United States
            Environmental Protection
            Office of Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response
            Washington, DC 20460
December 1992
&EPA      Abstract Proceedings:

            Fourth Forum on
            Innovative Hazardous Waste
            Treatment Technologies:
            Domestic and International
            San Francisco, California

            November 17-19, 1992


                                              December 1992
                   Fourth Forum on
Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies:
              Domestic and International
                    San Francisco, CA
                  November 17-19, 1992
                   WASHINGTON, DC 20460


                   CINCINNATI, OH 45268
                                              Printed on Recycled Paper

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.


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

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.

 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


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

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

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


    Bernard Malherbe
    HAECON Harbour and Engineering Consultants
    110-B9031 Gent-Drongen
    Ghent, Belgium
    Tel: (091) 26 50 94

    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.

   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
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
                                                         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                                                         ;

   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).

    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

    Robert Mall
    KJC Operating Company
    41100 Highway 395
    Boron, CA
    USA 93516
    Tel: (619) 762-5562

    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.                                        ;-


    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.

    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
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

     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.

    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.

    Michael G. Cosmos
    Roy F. Weston, Inc.
    1 Weston Way
    West Chester, PA
    USA  19380-1449
    Tel: (215) 692-3030

    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.                         .


    Rob Haun and Richard Eschenbach
    Retech, Inc.
    PO Box 997
    100 Henry Station Road
    Ukiah, CA
    USA 95482
    Tel: (707) 462-6522
Dan Battleson and Corry Alsberg
MSB, Inc.

Trevor Jackson
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.

    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.

    Joseph H. Hutton and Robert Shanks
    SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.
    94 Inverness Terrace East
    Suite 100
    Englewood, CO
    USA 80112
    Tel: (303) 790-1747

    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.
   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

   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

       Volume reduction was 28% (dry basis)

       Destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs) for anthracene and dimethyl phthalate were less than

       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.

    Douglas J. Hallett and Kelvin R. Campbell
    ELI Eco Logic International Inc.
    143 Dennis Street
    Rockwood, ON
    Canada  NOB 2KO
    Tel: (519) 856-9591

    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

    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

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
                                                         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

    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

    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.


    William R. Van Sickle
    Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.
    1240 Rosecrans Avenue
    Bldg A20, MS 2E268
    Manhattan  Beach, CA
    USA 90266
    Tel: (714) 536-6547

    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

    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

     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
                                                         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

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

    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.


    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.

    Winfried Groeschel
    Harbauer GmbH & Co. KG
    Flughafenstr. 21
    1000 Berlin 44
    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

            ?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

     soil treatment plant can be attributed to special environmental restrictions and  requirements.
     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

     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

    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.

    Ted J. Pollaert
    Lurgi Corporation
    666 Kindermack Rd.
    River Edge, NJ
    USA 07661
    Tel: (201) 967-4905                                                                ,

    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.


     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

 «,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 

   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.


     A. Bachmann
     CH-8048 Zurich
     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«»»

    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.

    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.

    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

     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


     The estimated construction cost is $185,000; this does not include the UV/PX unit  or anv enaineerina cos*;
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
                                                         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.
 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


   Markku Aaltonen
   Ekokem Limited
   PO Box 181
   SF-11101  Riihimaki

   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.

    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

  to 1 5% wax, 2% surfactant, and the remaining is water

                 SE                 !             and tested in the laboratory-
R. Mac Hartley and Tilak R. Verma
Morrison Knudsen Corporation
Environmental Services Division
Boise, ID
USA 83729
Tel: (208) 386-61 45
                                                 GROUTING TECHNOLOGY
                                                      Ernest J.Kipko
            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
    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
                 appro,Xim,ately 89% clay- 1 0% cement' and 1 % sPedal addmves.
                   .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-

   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
                                                          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:

                                            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^

    Ernest Mayer
    E. I. du Pont de Nemqurs, Inc.
    Engineering Department, Louviers 1359
    PO Box 6090
    Newark, DE
    USA 19714
    Tel: (302) 366-3652

    The novel Du Pont/Obertln Microfiltration Technology has recently been demonstrated in EPA's Suoerfund
 a icaNv
the ''pairt  ter
                                      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/



   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

   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

    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-

     James R. Watford
     TALON Ordnance Technologies, Inc.
     PO Box 26303
     Indianapolis, IN
     USA 46226-0303
     Tel: (317) 898-9141

     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.

     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

     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.
    Federal Ministry for Research and Technology
    Heinemannstr 2
    5300 Bonn 2
D. Sanning
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.

