proportion of
contaminants, are then batch-treated by solvent extraction until clean. The Terra-Kleen Soil "
atechnological advantage over standard soil washing processes, in that no fines are sent off-
Rather, only the concentrated contaminants are sent off-site.
Terra-Kleen not only has bench- and pilot-scale experience with this new technology, but has also successfully
used the Soil Restoration Unit for full-scale remedial actions. To date two Superfund sites havei been.cleaned or are
in the process of being cleaned with this unit. Contaminants removed have included RGBs, DDT, toxaphene, PAHs
pentachlorophenol (POP), naphthalenic petroleum distillate, and endosulfan. Contammant levels of .chlorinated
hyd oca bons as low as 40 ppb have been achieved in treated soil. Soil types tested successfully to da e include
gravels, sands, glacial tills, silly sand, silty loam, silt, and kiln ash. Most organic soils can be processed with the Soil
Restoration Unit.
STATE OF THE ART RCRA AND CERCLA REPORTING: ACCESSING THE NAVY AND
MEW SUPERFUND SITE DATA USING GISXKEY
Asad AI-Malazi
GIS Solutions
1800 Sutler Street, Suite 830
Concord, CA
USA 94520-2500
Tel: (510)827-5400
Fax: (510) 827-5467
The NAVY/MEW Superfund site area presents a classic exercise in managing complexity. NASA has responded
to thistaskby implementing athree-dimensional regional model which stores, manipulates, and reports alarge volume
of data.Theresultsofadecade'ssamplingof oven ,000 wells on these two Superfund sites are being eas.ly managed
on a PC based, GIS environmental system. Data have been rendered accessible through the use of a graphic user
interface (GUI) linked to a fully relational database. This single tool is an integrated collection of utilities known as
GISNKey.
A central design feature was the collection of all parameters required in the assessment and reclamation of a
hazardous waste site. This system meets RCRA and CERCLA reporting requirements for chemistry, geology, and
58
-------
hydrology data. These three modules have been refined at the NASA site. Emphasis was given to the automation of
data collection, analysis, and reporting which are typically involved in the management of a Superfund site.
The tool allows easy data entry through a system of graphical menus for storing, manipulating, and reporting large
volumes of environmental data. Numerous error checks, end-user definable parameters, and safeguards are built into
the program.
SWS™: PROVEN IN SITU BIOSPARGING TECHNOLOGY
Austin I. Cooley
HALLIBURTON NUS
16360 Park Ten Place, Suite 300
Houston, TX
USA 77084
Tel: (713) 492-1888
Fax:(713)492-0504
Groundwater contamination is perhaps the single largest environmental issue in the U.S. today. To remediate
contaminated groundwater in a cost-effective and timely manner, residual soil contamination must be remediated
simultaneously. Therefore, integrated remediation technologies are required. The standard groundwater remediation
technology, pump and treat, is not effective because it does not remediate contaminated soils and groundwater in an
integrated fashion. While addition of soil ventilation systems to pump and treat technology does, in part address
unsaturated zone soils, saturated zone and capillary fringe soils are still not adequately treated. The Subsurface
Ventilation and Volatilization System (SVVS™) is a recently developed technology for integrated remediation of
contaminated soil and groundwater through in situ volatilization and biodegradation.
The primary component of the system is injection of air into the saturated zone, otherwise known as sparging The
I»«?lIV?.2ess of in situ air str'PP'n9. or sparging, in volatilizing contaminants has been demonstrated. However, the
SVVS differs from sparging in that it is managed to optimize bioremediation. By analogy, SVVS is to sparging as
bioventing is to SVE. On a typical petroleum hydrocarbon site, 65 to 90% of the contaminant removal is by
biodegradation; the remainder is removed by volatilization. This corresponds to percentages of contaminants removed
by biodegradation reported for bioventing projects. To optimize bioremediation at the site, the injection air is sometimes
heated. This increases the availability of oxygen to hydrocarbon degrading microbes.
SVVS is particularly effective in dealing with contamination in the capillary fringe zone. The capillary fringe tends
to be a very biologically active portion of the site due to the presence of oxygen and constant nutrient and moisture
recharge due to groundwater fluctuations. SVVS enhances this naturally occurring bioremediation. Furthermore
unlike most soil vapor extraction systems, the injected air must pass through the capillary fringe.
SVVS has been successfully employed at over 30 contaminated sites. This poster session presented a technology
description and several case histories.
59
-------
THE ACID EXTRACTION TREATMENT SYSTEM
Stephen W. Paff
Center for Hazardous Materials Research (CHMR)
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA
USA 15238
Tel: (412) 826-5320
Fax: (412) 826-5320
The Acid Extraction Treatment System (AETS) is a means of removing heavy metals from contaminated soils and
solids. AETS represents a significant extension of existing soil washing techniques in the Netherlands which have been
directed primarily at remediation of hazardous organics contamination. Initial bench-scale studies of AETS have been
very promising and have achieved removal efficiencies of 29 to 99% for various heavy metals in soil.
Applications of AETS in the U.S. may include:
Remediation of soils and/or solids contaminated with heavy metals
Post-treatment of high, heavy metal content ash residue from incineration processes
Treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater treatment sludges containing heavy metals
The objective of the E02/AETS project is to determine the effectiveness and commercial viability of AETS in
reducing the concentrations and/or teachability of heavy metals in soils to acceptable levels. To date, CHMR has
performed a combination of laboratory and bench-scale testing for acid extraction. The first year project effort was
focused primarily on laboratory-scale testing. The results of the laboratory-scale testing were very promising, with
heavy metal removal efficiencies of between 29% and 99% for such heavy metals as arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc. \
CHMR used the information gained during the first year to design and construct a pilot-scale unit capable of
processing between 20 and 100 kg of soil per hour. The results to date from this system have also been promising,
with removal efficiencies of between 70 and 90%. CHMR will continue testing the pilot-scale unit through the remainder
of 1992 on a variety of soils obtained from Superfund sites across the U.S., and under several different process
conditions. The final project results are anticipated by the end of January 1993.
THE AIR-SPARGED HYDROCYCLONE
Ted Jordan
Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology
West Park Street
Butte.MT
USA 59701
The Air-Sparged Hydrocyclone (ASH) is a recently-developed flotation machine which is especially suited to the
recovery of fine mineral particles through thefroth flotation process. Thedevice is currently being tested atthe Montana
Tech Research Center in Butte, MT, to evaluate its efficacy in the separation and recovery of metallic minerals in
miningVnilling wastes.
Froth flotation is presently the primary method of separating metallic minerals from their ores. It may also be
applied to the extraction of mineral values from mineral processing wastes that contain recoverable mineral values.
60
-------
In the flotation process, certain minerals in an aqueous slurry are rendered water repellent through contact with
certain organic chemicals, which are termed collectors. Other minerals remain water wetted. In the presence of moving
air bubbles, the water repellent minerals adhere to the bubbles and are raised to the surface of the slurry, where they
are skimmed off. As a result of the reduced inertia of small particles, the flotation process diminishes in efficiency as
particle size decreases, resulting in high concentrations of otherwise flotable particles 50 micrometers in diameter or
smaller.
The ASH, which was developed at the University of Utah by J. D. Miller, promises improved flotation recovery of
small particles through two features, both of which increase the probability of mineral/bubble collision and adhesion:
Introduction of air through a porous membrane produces a very high concentration of bubbles.
Particle-bearing slurry enters at a high tangential velocity, which increases the inertia of the moving
particle.
In addition to the feature of capturing particles too fine to be recovered by mechanical flotation machines, the ASH
has about 100 times the capacity of conventional machines of the same size.
THE CAMPBELL CENTRIFUGAL JIG
Ted Jordan
Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology
West Park Street
Butte, MT
USA 59701
The Campbell Centrifugal Jig (CCJ) is a patented new technology for the separation of very fine heavy metal
particles from gangue material. The CCJ is a combination of two widely used methods of heavy particle separation:
jigging and centrifuging. Standard jigs have been used for many years to separate solids of different specific gravities
in a fluid medium through gravity induced differential settling. Standard jigs have the advantage of high capacity and
continuous material flow/However, since settling forces are limited to one g, separation is relatively slow to ineffective
for particles smaller than about 150 microns. The motion of these particles is governed more by hydrodynamics than
gravity and they tend to remain f luidized and pass across without settling through the jig bed and screen. Centrifuges
are very effective in using high acceleration forces to separate solids from liquids, but not for differential separation
of solids of different specific gravities in a slurry.
The CCJ combines the continuous flow and pulsating bed of the standard jig with the high centrifugal forces of
a centrifuge to effectively segregate and concentrate particles from 150 microns to as small as 1 micron if they have
aspecific gravity at least 20% greater than that of the gangue material. No additional chemicals are required to achieve
separation. The key to effective operation of the CCJ is matching the pulse frequency and amplitude with the g force
being applied. The function of the pulse is to fluidize the jig bed intermittently so that it acts as a one-way valve for the
passage of heavy particles moving under the influence of differential acceleration.
Appropriately sized slurried material (-50 mesh) is fed into the CCJ through a hollow shaft at the tip of the CCJ.
This material impinges on a diffuser plate which has vanes to distribute it radially to the rotating screen. As the material
progresses vertically down the screen under the influence of gravity it is also subjected to centrifugal acceleration by
the rotating screen. Heavier particles migrate through the jig bed and screen to become concentrates. Particles with
lower specific gravity are flushed downward across the jig bed and become the tailings.
The CCJ was originally developed for fine gold recovery. However, it has demonstrated the capability to separate
and concentrate a wide variety of materials ranging from standard 28 x 100 mesh material in fine coal cleaning to 1
micron particles' in gold recovery. Applications of the CCJ include remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil,
removal of pyritic sulphur and ash from clean-up of mine tailings dumps, and treatment of sand blasting grit, as well
as the original application of fine gold recovery. Residuals of the CCJ process are a heavy metals concentrate and
gangue material free of contamination and therefore suitable for return to the environment. Depending on the input
61
-------
material, the concentrates may contain sufficient value to justify further processing for extraction and sale. Thus, in
many cases the CCJ will provide values sufficient to defray part or all of the cost of remediation.
THE COMBINED BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION TOWER FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Yang Fenglin, Zhou Jiti, and Zu YuJun
Dalian University of Technology
The Engineering Institute
This high efficiency biological treatment device, the combined biological oxidation tower, is composed of two or
more optimum biological units. It provides good conditions for biological production and can accommodate wide
ranges of hydraulic and organic loads. The unitized tower-type construction requires less area for operation. Treatment
costs are lower, performance is more stable, and less surplus sludge is produced with this unit. In fact; with low
concentrated wastewater, the surplus sludge can be decreased to zero and sludge disposal eliminated. It can also
be used with high and medium concentrated organic wastewater.
This device has been used in treating petroleum refinery, coke manufacture, and dye manufacture wastewater.
The procedure for use of the combined biological oxidation tower in dye manufacture wastewater disposal is as follows:
a wastewater mixing-physicochemical process is followed by sulfur removal, bio-oxidation, and finally, another
physlcochemical process. Data showing the efficiency of these treatments are available upon request from the
authors.
Coke manufacture effluents contain high concentrations of phenols and cyanides. By using the combined
biological oxidation tower, the toxicity of this wastewater can be reduced. The quality of treated wastewater can
generally meet the standard of DB-21 -59- 89. This technique has been used in Dalian Chemical Industrial Company
In a project that has been in operation since March 1992. Treatment results of coke plant wastewater are available
upon request from the authors.
Petroleum refinery wastewater containing seawater (C1 = 8,000 to 10,000 mg/L), and having pollution potential
as follows: COD » 200 to 1,200 mg/L, phenols = 4 to 200 mg/L, sulfite = 15 to 250 mg/L, oils = 40 to 200 mg/L, BOD
-100 to 600 mg/L, was treated. High removal efficiencies of phenols (99.9%), S = (90%), oils (90%), and COD (90%)
can be obtained.
A device having a treatment capacity of 700 m3/hr was built by Dalian Petro Chemical Industrial Company. The
quality of treated wastewater, in mg/L, is as follows: oils, 2.22; s=, 0.02; phenols, 0.097; COD, 39.67; BOD , 11.2; SS,
51; and CN-, 0.02, respectively. A similar device was built in Jilin Chemical Industry Company - Jiang Nan Oil Refinery
In 1991.
Laboratory experiments and industry performance show that this device has high efficiency and many advan-
tages:
The combined biology oxidation tower can be used with many sorts of effluents, as shown.
Operation has been steady and effective under a wide range of organic and hydraulic loads (0.1 ~5.25kg
COD/M3.d and 7.5~23M3/M3.d — laboratory results).
This device has high removal efficiencies of pollutants. Under good operating conditions, the removal
efficiencies of COD, BODS, and oils reach 90%, and those of s= and phenols, 99.9%.
In the same treatment capacity, the oxidation tower uses only 75% of the land and 62.5 of the electric
power of a combined aeration tank. It can be controlled and managed easily.
The combined biological oxidation tower can be used in cold areas and has good weather resistance
62
-------
THERMAL DESORPTION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL: LABORATORY TO FULL SCALE —
X*TRAX™
Carl Swanstrom and Carl Palmer
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
1950S. Batavia Avenue
Geneva, IL
USA 60134
Tel: (708) 513-4578
Chemical Waste Management (CWM) has developed and commercialized the patented X*TRAX™ thermal
desorption system. In XTRAX, organics are separated from solids in an indirectly heated rotary dryer. The volatilized
organics are transported to a gas handling system using an inert nitrogen carrier gas where they are condensed and
recovered as a liquid. The carrier gas is reheated and recycled to the dryer in a closed loop. Only a small portion of
the carrier gas is vented to the atmosphere through a HEPA filter and carbon adsorbers to control non-condensable
gases in the recirculation loop.
Since 1988, CWM has demonstrated the X*TRAX process to be effective on dozens of organic contaminated soils,
sludges, and filter cakes. Organic chemicals that have been removed include chlorinated solvents, polynuclear
aromatics, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, semi-volatile organics, and RGBs. The X*TRAX system has also
recently been used for the removal of mercury from contaminated soil.
CWM operates two laboratory scale XTRAX units that can process 2 to 4 Ib/hr of soil; one is permitted for TSCA
and RCRA wastes and the otherformixed radioactive/RCRA wastes. Both laboratory units are available for performing
treatability studies. *
A 5 ton per day pilot system is available for on-site demonstrations. This system has operated at Oak Ridge on
mixed wastes and at a CWM site in California. While located in California, the system was used for ten PCB
contaminated soils and three RCRA soils. Up to 5,000 Ibs of soil were treated in each test.
CWM has constructed a transportable full scale unit, called the XTRAX Model 200. The unit takes 2 to 3 weeks
to set up on-site, and requires a space of approximately 120 x 120 ft. In May 1992, CWM and EPA performed a
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration test on the XTRAX Model 200 unit at the
ReSolve, Inc. Superfund site in N. Dartmouth, MA, where it will be used to remove PCBs from more than 35,000 tons
of contaminated soil. At ReSolve, PCBs have been consistently reduced from 200 to 300 ppm in the feed soil to less
than 2 ppm in the treated soil. The Model 200 has operated at a processing rate of up to 158 tons/day.
TREATMENT OF MIXED WASTE CONTAMINATED SOIL
E. S. Alperin, R. L Anderson, and S. E. Shealy
IT Corporation
304 Directors Drive
Knoxville, TN
USA 37923
Tel: (615) 690-3211 . •
Mixed waste represents one of the most challenging waste treatment and disposal problems. Traditionally,
hazardous and radioactive materials have been regulated by separate agencies and federal and state regulations. A
result of this situation is that there are disposal options for hazardous waste or for low-level radioactive waste but no
disposal options for combined or mixed wastes.
Soil contaminated by both hazardous and radioactive constituents is a significant fraction of the mixed waste
problem in the United States. Contamination by these substances has resulted from disposal of waste residues to the
63
-------
land and from accidental spills and leaks at many of the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, electrical
generation, and industrial manufacturing facilities. The technologies to be evaluated in this pilot program, thermal
desorption, gravimetric separation, and water treatment with ferrate ion, provide simple, cost-effective methods of
removing from soil three contaminant classes found at these sites. The removal of these contaminants; hazardous
organlcs, radionuclides, and heavy metals, will allow the decontaminated soil to be left at the site. The contaminants
are collected as concentrates for recovery or off-site disposal at commercial hazardous or radiological waste facilities.
While the focus of the project is on the many sites where all three types of contamination exist, the data generated
will also be applicable to sites with only one type of contamination.
This project includes both bench- and pilot-scale testing of the three technologies. While bench-scale testing will
require less than 10 kg of soil, up to 1,000 kg will be needed for the pilot-scale work. The soil for these tests will be
obtained from the RCRA storage facility for the Y-12 oils land farm soil at the DOE Oak Ridge Facility. This material
contains hazardous organics, heavy metals, and radionuclides.
The goal of the bench-scale tests is to identify optimum operating conditions and performance for the various
treatment technologies. The pilot-scale tests will provide additional performance and scale-up data needed for
evaluation of the potential for full-scale application of these technologies.
TREATMENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATED WITH HEAVY METALS
E. S. Alperin, K. G. Sadler, and S. E. Shealy
IT Corporation
304 Directors Drive
Knoxville.TN
USA 37923
Tel: (615) 690-3211
Metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are two types of contaminants that are often found in soils at
Superfund sites. Frequently, soils are contaminated with both metals and VOCs. Since no existing technologies
address both metals and VOCs, a two-stage process is required. This report presents the results of a bench scale
study, a pilot-plant demonstration, and an engineering assessment for a two-stage physical separation process for
the treatment of soils contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals. Three actual Superfund soils were tested to provide
performance data for different soil matrices.
The two technologies tested were batch steam distillation for the separation of VOCs from the soil, followed by
a multistage, countercurrent extraction with hydrochloric acid to remove the heavy metals, and finally neutralization
and precipitation of the spent acid. The treated soils, after batch steam distillation and extraction, passed the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for volatile organics and heavy metals.
The process demonstrated a removal efficiency of greater than 95% for the VOCs and for most metals (with the
exception of mercury, chromium, and nickel). A removal efficiency of 95% shows that a multistage process provides
a method for remediating Superfund soils contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals.
An engineering assessment was also performed to assess the cost of a full-scale treatment plant using each of
these technologies to treat Superfund soils. The capital costs estimated for a VOC removal system ranged from $150K
for 500 ton/year to $670K for a 2,500 ton/year system. Operating costs for these two systems were estimated to be
$300 and $230 per ton of soil. The capital costs for heavy metals extraction were $230K for a 500 ton/year system
and $990K for a 2,500 ton/year system. Operating costs were $382 to 339 per ton.
64
-------
TWO-STAGE FLUIDIZED-BED/CYCLONIC AGGLOMERATING INCINERATOR
Amir Rehmat and Michael C. Mensinger
Institute of Gas Technology
Chicago, 1L
USA 60616
Teri L. Shearer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH
The two-stage incinerator permits one-step treatment of soils contaminated with both organic and inorganic
compounds. The two-stage incinerator combines advances in fluidized-bed incinerator technology with those of
cyclonic incinerator technology. This advanced incinerator efficiently destroys organic contaminants and encapsu-
lates inorganic contaminants within benign, glassy agglomerates suitable for disposal in an ordinary landfill.
The first stage of the incinerator is a sloping-grid, agglomerating fluidized-bed reactorthat can operate under either
substoichiometric or excess air conditions. In addition to the sloping grid, the first stage incorporates a central jet and
classification section. Fuel gas and air enterthe central jet while only air is admitted through the grid and the classifier.
The contaminated soil is admitted directly into the fluidized bed. With a unique distribution of fuel and air, the bulk of
the fluidized bed is controlled at a temperature of 1500 to 2000* F, while the central spout temperature can be varied
from 2000 to 3000T. This feature is the key to the incinerator's ability to produce benign agglomerates. Upon
introduction of contaminated soils in the bed, the organic fraction is immediately volatilized and partially combusted.
The inorganic fraction undergoes melting and subsequent agglomeration.
The volatilized organic compounds are incinerated in the second stage of the two-stage incinerator (TSI). This
second stage is a cyclonic incinerator, which provides intense mixing to ensure complete combustion of these organic
compounds. Either secondary air or a mixture of natural gas and air is fed to this stage to maintain a temperature in
the range of 1600 to 2400T. The destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) of organic contaminants in this system
exceeds 99.99%! Any fine particulates collected in the cyclonic stage are returned to the fluidized-bed stage for
assimilation in the agglomerates.
A multiyear program has been undertaken to develop a data base for application of the two-stage incineration
technology at Superfund sites. The program entails the development of operating conditions in a bench-scale unit
(BSU); the design, construction, and operation of a 6-ton/day pilot plant; and the utilization of the pilot plant data to
assess the commercial viability of the technology. The primary objectives of the program include identification of
operating conditions in the fluidized bed that, for a given contaminated soil, will enhance the capture and encapsulation
of inorganic contaminants within the glassy matrix, identification of operating conditions in both stages for the
destruction of organic contaminants with a ORE exceeding 99.99%, and the minimization of utility requirements
through maximum heat recovery.
In the first phase of the program, a BSU was constructed and operated to determine the operating conditions
required for soil agglomeration.
The design and specifications fora nominal 6-ton/day two-stage incinerator pilot plant have been completed. The
pilot plant is currently under construction. The pilot plant design incorporates provisions for feeding natural gas, air,
and oxygen to both stages. It will be equipped to test natural gas reburning for emission control. It also has provisions
for adequate sampling and on-line analysis. When completed, the TSI pilot plant will be extremely versatile and could
be used fortesting a variety of soils contaminated with inorganic as well as organic contaminants, and otherfeedstocks,
such as RDF, petroleum coke, and auto fluff. The TSI will be installed at IGT's Energy Development Center and
connected to existing feeding equipment and downstream product gas cleaning equipment, which includes a wet
scrubber and baghouse. The pilot plant is expected to be operational by December 1992.
