&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA/540/S-92/006
September 1992
Engineering Bulletin
Supercritical Water
Oxidation
Technology Status
Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) has existed as an
emerging waste treatment technology for approximately 10
years [1]. There are currently no full-scale SCWO systems in
operation, but considerable bench- and pilot-scale data are
available. The largest existing SCWO system can process waste
at a rate of approximately 4 gallons per minute (gpm)[2].
Several universities and research institutes are studying
SCWO. The U.S. Air Force is investigating SCWO for destruc-
tion of rocket fuels and explosives. The U.S. Department of
Energy is considering SCWO for treatment of wastes generated
at its nuclear plants [3]. SCWO is also being considered by
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for
waste treatment during extended space missions [4][5].
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
is also investigating SCWO. Ongoing work under a DARPA
contract includes the design and construction of a mobile
SCWO unit for the destruction of military wastes. General
Atomics is the prime contractor for this project and the Univer-
sity of Texas (UT) Balcones Research Center and Eco Waste
Technologies (EWT) are subcontractors [6].
EWT is currently developing a proprietary SCWO system
which operates above ground (surface SCWO). Besides its
involvement in the DARPA project, EWT is also designing a 5-
gpm commercial demonstration unit for a small chemical manu-
facturing facility [6].
Modell Development Corporation (MODEC) is also devel-
oping a proprietary surface SCWO system. MODEC hopes to
have a 5 dry ton/day pilot plant completed in 1992 and small
commercial units available in 1993 [7].
MODAR, Inc. owns and operates the 4-gpm SCWO sys-
tem mentioned previously [2]. MODAR conducts surface SCWO
research and development in conjunction with its licensor, ABB
Lummus Crest [8][9].
GeneSyst International is developing a proprietary SCWO
system called a "Gravity Pressure Vessel" which is designed to
operate below ground (subsurface SCWO) [10].
* [reference number]
Vertech was involved in the development of subsurface
SCWO reactors, but it was purchased by Wijnanin N.V., which
has Air Products and Chemicals as its U.S. licensee. It is not clear
whether Wijnanin N.V. or Air Products and Chemicals plans to
pursue SCWO development.
Oxidyne (previously Vertox) was also involved in subsur-
face SCWO development. Oxidyne developed plans for a full-
scale, subsurface subcritical water oxidation reactor in Houston,
Texas at Sims Bayou Sewage Treatment Plant. Construction of
the reactor was initiated but was not completed due to insuffi-
cient funding [11][12][13]. Oxidyne is no longer involved in
SCWO research and therefore sold a number of its patents and
designs to City Management Corporation (CMC). CMC has no
immediate plans to continue SCWO research [14]. The Oxidyne
work in Houston is important because the design of that sub-
critical system may serve as a basis for the design of subsurface
systems which operate at supercritical conditions.
Research currently being conducted by various firms and
universities focuses on a better understanding of the SCWO
process and will be used in the design of full-scale systems.
Specific research topics include kinetics, the mechanisms of
SCWO, and fluid flow characteristics [15][16].
Technology Description
In SCWO, decomposition occurs in the aqueous phase
above the critical point of water (374°C/221 atmospheres or
atm). A schematic of a generic SCWO process is provided in
Figure 1. As shown in this figure, the feed stream is typically an
aqueous waste. An oxidant such as air, oxygen, or hydrogen
peroxide must be provided unless the waste itself is an oxidant.
A supplemental fuel source should also be available. Be-
cause oxidation is exothermic, SCWO is self-sustaining for a
waste stream with an adequate chemical oxygen demand
(COD). According to developers, SCWO is self-sustaining pro-
vided the waste stream has a COD of approximately 15,000
mg/L or higher [15]. Theoretically, SCWO may be self-sustaining
for CODs as low as 5,000 mg/L [10]. At startup and for dilute
wastes that will not autogenically sustain combustion, a supple-
mental fuel such as waste oil is added [17]. Alternatively, some
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Figure 1
SCWO Schematic
Aqueous Waste
Supplemental Fuel (opt.)
Oxidant
Supercritical
Water
Oxidation
^ 1
^-
Solid/Liquid
Separation
Cooling
-
Depressurization,
Vapor/Liquid
Separation
^ Liquids
dilute wastes can be dewatered until they are concentrated
enough to sustain SCWO without supplemental fuel [18]. Con-
centrated wastes, on the other hand, must be diluted if the
oxidation of the waste will generate more heat than can be
readily removed from the SCWO processing vessel [18].
