United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of
Research and
Development
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA/540/S-93/506
October 1993
v>EPA Engineering Issue
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation
of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
B. Davila3, K.W. Whitfordb, and E.S. Saylorc
Because of the increased need for Superfund decision-makers
to have a working knowledge of the remedial capabilities
available to treat soil and sediment contaminated with
poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the Superfund Engineering
Forum has identified remediation of PCB-contaminated soil and
sediment at Superfund sites as a high priority. The Engineering
Forum is a group of EPA professionals representing EPA's
Regional Superfund Offices. The Forum is committed to the
identification and resolution of engineering issues that impact
the remediation of Superfund sites. The Forum advises and is
supported by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) Superfund Technical Support Project.
This document is intended to familiarize On-scene
Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial Project Managers (RPMs)
with issues important to the successful selection of technology
alternatives available for the remediation of soil and sediment
contaminated with PCBs at Superfund sites. For further
information on this paper, please contact Ms. Brunilda Davila
at the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), (513)
569- 7849.
INTRODUCTION
From 1929 to 1980, the cumulative world production of PCBs,
was approximately 2.4 billion pounds [1, p. 173]*. PCBs have
not been manufactured in the United States since 1977. PCBs
were used as dielectric fluids in electrical transformers and
capacitors, and were often mixed with organic solvents such as
chlorinated benzenes. Toxic metals, most commonly lead, are
also present at many sites with PCB contamination. PCBs were
also used in hydraulic, lubricating, and heat transfer fluids, as
plasticizers in paint, and as dye carriers in carbonless
copypaper [2, p. 4.1]. Due to their widespread use,
large amounts of PCBs have been released into the
environment. EPA has determined that PCBs may cause
adverse reproductive effects, developmental toxicity, and
cancer, and thus are dangerous to human health and wildlife
[3].
The primary purpose of this report is to provide OSCs and
RPMs with information on established, demonstrated, and
emerging technology alternatives for remediating
PCB-contaminated soil and sediment. This information includes
process descriptions, siterequirements,performance (including
a pilot- or full-scale example for established and demonstrated
technologies), process residuals, innovative systems, and EPA
contacts. Estimated costs for basic technology operation and
advantages and limitations of each technology are also
presented. Information on current research and failed treatment
technologies is also provided. The secondary purpose is to
provide basic information on characteristics of PCBs,
regulations governing PCB remediation, sampling and data
collection methods applicable to PCB contamination, analytical
methods and technologies used to quantify PCB
contamination, treatability studies, and sources of further
information. This Engineering Issue Paper condenses and
updates the information presented in the EPA Superfund
document entitled "Guidance on Remedial Actions for
Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination," EPA/540/G-90/007,
August 1990 [4]. The contents of this Issue Paper are based
upon the assumption that the
a Chemical Engineer, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH
b Environmental Scientist, Science Applications International
Corporation, Cincinnati, OH
c Civil /Environmental Engineer, Science Applications
International Corporation, Cincinnati, OH
* [reference number, page number]
ochnology
upport
reject
'°tOGY S*5
\
Superfund Technical Support Center
for Engineering and Treatment
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
Engineering Forum
Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC
Walter W. KovalicR, Jr., Pfi.D,
Director
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
reader is already somewhat familiar with PCBs, remedial
alternatives, and environmental regulations. The list of
references at the end of the document will assist those who are
less familiar with these topics.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PCBs
PCBs, also referred to by the trade names Aroclor*, Phenoclor,
and Kanechlor [5, p.2], encompass a class of chlorinated
compounds that includes up to 209 variations, or congeners,
with different physical and chemical characteristics [6]. Most
PCBs are oily liquids whose color darkens and viscosity
increases with rising chlorine content. PCBs with fewer chlorine
atoms are more soluble, more amenable to chemical and
biological degradation, and less persistent in the environment
than those PCBs with more chlorine atoms. PCBs are thermally
stable and excellent electrical insulators [1, p. 173].
PCBs are very persistent, hydrophobic, and generally do not
migrate. However, there are some site characteristics that may
have a bearing on the potential of PCBs to migrate. For example,
PCBs in oil will be mobile if the oil itself is present in a volume
large enough to physically move a significant distance from the
source. Soil or sediment characteristics that affect the mobility
of the PCBs include soil density, particle size distribution,
moisture content, and permeability. Additionally, meteorological
and chemical characteristics such as amount of precipitation,
organic carbon content, and the presence of organic colloids
also affect PCB mobility [4, p. 33]. Determination of these
characteristics during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) activities will aid in estimating the mobility of
PCBs at a site.
