United States
                             Environmental Protection
                             Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, DC 20460
Off ice of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
                             Superfund
EPA/54Q/S-92/009
October 1992
                             Engineering Bulletin
         4*EPA      Technology  Preselection
                             Data  Requirements
Purpose

    Section 121(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to select remedies
that  "utilize permanent solutions and  alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maxi-
mum extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in
which treatment "permanently and significantly reduces the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollut-
ants, and contaminants as a principal element"  The Engineer-
ing Bulletins are a series of documents that summarize the latest
information available on selected treatment and site remedia-
tion technologies and related issues. The summaries and refer-
ences are designed to help remedial project managers, on-
scene coordinators, contractors, and other site cleanup managers
understand and select technologies that may have potential
applicability to their Superfund or other hazardous waste sites.

    This bulletin provides a listing of soil, water, and contami-
nant data elements needed to evaluate the potential applicabil-
ity of technologies for treating contaminated soils and water.
With this base set of data in hand, experts familiar with the
applicability of treatment technologies can better focus the
advice and assistance they give to those involved at Superfund
sites. The data compiled should permit preselection of appli-
cable treatment methods and the direct elimination of others.

    This bulletin emphasizes the site physical and chemical soil
and water characteristics for which observations and measure-
ments should be compiled.  However, several  other kinds of
information may be equally helpful in assessing the potential
success of a treatment technology including the activity history
of the site, how and where wastes were disposed, topographic
and hydrologic detail, and site stratigraphy.  Gathering and
analyzing  the  information called for in this bulletin prior to
extensive field  investigations  [i.e., the Remedial Investigation
and  Feasibility Study (RI/FS)] will facilitate streamlining and
targeting of the sampling and analytical objectives of the over-
all program.

    Additional information on site data requirements for the
selection of specific treatment technologies may be found in
several EPA publications [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].*  These documents
form much of the basis for this  Engineering  Bulletin.  The
bulletin may be updated by periodically-issued addenda.
 Abstract

    A base set of soil and water analytical (measured) data
 requirements has been developed to enable prescreening of
 technologies that may have potential applicability at Superfund
 sites.  Data requirements for soils include the traditional engi-
 neering properties of soils and data on soil chemistry, including
 contaminants and oxygen demand. Analytical data  require-
 ments for water (usually groundwater) include chemistry, oxy-
 gen demand, and pH.  Of particular importance in chemical
 characterization  of  both soils and water are contaminating
 metals and organic chemicals, whose presence or absence is
 often suggested by historical site activities. Sampling and mea-
 surements at this stage need not be in great detail, but should
 be sufficient to preliminarily characterize the site variability in
 three dimensions.  Topography, groundwater flow, stratigra-
 phy of the contaminated zone, and degree of consolidation will
 also affect the choice of treatment technology.

    The relationships between each of the data requirements
 and specific treatment technologies are briefly summarized.
 The detailed reasoning may be found  in one or more of the
 references.

    The guidance presented in this bulletin is not exhaustive.
 The data elements are those that have wide technological
 applicability and those that can be collected in a straightfor-
 ward  manner. Data gaps are still likely to exist However, an
 almost certain result is that the additional data needs will be
 better focused.
 Background Information

    The  background  information collected during the Site
 Screening Investigation and Preliminary Assessment identifies
 the probable types and locations of contaminants present.
 Study of the chemicals used or stored at the  site and the
 disposal methods used during  the period(s) of operation is
 essential.  When  chemical-use records are unavailable for an
 industrial site, knowledge of the Standard Industrial Classification
 may indicate the probability of the presence of metals, inorganics,
 pesticides, dioxins/furans, or other organics. Information on
 what classes and concentrations of chemicals contaminate the
 site, where they are distributed, and in what media they appear
 is essential in beginning  the preselection of treatment
 technologies [2, p. 7].
 * [reference number, page number]

-------
      The contaminant distribution, types, and concentrations
  will affect the choice of treatment technology. Other consider-
  ations in the selection of treatment options include the proxim-
  ity of residential areas and the location of buildings and other
  structures.  These aspects should be determined early in the
  investigation process.  Much of the determination of the range
  and  diversity of contamination, as well as likely contaminant
  sources, may be observational, rather than measurement-based.
 Basic Measurement Data Requirements

     The discussion of data requirements is divided into two
 sections, soil and water. For each of the two media, the vertical
 and horizontal contaminant profiles should be defined as much
 as possible.  Information on the overall range and diversity of
 contamination across the site is critical to treatment technology
 selection. This generally means that samples will be taken and
 their physical and chemical characteristics determined.  The
 following subsections present the characteristics and rationale
 for collection of preselection data for each of the two media.
 Other documents present similar data requirements, especially
 for soils [6].