   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
        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.


    Subijoy Dutta
    U.S. EPA
    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.

   Mark S. Thacker
   COM Federal Programs Corporation
   800 Oak Ridge Turnpike
   Suite 500
   Oak Ridge, TN
   USA 37380
   Tel: (615) 482-1065
William B. Lopp
San Francisco, CA

Daniel Oakley
Sci Tek
Oak Ridge, TN
Jack Koelsch
Martin Marietta
Oak Ridge, TN

Bill Mabson
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.


    Sandra Whiting, Gregory Helland, and John Kinsella
    SOS Engineers.
    2950 Northup Way
    Bellevue, WA
    USA 98004
    Tel: (206) 822-5800

    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.).


    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.

    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                                              ,

    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

 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.

    Louis J. DeFilippi
    Allied-Signal Research and Technology
    50 E. Algonquin Rd.
    Des Plaines, IL
    USA 60017-5016
    Tel: (708) 391-3251

    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.

    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

    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:
—>      3S
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.

    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.

    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

        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

    Lanny D. Weimer
    Resources Conservation Company
    3630 Cornus Lane
    Ellicott City,  MD
    USA  21043
    Tel: (301) 596-6066

    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.

   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.

    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

    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.

                                                        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.

    R. Voigtlander
    Techniklabor GmbH
    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

    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

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.
    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.

    PaulJ. Kowalski
    Bruker Instruments, Inc.
    Mass Spectrometry Division
    Fortune Drive
    Manning Park
    USA  01821                                                                 '
    Tel: (508) 667-9580

    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

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.
                                                        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

    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

       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

TECHNOLOGY) PROGRAM: CANADA                                                      i

    G. Hardy
    Technology Development Branch
    Block 100, Asticou Centre
    241 CM de Jeunes Blvd.
    Canada KIA OH3
    Tel: (819) 953-0962

    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.

    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.

    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

    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

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.
    James D. Berg
    Aquateam - Norwegian Water Technology Centre A/S
    PO Box 6326 Etterstad
    0604 Oslo
    Tel: (47 2) 67 9310
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

 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.
    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.
                                                        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

_    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

    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
       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.

                /BorMx            FOR TREATMENT OF AQUIFERS CONTAMINATED
                (CHOW  )  :

    John L. Fahy

    Western Research Institute

    University Station
    Laramie, WY
    USA 82071-3395

    Tel: (307) 721-2011


    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

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


   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.

    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

    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%

 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

     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.

    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

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.

    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.


    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.
    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

       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
                                                        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

   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.


     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.

    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

    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.

    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

    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.


     Godfrey A. Crane and J.Michael Hosea                                                      ""     "!
   ,  Bio-Recovery Systems, Inc.
     2001 Copper Avenue
     Las Cruces, NM
     USA 88005
     Tel: (505) 523-0405

     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
    Matthias Yoong
    XonTech, Inc.
    Van Nuys, CA
    USA 91406
    Tel: (818) 787-7380
Joachim Pleil
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.

   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.

    John J. Liskowitz
    Accutech Remedial Systems
    Cass Street at Highway 35
    Keyport, NJ
    USA 07735
    Tel: (908) 739-6444

    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

 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

    Ann K. Yamauchi
    Rochem Separation Systems
    3904 Del Amo Blvd., Suite 801
    Torrance, CA
    USA  90503
    Tel: (31 0)370-31 60

                                  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


   Alan B. Cash
   Terra-Kleen Corporation
   7321 N. Hammond Ave.
   Oklahoma City, OK
   USA 73132
   Tel: (405) 728-0001

   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.


     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

     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

 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.

    Austin I. Cooley
    16360 Park Ten Place, Suite 300
    Houston, TX
    USA 77084
    Tel: (713) 492-1888

    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.


    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.

    Ted Jordan
    Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology
    West Park Street
    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.

    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

   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

    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.

    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

 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.

    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

    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-

       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


    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.

    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

 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.

    E. S. Alperin, K. G. Sadler, and S. E. Shealy
    IT Corporation
    304 Directors Drive
    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.

    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.


    Jerome T. Barich
    2435 South Anne Street
    Santa Ana, CA
    USA 92704-5308
    Tel: (714) 545-5557

    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.

    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


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.
    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.


    Brad Culkin and Arne D. Armando
    New Logic International
    1155 Park Avenue
    Emeryville, CA
    USA 94608
    Tel: (510)655-7305

    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

    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.