65
-------
ULTROX® UV/OXIDATION PROCESS
Jerome T. Barich
Uitrox
2435 South Anne Street
Santa Ana, CA
USA 92704-5308
Tel: (714) 545-5557
Fax:(714)557-5396
Regulatory standards for environmental clean-up are becoming increasingly stringent. The U.S. EPA now
emphasizes permanent remedies. Local air quality districts are refusing to allow water-borne contaminants to be
transferred to the air. The more conventional technologies (such as air stripping or activated carbon), which transfer
contaminants from one physical state to another, are becoming less well suited for solving today's problems. In order
to keep step with these tougher standards, Uitrox has developed the Uitrox® UV/oxidation process for the destruction
of organic contaminants in water.
The Uitrox process combines ultraviolet light with ozone and hydrogen peroxide to photo-oxidize a wide variety
of toxic organic chemicals in groundwater, process water, industrial waste water, and leachate. The process was
successfully demonstrated in the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program in 1989.
This combination of ultraviolet light with ozone and hydrogen peroxide has been demonstrated both in the
laboratory and commercially to be highly energy efficient since it utilizes low pressure UV lamps which convert almost
34% of electrical power input into UV energy. These low pressure lamps operate at relatively low temperatures as
compared with medium and high intensity lamps. The result is that typical lamp life exceeds 9,000 hours and that with
low lamp temperature operation there is a minimum of fouling and scaling of lamp sheaths, thereby eliminating one
of the operating limitations of earlier UV systems.
The Uitrox process is currently being applied to a wide range of groundwater, wastewater, drinking water and
process water problems. Chlorinated solvents, BTEX compounds pesticides, PCBs, phenols, and many other organic
compounds, as well as BOD and TOG, can be economically reduced to mandated levels.
Operations such as liquid/solids separation, reverse osmosis, air stripping, biotreatment, or granular activated
carbon can remove many of the toxic organics encountered today. However, these methods may eliminate the one
problem only to create a waste in another media. Air stripping removes VOCs from water only to discharge them into
the ambient air. Reverse osmosis generates a reject stream of concentrated contaminants that must be dealt with;
granularactivated carbon requires either regeneration or burial, and US separation creates sludges requiring disposal.
UV/oxidation effectively destroys organic chemicals without creating a waste product. It may be used in tandem
with some of the previously mentioned processes or as a stand-alone treatment system.
USE OF SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING TECHNOLOGY FOR THE RECLAMATION OF
LEAD FROM LEAD-CONTAINING SUPERFUND SITES
Stephen W. Paff
Center for Hazardous Materials Research (CHMR)
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA
USA 15238
Tel: (412) 826-5320
Fax: (412) 826-5552
The Center for Hazardous Materials Research (CHMR) and Exide Corporation, pursuant to EPA contract CR-
818199-01-0 under the Emerging Technologies program, are investigating the potential for using secondary lead
66
-------
smelters for the recovery of lead from battery cases and other materials removed from Superfund sites. The purpose
of this investigation is to determine if these materials, which typically contain lead in concentrations of 1 to 10%, can
be processed through existing secondary lead smelters in an economical fashion to reclaim usable lead.
As part of the investigation, CHMR/Exide identified several prospective Superfund sites containing such lead-
containing materials as waste battery cases, lead drosses, slags, lead oxides, and lead debris. In addition, CHMR/
Exide identified other sources of lead to the environment, including residential housing rehabilitation and bridge deck
blasting operations.
During the first year of the study, CHMR/Exide processed materials from three Superfund sites, as well as one
residential house in the blast and reverberatory furnaces at Exide/General Battery Corporation's Reading, PA,
secondary lead recycling facility. Lead was successfully reclaimed from each of the materials sent to the site. CHMR
measured the feed rates, effect on furnace parameters, effect on lead and slag production quality and quantity and
effect on emissions from the smelter to determine the suitability of the feed and the economics of lead recovery.
Results to date have indicated that it is possible to reclaim lead from a variety of materials using secondary lead
smelting technology. CHMR/Exide have determined that recovery of lead in a smelter is an economical alternative to
landf illing in most cases for battery cases, lead dross, slags, and other lead materials containing over 10% lead. The
economics of recovering lead from demolition materials from housing have not been determined.
CHMR/Exide are continuing efforts to identify potential feeds and perform experiments to determine the
economics of lead recovery, maximum feed rates into a furnace, and full breadth of the use of the technology. Materials
which may be tested during the second year include lead-containing bridge paint abrasives, slags, battery cases
intermingled with dirt and debris, and possibly, in conjunction with other technologies, lead-contaminated soils.
USE OF AN FTIR REMOTE SENSOR FOR MONITORING AIR TOXICS AT HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES
Orman A. Simpson and Robert H. Kagann
MDA Scientific
3000 Northwoods Parkway, #185
Norcross, GA
USA 30071
Tel: (404) 242-0977
George M. Russwurm
ManTech, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, NC
William A. McClenny
U.S. EPA, AREAL
Research Triangle Park, NC
Eric Koglin
U.S. EPA, EPA-SITE
Las Vegas, NV
The U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program provided the opportunity to test,
evaluate, and improve the evolving design of the FTIR Remote Sensor. A breadboard system using a novel unistatic
design was tested as part of the SITE Program in 1989 in New Castle, DE. This design was specifically developed
for fast and easy measurement setup in hazardous areas sUch as Superfund sites. Fugitive emissions of chloroben-
zene and p-dichlorobenzene were successfully measured. However, the quality of the spectra was affected by thermal
emission of infrared radiation from the environment and optics.
This led to the design of a modulated source breadboard configuration which was tested at the Shaver's Farm
Superfund site in Georgia as part of the SITE 1990 program. The thermal emission effect was eliminated, resulting
in an order of magnitude improvement in sensitivity. Some problems with QA measurements have led to an improved
design of a flow gas cell (fixed permanently in the infrared beam) used to make the QA measurements.
67
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY VIBRATIONAL SHEAR ENHANCED PROCESSING
(VSEP)
Brad Culkin and Arne D. Armando
New Logic International
1155 Park Avenue
Emeryville, CA
USA 94608
Tel: (510)655-7305
Fax:(510)655-7307
Membrane-based separations of solids from liquids and liquids from liquids have enjoyed increasing popularity
over the last decade. This popularity has been generated by the unique advantages offered by membranes over
competing separations techniques. These advantages include: perfect separation and crystal clear filtrate, controlled
size exclusion through selection of pore sizes extending from microns to molecular dimensions, and excellent
materials compatibility due to a wide variety of available membranes.
On the other hand, membrane separations have had many limitations which restricted their use. For many
applications, membrane separations are largely confined to the processing of low solids and low volume streams. This
is due to the relatively high capital cost and low throughput capacity of these systems. In addition, membrane
separators surfer from fouling (a long-term loss in throughput capacity due to membrane degradation). Traditional
crossflow membrane separators also cannot concentrate feed slurries to high solids concentrations due to the
Theological requirement that the feed material remain watery in consistency.
New Logic has developed a system which has overcome the limitations of traditional membrane systems. This
system Is called Vibratory Shear Enhanced Processing (VSEP). In a VSEP system, the feed slurry remains nearly
stationary, moving in a meandering flow between parallel membrane leaf elements. The leaf elements move in a
vigorous vibratory motion tangent to the face of the membranes. The shear waves produced by the membrane
vibrations cause solids and foulants to be repelled and liquid to flow to the membrane pores unhindered.
This greatly increased shear rate translates into a system with much higher filtration rates and the ability to
concentrate to a much higher end point solids level. By running a VSEP unit at 150 to 250 psi transmembrane pressure,
the attainable filtration rate is typically five times higher than that achievable by crossflow systems. Because the shear
forces are not produced by the bulk flow, the feed slurry can become extremely viscous and still be successfully
dewatered. The final product is essentially extruded between the vibrating disc elements. Thus, this system can
concentrate a dilute stream into a high solids sludge.
VSEP membrane separators can be used in a wide variety of industrial wastewater applications. Some of those
that have been successfully run using VSEP include: oil/water separation, white water treatment, BOD, TOC, COD
reduction, metal hydroxide removal, arsenic acid washing and recovery, surface water treatment, and produced water
treatment.
68
-------
WATER TREATMENT IN A CAMEROONIAN PETROLEUM REFINERY
C. Kapseu, F. Djonou, and K.R. Nganou
National Advanced School of Food Technology (ENSIAAC)
PO Box 455
Ngaoundere, Cameroon
Tel: (237) 251021
Fax: (237) 252573
M.B. Caperan
Societe Nationale de Raffinage
Limbe, Cameroon
In a Cameroonian petroleum refinery company (Sonara), the water feed, which is produced by drilling, is treated
by chlorination for potable water requirements. It is then demineralized for water-cooling and utility needs. Residual
water from the refinery is treated by physicochemical and biological processes before being discharged into the sea.
The costs of these different treatments have been calculated and proposals fortheir improvement were discussed
in this presentation. The study shows that it is possible to balance profit and environmental protection in developing
countries with companies located near the sea.
WET AIR OXIDATION AND PACT® SYSTEMS: PROVEN PROCESSES FOR TREATING
HAZARDOUS WASTEWATERS
William M. Copa and Timothy A. Deets
Zimpro Passavant Environmental Systems, Inc.
301 W. Military Rd.
Rothschild, Wl
USA 54474
Tel: (715) 359-7211
Fax:(715)355-3219
The Zimpro® Wet Air Oxidation process and the PACT® system are two technologies developed at Zimpro
Passavant which have demonstrated success in treating hazardous wastes. The processes can be used separately
or in combination. The nature of the influent and the effluent requirements will determine the best process configuration
to treat the hazardous waste.
The Zimpro Wet Air Oxidation process has been widely applied to industrial process wastes and sludges including
those from pesticide, organic chemical, pharmaceutical, and petrochemical manufacturing, as well as coke oven gas
scrubbing liquors, pulp mill black liquors, and caustic liquors. Wet air oxidation is a liquid phase reaction between
organic material in water and dissolved oxygen. The reactions of the wet oxidation process occur irrespective of the
oxidizable substance's state of dispersion - e.g., insoluble, colloidal, or fine to coarse suspensions. Typical oxygen
demand of feed waste ranges from 20 to 200 g/L. If the oxygen demand is within the applicable range, the mixture may
be fed directly. The oxidation occurs at moderate temperatures (300 to 600° F) and at pressures from 150 to 3,000
psi. The remaining organic matter comprises low molecular weight compounds, primarily carboxylic acids, and is
readily treated biologically. Experience with the wet oxidation systems treating hazardous organics has shown that
detoxification is essentially complete.
The PACT wastewater treatment system is a biophysical process which combines biological treatment and carbon
adsorption in a single step. The combination of physical adsorption with biological oxidation and assimilation has been
shown to be particularly effective in treating wastewaters which are variable in concentration or composition, highly
colored, or contain materials which are refractory or potentially toxic to biological growth. The addition of powdered
activated carbon improves the performance of aerobic and anaerobic biological systems by stabilizing them against
upsets or shock loadings. A more diverse and selective population of organisms will develop due to the increased
contact time between the adsorbable organic contaminants and the biomass. This increases the overall performance
of a PACT system treating refractory organics when compared to a biological system.
69
-------
The two-stage PACT system has been used effectively to treat hazardous wastewaters such as landfill leachates
and industrial wastewaters. The carbon utilization efficiency is increased by counter-current movement of the
powdered activated carbon through the system. Users of the PACT system technology comply with OCPSF discharge
standards, RCRA "land ban" regulations, bio-assay standards, and industrial NPDES limits.
X-RAY TREATMENT OF ORGANIC WASTE IN AN AQUEOUS MATRIX
Randy Curry, Carl Eichenberger, and Heinz Lackner
Titan/PSI
600 McCormick Street
San Leandro, CA
USA 94577
Tel: (510)632-5100
Fax:(510)632-5300
Esperanza Piano Renard
U.S. EPA, RREL
Edison, NJ
John R. Bayless
Agoura Hills, CA
Gilbert Yang
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
The application of X-ray treatment to soil and water contaminated with VOCs and SVOCs is currently being
evaluated under the U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Program (SITE). The X-ray (bremsstrahlung
radiation) treatment technology was developed by Titan/Pulse Sciences Inc. (PSI).
The technology is based on the in-depth deposition of ionizing radiation. The interaction of energetic photons with
matter generates secondary electrons within the contaminated waste material. The electrons break up the water
molecules forming OH- radicals which break up the VOC and SVOC contaminants. The resultant by-products are
believed to be water, carbon dioxide, and oxygen.
The physical mechanism by which VOCs and SVOCs are removed is primarily dependent on the matrix or
substrate. Forexample, the primary reactant in oxygenated water is the hydroxyl radical. This chemical kinetic reaction
is being evaluated to understand the reaction and to determine the scale of the X-ray treatment process for pilot
demonstration. Several compounds commonly found in both water and soil are currently being evaluated. These are
trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), benzene, toluene, and carbon tetrachloride.
An electron beam, 55 nsec in duration, is generated with a linear induction accelerator (LIA). X-rays are generated
using a 1.2 to 1.4 MeV, 800 A LIA; the high energy pulse of electrons is directed onto a high-Z tantalum target which
converts the electron pulse into X-rays (bremsstrahlung radiation).
Preliminary results of the compounds evaluated in an aqueous matrix were reported at the presentation, including
the following. Concentrations of 1,600 to 2,100 ppb TCE, and 160 to 240 ppb benzene were completely mineralized
at an X-ray dose of less than 20 and 6 to 9 Krads respectively. Carbon tetrachloride appears to require substantially
higher irradiation doses than TCE or benzene. A175 ppb carbon tetrachloride concentration was reduced to 26 ppb
with an X-ray dose of 200 Krads.
70
-------
EFFECTIVE CLEANUP OF SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION USING VACUUM
EXTRACTION
Bruce Bossard
Terra Vac, Inc.
3303 Harbor Blvd.
Ste. K-5
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (714) 979-8900
Fax: (714) 979-0630
Terra Vac has expanded operations in Europe and the Pacific Rim. Terra Vac's largest international project is in
Chavanay, France. In 1990 a 12- train car derailment caused a 6 million pound gasoline spill adjacent to the Rhone
River. The incident received extensive publicity because of fires which destroyed local buildings and hydrocarbon
impaction over a 10-acre area. Up to 2 meters of free product gasoline was encountered. Terra Vac's joint venture
with GEOCLEAN of France was contracted for site remediation. Key Terra Vac technologies in use are Vapor
Extraction, Dual Extraction™, and air sparging (SpargeVac™). Vapor stream processing is via catalytic oxidation,
consisting of two 2,000 SCFM and one 1,500 SCFM units. To date all free product has been recovered. Air sparging
units are in construction for smear zone cleanup. Technical limitations and benefits of treatment technologies were
discussed in addition to environmental concerns in France.
71
-------
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES
U.S. EPA Fourth Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies: Domestic & International
November 17-19,1992
San Francisco, CA
Maricku Aaltonen
Ekokem OYAB
Box 181
Riihlmaki, SF-11101
FINLAND
Phone: 011-358-14-7151
Fax: 011-358-14-715300
Roger Accornero
Epoc Water, Inc.
5467 Betty Circle
Livermore, CA 94550
Phone: 510-447-7646
Fax: 510-447-7646
Bryant Adams
Pacific Wood Treating Corp.
Ill West Division Street
Ridgefield, WA 98642
Phone: 206-887-3562
Fax: 206-887-3811
Martha Adams
URS Consultants
Sacramento, CA
Tony Adams
Tres-En-Une Gabonso Nig. Ltd.
P.O. Box 80362
Lafiaji-Lagos
NIGERIA
Phone: 011-234-1-630-554
Fax: 011-234-1-631-203
Mary Adrian
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: 512-908-2553
Fax: 512-908-2550
David Aggerholm
Port of Seattle
Pier 66
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111
Phone: 206-728-3190
Fax: 206-728-3188
Hussain AI-Ekabi
Nutech Environmental
London, Ontario
CANADA
Asad Al-Malazi
CIS/Solutions, Inc.
1800 Sutler Street
Suite 830
Concord, CA 94520-2500
Phone: 510-827-5400
Fax: 510-827-5467
Hakeem AI-Raheem
Al-Raheem & Johnson
Environmental
P.O. Box 202
San Pablo, CA 94806-0202
Phone: 510-215-5111
Fax: 510-215-5111
Faisul Alam
Bangladesh EPA
Centredew, Alpana Plaza
6th Floor
51 New Elephant Road
Dhaka 1205
BANGLADESH
Phone: 011-880-2-503772
Fax: 011-880-2-863014
Mahesh Albuquerque
Twin Ports Testing, Inc.
1301 North Third Street
Superior, WI 54880
Phone: 715-392-7114
Fax: 715-392-7163
Christopher Alger
McLaren Hart
1135 Atlantic Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 415-748-5678
Fax: 415-521-1547
Jack Allen
Microenvironment, Inc.
3066 Deer Meadow Drive
Danville, CA 94506
Phone: 510-736-1585
Fax: 510-736-8577
Philip Allen
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: 214-655-8516
Fax: 214-655-6762
E. Roberts Alley
E. Roberts Alley & Associates,
Inc.
P.O. Box 2365
Brentwood, TN 37024
Phone: 615-373-1567
Fax: 615-373-3697
Subhashiu Allu
Environmental Chemical
Corporation
1240 Bayshore Highway
Suite 300
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: 415-347-1555
Fax: 415-347-4571
Ed Alperin
IT Corporation
304 Directors Drive
Knoxville, TN 37923
Phone: 615-690-3211
Fax: 615-694-9573
Jim Ambrose
Brown & Caldwell Consulting
Engineers
63 Los Palmos
San Francisco, CA 94127
Phone: 510-210-2217
Fax: 510-937-9026
Habib Amin
Bechtel Group, Inc.
50 Beale Street
MC 50/15/C24
San Francisco, CA 94119
Phone: 415-768-3118
Fax: 415-768-3580
Gianni Andreottola
D.I.J.A.T. - Politecnico di Milano
Via Fratelli Gorlini, 1
Milan, T-20151
ITALY
Phone: 011-39-2-40910010
Fax: 011-39-2-40910006
Zaszkodna Aniela
CA Water Resource Control Board
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 213-266-7563
Fax: 213-266-7600
Clint Anuszewski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Phone: 410-962-4454
Fax: 410-962-2318
Masoud Arjmandi
AR Dept. of Pollution Control &
Ecology
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219
Phone: 501-570-2878
Fax: 501-562-2541
Arne D. Armando
New Logic International
1155 Park Avenue
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 510-655-7305
Fax: 510-655-7307
Douglas Arnett
Summer Rain Ltd.
Suite 920 .
717-7th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, T2P OZ3
CANADA
Phone: 403-265-0839
Fax: 403-269-6502
Shari Arroyo
James M. Montgomery Engineers
365 Lennon Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 510-975-3400
Fax: 510-975-3412
Robert Arsenault
Aminex Co.
SE 80 Ardaka Court
Shelton, WA 98584-9339
Phone: 206-427-8331
Fax: 206-427-0851
Bonnie Arthur
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3816
Fax: 510-540-3819
Mark Attaway
Laidlaw Environmental Services,
Inc.
220 Outlet Pointe Boulevard
Columbia, SC 29210
Phone: 803-798-2993
Fax: 803-731-0549
Don Augenstein
Institute for Environmental
Management
4277 Pomona Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: 415-856-2850
Mark Ausbum
H2O Science, Inc.
5500 Bolsa Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Phone: 714-379-1157
Fax: 714-379-1160
Duncan Austin
CAL/EPA, DTSC
10151 Croydon Way
Suite #3
Sacramento, CA 95827
Phone: 916-855-7861
Fax: 916-855-7852
-------
Brad Authter
America North/EMCON, Inc.
201 E. 56th Avenue
Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99518
Phone: 907-562-3452
FM: 907-563-2814
MwyAycock
SAIC
4900 Hopyard Road
Suite 310
Pleastnton, CA 94588
Phone: 510-8111x2130
Fax: 5KM23-9987
Andre Baehmann
MBT Environmental Europe
Vulkanstrassc 110
Zurich, CH-8048
SWITZERLAND
Phone: 011-411-730-6077
FM: 011-411-730-7035
Todd Baescn
James M. Montgomery Consulting
Engineers
1428 Fulton Street, #1
San Francisco, CA 94117
Phone: 510-975-3516
Fax: 510-975-3512
Sally Bahowlck
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
P.O. Box 808
Uvcrmore, CA 94550
Magdy Btiady
Los Angeles RWQCB
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 213-266-7486
Fax: 213-266-7600
Elaine Bailey
Alamcda County Health Agency
224 W.Winloix Avenue
Room 109
Hayward, CA 94544
Phone: 510-670-5275
Fax: 510-670-5955
Keith Bailey
Kerr-MeGcc Corporation
P.O. Box 25861
Oklahoma City, OK 83125
Phone: 405-270-3651
Fax: 405-270-4244
Carls Bailinson
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 3
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-3045
Michael Bakaidin
San Lcandro Fire Dcpt.
835 E. 14th Street
San Lcandro, CA 94577
Phone: 510-577-3331
Fax: 510-577-3295
Philip Baldwin
Chemfix Technologies, Inc.
3838 N. Causeway Boulevard
#2500
Metrairie, LA 70002-1767
Phone: 805-654-1900
Fax: 805-654-1802
Harold Ball
Stanford University
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Stanford, CA 94305-4020
Phone: 415-723-0315
Fax: 415-725-8662
Hans Balthaus
Philipp Holzmann AG
Munsterstr. 291
Postfach 320506
4000Dusseldorf30
GERMANY
Phone: 011-49-211-6215-385
Fax: 011-49-211-6215-389
Deborah Barber
Zimpro Passavant Env. Systems,
Inc.
