xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Aqencv
Office of Research and
Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA/540/R-94/500
January 1994
United States and German
Bilateral Agreement on
Remediation of Hazardous
Waste Sites
Interim Status Report
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
USA
Bundesnuinisterium fur Forschung
und Technologic
GERMANY
-------
-------
EPA/540/R-94/500
January 1994
United States and German Bilateral Agreement
on
Remediation of Hazardous Waste Sites
Interim Status Report
Fall 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
USA
Bundesministerium fur I
Heinemannstrasse 2
D-5300 Bonn 2
GERMANY
Forschung undTechnologie
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Disclaimer
This document was developed by PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC), under
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Contract No. 60-CO-0047, Work Assignment No. 33,
and by Arbeitsgemeinschaft focon-PROBIOTEC under Bundesministerium fur Forschung und
Technohgie (BMFT) Contract No. FKZ 1470729. The document was subjected to EPA's
administrative and peer review and was approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute EPA's or BMFT's endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
Foreword
Environmental contamination is a global situation that requires more reliable, cost-effective
cleanup technologies to address common waste problems. Many countries have committed extensive
resources to test, develop, and implementtechnologiestomeetcomplexandeverchanging environmental
needs. The ongoing challenge for individual countries is how to capitalize on the resources, expertise,
and knowledge of other countries that are conducting similar research efforts and effectively transfer
the information to those responsible for making decisions and implementing remedial actions.
i
This research publication is intended to transfer the technological information shared under a
bilateral agreement between Germany and the United States. This publication may contribute to
finding mutual international solutions for common waste problems.
Over the past 2 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Germany's
Bundesministerium fttr Forschung und Technologic (BMFT) have been actively involved in a
bilateral agreement on remediation of hazardous waste sites. This collaboration was initiated to work
towards understanding each country's approach to remediating hazardous waste sites and to evaluate
the effectiveness of innovative technologies being applied at selected sites within each country.
Under the bilateral agreement, 12 innovative technology demonstrations will: be evaluated, six in each
country. Each technology will be evaluated under the political, regulatory, and social conditions of
both partner countries.
The purpose of this interim status report is to describe the background of the bilateral agreement;
the progress of innovative technology demonstrations in the United States and Germany; the benefits,
accomplishments, and lessons learned under the agreement; and the future of the bilateral agreement.
E. Timothy Oppelt, E irector
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Wolfram Schott
Head of the Division of Environmental
Technology and Safety of Technical Systems U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Ministry for Research United States
and Technology (BMFT)
Germany
111
-------
Executive Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Germany's Bundesministerium fur
Forschung und Technologic (BMFT)1 are involved in a collaborative effort called the U.S. and
German Bilateral Agreement on Remediation of Hazardous Waste Sites. The purpose of this interim
status report is to give an overall summary of, and detail the progress and achievements of the bilateral
agreement. Specifically, this report will describe the background of the bilateral agreement; the
progress of innovative technology demonstrations hi the United States and Germany; the benefits,
accomplishments, and lessons learned under the agreement; and the future plans of the bilateral
agreement.
The bilateral agreement is the result of a research and development joint venture between EPA
and BMFT that was established to compare innovative approaches to remediating hazardous waste
sites. This comparison was accomplished by exchanging political, regulatory, technical, and business
information on new hazardous waste cleanup technologies. The combination of resources of EPA
and BMFT allows technologies to be evaluated by both countries and provides an international
perspective to solving hazardous waste problems.
The bilateral agreement has two objectives for each partner country: (1) to gam a comprehensive
understanding of the other country's approach to remediating hazardous waste sites and (2) to
evaluate the effectiveness of innovative technologies being applied at these sites. To achieve these
objectives, EPA and BMFT outlined the following specific goals for the bilateral agreement:
• Facilitate an understanding of each country's approach to remediating contaminated sites
• Demonstrate and evaluate innovative remedial technologies
• Compare quality assurance (QA) programs
• Facilitate technology transfer between the two countries
Under the bilateral agreement, 12 innovative technology demonstrations will be evaluated, six
hi each partner country. Each technology will be evaluated under the political, regulatory, and social
conditions of both partner countries.
Of the six U.S. technologies, five technologies are in the EPA Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program: (1) SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. (SoilTech), Anaerobic Thermal
Processor (ATP) at the Outboard Marine Corp. site hi Waukegan, Illinois; (2) Peroxidation Systems,
Inc. (PSI), perox-pure™ advanced oxidation technology at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL) in Tracy, California; (3) Billings and Associates, Inc., Subsurface Volatilization and
Ventilation System (S VVS) at the Electro-Voice site in Buchanan, Michigan; (4) Illinois Institute of
Technology Research Institute (IITRI) Radio Frequency Soil Decontamination (RFSD) process at
IV
-------
Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas; and (5) Western Research Institute (WRI) Contained
Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW) at Pennsylvania Power and Light Broadhead Creek site in
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. The sixth technology is a bioremediation technology that is being
implemented under a removal action by EPA Region 5 at the Indiana Wood Preservers, Inc. (IWP)
site in Bloomington, Indiana.
I
Six German remedial projects in the BMFT-Forderschwerpunkt "Modellhafte Sanierung von
Altlasten"2 (Model Remediation Program) were chosen to be demonstrated under the bilateral
agreement: (1) Nordac soil washing, Umweltschutz Nord (U-Nord) bioremediation and thermal
treatment at Haynauerstrasse 58, Berlin; (2) soil washing and thermal desorption at Gaswerke
Munchen; (3) thermal treatment, soil washing, and bioremediation at Bu rbacher Hiitte Saarbriicken-
(4) soil washing and incineration at Stadtallendorf; (5) soil vapor extraction (SVE) at Kertess'
Hannover; and (6) soil washing and chemical extraction at Varta-Siid, Hannover.
Major accomplishments already achieved under the bilateral agreement include initiating or
completing work on seven of the twelve innovative technology demonstrations, understanding each
partner country's remedial approach and sampling and analysis procedures well enough to prepare
effective demonstration plans, identifying current high-profile regulatory issues, implementing both
BMFT and EPA QA programs during demonstrations, and introducing innovative technologies to the
partner country. Also, both EPA and BMFT have learned to communicate with an international
partner in terms of environmental site remediation and innovative technology demonstrations
During the implementation of the bilateral agreement, effective communication has been established
on levels ranging from general regulatory policy to the specific technical (details of chemical analyses.
These accomplishments are especially meaningful given the substantial differences in laboratory
practices, regulatory requirements, and implementation practices between the two countries.
In conclusion, the bilateral agreement will continue to enhance each partner country's cleanup
capabilities for hazardous waste sites by sharing information on innovative remedial approaches,
promotingdevelopmentofinnovativetechnologies.improvingthequality of technology evaluations'
and introducing technology developers to international markets. In addition, international partnering
such as that under the bilateral agreement has and will continue to allow each country to learn about
the partner's environmental regulations, policies, and guidelines. In the future, perhaps as a result
of bilateral agreements such as this one, regulations may be standardized on an international level
further encouraging and enabling technology developers to enter international markets and support
the much needed remediation of hazardous waste sites around the world.
In English, BMFT is translated as the German Federal Ministry f 01
In English, Forderschwerpunkt "Modellhafte Sanierung von
Model Remediation of Representative Hazardous Waste Sites
Research and Technology.
Altlasten" is translated as
Program.
-------
-------
Contents
Disclaimer _
Foreword u
Executive Summary
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols I"...."." 1V
Acknowledgements x*
1. Introduction
1.1 Program Background '
1.2 Program Goals and Approach • 1
1.3 Background Information on the Germari 'Approach to 'Remediation of Site's 5
1.4 Background Information on the U.S. Approach to Remediation of Sites ZZ 5
2. Progress of U.S. Demonstration Activities
2.1 Soiltech ATP Systems, Inc.-Anaero'bic'Tnermai'pr'ocessor 7
2.1.1 Process Description i
2.1.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach 7
2.1.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities o
2.2 Peroxidation Systems, Inc.-perox-pure™ Advanced Oxidation Technology 9
2.2.1 Process Description . &y
2.2.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach | n
2.2.3 Progress to Date and Future Activities .". i J0
2.3 Billings and Associates, Inc.—Subsurface Volatilization :
and Ventilation System
2.3.1 Process Description '' *
2.3.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach.............. ' 12
2.3.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities • 17
2.4 Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute-Radio Frequency''bating"" 12
2.4.1 Process Description "n
2.4.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach .'.' ! n
2.4.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities ! , I
2.5 Western Research Institute—Contained Recovery of Oily Waste i ^
2.5.1 Process Description , "
2.5.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach.............. ! 14
2.5.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities '.". ' 14
2.6 EPA Region 5—Bioremediation Removal Action ..................! 14
2.6.1 Process Description '
2.6.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach........... '< 14
2.6.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities ! , 5
3. Progress of German Demonstration Activities 17
3.1 Haynauerstrasse 58, Berlin
3.1.1 Umweltschutz Nord (U-Nord) Soil Treatment'Technology 17
3.1.2 Nordac Soil Washing Technology J'
3.2 Gaswerke Miinchen '
3.3 Burbacher Hutte, Saarbriicken "".'.'.'.".".'. i 20
3.4 Stadtallendorf Ammunition and Explosive Faci^ site^ZIiZ^ZI'^"! 20
Vll
-------
Contents (continued)
............. 21
3.5 Kertess, Hannover [[[ 21
3.5.1 Process Description [[[ 21
3.5.2 Objectives ..... . [[[ 21
3.5.3 Future [[[ 22
3.6 Varta-Siid, Hannover ............................ •»•» ............... ","«"""*'«." ........................... 23
4 Summary of Bilateral Agreement Goals, Accomplishments, andBenefits .......................... £
4 1 Summary of U.S. Accomplishments and Benefits .................................................
4 1.1 Understand German Remedial Approaches .... ..........................................
4.1.2 Demonstrate Innovative Remedial Technologies ......................................
4.1.3 Compare Quality Assurance Programs [[[ ^
41 4 Facilitate Technology Transfer [[[
4 2 Summary of German Accomplishments and Benefits ...........................................
4.2.1 Understand U.S. Remedial Approaches ......... . ................................. • ........
4.2.2 Demonstrate Innovative Remedial Technologies ......................................
4.2.3 Compare Quality Assurance Programs [[[ ^
4.2.4 Facilitate Technology Transfer [[[ 29
5. Reassessment of Program Goals and Approach [[[
...................... 33
Aooendix A Contact Personnel ........................................ •••" .................... 33
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.-Anaerobic Thermal Processor ............ ....... .................... ^
Illinois Institute of Technology Research-Radio Frequency Heatmg .......................... 33
Western Research Institute-Contained Recovery of Oily Waste ................................. £
EPA Region 5— Bioremediation Removal Action ......................... '"""'""i ................... IA
SfnSrasse 58, Berlin-Umweltschutz Nord Soil Treatment Technology ............ 34
Haynauerstrasse 58, Berlin-Nordac Soil Washing Technology ..... ••••••••••••••••;;"••;;;•;- ^
-------
1
Tables
I. Bilateral Agreement Goals and Approach
2. U.S. and German Remediation Projects
3. U.S. Accomplishments of Bilateral Activities
4. German Accomplishments of Bilateral Activities ...
5. Bilateral Agreement Program Goals and Approach.
...2
...4
.24
.26
.30
IX
-------
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
AOX
ARAR
ATP
bgs
BMFT
BTEX
CERCLA
CHC
CROW
DCA
DCE
DNAPL
dscm
EPA
g
gpm
HF
IITRI
IWP
kg
L
LLNL
Lpm
m
m2
MCL
mg
mm
NCP
ng
NOX
NPL
PAH
PCB
PCE
POC
ppm
PRP
PSI
Adsorbable organic halides
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements '
Anaerobic Thermal Processor
Below ground surface '
BundesministeriumfiirForschung und Technologic (German Federal Ministry for
Research and Technology) i
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene i
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, jand Liability Act
Chlorinated hydrocarbon
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste
Dichloroethane '!
Dichloroethene \
Dense nonaqueous phase liquid i
Dry standard cubic meter j
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency \
Gram
Gallons per minute
Hydrogen fluoride
Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute
Indiana Wood Preservers, Inc.
Kilogram
Liter
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Liters per minute
Meter
Square meter
Maximum contaminant level
Milligram
Millimeter
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
Nanogram
Nitrogen oxides
National Priority List
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated biphenyl
Tetrachloroethene
Purgeable organic carbon
Parts per million
Potential responsible party
Peroxidation Systems, Inc.
XI
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols (continued)
QA
QAPjP
QC
RCRA
RFSD
ROD
RREL
SACM
SARA
SITE
SOX
SVE
SVOC
SVVS
TC
TCA
TCDF
TCE
TNT
TOC
TOX
tph
TRPH
UBA
UV
VOC
WRI
u.g
Quality assurance
Quality assurance project plan
Quality control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Radio Frequency Soil Decontamination
Record of decision
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Sulphur oxides
Soil vapor extraction
Semivolatile organic compound
Subsurface Volatilization and Ventilation System
Total carbon
Trichloroethane
Tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans
Trichloroethene
Trinitrotoluene
Total organic carbon
Total organic halides
Tons per hour
Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environmental Agency)
Ultraviolet
Volatile organic compound
Western Research Institute
Microgram
Micrometer
xu
-------
Acknowledgements
This report and the continued success of the U.S.-German bilateral agreement would not be possible without the
diligent efforts of numerous individuals committed to the program. Dr. Wolfram Schott of the Bundesministerium fur
Forschung und Technologic (BMFT) and Donald Sanning of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the
Bilateral Agreement Program Managers for their respective agencies. This document was prepared under the direction
ofRobertOlexseyDkectoroftheSuperrundTechnologyDemonstrationDivision.EiorisKingoftheEPARiskReduction
Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, is the Work Assignment Manager responsible for the preparation of this
document The following EPA technical project managers continue to be key contributors to this project: Paul dePercin,
Eugene Harris Ann Kern, Kim Lisa Kreiton, Norma Lewis, Dr. Ronald Lewis, and Laurel Staley. The following BMFT
personnel are key contributors to the bilateral agreement: Dr. Hiibenthal (BMFT), Jutta Penning [Umweltbundesamt
(UBA)], and Hans-Joachim Schmitz (UBA).