The streams entering an SCWO reactor must be heated
and pressurized to supercritical conditions. Influent streams are
frequently heated by thermal contact with the hot effluent.
Both influent pressure and backpressure (often a restriction of
the outlet) must be provided. The influent streams are then
combined at supercritical conditions and oxidation occurs.
Certain properties of supercritical water make it an excel-
lent medium for oxidation. Many of the properties of water
change drastically near its critical point: the hydrogen bonds
disappear and water becomes similar to a moderately polar
solvent; oxygen and almost all hydrocarbons become com-
pletely miscible in water; mass transfer occurs almost instanta-
neously; and the solubility of inorganic salts drops to the parts
per million (ppm) range [19]. Because inorganic salts (as well as
certain other solids) are nearly insoluble in supercritical water,
solids removal must be considered in the design of a SCWO
reactor [7][20][21].
The liquid effluent from SCWO is cooled (often by heat
exchange with the influent) and returned to ambient pressure.
As the effluent is cooled and depressurized, compounds such
as carbon dioxide and oxygen will vaporize. According to
SCWO developers, the effluent contains relatively innocuous
products. Organic materials produce carbon dioxide and wa-
ter; additional products depend upon the components of the
waste. Nitrogen compounds principally produce ammonia
and nitrogen as well as small amounts of nitrogen oxides
(NOX); halogens produce the corresponding halogen acids;
phosphorus produces phosphoric acid; and sulfur produces
sulfuric acid [18].
Vendors are currently developing both surface and subsur-
face SCWO systems. Figure 2 is a schematic of a subsurface
SCWO reactor. As shown in Figure 2, subsurface SCWO reac-
tors will consist of columns of aqueous waste which are deep
enough that the material near the bottom is subjected to a
pressure of at least 221 atm [22]. To achieve this pressure solely
through hydrostatic head, a water column depth of approxi-
mately 12,000 feet will be required [10]. The influent and
effluent will flow in opposite directions in concentric vertical
tubes [13]. In surface SCWO systems, the majority of the
pressure is provided by a source other than gravity, and the
reactor is on or above the earth's surface.
Applicability
Surface and subsurface SCWO systems may have slightly
different applications. Because subsurface SCWO systems are
below ground, developers claim that the earth will provide
protection in the event of a catastrophic reactor failure. Subsur-
face designs have additional advantages over surface SCWO
systems, including fewer mechanical parts (which should lead
to lower maintenance) and pressure provided by hydrostatic
head [13].
Figure 2
Subsurface SCWO Reactor
Influent
A
\
\
\
S
s
s
\
\
\
s
s
\
\
\
\
*v
>
0
k
0
0
>
0
0
0
0 0
0
o
o.
V
T
T
>
>
'
1
>
>
i
f
t
0
0
Q^
^
0
c
o
A
k
0
0
i
h
\f
r
0
o
kc
^
Oxidant
Effluent
'9
\
Downdraft
Reactor
Engineering Bulletin: Supercritical Water Oxidation
-------
Surface SCWO systems, however, have several advantages
over subsurface systems. Surface systems are much more
accessible (and therefore easier to monitor) than subsurface
reactors [13]. Developers project that it will not be cost-effec-
tive to construct subsurface reactors for small waste streams, as
the drilling cost for the well is significant [10].
In general, applications of SCWO processes may include
liquid wastes, sludges [13], and slurried solid wastes [18]. Po-
tentially treatable compounds include halogenated and
nonhalogenated aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons; alde-
hydes; ketones; esters; carbohydrates; organic nitrogen com-
pounds; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), phenols, and ben-
zenes; aliphatic and aromatic alcohols; pathogens and viruses;
mercaptans, sulfides, and other sulfur-containing compounds;
dioxins and furans; leachable metals; and propellant compo-
nents [12][13][18][22][23]. SCWO has been applied to munici-
pal and industrial sludges. Tests performed on pulp mill slud-
ges, for example, showed that SCWO can effectively treat these
wastes (a total organic carbon destruction efficiency of 99.3
percent was achieved). Further analysis indicated that treat-
ment of pulp mill sludges by SCWO should be able to compete
economically with incineration and, in some regions, with
landfilling [7].