     The minimum set of soil measurement data elements usu-
 ally necessary for soil treatment technology preselection is pre-
 sented in Table 1.  Table 2 presents  the basic set of data
 necessary  for contaminated  water treatment  technology
 preselection. It is common for the two media at one site to be
 contaminated with the same substances, thus many of the
 required data elements are similar.  The information contained
 in Table 1 and Table 2 is based on professional judgement.

    The ratings in Table 1 and Table 2 are related to measured
 values of the parameters. The values are described as "higher"
 and "lower" in defining  their tendency toward preselecting a
 technology group. In general, these descriptors are related to
 the tendency of the parameter to enhance or to inhibit particu-
 lar processes. Where no symbol  is shown for a characteristic in
 Table 1 and Table 2, the affect on the associated technology is
 considered inconsequential.

    Each characteristic is judged,  or rated, as to  its  effect in
 preselecting each of the treatment technology groups which
 represent various treatment processes. A rating applies gener-
 ally to a technology, but it does not ensure that the rating will
 be applicable to each specific technology within a technology
group. Examples of specific treatments within the technology
groups are as follows:
     Physical
        Soil washing
        Soil flushing
        Steam extraction
        Air stripping
        Solvent extraction

     Chemical
        Oxidation
        Hydrolysis
        Polymerization
Vapor extraction
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Gravity separation
Reduction
Precipitation
                                       Thermal
                                          Incineration
                                          Plasma Arc

                                       Biological
                                          Aerobic
                                          Slurry reactor

                                       Solidification/Stabilization
                                          Cement-based
                                          Fly ash/lime
                                          Kiln dust
                                 Pyrolysis
                                 Thermal desorption
                                Anaerobic
                                Land treatment
                                Vitrification
                                Asphalt
  Soil

      Site soil conditions are frequently process-limiting.  Pro-
  cess-limiting characteristics such as pH or moisture content [6]
  may sometimes be adjusted. In other cases, a treatment tech-
  nology may be eliminated based upon the soil classification
  (e.g., particle-size distribution) or other soil characteristics.

     Soils are inherently variable in their physical and chemical
  characteristics.  Frequently the variability is much greater verti-
  cally than  horizontally,  resulting  from the variability  in the
  sedimentation processes that originally formed the soils.  The
  soil variability, in turn, will result in variability in the distribution
  of water and contaminants and in the ease with which they can
  be transported within, and removed from, the soil at a particu-
  lar site.

     Many data elements are relatively easy to obtain, and in
 some cases, more than one test method exists [6] [7] [8] [9]
 [10] [11 ] [12]. Field procedures, usually visual inspection and/
 or operation of simple hand-held devices (e.g., auger), are
 performed by trained geologists or soils engineers to determine
 the classification, moisture content, and permeability of soils
 across a site. Due to the fact that zones of gross contamination
 may be directly observed, field reports describing soil variability
 may lessen the need for large numbers of samples and mea-
 surements in describing site characteristics.  Common field
 information-gathering often includes descriptions of natural soil
 exposures, weathering that may have taken place, trench cross-
 sections, and subsurface cores.  Such an effort can sometimes
 identify probable areas of past disposal through observation of
 soil type differences, subsidence, overfill, etc.

     While field investigations are important, they cannot elimi-
 nate the need for or lessen the importance of soil sampling and
 measurements sufficient to define those characteristics that are
 essential to the selection and design of soil treatment technolo-
 gies.