    William M. Copa and Timothy A. Deets
    Zimpro Passavant Environmental Systems, Inc.
    301 W. Military Rd.
    Rothschild, Wl
    USA 54474
    Tel: (715) 359-7211

    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.

   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.
    Randy Curry, Carl Eichenberger, and Heinz Lackner
    600 McCormick Street
    San Leandro, CA
    USA 94577
    Tel: (510)632-5100
Esperanza Piano Renard
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.


    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.


                                                              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
   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
 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

 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
   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
  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,
 P.O. Box 2365
 Brentwood, TN 37024
 Phone: 615-373-1567
 Fax:  615-373-3697

 Subhashiu Allu
 Environmental Chemical
 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
   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
  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 &
 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
   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,
 220 Outlet Pointe Boulevard
 Columbia, SC 29210
 Phone: 803-798-2993
 Fax:  803-731-0549

 Don Augenstein
 Institute for Environmental
 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
 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

4900 Hopyard Road
Suite 310
Pleastnton, CA 94588
Phone: 510-8111x2130
Fax: 5KM23-9987

Andre Baehmann
MBT Environmental Europe
Vulkanstrassc 110
Zurich,  CH-8048
Phone:  011-411-730-6077
FM: 011-411-730-7035

Todd Baescn
James M. Montgomery Consulting
 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
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
Phone: 011-49-211-6215-385
Fax:  011-49-211-6215-389

Deborah Barber
Zimpro Passavant Env. Systems,
301 W. Military Road
Rothschild, WI 54474
Phone: 715-359-7211
Fax: 715-355-3219

John Barich
 1200 6th Avenue
 Seattle, WA 98101
 Phone: 206-553-8562
 Fax: 206-553-0119

 Lori Barnow
 University of California
 Office of Environmental Health &
 Irvine, CA 92717-2725
 Phone: 714-856-5859
 Fax:  714-856-8539

 Ministry of the Environment of
 2 St. Clair Avenue West
 Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1L5
 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
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
 2101 Webster, Suite 500
 Oakland, CA 94705
 Phone:  510-286-1287
 Fax:  510-286-1380

 Rudolf Becking
 Humboldt State University
 College of Natural Resources &
 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
 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
  361, Avenue du President Wilson
  93.211  LaPlaine
  St. Denis, Cedex
  Phone: 011-49-22-4758
  Fax: 011-49-22-5710
James D. Berg        ,       ,
Aquateam A/S
P.O. Box 6326, Etterstad
NORWAY                 .
Phone: 011-47-2-679310
Fax: 011-47-2-672012

Mark Berscheid
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
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
 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
 Richmond Hill, Ontario  ,
 L4B 1H8
 Phone:  416-764-9666,     ,  ;  ,

 R.J.  (Bob) Bishop        .     ,
 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
  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

 GDC Engineering Inc.
 822 Neosho Avenue
 Baton Rouge, LA 70802
 Phone: 504-383-8556
 Fax:  504-383-2789

 Barbara Bradley
 Env. Eng. Grad  Student
 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
  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
 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
 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
   Phone: 604-682-8777
   Fax:  604-682-3521

   T.L. Bulman
   Australian Defence Industries
   Locked Bag 14
   Lidcombe, NSW 2141
  Phone: 011-61-2-911-8666
  Fax: 011-61-2-911-8674

  Philip Bumala
  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,
  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
Phone: 519-457-2963
Fax: 519-457-1676
   L.F. (Butch) Byers
   Ogden Environmental and Energy
   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
  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
 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
P.O. Box 10613
Beaumont, TX 77710-0613
Phone:  409-880-8768
Fax:  409-880-2397

 Kuo-Ching Chang
 Industrial Technology Research
 Energy & Resources Laboratories
 Btdg. 64,195 Section 4
 Chung Using Rd.
 Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan
 Phone:  011-886-35-917637
 Fax: 011-886-35-820080

 Yun Kle Chang
 Industrial Technology Research
 Building 64,195 Sec 4
 Chung Hsing Road
 Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 310
 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,
Bldg. 54,195, Sec. 4
Chung Hsing Road
Chutung, 310, Hsincha, Taiwan
Phone: 011-886-35-916255
Fax: 011-886-35-820230

Shen-Sin Chen
University of Houston
Dept. of Civil & Environmental
4800 Calhoun Road
Houston, TX 77204-4791
Phone: 713-743-4292