Becauseof the stability of PCBs, many exposure routes must be
considered: dermal exposure; ingestion of PCB-contaminated
soil, water, and food; and inhalation of ambient air
contaminated with PCBs. PCBs have a high potential for
bioaccumulation, which is an important factor to consider due
to their ability to accumulate in aquatic environments such as
lakes, rivers, and harbors [5, p. 1]. Although not very common,
volatilization and other transport mechanisms may remove PCBs
from the contaminated soil or sediment or entrain them into the
air. Remedies involving excavation may create short-term
exposures to workers and surrounding communities from
inhalation of dust emissions.
Chronic exposure of animals to PCBs can lead to disrupted
hormone balances, reproductive failure, teratomas, or
carcinomas. Plants, however, do not appear to exhibit detectable
toxicity responses to PCBs [4, p. 37]. A more significant health
impact of PCBs may be caused by their incomplete combustion
during thermal treatment processes. Incomplete oxidation of
PCBs may form poly chlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF) emissions
[7]. These are of a concern due to their lexicological and lethal
effects on laboratory animals.
REGULATIONS GOVERNING PCB REMEDIATION
CERCLA
The National Contingency Plan, instituted by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, established a framework for
identification and remediation of the nation's most contaminated
* Mention of trade names, companies, or products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
and hazardous sites (Superfund sites). Section 121 (d)(2)(A) of
CERCLA requires adherence to other Federal and State laws
through the identification of and compliance with applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). These
ARARs must be complied with or waived for all Superfund
remedial actions. Federal ARARs for PCB contaminated sites
are derived from the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Other requirements and regulations derived from the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) may be
implemented when remediation of the site potentially affects
water or air quality [4, p. 9]. Additionally, regulations of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) must
be followed.
TSCA
TSCA as codified in 40 CFR 761 [8], establishes prohibitions
of and requirements for the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, disposal, storage, and marking
of PCBs and PCB items in the United States after January 1,
1978. TSCA regulations apply to concentrations of PCBs equal
to or greater than 50 parts per million (ppm). PCBs that have
been released into the environment after February 17,1978 are
regulated based upon the original concentration of the
released material. This approach to regulating PCBs is found
in 40 CFR 761.1 (b) and states that "No provision specifying a
PCB concentration may be avoided as a result of any dilution."
This section is generally known as the "anti-dilution"
provision of the PCB regulations. However, PCBs at Superfund
sites are regulated based on the concentrations found at the
site. During site characterization, EPA evaluates the form and
concentration of PCB contamination at Superfund sites " as
found" at the site, disposing of the contaminated medium as
stated in 40 CFR 761.60 (a)(2) to 761.60(a)(5). Consequently,
cleanup levels and remedial technologies at Superfund sites
should not be selected based on the form and concentration
of the original PCB material spilled or disposed of at the site
priorto EPA's involvement (i.e., the anti-dilution provision of
the PCB regulations should not be applied) [4, p. 11 ]. RPMs
and OSCs should also be aware thatremedial technologies that
concentrate PCBs, such as thermal desorption, may produce
a PCB residue that contains a concentration greater than 50
ppm. In such cases, TSCA regulations may not be an ARAR
for treatment of PCB-contaminated soil or sediment, but may
be an ARAR for the concentrated residues.
TSCA considers any person "whose act or process produces
PCBs... or whose act first causes PCBs to become subject to
the disposal requirements of Subpart D..." to be a generator [2,
p. 4.9]. Persons generating soil, sediment, or treatment
residuals contaminated with PCBs in concentrations equal to
or greater than 50 ppm, must comply with TSCA generator
requirements. These requirements include: notification to EPA
of PCB-generating activities (if the generator owns or operates
a PCB storage facility subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
761.65(b)), shipment of regulated wastes using the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest, and disposal at a TSCA-approved
disposal facility.