SCWO also compares favorably with wet air oxidation
(WAO), a commercially available technology which is similar to
SCWO. In WAO, thermal decomposition and hydrolysis occur
as well as oxidation. WAO is conducted in the aqueous phase
and typically utilizes temperatures ranging from 150 to 300°C
and pressures up to 200 atm. SCWO provides a number of
advantages over WAO, including higher destruction efficiencies
(DEs) and lower reaction times [24]. SCWO is also more
energy-efficient than WAO [25].
The minimum waste concentration for which SCWO is
applicable is waste-specific and can be determined by a cost
comparison. The costs associated with dewatering the waste,
operating the SCWO system, and purchasing supplemental
fuel must be considered. There is also a maximum waste
concentration for which SCWO is applicable because the oxida-
tion of the waste must not generate more heat than can be
readily removed from the processing vessel [18]. Note, how-
ever, that wastes which exceed the maximum concentration
can be diluted prior to SCWO. MODAR literature states that its
SCWO process is most applicable to wastes with hydrocarbon
concentrations of 1 to 30 percent but it does not specify the
concentrations of the wastes fed to the SCWO reactor [21 ].
SCWO developers claim several advantages associated with
SCWO as a means of destroying wastes:
• One vendor plans to design a SCWO system which
will be transportable and thus applicable to Superfund
sites [6].
• One developer claims that the SCWO process is odor-
free and extremely quiet [11 ].
• According to developers, SCWO reactions are self-
sustaining provided the waste stream has a COD of
approximately 5,000 mg/L or higher [10]. By con-
trast, self-sustaining incineration requires a minimum
COD of approximately 300,000 mg/L [15].
• Because SCWO systems operate in a lower tempera-
ture range (400 to 600°C) than typical incineration
systems, researchers believe that SCWO will produce
lower quantities of NO [26].
Developers claim that SCWO is relatively safe because the
reaction temperature can be controlled through adjustment of
the degree of preheating and/or the concentration of the waste
[7]. The high temperatures and pressures necessary for SCWO
are potentially dangerous, but designing SCWO reactors with
large safety factors should reduce the risk. One developer
indicates the failure of a heater tube at approximately 3700 psi
and 1400°F produced a loud pop and damage to local insula-
tion, but no injuries and no damage to adjacent equipment or
instrumentation. The developer further states that fluid loss
from the rupture was minimal [6].
A second danger involves the possibility that the process
could be interrupted, causing an incomplete reaction which
could produce dangerous offgases. SCWO systems can be
designed to provide an emergency shutdown option and it is
known that at least one pilot-scale system includes such a
provision [6]. Note that the above are only potential dangers,
as no safety problems were documented in the literature re-
viewed.
Limitations
The density of water drops rapidly between 300 and 400°C,
and SCWO systems typically operate at or above 400°C. The
low densities associated with the supercritical temperatures can
result in the deposition of salts and pyrolytic chars. Deposition
may result in plugging problems or added cleaning require-
ments. Some researchers prefer near-critical water oxidation at
approximately 300°C, as the density of water is higher and salts
and chars are more likely to remain dissolved [27]. Other
developers prefer SCWO and are researching solutions to the
deposition problem.
Possible problems due to corrosion must be examined
when SCWO is considered. Several studies have been con-
ducted regarding the minimization of corrosion in SCWO sys-
tems. Titanium, stainless steel 316, Hastelloy C-276, and Monel
400 were considered as alternative materials of construction for
SCWO reactors. The results of these studies indicated that
titanium had excellent corrosion resistance but its structural
properties were unsatisfactory. Stainless steel 316 exhibited
adequate corrosion resistance for use at low supercritical tem-
peratures and moderate pH levels and chloride concentrations;
a hastelloy (or another nickel-chrome alloy) is recommended
for more corrosive conditions (low pH levels or high chloride
concentrations). The monel had poor corrosion resistance and
is therefore not recommended for SCWO reactor construction
[25]. The use of ceramics and ceramic coatings in conjunction
with the above metals has also been proposed [10].
High-temperature flames which have been observed dur-
ing SCWO may present an additional equipment problem in
both surface and subsurface SCWO systems. Research is being
Engineering Bulletin: Supercritical Water Oxidation
-------
conducted to determine what factors influence these "hydro-
thermal" flames because there is some concern that these
flames will cause "hot spots" which could weaken SCWO ves-
sels [1].
Other drawbacks associated with SCWO (as well as other
oxidation technologies) include the slow oxidation rate of many
polyhalogenated hydrocarbons and the production of dioxins
from the oxidation of certain halogenated organ ics [27]. The
production of dioxins may not present a significant problem,
however, as the destruction of dioxins by SCWO has been
documented [7].