Lisa Scola of PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC), and Beate' Neuenhofer and Kai Steffens of
Arbeitsgemeinschaftfocon-PROBIOTEC (focon-PROBIOTEC) are the contractor project managers responsible for the
development of this document. Key PRC contributors include Carol Adams, Roger Argus, Jeanne Bartel, Eleanor
Blomstrom, Gina Bergner, Ed DiDomenico, Rob Foster, Tonia Garbowski, and Mark Walsh. Key focon-PROBIOTEC
contributors include Hans-Jurgen Schwefer and Dr. Peter Dreschmann. j
xin
-------
-------
Section 1
Introduction
Because waste management and the cleanup of
contaminated sites present major problems in every
industrialized nation, most countries are searching for
innovative solutions to hazardous waste treatment problems.
Based on a variety of national and local circumstances,
differing standards and techniques have been developed
and adopted in various individual countries to solve pressing
environmental problems. However, environmental
contamination is fast becoming an international problem
requiring more than a local or national perspective. Instead,
a broad international awareness and continued cooperative
international programs are required to find solutions to our
global environmental problems. By coordinating a joint
understanding of environmental situations in different
countries, the interactive transfer of technological
information may contribute to finding mutual solutions to
common waste problems. This report is a part of the
technology transfer initiative.
This interim status report summarizes the progress of
a bilateral technology transfer agreement between
Germany's Bundesministerium fur Forschung und
Technologic (BMFT) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This chapter discusses the
program's background, goals, and approach. Chapters 2
and 3 discuss demonstrations of hazardous waste treatment
technologies in Germany and the United States. Chapter 4
summarizes the accomplishments and benefits of the
bilateral activities already underway, and Chapter 5
discusses the future goals, approach, and activities of the
U.S.-German bilateral agreement.
1.1 Program Background
In early 1990, the United States and Germany realized
the importance of exchanging global solutions to hazardous
waste problems, and initiated a research and development
joint venture called the United States and German Bilateral
Agreement on Remediation of Hazardous Waste Sites.
The agreement was established between the two heavily
industrialized countries to compare innovative technologies
and explore new approaches to remediating hazardous
waste sites. This is a collaborative effort between EPA and
BMFT. In December 1990, BMFT met with EPA to
finalize selecting the innovative technologies to treat
hazardous waste at six sites in Germany and at six sites in
the United States. In October 1991, EPA and BMFT
exchanged detailed reports describing the site background,
key individuals and; responsible parties, the remedial
investigations at the site, the remedial concept and working
plan, and the innovative technology to be applied at the
site. In October 1991, the summary reports were exchanged
between the partner countries. In June 1992, BMFT
conducted a technical! tour of U.S. sites to correspond with
implementing the first bilateral demonstration at the
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund site hi Waukegan,
Illinois. Since then, several bilateral demonstrations have
been completed or are ongoing (see Sections 2 and 3 for
further details).
]
I
Combining the technical resources of both agencies
allows a technology to be evaluated by both countries, and
it provides an international perspective on various
approaches to solving hazardous waste problems. The
bilateral agreement was created to exchange information
in three main areas: (1) political, social, and regulatory
circumstances that influence environmental policy and
remediation decisions; (2) technical details required to
adequately compare and evaluate performance and cost
data on innovative technologies; and (3) business
considerations in performing environmental work in a
partner country. These areas are all inter-related, and an
understanding of eaich is essential for an international
envkonmental program such as the bilateral agreement to
be effective. For example, adelay in acquiring an operating
permit to conduct a technology evaluation is just as much
a barrier to progress as having language differences in
technical terminology between two countries. Exchanging
information on typical procedural and operational practices,
particularly regarding the approved methods and approach
-------
to remediating contaminated sites, is of particular interest
to program participants because it allows results to be
obtained more swiftly and more economically.
1.2 Program Goals and Approach
The bilateral agreement has two objectives for each
partnercountry: (1) to gain a comprehensive understanding
of the other country's approach to remediating hazardous
waste sites and (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of
innovative technologies being applied at these sites. To
achieve these objectives, EPA and BMFT established the
following specific goals for the agreement:
• Facilitate an understanding of each country's
approach to remediating contaminated sites
• Demonstrate and evaluate innovative remedial
technologies
• Compare quality assurance (QA) programs
• Facilitate technology transfer between the two
countries
Table 1 lists the goals and approach of the bilateral
agreement. In general, the approach involves sharing
comparable information and analytical data from actual
hazardous waste sites where innovative treatment
technologies have been demonstrated. Data quality became
an important enforcement issue to the EPA with the passage
of U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended. Standardized data QA is now becoming a key
focus of BMFT because the Agency is currently considering
establishing new QA regulatory standards under aproposed
Soil Protection Act. The national act would provide
Germany with cleanup criteria and standard operating
procedures for hazardous waste site remediation. The Soil
Protection Act will most likely have similarities to EPA's
CERCLA. Brief summaries of the regulatory framework
for remediating sites in Germany and the United States are
provided in Sections 1.3 and 1.4, respectively.
EPA and BMFT agreed that for a better understanding
of each country' s efforts to develop treatment technologies,
selected demonstration projects should follow the
regulations and guidelines of both the host and developer
countries as well as the respective political, social, and
technical circumstances involved in demonstrating the
technology. The purpose of the bilateral agreement is to
share information on actual cleanups in each country as if
the demonstration had taken place in the other country. For
this reason BMFT and EPA selected cleanup technologies
from their respective technology evaluation programs: the
BMFT Forderschwerpunkt "Modellhafte Sanierung von
Altlasten" (Model Remediation Program) and the EPA
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program.
Table 1. Bilateral Agreement Goals and Approach
Goal
Approach
Facilitate an understanding of each country's approach to
the remediation of contaminated sites
Demonstrate and evaluate innovative remedial
technologies
Compare QA programs
Facilitate technology transfer between the two countries
* Prepare technical demonstration plans for innovative
technologies
*• Visit the partner country to review demonstration sites and
their status
* Participate in international remediation symposia
* Conduct demonstrations as if they were conducted in
partner country
* Provide QA oversight of project activities
<» Observe German facilities conducting technology
demonstration activities
* Compile and transfer information on innovative
technologies
* Participate in innovative technology symposia
-------
BMFT's program and the SITE Program were
established to further develop state-of-the-art cleanup
technologies, demonstrate new technologies, and assess
their potential applicability to various hazardous waste
sites. Both programs emphasize technologies that (1) restore
the site to its natural state, (2) are cost-effective, and (3)
minimize impacts on the environment by reducing the
amount of process residuals needing further treatment or
disposal.
In Germany, support for environmental research and
development is central to the federal government's
environmental policy. As part of its environmental research
program, BMFT awards research grants in the area of
environment pollution mitigation. In 1989, BMFT
established the Model Remediation Program. The aim of
the programis to further develop state of the arttechnologies,
to demonstrate new cleanup technologies, and to assess
their applicability to actual hazardous waste sites. BMFT's
Model Remediation Program funds practical full-scale
demonstrations of physical, chemical, thermal, and
biological treatment techniques or combinations of these
techniques at applicable hazardous waste sites.
In the United States, the SITE program was established
in 1986 to objectively evaluate innovative technologies for
remediation of Superfund sites and encourage the
advancement of technologies to commercial use. The
SITE program is managed by the EPA Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL) in Cincinnati, Ohio. The
SITE demonstration program works cooperatively with
technology developers by conducting field evaluations of
emerging and newly available commercial technologies,
typically at a Superfund site. In conducting the field
evaluation, EPA prepares test plans, conducts field
sampling, oversees laboratory analysis, and documents
results in published reports. The technology developer is
responsible for the mobilization and demobilization of the
technology and for operating the technology during the
demonstration period.
Six U.S. and six German innovative technologies were
selected from the two programs and designated for
demonstrations under the bilateral agreement. Table 2
identifies the demonstration sites with corresponding
technologies and the types of contamination to be treated.
Because the technical approach to remediating hazardous
waste sites is subject to different environmental and social
factors in each country1, the overall usefulness of a particular
innovative technology can be determined only if it is
evaluated in accordance with the political, social, technical,
and regulatory requirements of both countries. Under the
bilateral agreement, each technology evaluation is
conducted as if the technology was to be used in both
countries. For each demonstration, both countries identify
critical analytical parameters, measurements, andregulatory
restrictions that must; be assessed to adequately evaluate
the technology under the rules and standards of each
country.
When BMFT identifies additional measurement
requests not already included in the EPA SITE
demonstration plan, BMFT notifies the EPA SITE
Technical Project Manager. The project manager and EPA
QA staff are responsible for including the additional
measures in the SITE demonstration. Because data QA and
comparability are important, standard analytical procedures
are conducted according to EPA-approved methods and
German standard methods, respectively. As such, the data
will be comparable, useful, and effective in assessing
technology performance and cost at sites in both countries.
WhenEPA identifies additional measurement requests,
the requests are prepared as streamlined SITE demonstration
plans. The EPA demonstration plan is prepared in addition
to BMFT's sampling and analysis plan. Implementation of
the EPA's quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
measures follow EPA's regulatory guidance. Additional
analytical requests are conducted according to standard
EPA methods by a German analytical laboratory that was
checked in a Technical System Review according to EPA's
QA program. In this way, the data can be evaluated at the
same level of QA/QC used for the EPA SITE program.
For each demonstration, the country-specific results
for both partners will be published in final reports that
include regulatory conclusions and technical results. The
reports will also include a general evaluation of the approach
to site remediation and a discussion of how the technology
data may influence or determine future remedial actions at
the demonstration site and at other potential hazardous
waste sites. Documentation of the data and evaluation of
the comparability of analytical methods and results will
enable remediation eixperts to evaluate the potential future
applicability of U.S;. arid German technologies in both
countries.
-------
Tablo 2. U.S. and German Remediation Projects
U.S. Sites
Technologies
Contamination Type
Outboard Marine Corp. Site
Waukegan Harbor, IL
Kelly Air Force Base
San Antonio, TX
Electro-Voice Site
Buchanan, Ml
Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL)
Tracy, CA
Pennsylvania Power &
Light, Broadhead Creek
Site, Stroudsburg, PA
Indiana Wood Preservers Site
Bloomington, IN
Anaerobic thermal treatment
Enhanced soil vacuum extraction by
radio frequency heating
Enhanced soli vacuum extraction by
deep well injection
Advanced chemical oxidation
Contained recovery of oily waste
Bioremediation
Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), oil, grease
Volatile organic compounds (VOC),
semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOC), total recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbons
Xylene, tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene
VOCs including trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene
Organic liquids, coal tars,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), phenols
VOCs, SVOCs
German Sites
Technologies
Contamination Type
Haynauerstrasse 58, Berlin
Gaswerke, MQnchen
BurfaacherHQtte, Saarbrucken
TNT Site, Stadtallendorf
Kertess, Hanover
Soil washing, bioremediation, and
thermal treatment
Soil washing and thermal desorption
Thermal treatment, soil washing, and
bioremediation
Soil washing and incineration
Soil vapor extraction
Chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHC),
monoaromatics, petroleum
hydrocarbons, PCBs, polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated
dibenzofurans
PAH, cyanide, lead, aliphatic
hydrocarbons
Sulfides, cyanide, lead, mercury,
phenols, hydrocarbons,
monoaromatics, PAHs, ammonia
Monoaromatics, munitions,
trinitrotoluene (TNT) and
degradation products, heavy metals,
phenols, PAHs, cyanides
CHC and degradation products,
chlorofluorocarbons, hydrocarbons,
monoaromatics
Varta SUd, Hanover
Soil washing and chemical extraction
Lead, antimony, arsenic, cadmium
-------
1.3 Background Information on the German
Approach to Remediation of Sites
In the 16 federal states of the Federal Republic of
Germany, a total number of 131,488 suspected hazardous
waste sites are registered. The estimated number, however,
is 240,473 sites that comprises approximately 80,000 sites
in the new federal states and approximately 160,000 sites
in the original federal states. Based on site registration and
ongoing preliminary risk assessments, remedial action
was identified for a smaller portion of these sites.
During the development of remedial activities in the
past 10 years, various remedial technologies have been
developed by German companies or licensed to domestic
vendors. These cleanup technologies include thermal
treatment, physical-chemical treatment (primarily soil
washing and soil venting), and biological treatment. The
general trend focuses on combined treatment technologies
in soil treatment centers. In August 1993, approximately
45 soil treatment centers were operating in Germany.
Biological soil treatment is performed in 33 centers,
physical-chemical treatment is performed in 11 centers,
and incineration is performed in three centers. The planning
phase for 43 additional soil treatment centers is completed;
the permitting processes are underway. The overall
(available and planned) treatment capacity is estimated to
exceed 3 million metric tons per year.
The regulatory enforcement and responsibility for the
registration, evaluation, and remediation of hazardous
waste sites is delegated to the federal states by the German
constitution (§§ 30, 83 and 84). To ensure consistency
between state-specific approaches, the Federal Conference
of Ministers for the Environment has established a working
committee (Arbeitsgruppe "Altablagerungen und
Altlasten " derLanderarbeitsgemeinschaftAbfall) to define
standard criteria for the registration, investigation,
evaluation, and monitoring of hazardous waste sites. This
working group published a report in 1990 that establishes
a technical framework for the remediation process.
However, the detailed rules and guidelines are different in
each of the federal states. The environmental protection
agencies of the federal states as well as independent expert
working groups have developed rules and guidelines for
the overall remediation process and have developed specific
regulations covering all aspects of the remediation process.