301 W. Military Road
Rothschild, WI 54474
Phone: 715-359-7211
Fax: 715-355-3219
John Barich
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-553-8562
Fax: 206-553-0119
Lori Barnow
University of California
Office of Environmental Health &
Safety
Irvine, CA 92717-2725
Phone: 714-856-5859
Fax: 714-856-8539
DonBartkiw
Ministry of the Environment of
Ontario
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1L5
CANADA
Phone: 416-323-5151
Fax: 416-323-5031
Michael Basel
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
500 12th Street
Suite 100
Oakland, CA 94607-4014
Phone: 510-893-3600
Fax: 510-874-3268
John Basile
Solarchem Environmental Systems
7320 Smoke Ranch Road
Suite H
Las Vegas, NV 89128
Phone: 702-255-7055
Fax: 702-255-7280
Edward Bates
U.S. EPA, RREL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7784
Fax: 513-569-7676
Robert Battey
Aqua Resources, Inc.
Subsidiary of The Earth
Technology Corp.
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA
Phone: 510-540-6954
Fax: 510-540-7496
Ann Baugh
Unocal Corporation
1201 West 5th Street
P.O. Box 7600
Los Angeles, CA 90051
Phone: 213-977-7693
James Baxter
Ecologica, Ltd.
7677 Oakport Street
Suite 540 .
Oakland, CA 94621
Janette Baxter
SFRWQCB
2101 Webster, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94705
Phone: 510-286-1287
Fax: 510-286-1380
Rudolf Becking
Humboldt State University
College of Natural Resources &
Sciences
Arcata, CA 95521
Phone: 707-822-1649
Vijay Bedi
Brown & Caldwell Consultants
150 South Arroyo Parkway
Pasadena, CA 91109-7203
Phone: 818-577-1020
Fax: 818-795-6016
John Benemann
Institute for Environmental
Management
4277 Pomona Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: 415-856-2850
Magnus B. Bennedsen
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
500 12th Street
Suite 100
Oakland, CA 94607-4014
Phone: 510-874-3050
Fax: 510-874-3268
Marie-Agnes Benoit
GAZ de FRANCE
361, Avenue du President Wilson
93.211 LaPlaine
St. Denis, Cedex
FRANCE
Phone: 011-49-22-4758
Fax: 011-49-22-5710
James D. Berg , ,
Aquateam A/S
P.O. Box 6326, Etterstad
N-0604Oslo
NORWAY .
Phone: 011-47-2-679310
Fax: 011-47-2-672012
Mark Berscheid
CAL/EPA, DTSC
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806.
Phone: 916-322-3294 . ' . , •
Fax: 916-327-4494
Giorgio Bertanza ... j
Universita Degli Studi Di Pavia
Dip. Ing. Idraulica E Ambientale
ViaAbbiategrassoSIS , ,. , .
Pavia, 27100
ITALY
Phone: 011-39-382-391342
Fax: 011-39-382-391589 ;
Chuck Biagi
Environmental Science & .- •,
Engineering, Inc.
4090 Nelson Avenue
Suite J
Concord, CA 94520
Phone: 510-685-4053
Fax: 510-685-5323
Shcri Bianchin
U.S. EPA, Region V
(HRE-8J)
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Jack Bickley
U.S. EPA, OFFE .'.".'
(OE-2261) ,. ;
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4846 , ,
Fax: 202-260-9437 ';
Keith Bircher
Solarchem Environmental Systems
40 West Wilmont Street
UnitS
Richmond Hill, Ontario ,
L4B 1H8
CANADA
Phone: 416-764-9666, , ; ,
R.J. (Bob) Bishop . ,
Cleanaway
Level 9, Underwood House
37 Pitt Street
Sydney NSW ,
AUSTRALIA '...'., •...
Phone: 011-61-2-241-1031
Fax: 011-61-2-252-4447 ,
Benjamin Blaney , : ,f ...
U.S. EPA ;,;
26 West Martin,Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268 ,
Phone: 513-569-7406 .
Fax: 513-569-7626
-------
Douglas Bleakly
Versar Inc.
1255 Harbor Bay Parkway
Suite 100
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 510-748-6448
Fax: 510-748-6441
Sherman Bellinger
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
12565 West Center Boulevard
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
Phone: 402-221-7497
Fax: 402-221-7561
Marc Boogay
Consulting Engineer
2141-D El Camino Real
Oceanside, CA 92054
Phone: 619-721-1969
Fax: 619-721-0911
Maxwell Boone
TOSCO Refinery
1 Solano Way
Martinez, CA
Rob Booth
Wastewater Technology Centre
867 Lakeshore Road
P.O. Box 5068
Burlington, Ontario, L7R 4L7
CANADA
Phone: 416-336-4689
Fax: 416-336-8913
Matt Boozarpour
East Bay Municipal Utility District
375 Eleventh Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: 510-287-1601
Fax: 510-287-1530
NeilBordelon
GDC Engineering Inc.
822 Neosho Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Phone: 504-383-8556
Fax: 504-383-2789
Barbara Bradley
Env. Eng. Grad Student
UC-Berkeley
3011 Benvenue Avenuer
Berkeley, CA 94705
Phone: 510-549-9829
Fax: 510-841-6944
Michael Breazeale
Williams AFB - OpTech
82 CES/DEV Bldg. 602
Williams AFB, AZ 85240-5045
Phone: 602-988-6487
Fax: 602-988-3338
Brent Brelje
McLaren Hart
1135 Atlantic Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 415-748-5621
Fax: 415-521-1547
James Bresson
NFT Inc.
6200 Uptown Boulevard, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110
Magalie Breville
U.S. EPA, Region U
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Phone: 212-264-6788
Kevin Bricknell
Bechtel Environmental Inc.
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94119
Phone: 415-768-6249
Fax: 415-768-7299
Mitchell Brourman
Beazer East, Inc.
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1822
Phone: 412-227-2177
Fax: 412-227-2940
Bert Brown
Davy Environmental
2440 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: 510-866-1166
Damon Brown
EBA Wastechnologies
825 Sonoma Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: 707-544-0784
Fax: 707-544-0866
Ken Brown
U.S. EPA, ENNSH-LV
944 E. Harmon
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Richard Brown
81 Higuera Street
Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone: 805-542-4630
Fax: 805-543-0397
Richard Brown
SAIC
20 California Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-399-0140
Fax: 415-399-0299
Gunter Brox
EIMCO Process Equipment
P.O. Box 300
Salt Lake City, UT 84110-0300
Phone: 801-526-2082
Fax: 801-526-2425
Tabb Bubier
McLaren/Hart
16755 Von Karman Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone: 714-752-3206
Fax: 714-756-8460
Illustre Buenavesta
R.E.H.S. Alameda County
1935 Fairbanks Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone: 510-670-5275
Greg Bull
NovaTec Consultants, Inc.
#300 - 40 Powell Street
Vancouver, British Columbia,
V6A 1E7
CANADA
Phone: 604-682-8777
Fax: 604-682-3521
T.L. Bulman
Australian Defence Industries
Locked Bag 14
Lidcombe, NSW 2141
AUSTRALIA
Phone: 011-61-2-911-8666
Fax: 011-61-2-911-8674
Philip Bumala
ECOLOGICS LTD.
7677 Oakport Street
Suite 540
Oakland, CA 94621
Phone: 510-430-0000
Fax: 510-430-0703
Dave Burden
U.S. EPA, R.S. Kerr
Environmental Lab
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 405-332-8800x294
Fax: 405-332-8800x301
George Burke
Hayward Baker Environmental,
Inc.
1130 Annapolis Road
Odenton, MD21113
Phone: 410-551-1995
Fax: 410-551-2994
James Burke
Burke Associates
One Sansome Street
Suite 1900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-752-0413
Fax: 415-752-0930
Julia Bussey
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 4
245 West Broadway
Suite 350
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 310-590-4930
Fax: 310-590-4922
Brian Butters
Nutechy Energy Systems, Inc.
511 McCormick Boulevard
London, Ontario, NSW 4C8
CANADA
Phone: 519-457-2963
Fax: 519-457-1676
L.F. (Butch) Byers
Ogden Environmental and Energy
Services
221 Main Street
Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-227-4370
Fax: 415-227-4376
David Cacciatore
San Jose State University
Dept. of Chemical Engineering
One Washington Square
San Jose, CA 95192-0082
Phone: 408-924-4015
Fax: 408-924-3818
John Calomiris
EBA Wastechnologies
825 Sonoma Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: 707-544-0784
Fax: 707-544^0866
Megan Cambridge
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 1
10151 Croydpn Way, Suite 3
Sacramento, CA 95827 '
Phone: 916-855-7882 ' '
Fax: 916-855-7852
Darcy Campbell
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
(8HWM-SM)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Steven Campbell
Versar, Inc.
6850 Versar Center
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-642-6741
Fax: 703-642-6810
Timothy Carey
Radian Corporation
300 N. Sepulveda Boulevard
Suite 1000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: 310-640-0045
Fax: 310-640-8940
Raymond Carlisle
Carlisle Management Associates
38839 Altura Street
Fremont, CA 94536 '
Phone: 510-793-6900
Fax: 510-793-6172
Andy Carney '
Westinghouse Remediation
Service '
113 Maple Road
Kings Park, NY 11754
Phone: 516-366-4861
Fax: 516-366-4901
Nicholas Caruano
AT&T
131 Morristown Road
Backing Ridge, NJ 07920
Phone: 908-204-8268
Fax: 908-204-8217
-------
Alan Cash
Ttttn-Klccn Corporation
7321 N. Hammond Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73132
Phone: 405-728-0001
flu: 405-728-0016
Frank Casiro-Wchr
Ecology and Environment
160 Spear Street
Suite 1400
San Francisco. CA 94105
Phone: 415-777-2811
Fax: 415-543-5739
William Cawlcy
CCHSRC
P.O. Box 10613
Beaumont, TX 77710-0613
Phone: 409-880-8768
Fax: 409-880-2397
Kuo-Ching Chang
Industrial Technology Research
Institute
Energy & Resources Laboratories
Btdg. 64,195 Section 4
Chung Using Rd.
Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan
REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Phone: 011-886-35-917637
Fax: 011-886-35-820080
Yun Kle Chang
Industrial Technology Research
Institute
Building 64,195 Sec 4
Chung Hsing Road
Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 310
REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Phone: 011-886-35-91-6254
Fax: 011-886-35-82-0230
Anton Chaplin
1901 Shore Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
Phone: 907-344-0722
Robert Chtrbonncau
University of California
Office of the President
300 Lakeside Drive, 7th Floor
Oakland. CA 94612-3550
Phone: 510-987-9594
Fax: 510-987-9599
Jeffrey Chen
Tctra Technologies, Inc.
3177 Ross Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: 415-435-4617
Fax: 415-435-4444
Ping Chen
TETRA Technologies, Inc.,
Technical Center
9391 Grogans Mill Road
Suite A-6
The Woodlands. TX 77380
Phone: 713-363-0315
Fax: 713-363-0319
Sang-Teh Chen
Energy & Resources Laboratories,
ITRI
Bldg. 54,195, Sec. 4
Chung Hsing Road
Chutung, 310, Hsincha, Taiwan
REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Phone: 011-886-35-916255
Fax: 011-886-35-820230
Shen-Sin Chen
University of Houston
Dept. of Civil & Environmental
Engineering
4800 Calhoun Road
Houston, TX 77204-4791
Phone: 713-743-4292
Shiaw-Hwa Chen
Chinese Petroleum Corp., Taiwan,
ROC
83 Chung Hwa Road, Section 1
Taipei, Taiwan
REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Phone: 011-886-2-3126581
Fax: 011-886-2-3317718
Chris Cherniak
COM Federal Programs
1990 N. California Boulevard
#330
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-939-8404
Fax: 510-939-9444
John Chesnutt
U.S. EPA, Region IX, Superfund
Program
75 Hawthorne Street (H-9-2)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2387
Fax: 415-744-1916
Calvin Chien
DuPont Company
300 Bellevue Paikway
Suite 300
Wilmington, DE 19809-3722
Phone: 302-792-8826
Fax: 302-792-8995
Long Ching
Allwest Environmental
One Sutler Street
6th Floor
Sacramento, CA 94104
Phone: 415-391-2510
Fax: 415-391-2008
Tsai Ching-Tsan
91-4 Yung-Ting 2nd Street
Taichung, Taiwan
REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Phone: 011-886-4-2054076
Fax: 011-886-4-2351619
Vemon Chock
PVT Land Company, Ltd.
841 Bishop Street
Suite 1901
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: 808-545-2979
Fax: 808-524-4206
Douglas Christensen
Brown & Caldwell
3480 Buskirk Avenue
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone: 510-210-2427
Fax: 510-937-9026
Robert Chrobak
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Marathon Plaza, Tenth Floor
303 Second Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415-243-2524
Fax: 415-896-0999
Don Chuck
U.S. Navy
Staff Civil Engineer, Bldg. 566
NAS Moffett Field, CA
94035-5111
Phone: 415-404-6463
Fax: 415-404-8368
Jay Clare
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
500 12th Street
Suite 100
Oakland, CA 94607-4014
Phone: 510-893-3600
Fax: 510-874-3268
Jocelyn Clark
COM Federal Programs
1990 N. California Boulevard
#330
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-939-8404
Fax: 510-939-9444
Molly Clark
Westinghouse Remediation
Services
623 Wesley
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Phone: 313-996-8867
Fax: 313-996-3881
Brian Clarke
Davy Environmental
2440 Camino Ramon
Suite 100
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: 510-866-6477
Fax: 510-866-6520
Stan Clarke
The Clorox Company
Technical Center
7200 Johnson Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588-8004
Phone: 510-847-6640
Fax: 510-847-2499
Patricia Clements
Matney-Frantz Engineering, P.C.
105 W. Main, Suite A
Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: 406-586-3748
Roger Clifford
Chevron Research & Technology
Co.
100 Chevron Way
Richmond, CA 94802
Phone: 510-242-4960
Fax: 510-242-5577
Bob Colangelo
Environmental Planning Group
1822 Elmhurst Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 ,
Phone: 708-437-8001
Fax: 708-437-8017
Lynn Coleman
WA Dept. of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Phone: 206-438-3073
Fax: 206-438-3050
Anne Marie Collins
Aeroject General Corporation
1940 Alabama Avenue
Box 3530
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-3530
Phone: 916-355-3558
Fax: 916-351-8666
Patti Collins
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-6-3
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Mary Collins-Shepard
Advanced Sciences, Inc.
165 Mitchell Road
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Phone: 615-483-1274
Fax: 615-483-6355
Carlo Collivignarelli
Universita Degli Studi Di Pavia
Dip. Ing. Idraulica E Ambientale
Via Abbiategrasso 213
Pavia, 27100
ITALY
Phone: 011-39-382-391312
Fax: 011-39-382-391583
Robert Colonna
The Earth Technology Corporation
300 North Washington Street
Suite 700
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-549-8728
Fax: 703-549-9134
Joan Colson
U.S. EPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7501
Fax: 513-569-7676
Dave Conboy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207 '
-------
Hal Connors
Dames & Moore
2101 Webster Street
Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-208-1323
Fax: 510-208-4461
Etienne Constable
SAIC
160 Spear Street
Suite 150
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-442-0102
Edward Conti
McCulley, Frick & Oilman, Inc.
5 Third Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103-3205
Phone: 415-495-7110
Fax: 415-495-7107
Fred Conwell
Applied Geosciences, Inc.
1735 No. First Street
Suite 305
SanLeandro, CA95112
Phone: 408-452-0262
Fax: 408-452-0265
David Cook
Kleinfelder
3077 File Circle
Sacramento, CA 95827
Phone: 916^366-1701
Fax: 916-366-7013
Kyle Cook
SAIC
10240 Sorrento Valley Road #204
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: 619-557-7805
Fax: 619-457-5481
Austin Cooley
Halliburton NUS Environmental
16360 Park Ten Place
Suite 300
Houston, TX 77084
Phone: 713-492-1888
Bill Cooper
Florida International University
Drinking Water Research Center
Miami, FL 33199
Phone: 306-348-3049
Fax: 305-348-3894
William Copa
Zimpro/Passavant Environmental
Systems, Inc.
301 West Military Road
Rothschild, WI 54474
Phone: 715-359-7211
Fax: 715-355-3221
Darrel Cornell
U.S. Air Force
8001 Inner Circle Drive
Suite 2
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5328
Phone: 210-536-5282
Fax: 210-536-9026
Clarence Coniveau
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
Phone: 415-768-1881
Fax: 415-768-7299
Sergio Cosio •
James M. Montgomery Consulting
Engineers Inc.
301 North Lake Avenue
Suite 900
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: 818-796-9141 x 6933
Fax: 818-568-6103
Philip Cote
Sandoz Chemicals Corporation
P.O. Box 669304
Charlotte, NC 28266
Phone: 704-547-5511
Fax: 704-547-5588
Douglas Cotton
CET Environmental Services, Inc.
3447 Atlantic Avenue
Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90807
Phone: 310-427-5999
Fax: 310-427-0576
Robert Cox
OHM Remediation Services Corp.
2950 Buskirk Avenue
Suite 315
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-256-7187
Fax: 510-256-4286
Bridget Coyle
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-2-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Harry Craig
U.S. EPA
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: 503-326-3689
Fax: 503-326-3399
Annabelle Cronk
Remedial Engineering, Inc.
30 Hughes, Suite 209
Irvine, CA 92718
Phone: 714-588-3777
Fax: 714-830-2055
Gary Cronk
Remedial Engineering, Inc.
30 Hughes, Suite 209
Irvine, CA 92718
Phone: 714-588-3777
Fax: 714-830-2055 ,
J. Brad Culldn
New Logic International, Inc.
1155 Park Avenue
Emeryville, CA 94608-3631
Phone: 510-655-7305
Fax: 510-655-7307
Jim Cummings
U.S. EPA
Donald Cunningham
NEESA
1001 Lyons Street
Oxnard, CA 93033
Phone: 805-982-3684
Randy Curry
Titan Pulse Sciences, Inc.
600 McCormick Street
San Leandro, CA 94566
Phone: 510-632-5100
Fax: 510-632-5300
John Cusack
ABB Sanitec, Inc.
Wayne Interchange Plaza II
155 Route 46 West
Wayne, NJ 07470
Phone: 201-812-8300
Fax: 201-812-8348
Douglas Cushing
EBASCO Environmental
143 Union Boulevard
Suite 1010
Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone: 303-980-3520
Fax: 303-980-3539
Jean M. Czuczwa
Babcock & Wilcox Co.
1562 Beeson Street
Alliance, OH 44601
Phone: 216-829-7736
Fax: 216-829-7801
Robert Dahl
Terra Vac
14798 Wicks Boulevard
San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone: 510-351-8900
Fax: 510-351-0221
Cecil Danford
LA DEQ, Legal Affairs &
Enforcement
P.O. Box 82282
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2282
Phone: 504-765-0487
Fax: 504-754-0484
John Danna
Integrated Resources Group, Inc.
4913 Highland Meadow Drive
East
Fort Worth, TX 76132-3813
Phone: 817-294-8046
Fax: 817-294-3742
Guy Darst
Pasha Publications
1616 N. Fort Myer Drive
Suite 1000
Arlington, VA 22209-3107
Phone: 703-816-8631
Fax: 703-528-1253
Dennis Dasker
CA RWQCB
101 Centre Plaza
Monterey, CA 91754
Phone: 213-266-7518
David Dassler
Unocal Corporation
1201 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-977-6054
Fax: 213-977-5832
Derby Davidson
Erler & Kalinowski, Inc.
1730 So. Amphlett Blvd.
Suite 320
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone: 415-578-1172
Fax: 415-578-9131
Patrick Davis
Search North America, Inc.
620 SW 5th Avenue
Suite 925
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: 503-222-6461
Fax: 503-227-2804
Wendy Davis-Hoover
U.S. EPA, CHL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7206
Fax: 513-569-7879
Stephen Dawson
Los Angeles, Dept. of Public
Works
2426 Altman Street
Los Angeles, CA 90031
Phone: 213-485-3805
Fax: 213-225-7818
Bram De Borst
TAUW Infra Consult
THE NETHERLANDS
Thomas De Kay
U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation
Office
2800 Crystal Drive
9th Floor
Arlington, VA 22202.
Phone: 703-308-8798
Fax: 703-308-8528
W. De Nijs
O.V.A.M.
Wijngaardstraat 90
1745 Opwijk
BELGIUM
Phone: 011-32-52-358276
Fax: 011-32-52-35830
V. De Proost
Dredging International
Scheldedijk 30
2070 Zwijndrecht
BELGIUM
Phone: 011-32-3-2521211
Fax: 011-32-3-2526831
-------
Louis DcFilipp!
Allied-Signal Research and
Technology
50 E. Algonquin Road
DCS Plalncs, IL 60017-5016
Phone: 708-391-3251
Fax: 708-391-3776
RoyDcGcsero
AWD Technologies, Inc.
400 W. Sam Houston Parkway, S.
Houston, TX 77042
Phone: 714-978-2544
Fax: 714-978-2959
J. David Dean
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Stanford Place 3, Suite 600
4582 South Ulster Street
Denver, CO 80237
Phone: 303-740-2600
Fax: 303-740-2650
Timothy Deets
Zimpro Passavant Environmental
Systems, Inc.
301 W. Military Road
Rothschild, Wi 54474
Phone: 715-359-7211
Fax: 715-355-3219
Drew Dcichman
MDA Scientific, Inc.
1031 E. Duanc Avenue
Suite G
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Phone: 408-773-0222
Fax: 408-773-1731
Jose Del Rosario
CAUEPA. DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3842
Fax: 510-540-3819
Tony Delano
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
110 Free Street
Portland, ME 04101
Phone: 207-775-5401
Fax: 207-772-4762
H. Dctdc
Advocalcnburcau M. Dcwispclacrc
Oude Mechclscstraat 165
1853 Strombcek-Bcver
BELGIUM
Phone: 011-32-2-2672170
Fax: 011-32-2-2673091
S« ma DC sal
Environmental Strategies
Corporation
101 Metro Drive
Suite 650
San Jose, CA 95110
Phone: 408-453-6100
Fax: 408-453-0496
Angela Desch
NASA - Ames Research Center
Moffett Field
Mail Stop 218-1
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
Phone: 415-604-0577
Fax: 415-604-6508
Ken Detrick
Detrick Corp.