The storage requirements of 40 CFR 761.65 are especially
important, requiring disposal of TSCA-regulated PCB wastes
within 1 year of being taken out of service for disposal and
placed into storage. Where the final disposition of PCB wastes
at a Superfund site is specified in that site's Record of Decision
(ROD), a CERCLA waiver to allow storage to exceed 1 year
may
2 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
be pursued [4, p. 18]. Temporary storage of PCB-contaminated
soil or sediment by the generator is allowed for up to 30 days
with relatively minor requirements. Storage beyond this
timeframe must be performed in an area meeting the siting,
structural, labeling, and inspection requirements of 40 CFR
761.65(b)[8].
Non-liquid PCBs in the form of soil, rags, or other debris, that
contain PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, may be
disposed of in either an incinerator meeting the requirements of
40 CFR 761.70, or a chemical waste landfill meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 761.75. A third option is to employ a
treatment method capable of achieving the same remedial
results as incineration. Incineration is the demonstrated
technology and the standard for PCB destruction. The
performance standards for PCB incinerators are provided in the
regulations at 40 CFR 761.70 (b)(l). Among the numerous
requirements for PCB incinerators is that mass air emissions
from the incinerator shall be no greater than 0.001 g PCB/kg of
PCB introduced into the incinerator [8].
The regulations provide for approval of alternative technologies
if they are demonstrated to be equivalent to incineration in
ability to destroy PCBs. The EPA Regional Administrator may
approve such disposal methods after submitting information
required by 40 CFR 761.60(e) for both soil and sediment, or 40
CFR 761.60(a)(5) for sediment. 40 CFR 761.70(d)(5) contains
provisions for waivers of the requirements which would
otherwise be applicable to incinerators.
The TSCA PCB spill cleanup policy is found in 40 CFR 761.120
to 761.135. The policy takes into consideration how quickly the
spill is reported, when cleanup is initiated, and the current use
of the affected area. The remediation of spills reported within
the timeframes identified in the regulations (24 to 48 hours after
occurrence) is governed by the procedural and numerical
requirements listed in this policy. Spills which are not reported
within these timeframes are not covered by the policy and
therefore, procedures and cleanup levels are determined on a
case-by-casebasis. Spills that occurred prior to May 4,1987 also
are not regulated by this policy. Although the TSCA PCB
cleanup policy may not apply to a substantial number of
Superfund sites, EPA generally uses the provisions of the
policy to guide CERCLA cleanups.
RCRA
PCBs are not regulated as a hazardous waste under RCRA.
However, if PCBs are mixed with hazardous wastes listed in 40
CFR 261.31 to 261.33 (e.g., spent trichloroethylene that was
used to clean electrical equipment), the mixture is subject to the
RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Similarly, if PCBs are mixed
with other wastes, and the resulting mixture exhibits one or more
of the hazardous characteristics discussed in 40 CFR 261.21 to
261.24 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), the
mixture must be managed as hazardous waste until the waste no
longer exhibits the characteristic. PCB-contaminated soil or
sediment that is also contaminated with listed waste or exhibits
a hazardous characteristic, must be managed as hazardous
waste until the contaminated media no longer contains the
listed waste (a decision that can be made by EPA regional
offices) or no longer exhibits the hazardous characteristic.
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA
specified additional requirements for treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste. Solid waste management units (SWMUs)
at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities became subject to more stringent corrective action
requirements. Also, land disposal of hazardous waste without
prior treatment by a specified technology, or to a specified
constituent concentration, became prohibited under the land
disposal restrictions (LDRs).
The California List of the LDRs states that liquid hazardous
waste containing greater than 50 ppm of PCBs must either be
incinerated in a TSCA incinerator or a high-efficiency boiler
[9]. The California list also regulates the disposal of hazardous
waste containing halogenated organic compounds (HOCs)
when present in concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/kg. The
HOC list includes seven specific Aroclors, as well as "PCBs
not otherwise specified." Incineration is the specified remedial
technology. The presence of other restricted hazardous waste
in PCB-contaminated soil and sediment also subjects the media
to the applicable LDRs.
Other Federal Regulations
Remediation of PCB-contaminated sediment may affect local
and downstream water quality during activities such as
dredging and dewatering. The Clean Water Act (CWA)
establishes requirements and discharge limits for actions that
affect surface water quality. Accordingly, the technical
requirements of permits such as the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may have to be
met.
Remedial technologies that have the potential to emit PCBs or
other contaminants into the air may be required to employ
control measures in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Regulated units could include baghouses, exhaust stacks, and
pressure release devices on treatment tanks.