Shiaw-Hwa Chen
Chinese Petroleum  Corp., Taiwan,
 83 Chung Hwa Road, Section 1
Taipei, Taiwan
 Phone: 011-886-2-3126581
 Fax: 011-886-2-3317718

 Chris Cherniak
 COM Federal Programs
 1990 N. California Boulevard
 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
 Phone: 510-939-8404
 Fax: 510-939-9444

 John Chesnutt
 U.S. EPA, Region IX, Superfund
 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
  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
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
 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
 Phone:  510-939-8404
 Fax: 510-939-9444

 Molly Clark
 Westinghouse Remediation
 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
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
 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
  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
   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
  3077 File Circle
  Sacramento, CA 95827
  Phone:  916^366-1701
  Fax: 916-366-7013

  Kyle Cook
  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
  San Francisco, CA 94105
  Phone: 415-744-1305
 Fax: 415-744-2324

 Harry Craig
 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
   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 &
 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
 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
   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
  26 W. Martin Luther  King Drive
  Cincinnati, OH 45268
  Phone:  513-569-7206
  Fax:  513-569-7879

  Stephen Dawson
  Los Angeles, Dept. of Public
  2426 Altman Street
  Los Angeles, CA 90031
  Phone: 213-485-3805
  Fax: 213-225-7818

  Bram De Borst
 TAUW Infra Consult

 Thomas De Kay
 U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation
 2800 Crystal Drive
 9th Floor
 Arlington, VA 22202.
 Phone: 703-308-8798
 Fax:  703-308-8528

 W. De Nijs
 Wijngaardstraat 90
 1745 Opwijk
 Phone:  011-32-52-358276
 Fax: 011-32-52-35830

 V. De Proost
 Dredging International
 Scheldedijk 30
 2070 Zwijndrecht
Phone: 011-32-3-2521211
Fax: 011-32-3-2526831

Louis DcFilipp!
Allied-Signal Research and
50 E. Algonquin Road
DCS Plalncs, IL 60017-5016
Phone: 708-391-3251
Fax: 708-391-3776

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
  Phone: 011-32-2-2672170
  Fax: 011-32-2-2673091

  S« ma DC sal
  Environmental Strategies
  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
Scheidedijk 30
2070 Zwijndrecht
Phone:  011-32-3-2521211
Fax:  011-32-3-2526831

U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone:  415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324

Clyde Dial
 635 W. 7th Avenue
 Suite 403
 Cincinnati, OH 45203
 Phone: 513-723-2600
 Fax: 513-723-2605

 Barbara Dick
 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,
23490 Connecticut Street
Hayward, CA 94545
Phone: 510-732-6444
Fax: 510-782-8584

Youichi Doi
Sumitomo Construction Co., LTD.
4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway
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,
 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
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043
Phone: 703-734-3149

Laura Duchnak
U.S. Navy -
1220 Pacific Highway
1823 LD
San Diego, CA 92132^5190
Phone: 619-532-2456
Fax:  619-532-1242

Deborah Dumais
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
 OS 341, Room M2811
 401 M Street, SW
 Washington,  DC 20460
 Phone: 202-260-1371
 Fax: 202-260-0096

 Aleta Duvall
 Ogden Environmental & Energy
 2904 Westcorp Boulevard
  Suite 204
  Huntsville, AL 35805 ,
  Phone:  205-539-3076
  Fax:  205-539-3074

  Lynda Dyane

  Bud Eagle
  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
    1401 Copenhagen
    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
   94 Inverness Terrace East
   Suite 100
  , 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   ,
  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
  655 Metro Place 5
  Columbus, OH 43017
  Phone: 614-793-7600     .    .''
  Fax: 614-793-7620

  Kelly Enwright
  PRC Environmental Management,
  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
   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
  Kelly AFB, TX 78241-5000
  Phone: 512-925-3100x333
  Fax: 512-925-9972

  Mike Eshaghian
  1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
  Suite 300
  Burbank, CA 91504
  Phone:  818-567-3046
  Fax:  818-567-3129

  Jurgen Exner
  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
 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
 Weissenburgstr. 14
Munster,  D-W_400
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
  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,
 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
   1349 Huron Street South.
   Ypsilanti, MI 48197
   Phone:  313-485-6480
   Fax: 313-485-6450

   Michael Forlini
  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
Phone: 011-49-40-78915511
Fax: 011-49-40-78915555

Glenn Friebertshiuser
Western Environmental Science &
45133 County Road 32B
Dtvis, CA 95616-9426
Phone: 916-753-9500
Fax: 916-757-4652