412 Land Street
San Jose, CA 95125
Phone: 408-294-9792
F. Dewazier
Ecoter
Scheidedijk 30
2070 Zwijndrecht
BELGIUM
Phone: 011-32-3-2521211
Fax: 011-32-3-2526831
JeffDhont
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-7-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Clyde Dial
SAIC
635 W. 7th Avenue
Suite 403
Cincinnati, OH 45203
Phone: 513-723-2600
Fax: 513-723-2605
Barbara Dick
U.S. EPA
345 Courtland ME
Decatur, GA 30365
Phone: 404-347-2643
Fax: 404-347-3058
Kathy Diehl
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Anne Dobbs
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: 512-908-2540
Fax: 512-908-2550
David Dobson
Colder Associates, Inc.
1451 Harbor Bay Parkway #1000
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 510-521-0400
Fax: 510-865-9618
Ann Marie Dockstrader
Terra Vac
14798 Wicks Boulevard
San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone: 510-351-8900
Fax: 510-351-0221
Warren Dodge
DECON Environmental Services,
Inc.
23490 Connecticut Street
Hayward, CA 94545
Phone: 510-732-6444
Fax: 510-782-8584
Youichi Doi
Sumitomo Construction Co., LTD.
c/oSCA
4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway
#600
Long Beach, CA 90804
Phone: 310-498-7241
Fax: 310-985-0692
Cathy Dombrowski
HazTECH News
14120 Huckleberry Lane
Silver Spring, MD 20906-2012
Phone: 301-871-3289
Fax: 301-460-5859
James Donnelly
Davy Environmental
2440 Camino Ramon
Suite 100
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: 510-866-6363
Fax: 510-866-6520
Majid Dosani
IT Corporation
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246
Phone: 513-782-4700
Fax: 513-782-4807
Richard Dougherty
PRC Environmental Management,
Inc.
1505 PRC Drive
McLean, VA 22102
Phone: 703-883-8517
J.R. Douglas
Earth Remediation & Assoc. Inc.
2814 W. Bell Road
Phoenix, AZ
Duane Douthit
Fluid Filtration Tech. Service Co.
12426 Perthshire Road
Houston, TX 77024
Phone: 713-465-5628
Don Draper
U.S. EPA, R.S. Ken-
Environmental Lab
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 406-332-8800x202
Fax: 406-332-8800-x 301
Alain Drexler
Elf Aquitaine
1899 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-659-1810
Fax: 202-659-1816
Melody Drnach
SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043
Phone: 703-734-3149
Laura Duchnak
U.S. Navy -
SOUTHWESTNAVFAC-
ENGCOM
1220 Pacific Highway
1823 LD
San Diego, CA 92132^5190
Phone: 619-532-2456
Fax: 619-532-1242
Deborah Dumais
Aerojet
1940 Alabama Avenue
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-3530
Phone: 916-355-8554
Fax: 916-351-8660
Larry Dungan
Advanced Micro Devices
Mail Stop 5
P.O. Box 3453
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3453
Phone: 408-749-3118
Fax: 408-749-3534
Amelia Duque
Naval Air Station, Alameda
Alameda, CA
Subijoy Dutta
U.S. EPA, OSWER
OS 341, Room M2811
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-1371
Fax: 202-260-0096
Aleta Duvall
Ogden Environmental & Energy
Services
2904 Westcorp Boulevard
Suite 204
Huntsville, AL 35805 ,
Phone: 205-539-3076
Fax: 205-539-3074
Lynda Dyane
CAL/EPA, DTSC
Bud Eagle
CA WRQCB
2014 T Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-739-4194
Donald Easterling
Bionetics Corp.
Mail Stop 6-4, NASA Lewis
Research Center
21000 Brookpark Road
Cleveland, OH Y44240
Phone: 216-433-8700
Fax: 216-433-8719
-------
Irene Edelgaard
Danish Environment Protection
Agency
Strandgade29
1401 Copenhagen
DENMARK
Phone: 011-31-578310
Fax: 011-32-961656
Kenneth Eichstaedt
URS Consultants, Inc.
' 100 California Street
Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111-4529
Phone: 415-774-2767
Fax: 415-398-1904,
Frederic A. Eidsness
Canonie Environmental Services
Corp.
94 Inverness Terrace East
Suite 100
Englewood,CO80112
, Phone: 303-790-1747
Fax: 303-799-0186
Lisa Ellis , •
VA Dept. of Waste Management
101 N. 14th Street
18th Floor ' ' '••
Richmond, VA 23219 '
Phone: 804-225-2906
Fax: 804-225-4467
Randy Ellis
ENSR Consulting & Engineering
1220 Avenida Acaso
Camarillo, CA 93012
Phone: 805-388-3775
Fax: 805-388-3577
Rebecca Elwood ,
SAIC
160 Spear Street ,
Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-442-0102
Steve Emmons
Oregon Hydrocarbons, Inc.
2530 NW Windsor Place ,
Corvallis, OR 97330
Phone: 503-751-1360
Deb Engelau
SAIC
655 Metro Place 5
Columbus, OH 43017
Phone: 614-793-7600 . .''
Fax: 614-793-7620
Kelly Enwright
PRC Environmental Management,
Inc.
644 Linn Street " , "
Suite 719 .' '
Cincinnati,'OH 45203 "
Phone: 513-241-0149' '
Fax: 513-241-0354
Gary Erickson , , , '.
Montana Tech
Box 645
Butte, MT 59703
Kenneth 1. Erickson, P.E.
U.S. EPA, Region IX
(H-9-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2324
Fax: 415-744-1916
Richard Eschenbach
Retech, Inc.
P.O. Box 997
100 Henry Station Road
Ukiah, CA 95482
Phone: 707-462-6522
Fax: 707-462-4103
Stephen Escude'
Kelly AFB
SA-ALC/EMR
Kelly AFB, TX 78241-5000
Phone: 512-925-3100x333
Fax: 512-925-9972
Mike Eshaghian
CAL/EPA
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-3046
Fax: 818-567-3129
Jurgen Exner
ETS
2 Wavely Court
Alamo, CA 94507
John Fahy
Western Research Institute
P.O. Box 3395
University Station
Laramie, WY 82071
Phone: 307-721-2348
Fax: 307-721-2233
Gabriel Farkas
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 3
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-8096
Tracy Faulkner
B&V Waste Science Technology
Corp.
2300 Clayton Road
Suite 220
Concord, CA 94520-2100
Phone: 510-246-8010'
Bernard Feather
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3749
Fax: 510-540-3738 . \
Heidemarie Feldman
Dr. Petzold - Environmental
Technology
Weissenburgstr. 14
Munster, D-W_400
GERMANY
Phone: 011-49-251-791890
Regina Fernandez
ERM-West, Inc.
1777 Botelho Drive
Suite 260
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-946-0455
Fax: 510-946-9968
Joe Ferraiuolo
Retech, Inc.
P.O. Box 997
Ukiah, CA 95482
William Fetherston •
Naval Aviation Depot
Code 612
Naval Air Station
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 510-263-6292
Fax: 510-263-6598
Linda Fiedler
U.S. EPA, TIO
2800 Crystal Drive
9th Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 703-308-8798
Fax: 703-308-8528
Robert Finucane
Vermont DEC
103 South Main Street
West Building
Waterbury, VT 05671-0404
Phone: 802-244-8702
Fax: 802-244-5141
Charles Fisher
Moffett Naval Air Station
Moffett Field, CA 94035-5111
Phone: 415-404-6542
Fax: 415-404-8368
Robyn Fisher-Orchard
Robyn Fisher-Orchard, Consultant
R.R. #4, Box 75A
Union City, IN 47390
Phone: 317-964-7656
Fax: 317-398-3675
Maggie Fitzgerald
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1350 Treat Boulevard
Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-256-0733
Fax: 510-256-9487
Felix Flechas
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Phone: 303-293-1524
Mark Fletcher
Environmental BioTechnologies,
Inc.
P.O. Box 371477
Montara, CA 94037
Phone: 415-728-8609
Fax: 415-728-0928
Carl Fliermans
Savannah River Technology Corp.
Aiken, SC 29808
Vance Fong
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Jerry Fore
Envotech
1349 Huron Street South.
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Phone: 313-485-6480
Fax: 313-485-6450
Michael Forlini
U.S. EPA.TIO
2800 Crystal Drive
9th Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Robert Fox
2111 Ashby Avenue, #17
Berkeley, CA 94705
Phone: 510-845-9207
C.W. Francis
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008
Bldg. 3504, MS-6317
Oak Ridge, TN 37031
Phone: 615-574-7257
Fax: 615-574-7420
James Frames,
Versar Inc.
5330 Primrose Drive
Suite 228 '••'•>
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Phone: 916-962-1612
Fax: 916-962-2678
Kenneth Frederick
Raychem Corporation
300 Constitution Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1164
Phone: 415-361-4461
Fax: 415-361-6338
Martin Freedman
Brainard-Kilman ,
2830 Howe Road '
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone: 415-228-9778
Fax: 415-228-8183
Jim French
Harding Lawson Associates
1301 Pennsylvania Street
Suite 200
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303-894-9878
Fax: 303-894-9948 '
Joerg Freytag
ADN Institute GmbH
Oberwerder Damm 5
DW-2000 Hamburg 26
GERMANY
Phone: 011-49-40-78915511
Fax: 011-49-40-78915555
-------
Glenn Friebertshiuser
Western Environmental Science &
Technology
45133 County Road 32B
Dtvis, CA 95616-9426
Phone: 916-753-9500
Fax: 916-757-4652
Butch Fries
FRC Environmental Management,
Inc.
1099 18th Street
Suite 1960
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-295-1101
Fax: 303-295-2818
William Fristtd
COGNIS
2330 Orcadian Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Phone: 707-576-6235
F«: 707-575-7833
Dennis Froehlich
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
3400 Crow Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: 510-866-5277
JawFu
Bechlcl
P.O. Box 194484
San Francisco. CA 94119
Phone: 415-768-8737
Fax: 415-768-7299
KolchJ Fujloka
Toyo Engineering Corporation
8-1, Akanchamii, 2-chome
Narashlno-shl, Chiba 275
JAPAN
Phone: 011-81-0474-54-1698
Fax: 011-81-0474-54-1831
Masanobu Fujioka
Mass Fujioka & Associates
99-1205 Halawa Valley Street
Suite 302
Aiga, HI 96701
Phone: 808-484-5366
Fax: 808-484-0007
Philip Gagnaid
Waste Management of North
America, Inc.
3003 Butlerfield Road
Oak Brook, 1L 60521
Phone: 708-572-8800
Rene Galli
MBT Umwclttechnik AG
Vulkomtr. Mo
8048 Zurich
SWITZERLAND
Phone: 011-41-1-732-9287
Fax: 011-41-2-731-0676
Tcny Galloway
Synthetics Technologies, Inc.
5327 Jacuzzi Street
Unit 3-0
Richmond. CA 94804
Phone: 510-525-3000
Fax: 510-526-2277
Frank Gardner
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
John Gardner
Remedquip International
Manufacturing, Inc.
405 - 100 Park Royal
West Vancouver, BC V7T 1A2
CANADA
Phone: 604-925-1607
Fax: 604-925-1608
Frank Gaunce
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3834
Steven Gaytan
CAL/EPA, DTSC
400 P Street
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Phone: 916-324-2432
Fax: 916-327-8514 .
Dennis Geiser
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Linda Geissinger
McClellan AFB
3200 Peackeeper Way
Suite 11
McClellan AFB, CA 95652-1035
Phone: 916-643-1250
Fax: 916-643-5880
Dwight Gemar
OHM Corp.
2950 Buskirk Avenue
Suite 315
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-256-7187
Fax: 510-256-4286
Jamshid Ghazanshahi
CAL/EPA
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-3054
Fax: 818-567-3129
Rizgar Ghazi
California Dept. of Toxics
245 West Broadway, #350
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 310-590-4914
Fax: 310-590-4922
Woody Gibson
L & G Resources
2101 Pacific Avenue
Suite 701
San Francisco, CA 94115
Phone: 415-567-0266
Fax: 415-292-6809
Steven Giddings
Minnesota Pollution Control ,
Agency
510 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-3898
Phone: 612-296-7775
Fax: 612-296-9707
Christopher Giggy
Peroxidation Systems, Inc.
5151 East Broadway
Suite 600
Tucson, AZ 85711
Phone: 602-790-8383
Fax: 602-790-8008
Donna Gilmore Rhee
DGR Environmental Chemistry
1950 Fifth Street
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: 916-757-4812
Fax: 916-757-4808
John Glaser
U.S. EPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7568
Fax: 513-569-7787
Steven Godio
U.S. Air Force
ICES/CEV
209 Thomell Avenue
Langley AFB, VA 23665
Phone: 804-764-7193
Fax: 804-764-3503
Donald Goer
Schonberg Radiation Corporation
3300 Keller Street
Building 101
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: 408-980-9729
'Fax: 408-980-8605
Desiree Golub
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
(8HWM-SR)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-293-1838
Fax: 303-293-1238
Robert Luna Gonzales
Los Alamos National Laboratory
P.O. Box 1663
MS M992
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Phone: 505-665-0226
Fax: 505-665-4747
Leslie Goodbody
ERM-West, Inc.
2001 P Street
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9378
Fax: 916-444-5313
Reams Goodloe
R. Reams Goodloe, P.S.
SuiteS
10725 SE 256 Street
Kent, WA 98031-6426
Phone: 206-859-9128
Fax: 206-859-8915
John Gordon
U.S. Air Force Reg. Compliance
Office
77 Forsyth Street, SW
Suite 295
Atlanta, GA 30335-6801
Phone: 404-331-6935
Fax: 404-331-2537
Brigitta Gottwald
Austrian Research Centre
Seibersdorf
A-2444 Seibersdorf
AUSTRIA
Phone: 011-2254803528
Fax: 011-2254803653
James Graham
Westates Carbon Inc.
2130 Leo Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90040
Phone: 213-724-8565
Fax: 213-721-4074
Denny Grandle
Exxon Chemical Company
P.O. Box 4321
Houston, TX 77210-4321
Phone: 713-460-6800
Fax: 713-460-6850
Gary Grant
Environmental Auditors Limited
100 York Boulevard
Suite 120
Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 1J8
CANADA
Phone: 416-886-7965
Fax: 416-886-7967
Christine Gray
Canonie Environmental Services
Corp.
7901 Stoneridge Drive
Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: 510-463-9117
Fax: 510-463-2981
Joseph Greenblott
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-9-3
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
-------
Alisa Greene
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-4-4
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Roger Greensfelder
Greensfelder & Associates
1562 Ashwood Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone: 510-228-5071
Fax: 510-370-2194
Wendell Greenwald
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
10305 W. Argent
Pasco, WA 99331
Phone: 509-522-6343
Fax: 509-522-6669
Armand Gregoli
Oxy USA Inc.
P.O. Box 3908
Tulsa, OK 74102
Phone: 918-561-1925
Fax: 918-561-1683
Deborah Griswold
U.S. EPA, Region VI
MC 6H-SC
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: 214-655-8520
Fax: 214-655-6460
Robert Griswold
U.S. EPA, Region VI, Superfund
First Interstate Bank Tower
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214-655-8502
Fax: 214-655-6762
Winfried Groeschel
Harbauer GmbH & Co. KG
Ingenieurburo fur Umwelttchnik
Flughafenstr. 21
D-1000 Berlin 44
GERMANY
Phone: 011-49-30-613730-224
Fax: 011-49-30-613730-230
Douglas Grosse
U.S. EPA, RREL
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7844
Fax: 513-569-7676
Paul A. Groves
Bio-Tec, Inc.
5144 N. Academy Boulevard,
#122
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
Phone: 719-661-7630
Fax: 719-522-0212
Dennis Grubb
UC Berkeley
Geotechnical Engineering
440 Davis Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 510-642-9005
Fax: 510-642-7476
Gary Guerra
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75128 '
Phone: 214-655-2275
Fax: 214-655-7447
Jacques Guertin
35626 Lundy Drive
Newark, CA 94560
Phone: 415-793-8688
Richard J. Guimond
U.S. EPA, OSWER
OS-100
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4610
Samiddha Gunasekera
BEM Systems, Inc.
120 Halsted Street
East Orange, NJ 07019
Phone: 201-674-2380
Fax: 201-674-2357
Dennis Haag
George Butler Associates, Inc.
8207 Melrose Drive
Lenexa, KS 66214
Phone: 913-492-0400
Fax: 913-894-1878
Patrick Haas
8001 Inner Circle Drive
Suite 2
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
Paul Hadley
CAL/EPA, DTSC
400 P Street
Room 4311
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-324-3823 .
Fax: 916-327-4494
Roberta Haglund
ecology and environment, inc. ,
4801 Woodway
280 W.
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: 713-871-9460 ''
Albert Halff
Albert H. Halff Associates, Inc.
8616 NW Plaza Drive
Dallas, TX 75225
Phone: 214-739-0094 ,
Fax: 214-739-0095 ,
Douglas Hallett
ELI Eco Logic International, Inc.
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, Ontario, NOB 2KO
CANADA
Phone: 519-856-9591
Fax: 519-856-9235
Alan Hancock
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-551-7647
Fax: 913-551-7521
George Hanna
California State University, Fresno
7389 N. Bons Avenue
Fresno, CA 93720-3005
Phone: 209-278-3094
Fax: 209-278-6581
Barry Hansen
Hazen Research Inc.
4601 Indiana Street
Golden, CO 80403
Phone: 303-279-4501
Fax: 303-278-1528
Jim Hanson
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-6-3
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Dennis Hardy
Alaska District - Corps of
Engineers
P.O. Box 898
CENPA-EN-EE-TE
Anchorage, AK 99507-0898
Phone: 907-753-5730
Fax: 907-753-2526
G. Hardy
Environment Canada
Unite 100, Asticou Centre
241 Cites des Jeunes Boulevard
Hull, Quebec, K1A OH3
CANADA
Phone: 819-953-0962
Fax: 819-953-4705
Robert Harrington
Tetra Tech, Inc.
348 W. Hospitality Lane
Suite 300
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Phone: 714-381-1674
Fax: 714-884-4071
George Harris
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
Inc.
901 W. DuPont Avenue
Belle, WV 25015
Phone: 304-357-1379
Fax: 304-357-1230
Keith Harris
GRUNDFOS Pumps Corporation
2555 Clovis Avenue
Clovis, CA 93612
Phone: 209-292-8000x302
Fax: 209-391-1357
Peggy Harris .. "
CAL/EPA, DTSC
400 P Street - STD
Sacramento, CA 95812
Phone: 916-324-7663
Fax: 916-327-4494
Rusty Harris-Bishop
U.S. EPA, Region IX
MC H-7-2
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-1916
Bill Hart
Synthetica Technologies, Inc.
5327 Jacuzzi Street
Unit 3-0
Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: 510-525-3000
Fax: 510-526-2277
Rob Hartman
Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc.
8300 Utica Avenue
Suite 301
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: 714-944-4163
Fax: 714-944-4158
Suzanne Hartnett
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue
ER-203
Argonne, 1L 60439
Phone: 708-252-3253
Fax: 708-252-5747
Yoshio Hashino
Sumitomo Construction Co. LTD.
c/o SCA
4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway
#600
Long Beach, CA 90804
Phone: 310-498-7241
Fax: 310-985-0692
Ingrid Hasselsten
Swedish EPA
17185 Solna
SWEDEN
Phone: 011-46-9468-7991179
Fax: 011-46-9468-7991253
Sybil Hatch
CH2M Hill
1111 Broadway
Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94607-4046
Phone: 510-251-2888x2147
Fax: 510-893-8205
Louise Hauke
Beta Environmental Consultants
4340 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Suite 181
San Jose, CA 95129
Phone: 408-247-2382
Fax: 408-247-0242
-------
Michael Hcckathom
Trident Environmental Consultants
2933 Delta Fair Boulevard, #317
Antloch, CA 94509
David Hedman
Precision Works, Inc.
988 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto. CA 94303
Phone: 415-424-1122
Fax: 415-424-1142
Vald Hclberg
J.A. Jones Construction Services,
Inc.
Suite 510
6135 Park South Road
Charlotte, NC 28210
Phone:: 704-551-1180
Fax: 704-551-1190
Jeff Hcimerman
US. EPA, TIO
2800 Crystal Drive
9th Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 703-308-8800
Fax: 703-308-8528
Ron Hclgcrson
Lockheed Env. Systems &
Technologies Co.
2550 N. Hollywood Way
Suite 305
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: 818-847-6927
Fax: 818-847-0170
Johan Meliden
Tcrratcma AB
FOA-husct
Olaus Magnus vag
S-583-30 Linkoping
SWEDEN
Phone: 011-46-13112415
Fax: 011-46-13140512
Gregory Helland
SCS Engineers
2960 Nonhup Way
Bcltevuc. WA 98004-1402
Phone: 206-822-5800
Fax: 206-889-2267
Roger Henderson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento. CA 95814
Phone: 916-557-5378
Fax: 916-557-7865
Peter Hcndricks
IT Corporation
4585 Pachcco Boulevard
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone: 510-372-9100
Fax: 510-372-5220
Fritz Hcncman
URS Consultants, Inc.
3620 San Pedro Court
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Elizabeth Henry
PTI Environmental
Waltham, MA
Stephen Henshaw
Romic Chemical Corporation
2081 Bay Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: 415-324-1638
Fax: 415-324-2965
Lily Herskovitz
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Kathy Hesketh
Grace/Sierra
1001 Yosemite Drive
Milpitos, CA 95035
Phone: 408-263-8080
Fax: 408-263-8085x101
Rachel Hess
OHM Remediation Service
1990 N. California Boulevard
Suite 400
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-256-6100
Fax: 510-256-6111
Glenn Heyman
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Howard Hickey
Westinghouse Savannah River Co.