Additionally, some states have developed criteria for
establishing a state-specific priority list.
A German Soil Protection Act (Bodenschutzgesetz) is
currently being prepared. This act will provide federal,
legal framework for the remediation of hazardous waste
sites. This act will provide the basis for regulations and
technical ordinances. 'Ihe regulations will deal with cleanup
criteria and standard working procedures for site
investigation and risk assessment, as well as criteria for a
national priorities list. QA during all phases of the
remediation process will be of fundamental importance to
these regulations. The Soil Protection Act will establish
the responsibilities for planning and funding remedial
actions and will specify overall goals that must be achieved
by the remedial action.
I
At present, soil and water treatment plants that will be
operated for more than 1 year at one site, must be permitted
to the Federal Emissions-Protection Act
(Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz, BImSchG). This process
can take several years, because detailed documentation of
technical and environmental aspects of system operation is
required. However, under the Federal Investment-
Promotion Act, mobile treatment plants may be operated
for up to 1 year at one site under a temporary permit,
provided that all technical regulations (including safety,
water protection, and construction of buildings) are met.
For the remedial action, the party responsible for the
damage is also responsible for cleanup. If, for legal or other
reasons, the respective party cannot be held responsible,
the federal state must finance the remediation.
As mentioned above, site investigation and remediation
requirements are different in each federal state. For single
steps in the remediation process, standardized procedures
are established in technical DIN (Deutsches Institut fur
Normung) standards. These standards are prepared for use
by experts and, therefore, allow for method variation
within the standardized methods. The level of detail
specified in these methods is less than that of comparable
U.S. methods. Several thousands of DIN standards cover
all fields of technical work and are, therefore, of substantial
importance for the remediation of hazardous waste sites.
QA requirements are also specified in the DIN standards.
However, Germany uses a more general approach to QA
and QC in site cleanup activities.
I
1.4 Background Information on the U.S.
Approach to Remediation of Sites
CERCLA as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) provide the
-------
statutory basis for the EPA Superfund program. CERCLA
was the first national legislation that addressed past
hazardous waste disposal violations and SARA provided
EPA with power to enforce environmental liability. Under
CERCLA, the federal government is given authority and
funds for the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites and releases.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP) provides a consistent framework
for implementing CERCLA and establishes EPA's response
policy. The response activities are carried out in EPA's
removal, remedial or enforcement programs. The removal
program addresses immediate risk, the remedial program
addresses longer-term risks and promotes responsible party
responses, while the enforcement program solicits
responsible party responses and recovers costs associated
with abandoned site cleanup. These programs are described
in further detail below.
Removal programs are short-term actions designed to
protect the public from immediate threats to public health
and welfare or the environment. This program involves
removals that cost less than $2 million and are less than
1 year in duration, although these limitations can be
expanded under certain circumstances. The removal process
consists of the following four phases: (1) discovery and
notification, (2) evaluation and planning, (3) removal
operations, and (4) project close-out. EPA is responsible
for determining the urgency of a removal action and
funding the removal activities. State governments do not
share the cost of removals unless the property is specifically
owned by the state.
Most CERCLA sites are cleaned up under a remedial
program that is conducted by the federal or state government,
or by a responsible party that has made a commitment or
settlement to clean up a site, or that has been compelled to
do so by a court order. The remedial process includes
discovering apotential waste site, conducting apreliminary
assessment and visual site inspection, and determining if
the site qualifies for EPA's National Priorities List (NPL).
The NPL is a ranking of EPA's priority hazardous waste
sites. Once on the NPL, a remedial investigation is
conducted to collect data and to characterize the waste
streams. A feasibility study is performed to develop specific
alternatives for the remedy. Remedy selection is based on
the following nine criteria: (1) overall protection of human
health and the environment; (2) compliance with applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR) including
federal or sometimes more stringent state environmental
laws; (3) long-term effectiveness and permanence;
(4) reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through
treatment; (5) short-term effectiveness;
(6) implementability; (7) cost; (8) state acceptance; and
(9) community acceptance. The selected remedy and
rationale are documented in EPA's Record of Decision
(ROD). Finally, the remedial approach is designed and
implemented in the remedial design and remedial action
phases. When all cleanup requirements are met, the site is
delisted from the NPL.
The enforcement program compels those responsible
for an environmental release to pay for or conduct the
response to the release, or both. All responsible party (RP)
cleanups are overseen by EPA. Enforcement actions consist
of issuing direct administrative orders, negotiating out of
court settlements, or litigating in court to compel RPs to
conduct cleanup activities. If the RPs cannot be identified
quickly enough or do not settle, EPA can proceed with a
response action and later reclaim up to three times the
cleanup cost through a cost recovery action. The
enforcement program works in conjunction with the
removal and remedial programs to meet emergency
responses and site cleanup goals for the Superfund program.
QA/QC is an essential part of the entire process within
the Superfund program. Strict quality assurance
requirements ensure that sampling procedures and analysis
data are verifiable and legally defensible. For example,
detailed QA project plans (QAPjP) are prepared prior to
project startup and rigorously followed during project
implementation. EPA's QA consists of four categories.
Category I requires the most stringent quality assurance
plan because the data must be legally and scientifically
defensible. Category II is used to compare data sets with
other similar projects and is used to generate data for
regulatory or policy decisions. Category III is used to
perform feasibility studies or preliminary assessments and
Category IV is used to assess suppositions between data
sets.
-------
Section 2
Progress of U.S. Demonstration Activities
Of the six U.S. technologies, five are being evaluated
under the EPA SITE program: (1) SoilTech ATP, Inc.,
Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP); (2) Peroxidation
Systems, Inc. (PSI), perox-pure™ advanced oxidation
technology; (3) Billings and Associates, Inc., Subsurface
Volatilization and Ventilation System(SVVS); (4) Illinois
Institute of Technology Research Institute (IITRI) Radio
Frequency Soil Decontamination (RFSD), and (5) Western
Research Institute (WRI) Contained Recovery of Oily
Waste (CROW). The sixth technology is a bioremediation
removal action being implemented by EPA Region 5.
This chapter discusses each of the six U.S. technologies
being evaluated under the bilateral agreement. For each
technology, the subsections below provide a process
description, demonstration objectives and approach, and
progress to date and future activities. Appendix A lists
appropriate contact names and addresses for each
technology.
2.1 Soiltech ATP Systems, Inc.—Anaerobic
Thermal Processor
The ATP technology, developed and licensed by
SoilTech, thermally desorbs organics such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) from soils, sludges, and
liquids. The thermal separation ATP system was used to
remove PCB s from contaminated soils and sediment at the
Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) Superfund site in
Waukegan, Illinois. EPA conducted the technology
demonstration in June 1992 during full-scale remediation
of the site.
2.1.1 Process Description
The ATP processor consists of two rotating drums
with four internal thermal zones: the preheat, retort,
combustion, and cooling zones. The unit is designed to
operate at temperatures of 400 to 1,000 °F (200 to 540 °C)
in the preheat zone; 900 to 1,300 °F (480 to 700 °C) in the
retort zone; 1,200 to 1,450 °F (650 to 790 °C) hi the
combustion zone; and|500 to 800 °F (260 to 430 °C) in the
cooling zone.
Contaminated soil firist enters the preheat zone where
water and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are vaporized.
Hot, granular solids exiting the preheat zone pass through
asandsealandentermeretortzone.Thehighertemperatures
in the retort zone cause (1) vaporization of heavy oils and
(2) thermal cracking of hydrocarbons, which forms coke
and low molecular weight gases. The coked solids then
pass through a second sand seal into the combustion zone.
Solids are then either recycled to the retort zone to provide
heat, or sent to the cooling zone located in a space between
the two rotating drums. Treated soils exiting the cooling
zone are quenched with, scrubber water and are then
transported by conveyor to storage and final disposition.
Water vapor, vaporized contaminants, low molecular
weight gases, and a small amount of particulates are
removed by vacuum from the preheat and retort zones of
the processor. Removed water vapor and vaporized
contaminants are then condensed in a direct-contact cooling
system that separates the organic and water phases.
Recovered water is sent to an on-site treatment system, and
the condensed organic phase is stored for off-site disposal.
Light organic vapors thai: are not condensed are fed by a
blower directly into the combustion zone of the processor.
Flue gas from the combustion zone is first treated in a
cyclone and baghouse to remove particulates and then in a
carbon adsorption system to remove trace organics prior to
discharge to the atmosphere.
i
2.1.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach
For the SITE program, EPA identified four technology
demonstration objectives and the approach to achieving
each objective for the SoilTech ATP:
-------
• To assess the technology' s ability to remove PCBs
from soil and sediment at the OMC Superfund site,
EPA collected samples entering and exiting the
processor. The evaluation of these samples
determined the system's treatment efficiency and
ability to meet site-specific cleanup levels. EPA
also collected stack gas samples to determine the
ATP's destruction and removal efficiency.
• To determine whether PCBs are transformed to
dioxins or furans at the elevated temperatures
within the system, EPA collected solid, liquid, oil,
and stack gas samples from various internal process
streams and discharge streams.
• To document the operating conditions of the
SoilTech ATP during the demonstration, several
key operating parameters were recorded, including
process temperatures and soil feed rate. These
data provided a better understanding of the effect
of these parameters on the contaminant
concentration in treated soil.
• To develop capital and operating costs for the ATP
technology that can bereadily used in the Superfund
decision-making process, EPA obtained capital
and operating cost data from this demonstration
and from previous bench-, pilot-, and full-scale
demonstrations conducted by SoilTech.
For the bilateral agreement, BMFT requested the
following additional measurements:
• To determine the system's ability to comply with
German regulations and performance standards
regarding contaminant concentrations in
pretreatment and posttreatment soil, EPA
performed additional sampling based on BMFT's
request.
• To determine if the air emissions could meet
German air quality standards, EPA collected
additional samples for metals in the flue gas fines
and for particulate metals, sulphur oxides (SOX),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and hydrogen fluoride
(HF) in stack gases.
2.1.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities
The SoilTech ATP technology was demonstrated in
June 1992. During the SITE demonstration, approximately
253 tons (230 metric tons) of PCB-contaminated soils and
sediments were treated during four test runs. The ATP was
run under two operating conditions. Three replicate 8-hour
testruns were first conducted underthe operating conditions
used to remediate the site. After the third replicate test run,
SoilTech discontinued the addition of sodium bicarbonate
to the ATP system; the sodium bicarbonate had been added
to reduce PCB emissions from the stack. A fourth 4-hour
test run was then conducted.
Tentative findings of the ATP SITE demonstration are
presented below. BMFT is currently assessing the results
from additional measurements:
• PCB concentrations were reduced from an average
of 9,761 parts per million (ppm) in contaminated
soil and sediment to an average of 2 ppm in treated
solids.
• About 0.117 milligrams (mg) of PCBs was
discharged from the ATP system's stack per
kilogram (kg) of PCBs fed to the ATP. This PCB
concentration hi stack gas corresponds to a removal
efficiency of greater than 99.99 percent.
• Most PCBs removed from the contaminated soil
and sediment were accumulated in vapor scrubber
oils.
• No polychlorinated dibenzodioxins were detected
in the stack gas from the ATP. Tetrachlorinated
dibenzofurans (TCDF) were found in contaminated
soil and sediment at 88 nanograms per gram (ng/
g), in treated solids at 6 ng/g, and in stack gas at
0.08 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
(dscm).
• No significant differences in PCB removal
efficiency or formation of thermal transformation
by-products can be attributed to the addition of
sodium bicarbonate to the ATP system's
combustion zone.
-------
• Levels of teachable VOCs, semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOC), and metals in treated solids
were below Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) toxicity characteristic standards.
• The stack gas contained low levels of paniculate
metals, SOX, NOX, and HF.
• No operational problems affecting the ATP's
ability to treat contaminated soil and sediment
were observed.
• For the OMC Superfund site, soil treatment costs
were approximately $ 155 per ton. The regulatory
support, mobilization, startup, and demobilization
costs for SoilTech's 10-ton-per-hour (tph) unit
totalled about $1,400,000 for the OMC site.
ThedraftSITEprogramrec/zwo/ogy Evaluation Report
was issued in Fall 1993, and the final SITE program
Applications Analysis Reportis anticipated to be published
in Winter 1993. The results of thedemonstrationhave been
provided to BMFT for comparison to German regulations
and performance standards and will be documented in a
final report. Appendix A lists contact personnel for the
ATP technology at EPA and at SoilTech.
2.2 Peroxidation Systems, Inc.—perox-pure™
Advanced Oxidation Technology
The perox-pure™ advanced oxidation technology,
developed by PSI of Tucson, Arizona, was demonstrated
under the EPA SITE program at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL), Site 300, inTracy, California,
over a 3-week period in September 1992. Principal
groundwater contaminants at Site 300 include
trichloroethene (TCE) andtetrachloroethene (PCE), which
were present at concentrations of approximately 1,000 and
100 micrograms per liter (|Xg/L), respectively.
2.2.1 Process Description
The perox-pure™ advanced oxidation technology is
designed to destroy dissolved organic contaminants in
water. The technology uses ultraviolet (UV) radiation and
hydrogen peroxide to oxidize organic compounds present
in water at parts permillionlevels orless. According to the
developer, this treatment technology produces no air
emissions and generates no sludge or spent media that
require further processing, handling, or disposal. Ideally,
end products include only water, carbon dioxide, hah'des
(for example, chloride), and in some cases, organic acids.
The technology useis medium-pressure, mercury-vapor
lamps to generate UV radiation. The principal oxidants in
the system, hydroxyl radicals, are produced by direct
photolysis of hydrogen peroxide at UV wavelengths.