     Soil  particle-size distribution is an important factor in
 many soil treatment technologies.  In general, sands and fine
 gravels are easiest to deal  with.  Soil washing  may not be
 effective where the soil is composed of large percentages of silt
 and  clay because of the difficulty of separating fine particles
from each other and from wash fluids [13, p. 1]. Fine particles
also  can result in high particulate loading in flue gases due to
                                      Engineering Bulletin:  Technology Preselection Data Requirements

-------
       TABLE 1.  SOIL CHARACTERISTICS THAT ASSIST IN
         TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PRESELECTION
TABLE 2. WATER CHARACTERISTICS THAT ASSIST IN TREATMENT
             TECHNOLOGY PRESELECTION
CHARACTERISTIC
Particle size
Bulk density
Particle density
Permeability
Moisture content
pH and Eh
Humic content
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Oil and grease
Organic Contaminants
Halogenated volatiles
Halogenated semivolatiles
Nonhalogenated volatiles
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
PCBs
Pesticides
Dioxins/Furans
Organic cyanides
Organic corrosives
Light Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid
Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid
Heating value (Btu content)
Inorganic Contaminants
Volatile metals
Nonvolatile metals
Asbestos
Radioactive materials
Inorgank cyanides
Inorganic corrosives
Reactive Contaminants
Oxidizers
Reducers
TREATMENT TECHNOLOC Y CROUP
PHYSICAL

V
•
•
T

O



T

T
T
T
V
T
V
V
T
T
T
T



•

T





CHEMICAL





V
o
T

•
a

T
T
V
T
T
V
T
V
V




T
V

T
T
T

T
V
BIOLOGICAL



m
m
V
a
•
•
•


a
a
T
T
T
V
T
V
V
V
V



a

a





THERMAL

m


a
T
T
•












0
•
T
•

o
a
a
a
T
a



S




a

a
T


3

O
O
a
a
a
a
a
C1
a
a
o



•
•
V
T
V



• = higher values support preselection of technology group.
O = lower values support preselection of technology group.
T = Effect is variable among options within a technology
group.
Where no symbol is shown, the effect of that characteristic is
considered inconsequential


CHARACTERISTIC
pH, Eh
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Oil and grease
Suspended solids
Nitrogen & phosphorus
Organic Contaminants
Halogenated volatiles
Halogenated semivolatiles
Nonhalogenated volatiles
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
PCBs
Pesticides
Dioxins/Furans
Organic cyanides
Organic corrosives
Light Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid
Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid
Inorganic Contaminants
Asbestos
Radioactive materials
Metals (Drinking Water Stds.)
TREATMENT TECHNOLOC Y CROUP
g
1




V
T


T
T
T
T
T
V
T
T
T
V
T


T
V
8
1
T
T

•
a
T


T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T




T
•
OCKAL
•M
§
T
•
•
•

T
T

a
a
T
T
T
T
a
T
T
T
T


a
a
|
1
T
•














a
•
T

a
a
a
• = higher values support preselection of technology group.
O = lower values support preselection of technology group.
V = Effect is variable among options within a technology group.
Where no symbol is shown, the effect of that characteristic is considered
inconsequential
                                                             turbulence in rotary kilns.  Heterogeneities in soil and waste
                                                             composition may produce non-uniform, feed streams for incin-
                                                             eration that result in inconsistent removal  rates [1][14]. Fine
                                                             particles may delay setting and curing times and can surround
                                                             larger particles causing weakened bonds in solidification/stabili-
                                                             zation processes.  Clays may cause poor performance of the
                                                             thermal desorption technology due to caking [15, p. 2]. High
                                                             silt and clay content can cause soil malleability and low perme-
                                                             ability during steam extraction, thus lowering the efficiency of
                                                             the process [16, p. 2].  Bioremediation processes, such as in
                                                             slurry reactors, are generally facilitated by finer particles that
Engineering Bulletin: Technology Preselection Data Requirements

-------
  increase the contact area between the waste and microorgan-
  isms [14] [17, p. 1].

      In situ technologies dependent on the subsurface flowability
  of fluids, such as soil flushing, steam extraction, vacuum extrac-
  tion, and in situ biodegradation, will be negatively influenced
  by the impeding effects of clay layers [15,  p. 2] [18, p. 4].
  Undesirable channeling may be created in alternating layers of
  clay and sand, resulting in inconsistent treatment [2, p. 79].
  Larger particles, such as coarse gravel or cobbles, are undesir-
  able for vitrification and chemical extraction processes and also
  may not be suitable for the stabilization/solidification technol-
  ogy [2, p. 93].

     The bulk density of soil is the weight of the soil per unit
  volume including water and voids.  It is used in converting
  weight to volume in  materials handling calculations [19, p. 3-
  3]. Soil bulk density and particle size distribution are interre-
  lated in determining if proper mixing and heat transfer will
  occur in fluidized bed reactors [2, p. 39].