Butch Fries
FRC Environmental Management,
1099 18th Street
Suite 1960
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-295-1101
Fax: 303-295-2818

William Fristtd
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

 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
 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
  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
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
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
  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  ,
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
 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
 Cincinnati, OH 45268
 Phone: 513-569-7568
 Fax: 513-569-7787

 Steven Godio
 U.S. Air Force
 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
 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.
10725 SE 256 Street
Kent, WA 98031-6426
Phone: 206-859-9128
Fax:  206-859-8915

John Gordon
U.S. Air Force Reg. Compliance
77 Forsyth Street, SW
Suite 295
Atlanta, GA 30335-6801
Phone: 404-331-6935
Fax:  404-331-2537

 Brigitta Gottwald
 Austrian Research Centre
 A-2444 Seibersdorf
 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
 Phone:  416-886-7965
 Fax: 416-886-7967

  Christine Gray
  Canonie Environmental Services
  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
  San Francisco,  CA 94105
  Phone: 415-744-1305
  Fax: 415-744-2324

 Alisa Greene
 U.S. EPA, Region IX
 75 Hawthorne Street
 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
 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
 Phone: 011-49-30-613730-224
 Fax:  011-49-30-613730-230

 Douglas Grosse
 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,
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
 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
 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
 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
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
 San Francisco, CA 94105
 Phone: 415-744-1305
 Fax: 415-744-2324

 Dennis Hardy
 Alaska District - Corps of
 P.O. Box 898
 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
 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.,
 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         ..  "
 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
 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
 Long Beach, CA 90804
 Phone:  310-498-7241
 Fax:  310-985-0692

 Ingrid Hasselsten
 Swedish EPA
 17185 Solna
 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,
Suite 510
6135 Park South Road
Charlotte, NC 28210
Phone:: 704-551-1180
Fax: 704-551-1190

Jeff Hcimerman
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
Olaus Magnus vag
S-583-30 Linkoping
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
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
8658 Commerce Court
Bumaby, BC V5A 4N6
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
Phone:  011-49-69-5808-3005
Fax: 011-49-69-6808-2745

Martin Hilovsky
25000 Great Northern Corporate
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
501 Office Center Drive
Suite 420
Fort Washington, PA 19034
Phone:  215-542-1200
Fax: 215-628-8916

Herb Hoffman
Baltimore Gas & Electric
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
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
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
 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)
 Phone: 291537-650484

 Yoshiaki Ikuta
 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
 15-1, Tomihisa-cho
 Tokyo 162
 Phone: 011-81-3-3212-3111

 Philip  Isorena
 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          ,
 Stader StraBe 28, Postfach 1145
 Oyten, 2806
 DEUTSCHLAND          ,
 Phone: 04207-1734
 Fax: 04207-3741

 Mary Jacobs
 County Sanitation Districts of LA
 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
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
 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
 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  .
 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
 245 West Broadway
 Long Beach, CA 90802
 Phone:  310-590-4919
 Fax:  310-490-4922

 Griffin Jones
 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

 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
 San Mateo, CA 94402
 Phone: 415-578-1172
 Fax: 415-578-9131

 Peter Kalush
 Dept. of Defense, Env. Protection
 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
 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
  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
 Building E - 4460
 Aberdeen Proving  Ground, MD
 Phone: 410-671-1558
 Fax: 410-671-1675

 Elizabeth Keicher  •
 U.S. EPA, Region  IX
 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
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,
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
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Phone: 619-322-4712

Atxlur Rakib Khan
Society for Environment &
5/2-0, Pallabi, Road-2
Mirpur. Dhaka 1221
Phone: 011-880-2-804924
Fax: 011-880-2-803524

Athar Khan
2010 Iowa Avenue
Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92507
Phone: 714-782-4905
Fax: 714-781-6288

GIng Khoc
Aujtalitn Nuclear Science &
Tech. Org.
Menal,  NSW 2234
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
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

Chemflx Environmental Services,
1536 Eastman Avenue
Suite A
Ventura, CA 93003
Phone: 805-654-1900
Fax: 805-654-1802

Allan Kitchen
101 Case Buena Drive
Corte Madera, CA 94976
Phone: 415-924-6620
Fax: 415-924-7541

David Klauder
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-382-7667

Wayne Klenck
U.S. Dept. of Housing  & Urban
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
Werner Heisenberg Weg 39
Neubiberg,  W-8014
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,
1515 Tollhouse Road
Clovis, CA 93612
Phone: 209-297-3937
Fax: 209-297-3904