The perox-pure™! advanced oxidation treatment system
(Model SSB-30) used for the SITE technology
demonstration was assembled from the following portable,
skid-mounted components: an advanced oxidation unit, a
hydrogen peroxide fiped module, an acid feed module, a
base feed module, a UV lamp drive, and a control panel.
The advanced oxidation unit consists of six reactors hi
series with one 5-kilowattUVlamplocated in eachreactor,
the unit has a total volume of 15 gallons (57 liters). The UV
lamp is mounted inside a UV-transmissive quartz tube hi
the center of each reactor so that water flows through the
space between the reactor walls and the quartz tube.
Circular wipers mounted, on the quartz tubes periodically
remove any solids that have accumulated on the tubes. The
buildup of such solids impairs UV transmission.
2.2.2 Demonstration Objectives andApproach
For the SITE program, EPA identified the following
primary objectives arid approaches for the SITE technology
demonstration: ;
i
• Todeternrinetheabih'tyoftheperox-pure™system
to remove VOCs from groundwater at the LLNL
site under different operating conditions, EPA
performed 14 test runs and calculated removal
efficiencies for VOCs under different operating
conditions.
• To determine whether treated groundwater met
applicable disposal requirements at the 95 percent
confidencelevel,EPAcalculated 95 percent upper
confidence limits foreffluentVOCconcentrations
and compared them withCaliforniadrinkingwater
action levels and federal maximum contaminant
levels. I
• To gather information necessary to estimate
treatment costs, including process chemical
dosages and utility requirements, EPA documented
capital, operation, and maintenance costs using a
12-category cost model.
-------
For the bilateral agreement, BMFT requested the
following additional measures:
• Monitor the discharge of wastewater to the
municipal sewer
• Analyze the total organic halides (TOX) and
adsorbable organic halides (AOX) in treated water
• Collect and analyze samples of influent to Reactor
1 and treatment system effluent for acute toxicity
to freshwater organisms
• Collect and analyze hydrogen peroxide, acid, and
base solutions to verify concentrations.
Groundwater from a shallow aquifer at the LLNL site
was selected as the waste stream for evaluating the perox-
pure™ advanced oxidation system. About 40,000 gallons
(150,000 liters) of ground water contaminated with VOCs
was treated during the demonstration. Groundwater was
pumped from two wells into a 7,500-gallon (28,000-liter)
bladder tank to minimize variability in influent
characteristics and loss of volatiles. In addition, cartridge
filters were used to remove suspended solids greater than
3 micrometers (urn) in size from the groundwater before it
entered the tank.
2.2.3 Progress to Date and Future Activities
The technology demonstration was conducted in three
phases. Phase 1 consisted of eight runs of raw groundwater,
Phase 2 consisted of four runs of spiked groundwater, and
Phase 3 consisted of two runs of spiked groundwater to
evaluate the effectiveness of quartz tube cleaning. These
phases are described below.
During Phase 1, principal operating parameters for the
perox-pure™ system, such as hydrogen peroxide dose,
influent pH, and flow rate (which determines the hydraulic
retention time), were varied to observe treatment system
performance under different operating conditions. Preferred
operating conditions (those under which effluent VOC
concentrations would be reduced to below target levels for
spiked groundwater used in Phases 2 and 3) were then
determined for the system.
Phase 2 involved spiked groundwater and
reproducibility tests. Groundwater was spiked with about
200 to 300 ug/L each of chloroform; 1,1-dichloroethane
(DCA); and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). These
compounds were chosen because they are difficult to
oxidize and because they were not present in the
groundwater at high concentrations. This phase was also
designed to evaluate the reproducibility of treatment system
performance at the preferred operating conditions
determined in Phase 1.
During Phase 3, the effectiveness of the quartz tube
wipers was evaluated during two runs using spiked
groundwater. One run used quartz tubes scaled with solids,
and one used cleaned quartz tubes.
During the demonstration, samples were collected at
several locations, including treatment system influent;
effluent from Reactors 1, 2, and 3; and treatment system
effluent. Samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, total
organic carbon (TOC), total carbon (TC), purgeable organic
carbon (POC), TOX, AOX, metals, pH, alkalinity, turbidity,
temperature, specific conductance, hydrogen peroxide
residual concentrations, and hardness.
A summary of key U.S. findings of the technology
demonstration are listed below. BMFT is currently assessing
the results.
• For the spiked groundwater, PSI determined the
following preferred operating conditions:
(1) influent hydrogen peroxide level of 40 mg/L;
(2) hydrogen peroxide level of 25 mg/L in the
influent to Reactors 2 through 6; (3) an influent
pH of 5.0; and (4) a flow rate of 10 gallons per
minute (gpm) or 38 liters per minute (Lpm). At
these conditions, effluent TCE, PCE, and DCA
levels were generally below detection limit (5 ug/
L), and effluent chloroform and TCA levels ranged
from 15 to 30 ug/L. The average removal
efficiencies for TCE, PCE, chloroform, DCA, and
TCA were about 99.7, 97.1, 93.1, 98.3, and 81.8
percent, respectively.
• For unspiked groundwater, effluent TCE and PCE
levels were generally below the detection limit
(1 ug/L), with corresponding removal efficiencies
of about 99.9 and 99.7 percent. Effluent TCA
levels ranged from 1.4 to 6.7 ug/L, with
corresponding removal efficiencies ranging from
35 to 84 percent.
10
-------
The perox-pure™ system effluent met State of
California drinking water action levels and federal
drinking water maximum contaminant levels
(MCL) for TCE, PCE, chloroform, DCA, and
TCA at the 95 percent confidence level.
The quartz tube wipers were effective in keeping
the tubes clean, and they appeared to reduce the
adverse effect scaling has on contaminant removal
efficiencies.
Economic data indicate that groundwater
remediation costs for a 50-gpm (190-Lpm) perox-
pure™ system could range from about $7 to $11
per 1,000 gallons (or 3,800 liters) of liquid treated,
depending on contaminated groundwater
characteristics. Treatment costs directly related to
the perox-pure™ system could account for about
$3 to $5 per 1,000 gallons (or 3,800 liters) of the
remediation costs.
Bioassay tests showedthatthe perox-pure™ system
effluent was acutely toxic to freshwater organisms,
even though the influent was not toxic. Comparison
of effluent toxicity data with that of hydrogen
peroxide residual concentrations in the effluent
(10.5 mg/L) indicated that the effluent toxicity
may be due to hydrogen peroxide residual rather
than perox-pure™ treatment by-products.
Additional studies are needed to draw any
conclusion regarding effluent toxicity.
TOX removal efficiencies ranged from 93 to 99
percent. AOX removal efficiencies ranged from
95 to 99 percent.
During reproducibility runs for spiked
groundwater, the system achieved average removal
efficiencies of 3 8 percent and about 93 percent for
TOC and POC, respectively.
The temperature of groundwater increased at a
rate of 12 °F (6.3 °C) per minute of UV exposure
in the perox-pure™ system. Because the oxidation
unit is exposed to the surrounding environment,
the temperature increase may vary depending on
the ambient temperature or other atmospheric
conditions.
The Applications Analysis Report, the Technology
Evaluation Report, arid the Technology Demonstration
Summary were available by October 1993. The results of
the demonstration have been provided to the BMFT for
comparison to German regulations and performance
standards and will be published in a final report. Appendix
A lists contact personnel for the perox-pure™ technology
at EPA and at PSI. i
2.3 Billings and Associates, Inc.—Subsurface
Volatilization and Ventilation System
The SVVS technology was developed by Billings and
Associates, Inc., of Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is
operated by Billings and under license to Brown & Root
Environmental, Inc. The demonstration site is located in
Buchanan, Michigan, on the property of Electro-Voice,
Inc., amanufacturerof electronic audio equipment. Previous
painting facilities at the site discharged solvent wastes into
a dry well, consisting of a bed of gravel and other porous
material covered with soil. This waste disposal practice
was halted many years ago, but the paint and solvent
wastes remain in the subsurface soils and groundwater.
PCE; TCE; dichloroetherie (DCE); and benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, andixylenes (BTEX) are the main
contaminants of concern in the glacial till soil and
groundwater.
2.3.1 Process Description
The SVVS technology consists of multiple drilled
wells that either inject into or withdraw air from the
subsurface soils and groundwater. Air is injected into the
groundwater to use the aquifer as a sparging system for
distributing injected air. Injection and withdrawal rates are
about one to two orders of magnitude less than rates for
similar soil vacuum extraction systems. The purpose of
SVVS is to oxygenate contaminated soil to achieve in situ
bioremediation. Because some vacuum extraction
necessarily occurs, on-surface bioremediation units are
placed on withdrawal lines to eliminate air contamination.
The SVVS technology can be used in combination with
injected nutrients to speed remediation, and
bioaugmentation with natural, indigenous bacterial
populations is frequently included as part of the SVVS
treatment. Drilled wells backfilled with a porous sand,
known as "sand chimneys," may also be installed to
facilitate pneumatic activity in the subsurface.
11
-------
2.3.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach
The primary objective of the EPA SITE demonstration
was to evaluate the developer's claim that the SVVS
technology achieved a 30 percentreduction in select VOCs
in the vadose zone over a 12-month period. To accomplish
this objective, total concentrations of the select VOCs in
the matrix will be compared before system startup and
after 12 months of operation.
For the bilateral agreement, BMFT requested that the
demonstration determine if degradation of contaminants
generates dead-end products with higher toxicity than the
initial contaminants. This will be accomplished by
measuring the concentrations of potential toxic degradation
byproducts, such as vinyl chloride, both before and after
treatment to prove that treatment does not increase
concentrations of these byproducts.
2.3.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities
The SVVS technology was installed during fall and
winter 1992; the demonstration officially started in mid-
March 1993. The full site cleanup is expected to require
approximately 5 years. Because the long time needed for
complete treatment was not practical for the SITE
demonstration, a 1-year demonstration period was agreed
upon to evaluate the technology developer's claim that the
SVVS can reduce total contamination by 30 percent.
Approximately 120 subsurface soil samples were collected
to determine initial contaminant and background
concentrations at the site. Throughout the 12-month
demonstration, the withdrawal air stream will be monitored
for oxygen, carbon dioxide, and contaminant levels, and
groundvvater will be monitored regularly.
An in situ respirometry or "shut down" test was
conducted just before initiating the 12-month evaluation
period; an additional shut down test will be conducted
again at the end of the period to estimate the level of
biological activity in the subsurface. Just before the test,
thesoilshadbeenfully oxygenated andbacterialpopulations
were thought to be fully established. Three background
wells located away from the contaminated area were also
injected with air to oxygenate the soil. The test wells and
background wells were then shut down, and oxygen and
carbon dioxide levels were monitored for 48 hours.
In wells where bioremediation was occurring, oxygen
levels dropped and carbon dioxide levels increased rapidly.
However, bioremediation appears to be limited at some
site locations due to lack of carbon substrate. At these
locations, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels did not change
significantly. Evidence of high levels of biological activity
in SVVS wells with corresponding low levels of biological
activity in background wells will help support the claim
that in situ bioremediation of the contaminants is occurring.
Soil samples were collected before beginning the
project in March 1993. However, due to time limitations,
no useful vinyl chloride data was generated using the
requested German analytical method. Nevertheless, both
EPA and BMFT gained a more thorough and useful
understanding of the differences between U.S. and German
sampling and analytical techniques. Data for VOCs,
including vinyl chloride, will be available from the U.S.
analytical methods implemented. The experience gained
through this demonstration effort may allow similar
situations to be streamlined in the future to provide complete
comparable analyses for both partners.
The SVVS will continue to operate throughout the 12-
month period, and will be evaluated in March 1994 to
determine whether or not the 30 percent contaminant
removal goal was met. Periodic monitoring of groundwater
and withdrawal air may indicate if progress slows or
increases before final sampling to be conducted in 1994.
Appendix A lists contact personnel for the SVVS
technology at EPA and at Billings.
2.4 Illinois Institute of Technology Research
Institute—Radio Frequency Heating
The IITRI and Haliburton NUS developed the Radio
Frequency Soil Decontamination (RFSD) technology, an
enhanced S VE method that uses electromagnetic radiation
to heat soil in situ. RFSD treatment enhances the recovery
of VOCs and SVOCs from the vadose zone. The RFSD
technology is currently being demonstrated at Kelly Air
Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. Approximately
188 cubic yards (140 cubic meters) of contaminated soil
was treated over a period of 10 weeks. The principal
contaminants of concern include toluene, chlorobenzene,
ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethane, and various phenolic
compounds andpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).
Other contaminants present include PCBs and total
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH).
12
-------
2.4.1 Process Description
The RFSD technology consists of a radio frequency
power source and an electrode array. The electrode array
contains a row of exciter electrodes within two rows of
grounded electrodes. Electromagnetic energy generated at
6.78 megahertz slowly heats the soil to 302 °F (150 °C).
Heated soil vapors are extracted from the treatment area
and decontaminated through the use of condensation,
refrigeration, and gas and liquid separation. Treated soil
gas is then passed through a flare prior to discharge to the
atmosphere, combusting any noncondensable VOCs that
remain. To prevent the entrainment of ambient air into the
soil gas extraction system and to minimize fugitive
emissions, a vapor barrier is used to cover the treatment
area.
2.4.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach
The primary objective of the EPA SITE demonstration
is to evaluate whether the RFSD technology can achieve 90
percent removal for SVOCs and TRPHs and 95 percent
removal for VOCs. Analytical data obtained from soil
samples taken before and after treatment will be used to
determine whether the anticipated removal efficiencies
were achieved.
Secondary objectives for the demonstration will include
(1) measuring the degree of removal for other soil
contaminants and (2) determining whether the contaminants
within the treatment zone are migrating laterally into zones
outside of the treatment area.