State Regulations
At least 18 states currently regulate various aspects of PCB
disposal [2, p. 4.22]. States also may regulate PCB treatment,
and may have established cleanup levels. EPA, therefore, may
also have to comply with state PCB requirements. Applicable
state regulations must be included as ARARs or waived when
appropriate.
DATA COLLECTION, SAMPLING, AND
ANALYSIS
Data collection and sampling begin during project scoping.
Sampling and data collection at Superfund sites should be
designed to aid in selecting and implementing a remedial
technology. Other reasons for such sampling and data
collection at Superfund sites include: site characterization,
health and safety monitoring during treatment, performance
evaluation, and, if necessary, long-term monitoring. These
activities also should be designed to support future
enforcement actions. The end use of the data dictates the
required quality of the information. This required quality is
stated in the data quality objectives (DQOs) already
established prior to any generation of data [10].
Before selection and implementation of a remedial technology,
sampling to characterize site conditions must be performed.
Samples chosen to document the concentration and
distribution of contaminants throughout the area(s) of interest
must be of sufficient number to be representative and of
sufficient sample volume for all analytical, quality assurance,
and quality
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
control operations. During sampling, it is also crucial to look for
evidence of contaminant transport so that the proper sources
are targeted for remediation. Many of the components of a
successful sampling plan and associated sampling procedures
are discussed in the handbook "Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments" [11, pp.11-13]. Additional information is presented
in Volume II of EPA's "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods" (SW-846) [12]. The
Methods Communication Exchange (MICE) Service provides
answers to questions and takes comments over the telephone
on technical issues regarding this manual. The MICE service
telephone number is (703) 821-4789.
When sampling to identify potential remedial technology
alternatives for treating contaminated soil and sediment, there
are several soil, sediment, water, and contaminant data elements
that need to be evaluated. The compiled data should permit
prescreening of a group of potentially applicable remedial
methods and the direct elimination of others. In the selection of
a remedial technology, consideration of such information as the
past history of the site, how and where wastes were disposed,
topographic and hydrologic detail, and site stratigraphy will
provide a more comprehensive assessment.
Physical and chemical characteristics of the PCB-contaminated
soil or sediment also determine the types of remedial
technologies potentially suitable for the site. The minimum set
of soil and sediment measurements desirable for remedial
technology prescreening is presented in Table 1 [131. In
addition to the physical characteristics of the
PCB-contaminated media, OSCs and RPMs should be aware
that the presence of other contaminants can impact the
effectiveness of a remedial technology and PCB analyses. The
ratings in Table 1 are relative values for the parameters of
concern based upon expert opinion. The values are described
as "higher" or "lower" in defining the tendency of these
parameters to enhance or inhibit prescreening of a particular
treatment process. For example, larger quantities of oil and
grease would improve the performance of chemical
dehalogenation (i.e., base-catalyzed decomposition); increased
oil and grease content would decrease the performance of
solidification/stabilization. Inclusion of a rating within the
technology group, however, does not ensure that the rating will
be applicable to each individual system within a technology
group. OSCs and RPMs are advised to contact the EPA experts
listed later in this paper in order to discuss the importance
and availability of quantitative values for specific
characteristics. This information also is generally applicable to
the treatment of water produced as a residual from the
remediation of PCB-contaminated soil or sediment. Additional
information on site data requirements for the selection of
remedial technologies may be found in other references [ 14] [ 15].
During implementation of the chosen remedial technology,
sampling is usually required to assess the effect of process
emissions on site workers and the surrounding area. Remedial
technologies that require excavation and movement of
contaminated soil or sediment may generate PCB-contaminated
dust. Thermal technologies produce offgases that may contain
PCBs that have not been captured or destroyed by the process.
Sampling of process emissions and surveillance of site
conditions during waste treatment should be designed to
evaluate all of the applicable concerns. Sampling and analytical
methods designed to assess worker safety and health can be
found in the "National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) Manual of Analytical Methods" [16].