1995 South Centennial Avenue
Building #9, Room 394
Aiken, SC 29803
Phone: 803-644-1802
Fax: 803-644-6922
Paul Hilbelink
ENSR Consulting & Engineering
1320 Harbor Bay Parkway
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 510-865-1888
Fax: 510-748-6799
Jane Hildebrand
Morrow Environmental
Consultants
8658 Commerce Court
Bumaby, BC V5A 4N6
CANADA
Phone: 604-420-9070
Fax: 604-420-9078
Bert Hill
Pacific IHI
2830 Tenth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: 510-845-3146
Fax: 510-845-4015
Eckart F. Hilmer ,
L.U.B. Lurgi
Emil-von-Behring-Strasse 2
6000 Frankfurt/Main
GERMANY
Phone: 011-49-69-5808-3005
Fax: 011-49-69-6808-2745
Martin Hilovsky
SAIC
25000 Great Northern Corporate
Center
Suite 300 . •'-
North Olmsted, OH-44070-5340
Phone: 216-779-3202
Fax: 216-779-1812
William Himebaugh
Ultrox International
2435 South Anne Street
Santa Ana, CA 92704
Phone: 714-545-5557
Fax: 714-557-5396
Sa V. Ho
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard i
U4E •
St. Louis, MO 63167
Phone: 314-694-5179
Fax: 314-694-1531
Jo-Ann Hockemeier
SAIC
501 Office Center Drive
Suite 420
Fort Washington, PA 19034
Phone: 215-542-1200
Fax: 215-628-8916
Herb Hoffman
Baltimore Gas & Electric
Company
P.O. Box 1475
Baltimore, MD 21203
Phone: 410-291-4731
Fax: 410-291-4641 ..
William Holman
U.S. Dept. of Energy
1333 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94619 •
Phone: 510-273-6370
Fax: 510-273-6254
Gregory Holmes
CAUEPA, DTSC
245 W. Broadway
Suite 350
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 310-590-4918
Fax: 310-590-4922
Steve Holmes
Davy McKee Corporation -
2440 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: 510-866-6545
Fax: 510-866-6525
Anthony Holoska
U.S. EPA
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Dan Holsapple .
Hollister Fire Department
110 Fifth Street
Hollister, CA 95023
Phone: 408-637-5544
Fax: 408-637-7662
David Hopper
ENSR Consulting & Engineering
35 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720 :
Phone: 508-635-9500,
Fax: 508-635-9180
'Lynn Hornecker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-557-6948
Fax: 916-557-7865 -,..-...>
Jao-JiaHomg i '
University of Washington
316 7th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 205-771-6271 ,
Arthur Hornig
Environmental Consultant
144 Marrett Road ,t
Lexington, MA 02173
Phone: 617-861-8549
Robert Hornsby ,
AWD Technologies, Inc. •
49 Stevenson Street ,
San Francisco, CA 94105
E. Zia Hosseinipour
AScI Corporation
987 Gaines School Road . >."
Athens, GA 30605 •
Phone: 706-353-8718
Rebecca Howe ,
Regional Water Quality Control
Board
3614 E. Ashland Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726 . ;
Debra Howell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1776,Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207 •
Phone: 716-879-4417
Fax: 716-879-4355
Roy Hubert •
San Francisco Newspaper Agency
925 Mission Street.
San Francisco, CA 94103
Lee Huckins
PR A Group-
2495 Industrial Parkway West
Hayward, CA 94545 •. '
Phone: 415-732-9895
Fax: 415-732-0289
Lawrence Hudson
Texaco Inc.
P.O. Box 509
Beacon, NY 12508
Phone: 914-838-7744
Fax: 914-838-7115
-------
Michael Hughes
Oberlin Filter Company
404 Pilot Court
Waukesha, WI 53188
Phone: 414-547-4900
Thai Nguyen Huychi
Dr.-Ing. for Chemical Engineering
17 Tran Doan Khanh
1st District, Tu Saigon
Hochiminh City (Saigon)
VIETNAM
Phone: 291537-650484
Yoshiaki Ikuta
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
15-1, Tomihisa-cho
Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 162
JAPAN
Phone: 011-81-3-3212-3111
Philip Isorena
CAL/EPA, RWQCB
3443 Routier Road
Sacramento, CA 95827-3098
Phone: 916-361-5650.
Fax: 916-361-5686
Bob Jackson
E.R.A., Inc. -;
1998 Talshire Lane
Corona, CA 91719
Michael Jackson
Brunswick Technical Products
3333 Harbor Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-2009
Phone: 714-546-8030
Fax: 714-434-7493
Hans-Dieter Jacobs
Inter-Expert, Union Internationale
D'Experts ,
Deutscher
Sachverstandigenverband
Stader StraBe 28, Postfach 1145
Oyten, 2806
DEUTSCHLAND ,
Phone: 04207-1734
Fax: 04207-3741
Mary Jacobs
County Sanitation Districts of LA
County
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90607
Phone: 310-699-7411 x 2413
Fax: 310-692-2941 ,
Ricardo Jacquez
New Mexico State University
Waste Mgmt. Education Research
Consortium
Box 30001, Dept. WERC
Las Cruces, NM 88003-0001
Phone: 505-646-3463
Fax: 505-646-6049
Surabhi Jain
Graduate Student
90-3058 Cyclotron Road
Lawrence Berkeley Lab 1
Berkeley, CA 94720 ,
Phone: 510-486-7829
Fax: 510-486-6658
Dennis Jang
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-749-4707
Fax: 415-749-5030
Alfred Jaovich
University of Quebec
P.O. Box 8888
Montreal, Quebec, H3C 3P8
CANADA
Phone: 514-987-3378
Fax: 514-987-7749
Carleigh Jaques
Vrolyk & Company
2255 Franklin Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-673-5852
Fax: 415-673-2175
Karen Jardine
University of British Columbia
6339 Stores Road
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6T1Z4
CANADA
Phone: 605-822-2764
Fax: 605-822-6088
Iraj Javandel
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
B50E, 1 Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 510-486-6106
Fax: 510-486-5686
Roy Jeffries
Nova Husky Research Corporation
2928-16th Street, NE
Calgary, Alberta, T2E 7K7 .
CANADA
Phone: 403-250-0631
Fax: 403-291-3208
Joel Jerome
American Cyanamid Company
West Main Street
Bound Brook, NJ 08805
Phone: 908-560-2057
Fax: 908-560-2371
Stephen Jester
Du Pont Environmental
Remediation Services
7068 Koll Center Parkway
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Phone: 510-462-7772x245
Fax: 510-462-7944
Juan Jiminez
CAL/EPA, DTSC
245 West Broadway
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 310-590-4919
Fax: 310-490-4922
Griffin Jones
AFCEE/ESCT
8001 Inner Circle Drive
Suite 2
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5328
Phone: 210-536-5294
Fax: 210-536-9026
Zdena Jurcikova
Water Research Institute
L. Svobodu5
81249 Bratislava
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Robert Jurenka
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 25007
Building 57
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225-0007
Phone: 303-236-0367
Fax: 303-236-9078
Henry Justiniano
Justiniano & Associates
1228 Quarry Lane
Suite A "
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Phone: 510-462-5620
Fax: 510-462-9289
Ellen Kaastrup
Ebasco Environmental
143 Union Boulevard
Suite 1010
Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone: 303-988-2202
Fax: 303-980-3539
Thomas Kalinowski
Erler & Kalinowski, Inc.
1730 So. Amphlelt Boulevard
#320
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone: 415-578-1172
Fax: 415-578-9131
Peter Kalush
Dept. of Defense, Env. Protection
Office
DDRW-WB, Sharpe Facility,
Bldg. S-4
P.O. Box 960001
Stockton, CA 95296-0250
Phone: 209-982-2096
Fax: 209-982-2098
Nevan Kane
State of Nevada, Environmental
Protection
123 W. Nye Lane
Capital Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
Phone: 702-687-5872 x 3030
Fax: 702-885-0868
Hubert Kang
CA RWQCB, LA Region
101 Centre Park Plaza
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 213-266-7619
Fax: 213-266-7600
, t.
Jim Kao
SAIC
20 California Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-399-0140
Fax: 415-399-0299
Mitch Kaplan
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Robert Karfiol
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
77 Beale Street, B24A
Room 2444
P.O. Box 7540
San Francisco, CA- 94120
Phone: 415-973-7095
Fax: 415-973-9201
Ronald Karpowicz ' !
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
160 Spear Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-777-2811
Fax: 415-777-4074
Dennis Kasper
Engineering-Science, Inc.
100 West Walnut
Pasadena, CA 91124
Phone: 818-440-6175
Fax: 818-440-6195
April Katsura
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street, H-2-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2026
Fax: 415-744-1916
Kevin R. Keehan
U.S. Army Toxic & Hazardous
Materials Agency
CETHA-TS-D
Building E - 4460
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21010-5401
Phone: 410-671-1558
Fax: 410-671-1675
Elizabeth Keicher •
U.S. EPA, Region IX
(H-7-2)
75 Hawthorne'Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2361
Robert Kelley
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 South State Street
Chicago, IL 60616-3896
Phone: 312-567-3809
Fax: 312-567-5209
-------
Margaret Kelly
U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation
Office
2800 Crystal Drive
9th Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 703-308-8800
Fax: 703-308-8528
Ernest Kendall
Union Carbide
P.O. Box 186
Port Lavaca,TX 77979
Phone: 512-553-2382
Fax: 512-553-3512
Tony Kcnntrd
VRCA Environmental Services,
Inc.
6700 Arctic Spur Road
Anchorage, AK 99518
Phone: 907-349-4827
Fax: 907-267-3190
Kathleen Kcrr
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin. TX 78711-3087
Phone: 512-908-2577
Fax: 512-908-2550
Nathan Kcsslcr
234LaVcmcWay
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Phone: 619-322-4712
Atxlur Rakib Khan
Society for Environment &
Ecology
5/2-0, Pallabi, Road-2
Mirpur. Dhaka 1221
BANGLADESH
Phone: 011-880-2-804924
Fax: 011-880-2-803524
Athar Khan
CAUEPA RWQCB, Santa Ana
Region
2010 Iowa Avenue
Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92507
Phone: 714-782-4905
Fax: 714-781-6288
GIng Khoc
Aujtalitn Nuclear Science &
Tech. Org.
PMB1
Menal, NSW 2234
AUSTRALIA
Phone: 011-61-2-717-3506
Fax: 011-61-2-717-9260
Jill Kicman
Oregon DEQ
811 SW 6th
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: 503-229-6900
Fax: 503-229-5830
Chuck Kindrick
Amoco Oil Company
Mail Code P0642J2, One
Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Dr.
P.O. Box 7513
Chicago, IL 60680-7513
Phone: 312-856-7177
Fax: 312-856-2268
Lawrence King
Babock & Wilcox Co.
1562 Beeson Street
Alliance, OH 44601
Phone: 216-829-7576
Fax: 216-829-7801
Terri Kinney
NCRWQCB
5550 Skyland Boulevard
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Phone: 707-576-2220
Fax: 707-523-0135
Steven Kinser
U.S. EPA, Region VH
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-551-7728
Fax: 913-551-7063
Simon Kisch
Simon Kisch & Associates
2704 Benvenue Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
Phone: 510-841-5900
LisaKistler
Chemflx Environmental Services,
Inc.
1536 Eastman Avenue
Suite A
Ventura, CA 93003
Phone: 805-654-1900
Fax: 805-654-1802
Allan Kitchen
Envirotrol
101 Case Buena Drive
Corte Madera, CA 94976
Phone: 415-924-6620
Fax: 415-924-7541
David Klauder
U.S. EPA, OTTRS, ORD
(RD-672)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-382-7667
Wayne Klenck
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban
Development
450 Golden Gate Avenue
P.O. Box 36003
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-556-0796
Fax: 415-556-8500
Carolyn Kneiblher
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
500 12th Street
Suite 100
Oakland, CA 94607-4014
Phone: 415-874-3126
Fax: 415-874-3268
B. George Kniazewycz
BNFL, Inc.
P.O. Box 30306
1501 N. Broadway, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-945-0.132
Fax: 510-945-0131
Karl Koch
University of the German Armed
Forces
Werner Heisenberg Weg 39
Neubiberg, W-8014
GERMANY
Phone: 011-49-89-60042069
Fax: 011-49-89-60043560
G.P.S. Kochar
E.I. DuPont
P.O. Box 27001
Richmond, VA 23261
Phone: 804-383-3888
Fax: 804-383-3084
Calden Koehn
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 1,
Fresno
1515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, CA 93612
Phone: 209-297-3937
Fax: 209-297-3904
Jack Koelsch
Martin Marietta Energy Systems,
Inc.
P.O. Box 2003
Oak Ridge, TO 37831-7606
Phone: 615-435-3225
Fax: 615-435-3270
Brent Koenen
343 CES/CEV
2258 Central Avenue
Suite 1
Eielson AFB, AK 99702-2225
Phone: 907-377-1689
Fax: 907-377-2735
James Kohanek
Clean Sites, Inc.
1199 N.Fairfax Street
Suite 400
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-739-1207
Fax: 703-548-8773
Gerhard Kohler
Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH
3151 Old Farm Road
Montgomery, AL 36111
Phone: 205-265-2349
Richard Kolaczkowski
Indiana University of Pennsylania
Chemistry Department
Indiana, PA 15701
Deborah Kopsick
ecology and environment, inc.
Rosslyn Center, Suite 1010
1700 N. Moore Street
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone: 703-522-6065
Fax: 703-558-7950
Brad Kordic
Canonic Environmental Services
Corp.
7901 Stoneridge Drive
Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: 510-463-9117
Fax: 510-463-2981
Peter Kornelsen
ELI Ecologic Int.
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, Ontario, NOB 2KO
CANADA
Colette Kostelec
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-6-4
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.
U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation
Office
2800 Crystal Drive
9th Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 703-308-8800
Fax: 703-308-8528
Paul Kowalski
Broker Instruments, Inc.
Manning Park
19 Fortune Drive
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: 508-667-9580
Fax: 508-663-9177
Kirk Kradde
Raychem Corp.
300 Constitution Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Fran Kremer
U.S. EPA, CERI
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7346
Fax: 513-569-7566
Rhoda Kriesel
MDA Scientific, Inc.
504 Barclay Boulevard
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
Phone: 708-634-2800
Fax: 708-634-1371
Victor Krimsley
Dennis Bates Associates, Inc.
494 Alvarado Street
Suite B
Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: 408-646-0668
Fax: 408-646-8036
-------
G.F. Krbneberger
AACSWHPA
Box 5067
Novato, CA 94948
Phone: 415-883-6815
Fax: 415-883-6846
John Krukowski
Pollution Engineering Magazine
1350 E. Touhy Avenue
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Phone: 708-390-2216
Fax: 708-390-2636
Ann Kuffner
Radian Coiporation
1990 North California Boulevard
Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-932-7120
Fax: 510-932-7130
Norman Kulujian
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-597-1113
Bob Kunselman
1775 Trestle Glen Road
Piedmont, CA 94610
Donna Kuroda
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMP-RT, 20 Mass. Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Phone: 202-504-4335
Fax: 202-504-4879
Kristina Kutter
COM Federal Programs Corp.
301 Howard Street, #910
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-495-5009
Fax: 415-495-0852
Robert Kuttes
Bums & McDonnell Waste .
Consultants, Inc.
10881 Lowell
Overland Park, KS 66210
Phone: 816-822-3325
Fax: 816-822-3463
David LaMonica
Rochem Separation Systems, Inc.
3904 Del Amo Boulevard
Suite 801
Torrance, CA 90503
Phone: 310-370-3160
Fax: 310-370-4988
Marie Lacey
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-6-3
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Edward Lahoda
Westinghouse STC : •
1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Phone: 412-256-2238
Fax: 412-256-1222
V.I. (Lucky) Lakshmanan
ORTECH International
2395 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
CANADA
Phone: 416-822-4111x216
Fax: 416-823-1446
Ralph Lambert
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
160 Spear Street, #1400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-777-2811
Fax: 415-777-4074
Horst Lambert!
Contracon, Inc.
P.O. Box 271687
Houston, TX 77277 ,
Jonathan Lamptey
Microbial Environmental Services,
Inc.
11280 Aurora Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50322
Phone: 515-276-3434
William Langan
CAL/EPA, DTSC
400 P Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Phone: 916-324-8294
Fax: 916-324-1788
Thomas Lanphar
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3809
Fax: 510-540-3819
Scott Larsen
Silicate Technology Coiporation
7655 E. Gelding Drive, #B2
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: 602-948-7100
Tom Larsen
Peregren
859 Cowan Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: 415-872-0663
Fax: 415-873-6538
Michael Laskowski
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1350 Treat Boulevard
Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-256-0733
Fax: 510-256-9487
Michelle Lau
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (H-6-2)
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2227
Fax: 415-744-2180
Sean Lau
336 A Street
Davis, CA 95616
Stephen Lavinger
CAL/EPA, DTSC
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-3010
Fax: 818-567-3129
Kathryn Lawrence
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-7-1
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Terese Le Francois
CH2M Hill
2550 Denali Street
8th Floor
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 907-378-2551
Fax: 907-277-9736
Pamela LePen
CAL/EPA, DTSC
245 W. Broadway
Room 350
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 310-590-4929
Fax: 310-590-4922
Ron Leach
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Raymond Leclerc
CAL/EPA, DTSC
10151 Croydon Way
Suite 3
Sacramento, CA 95827
Phone: 916-855-7867
Fax: 916-858-7867
BalLee
CAL/EPA, DTSC
400 P Street, 4th Floor
Room 4310
Sacramento, CA 95814
George Lee
679 Olive Street
Fremont, CA 94539
Phone: 510-651-9763
Jack Lee
EBA Wastechnologies
825 Sonoma Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: 707-544-0784
Fax: 707-544-0866
Kwangil Lee
Regional Water Quality Control
Board
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2156
Phone: 213-266-7563
Fax: 213-266-7600
Rick Lee
J.A. Jones Construction Services,
Inc.
Suite 410
6135 Park South Road
Charlotte, NC 28210
Phone: 704-551-1182
Fax: 704-551-1190
Sherry Lee
Metro. Water Dist. of S. California
P.O. Box 699
San Dimas, CA 91773
Phone: 714-392-2973
Fax: 714-392-2977
Shin-Roei Lee
CAL/EPA, RWQCB
2101 Webster Street
Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-286-0699
Fax: 510-286-1380
Sung-Hung Lee
Industrial Technology Research
Institute
Building 64, 195 Sec. 4 Chung
Hsing Road
Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 310
REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Phone: 011-886-35-91-6449
Fax: 011-886-35-82-0080
Weyman Lee
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-749-4708
Fax: 415-749-5030
Fatima Lelic
Weiss Associates
5500 Shellmound Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 510-547-5420
Fax: 510-547-5043
•Paul Leonard
U.S. EPA, Region III
(3HW71)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
-------
Lowell Leplsto
Industrial Environmental Services
Company
701 Welch Road
Suite 323
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: 415-853-6855
JanezLevee
University of Ljubljana
Murnikova O
P.O. Box 537
Ljubljana, 61001
SLOVENIA
Phone: 011-38-61-282-861
Fax: 011-38-61-253-285
Jonathan Lewis
PRO Environmental Management,
Inc.
644 Linn Street
Suite 719
Cincinnati. OH 45203
Phone: 513-241-0149
FAX: 513-241-0354
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA, RREL
26 \V. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Ronald Lewis
U.S. EPA, RREL
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7856
ShawUn
Environ
One Park Plaza
Suite 700
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone: 714-261-5151
Fax: 714-261-6202
Y. Cindy Lin
Humana Inc.
500 W. Main Street
P.O. Box 1438
Louisville, KY 40201
Phone: 502-580-1489
Fax: 502-580-1441
Thomas Lindemuth
The MARK Group, Engrs &
Geologists, Inc.
3480 Buskirlc Avenue
Suite 120
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone: 510-946-1055
Fax: 510-946-9813
Steve Lindcr
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-6-1
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Jane Lindner
NOVATERRA
373 Van Ness Avenue
Suite 210
Torrance, CA 90501
Phone: 310-328-9433
Fax: 310-328-9325
Alfred W. Lindsey
U.S. EPA, OEETD
RD681
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-2600
Fax: 202-260-3861
John Liskowitz
NJ1T
323 King Boulevard
Newark, NJ 07102
Art Liu
Environ Health
470 27th Street
3rd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-271-4330
David Liu
Tetra Tech, Inc.
670 North Rosemead Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91107
Phone: 818-449-6400
Fax: 818-351-8126
Jean Liu
CAL/EPA, DTSC
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91405
Phone: 818-567-3073
Fax: 818-567-3129
Bruce Livingood
CEDA Inc.
15830 Lincoln Street, NE
Ham Lake, MN 55304
Phone: 612-434-4403
Fax: 612-434-5522
Vicki Lloyd
NAREL
1504 Avenue A
Montgomery, AL 36115-2601
Bruce Locken
Western Environmental Science &
Technology
45133 County Road 32B
Davis, CA 95616-9426
Phone: 916-753-9500
Fax: 916-757-4652
Ronn Loewenthal
Technology Funding
2000 Alameda de las Pulgas
San Mateo, CA 94403
Phone: 415-345-2200
Athena Lofquist
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-768-0938
Fax: 415-768-7299
Sergio Lopez-Luna
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
90 Church Street
New York, NY 10007-2979
Phone: 212-264-7556
Fax: 212-264-7954
William B. Lopp
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2313
Fax: 415-744-1916
Jay Lucas
Brown & Caldwell Consultants
723 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-7092
Phone: 916-444-0123
Fax: 916-444-8437
Alex Lye
Environment Canada
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario, L7R 4A6
CANADA
Phone: 416-336-6438
Fax: 416-336-4858
Patrick Lynch
Hart Crowser, Inc.
353 Sacramento Street
Suite 1140
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-391-2296
Fax: 415-391-1885
Bernard Lyons
22 Hallmark.Circle
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Alia Lyubovny
NAS Moffett Field
Staff Civil Eng.
Building 566
Moffett Field, CA 94035
Phone: 415-404-6459
Fax: 415-404-8368
William Mabson
HQATC/DEVR
73 Main Circle
Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4549
Phone: 210-659-8228/8227
Fax: 210-659-8219
Ian MacFarlane
EA Engineering, Science &
Technology
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD 21152
Phone: 410-771-4950
Fax: 410-771-4204
D.M. MacKay
Analytic & Remedial Technology
206 West O'Connor Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: 415-324-2809
Fax: 415-324-2259
Douglas Macauley
Reynolds Metal Company
6601 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230
Phone: 804-281-3952
Fax: 804-281-3745
Edmond Maceda
James M. Montgomery Consulting
Engineers
365 Lennon Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598 ,
Phone: 510-975-3555
Fax: 510-975-3412..,
Marian Mach
EHS Ltd.