For the bilateral agreement, BMFT requested additional
measurements to determine the removal efficiency for
selected VOCs and SVOCs. VOC and SVOC removal
rates are critical parameters for BMFT. With the exception
of analyses for TRPH, U.S. analytical methods will be used
to determine BMFT's critical parameters. For TRPH, six
pretreatment and six posttreatment samples will be analyzed
using the German analytical method for TRPH. Analyses
requested by BMFT are being performed in parallel to the
EPA-approved analyses to determine the TRPH removal
efficiency and to assess the similarities and differences of
the U.S. and German methods.
2.4.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities
Pretest soil sampling was completed in early April
1993. In situ soil heating and concurrent extraction of soil
vapors was initiated soon after sampling and was completed
in June 1993.
i
Pastiest sampling is scheduled to begin as soon as the
soil cools to 122 °F (50 °C); this final sampling involves
drilling additional boreholes in the test area to collect
subsurface soil samples. Information will also be gathered
regarding energy consumption and other operational
parameters so that a cost estimate for the RFSD technology
can be developed, :
Appendix A lists contact personnel for the RFSD
technology at EPA and at IITRI.
2.5 Western Research Institute—Contained
Recovery of Oily Waste
j
The CROW process will be demonstrated at the
Pennsylvania Power and Light manufactured gas site at the
Broadhead Creek Superfund site in Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania. The horizontal and vertical extent of coal-
tar contamination has been assessed during a remedial
investigation and a predesign investigation. A discrete
phase of coal tar that is heavier than water was detected in
on-site monitoring wells; this coal-tar phase is the target
waste for the CROW process demonstration. Site conditions
that may impact the CROW process demonstration include
the presence of cobbles aad boulders in the aquifer matrix
as well as the presence of discrete phases of organic liquids
that are lighter than water.
2.5.1 Process Description
The CROW process developed by WRI uses (1) a
series of injection and! recovery wells and (2) hot water and
steam to reduce the concentration of oily wastes hi
subsurface soils and underlying bedrock. The wells sweep
the oily waste accumulation with hot water. Low quality
steam is injected below the deepest level of contamination
with organic liquids. After the steam condenses, rising hot
water dislodges and s\yeeps buoyant organic liquids upward
into more permeable regions. Hot water is injected above
impermeable barriers to heat and mobilize the mam
accumulations of oily wastes. Heating the oily wastes
reduces both the density and viscosity of the organic liquid
phase; Mobilized oity wastes can then be recovered by hot-
water displacement. .
1
After organic liquids are mobilized, hot-water injection
and product recovery rates are controlled to sweep
13
-------
accumulated oily wastes to the recovery wells. Oily wastes
are contained vertically by controlling temperatures during
the hot-water displacement. Downward penetration of oily
wastes is reversed by thermal expansion of the organic
liquids to a density that is less then the surrounding hot
water. Flotation of the heated organic liquid phase is
limited by injecting cooler water above oily waste
accumulations. When the organic liquid phase contacts the
cooler water, it contracts and becomes denser than the
surrounding water. Two factors maintain cooler water
temperatures above the oily waste accumulation:
(1) operating the displacement process in the laminar flow
regime and (2) natural conductive heat loss to the ground
surface.
2.5.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach
The EPA SITE demonstration will evaluate the
technology's ability to meet the site cleanup goal set in the
Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD mandates a 60 to 70
percent reduction in the coal tar concentration, which is
currently 100 percent pore volume saturation. The CROW
process demonstration will attempt to remediate a 150- by
200-foot (45- by 60-meter) area until the required cleanup
levels are achieved. The SITE demonstration will be used
to evaluate the following:
• Removal efficiency for dense nonaqueous phase
liquids (DNAPL)
• Potential for contaminant migration
• Integrity of the cold water cap
• Rate of contaminant recovery
EPA will prepare a SITE Program QAPjP that will
specify project objectives and describe sampling, analysis,
and QA/QC requirements for the demonstration. After
review of the QAPjP, the BMFT may request additional
measurements that may include sampling, analysis, and
QA/QC activities required to evaluate the CROW
technology under German regulations.
2.5.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities
The demonstration has been delayed to complete
additional site investigation activities. A draft system
design plan will be submitted to EPA Region 3 by December
1993. The demonstration is tentatively scheduled to begin
in February 1994.
Appendix A lists contact personnel for the CROW
technology at EPA and at WRI.
2.6 EPA Region 5—Bioremediation Removal
Action
EPA Region 5 is currently conducting a bioremediation
removal action at the Indiana Wood Preservers, Inc. (IWP),
site in Bloomington, Indiana. From 1976 to 1987, IWP
operated as a wood-treating facility. A solution of creosote
and coal tar was used to preserve railroad ties. Process
residues were collected in a transfer pit and discharged into
either, the on-site creek or one of two holding ponds.
Sludges from the transfer pit were removed and deposited
in a waste pile on site. Contaminated sawdust was also
disposed of in the pile. Principal contaminants of concern
at the site include PAHs and phenols.
2.6.1 Process Description
The bioremediation technology is designed to
biodegrade chlorinated and nonchlorinated organic
contaminants. The technology employs aerobic bacteria
that use the contaminants as their carbon source.
Microbiological activity in soil treatment biopiles will be
monitored to verify that the colonies are forming units and
that the proper levels of heterotrophs, ammonia, phosphate,
and moisture are present.
2.6.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach
The objective of this EPA Region 5 emergency removal
action was to reduce PAH and phenol contamination to
below applicable regulatory limits. The monitoring plan at
the IWP site includes assessing physical, chemical, and
biological parameters, and it requkes daily, weekly, and
monthly sampling and analysis. After baseline tests are
conducted, the monitoring will include daily checks of
physical characteristics such as moisture content,
temperature, and percent oxygen. Weekly monitoring will
include determining chemical parameters (such as nitrogen
and phosphate levels), as well as additional physical
parameters (such as moisture content at the core of the soil
treatment biopile). Monthly monitoring will include
determining ash content, PAH and nitrogen levels, and
microbiological activity.
BMFT requested additional information and
monitoring so that the demonstration would comply with
German regulations and laws. The objective of the
14
-------
additional monitoring program is to identify the source of
contaminant reduction, that is, whether degradation or
volatilization dominate. This will be determined by
evaluating the degradation of PAHs and phenols in
contaminated soil; monitoring the microbiological activity
in contaminated soil; determining the concentration of
extractable organic halides, petroleum hydrocarbons,
BTEX, and heavy metals in the soil; and monitoring
process water, air, and meteorological parameters that
might influence contaminant degradation or emissions.
2.6.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities
The soil treatment biopiles are constructed and the
long-term monitoring of the biopiles is nearing completion.
Because the removal action is almost complete, project
plans for further testing of the bioremediation technology
are not entirely feasible. At the completion of the removal
action, the soil treatment biopiles will be dismantled and
spread across a designated area. Because of the short time
frame and the nature of an emergency removal,
implementing the additional monitoring measurements
requested by BMFT was not possible.
No further action has been planned at the site under the
bilateral agreement. EPA is actively locating another site
that will allow an evaluation of another bioremediation
technology incorporating the German request for additional
measures.
Appendix A lists the EPA contact person for the
bioremediation technology.
15
-------
-------
Section 3
Progress of German Demonstration Activities
Under the bilateral agreement, BMFT selected six
German sites under its Model Remediation Program for
the demonstration of innovative technologies:
(1) Haynauerstrasse 58, Berlin; (2) Gaswerke Munchen;
(3) Burbacher Hiitte, Saarbriicken; (4) Stadtallendorf site;
(5) Kertess, Hannover; and (6) Varta-Sud, Hannover. The
BMFT-headed Model Remediation Program focuses on
the remedial approach to a given site and therefore, the
following site descriptions will discuss the potential
application for one or more innovative technologies at the
site. Reports have been prepared for all six sites to inform
EPA of each project's background and status. Project
summaries for each site are presented below. Appendix A
lists appropriate contact names and addresses for each
technology demonstration.
3.1 Haynauerstrasse 58, Berlin
The 3,100-square-meter (m2) Haynauerstrasse 58 site
is located in the southern part of Berlin. A spent chemical,
solvents, and waste oil recycling facility previously operated
at the site. As a result of chemical storage and processing
practices between 1952 and 1986, site soil and groundwater
are contaminated with a variety of organic contaminants.
Primary contaminants of concern include chlorinated
hydrocarbons (CHC), aromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum
hydrocarbons, and PCBs. In addition, the debris from
abandoned site buildings had been contaminated with
dioxins and furans.
The remediation concept for the Haynauerstrasse site
includes the following treatment technologies:
• SVE at a depth of 7 to 12 meters (m) (23.1 to 39
feet) below ground surface (bgs)
• Soil excavation to a depth of 7 m (23.1 feet) bgs
(approximately 42,000 metric tons or 46,300 tons)
and backfilling with clean soil
• Off-site treatment of contaminated soil by
microbiological degradation and soil washing
• Off-site rotary kiln treatment of dioxin- and furan-
contaminated debris
• Pump-and-treat groundwater remediation
A SVE system weis put in operation at the site in 1990.
The first of three excavation phases was conducted from
fall 1991 to August 1992. About 9,500 metric tons
(10,500 tons) of soil were excavated and replaced with
clean soil; approximately 6,700 metric tons (7,400 tons) of
excavated soil were treated by soil washing, and
1,600 metric tons (1,750 tons) were treated
microbiologically. The second excavation phase was
initiated in November 1992 and will be completed in
August 1993. Soil from the second excavation phase is
expected to be treated! by the Nordac soil washing process
and the Umweltschutz Nord (U-Nord) bioremediation
process (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2). The third and final
excavation phase is expected to be initiated in fall 1993.
Dioxin- and furan-contarninated debris from the site was
treated in a rotary kiln during spring 1993. Groundwater
remediation is expected to start in fall 1993.
i
The U-Nord bioremediation system and the Nordac
soil washing technology were the primary technologies to
be evaluated under the bilateral agreement. Both of the
technologies are discussed in detail below.
3.1.1 Umweltschutz Nord (U-Nord) Soil
Treatment Technology
The U-Nord soil treatment technology is a full-scale
commercial system that consists of two main components,
a Terranox bioreactor and a biopile. These two operating
components are batch processes and are operated in
sequence.
17
-------
3.1.1.1 Process Description
The Terranox bioreactor is a horizontal encapsulated
system. It has a modular design and consists of a variable
number of interconnected tank segments with covers. For
the demonstration, the bioreactor will have a total length of
about 40 meters (129 feet) and a width of 2.5 meters (8.1
feet). The bioreactor is initially operated for about 7 days
in an anaerobic mode to enhance dehalogenation of
chlorinated compounds. The system is then aerated for
about 3 days to initiate aerobic biodegradation and to strip
any volatile compounds. The systemcan treat approximately
80 cubic meters (105 cubic yards) per batch.
After loading the bioreactor with contaminated soil for
anaerobic treatment, a mix of water and nutrients is added
to the continuously stirred reactor. The pH and temperature
of the soil in the reactor, as well as water and nutrient
levels, are controlled as necessary. Three longitudinal
mixing shafts can be moved along the length of the
bioreactor to agitate the soil continuously and intensively.
Air emissions from the bioreactor are controlled by an
activated carbon filter.
After anaerobic treatment, the partially treated soil is
transferred to a biopile to allow for additional
biodegradation of slowly degradable hydrocarbons. The
duration of the second treatment phase may be varied
depending on contaminant content and cleanup
requirements. The biopiles are typically 60 meters (198
feet) long, 10 meters (33 feet) wide, and 1.5 to 2 meters (4.8
to 6.6 feet) high. The total volume is about 1,200 cubic
meters (1,600 cubic yards). In addition, biopiles may contain
soil from anumber of different sites. For the demonstration,
the biopile will be only 3 to 4 meters (9.9 to 13.2 feet) long
to evaluate the degradation of contaminants in one
segregated Terranox treatment batch. The biopiles are
operated without an irrigation system; however,
approximately once each month the biopiles are turned
over for aeration. During this turning process nutrients and
water can be added to the soil, if required.
3.1.1.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach
The EPA SITE program has prepared a demonstration
plan for the U-Nord soil treatment system to serve as the
EPA request for additional measurements. The primary
objective of the U-Nord process demonstration of the U-
Nord process is to measure the technology's reduction
efficiency for selected aromatic hydrocarbons, CHCs,
total petroleum hydrocarbons, and PCBs at a confidence
level of 95 percent. The effectiveness of the U-Nord
process will be measured by sampling soil before and after
treatment. Secondary objectives include determining
contaminant reductions at various stages of the treatment
process, documenting key nonproprietary system operating
parameters and untreated soil characteristics, assessing the
presence of toxic biodegradation by-products, documenting
remediation costs, and determining whether applicable
soil treatment limits are met.
3.1.1.3 Progress To Date and Future Activities
In February 1993, a U.S. technical representative
visited the U-Nord facility and the Haynauerstrasse site to
discuss the approach and objectives of the demonstration.
The discussions helped to improve the understanding of
the demonstration from both the German and U.S.
perspectives, As a result of the discussions, comments
from the vendor and the German technical support
consultant were incorporated into the demonstration plan.
Recent analyses of soil excavated for the U-Nord
demonstration indicated lower contaminant concentrations
than expected. The lower concentrations may preclude the
use of soil from the Haynauerstrasse site for the
demonstration. Other sources of contaminated soil for the
technology demonstration are currently being investigated.
As a result, the schedule for the technology demonstration
may be delayed until early 1994.
Appendix A lists contact personnel for the U-Nord
soil treatment system.
3.1.2 Nordac Soil Washing Technology
The Nordac soil washing technology is a full-scale,
commercial treatment system that was developed to remove
organic and inorganic contaminants from soil. This high-
pressure soil washing system is designed to separate out
fine-grained soil and clean coarse-grained soil. In some
cases, fine-grained soil may have a higher contaminant
concentration (due to its greater surface area to volume
ratio) and may require additional treatment prior to disposal.