Acetic acid is generally considered one of the most refrac-
tory byproducts of the SCWO of industrial wastes [28]. The
acetic acid DEs shown in Table 1 reflect a portion of the
performance data collected on this compound.
Ammonia, a second refractory compound, is produced by
water oxidation of nitrogen-containing wastes at temperatures
of 300 to 400°C [19]. Water oxidation does not degrade
ammonia at any significant rate at these temperatures. If a
water oxidation system is to be operated at or below 400°C,
the ammonia may be removed by steam stripping or some
other method. Above 425°C, organic nitrogen and ammonia
in an SCWO system will decompose at a significant rate [19].
The primary products of this decomposition (below 650°C)
are N2 and N2O, which further decompose to form N2 and
02[12].
Table 1
SCWO Performance Data
Pollutant
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2 - Tetrachloroethylene
1,2- Ethylene dichloride
2,4 - Dichlorophenol
2,4 - Dichlorophenol
2,4 - Dichlorophenol
2,4 - Dichlorophenol
2,4 - Dichlorophenol
2,4 - Dichlorophenol
2,4 - Dimethylphenol
2,4 - Dinitrotoluene
2,4 - Dinitrotoluene
2 - Nitrophenol
2 - Nitrophenol
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
Acetic acid
Activated sludge (COD)
Activated sludge (COD)
Ammonium perchlorate
Biphenyl
Cyclohexane
DDT
Dextrose
Industrial sludge (TCOD)
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitromethane
Nitromethane
Nitromethane
o - Chlorotoluene
o - Xylene
PCB1234
PCB 1254
Phenol
Phenol
Temp.
(deg. C)
495
495
495
400
400
450
450
500
500
580
410
528
515
530
400
400
450
450
500
500
400
400
500
450
445
505
440
425
505
400
500
580
495
495
510
510
490
535
Pressure
(atm.)
443
443
287
443
430
272
306
374
374
374
374
389
416
DE
99.99
99.99
99.99
,33.7
99.440
63.3
99.950
78.2
>99.995
>99
83
>99
90
>99
3.10
61.8
34.3
92.0
47.4
90.9
90.1
94.1
99.85
99.97
99.97
99.997
99.6
>99.8
99.993
84
>99
>99
99.99
99.93
99.99
99.99
92
>99
React
Time
(min.)
4
4
4
2
1
2
1
2
1
10
3
3
10
15
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
15
0.2
7
7
4
7
20
4
3
0.5
0.2
4
4
4
4
1
10
Oxidant
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
^2°2
Oxygen
HO2
Oxygen
H,O2
KO2+O
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
H2°2+°2
Oxygen
H O
Oxygen
KO
Oxygen
H2°2
None
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
None
None
None
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
Oxygen
Ref.
13
13
13
13
13
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
13
13
28
28
28
28
30
30
18
13
13
13
13
19
13
18
18
18
13
13
13
13
29
29
Feed
Cone.
(mg/L)
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
135
84
180
104
104
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
62,000
62,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
1,650
150
Engineering Bulletin: Supercritical Water Oxidation
-------
Performance Data
Significant bench- and pilot-scale SCWO performance data
are available. Typical DEs for a number of compounds are
summarized in Table 1. Although several low DEs are included
in this table to illustrate the fact that DE is proportional to both
temperature and residence time, DEs in excess of 99 percent
can be achieved for nearly all the pollutants studied.
Studies have been conducted to examine the effects of
various parameters on SCWO DEs. The operating parameters
studied include temperature, residence time, pressure, feed
concentration, amount of oxidant (as a multiple of stoichiornet-
ric requirements), and type of oxidant [13][16][28].
As noted above, DE was found to increase with operating
temperature and residence time. DE also increases with operat-
ing pressure, but only slightly [28]. Recent studies also indicate
that the addition of catalysts such as potassium permanganate,
manganous sulfate, copper, and iron can enhance DEs [13].
In at least one study, DE was found to increase slightly with
feed concentration. The relationship between DE and amount
of excess oxidant provided has also been examined. DE in-
creases with increasing amounts of oxidant from 100 to 300
percent of the stoichiometric requirements; adding over 300
percent of the stoichiometric amount of oxidant does not
significantly affect DEs [16][28].
Early SCWO systems used either oxygen or air as oxidants.