P.O. Box 149
Zilina, 01238
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Phone: 011-4289-43-890
Fax: 011-4289-325-77
Mike Magyar
U.S. Bureau of Mines
810 7th Street, NW :
Washington, DC 20241 , :
Phone: 202-501-9333
Fax: 202-501-9957
W.R. Mahaffey
Ecova Corporation
800 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Phone: 303-279-9712
Fax: 303-279-9716 ,
R. Mahalingam
U.S. EPA, TIO, Washington State
University :
OS-HOW .-...'•
401 M Street, SW .
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-7025
Fax: 703-308-8528
Babs Makinde
Public Utilities
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522-0600
Phone: 714-782-5647, ,
Fax: 714-369-0548 .
Mark Malachowski
City o'f Sunnyvale
P.O. Box 3707
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3707
Phone: 408-730-7282
Fax: 408-730-7655 .,
Safwat Malek
Enviro International, Inc.
24855 Summerhill Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94024 '.
Phone: 415-941-0503 •
Fax: 415-948-5228
Bernard Malherbc
HAECONN.V.
Deinsesteenweg
110 - B 9031 Gent-Drogen
Ghent
BELGIUM -..-...•,
Phone: 011-32-91-265094 ;
Fax: 011-32-91-276105
-------
Mark Malinowski
CAL/EPA, DISC, Region 1
10151 CroydoaWay
Suites -•"'., .,
Sacramento, CA 95827
Phone: 916-855-7872
Fax: 916-855-7852 :
Robert Mall
KJC Operating Co. ,
41100 Highway 395 .
Boron, CA 93516
Phone: 619-762-5562
Fax: 619-762-5546
Philip Malley
Lockheed Sciences &
Technologies
980 Kelly Johnson Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Hon-Ting Man
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-749-4712
Fax: 415-749-5030
Carl Mandler
Consulting Engineer
466 Country Club Drive
San Francisco, CA 94132-1112
Alydda Mangelsdorf
U.S. EPA, Region IX
H-9-2
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2389
Fax: 415-744-1916
Stephen Mangion
U.S. EPA, Region I
(HSS-CAN7)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
David O. Mann
Bio-Rem, Inc.
P.O. Box 116
Butler, IN 46721
Phone: 800-428-4626
Fax: 219-868-4626
Michael J. Mann
Alternative Remedial
Technologies, Inc.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
14497 North Dale Mabry
Suite 115
Tampa, FL 33618
Phone: 813-264-3571
Fax: 813-962-0867
Patricia Mann
Bio-Rem, Inc. '
P.O.Box 116
Butler, IN 46721
Pier Mantovani '
Anjou Recherche
6055 S. Harlem Avenue '•
Chicago, IL •
Tim Marcinko
Matney-Frantz Engineering P.C.
105 W. Main, Suite A
Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: 406-586-3748
Fax: 406-586-8437
Augustyn Mardyla
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Bldg. 214
Argonne, IL 60439
Phone: 708-252-6652
Fax: 708-252-5439
Todd Margrave
Foresight Environmental
Marketing
2055 Sacramento Street
Suite 305
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-922-4618
Daniel Marks
Zapit Technology
2800 Lakeside Drive
Suite 220
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: 408-986-1700
Fax: 408-986-0222
Robert E. Marks
Electrokinetics, Inc.
Louisiana Business & Technology
Center
LSU, South Stadium Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Phone: 504-388-3992
Fax: 504-388-3928
Russell Marsh
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Room 1319
Baltimore, MD 21203
Phone: 410-962-2227
Fax: 410-962-2318
Paul Marshall
CALTRANS
8775 Kilkenny Court
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Phone: 916-920-6887
Fax: 916-920-7666
James Martell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 61
Attn: Geotech
Tulsa, OK 74121-0061
Phone: 918-581-6172
Fax: 918-581-6894 t
Brian Martin
Illinois Power Company
500 South 27th Street
Decatur, IL 62525
Phone: 217-424-7525
Fax: 217-362-7649
John Martin
U.S. EPA, RREL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Marjorie Martz-Emerson
CH2M Hill
2300 NW Walnut Boulevard
Corvallis, OR 97330
Phone: 503-752-4271
Fax: 503-752-0276
John Mason
Rio Linda Chemical Co., Inc.
410 N. 10th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-443-4939
Fax: 916-443-5145
Ron Mason
Precision Works, Inc.
988 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: 415-424-1122
Fax: 415-424-1142
Mary Masters
Hewlett-Packard Company
1501 Page Mill Road
Building 5U
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: 415-857-3997
Fax: 415-857-2015
John E. Matthews
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Lab
U.S. EPA
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 405-332-8800 x 408
Fax: 405-332-8800x301
Stephen M. Matthews
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
University of California
P.O. Box 808, L-619
Livermore, CA 94550
Phone: 510-423-3052
Fax: 510-422-9203
David Martinson
Hazco Environmental Services
5540 4 Street, SE
Calgary, Alberta, T2H 1K7
CANADA
Phone: 403-297-0445
Fax: 403-253-3188
Bertil Mattsson
Vafab
Vastmanlands Avfallsaktiebolag
S-721 87 Vasteras
SWEDEN
Phone: 011-46-21162186
Fax: 011-46-21335150
Ernest Mayer
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company
Engineering Department LI 359
P.O. Box 6090
Newark, DE 19714-6090
Phone: 302-366-3652
Fax: 302-366-3220
John McCarrol
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
H-3-3
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Matthew McCarron
CAL/EPA DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3739
Fax: 510-540-3738
Hunter McCleary
COGNIS, Inc.
The Bioremediation Report
2330 Circadian Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Phone:707-576-6221
Fax: 707-575-7833
Mike McClung
Four Seasons Industrial Services
3107 S. Elm-Eugene Street
Greensboro, NC 27406
Phone: 919-273-2718
Fax: 919-274-5798
Matthew McCullough
McLaren/Hart Environmental '
Engineering
16755 Von Karman Avenue '
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone: 714-752-3209
Fax: 714-752-8460
Timothy McDonald - '.
Geological Technics Inc.
2601 River Road
Modesto, CA 95351
Phone: 209-538-6424
Fax: 209-538-5852
Ellen McHale
Eastern Research Group
Lexington, MA
Terry McManus
Harding Lawson Associates
1355 Willow Way ;
Suite 109
Concord, CA 94520 :
Phone: 510-687-9660
Fax: 510-687-9673
Sara McMillen
Exxon Production Research
Box 2189
Houston, TX 77252
Mike McNamara
P.O. Box 1568
Shingle Springs, CA 95682-1568
Donald McQuitty ;
bioRIS
3403 Parkview Avenue
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
Phone: 616-372-9699
-------
Mohsen Mehnui
Gcosystem Consultants, Inc.
!8218McDurmottEast
Suite Q
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone: 714-553-8757
Fax: 714-261-8550
Mary Lou Melley
U.S. EPA, OSW
401 M Street
(OS-110)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-6860
Richard Menuct
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense General Supply Center
DGSC-SHS
EOOO Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23297-5670
Phone: 804-279-3687
Fax: 804-279-4194
Clemens Meyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Phone: 202-272-1850/0259
Fax: 202-272-0907
Kathy Mcyeis-Schultc
Computer Sciences Corp.
4045 Hancock Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: 619-553-5616
Fax: 619-553-6305
Jonathan Mklcnz
COONIS, Inc.
2330 Orcadian Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Phone: 707-576-6223
Fax: 707-575-7833
James Mier
Terrasys
912 Suit D
Camarillo. CA 93012
Sabrina Mih
Stn Mateo County Dept. of Health
Services
County Office Building
590 Hamilton Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: 415-363-4957
Fax: 415-363-7882
Larry Miller
Earth Remediation Associates, Inc.
2814 W. Bell Road
Phoenix, AZ
Todd Miller
Brown & Caldwcll Consultants
3480 Busklrk Avenue
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-4342
Phone: 415-937-9010
Fax: 415-937-9026
Emily Millikin
Westinghouse Hanford Company
P.O. Box 1970
MSIN: H4-55
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: 509-376-2499
Fax: 509-376-6476
Mark Minier
Environmental Protection Systems
4145 Willow Lake Boulevard
Memphis, TN 38118
Phone: 901-365-9255
Fax: 901-365-4426
Marie Minkowski
Ogden Environmental & Energy
Services Co.
221 Main Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-227-4370
Fax: 415-227-4376
Louis Mitani
U.S. EPA, Region IX
MC H-9-2
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-1916
John Mitchell
Krone, Inc.
6950 S. Tucson Way
Suite B
Englewood, CO 80112
Phone: 303-790-2619
Fax: 303-790-2117
Ron Moczygemba
Morrison Knudsen Corp
P.O. Box 73
Boise, ID 83729
Phone: 208-386-5245
Fax: 208-386-5726
Michael Moes
Erler & Kalinowski, Inc.
1730 S. Amphlett Boulevard
Suite 320
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone: 415-578-1172
Fax: 415-578-9131
Chin Man Mok
Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
2415 Femwald Road, #16E
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 510-849-3847
Miguel Monroy
CAL/EPA, DISC, Region 3
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-3062
Fax: 818-567-3129
Katherine Moore
U.S. EPA, Region IX
H-9-1
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94558
Phone: 415-744-2407
Fax: 415-744-1916
Andrew Morecraft
Radian Corporation
3200 E. Chapel Hill RdTNelson
Hwy.
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: 919-541-9100
Fax: 919-541-9013
Booker Morey
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: 415-859-2366
Fax: 415-859-5134
Cecil (Bud) Morgan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Rt. 4, Box 414
Somerville, AL 35670
Phone: 205-955-4068
Fax: 205-955-3269
Courtney Moms
Radian Corporation
10389 Old Placerville Road
Sacramento, CA 95827
Phone: 916-362-5332
Fax: 916-362-2318
Harry Moscatello
Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc.
Cass Street & Highway 35
Keyport, NJ 07735
Phone: 908-739-6444
Mike Moseley
Hayward Baker Environmental,
Inc.
1130 Annapolis Road
Odenton, MD21113
Phone: 410-551-1995
Fax: 410-551-2994
Brian Mosley
EA Engineering, Science &
Technology
41 Lafayette Circle
Lafayette, CA 94549
Phone: 510-283-7077
Fax: 510-283-3894 ,
Frederick Moss
Dames & Moore
2101 Webster Street
Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Peter Moss
U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza
Room 13-100
New York, NY 10278
' Phone: 212-264-4703
Fax: 212-264-6119
J. Greg Mott
CH2M Hill
P.O. Box 4400
Reston, VA 22090
Phone: 703-471-1441
. Fax: 703-481-0980
Robert Mournighan
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-551-7913 . .;
Fax: 913-551-7063
James G. Mueller
SBP Technologies, Inc.
2155-D West Park Court
Stone Mountain, GA 30087
Phone: 904-934-9282 . ,.
Fax: 904-934-9200 -.-.-.
John Mueller
ecology and environment, inc.
11550 Newcastle Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
Phone: 504-291-4698
Douglas Munnecke
Environmental BioTechnologies,
Inc. . >
P.O. Box 371477
Montara, CA 94037
Phone: 415-728-8609
Fax: 415-728-0928
Mark Muranaka
Muranaka Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 4341
Honolulu, HI 96812-43,41
Phone: 808-531-8877
Fax: 808-523-8082
Susan Murcott
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Parsons Lab 48-212, MIT
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: 617-631-3613
Fax: 617-258-8850
Janet Naito
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3833
Fax: 510-540-3819
Norio Nakahashi
Kobe Steel, Ltd.
Tckko Building
8-2, Marunouchi 1-chome
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100
JAPAN
Phone: 03-3218-6733
Fax: 03-3128-6748
Kathy Nakazawan
CDM Federal Programs Corp.
301 Howard Street, #910
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-495-5009
Fax: 415-495-0852
Karen Nakhjiri • . .
RZA AGRA, Inc.
11335 NE 122nd Way
Kirkland, WA 98034
-------
Jim Nash
ELI Ecologic Int'l. Ltd.
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, Ontario, NOB 2KO
CANADA /
Phone: 519-856-9591
Judy Nedoff
Aquifer Sciences, Inc.
3680-A Mt. Diablo Boulevard
Lafayette, CA 94549
Phone: 510-283-9098
Fax: 510-283-9133
Kenneth Nelson
Martin Marietta Energy Systems
P.O. Box 2009
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8248
Phone: 615-574-2141
Fax: 615-574-1660
Valerie Nera
California Chamber of Commerce
1201 K Street, 12th Floor
P.O. Box 1736
Sacramento, CA 95812-1736
Phone: 916-444-6670
Fax: 916-443-4730
Shirley Ng
NAS Moffett Field
Moffett Field, CA
Elaine Ngo
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
George Nichol
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-557-5382
Fax: 916-557-7865
Catheryne Nicholson
U.S. Navy
Environmental Division B-466
Moffett Field, CA 94035-5000
Phone: 415-404-6544
Fax: 415-404-8368
Roy Nixon
Environment Canada
Twin Atria #2, 2nd Floor
4999 98 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta, T6B 2X3
CANADA
Phone: 403-468-8032
Fax: 403-495-2615
Yakup Nurdogan
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
c/o Shell Oil
Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, CA W94553
Phone: 510-313-3604
Fax: 510-313-3098
Scott C. O'Brien
Bergmann USA
72-11 West Strafford Road
Strafford Springs, CT 06076
Phone: 615-452-5500
Fax: 615-452-5525
Jim O'Hanlon
Shell Canada Products Ltd.
P.O. Bag 23
Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta
T8L3T2
CANADA
Phone: 403-992-3809
Fax: 403-992-3825
Douglas O'Neal
CAL/EPA, DISC
10151 Croydon Way
Sacramento, CA 95827
Carlos O'Neill
U.S. EPA
1413 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
Office 2A
Santurce, PR 00909
Phone: 809-729-6952
Fax: 809-729-7746
Kirk O'Reilly
Chevron Research & Technology
Company
100 Chevron Way
Richmond, CA 94802-0627
Phone: 510-242-5365
Fax: 510-242-5577
Daniel Oakley
SciTek
700 S. Illinois Avenue
Suite A202
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Phone: 615-482-0064
Fax: 615-482-6129
Susan Obaditch
Ebasco Services, Inc.
160 Chubb Avenue
Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
Phone: 201-460-6560 .
Fax: 201-460-0625
Martin Oblea
Ebasco Environmental
3000 West Mac Arthur Blvd.
Santa Ana, CA 92704-6993
Phone: 714-662-4079
Fax: 714-662-4049
Robin Oder
Exportech Company Inc.
P.O. Box 588
New Kensington, PA 15068-0588
Phone: 412-337-4415
Fax: 412-337-4470
Chris Ogbu
Alameda Cty. Dept. of
Environmental Health
470 27th Street
Room 300
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-271-4330
Fax: 510-271-4340 ,
Robert A. Olexsey
U.S. EPA, RREL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7346
Fax: 513-569-7566
JoeOlha
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
Room 1937
New York, NY 10278
Phone: 212-264-5621
Fax: 212-264-4260
M. Olyve
BedemSanering Nederland BV
P.O. Box 10128
Weert, Limburg, 6000 GC
THE NETHERLANDS
Phone: 011-31-4950-43035
Fax: 011-31-4950-20575
Susanne Opensnaw
U.S. Navy
Environmental Division B-566
Moffett Field, CA 94035-5000
Phone: 415-404-6544
Fax: 415-404-8368
Steven Ostheim
CHMR
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Nancy Ostrom
CAL/EPA, DTSC
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Phone: 916-322-3385
Fax: 916-327-4494
Sanford Ota
PVT Land Company, Ltd.
841 Bishop Street
Suite 1901
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: 808-545-2979
Fax: 808-524-4206
Layi Oyelowo
Vandenberg Air Force Base
730th CES/CEVR, Bldg. 7015
806 13th Street, Room 115
Vandenberg AFB, CA 93437-5242
Phone: 805-734-8232 x 58399
Fax: 805-734-8232x66137
Stephen Paff
Center for Hazardous Materials
Research
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Phone: 412-826-5320
Fax: 412-826-5552
Clayton Page
SBP Technologies, Inc.
6149 North Shore Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Phone: 504-753-5255
Fax: 504-753-5256
Carl Palmer
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
1950 S. Batavia Avenue
Geneva, IL 60134
Phone: 708-513-4592
Fax: 708-513-6401
Christopher Palmer
Consulting Hydrogeologist
1345 Kimberly Drive
San Jose, CA 95118
Phone: 408-267-5238
Fax: 408-269-0659
Philip Palmer
DuPont Co.
300 Bellevue Parkway
Suite 390
Wilmington, DE 19809
Phone: 302-792-8971
Fax: 302-792-8995
George Pan
Taiwan Sugar Corporation
4F 66 Yenping S. Rd.
Taipei, Taiwan
REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Phone: 011-886-2-3832247
Fax: 011-886-2-3318961
Marina Pantazidou
James M. Montgomery Engineers
365 Lennon Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 510-975-3543
Fax: 510-975-3412
Christine Parent
CAL/EPA, DTSC
Region 1, Site Mitigation Branch
400 P Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Phone: 916-855-7862
Fax: 916-855-7852
Sandra Parker
NASA - Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058
Phone: 713-483-3119
Fax: 713-483-3048
Dean Parson
Woodward Clyde Federal Services
4582 S. Ulster Street
Standford Place HI, Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80235
Phone: 303-740-3947
Fax: 303-740-2705
Robert Patchett
Blasland & Bouck Engineers, P.C.
6723 Towpath Road, Box 66
Syracuse, NY 13214-0066
Phone: 315-446-9120
Fax: 315-446-0123
Lori Patras
GET Environmental Services, Inc.
3447 Atlantic Avenue
Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90807
Phone: 310-427-5999
Fax: 310-427-0576
E. Benjamin Peacock
WASTECH, Inc.
P.O. Box 4638
114TulsaRoad
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Phone: 615-483-6515
Fax: 615-483-4239
-------
Frank Pearson
1205 Melville Square
Suite 302
Richmond. CA 94804-4560
Phone: 510-232-9814
Stuirt Poison
Student - U.C. Berkeley
2414 Dowling Place
Berkeley, CA 94705
Phone: 510-704-9421
Richard Pease
NH Dcpt. of Environmental
Services-WMD
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: 603-271-3649
Fw: 603-271-2456
Leslie Peelers
SAIC
4900 Hopyard Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: 510-463-8111x2156
Fax: 510-416-2701
Stephen Pcgler
Silicate Technology Corporation
7655 E. Gelding Drive
Suite B-2
Scottsdalc. AZ 85260
Phone: 602-948-7100
Fax: 602-991-3173
Larry Penbcithy
Penbcrthy Etccttomclt Int'l. Inc.
631 South 96th Street
Seattle, WA 98108
Phone: 206-762-4244
Fax: 206-763-9331
James Perkins
Terra Vac
14798 Wicks Boulevard
San LetndfO, CA 94577
Phone: 510-351-8900
Fax: 510-351-0221
Lisa Perms
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Couitland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30030
Phone: 404-347-7603
Fax: 404-347-5205
Alphonsc Peters
Kims & Stcinhausen
150 Lundy Lane
Palo Alto. CA 94306
Phone: 415-493-3978
Fax: 4I5-941-2704
Dennis Peters
CH2M Hill
2300 N.W. Walnut Blvd.
P.O. Box 428
Corvallis, OR 97339
Phone: 503-752-4271
Fax: 503-752-0276
M. Kerry Peters
Canadian Oxy Chemicals Group
1500, 635-8th Avenue, SW
Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3Z1
CANADA
Phone: 403-234-6750
Fax: 403-234-1091
Tom Peters
PRC Environmental Management
1099 18th Street
Suite 1960
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-295-1101
Fax: 303-295-2818
Soren Lehn Petersen
Carl Bro AS
Nordlandsvej 60
Aarhus, Risskov, 8240
DENMARK
Phone: 011-45-86-21-03-11
Fax: 011-45-86-21-08-55
Marcela Petkov
Office of the Swedish Attache of
Technology
10880 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 914
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-475-0589
Fax: 310-475-2215
Michael Petouhoff
U.S. Navy Civil Engineer Corps
Building 114
Naval Air Station, Alameda, CA
94501
David Petrovski
U.S. EPA, Region V
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
HRP-8J
Chicago, 1L 60604-3590
Phone: 312-886-0997
Fax: 312-353-4788
Ekkehard Petzold
Inst. for Soil Remediation, Water
& Air Anal.
Hcnnenerstr. 60a
Iserlohn, DW-5860
GERMANY
Phone: 011-49-2304-5321
Fax: 011-49-2304-5379
Michael Pfister
CAL/EPA - DTSC
1515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis. CA 93612
Phone: 209-297-3934
Fax: 209-297-3904
Russell Phillips
861 Garland Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: 415-327-6446
Steve Phillips
Westinghouse
H4-14
P.O. Box 1970
Richland, WA 99352
Graham Phuvanatnaranubala
Alameda County Health Agency
224 W. Winton Avenue
Room 109
Hayward, CA 94544
Phone: 510-670-5275
Fax: 510-570-5955
Mickey Pierce
Student
1041 Stanton Way
Modesto, CA 95355
Phone: 209-578-1041
Erin Pinto
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
303 Second Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415-243-2150
Fax: 415-896-0999
Veijo Pirhonen
VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland
P.O. Box 108
Betonimiehenkuja 1
SF-02151 Espoo
FINLAND
Phone: 35804566172
Fax: 358 0 467 927
Allan Plaza
CAL/EPA, Dept. of Health
Services, Region 3
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
No. 300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-3101
Fax: 818-567-3129
Terri Plunkett-Kalmey
SCS Engineers
6761 Sierra Court
Suite D
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 510-829-0661
Fax: 510-829-5493
James Polek
James M. Montgomery Consulting
Engineers Inc.