     Particle density is the specific  gravity of a soil  particle.
  Differences in particle density are important in heavy mineral/
  metal separation processes (heavy media separation). Particle
  density is also important in soil washing and in  determining the
  settling velocity of suspended soil particles in flocculation and
  sedimentation processes [13, p. 1].

     Soil permeability is one of the controlling factors in the
  effectiveness of in situ treatment technologies.  The ability of
  soil-flushing fluids (e.g.,  water, steam, solvents, etc.) to contact
  and remove contaminants can be reduced by low soil perme-
  ability or by variations in the permeability of different soil layers
  [16, p. 2] [19,  p. 4-9].  Low permeability also hinders  the
 movement of air and vapors through the soil matrix, lessening
 the volatilization of VOCs in vapor extraction [17, p. 2]|.  Simi-
 larly, nutrient solutions, used to accelerate in situ bioremediation,
 may not be able to penetrate low-permeability soils in a reason-
 able time [1 ]. Low permeability may also limit the effectiveness
 of in-situ vitrification by slowing vapor releases  [2, p. 59].

     Soil moisture may  hinder the movement of air through
 the soil in vacuum extraction systems [3, p. 90] [17, p. 1 ]. High
 soil moisture may cause excavation and material transport
 problems [20, p. 2] and may negatively impact material feed in
 many processes [2] [15,  p. 2] [19, p. 4] [21].  Moisture affects
 the application of vitrification and other thermal treatments by
 increasing energy requirements, thereby increasing costs.  On
 the other hand, increased soil moisture favors in situ biological
 treatment [22, p. 40].

    Many treatment technologies are affected by the pH of the
 waste being treated.  For example, low pH can interfere with
 chemical oxidation and reduction processes. The solubility and
 speciation of inorganic contaminants are affected by pH.  Ion
 exchange and flocculation processes, applied after various liq-
 uid extraction processes, may be negatively influenced by pH
[1, p. 5, 16]. Microbial diversity and activity in bioremediation
processes can be reduced by extreme pH ranges.  High pH in
soil normally improves the feasibility of applying chemical ex-
  traction and alkaline dehalogenation processes [2, p. 67].

      Eh is the oxidation-reduction (redox) potential of the ma-
  terial being considered. For oxidation to occur in soil systems,
  the Eh of the solid phase  must be greater than  that of  the
  organic chemical contaminant [22, p. 19]. Maintaining anaero-
  biosis, and thus a low Eh, in the liquid phase, enhances decom-
  position of certain halogenated organic compounds [23].

      Humic content (humus) is the decomposing  part of  the
  naturally occurring organic content of the soil. The effects of
  high humic content upon treatment technologies are usually
  negative.  It can inhibit soil-vapor extraction, steam extraction,
  soil washing, and soil flushing due to strong adsorption of  the
  contaminant by the organic material [2, p. 76]  [17, p.  2].
  Reaction times for chemical dehalogenation processes can be
  increased by the presence of large amounts of humic materials.
  High organic content  may also  exert  an excessive  oxygen
  demand, adversely affecting bioremediation and chemical oxi-
  dation [24, p. 2] [25, p. 1].

      Total organic carbon (TOC) provides an indication of the
  total organic material present.  It is often used as an indicator
  (but not a measure) of the amount of  waste available  for
  biodegradation [2, p.  109]. TOC includes the carbon  both
 from naturally-occurring organic material and organic chemical
 contaminants.   Ordinarily,  not all of the organic carbon is
 contaminating, but all of it  may compete in redox reactions,
 leading to the need for larger amounts of chemical  reduction/
 oxidation  reagents than would be required  by the organic
 chemical contaminants alone [2, p. 97].

     Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) provides an esti-
 mate of the biological treatability of the soil contaminants  by
 measuring the oxygen  consumption of the organic material
 which is readily biodegraded  [3, p. 89].  Chemical oxygen
 demand (COD)  is  a measure of  the oxygen equivalent  of
 organic content in a sample that can be oxidized by a strong
 chemical oxidant. Sometimes COD and BOD can be corre-
 lated, and  COD can give  another indication of  biological
 treatability or treatability by chemical oxidation [2, p.  97].
 COD is also useful in  assessing the applicability of wet air
 oxidation [2, p. 51].

     Oil and grease, when present in a soil, will coat the soil
 particles. The coating tends to weaken the bond between soil
 and cement in cement-based solidification [14]. Similarly, oil
 and grease can also interfere  with reactant-to-waste contact  in
 chemical reduction/oxidation reactions thus reducing the effi-
 ciency of those reactions [2, p. 97].