The Nordac system is fully automated and can process up
to 1,000 metric tons (1,100 tons) of soil per day. For the
Haynauerstrasse site, only 300 metric tons (330 tons) per
day will be processed due to the large fine-grained fraction
of the soil.
18
-------
3.1.2.1 Process Description
Feed soil is initially screened by size, and materials
with a diameter greater then 50 millimeters (mm) (2
inches) are mechanically crushed. The soil is then
transported to a homogenization unit, where it is mixed
with recycled process water using a plough-blade mixer to
create a pumpable slurry.
The soil-water slurry is transported to a water jet and
baffle chamber, where it undergoes high-pressure spraying
with recycled process water. In the' chamber, the slurry
passes through a series of three high-pressure water jets.
The water jets are configured in a circular array of nozzles
producing a cone-shaped water jet. The soil particles are
drawn through the focal point of the water jet to remove
some contaminants adhered to the soil particles. The water
jet also produces a partial vacuum that draws in a large
volume of air. The vacuum's stripping effect releases
volatile substances from the soil particles; the volatile
substances are then drawn into the process air.
The slurry is then blasted into a steel wall to break up
soil particles. This action is intended to reduce contaminant
concentrations in the coarse-grained portion of the soil to
below regulatory cleanup levels. The soil-water slurry
generated in the jet and baffle chamber is then separated
into three fractions (lightweight, coarse-grained, and fine-
grained soil-water slurry) using a multi-step separating
process.
Coarse-grained material that meets regulatory cleanup
requirements will be used in road construction. Fine-
grained materials will be either incinerated, landfilled, or
treated by bioremediation. Process water is treated and
recycled, and air emissions are treated to meet regulatory
requirements prior to release.
3.1.2.2 Demonstration Objectives and Approach
The EPA identified the following objectives for this
demonstration:
• To measure the reduction efficiency of selected
aromatic hydrocarbons, CHCs, total petroleum
hydrocarbons, and PCBs at a confidence level of
95 percent
• To determine the percent reduction of soil mass
requiring additional treatment to meet applicable
cleanup criteria
These objectives!will be accomplished by sampling
the soil before and after treatment and by determining the
mass of soil treated and the mass of soil requiring additional
treatment. Secondary objectives include documenting
residual stream characteristics, documenting wastewater
characteristics, documenting remediation costs, and
determining whether soil cleanup criteria are met.
The EPA SITE! program drafted a streamlined
demonstration plan (QAPjP) for the Nordac system
demonstration that is currently undergoing internal review.
The demonstration plan is designed to collect information
that allows for a U.S. evaluation using U.S. standard
methods.
3.1.2.3 Progress TOiDate and Future Activities
In February 1993, a U.S. technical representative
visited the full-scale Nordac treatment facility to discuss
the approach and objectives of the demonstration plan.
This meeting helped improve the understanding of the
demonstration approach and project objectives. In addition,
discussions with the administrative and laboratory
personnel at the German laboratory, Institut Fresenius,
improved the laboratory's understanding of EPA QA/QC
requirements. In March 1993, a contracted U.S. EPA QA
auditor visited Germany and provided support to German
laboratory personnel responsible for implementing U.S.
sampling and analysis methods.
Analyses of soil excavated for the Nordac
demonstration have shown lower concentrations of
contaminants than expected. The low concentrations may
preclude the use of soil from the Haynauerstrasse site for
the demonstration. Other sources of contaminated soil for
the technology demonstration are currently being
investigated. As a resiult, the schedule for the technology
demonstration may bp delayed until spring 1994.
I
Appendix A lists contact personnel for the Nordac soil
treatment system.
3.2 Gaswerke Mii.nchen
I
The Gaswerke Munchen site is a former coal
gasification and gas distribution facility in Munich. The
remediation of this site is being coordinated by an
interdisciplinary working group comprised of the site
owner, city and state regulatory agencies, and various
technical consultants. The site is about 325,000 m2(81
19
-------
acres) in size and is located about 1 kilometer (0.6 mile)
northeast of the city center. Various site investigations
have revealed that both soil and groundwater are
contaminated with PAHs and that the top-most layer of soil
is also contaminated with lead. In addition, slightly elevated
concentrations of aliphatic hydrocarbons and cyanides
were found throughout the site, with some higher
concentrations in limited areas. One of the contamination
hot spots covers an area of about 4,000 m2 (1 acre) and
consists of approximately 50,000 metric tons (55,000 tons)
of gravelly sediment. This hot spot was found to pose a
substantial potential for release to groundwater and will be
remediated in the initial phase of the overall site remediation.
Treatability studies of various technologies, including
soil washing and thermal desorption, have been conducted
at the site. During the soil washing treatability study, the
QA approach implemented included elements of the EPA
QA/QC process; for example, chain of custody was used to
track samples. Ultimately, thermal desorption was selected
for treatment of contaminated soils. Desorption of volatile
contaminants will be accomplished by heating contaminated
soils in a reactor vessel, followed by off-gas treatment
using condensers and conventional filter systems. The
reactor unit of the selected technology may either be
heated directly by steam or by indirect heating methods. In
addition, the reactor may be operated under a vacuum to
enhance contaminant volatilization.
Because of delays in completing the treatability study,
the site remediation schedule has been modified. Soils to
be treated have been excavated and are stored hi an interim
on-site storage facility. Proposals from technology
developers for on-site treatment were received hi July
1993. It is anticipated that soil treatment will begin in 1994.
Appendix A lists contact personnel for the Gaswerke
Miinchen demonstration.
3.3 Burbacher Hiitte, Saarbriicken
The Burbacher Hiitte site is a former steel factory
located in Saarbriicken. During times of peak productivity,
the facility had a maximum size of about 600,000 m2 (150
acres). At present, only about one third of the facility
(200,000 m2 or 50 acres) is in use.
The steelworks formerly consisted of different
individual production plants (for example, coke factories,
benzene works, and a gas generation plant). The individual
production units caused specific contamination at different
on-site locations. The primary contaminants of concern at
the site include aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, phenols,
heavy metals, sulfides, and cyanides. Additionally,
ammonium has been detected at elevated concentrations at
several locations on the site.
In 1991 and 1992, full-scale bioremediation, soil
washing, and incineration pilot tests were performed using
soil from the site. At present, the results of these pilot tests
are under evaluation as part of a remedial feasibility study.
It is anticipated that the remediation concept for cleanup of
the site will consist of a combination of these technologies
for the individual groups of contaminants. The remedial
feasibility study report identifying the selected technologies
is expected to be issued in 1994.
Appendix A lists contact personnel for the Burbacher
Hiitte demonstration.
3.4 Stadtallendorf Ammunition and Explosive
Factory Site
The former ammunition and explosives factory at
Stadtallendorf is located about 100 kilometers (62 miles)
north of Frankfurt. The production area of the site covered
about4.2 square kilometers (1.6 square miles). From 1941
until 1945, the facility was used for the production of
trinitrotoluene (TNT) and other explosives. During
operation, the facility produced about 126,000 metric tons
(140,000 tons) of TNT and 27,000 metric tons (30,000 tons)
of other explosives. After World War n, the U.S. Army
used the site as a storage facility for ammunition and
equipment. In the period between 1946 and 1949 almost all
production plants were demolished. Today, the
Stadtallendorf site is a mixed use area that includes
residential areas, industrial sites, and the former ammunition
and explosives factory.
Between 1941 and 1945, unsafe production methods,
uncontrolled waste disposal, and insufficient wastewater
treatment contaminated the site with the following
substances:
• Explosives (for example, TNT)
• Raw materials used in explosives production (for
example, toluene, mono- and dinitro-toluenes)
20
-------
• Degradation products of explosives (for example,
dinitro-aminotoluenes)
• Miscellaneous pollutants (for example, phenols,
aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cyanides, andheavy
metals)
The anticipated remedial technology for soil
decontamination is a combination of soil washing and
high-temperature incineration of highly contaminated soil
washing residues. For soil decontamination, the cleanup
target has been defined as 1 mg/kg for total explosive-
related contaminants.
At present, a detailed remedial investigation of selected
residential areas is underway to evaluate the site-specific
risks associated with the contaminants. The results of this
investigation will provide the basis for the remedial concept.
After negotiations with the state authorities, the remedial
design phase is expected to begin by the end of 1993, and
remedial action is expected to start in 1996.
Appendix A lists contact personnel for the
Stadallendorf demonstration.
3.5 Kertess, Hannover
This project involves the remediation of an industrial
facility that stored andhandled organic solvents, detergents,
aromatic hydrocarbons, and halogenated hydrocarbons
from 1946 until 1985. The site covers about 10,000 m2 (2.5
acres) and is located in the southern part of Hannover.
Primary contaminants at the site include chlorinated and
aromatic solvents. These contaminants are present in the
vadose zone and groundwater and are found as DNAPL at
the bottom of the uppermost aquifer.
3.5.1 Process Description
In 1976, a groundwater extraction and treatment system
was installed at the site. However, due to the poor efficiency
of the pump-and-treat system, the project management was
reorganized, and other remediation concepts were
investigated. The remediation technologies intended for
use at the site include DNAPL extraction, excavation of
contaminated soil from the saturated zone in combination
with physical groundwater barriers, and SVE in the vadose
zone. Research efforts focus on DNAPL extraction because
it is a common problem at hazardous waste sites.
BMFT and EPA anticipate demonstrating the vadose
zone remediation technology under the bilateral agreement.
The technology, developed by Herbst Umwelttechnik
GmbH of Berlin, employs a three-step process:
Step 1—Extraction of soil gas from the vadose zone
Step 2—Fluid absorption of volatile contaminants
Step 3—Vinyl chloride removal in a bioreactor
After extracting soil gas from the vadose zone, the
process employs a reckculating carrier fluid to absorb
volatile contaminants, yvith the exception of vinyl chloride.
The contaminant-laden fluid then passes through a
desorption unit where contaminants are thermally
volatilized. The process off-gas is treated by conventional
means, and the clean carrier fluid is recycled.
Soil gas carrying vinyl chloride passes through a
bioreactor vessel filled with microbe-bearing granules.
The microbes are supplemented with a nutrient solution,
and the bioreactor operating parameters are kepf stable by
a feed-gas conditioner. Long-term tests have shown that
the reactor bed does not need to be replaced over long
periods of operation.
3.5.2 Objectives
i
The technology demonstration is intended to focus on
the innovative second and third steps of this soil gas
treatment technology. These process steps have been
designed specifically to remove vinyl chloride from the
extracted soil gas stream. If effective, the system would
avoid consumption of large amounts of activated carbon to
remove vinyl chloride as in traditional treatment systems.
3.5.3 Future
j
Remediation equipment is scheduled for installation
at the Kertess site in September 1993, and operation is
planned to begin in December 1993. At present, BMFT is
compiling detailed ptocess descriptions and regulatory
treatment requirements to provide a basis for a SITE
demonstration QAPjP that will serve as the EPA request
for additional measurements.
Appendix A lists | contact personnel for the Kertess
demonstration. :
21
-------
3.6 Varta-Siid, Hannover
The Varta-Siid site is located northwest of Hannover
adjacent to the site of a battery factory that operated from
1938 to 1989. The site covers about 45,000 m2 (11 acres).
Site investigations have revealed lead, antimony, and
cadmium contamination in on-site soil, with the highest
contaminant levels in sediment samples from a creek that
received wastewater discharges from the battery factory.
Slag, debris and other residues from smelting and coal
firing are also distributed randomly over the site. In addition
to heavy metal contamination in on-site soils, PAH
contamination of unknown origin has been detected in the
southeastern portion of the site. Groundwater at the site is
not significantly contaminated with heavy metals.
Treatability studies with a variety of treatment
technologies, including high-pressure soil washing and
chemical extraction, have been completed. The results of
a risk assessment are currently being evaluated, guiding
decisions on remedial action.
Appendix A lists contact personnel for the Varta-Siid
demonstration.
22
-------
Section 4 ;
Summary of Bilateral Agreement Goals, Accomplishments, and Benefits
With three planned technology demonstrations
completed, one technology undergoing quarterly sampling,
and another technology currently going into the field, a
review of benefits and accomplishments at this point in the
program provides interim documentation of the limited
successes of the bilateral agreement. This section
summarizes the partnercountries' accomplishments during
the first 2 years of the bilateral agreement, lessons learned
that have improved the program's efficiency in achieving
its goals, and lessons learned that will allow future activities
to focus directly on the main interests of the partner
countries.
This section summarizes the bilateral agreement goals
and lists separately the benefits and accomplishments
gained by each partner. Each partner prepared their portion
of this section and it was reviewed by the other partner.
Also, the benefits and accomplishments are listed under
the goals in which they were achieved. While the goals are
the same for each partner, the benefits are realized in
different ways.
4.1 Summary of U.S. Accomplishments and
Benefits
Table 3 lists specific U.S. goals, accomplishments,
and benefits for each of the four bilateral agreement
program goals. The specific goals and accomplishments
are discussed in detail below.
4.1.1 Understand German Remedial Approaches
By preparing technology demonstration plans and
QAPjPs and by coordinating demonstration activities,
U.S. representatives have learned a great deal about how
remedial activities are conducted in Germany. In addition,
U.S. representatives have gained a better understanding of
German political and social issues. Of specific benefit is
the identification of current high-visibility environmental
issues in Germany. Two such issues are the potential
presence of vinyl chloride as a degradation product of
chlorinated solvents and the heightened regulatory attention
paid to atmospheric emissions from all remedial processes.
I
German remedial programs are currently implemented
on a regional basis under the jurisdiction of individual
states. Remedial requirements are based primarily on
preestablished contaminant cleanup criteria that specify
MCLs in treated material. In addition, German remedial
activities under the B3VIFT Model Remediation Program
are typically overseen by project steering committees that
include regulatory and scientific experts. These experts
provide advice to regulators and other key personnel for
use in determining compliance requirements for remediation
projects. In Germany, the regulators, responsible parties,
and contractors work closely to evaluate and select
technically feasible, cost-effective remedial solutions.