365 Lennon Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 510-975-3400
Fax: 510-975-3412
Ted J. Pollaert
Lurgi Corporation
666 Kinderkamack Road
River Edge, NJ 07661
Phone: 201-967-4905
Fax: 201-967-7646
John Porcella
Montgomery Engineers
365 Lennon Lane *
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 510-975-3400
Fax: 510-975-3412
James Porter
Energy & Environmental
Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 215
•; East Cambridge, MA 02141
Phone: 617-666-5500
Fax: 617-666-5802
Michael Powanda
Concept Development &
Commercialization
435 Marin Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Phone: 415-383-0668
Fax: 415-383-6853
Paul Powell
Mycotech-Austin
1801 Westlake Drive, #104
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: 512-327-4282
Dick Procunier
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-6-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Frederic Quan
Corning Incorporated
Sullivan Park, SP-FR-02-8
Corning, NY 14831
Phone: 607-974-3438
Fax: 607-974-3298
John C. Quayle
EnviroMetal Technologies, Inc.
42 Arrow Road
Guelph, Ontario, NIK 1S6
CANADA
Phone: 519-824-0432
Fax: 519-763-2378
Michael Quillin
Environmental Science &
Engineering, Inc.
4090 Nelson Avenue
Suite J
Concord, CA 94520
Phone: 510-685-4053
Fax: 510-685-5323
Larry Quirk
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.
800 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Phone: 303-273-7095 .
Fax: 303-279-9716
Eric Radke
Westinghouse Remediation
Services
21750 Cedar Avenue
Lakeville, MN 55044
Phone: 612-469-3475
Fax: 612-469-5140 '
Mostafa Radmand
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
-------
Richard Ragaini
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
P.O. Box 808, L-626
Livennore, CA 94550
Phone: 510-423-8877
Fax: 510-423-9987 ,
Norman Rainer
Dynaphore, Inc.
2709 waiard Road , . .
Richmond, VA 23294
Phone: 804-672-3464
Fax: 804-282-1325
Sonia Rails
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: 512-908-2561
Fax: 512-908-2550
Mukund Ramaratnam
Westates Carbon, Inc.
2130 Leo Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90040
Phone: 213-722-7500
Fax: 213-722-9723
Juliana Ramazio
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1350 Treat Boulevard •
Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Denise Rambp ,
SAIC
501 Office Center Drive
Suite 420
Fort Washington, PA 19034
Phone: 215-542-1200
Fax: 215-628-8916
Agustin Ramirez Escalona
Intema, S.A. De C.V. .,
31 Sur 2901 Col. Los Angeles
Puebla, Pjebla ;
MEXICO
Phone: 011-52-22-30-46-06
Fax: 011-52-22-49-58-13
Carlos Ramos
U.S. EPA, HERD, Region II
26 Federal Plazaa
Room 29-100
New York, NY 10278
Phone: 212-264-5636
Fax: 212-264-6607
Max Rasouli
James M. Montgomery Engineers,
Inc.
301 North Lake Avenue ,
9th Floor .
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: 818-796-9141
Fax: 818-568-6103
Jeff Rathgeber '
H2O Science, Inc.
5500 Bolsa Avenue ,,
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 •
Phone: 714-379-1157
Fax: 714-379-1160
Wilfred Rebello ,
PAR Enterprises Inc.
12601 Clifton Hunt Lane
Clifton, VA 22024 • . - .
Phone: 703-818-9274 ;
Fax: 703-818-9274
Jeffrey Reeder
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
(GW/SW) SR
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 612-296-7288
Fax: 612-296-9707 . .
AlRego
Hewlett-Packard Company , .
1501 Page Mill Road
Building 5U
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: 415-857-3997
Fax: 415-857-2015
Amir Rehmat ,
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 S. State Street
Chicago, IL 60616
Phone: 312-567-5899
Fax: 312-567-5209
Richard Reis
EMCON Northwest
18912 North Creek Parkway, #100
Bothell, WA. 98011-8016
Phone: 206-485-5000
Fax: 206-486-9766
Michelle Rembaum
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue .
Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3847
Fax: 510-540-3819 - . '
Alison Rempel
Hewlett-Packard Company
1501 Page Mill Road
Building 5U ,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 ,
Phone: 415-857-5290 , .. . ,
Fax: 415..857-2015;
Esperanza Renard
U.S. EPA
Woodbridge Avenue : ;
Edison, NJ 08902 -
Phone: 908-321-4355
Fax: 908-321-6640 ..:,
Clyde Rhodes
Metro. Water Dist. of S. California
P.O. Box 699 - ,
San Dimas, CA 91773
Phone: 714-392-2981
Fax: 714-392-2977
Scott Rice
OHM Remediation Services Corp.
1990 North California Blvd.
Suite 400
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-256-6110x415
Fax: 510-256-6111
Kelly Richardson
Mobil Oil Corp.
3700 West 190th Street
Torrance, CA 90509-2929
Phone: 310-212-2908
Fax': 310-212-4681
Richard Richter
McLaren/Hart
16755 Von Karman Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone: 714-752-3203
Fax: 714-756-8460
David Riddle . • ,. •
Environmental Science &
Engineering, Inc.
1099 West Grand River Avenue
Williamston, MI 48895 :
Phone: 800-669-4391
Fax: 517-655-5220
Paul Lajus Ridgway
Geomatrix Consultants
100 Pine Street ;
"10th Floor ;•
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: -.415-434-9400
Fax: 415-434-1365
Roy Rieber •
enviroGuard, Inc.
1415 N. Loop W.
Suite 1130
Houston, TX 77008
Phone: 713-861-3889
Fax: 713-868-9948
Diana Rieger
DECON Environmental Services,
Inc. • .
23490 Connecticut Street
Hayward, CA 94545
Phone: 510^732-6444
Fax: 510-782-8584
Daniel Rimmer
Oxy USA Inc.
4500 S. 129th E. .Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74102
Phone: 918-561-1905
Fax: 918-561-1683
Mark Ritchie
Canadian Consulate General
50 Fremont Street
Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-495-6021
Fax: 415-512-7671
Marc Ritson
Moju Environmental Tech.
315 Washington Street
Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: 510-874-5400
Fax: 510-451-MOJU
William J. Roberds
Colder Associates, Inc.
148th Avenue, NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: 206-883-0777
Fax: 206-882-5498
Tina Roberson
CAL/EPA, DTSC
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
#300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-3055
Fax: 818-567-3170
Benjamin Roberts
On-Site Technologies, Inc.
1715 S. Bascom Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Phone: 408-371-4810
Fax: 408-371-2010
David Roberts
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Harold Robinson
2673 Mark West Station Road
Windsor, CA 95492
William Robinson
MSB, Inc.
P.O. Box 3767
Butte, MT 59702
Phone: 406-494-7345
Fax: 406-494-7230
Sheila Roebuck
Harding Lawson Associates
303 Second Street
Suite 630N
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415-543-8422
Fax: 415-777-9706
Fred Roeck
Westinghouse Hanford Company
P.O. Box 1970
Mail Stop H4-55
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: 509-376-8819
Fax: 509-276-6476
Bradford Rope
BioScreen Testing Services, Inc.
3892 Del Amo Boulevard
Suite 707
Torrance, CA 90503
Phone: 310-214-0043
Fax: 310-370-3642
Gianrico Rossi
Aquater SpA (EMI Group)
P.O. Box 20
San Lorenzo in Campo (Pesaro)
ITALY
Phone: 011-39-721-7311
Fax: 011-39-721-731308
Emily Roth
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-7-1
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305 .
Fax: 415-744-2324
-------
Jim Rouse
Geochem
12265 W. Bayaud Avenue
Suite 140
Lakcwood, CO 80228
Phone: 303-988-8902
Fax: 303-988-0288
Jim Rubin
Earth Systems Environmental
808 Coleman Avenue
Suite 12
Mcnio Park, CA 94025
Phone: 415-329-0741
Fax: 408-365-8362
David Ruckman
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: 512-908-2548
F«x: 512-908-2550
Paul Ruffin
CAL/EPA. DISC
10151 Cioydon Way, Suite 3
Sacramento, CA 95827-2106
Phone: 916-855-7732
Fax: 916-855-7852
Brian A. Runkcl
CAL/EPA
555 Capitol Mall
Suite 235
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-3846
Fax: 916-324-9670
Ed Sadler
Missouri Dcpt. of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 314-751-3176
Fax: 314-751-7869
Mark Shannon Sadler
ERM-West. Inc.
2001 P Street
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-144-9378
Fax: 916-444-5313
Hanid Saebfar
CAL/EPA, DTSC
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Burbanfc, CA 94504
Phone: 818-567-3064
Fax: 818-567-3129
Andrew Safford
Erler&Kalinowski.Inc.
1730 S. Amphlctt Boulevard
Suite 320
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone: 415-578-1172
Fax: 415-578-9131
Haissam Salloum
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region #4
245 W. Broadway
Suite 350
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 310-590-4916
Fax: 310-590-4922
Carnal Abdon Salomao Rameh
EPA Engcnharia de Protecao
Ambiental Ltda.
Rua Dr. Paulo Vieira, 165
Sao Paolo, 01257-000
BRAZIL
Phone: 011-55-11-263-0555
Fax: 011-55-11-62-0089
Christopher Sanders
RWQCB
3614 E. Ashlan Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726-6905
Phone: 209-445-5114
Fax: 209-445-5910
Don Banning
U.S. EPA, RREL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7877
Fax: 513-569-7620
Carmen Santos
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Sonia Santos Low
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3831
Anthony Saracino
Wallace-Kuhl & Associate, Inc.
P.O. Box 1137
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Phone: 916-372-1434
Fax: 916-372-9065
Ray Saracino
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Jutamaad Satayavivad
Mahidol University
Faculty of Science
c/o Chulabhom Research Institute
Bangkok, 10400
THAILAND
Phone: 011-66-2-247-1900
Fax: 011-66-2-247-1222
Richard Satterfield
U.S. EPA, OFFE
401 M Street, SW
OE-2261
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-9759
Fax: 202-260-9437
James Saville
Horsehead Resource Development
Co., Inc.
613 Third Street
Palmerton, PA 18071
Phone: 800-253-5579
Fax: 215-826-8993
Wayne Sawka
Aerojet
1940 Alabama Avenue
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-3530
Phone: 916-355-5763
Fax: 916-351-8660
Gregory D. Sayles
U.S. EPA, RREL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7607
Fax: 513-569-7787
Mary Scarpetti
Udell Technologies, Inc.
4701 Doyle Street
Suite 5
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 510-653-9477
Fax: 510-653-9479
Norman Scheaffer
Applied Environmental, Inc.
6143 South Willow Drive
Englewood, CO 80111
Phone: 303-694-6660
Fax: 303-694-4410
Curtis Schmidt
SAIC
1720 East Wilshire Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: 714-542-9411
Fax: 714-5420-5389
Robert Schmidt
Powerful Boss International
5012 S. Arville #6
Las Vegas, NV 89110
Phone: 702-876-0724
Fax: 702-872-7455
Steven Schock
Camp Dresser & McKee
18881 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 650
Irvine, CA 92715
Phone: 714-752-5452
Fax: 714-752-1307
Peter Schonberg
Zapit Technology
2880 Lakeside Drive
Suite 220
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: 408-986-1700-
Fax: 408-986-0222
Russell Schonberg
Schonberg Radiation Corporation
3300 Keller Street
Building 101
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: 408-980-9729
Fax: 408-980-8605
Fred Schouffler
U.S. EPA, Region IX ,
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 .
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Carl Schubert
URS Consultants, Inc.
4675 MacArthur Court ; ;
Suite 850 .
Newport Beach, -CA 92660
Phone: 714-660-7676..''.. ...
Fax: 714-660-7677 ,
John Schuring
NJIT
University Heights,
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: 201-596-5849
Fax: 201-802-1946,
William Schutte
U.S. DOE
Bldg. Trevion II
19901 Germantpwn Road
Germantown, MD 20874-1290
Phone: 301-903-7954
Fax: 301-903-7238
F. Schwartz
ARI Technologies, Inc.
3158 Danville Boulevard
Alamo, CA 94507
Phone: 510-743-0281
Fax: 510-831-9102
Frederic Schwartz .
Wastren Remediation, Inc.
477 Shoup Avenue , ,-
Suite 209 ••
Idaho Falls, ID 83402 ,
Phone: 208-523-9194 .
Fax: 208-523-9111
Damn Schwartz-Larson
U.S. EPA, Region IX '..',',
75 Hawthorne Street..
H-7-1
San Francisco, CA 94105 „
Phone: 415-744-1305 '. '
Fax: 415-744-2324 .'.
Chris Scott
Lockheed : '.'
O/45-13, B-509
P.O. Box 3504
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 ,. , ,
Phone: 408-524-6534 , ,
Fax: 408-524-6290
Michael Scott .
Science, Toxicology &
Technology
P.O. Box 181638 , c
San Diego, CA 92178' ,
Phone: 619-435-2772
Richard Secchia
Stone & Webster Environmental
Services
245 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110 ;
Phone: 617-589-2551
Fax: 617-589-2922
-------
Arik Seppanen
Ministry of the Environment
PB399
Helsinki, 00121
FINLAND
Phone: 011-358-0-19911
Fax: 011-358-0-199 1399
Harry Seraydarian
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-1916
Subash Seth
Merck & Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 2000, FTA-380
Rahway, NJ 07065-0900
Phone: 908-302-7200
Fax: 908-302^7656
Emanuele Seva
Snam SpA
Piazza S. Barbara 7
San Donate Milanese, 20097
ITALY
Phone: 011-39-2-520-7937
Fax: 011-39-2-520-24435
Thomas Sexton
Sandoz Chemicals Corporation
P.O. Box 669304
Charlotte, NC 28266
Phone: 704-547-5547
Fax: 704-547-5588
Cyras Shabahari
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3821
Fax: 510-540-3819
Wendi Shafir
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
H-3-3
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Manish Shah
Utah State University
UMC 4705
Logan, UT 84322
Phone: 801-750-2743
Fax: 801-750-2755
Christopher Shallice
CF Systems Corporation
3D Gill Street
Woburn, MA 01801
Phone: 617-937-0800
Fax: 617-937-5610
Robert Shanks
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.
6300 S. Syracuse Way
Suite 300
Englewood, CO 80111
Phone: 303-290-8336
Fax: 303-290-8013
Andy Shapiro
General Electric Research &
Development
Schenectady, NY
Mukul Sharma
James M. Montgomery Engineers
365 Lennon Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 510-975-3508
Fax: 510-975-3412
Linda Sharp
Stratix
10 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-512-7244
Fax: 415-546-1028
Graham Sharpe
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
CESPK-PM-M
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-557-7459
Fax: 916-557-6949
Stuart Shealy
IT Corp.
304 Directors Drive
Knoxville, TO 37922
Robert Shepherd
Environment Canada
224 West Esplanade
North Vancouver, BC V7M 3H7
CANADA
Phone: 604-666-3055
Fax: 604-666-7294
Chris Sherman
SM-ALC/EMR
McClellan AFB, CA 95652
David Sherve
Microsensor Technology, Inc.
41762 Christy Street
Fremont, CA 94538
Phone: 510-490-0900
Elnor Shilling
General Electric Research &
Development
1 River Road
K-l Room 3A15
Schenectady, NY 12301
Phone: 518-387-7933
Fax: 518-387-7611
Norm Shilling
General Electric Research &
Development
1 River Road
K-l, Room 3A15
Schenectady, NY 12301
Phone: 518-387-6565
Fax: 518-387-7611
Takuo Shimizu
IHICo., Ltd.
Tokyo-Chuo Building
6-2, Marunouchi 1-chome
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo: 100
JAPAN
Phone: 011-81-3-3286-2181
Fax: 011-81-3-3286-2198
Dev Shukla
Environmental Solutions, Inc.
2815 Mitchell Drive
Suite 103
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 510-935-3294
Fax: 510-935-5412
George Siller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento, CA
Charlie Silver
Silver Environmental Services,
Inc.
119 W. 71st Street
Suite 4C
New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212-496-8177
Fax: 212-496-8134
Richard Simon
TETRA Technologies, Inc.
1628 Tiburon Boulevard
P.O. Box 319
Tiburon, CA 94920
Phone: 415-435-4617 ,
Fax: 415-435-4444
Knut Simonsen
Texaco Syngas, Inc.
2000 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10650
Phone: 914-253-7940
Fax: 914-253-7744
Orman Simpson
MDA Scientific, Inc.
3000 Northwoods Parkway
Norcross, GA 30071 '
Phone: 404-242-0977
Fax: 404-242-1982
Nicholas Sitan
UC Berkeley
Geotechnical Engineering
440 Davis Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 510-642-1262
Fax: 510-642-7476
Franklin Slavensky
Jem Ecology Inc.
5137 Pasadena Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95841
Phone: 916-488-6204 '
Fran Slavich
Environmental Restoration
Program
Sacramento, CA
James Sloss
IT Corporation
4585 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone: 510-372-9100
Fax: 510-372-5220
Kenneth Smarkel
MITRE Corporation
3200 Peacekeeper Way
SM-ALC-EMR
McClellan AFB, CA 95652
Phone: 916-643-0531
Fax: 916-643-0429
Barbara Smith
San Francisco Bay RWQCB
2101 Webster Street
Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612 ,
Phone: 510-286-4222
Fax: 510-286-1380
Ed Smith
U.S. Corps of Engineers - ESL
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
Phone: 217-373-3478
Fax: 217-373-3490
William Smith
Harding Lawson Associates
7655 Redwood Boulevard
P.O. Box 578
Novato, CA 94948
Phone: 415-899-8872
Fax: 415-892-4989
Michael Snyder
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering Branch
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Phone: 410-962-4772
Fax: 410-962-7731
Dottie Seller
Seller Engineering, Inc.
132 W. Washington Street
Shelbyville, IN 46176
Phone: 317-392-3269
John Seller
Soller Engineering, Inc.
132 W. Washington Street
Shelbyville, IN 46176
Phone: 317-392-3269
Edward Someus
Product Control Ltd.
La Plaiderie
St. Peter Port
Guernsey, Channel Islands
UNITED KINGDOM
Phone: 011-44-481-726426
Fax: 011-44-481-726526
Mike Sorenson
CAL/EPA, DTSC
P.O. Box 0806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Phone: 916-323-2990
Fax: 916-324-1788
-------
Glenn Spades
Mobil Oil Corp.
3700 West 190th Street
Tomncc, CA 90509
Phone: 310-212-4597
Fax: 310-212-4681
Tom Spartowe
Environmental Strategics
Corporation
101 Metro Drive
Suite 650
Son Jose, CA 95110
Phone: 408-453-6100
Fax: 408-453-0496
Alexander Spassov
National Centre of Hygiene
Dim. Nestorov Bui,, 15
Sofia, 1431
BULGARIA
Phone: 011-59-41-20
Fax: 011-59-41-20
Ned Spctzer
Mock & Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 200, FTA-380
Rshway, NJ 07065-0900
Phone: 908-302-7283
Fax: 908-302-7656
Paul Spcllman
Reedy Creek Improvement District
P.O. Box 10170
Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830
Phone: 407-828-2034
Fax: 407-828-2416
Diane Spencer
Engineering-Science, Inc.
1301 Marina Village Parkway
Suite 200
Alamcda, CA 94501
Phone: 510-769-0100
Fax: 510-769-9244
Jobnathtn Stacy
Indian Head Div., Naval Surface
Warfare Ctr.
101 Strauss Avenue
Indian Head, MD 20640-5035
Phone: 301-743-4365
Fax: 301-743-4717
Manfred Stammlcr
cnvi sann GmbH
Krcuzwcg 15
Schmittcn 1
Hc$sen6384
GERMANY
Phone: 01149060823235
Fax: Oil 49060823411
Robert Stamncs
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, \VA 98101
Phone: 206-553-1512
Fax: 206-553-0119
Oliver Stanley
Resin Products Division
Cottage Avenue & Lake Marian
Road
Carpentersville, IL 60110
Phone: 708-551-3181
Stephanie Stehling
Kennedy-Jenks Consultants
303 Second Street
10th Floor North
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415-243-2522
Fax: 415-896-0999
Richard Steimle
U.S. EPA, TIO '
2800 Crystal Drive
9th Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: 703-308-8800
Fax: 703-308-8528
Andrea Steinbach
Aquifer Sciences, Inc.
3680-A Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Lafayette, CA 94549
Phone: 510-283-9098
Fax: 510-283-9133
Deborah Stephens
ecology and environment, inc.
1999 Bryan Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-220-0318
John Stevenson
Texaco Syngas, Inc.
2000 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10650
Phone: 914-253-7940
Fax: 914-253-7744
Lloyd Stewart
Udell Technologies, Inc.
4701 Doyle Street
Suite 5
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 510-653-9477
Fax: 510-653-9479
Hans-Joachim Stietzel
Federal Ministry for Research and
Technology
Division of Environmental
Technology
HeinemannstraBe 2
S-6300 Bonn 2
GERMANY
William Stillings
CISPRI
P.O. Box 7314
Mile 26.5 N. Spur
Nikiski, AK 99635
Phone: 907-776-2186 :
Fax: 907-776-2190
Mary Stinson
U.S. EPA
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Phone: 908-321-6683
Fax: 908-321-6640
Michael Stoll
Levine-Fricke
1900 Powell Street
12th Floor
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 510-652-4500
Fax: 510-652-2246
Bob Stone
U.S. EPA - ORD
P.O. Box 13165
Denver, CO 80201
Phone: 303-294-7697
Fax: 303-293-1230
Kathy Stone
U.S. General Accounting Office
301 Howard Street
Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94105-2252
Phone: 415-904-2000
Fax: 415-904-2144
Tish Stools
INE, EG&G Idaho, Inc. ,
P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3505
Phone: 208-526-0792
Fax: 208-526-1998
Tim Stott
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Lou Stout
IT Corporation
4585 Pacheco Boulevard
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone: 510-372-9100
Fax: 510-372-5220
Elaine Stracker
Gencorp Aerojet
Research & Development
P.O. Box 13222
Sacramento, CA 95813-6000
Phone: 916-355-6910
Fax: 916-355-2044
Chuck Stratum
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1350 Treat Boulevard
Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-256-0733
Fax: 510-256-9487
Ted H. Streckfuss
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Omaha District
215 North 17th Street
Omaha, NE 68102
Phone: 402-221-3826
Fax: 402-221-3030
Marie Sturtevant
United Technologies Corp.