Jack Koelsch
Martin Marietta Energy Systems,
P.O. Box 2003
Oak Ridge, TO 37831-7606
Phone: 615-435-3225
Fax: 615-435-3270

Brent Koenen
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
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

Colette Kostelec
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324

Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.
U.S. EPA, Technology Innovation
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
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
 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
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
 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,
 11280 Aurora Avenue
 Des Moines, IA 50322
 Phone:  515-276-3434

 William Langan
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 10151 Croydon Way
 Suite 3
 Sacramento, CA 95827
 Phone:  916-855-7867
 Fax: 916-858-7867

 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
 101 Centre Plaza Drive
 Monterey Park, CA 91754-2156
 Phone:  213-266-7563
 Fax: 213-266-7600

 Rick Lee
 J.A. Jones Construction Services,
 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
 2101 Webster Street
 Suite 500
 Oakland, CA 94612
 Phone:  510-286-0699
 Fax: 510-286-1380

 Sung-Hung Lee
 Industrial Technology Research
 Building 64, 195 Sec. 4 Chung
 Hsing Road
 Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 310
 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
 841 Chestnut Building
 Philadelphia, PA 19107

Lowell Leplsto
Industrial Environmental Services
701 Welch Road
Suite 323
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: 415-853-6855

University of Ljubljana
Murnikova O
P.O. Box 537
Ljubljana, 61001
Phone: 011-38-61-282-861
Fax: 011-38-61-253-285

Jonathan Lewis
PRO Environmental Management,
644 Linn Street
Suite 719
Cincinnati. OH 45203
Phone: 513-241-0149
FAX: 513-241-0354

Norma Lewis
26 \V. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Ronald Lewis
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7856

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
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324
Jane Lindner
373 Van Ness Avenue
Suite 210
Torrance, CA 90501
Phone: 310-328-9433
Fax: 310-328-9325

Alfred W. Lindsey
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-2600
Fax: 202-260-3861

John Liskowitz
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
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91405
Phone: 818-567-3073
Fax: 818-567-3129

Bruce Livingood
15830 Lincoln Street, NE
Ham Lake, MN 55304
Phone: 612-434-4403
Fax: 612-434-5522

Vicki  Lloyd
1504 Avenue A
Montgomery, AL 36115-2601

Bruce Locken
Western Environmental Science &
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
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
73 Main Circle
Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4549
Phone:  210-659-8228/8227
Fax: 210-659-8219

Ian MacFarlane
EA Engineering, Science &
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
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
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
110 - B 9031 Gent-Drogen
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 &
  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
 75 Hawthorne Street
 San Francisco, CA 94105
 Phone: 415-744-2389
 Fax:  415-744-1916

 Stephen Mangion
 U.S. EPA, Region I
 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
  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
 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
 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
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
 P.O. Box 1198
 Ada, OK 74820
 Phone:  405-332-8800 x 408
 Fax:  405-332-8800x301

 Stephen M. Matthews
 Lawrence Livermore National
 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
 Phone: 403-297-0445
 Fax: 403-253-3188

 Bertil Mattsson
 Vastmanlands Avfallsaktiebolag
 S-721 87 Vasteras
 Phone: 011-46-21162186
 Fax: 011-46-21335150

 Ernest Mayer
 E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
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
  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
 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 '
 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           ;
3403 Parkview Avenue
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
Phone:  616-372-9699

Mohsen Mehnui
Gcosystem Consultants, Inc.
Suite Q
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone: 714-553-8757
Fax: 714-261-8550

Mary Lou Melley
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-6860

Richard Menuct
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense General Supply Center
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
2330 Orcadian Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Phone: 707-576-6223
Fax: 707-575-7833

James Mier
912 Suit D
Camarillo. CA  93012

Sabrina Mih
Stn Mateo County Dept. of Health
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
75 Hawthorne Street
 San Francisco, CA 94558
 Phone: 415-744-2407
 Fax:  415-744-1916
Andrew Morecraft
Radian Corporation
3200 E. Chapel Hill RdTNelson
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,
 1130 Annapolis Road
 Odenton, MD21113
 Phone: 410-551-1995
 Fax: 410-551-2994

 Brian Mosley
 EA Engineering, Science &
 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
 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
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
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      •   .     .
 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
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
Phone: 403-992-3809
Fax: 403-992-3825