     Identification of the  site organk and inorganic  contami-
 nants is the most important information necessary for technol-
 ogy prescreening.  At this stage, it may  not be necessary to
 identify specific contaminants, but the presence or absence of
the groups shown in Table 1  should be known.  These groups
have been presented in the other Engineering Bulletins in order
to describe the effectiveness  of the particular treatment tech-
nology under consideration.

    The soil may be contaminated with organic chemicals that
                                       Engineering Bulletin: Technology Preselection Data Requirements

-------
are not miscible with water.  Often, they will be lighter than
water and float on top of the water table. These are called light
nonaqueous-phase liquids (LNAPLs). Those heavier than water
are called dense nonaqueous-phase liquids (DNAPLs). Most of
these liquids can be physically separated from water within the
soil, especially if they are not adsorbed to soil particles.

    Volatile, semivolatile, and other organics may be adsorbed
in the soil matrix.  Volatiles may be in the form of vapors in the
pores of non-saturated soil, and may be amenable to soil-vapor
extraction. Fuel value, or Btu content, of the contaminated soil
is directly related to the organic chemical content. High Btu
content favors thermal treatment, or perhaps recovery for fuel
use.

    High halogen concentrations, as in chlorinated organics,
lead to the formation of corrosive acids in incineration systems.
Volatile metals produce emissions that are difficult to remove,
and nonvolatile metals remain in the ash [14].

    Metals may be found sometimes in the elemental form,
but more often they are found as salts mixed in  the  soil.
Radioactive materials are not ordinarily found at waste disposal
sites.  However, where they are found,  treatment options are
probably limited to volume reduction, and permanent contain-
ment is required. Asbestos fibers require special care to prevent
their escape during handling and disposal; permanent contain-
ment must be provided.  Radioactive materials  and  asbestos
require special handling techniques to maintain worker safety.

    Often, specific technologies may be ruled out, or the list of
potential technologies may be immediately narrowed, on the
basis of the presence or absence of one or more of the chemical
groups. The relative amounts  of each may tend to favor certain
technologies.  For example,  significant amounts of dioxin/
furans, regardless of the concentrations of other organics, will
ordinarily lead to preselection  of thermal treatment as an alter-
native.

    Data available from the  preliminary assessment, the site
inspection and the National Priorities List (NPL) activities may
provide most of the contaminant information needed at the
technology prescreening stage. If the data  are not sufficient,
waste samples may be scanned for selected  priority pollutants
or contaminants from the  CERCLA Hazardous Substances  List
During the ensuing RI/FS scoping phase, these data are evalu-
ated to identify additional data which must be gathered during
the site characterization.  Guidance is available  on the RI/FS
process and on field methods, sampling procedures, and data
quality objectives [4][5][6][12] and therefore is not discussed in
this bulletin.
Water

    It is common for groundwater and surface water drainage
to be contaminated with the same substances found in soils
derived from previous activities.  At Superfund sites, many of
the required data  elements are similar, e.g., pH, TOC, BOD,
COD, oil and grease, and contaminant identification and quan-
tification. Frequently, many of the water data elements will be
 available from existing analytical data.  Some initial data re-
 quirements may even be precluded by the collection of exist-
 ing regional or local information on surface and groundwater
 conditions. When data are not available, knowledge of the site
 conditions and its history may contribute to arriving at a list of
 contaminants and cost-effective analytical methods.

    As with soils, the pH of groundwater and surface water is
 important in determining the applicability of many treatment
 processes. Often, the pH must be adjusted before or during a
 treatment process. Low pH can interfere with chemical redox
 processes. Extreme pH levels can limit microbial diversity and
 hamper the application of both in situ and above-ground
 applications of biological treatment [2, p. 97]. Contaminant
 solubility and toxicity may be affected by changes in pH. The
 species of metals and inorganics present are influenced by the
 pH of the water, as are the type of phenolic, and nitrogen-
 containing compounds  present.   Processes such as carbon
 adsorption, ion exchange, and flocculation may be impacted
 by pH changes [1, p. 5].

    Eh helps to define, with pH, the state of oxidation-reduc-
 tion equilibria in groundwater or aqueous waste streams. The
 Eh must be below approximately  0.35 volts for significant
 reductive chlorination to take place, but exact requirements
 depend on  the  individual compounds being reduced.  As
 noted earlier in the soils section, maintaining anaerobiosis (low
 Eh) enhances decomposition of certain halogenated compounds
 [23].