P.O. Box 49028
Trailer 25
San Jose, CA 95161-9028
Phone: 408-776-5918
Fax: 408-776-5920
Jennifer Su
DuPont Co.
300 Bellevue Parkway
Suite 390 -
Wilmington, DE 19809
Phone: 302-792-8880
Fax: 302-792-8995
John Sudnick
Four Nines, Inc.
400 Stenton Avenue
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: 215-834-0490
Fax: 215-834-1469
Hal Sudworth
Sudworth Insurance Brokers, Inc.
1530 Markham Road
Suite 501
Scarborough, Ontario, M1B 3G4
CANADA
Phone: 416-297-6177
Fax: 416-297-9222
Ahmet Suer
Westinghouse
455 Cambridge Way
Martinez, GA 30907
Phone: 803-644-6757
Fax: 803-644-6923
Patricia Sullivan
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
77 Beale Street
Room 2427C
San Francisco, CA 94106
Phone: 415-973-6254
Stanley Sun
CAL/EPA, DTSC
700 Heinz Avenue, 2nd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: 510-540-3762
Fax: 510-540-3738
Douglas Suzuki
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 3
1405 N. San Fernando Blyd.
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-3070
Carl Swanstrom
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
1950 South Batavia
Geneva, IL 60134-3310
Phone: 708-513-4578
Brian Sweeney
Resource Consultants
P.O. Box 1848
Brentwood, TN 37024-1848
Phone: 615-370-6260
Fax: 615-373-3645
Amancio Sycip
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 3
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91504
Phone: 818-567-3066
-------
DagSytrist
Technology Funding
2000 Alameda de las Pulgas
San Mateo, CA 94403
Phone: 415-345-2200
Osamu Taki
SCC Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 1297
Belmont, CA 94002
Phone: 415-592-3435
Fax: 415-637-1570
Carolyn Takian-Cain
CAL/EPA, DTSC
10151 Croydon Way
Sacramento, CA 95827
Phone: 916-855-7784
Fax: 916-855-7852
Hiroyuki Tanaka
NKK Corporation
1-1-2, Marunouchi Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100
JAPAN
Phone: 011-81-3-3217-2519
Fax: 011-81-3-3214-8423
Charles Tass
U.S. Navy
NEESA, P.O. Box 1152
Port Hueneme, CA 93044
Phone: 805-982-4859
Fax: 805-982-4832
Richard Tavelli
Consultant
6425 Westheimer, Suite 2111
Houston, TX 77057
Phone: 713-789-5618
Fax: 713-789-5618
Bill Taylor
ATSDR
1600 Clifton Road, ME
MS-E56
Atlanta, GA 30333
Michael Taylor
Canonie Environmental Services
Corp.
6300 S. Syracuse Way
Suite 300
Englewood, CO 80111
Phone: 303-290-8336
Fax: 303-290-8013
Robert Taylor
The MITRE Corporation
c/o AFCEE/EST
Building T-170
Brook AFB, TX 78235-5000
Phone: 512-536-4321
Fax: 512-536-4325
Terry Taylor
CC Envirklean Inc.
P.O. Box 15176
Kansas City,'KS 66115
Phone: 913-342-3372
Fax: 913-621-6885
Reinhard Temmel
Department of the Environment
Reisnerstr. 4
Vienna, A-1030
AUSTRIA
Phone: 011-43-222-71710-202
Fax: 011-43-222-71710-208
Alfred Tenny
Eaglebrook, Inc.
1150 Junction Avenue
Schererville, IN 46375
Phone: 219-322-2560
Fax: 219-322-8533
Karin Tenny
Eaglebrook, Inc.
67 Hakui Loop
Lahaina, Maui, HI 96761
Phone: 808-667-9371
Fax: 808-661-6701
Punish TerKonda
University of Missouri-Rolla
222 Engineering Research
Laboratory
Rolla, MO 65401
Phone: 314-341-4484
Fax: 314-341-4729
Jiro Terukina
Kobe Steel, Ltd.
2-8, 4-chome, Iwaya-Nakamachi
Nada-ky, Kobe
Hyogo 657
JAPAN
Phone: 011-81-78-261-7255
Fax: 011-81-78-261-7120
Mark S. Thacker
COM Federal Programs
Corporation
800 Oak Ridge Turnpike
Suite 500
Oak Ridge, TN 37380
Phone: 615-482-1065
Fax: 615-481-3835
Tin -Win Thein
Assumption University
Lecturer, Code 3342,
Ramkhamhagha 24 Road
Huamark, Bangkok, 10240
THAILAND
Phone: 011-66-2-30045-36-62
Fax: 011-66-2-3004511
Joseph Thiesen
Weiss Associates
5500 Shellmound Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 510-547-5420
Fax: 510-547-5043
Jeffrey Thomas
UCLA - Student
660 Veteran Avenue, #318
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 805-373-5962
Robert Thomas
Enviros, Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Blvd., NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
Phone: 206-827-5525
Fax: 206-827-3299
Glenn Thompson
Tracer Research Corporation
3855 North Business Center Drive
Tucson, AZ 85705-2944
Phone: 602-888-9400
Fax: 602-293-1306
Devin Thor
Tetra Tech, Inc.
630 N. Rosemead Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91107
Phone: 818-449-6400
Fax: 818-351-5291
Calvin Threadgill
909 Marina Vill. Pkwy: #113
Alameda; CA 94501
Philippe Tiers
COGEMA-BM-DSFM
4 Rue Paul Dautier
Velizy Cedex
FRANCE
Phone: 011-331-39-469641
Fax: 011-331-39-462574
James Tjosvold
2821 Adirondack Way
Sacramento, CA 94827
Phone: 916-855-7885
Munemitsu Tomihama
IHI Co., Ltd.
1-1, Toyosu 2-Chome
Koto-Ky, Tokyo 135
JAPAN
Phone: 011-81-03-3534-3963
Fax: 011-81-03-3534-3970
Gilbert Torres
State Water Resources Control
Board
P.O. Box 944212
Sacramento, CA 94244-2120
Phone: 916-739-2478
Fax: 916-739-2300
Tomas Torres
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Kimiye Touchi .
2901 Stonecreek Drive
Sacramento, CA 95833
Phone: 916-925-4291
Steven Touchi
EMCON Associates
1433 No. Market Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95834
Phone: 916-928-3300
Fax: 916-928-3341
Jerri Town
EMS Inc.
8601 Georgia Avenue
Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301-589-5318
Fax: 301-589-8487
John Townsend
New Mexico State University
Waste Mgmt. Education &
Research Consortium
Box 30001, Dept. 3805
Las Cruces, NM 88003-OOQ1
Phone: 505-646-6419
Fax: 505-646-4149
Paul Townsend
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA' 95814
Phone: 916-557-6947
Fax: 916-557-7865
Andrea Trangelova
BEL Ltd.
P.O. Box 71
Bratislava, 81499
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Phone: 011-427-496-359
Fax: 011-427-67-207
Thomas Treger
U.S. Department of Energy
Savannah River Field Office
Environmental Restoration Div.,
P.O. Box A
Aiken, SC 29801
Phone: 803-725-1958
Fax: 803-725-7548
Dianne Treichler
Winzler & Kelly Consulting
Engineers
633 Third Street
P.O. Box 1345
Eureka, CA 95501
Phone: 707-443-8326
Fax: 707-443-8330
James Tremblay
Naval Air Station ,
Moffett Field, CA 94035
Phone: 415-404-6454
Fax: 415-404-8368
Clare Trombadore
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-6-4
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Yvonne Tsang
Lawrence Berkeley Lab
1 Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 510-486-7047
Fax: 510-486-5686
-------
Christos Tslamis
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
Room 29102
New York, NY 10278
Phone: 212-264-5713
Fax: 212-264-6607
Masami Tsuyusaki
Keiyou Kogyo Co,, LTD.
c/oSCA
4510 E Pacific Coast Highway
#600
Long Beach, CA 90804
Phone: 310-498-7241
Fax: 310-985-0692
Su Don Tu
Naval Air Station Moffett Held
Staff Civil
Engineer/Environmental
Moffctt Field, CA 94035
Phone: 415-104-6543
Fax: 415-404-8368
Jonathan Tuck
AWD Technologies
49 Stevenson Street
Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-227-0822
Fax: 415-227-0842
Kam Tung
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
MS 90-2148
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley. CA 94720
Phone: 510-486-4048
Fax: 510-486-6608
Charty Tupitza
CIS/Solutions
1800 Sutler Street
Suite 830
Concord, CA 94520-2500
Garrctt Turner
SAIC
20 California Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-399-0140
Fax: 415-399-0299
Gary Turner
SCO
4 Research Place
Rockville, MD 20850
Laura Ty Is
Merck & Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 2000
Rahway, NJ 07065
Phone: 908-302-7814
Fax: 908-302-7814
Yih-Liang Tzan
Industrial Technology Research
Institute
Energy & Resources Laboratories
Bldg. 64,195, Sec. 4
Chung Hsing Rd.
Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan
REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Phone: 011-886-35-917637
Fax: 011-886-35-820080
Kent Udell
University of California
6165 Etcheverry Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 415-642-2928
Fax: 415-642-6163
Jennifer Uhland
CH2M Hill
P.O. Box 22508
Denver, CO 80222
Phone: 303-771-0900
Fax: 303-290-6465
Renna Ungs
PRC Environmental Management,
Inc.
1099 18th Street
Suite 1960
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-295-1101
Fax: 303-295-2818
Farshad Vakili
CAL/EPA, DTSC
10151 Croydon Way
Suite #3
Sacramento, CA 95827-2106
Phone: 916-855-7767
Fax: 916-855-7750
Ted Valeric
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Buffalo
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207
Phone: 716-879-4266
Fax: 716-879-4355
William R. Van Sickle
Hughes Environmental Services,
Inc.
Bldg. A20, MS 2E268
P.O. Box 10011, 1240 Rosecrans
Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Phone: 310-536-6547
Fax: 310-536-5434
Frank Vavra
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-597-0676
Fax: 215-597-9800
Robert Venette
University of California, Davis
Dept. of Nematology
Hutchison Hall
Davis, CA
Rodney Venterea
Groundwater Technology
4080 Pike Lane, Suite B
Concord, CA 94520
Phone: 510-685-7852
Fax: 510-825-0720
Tilak Veima
Morrison Knudsen Corporation
Environmental Services Division
P.O. Box 73
Boise, ID 83729
Phone: 208-386-6145
Fax: 208-386-5658
Luciano Vianelli
Lombardia Risorse SpA
Milan
ITALY
Phone: 011-39-2-801071
Fax: 011-39-2-8900477
John Vijgen
TAUW Infra Consult B.V.
P.O. Box 479
Deventer, 7400 AL
HOLLAND
Phone: 011-31-5700-99561
Fax: 011-31-5700-99666
Maureen Viti
The Earth Technology Corp.
13900 Alton Parkway
Suite 120
Irvine, CA 92718
Phone: 714-458-7414
Fax: 714-458-8701
Stefan Vodny
BEL Ltd.
P.O. Box 71
Bratislava, 81499
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Phone: 011-427-496-359
Fax: 011-427-67-207
Dons Voigtlander
Universitat Munster
Westfalische-Wilhelms
Munster
GERMANY
Rolf Voigtlander
TELAB - Technik Labor GmbH
Oststrabe 7
4117 Altenberge
GERMANY
Phone: 011-49-2505-8703
Fax: 011-49-2505-3109
Martin Vorum
SoilTech, Inc.
c/o Canonie Environmental
Services Corp.
94 Inverness Terrace East
Suite 100
Englewood,CO80112
Phone: 303-790-1747
Charles F. Voss
Colder Associates, Inc.
4104 148th Avenue, NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: 206-883-0777
Fax: 206-883-5498
Mike Vovk
Remedial Engineering, Inc.
30 Hughes, Suite 209
Irvine, CA 92718,
Phone: 714-588-3777
Fax: 714-830-2055
Hieu Vu
ecology & environment, inc.
Cloverleaf Building 3
6405 Metcalf
Overland Park, KS 66202
Phone: 913-432-9961
Margaret Wade
986 Redway Lane
Houston, TX 77062
Phone: 713-488-0821
Mark Wagenhoffer
The Earth Technology Corp.
110 Broadway #320
San Antonio, TX 78205
Phone: 512-271-0925
Fax: 512-271-6031
Thomas Wagner
Erler & Kalinowski, Inc.
1730 S. Amphlett Boulevard
Suite 320
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone: 415-578-1172
Fax: 415-578-9131
Blair Wallace
NovaTec Consultants, Inc.
#300 - 40 Powell Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6A 1E7
CANADA
Phone: 604-682-8777
Fax: 604-682-3521
Kevin Wallace
San Jose State University
26 Caselli
San Francisco, CA 94114
O. Arnold Walley
GDC Engineering Inc.
822 Neosho Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Phone: 504-383-8556
Fax: 504-383-2789
Barbara Walsh
Bechtel
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94101
Bill Walsh
Lockheed
P.O.Box 11
Mountain View, CA 94042
Phone: 408-743-0726
Fax: 408-742-3380
David Walter
Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories
P.O. Box 999
Mailstop K7-94
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: 509-375-2140
Fax: 509-375-6417
-------
Ming Wang
MITRE
7525 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102
Phone: 703-883-7261
Fax: 703-883-1951
Shunsheng Wang
Susterfeldstr. 178
5100 Aachen
GERMANY
Phone: 011-49-241-875560
AlftedWanger
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region 2
700 Heinz Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3829
Fax: 510-540-3819
George Ward
George D. Wats & Associates
4941 SW 26th Drive
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: 503-293-6075
Fax: 503-243-6815
Jeff Ward
Soil Tech, Inc.
9345 S.W. Westhaven Drive
Portland, OR 97225
Phone: 503-292-1193
Fax: 503-292-1193
Kim Ward
State of California
1490 Buckridge Way
Sacramento, CA 95833
Phone: 916-920-4189
Fax: 916-739-2300
Julie Warren
Missouri Dept. of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 314-751-3176
Fax: 314-751-7869
James R. Watford
Talon Ordnance Technologies, Inc.
P.O. Box 26303
Indianapolis, IN 46226-0303
Phone: 317-898-9141
Fax: 317-897-5327
Martha Watson
EMCON Associates
1921 Ringwood Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
Phone: 408-453-7300
Fax: 408-437-9526
Kathleen Webb
ENSR Consulting & Engineering
1220 Avenida Acaso
Cafnarillo, CA 93012
Phone: 805-388-3775
Fax: 805-388-3577
Craig Weber
Radian Corporation
300 N. Sepulveda Boulevard
Suite 1000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: 310-640-0045
Fax: 310-640-8940
Pamela Wee
Kleinfelder & Associates
Sacramento, CA
Lanny Weimer
Resources Conservation Company
3630 Cornus Lane
Ellicott City, MD 21043
Phone: 301-596-6066
Fax: 410-465-2887
Frederick Weiss
3 Indian Gulch Road
Piedmont, CA 94611
Phone: 510-655-6622
Fax: 415-397-2141
Albert Wellman
CAL/EPA, NCRWQCB
5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Phone: 707-576-2665
Fax: 707-523-0135
John Wesnousky
CAL/EPA, DTSC
400 P Street
Room 4311
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-322-2543
Fax: 916-327-4494
John Whitaker
Ecology and Environment
160 Spear Street
Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-777-2811
Fax: 415-543-5739
Richard White
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
7324 South Union Park Avenue
Suite 100
Midvale, UT 84047
Phone: 801-561-1555
Fax: 801-561-1861
Sandra Whiting
SCS Engineers
2950 Northup Way
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: 206-822-5800
Fax: 206-889-2267
Wells Whitney
Raychem Corporation
Mail Stop 122/8508
300 Constitution Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1164
Phone: 415-361-5000
Fax: 415-361-6552
Richard Whittier
AFCEEESB
8001 Inner Circle Drive
Suite 2
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5328
Derek Whitworth
CAL/EPA, DTSC
700 Heinz Avenue
Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Phone: 510-540-3760
Fax: 510-540-3738 ' ..
Daniel Wicksham
Pacific-Bio
141 Stony Circle
Suite 215
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Phone: 707-578-4270
Fax: 707-578-4296
Hans Wijmans
Membrane Technology &
Research, Inc.
1360 Willow Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: 415-328-2228
Fax: 415-328-6580
L. Lee Wikstrom
Olin Chemicals
350 Knotter Drive
Cheshire, CT 06410
Phone: 203-271-4125
Fax: 203-271-4351
Charles Wilde
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc.
10626 Beechnut Court
Fairfax Station, VA 22039-1296
Phone: 703-250-3442
Fax: 703-250-3559
I.J. Wilk>
P.O. Box 5006
Stanford, CA 94309
Phone: 415-325-0281
Fax: 415-325-3138
Dave Wilkins
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1350 Treat Boulevard
Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 510-256-0733
Fax: 510-256-9487
Richard Willey
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
Phone: 617-573-9639
David Williams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(EN-EE-AI)
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506
Phone: 907-753-5657
Fax: 907-753-5662
Greg Williams
U.S. EPA, DTSC
400 P Street
Room 4311
Sacramento, CA 94814
Phone: 916-322-2822
Fax: 916-327-4494
Michael Williams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1600, ED-CS
Huntsville, AL 35807-4301
Phone: 205-955-4087
Fax: 205-955-3269
Brook Wilson
EG&G Rocky Flats
14142 Denver West Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Phone: 303-273-6138
Fax: 303-273-6048
Duane Wilson
LA DEQ, Legal Affairs &
Enforcement
P.O. Box 82282
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2282
Phone: 504-765-0487
Fax: 504-765-0484
Harold Wilson
Student
12 Pierson Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Phone: 707-527-9008
Thomas Wilson
MK-Environmental Services
Morrison-Knudsen Plaza
P.O. Box 79
Boise, ID 83707
Phone: 208-386-5369
Fax: 208-386-6658
Cathy Wimberly
Kause Construction & Engineering
426 Main Street
Box 278
Suisun, CA 94585
Phone: 707-425-2951
Fax: 707-429-5100
Khin Maung Win
Hydrocompact Co., Ltd.
30/178 Soi Sukhapibal
5 Ram-Intra Road, Bangkhen
Bangkok, 10220
THAILAND
Phone: 011-662-552-2373
Fax: 011-662-552-1235
Eugene Wingert
U.S. EPA, Region III
Mail Code 3HW41
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-597-1727
Candace Wingfield
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code OS-510W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-8630
Fax: 703-308-8617
-------
Tcny Winsor
EA Engineering, Science &
Technology
41 Lafayette Circle
Lafayette. CA 94549
Phone: 510-283-7077
Fax: 510-283-3894
Alec Winters
EA Engineering, Science & ,
Technology
41 Lafayette Circle
Lafayette, CA 94549
Phone: 510-283-7077
Fax: 510-283-3894
Diane Wisz
Vamum, Riddcring, Schmidt &
Hewlett
Suite 800
171 Monroe Avenue, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Phone: 616-459-4186
Fax: 616-459-8468
Sherri Withrow
Naval Air Station, Alameda
Building 114
Code 524
Alameda, CA
Phone: 510-263-3724
Fax: 510-263-3800
Carol Witt-Smith
U.S. EPA
77 W. Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-886-6146
Fax: 312-353-4788
Walter Wolf
Durall-Wolf, Inc.
E4005 Broadway
P.O. Box 2984
Spokane, WA 99220
Clyde Wong
Engineering-Science, Inc.
1301 Marina Village Parkway
Suite 200
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 510-769-0100
Fax: 510-769-9244
Dcwai Wong
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
90 Church Street
Room 1208A
New York, NY 10006-2979
Phone: 212-264-7175
Fax: 212-264-7954
Jimmic Woo
CAL/EPA, RWQCB
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 213-266-7591
Fax: 213-266-7600 .
Nancy Woo
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-7-1
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Sandy Wyman
B.D. Wyman & Associates
19981 Karn Circle
Saratoga, CA 95070
Phone: 408-725-8626
Eiichi Yasutake
Sumiko Consultants Co., LTD.
c/oSCA
4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway
#600
Long Beach, CA 90804
Phone: 310-498-7241
Fax: 310-985-0692
Emao Yemut
CAL/EPA, DTSC, Region #4
245 W. Broadway
Suite 350
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: 310-590-4916
Fax: 310-590-4922
Chung Yen
U.S. Air Force
8001 Inner Circle Drive
Suite 2
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5328
Phone: 210-536-5241
Fax: 210-536-9026
Erdal Yildirim
Canadian Occidental Petroleum
Ltd.
1500, 635-8th Avenue, SW
Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3Z1
CANADA
Phone: 403-234-6073
Fax: 403-263-8673
Matt Yoong
XonTech Incorporated
6862 Hayvenhurst Avenue
Van Nuys, CA 91406
Phone: 818-787-7380
Fax: 818-786-4275
Colin Young
Brown & Root Environmental
16885 W. Bernardo Drive
Suite 100
San Diego,.CA 92127
Phone: 619-451-2131
Zeng-guang Yuan
Udell Technologies, Inc.
4701 Doyle Street
Suite 5
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 510-653-9477
Fax: 510-653-9479
Adolpho Zambrano
BioTrol, Inc.
11 Peavey Road
Chaska, MN 55318
Phone: 612-448-2515
Fax: 612-448-6050
Robert Zaruba
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
215 N. 17th Street
Omaha, NE 68102
Phone: 402-342-0051
Fax: 402-342-7326
Meyer Zonis
American Cyanamid Company
1800 Valley Road
Wayne, NJ 07470
Phone: 908-831-2000
Nahid Zoueshtiagh
U.S. EPA, Region IX, RCRA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-2311
Fax: 415-744-1916
Carolyn d' Almeida
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
H-6-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Hans van Dord
Heidemij
Reststoffendiensten BV
Levinklaan 1, P.O. Box 130
0800 AC Arnheim
THE NETHERLANDS
Phone: 011-31-85-778333
Fax: 011-31-895-515235
« US, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1993-750-002/60128
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Please make all neqessaiy changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
tefl-hand comer.
II 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-92/081
------- |