Douglas O'Neal
10151 Croydon Way
Sacramento, CA 95827

Carlos O'Neill
1413 Fernandez Juncos Avenue
Office 2A
Santurce, PR 00909
Phone: 809-729-6952
Fax: 809-729-7746

Kirk O'Reilly
Chevron Research & Technology
100 Chevron Way
Richmond, CA 94802-0627
Phone: 510-242-5365
Fax: 510-242-5577

Daniel Oakley
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
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513-569-7346
Fax: 513-569-7566
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
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
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Nancy Ostrom
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
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
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
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
P.O. Box 4638
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
 6 Hazen Drive
 Concord, NH 03301
 Phone:  603-271-3649
 Fw:  603-271-2456

 Leslie Peelers
 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
 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
 Phone:  011-45-86-21-03-11
 Fax: 011-45-86-21-08-55

 Marcela Petkov
 Office of the Swedish Attache of
 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

 David Petrovski
 U.S. EPA, Region V
 77 W. Jackson Blvd.
 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
 Phone: 011-49-2304-5321
 Fax: 011-49-2304-5379

 Michael Pfister
 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
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
 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
 P.O. Box 108
 Betonimiehenkuja 1
 SF-02151 Espoo
 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 &
  435 Marin Avenue
  Mill Valley, CA 94941
  Phone:  415-383-0668
  Fax:  415-383-6853

  Paul Powell
  1801  Westlake Drive, #104
  Austin, TX 78746
  Phone:  512-327-4282

  Dick  Procunier
  U.S. EPA, Region IX
  75 Hawthorne Street
  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
  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
 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 ,
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             ;
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,
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
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 612-296-7288
Fax: 612-296-9707   .  .

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
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
 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
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
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)
Phone: 011-39-721-7311
Fax: 011-39-721-731308

Emily Roth
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305       .
Fax: 415-744-2324

Jim Rouse
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
10151 Cioydon Way, Suite 3
Sacramento, CA 95827-2106
Phone: 916-855-7732
Fax: 916-855-7852

Brian A. Runkcl
555 Capitol Mall
Suite 235
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-3846
Fax: 916-324-9670

Ed Sadler
Missouri Dcpt. of Natural
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
1405 N. San Fernando Boulevard
Burbanfc, CA 94504
Phone: 818-567-3064
Fax: 818-567-3129

Andrew Safford
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
Phone: 011-55-11-263-0555
Fax: 011-55-11-62-0089

Christopher Sanders
3614 E. Ashlan Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726-6905
Phone: 209-445-5114
Fax: 209-445-5910

Don Banning
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
Phone: 011-66-2-247-1900
Fax:  011-66-2-247-1222

Richard Satterfield
401 M Street, SW
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
1940 Alabama Avenue
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-3530
Phone: 916-355-5763
Fax: 916-351-8660

Gregory D. Sayles
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
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
University Heights,
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: 201-596-5849
Fax: 201-802-1946,

William Schutte
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..
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 &
P.O. Box 181638 , c
San Diego, CA 92178'    ,
Phone: 619-435-2772

Richard Secchia
Stone & Webster Environmental
245 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110   ;
Phone: 617-589-2551
Fax: 617-589-2922

 Arik Seppanen
 Ministry of the Environment
 Helsinki,  00121
 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
 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
 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 &
 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
 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
 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
 Phone: 604-666-3055
 Fax:  604-666-7294

 Chris  Sherman
 McClellan AFB, CA 95652

 David Sherve
 Microsensor Technology, Inc.
 41762 Christy Street
 Fremont,  CA 94538
 Phone: 510-490-0900

 Elnor Shilling
 General Electric Research &
 1 River Road
K-l Room 3A15
 Schenectady, NY 12301
Phone: 518-387-7933
Fax:  518-387-7611

Norm Shilling
General Electric  Research &
 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
 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,
 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
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
 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
 Phone: 011-44-481-726426
 Fax: 011-44-481-726526

 Mike Sorenson
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
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
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
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
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
Division of Environmental
HeinemannstraBe 2
S-6300 Bonn 2

William Stillings
P.O. Box 7314
Mile 26.5 N. Spur
Nikiski, AK 99635
Phone: 907-776-2186       :
Fax: 907-776-2190

Mary Stinson
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Phone: 908-321-6683
Fax: 908-321-6640
Michael Stoll
1900 Powell Street
12th Floor
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 510-652-4500
Fax: 510-652-2246

Bob Stone
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
Phone: 416-297-6177
Fax: 416-297-9222

Ahmet Suer
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
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