U.S. representatives visited Germany to meet with
regulators, survey hazardous waste sitesincluded in the
bilateral agreement, and meet with technology developers
and technical experts to discuss the implementation of
German technology demonstrations. Meetings conducted
during these visits allowed U.S. representatives to discuss
the intent and scope of activities required to demonstrate
an innovative technology according to EPA protocols
under conditions in Germany.
i
4.1.2 Demonstrate Innovative Remedial
Technologies
i
Five technology; demonstrations have either been
initiated or completeii under the bilateral agreement. Of
these five demonstrations in the United States, four are
completed and one technology is undergoing quarterly
sampling activities. The demonstrations have introduced
technology developers to foreign regulatory requirements
and monitoring techniques and have introduced the
international regulatory, consulting, and industrial
community to new technologies. Demonstrations in the
23
-------
Table 3. U.S. Accomplishments of Bilateral Activities
Goals
Accomplishments
Facilitate an understanding of each country's approach to
the remediation of contaminated sites
Demonstrate innovative remedial technologies
Compare QA programs
Facilitate technology transfer
*
*
*
*
*
<*
Gained understanding of German remedial approach by
preparing demonstration plans and QA project plans
Identified current high-profile German regulatory issues
Learned how German remedial programs are implemented
on a regional basis under state jurisdiction
Gained an understanding of Germany's capabilities in
conducting technology demonstrations
Three completed, and one long-term monitoring
Conducted demonstrations as part of full-scale remediation
activities
Developed understanding of German sampling and analysis
procedures
Implemented German QA programs during demonstrations
Observed and implemented German analytical procedures
Disseminated U.S. QA/QC guidelines to Germany
Introduced U.S. innovative technologies to Germany
Participated in international symposia to exchange
information on innovative technologies
Introduced German technology evaluation procedures and
environmental regulations to developers
United States have included radio frequency heating,
oxidation by ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide, vapor
extraction, andanaerobic thermal processing; in Germany,
demonstration plans have been prepared for high-pressure
soil washing and enhanced bioremediation.
Full-scale remediation demonstrations have provided
an opportunity for U.S. and German technical
representatives to observe the roles of responsible parties,
regulators, developers, and consultants during innovative
technology implementation. Understanding the roles and
scope of authority of key participants in the remedial
process has been instrumental in the efficient performance
of bilateral program activities. At times, however, political
and cost considerations have hampered demonstration
activities, resulting in delays and other difficulties. Most
of the difficulties resulted from combining ademonstration
with full-scale remedial activities. The lesson learned from
this is that conducting technology demonstrations as
independent treatability studies may be more efficient,
albeit in some cases more expensive, than conducting the
demonstration in conceit with afull-scale site remediation.
Similarities and differences exist between German
and U.S. technology monitoringtechniques. The differences
have been one of the main hurdles to overcome in designing
the technology demonstrations. From experience gained
under the bilateral agreement, U.S. representatives have
gained an understanding of German monitoring capabilities
and have used that understanding in designing plans for
German demonstrations. However, implementing each
country's monitoring requirements is difficult even under
the best circumstances, because most monitoring techniques
rely heavily on the experience of the technical staff
performing the measurements. Even with highly trained
technical staff, learning new techniques and obtaining
high quality data are difficult. U.S. representatives have
learned that direct communication between technical staff
from both countries is the best method to overcome this
hurdle.
4.1.3 Compare Quality Assurance Programs
Demonstrations in Germany and the United States
have required implementing QA programs specific to each
country' s requirements. EPAhas prepared detailed QAPjPs
identifying project objectives, QA objectives, and
procedures for collecting data of known and documented
quality for the evaluation of demonstrated technologies.
24
-------
These QAPjPs have served as a primary vehicle for
dissemination of the U.S. QA procedures. U.S.
representatives have assisted German technical experts in
understanding the basis and intent of the U.S. QA/QC
requirements, analytical method requirements, and
interpretation of QC results. In addition, U.S.
representatives held conference calls and attended meetings
with German regulators, technology developers,
consultants, and analytical laboratories to discuss and
evaluate QA/QC requirements associated with technology
demonstrations. Alarge portion of this interaction involved
discussing the scope and intent of the rigorous U.S. QA/
QC requirements.
In preparing and implementing technology
demonstrations, German andU.S. technical representatives
observed and implemented each partner's analytical
methods. This hands-on experience provided a basis of
comparison of the similarities and differences of the German
analytical techniques and QA/QC procedures with EPA-
approved methods. Duringthe course of the demonstrations,
two sets of data were generated: one set of data derived by
U.S. procedures, and one set derived by German methods.
A review of the data could be a potential first step toward
achieving performance-based method requirements for
international environmental studies.
Prompted in part by U.S. QA/QC procedures
disseminated under this program, German technical
representatives are currently revising regulatory QA/QC
guidelines to provide objective documentation of data
quality. Germany's revision of QA/QC guidelines signifies
the importance of QA as a key element in technology
demonstrations as well as remedial activities in general.
U.S. procedures are often consulted as an example for data
quality documentation in the international arena.
4.1.4 Facilitate Technology Transfer
U.S. and German regulators, responsible parties, and
consultants have been introduced to new, innovative
technologies in both countries. This introduction will
allow environmental decision makers to select the
appropriate technology for site remediation from a broader
base of alternatives. Completed demonstrations provide
technically sound performance and cost information for
comparison of innovative versus traditional technology
options.
Participation in international remediation symposia
has played a major role in transferring information on
technologies demonstrated under the bilateral agreement
as well as the overall EPA SITE program. Under the
bilateral agreement, U.S. representatives participated in
symposia in Berlin, Germainy; San Francisco, California;
and Budapest, Hungary. Each of these symposia were well
attended by the international regulatory and industrial
community and provided an opportunity to discuss the
technical details of the latest developments in the
environmental field. Participation in the various technical
sessions and workshops allowed U.S. technical and
regulatory representatives to directly discuss pertinent
issues with their international counterparts. Participation
in these three international symposiums resulted in
numerous requests for additional information and yielded
interest from international environmental experts.
U.S. and German technology developers have been
introduced to each jother's technology evaluation
approaches, and both countries will perform an evaluation
of the selected technologies. By including developers in
the demonstration process, the developers learn about
performance and cost requirements of the partner country.
Understanding these requirements is one important element
required to break into international environmental markets.
To this end, the bilateral agreement has provided a
significant new market opportunity for these technology
developers. I
4.2 Summary of German Accomplishments and
Benefits
Table 4 lists specific German accomplishments and
benefits for each of the four bilateral agreement program
goals. The specific goals, accomplishments, and benefits
are discussed below, j
4.2.1 Understand U.S. Remedial Approaches
German technical representatives studied information
from actual site remediation projects to compare the U.S.
approach to remedial activities with German procedures.
Technical meetings and exchange of regulatory documents
and work plans were instrumental hi performing this study.
After studying the formal, detailed U.S. methods required
for every specific remedial project activity, German
representatives concluded that the process can result in a
greater amount of time to implement remedial actions. For
25
-------
Table 4. German Accomplishments of Bilateral Activities
Goals
Accomplishments
Facilitate an understanding of each country's approach to
the remediation of contaminated sites
Demonstrate innovative remedial technologies
<• Compare QA programs
Facilitate technology transfer
*
*
*
*
*
*
Gained understanding of U.S. remedial approaches based
on exchange of regulatory documents and work plans and
through technical meetings
Gained greater insight into the basis for and substance of
EPA regulatory programs for remediation of hazardous
waste sites
Identified the role and jurisdiction of the following remedial
project participants: federal and state regulators, responsible
parties, and contractors
Gained an understanding of the role of the cleanup
technology developer, contractor, and regulatory agencies
during full-scale remediation projects
Initiated two technology demonstrations
Developed an understanding of U.S. sampling and analysis
procedures
Conducted demonstrations as part of full-scale remediation
activities
Studied regulatory requirements for data collection
Implemented U.S. QA programs during demonstrations
Discussed and evaluated QA/QC issues
Observed and implemented U.S. analytical procedures
Generated data by U.S. and German methods to allow a
comparison of analytical procedures
Introduced German innovative technologies to the United
States
Generated parallel performance data to allow an evaluation
of U.S. analytical methods
Promoted innovative technology development by
establishing direct lines of international communication
Participated in international symposia to exchange
information on innovative technologies
the purposes of developing German regulations further,
German representatives considered streamlining the
formalized U.S. processes to adapt it for German use.
German representatives studied the organizational
responsibilities of federal and state authorities, responsible
parties, and contractors involved in remedial projects and
compared their findings with comparable environmental
regulations in the partner countries. The effects different
approaches may have on the progress of remedial projects
will be evaluated and discussed in the final report on the
bilateral agreement.
The relationship between technology developers,
cleanup contractors, and regulatory agencies was studied
during full-scale U.S. remedial projects to assess the
efficiency of the U.S. remedial approach. By studying
these relationships during innovative technology
demonstrations, German technical representatives gained
an understanding of the roles of the respective parties
during remedial actions.
4.2.2 Demonstrate Innovative Remedial
Technologies
German technical representatives accomplished the
following while demonstrating innovative technologies.
• Initiatedtwoinnovativetechnology demonstrations
26
-------
• Developed an understanding of U.S. sampling and
analysis procedures
• Conducted demonstrations as part of full-scale
remediation activities
• Studied regulatory requirements for data collection
Comprehensive demonstration plans have been written
for two technology demonstrations with one technology
currently being mobilized for field activity. Collecting
additional data using EPA standard monitoring methods
during projects in both countries facilitated the exchange
of technical information. For demonstrations conducted in
Germany, the EPA request for additional measures is
compiled after consultation with various technical experts
and governmental agencies. However, in some cases, SITE
program technology demonstrations conducted in the
United States were implemented too rapidly to
comprehensively evaluate the U.S. demonstration plans
and develop additional measures based on German
regulations. The short demonstration time frame resulted
in a reduced level of detail in German requests for additional
measures.
BMFT evaluated EPA-approved procedures for
collecting and analyzing samples and for monitoring system
operating parameters to determine similarities and
differences and advantages or disadvantages compared to
German procedures. Implementing foreign methods in
field and laboratory work allowed German technical staff
to gain experience implementing U.S. procedures under
realistic conditions, while having technical support from
U.S. experts. This understanding of U.S. procedures for
technology demonstrations will allow more efficient future
demonstrations.
In Germany, emphasis was placed on the
implementation and evaluation of technologies in full-
scale remedial projects. Assessing an innovative technology
in a full-scale demonstration allows an evaluation of the
technology's capabilities, flexibility, and cost in a
competitive situation. However, full-scale demonstrations
generally focus on technologies that have already found
access to the commercial market. In similar, future
technology transfer programs, the standard EPA approach
to technology demonstrations with a formal, unbiased
framework will likely be incorporated to some degree in
German technology demonstration procedures. BMFT's
original intention was to demonstrate technologies under
competitive marketplace conditions; however, this
approach may have complicated the technology
demonstrations because of a lack of flexibility during the
planning process. Demonstration projects on a pilot- or
limited commercial-scale were generally found to be easier
to implement.
German technical personnel reviewed regulatory
requirements for data collection during field
implementation. The process of planning, reviewing, and
implementing monitoring procedures and the associated
elements of aQA program are of special interestto Germany,
because it is currently developing anational Soil Protection
Act. The evaluation of different approaches allows BMFT
representatives to assess the responsibilities of technology
developers and regulatory agencies for maintaining data
quality.
i
4.2.3 Compare Quality Assurance Programs
I
German technical representatives accomplished the
following while comparing the programs:
• Implemented U.S. QA programs during
demonstrations
• Discussed and evaluated QA/QC issues
• Observed and implemented U.S. analytical
procedures
• Generated data by U.S. and German methods to
allow a compiirison of analytical procedures
Demonstrations in Germany and in the United States
have required implementing QA/QC procedures specific
to each country's regulatory, technical, and political
requirements. Adhering to both countries' QA/QC
requirements allows direct use of the demonstration results
in the other country; it also allowed the U.S. QA approach
to be studied and evaluated under practical conditions. The
EPA approach to QA/QC in site remediation may
substantially influence the development of new QA/QC
policies and guidelines in Germany.
Each country's approach to QA was discussed during
conference calls and technical meetings. These direct lilies
of communication enabled experts to gain insight into the
possible advantages and disadvantages of the U.S.
27
-------
procedures. For example, one advantage of U.S. QA/QC
requirements is that they provide useful information in
determining and documenting data quality.
BMFT and EPA have participated in implementing the
other country's analytical methods, and both agencies can
compare the effectiveness and cost of various methods
while having the full technical support of the partner's
laboratory personnel. Although the basic sampling and
analysis equipment used in both countries is very similar,
difficulties can be encountered in finding laboratories able
to perform each partner's analytical methods. Eventually,
each partner identified laboratories able to perform analyses.
By compiling two sets of analytical data, EPA and
BMFT will be able to determine the similarities and
differences of U.S. and German analytical procedures. The
comparison, performed with substantial support of both
U.S. and German experts, will enable technology developers
and potential clients to gain a better understanding of the
international remediation market. This understanding of
procedures will be useful to technology developers,
analytical laboratories, regulators, and responsible parties
in assessing the applicability of foreign technologies in
their country.
4.2.4 Facilitate Technology Transfer
German technical representatives accomplished the
following to facilitate technology transfer.
• Introduced German innovative technologies to the
United States
• Generated parallel performance data to allow an
evaluation of U.S. analytical methods
• Promoted innovative technology development by
establishing direct lines of international
communication
• Participated in international symposia to exchange
information on innovative technologies
German technology developers have been introduced
to the U.S. remediation technology marketplace. The
technology information and demonstration results will be
published for public distribution in the final report of this
program and at international site remediation conferences.
Parallel sets of performance data will be reported and
the differences in analytical methods will be evaluated.