After implementation of the chosen remedial technology, the
effectiveness of the sy stem(s) must be evaluated through sam-
Table 1. Soil and Sediment Characteristics That
Assist In Technology Alternative Prescreening
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
CHARACTERISTIC
Particle size
Bulk density
Permeability
Moisture content
pHand Eh
Humic content
Total organic content (TOC)
Biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen command
(COD)
Oil and grease
Volatile metals
Nonvolatile metals
JC
•
O
V
T
•
a
a
|
•
a
V
T
•
a
a
I Chemical Dehalogenation
T
a
T
•
•
O
a
|
T
•
T
a
V
•
•
|
T
•
T
a
T
•
1
$
a
a
V
a
•
•
j
•
•
T
a
a
a
a
a
a
,
a
a
T
a
a
•
Source: Vendor specific information and technology experts [adapted
from 13]
• • higher values support preselection of technology group.
O a lower values support preselection of technology group.
T = effect is variable among systems within a technology group.
Where no symbol Is shown, the effect of that characteristics
considered Inconsequential.
pling and analysis. Depending on the technology, both short -
and long-term performance needs to be assessed.
Development of sampling plans to accomplish this objective
is discussed in "Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of
Cleanup Standards" [17].
Analytical methods for detection and quantification of PCBs
in soil and sediment are primarily performed in the laboratory.
Laboratory determination of Aroclors in these media generally
costs $ 100 to $200 per sample and usually requires a minimum
of 72 hours from sample collection to receipt of results [18].
The laboratory method 8080 (Organochlorine Pesticides and
Poly chlorinated Bipheny Is by Gas Chromatography) in S W846
is the most commonly chosen procedure for the analysis of
these PCB-contaminated media. The PCBs are first extracted
from the soil or sediment, commonly using Method 3540
(Soxhlet
4 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Extraction) or 3550 (Ultrasonic Extraction). The PCB extract is
then concentrated and injected into a gas chromatograph
equipped with an electron capture detector. The analyst
identifies Aroclor residues by comparison of gas
chromatographic peak profiles (peak retention times and relative
intensities) produced by Aroclor standards with those
produced by a sample extract [12]. Identification and
quantification of PCBs can be hindered by interfering
compounds, such as other halogenated organic compounds,
which appear on the chromatogram in the same retention time
region as PCBs.
Several lower cost field test kits, providing faster results, are
currently available [18]. For example, one test kit, using
colorimetric determination of PCBs, can provide
semiquantitative results within 10 minutes for approximately $20
per sample [19]. Currently, another colorimetric test kit (the
Dexsil Clor-N-Soil PCB Screening Kit™) is being tested through
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program. Also
being tested are an immunoassay kit (Enviroguard™ PCB
Immunoassay Test Kit), and a chloride-specific electrode test kit
(the Dexsil L 2000 PCB Chlonde Analyzer™) [20, pp. 324-337].
Additional information on analytical methods for the analysis
of PCB-contaminated soil and sediment is available in
"Analytical Chemistry for PCBs, Second Edition" [21].
Technical questions regarding the analysis of
PCB-contaminated soil and sediment should be directed to Ann
Alford-Stevens (EMSL), at (513)569-7492.
TECHNOLOGIES FOR REMEDIATION OF
PCBs IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT
This section discusses technologies that have been used to
treat, destroy, or remove PCBs from PCB-contaminated soil and
sediment. The technologies are classified under three headings:
established, demonstrated, and emerging. Established
technologies are those that have been employed at the
full-scale level to successfully meet PCB cleanup goals at
multiple sites; they are commercially available. Demonstrated
technologies have been conducted at pilot- or full-scale at a
limited number of sites. They have generated performance and
cost data on the treatment of PCB-contaminated soil or
sediment. Emerging technologies have not yet been shown to
effectively or consistently treat PCB-contaminated soil or
sediment at the pilot-scale level. They are in bench-scale
studies or in pilot-scale testing stages and are designed to
generate data on the treatment of PCB-contaminated soil or
sediment. For each technology the following topics are
discussed:
• Process description;
• Site requirements for technology implementation;
• Technology performance in treating PCBs in soil or sediment;
• Process residuals;
• Technology systems accepted in the SITE Demonstration and
Emerging Programs [including the availability of Applications
Analysis Reports (AARs) and Technology Evaluation Reports
(TERs)]; and
• EPA contact for the technology.
Within the performance discussion for each remedial
technology, the number of Superfund sites where the
technology has
been selected as either a stand-alone remedial alternative for
a portion or all of the site, or as a component in a treatment
train at the site is given. An example of application of the
technology with available performance data is presented for
established and demonstrated remedial technologies.