 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
 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
 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
 6425 Westheimer, Suite 2111
 Houston, TX 77057
 Phone:  713-789-5618
 Fax: 713-789-5618

 Bill Taylor
 1600 Clifton Road, ME
 Atlanta,  GA 30333

 Michael  Taylor
 Canonie Environmental Services
 6300 S. Syracuse Way
 Suite 300
 Englewood, CO 80111
 Phone:  303-290-8336
 Fax: 303-290-8013

 Robert Taylor
 The MITRE Corporation
 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
 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
 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
 Phone:  011-81-78-261-7255
 Fax:  011-81-78-261-7120

 Mark S. Thacker
 COM Federal Programs
 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
 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
 4 Rue Paul Dautier
 Velizy Cedex
 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
 Phone: 011-81-03-3534-3963
 Fax: 011-81-03-3534-3970

 Gilbert Torres
 State Water Resources Control
 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
 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
 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
 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.
4510 E Pacific Coast Highway
Long Beach, CA 90804
Phone: 310-498-7241
Fax: 310-985-0692

Su Don Tu
Naval Air Station Moffett Held
Staff Civil
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
1800 Sutler Street
Suite 830
Concord, CA 94520-2500

Garrctt Turner
20 California Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-399-0140
Fax: 415-399-0299

Gary Turner
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
Energy & Resources Laboratories
Bldg. 64,195, Sec. 4
Chung Hsing Rd.
Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan
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,
1099 18th Street
Suite 1960
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-295-1101
Fax: 303-295-2818

Farshad Vakili
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,
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207
Phone: 716-879-4266
Fax: 716-879-4355

William R. Van Sickle
Hughes Environmental Services,
Bldg. A20, MS 2E268
P.O. Box 10011, 1240 Rosecrans
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
Phone: 011-39-2-801071
Fax: 011-39-2-8900477

John Vijgen
TAUW Infra Consult B.V.
P.O. Box 479
Deventer, 7400 AL
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
Phone: 011-427-496-359
Fax: 011-427-67-207

Dons Voigtlander
Universitat Munster

Rolf Voigtlander
TELAB - Technik Labor GmbH
Oststrabe 7
4117 Altenberge
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
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
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
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94101

Bill Walsh
P.O.Box 11
Mountain View, CA 94042
Phone: 408-743-0726
Fax: 408-742-3380

David Walter
Battelle Pacific Northwest
P.O. Box 999
Mailstop K7-94
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: 509-375-2140
Fax: 509-375-6417

 Ming Wang
 7525 Colshire Drive
 McLean, VA 22102
 Phone:  703-883-7261
 Fax:  703-883-1951

 Shunsheng Wang
 Susterfeldstr. 178
 5100 Aachen
 Phone:  011-49-241-875560

 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
 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
 5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A
 Santa Rosa, CA 95403
 Phone: 707-576-2665
 Fax: 707-523-0135

 John Wesnousky
 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
 8001 Inner Circle Drive
 Suite 2
 Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5328

 Derek Whitworth
 700 Heinz Avenue
 Suite 200
 Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
 Phone: 510-540-3760
 Fax: 510-540-3738    '  ..

 Daniel Wicksham
 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
 P.O. Box 898
 Anchorage, AK 99506
 Phone: 907-753-5657
Fax: 907-753-5662
 Greg Williams
 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 &
 P.O. Box 82282
 Baton  Rouge, LA 70884-2282
 Phone: 504-765-0487
 Fax:  504-765-0484

 Harold Wilson
 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
 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
401 M Street,  SW
Mail Code OS-510W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703-308-8630
Fax: 703-308-8617

                     Tcny Winsor
                     EA Engineering, Science &
                     41 Lafayette Circle
                     Lafayette. CA 94549
                     Phone: 510-283-7077
                     Fax:  510-283-3894

                     Alec Winters
                     EA Engineering, Science &   ,
                     41 Lafayette Circle
                     Lafayette, CA 94549
                     Phone: 510-283-7077
                     Fax:  510-283-3894

                     Diane Wisz
                     Vamum, Riddcring, Schmidt &
                     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
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.
4510 E. Pacific Coast Highway
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
1500, 635-8th Avenue, SW
Calgary, Alberta,  T2P 3Z1
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
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-744-1305
Fax: 415-744-2324

Hans van Dord
Reststoffendiensten BV
Levinklaan 1, P.O. Box 130
0800 AC Arnheim
Phone: 011-31-85-778333
Fax: 011-31-895-515235








United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
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.
   PERMIT No. G-35