Bench-scale studies were conducted to compare the DEs result-
ing from the use of air and oxygen, but no statistical difference
was found [13]. In 1987, Welch and Siegwarth developed and
patented a variation of SCWO which uses hydrogen peroxide
as the oxidant. In Welch and Siegwarth's system, liquid hydro-
gen peroxide is mixed with the influent wastewater or slurry
[13].
Welch, Siegwarth, and other researchers have shown that
the use of hydrogen peroxide as an oxidant in SCWO systems
produced DEs which were significantly higher than those ob-
tained from the use of air or oxygen for the compounds tested
[13][28]. Oxidation with hydrogen peroxide and oxidation
with oxygen or air proceed by different mechanisms. This
difference may result in higher DEs for either hydrogen perox-
ide or oxygen depending on the particular organic compounds
being degraded [28]. Several other factors may influence the
choice between oxidants. Hydrogen peroxide is significantly
more expensive than oxygen but aqueous hydrogen peroxide
is easier to pump, requires a less expensive feed system, and
may be combined with the influent more readily than oxygen
Process Residuals
In general, residuals from SCWO processes include gases,
liquids, and solids. The gaseous effluent from the bench-scale
treatment of pulp mill sludges was found to primarily consist of
oxygen and carbon dioxide, with small concentrations of nitro-
gen [7]. Gaseous effluent from the bench-scale treatment of
propellant components was also analyzed and found to contain
nitrous oxide (N2O) and oxygen. Analysis by mass spectros-
copy did not detect the presence of chlorine (CI2), nitrosyl
chloride (NOCI), or nitrogen dioxide (NO2). These are positive
results because they indicate that SCWO avoided the hazard-
ous products such as CI2 and NOCI formed in typical thermal
decomposition. In addition, SCWO appears to produce rela-
tively little NOX [18].
The aqueous effluent from the SCWO of pulp mill sludge
had a total organic concentration (TOC) of only 27 ppm. The
major inorganics present were calcium, chlorine (as chloride
ion), nitrogen (as ammonia), sodium, and sulfur (as sulfate).
The minor elements identified were all present at concentra-
tions below Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ground-
water pollution criteria [7]. Liquid effluent from the SCWO of
propellant components contained sodium chloride (NaCI), ni-
trite, and nitrate. The developer believes that the majority of
the chlorine from the propellant exists as NaCI, but a chlorine
mass balance has not yet been attempted [18].
Limited data describing solid residue from SCWO are avail-
able. When a bench-scale SCWO system was used to treat pulp
mill sludges, benzene and lead were the only pollutants which
the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) detected
at concentrations above EPA groundwater limits. Benzo(a) pyrene
and PCB, however, had detection limits above the groundwa-
ter limit. Based on these results, the developer believes that the
solid residue from SCWO should easily qualify for disposal in
any sanitary landfill [7]. Before disposal in a sanitary landfill will
be allowed, however, the residue must be delisted.
Technical Contact
Technology-specific questions regarding SCWO may be
directed to:
Dr. Earnest F. Cloyna
University of Texas at Austin
Balcones Research Center
10100BurnetRoad
Austin, TX 78758
(512)471-7792
EPA Contact
Technology-specific questions regarding SCWO may be
directed to:
Ronald Turner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7775
Engineering Bulletin: Supercritical Water Oxidation
-------
Acknowledgments
This bulletin was prepared for the U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development (ORD), Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio, by Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) under EPA Contract No. 68-
C8-0062. Mr. Ronald Turner served as the EPA Technical
Project Monitor. Mr. Thomas Wagner was SAIC's Work Assign-
ment Manager. This bulletin was written by Ms. Sharon
Krietemeyer of SAIC.
The following Agency, contractor, and vendor personnel
have contributed their time and comments by peer reviewing
the document:
Mr. Thomas Wagner, SAIC
Mr. Michael Carolan, City Management Corporation
Mr. L. Jack Davis, Eco Waste Technologies
Dr. Earnest F. Cloyna, University of Texas at Austin
Mr. Glenn T. Hong, MODAR, Inc.
Mr. James Titmas, GeneSyst International
REFERENCES
1. Supercritical Oxidation Destroys Aqueous Toxic Wastes.
NTIS Technical Note prepared by the U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, DC. February 1991.
2. Letter from Glenn T. Hong of MODAR, Inc. March 13,
1992.
3. New Process Purifies Waste Simply, Safely, Experts Say.
Associated Press.
4. Oleson, M., T. Slavin, F. Liening, and R.L. Olson. Con-
trolled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS)
Physiochemical Waste Management Systems Evaluation.