Availability of certain additional performance data is limited
due to legal conflicts, while other data are still being generated
and analyzed prior to being reported. The reader is therefore
referred to the contacts listed in the tables summarizing
application of each technology for the most current
information.
Estimated cost ranges for the basic operation of the
technology, critical factors affecting cost ranges, and
advantages and limitations of each alternative technology are
presented at the end of this section in Figure 1 and Tables 12,
13, and 14 respectively. The information was compiled from
EPA documents, including Engineering Bulletins, SITE
Demonstration Reports, and EPA electronic databases. OSCs
and RPMs are cautioned that the cost estimates generally do
not include pretreatment, site preparation, regulatory
compliance costs, costs for additional treatment of process
residuals (e.g., stabilization of incinerator ash or disposal of
PCBs concentrated by solvent extraction), or profit. Since the
actual cost of employing a remedial technology at a specific
site may be significantly higher than these estimates, the data
are best used for order of magnitude cost evaluations.
TREATABILITY STUDIES FOR PCB-
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND SEDIMENT
The presence of PCBs with other contaminants in soil or
sediment often creates site-specific treatment problems. The
varied structures and properties of PCBs also present
site-specific concerns for remediation of Superfund sites.
Therefore, prior to selecting PCB remedial technologies,
site-specific treatability studies are necessary to evaluate the
potential applicability and performance of a particular
technology in remediation of PCB-contaminated soil or
sediment. Treatability studies provide data to support remedial
technology selection andremedy implementation. They should
be performed as soon as it is evident that insufficient
information is available to ensure the quality of the technology
selection process. Conducting treatability studies early in the
RI/FS process reduces uncertainties associated with selecting
the remedy, provides a sound basis for the ROD, and
minimizes the possibility of failure at full-scale implementation.
EPA regionalplanning should factor in the time and resources
required for these studies [22, p. 1].
Treatability studies conducted during the RI/FS activities
indicate whether the technology can meet the cleanup goals
forthe site, whereas treatability studies conducted during the
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) activities
establish design and operating parameters for optimization of
technology performance. Although the purpose and scope of
these studies differ, they complement one another, since
information obtained in support of remedy selection may also
be used to support the remedy design [23].
The need for treatability testing is a management decision. The
time and cost necessary to perform the testing are balanced
against the improved confidence in the selection and design
of alternatives. These decisions are based on the quantity and
quality of data available and on other factors (e.g., state and
community acceptance of the remedy, new site data, or
experience with the technology). A useful document isEPA's
"Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA"
[24].
Technology Alternatives forthe Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Established Remedial Technologies
Incineration
Incineration treats organic contaminants in solids and liquids
by subjecting them to temperatures typically greater than
1,000°F in the presence of oxygen, which causes volatilization,
combustion, and destruction of these compounds. Many
companies have built incinerators that are actively employed in
the remediation of Superfund sites. Some of these are scaled-
down, trailer-mounted versions of conventional rotary kiln or
fluidized bed incinerators with thermal capacities of 10 to 20
million British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr). However,
transportable units as large as 80 million Btu/hr are also
available. At large sites where the cleanup will require several
years, it may be feasible to actually construct an incinerator
onsite. Economic reasons are often the key factor in determining
whether mobile, transportable, fixed, or offsite commercial
incineration will be used at a given site. Because onsite
cleanups at Superfund sites can be conducted without having
to meet the administrative requirements of Federal, State, or
local permits, the time required for startup can usually be
reduced [25, pp. 10-12].
The applicability of incineration to the remediation of PCB-
contaminated soil or sediment may be limited by the types and
concentrations of metals present in the medium. When soil or
sediment containing metals is incinerated, the metals vaporize,
react to form other metal species, or remain with the soil
residuals. Metals in ash, scrubber sludge, or stack emissions, if
improperly managed, can result in potential exposures and
adverse health effects [26, p. 1]. Lead, a metal commonly found
associated with PCB-contamination, volatilizes at most
incinerator operating temperatures and must be captured before
process offgases are released into the atmosphere. It is
therefore important to adequately characterize the metal content
of the soil or sediment when considering incineration systems
for PCB treatment. For more information on the implications of
incineration of soil containing metals refer to "Considerations
for Evaluating the Impact of Metals Partitioning During the
Incineration of Contaminated Soils from Superfund Sites" [26].
Process Description—
The primary stages in the incineration process are waste
preparation, waste feed, combustion, and offgas treatment.