    BOD, COD, and TOC measurements in contaminated
 water, as in soils, provide indications of the biodegradable,
 chemically oxidizable, or combustible fractions of the organic
 contamination, respectively. These measurements are not in-
 terchangeable, although correlations may sometimes be made
 in order to convert the more precise TOC and/or COD  mea-
 surements to estimates of BOD.   Interpretation of these data
 should be made by an expert in the technologies being consid-
 ered.

    Oil and grease may be present in water to the extent that
 they are the primary site contaminants. In that case, oil-water
 separation may be called for as the principal treatment  Even in
 lower concentrations, oil and grease may still require pretreat-
 ment to prevent clogging of ion exchange resins, activated
 carbon systems, or other treatment system components [3, p.
 91].

    Suspended solids can cause resin binding in ion exchange
 systems and clogging of reverse osmosis membranes, filtration
 systems and carbon adsorption units. Suspended solids above
 5  percent indicate that  analysis of  total and soluble metals
 should be made [1, p. 14].

    Standard analytical methods are used to identify the spe-
 cific organk and inorgank contaminants. Properties of or-
 ganic  chemical contaminants important in treatment processes
 include solubility in water, specific gravity, boiling point, and
vapor pressure. For the identified contaminants, these proper-
ties can generally be found in standard references [26]  or in
 EPA/RREL's Treatability Database [27].
Engineering Bulletin: Technology Preselection Data Requirements

-------
       Insoluble organic contaminants may be present as non-
   aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs).  DNAPLs will tend to sink to the
   bottom of surface waters and groundwater aquifers. LNAPLs
   will float on top of surface water and groundwater. In addition
   LNAPLs may adhere to the soil through the capillary fringe and
   may be found on top of water in temporary or perched aquifers
   in the vadose zone.

      As noted previously, volatile organics may be in the form of
   vapors in the pores of non-saturated soil,  or they may be
   dissolved in water. Even low-solubility organics may be present
   at low concentrations dissolved in water.  Some organics (e.g.
   certain halogenated compounds, pesticides, and dioxins/furans
   in water) resist biological treatment, while others may be ame-
   nable to several technologies.

      Dissolved metals may be found at toxic levels or  levels
  exceeding drinking water  standards.  Often  they will require
  chemical  treatment.  The speciation of metals may  be impor-
  tant in determining  the solubility, toxicity, and reactivity of
  metal  compounds.
  Status of Data Requirements

      The data requirements presented in Tables 1  and 2 are
  based on currently available information.  Preselection of new
  and evolving  technologies, or of currently used technologies
  that have been  modified, may require the collection of addi-
  tional data. New analytical methods may be devised to replace
  or supplement existing methods. Such improvements in ana-
  lytical technology also  could  require additional data to be
  collected. This bulletin may be updated if major changes occur
  in data requirements for preselection of treatment technology
  alternatives.
                                                            EPA Contact

                                                                Specific questions regarding technology preselection data
                                                            requirements may be directed to:

                                                                    Eugene Harris
                                                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                    Office of Research and Development
                                                                    Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
                                                                    26 West Martin Luther King Drive
                                                                    Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
                                                                    (513)569-7862
                                                           Acknowledgments

                                                               This engineering bulletin was prepared for the U S  Envi-
                                                           ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Develop-
                                                           ment (ORD), Risk  Reduction Engineering  Laboratory (RREL)
                                                           Cincinnati, Ohio, by Science Applications International Corpo-
                                                           ration (SAIC) under EPA Contract No. 68-C8-0062. Mr  Eugene
                                                           Hams served as the EPA Technical Project Monitor.  Mr  Gary
                                                           Baker was SAICs Work Assignment  Manager. Mr.  Jim Rawe
                                                           (SAIC) and Mr. Robert Hartley (SAIC) were the authors of the
                                                           bulletin.

                                                              The following other Agency and contractor personnel  have
                                                          contnbuted their time and comments by participating in the
                                                          expert review meetings and/or peer reviewing the document:

                                                                  Mr. Eric Saylor, SAIC
 2.
3.
4.
                                                  REFERENCES
 1 -   A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment
     of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/625/8-87/014, U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental
     Research Information, Cincinnati, OH, 1987.
 Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA
 Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004, U.S. Environmen-
 tal Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emer-
 gency Response, Washington, DC, 1988.

 Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA
 Interim Final.  EPA/540/2-89/0058,  U.S. Environmental '
 Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
 Response, Washington, D.C., 1989.

 Guidance for Conducting Remedial  Investigations and
 Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final.  EPA/540/
 G-89/004, OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, U.S. Environ-
 mental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., 1988.
                                                          5.
                                                             6.
                                                             7.
                                                            8.
                                                            9.
 A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods
 EPA/540/P-87/001, OSWER Directive 9355.0-14, U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
 and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., 1987.

 Breckenridge, R. P., j. R. Williams, and j. F. Keck. Ground
 Water Issue: Characterizing Soils for Hazardous Waste Site
 Assessments. EPA/540/4-91/003, U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
 Response, Washington, D.C,  1991.

 American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Methods of Soil
 Analysis, Part 2,  Chemical and Microbiological Properties
 Second Edition,  1982.

 NIOSH. Manual of Analytical Methods, Third Edition
 1984.

 Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
 EPA/600/4-79/020, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development Washina-
ton, D.C, 1983.                                 y
                                     Engineering Bulletin: Technology Preselection Data Requirements
                                                                              'U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992— 648-080/60092

-------
 10. American Society for Testing and Materials. Annual Book
    of ASTM Standards, 1987.

 11. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Third Edition.
    SW-846, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
    Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
    1986.

 12. Data Quality Objective for Remedial Response Activities,
    Example Scenario: RI/FS Activities at a Site with Contami-
    nated Soils and Ground Water. EPA/540/G-87/004,
    OSWER Directive 9355.0-7B, U.S. Environmental Protec-
    tion Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
    Response, Washington, D.C, 1987.

 13. Engineering Bulletin: Soil Washing Treatment,  U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/2-90/017.
    Office of Emergency and Remedial  Response, Washing-
    ton, D.C. and Office of Research and Development,
    Cincinnati, OH, 1990.

 14. Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for
    Contaminated Soil. EPA/540/2-89/053, U.S. Environmen-
    tal Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial
    Response, Washington, D.C., 1991.

 15. Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment.
    EPA/540/2-91/008, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
    Washington, D.C. and Office of Research and Develop-
    ment, Cincinnati, OH, 1991.

 16. Engineering Bulletin: In-Situ Steam  Extraction Treatment.
    EPA/540/2-91/005, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
    Washington, D.C. and Office of Research and Develop-
    ment, Cincinnati, OH, 1991.

 17. Engineering Bulletin: In-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction
    Treatment.  EPA/540/2-91/006, U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial
    Response, Washington, D.C. and Office of Research and
    Development, Cincinnati, OH, 1991.

 18. Engineering Bulletin: Slurry Biodegradation. EPA/540/2-
    90/01 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
    Emergency and Remedial  Response, Washington, D.C.
    and Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH,
    1990.
 19.  Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous
     Wastes. EPA/540/2-90/001, U.S. Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Re-
     sponse, Washington, D.C., 1986.

 20.  Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable incineration
     Treatment. EPA/540/2-90/014, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
     Response, Washington, D.C. and Office of Research and
     Development, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.

 21.  Superfund Engineering Issue: Issues affecting the
     Applicability and Success of Remedial/Removal Incinera-
     tion Projects. EPA/540/2-91/004, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
     Response, Washington, D.C. and Office of Research and
     Development, Cincinnati, OH, 1991.

 22.  Handbook on In-Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste-
     Contaminated Soils.  EPA/540/2-90/002, U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering
     Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.

 23.  Koboyashi,  H. and B. E. Rittman. Microbial Removal of
     Hazardous Organic Com pounds. Environmental Science
     and Technology, 16:170A-183A, 1982.

 24.  Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Dehalogenation Treat-
     ment: APEG Treatment.  EPA/540/2-90/015, U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency
     and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. and Office of
     Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.

25.  Engineering Bulletins: Chemical Oxidation Treatment.
     EPA/540/2-91/025, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
    Washington, D.C. and Office of Research and Develop-
     ment, Cincinnati, OH, 1991.

26.  Budavari, S., ed. The Merck Index, 11th Edition.  Merck
    & Company, Inc., Rathway, Nj, 1989.

27. US Environmental Protection Agency RREL Treatability
    Data Base. Computer disk available from Risk Reduction
    Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
Engineering Bulletin: Technology Preselection Data Requirements

-------
 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-92/009

-------