Prepared by Boeing Aerospace Company for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC.
June 1986.
5. Tester, J.W., G.A. Huff, R.K. Helling, T.B. Thomasson, and
K.C. Swallow. Prepared by Massachusetts Institute of
Technology for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Washington, DC. 1986.
6. Letter from L. Jack Davis of Eco Waste Technologies.
March 27,1992.
7. Modell, M. Treatment of Pulp Mill Sludges by
Supercritical Water Oxidation: Final Report. Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial
Programs, Washington, DC. July 1990.
8. Chemical & Engineering News. Letter to the Editor from
Herbert E. Barner of ABB Lummus Crest, Inc. March 2,
1992.
9. Chemical & Engineering News. Letter to the Editor from
William R. Killilea of MODAR, Inc. March 2,1992.
10. Letter from James Titmas of GeneSyst International, Inc.
March 14,1992.
11. Scarlett, H. Hot Water, Pressure Process Can Destroy
Toxic Waste. Houston Post. April 8,1990.
12. Gloyna, E.F., and K. Johnston. Supercritical Water and
Solvent Oxidation. Presented at the 11 th Industrial
Symposium on Wastewater Treatment, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada, November 21 -22,1988.
13. Adrian, M. A Partial Literature Survey on Supercritical
Water Oxidation. The University of Texas at Austin. May
1991.
14. Letter from Michael Carolan of City Management
Corporation. March 18,1992.
15. Gloyna, E.F. Supercritical Water Oxidation, Deep-Well
Reactor Model Development. Second Year Proposal
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Grants Administration Division, Washington, DC. May
1991.
16. Wilmanns, E., L. Li, and E.F. Gloyna. Supercritical Water
Oxidation of Volatile Acids. Presented at the AlChE
August 1989 Summer Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia. August 1989.
17. Staszak, C, K. Malinowski, and W. Killilea. The Pilot-Scale
Demonstration of the MODAR Oxidation Process for the
Destruction of Hazardous Organic Waste Materials.
Environmental Progress. 6(1): 39,1987.
18. Buelow, S.J., R.B. Dyer, C. K. Refer, J. H. Atencio, and J. D.
Wander. Destruction of Propellant Components in
Supercritical Water. Submitted to the Workshop on the
Alternatives to Open Burning/Open Detonation of
Propellants and Explosives. Prepared by the Los Alamos
National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy.
May 1990.
19. Shanableh, A. and E.F. Gloyna. Supercritical Water
Oxidation- -Wastewaters and Sludges. Presented at
International Association for Water Pollution Research and
Control Conference, Kyoto, Japan. August 1990.
20. MODAR Marketing Brochures. Circa 1987.
Engineering Bulletin: Supercritical Water Oxidation
-------
21. Lawson, M New Technology Tackles Dilute Wastes.
Chemical Week, October 1986.
22. GeneSyst International, Inc. The Gravity Pressure Vessel.
June 1990.
23. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA
Soils and Sludges. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
EPA/540/2-88/004, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. September 1988.
24. Lee, D.S., A. Kanthasamy, and E.F. Gloyna. Supercritical
Water Oxidation of Hazardous Organic Compounds.
Prepared for Presentation at AlChE Annual Meeting,
November 20-24,1991.
25. Matthews, C.F., and E.F. Gloyna. Corrosion Behavior of
Three High-Grade Alloys in Supercritical Water Oxidation
Environments. July 1991.
26. Discussion of Waste Destruction Results (from MODAR
Marketing Literature).
27. Mill, T. and D. Ross. Effective Treatment of Hazardous
Waste Under Hydrothermal Conditions. 1991.
28. Lee, D., L. Li, and E.F. Gloyna. Efficiency of H2O2 and O2
in Supercritical Water Oxidation of 2,4-Dichlorophenol
and Acetic Acid. Submitted for presentation at AlChE
Spring National Meeting, Orlando, Florida, March 18-22,
1990.
29. Lee, D. and E. F. Gloyna. Supercritical Water Oxidation -
a Microreactor System. Presented at WPCF Specialty
Conference, New Orleans. April 1989.
30. Hartmann, G. et.al. Water Oxidation of Sludges and
Toxic Wastes. Presented at ASCE Conference, Austin
Texas. July 1989.
'U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992 — 646-080/60037
Engineering Bulletin: Supercritical Water Oxidation
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/S-92/006
------- |