Information on similarities and differences of analytical
results is of fundamental importance to evaluate the
possibility of cooperative marketing and research with the
United States.
Innovative technology development was promoted by
establishing direct lines of international communication.
Understanding remediation requirements is fundamental
to sharing technical ideas and distributing experiences for
the development of innovative technologies.
German technical representatives participated in
numerous international symposia on innovative remedial
technologies. At symposia, meetings, and conferences
throughout the world, the international community
expressed great interest in the status of remedial technology
development. Symposia participants were particularly
interested in system performance during technology
demonstrations and in the results of full-scale remediation
activities.
28
-------
Section 5 !
Reassessment of Program Goals and Approach
With approximately five of the field demonstrations
completed, the bilateral program is in the midst of
developing substantial performance and cost information
from the U.S. and German technology evaluations. This
information will provide useful knowledge with which
each partner country can improve its remedial programs.
The compilation of information may also, inform potential
technology users in the United States and Germany about
the applicability of new technologies and introduce
technology developers to each other's evaluation criteria
and environmental regulations. Nevertheless, based on
lessons learned in the first 2 years of the bilateral agreement,
the U.S. and German representatives believe that a logical
reassessment and streamlining of the program is warranted.
Program goals and refinement to the approach for the
bilateral agreement were jointly prepared by the partners
and are presented in Table 5. The identified changes hi the
program approach do not represent a departure from the
original program goals but rather a more refined focus.
REVISED PROGRAM GOAL: Facilitate an
understanding of remediation approaches
This goal has been refined to focus on summarizing
and transferring information on the remedial process,
particularly that part of the process associated with the
selection of innovative technologies as remediation
solutions. Emphasis will be placed on the U.S. Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), the German Soil
Protection Act currently under development, and the nine
remedy selection criteria that the United States and Germany
require for feasibility studies:
• Overall protection of human health and the
environment
• Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARAR)
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume
through treatment
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost j
• State acceptance
• Community acceptance
The revised approach to achieving this goal will include
incorporating data from pertinent sites where innovative
technologies were selected, to remediate hazardous waste
sites. The approach will also include promoting the
exchange of technical staff to gainafirsthand understanding
of the remedial approach, selection, and implementation of
innovative technologies. This exchange may involve both
regulatory and technical specialists who would visit the
partner country to directly participate in remedial programs
involving innovative technologies and demonstrations of
innovative technologies.
REVISED PROGRAM GOAL: Demonstrate
innovative remedial technologies
This goal remains the same as the original goal. The
program will continue completing the balance of the "as if
innovative technology demonstrations in the developer's
country, but all activities conducted to achieve this goal
will continue to focus on innovative technologies. The host
country will provide regulatory, engineering, QA, and
sampling and analysis support necessary to demonstrate
the innovative technology. As in the past, QA will be an
important component of the technology evaluation. The
approach will continue to include preparing QAPjPs and
requests for additional measurements as if the
demonstrations are being performed in the partner country.
The actual technology demonstrations will be
conducted in each partner country. General steps toward
this end include the following: technology selection; site
selection; and demonstration planning, implementation
(including coordinating international staff and equipment
logistics), and reporting. Streamlined demonstration plans
29
-------
Table 5. Bilateral Agreement Program Goals and Approach
Original Program Goals and Approach
Revised Program Goals and Approach
Streamlined Goals
Approach
Refinement
Streamlined Goals
Approach
Facilitate an understand-
ing of each country's ap-
proach to the remediation
of contaminated sites
Demonstrate Innovative
remedial technologies
Compare QA programs
Facilitate technology
transfer
* Prepare technical dem-
onstration plans for in-
novative technologies
* Visit the partner coun-
try to review demon-
stration sites and their
status
•> Participate in interna-
tional remediation sym-
posia
•*• Conduct demonstra-
tions as if they were
conducted in partner
country
* Provide QA oversight
of project activities
•> Audit German facilities
conducting technology
demonstration activi-
ties
<• Compile and transfer
information on innova-
tive technologies
*5> Participate in innova-
tive technology sympo-
sia
Focus on summarizing
and transferring informa-
tion on the process asso-
ciated with selecting an
innovative technology as
the remedial solution and
incorporating the SACM,
the German Soil Protec-
tion Act and the nine re-
medial selection criteria
Continue and emphasize
"as if approach
Eliminated as a separate
primary goal by incorpo-
rating QA under other pri-
mary goals
Focus on the international
audience
Facilitate an understand-
ing of remediation ap-
proaches
Demonstrate innovative
remedial technologies
Incorporate QA under
other primary goals
Facilitate international
technology exchange
»> Compile, summarize,
and transfer informa-
tion on selected ap-
proaches for specific in-
novative technologies
and hazardous waste
sites
* Promote the exchange
of technical staff to gain
firsthand understand-
ing of partner country's
remedial and technol-
ogy selection approach
* Conduct additional
demonstrations as if
they were conducted in
partner country
*J* Maintain innovative
technology focus rather
than contaminated site
focus
* Provide direct assis-
tance in implementing
demonstration activi-
ties and QA require-
ments
•* Participate in interna-
tional symposia to gain
additional information
about QA program
* Prepare international
technology transfer
publications
«J* Offer international
training courses on in-
novative technology
remedial approaches
•* Participate in interna-
tional symposia
and requests for additional measurements will be prepared,
as necessary, for all demonstrations conducted as if they
were in the partner country. New technologies will be
identified to complete the balance of the 12 "as if
demonstrations within the original scope of the program. A
reserve list of technologies will also be identified as
replacement candidates for the program if one of the
selected technologies drops out. The program will continue
to maintain its focus on innovative technologies, not
contaminated sites.
REVISED PROGRAM GOAL: Facilitate
international technology exchange
This goal has been refined to more directly address an
international audience beyond the two partner countries.
Continued participation in international site remediation
symposia will also be a key element in facilitating the
international technology exchange. The ultimate goal of
increased international technology exchange is to create
business opportunities for innovative technology developers
from each country. In addition, towards the conclusion of
30
-------
the bilateral agreement, an international seminar on "lessons
learned" may be held to discuss innovative technology
remedial approaches in the partner countries. The seminar
will provide current information on innovative remedial
approaches and present difficulties encountered in
implementing innovative technologies for full-scale site
cleanup. The direct interaction provided by the seminar
will facilitate technology exchange between the partner
countries.
Comparing QA programs is no longer listed as a
separate program goal, because transferring QA program
information is still and has always been a function of
understanding site remediation approaches and
demonstrating innovative remedial technologies. Because
the revised program goals depend heavily on reliable QA
programs, this previous program goal has been incorporated
by practice into the activities required for the remaining
three goals.
The revised program goals and approach better reflect
the primary interests of the partner countries and improve
the frameworkforeffectivelycollectingand disseminating
performance and cost information on innovative
technologies to an international audience. This framework
will facilitate the proper evaluation of and promote the use
of innovative technologies forthebenefitofthe international
community, with increasing future benefits to both partner
countries.
The revised program goals are directed toward
enhancing both partner countries' cleanup capabilities for
hazardous waste sites by sharing information oninnovative
remedial approaches,promotmgdevelopmentof innovative
technologies, improving the quality of technology
evaluations, and introducing technology developers to
international markets. In addition, international partnering
such as under this bilateral agreement allows each country
to learn about the partner's environmental regulations,
policies, and guidelines. This understanding may influence
the evolution of remedial regulations in each country and
may help to standardize remedial processes on an
international level, further encouraging and enabling
technology developers to enter international markets.
In conclusion, |one of the major program
accomplishments of the bilateral agreement to date is that
technical professionals in lx>th Germany and the United
States have improved their ability to communicate with an
international partner in terms of environmental site
remediation and innovative technology demonstrations.
This is a significant accomplishment given the substantial
and numerous differences in regulatory requirements,
remedial approaches, and implementation practices
between the two countries. During the course of the bilateral
agreement, effective communication has been established
onlevels ranging from general regulatory policy questions
to the specific technical details of chemical analyses.
Program participants found that direct personal
communication between technical experts was the most
effective way to overcome technical differences and
communication gaps. The breadth of understanding gained
under this bilateral agreement is essential for effective
international environmental cooperation now and in the
future. Establishing : good communication between
environmental professionals in both partner countries
heightens the agreement's effectiveness. Each partner
country's hazardous waste cleanup capabilities have been
enhanced by sharing information on innovative remedial
approaches, promoting development of innovative
technologies, improving the quality of technology
evaluations, and introducing technology developers to
internationalmarkets. By leaminghowto communicate on
suchafundamentallevel, U.S. and German representatives
have developed the skills needed to achieve the long-term
goals of the bilateral program.
31
-------
-------
Appendix A
Contact Personnel
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.—Anaerobic
Thermal Processor
EPA SITE Project Manager:
Paul R. dePercin
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7797
Technology Developer:
Mr. Joe Hutton
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.
°/o Canonie Environmental Services Corp.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 48304
(219) 926-8651
Peroxidation Systems, Inc.— perox-pure™
Advanced Oxidation Technology
EPA SITE Project Manager:
Ms. Norma Lewis
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7665
Technology Developer:
Mr. Chris Giggy
Peroxidation Systems, Inc.
5151 East Broadway, Suite 600
Tucson, AZ 85711
(602) 790-8383
Billings and Associates,, Inc.—Subsurface
Volatilization and Ventilation System
I
EPA SITE Project Manager:
Ms. Kim Kreiton <
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7328
j
Technology Developer:
Mr. Gale Billings j
Billings and Associates, Inc.
3816 Academy Parkway North, N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109
(505)345-1116
Illinois Institute of Technology Research—Radio
Frequency Heating
EPA SITE Project\Manager:
Ms. Laurel Staley!
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 4,5268
(513) 569-7863 j
Technology Developer:
j
Mr. Clifton Blancliiard.
Halburton NUS
800 Oak Ridge Turnpike
Jackson Plaza C-200
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
(615 483-9900 i
33
-------
Western Research Institute—Contained
Recovery of Oily Waste
EPA SITE Project Manager:
Mr. Eugene Harris
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther Kong Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7862
Technology Developer:
Mr. James Speight
Western Research Institute
P.O. Box 3395
University Station
Laramie, Wyoming 82071-3395
(307)721-2011
EPA Region 5—Bioremediation Removal Action
EPA SITE Project Manager:
Dr. Ron Lewis
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7862
Haynauerstrasse 58, Berlin—Umweltschutz
Nord Soil Treatment Technology
Project Coordinator:
Dr. Peter Dreschmann
focon - Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH
Theaterstrasse 106
52062 Aachen
(0241)-24474
Remedial Project Manager:
Mr. Gembus
Senatsverwaltung fur Bau-und
Wohnungswesen
ReferatHVmA33
Hauptstrasse 98-99
10827 Berlin
(030)8675534
Technology Developer:
Mr. Emmo Poetzsch
Umweltschutz Nord GmbH & Co. KG
Industriepark 6
27777 Ganderkesee
(04222) 47101
Haynauerstrasse 58, Berlin—Nordac Soil
Washing Technology
Project Coordinator:
Dr. Peter Dreschmann
focon — Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH
Theaterstrasse 106
52062 Aachen
(0241)-24474
Remedial Project Manager:
Mr. Gembus
Senatsverwaltung fur Bau-und
Wohnungswesen
Referat H VIIIA33
Hauptstrasse 98-99
10827 Berlin
(030)8675534
Technology Developers:
Mr. Frank Lorenz and Mr. Franz Nacken
NORDAC GmbH & Co. KG
Oberwerder Damm 1-5
20539 Hamburg
(040) 7891780
Gaswerke Miinchen
Project Coordinator:
Dr. Michael Koch
Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH
Hansastr. 20
80686 Miinchen
(089) 5797510
34
-------
Remedial Project Manager:
Kertess, Hannover
Mr. Jorg Schuchardt (Project Manager)
Stadtwerke Miinchen
Unterer Anger 3
80331 Miinchen
(089) 2334476
Burbacher Hiitte, Saarbriicken
Project Coordinator:
Dr. Wolfgang Briick
Kommunalsysteme GmbH
Hohenzollernstr. 104-106
66117 Saarbriicken
(0681)-9050
Remedial Project Manager:
Mr. Deubel
Stadt Saarbriicken
Amt fur Stadtentwicklung
Evangelische-Kirch-Strasse 8
66111 Saarbriicken
(0681)-587-2485
StadtallendorfSite
Project Coordinator:
Mr. Wolfgang Koch
Dr. Bora — Dr. Ermel GmbH
Projektbiiro Riistungsaltstandort Stadtallendorf
Brahmsweg 1 e
35260 Stadtallendorf
(06428)-3098
Remedial Project Manager:
Mr. Weingran
Hessische Industrie Mull GmbH
Projektbiiro Riistungsaltstandort Stadtallendorf
Brahmsweg 1 e
35260 Stadtallendorf
(06428)-3098
Project Coordinator:
Mr. Christian Poggendorf
Planungsgemeinschaft IMS/GEO-data
IMS Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH
Hamburger Allee 12-16
30161 Hannover
(0511)336950
Remedial Project Manager:
Mr. Robert Fisch !
Deutsche Bundesbahn
Bundesbahndirektion Hannover,
Hauptabteilung Baratechnik
Joachimstrasse 8
30159 Hannover ;
(0511) 1285570
Varta-Siid, Hannover
Project Coordinator:
Mr. Peter C. Relotius
IMS Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH
Stadtdeich 5
20097 Hamburg :
(040) 32818118 \
Remedial Project Manager:
Mr. Gerhard Meyer
Ms. Martina Poppeilbaum
Stadt Hannover ,
Hans-Bockler-Allee 1
30173 Hannover
(0511) 1685070 |
Umweltbundesamt
Umweltbundesamt
PTAWAS j
Bismarckplatz 1
D-14193 BerUn ;
35
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE D;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/R-94/500
------- |