Waste preparation includes excavation and/or transporting the
waste to the incinerator. Depending on the requirements of the
incinerator, various classification equipment is used to remove
oversized particles and obtain the necessary feed size for soil
and sediment. Blending of the soil or sediment and size
reduction are sometimes required to achieve a uniform feed size,
moisture content, Btu value, and contaminant concentrations
[27, p. 21].
The waste feed mechanism, which varies with the type of
incinerator, introduces the waste into the combustion system.
The feed mechanism sets the requirements for waste
preparation. Bulk solids usually are shredded; contaminated
media are usually ram or gravity fed [28, p. 10].
In the combustion stage, the three maj or sy stems are rotary kiln,
infrared, and circulating fluidized bed. The primary factors
affecting the design and performance of the system are the
temperature at which the furnace is operated, the time during
which the combustible material is subj ected to that temperature
(residence time), and the turbulence required to
expose the combustible material to oxygen to obtain complete
combustion.
Offgases from the incinerator are treated by air pollution
control (APC) equipment to remove particulates and capture
and neutralize acid gases. APC equipment includes cyclones,
venturi scrubbers, wet electrostatic precipitators, baghouses,
and packed scrubbers. Rotary kilns and infrared processing
systems may require both external particulate control and acid
gas scrubbing systems. Circulating fluidized beds do not
require scrubbing systems because limestone can be added
directly into the combustorloop; however, they may require a
system to remove particulates , [28, p. 29].
Site Requirements—
The site should be accessible by truck or rail, and a graded or
gravel area is required for setup of onsite mobile systems.
Concrete ads may be required for some equipment (e.g., rotary
kiln). For a typical commercial-scale unit, 2 to 5 acres are
required for the overall system site including ancillary support
[27, p. 25]. Standard 440V, three-phase electrical service is
generally needed. A continuous water supply must be
available at the site. Auxiliary fuel for feed Btu improvement
may also be required.
Various ancillary equipment may be required, such as liquid or
sludge transfer and feed pumps, ash collection and solids
handling equipment, personnel and maintenance facilities, and
process-generated waste treatment equipment. In addition, a
feed-materials staging area, decontamination trailer, ash
handling area, water treatment facilities, and a parking area may
be required [27, p. 24]. A site safety plan covering all onsite
activities should be developed. An emergency shut down plan
also should be prepared. Special handling measures should be
provided to hold any process residual streams until they have
been tested to determine their acceptability for disposal or
release. Depending on the site, a method to store waste that
has been prepared for treatment may also be necessary.
Storage capacity will depend on waste volume and equipment
feed rates.
Performance—
As of September 1991, incineration technologies had been
selected as the remedial action at 65 Superfund sites with PCB-
contaminated soil or sediment [29] [3 0]. Incineratorperformance
is most often measured by comparing initial PCB
concentrations in feed materials with both final concentrations
in ash (i.e., removal efficiency) and concentrations present in
offgas emissions. Incinerators burning non-liquid PCB wastes
must meet the performance and monitoring requirements
specified in 40 CFR 761.70 [8].
In November 1989, a pilot-scale incineration unit was tested as
part of the SITE program at the Demode Road Superfund Site.
Soil contaminated with PCBs having initial concentrations
ranging from 290 to 3,000 ppm was present at the site. Prior to
entering the system, the feed material was screened to remove
aggregate and debris greater than 1 inch in diameter. The
system consisted of a primary combustion chamber, where
electric infrared heating rods were used to heat the waste, and
a secondary chamber where a propane-fired flame was used to
destroy any remaining hydrocarbons in the exhaust from the
first chamber. A venturi scrubber and horizontal packed tower
were also used for particulate and acid gas removal before
exhausting the gas to the atmosphere [31, pp. 1 -11.].
6 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
The test indicated that the system would remove and destroy
PCBs from the waste. Final PCB concentration ranged from
0.003 to 3.396 ppm in the ash [31, p. 12]. However, there was no
evidence that the process reduced the mobility of heavy metals
that were present in the furnace ash as compared to the feed.
This was to be expected since metals are not destroyed by
combustion and will be present in the ash or released into the
flue gas. Stack gas, primary combustion chamber (PCC)offgas,
HC1, and particulate emissions all were well below the maximum
amount allowed under RCRA standards. DREs in excess of the
99.99 percent required for RCRA applications were achieved.
Performance with respect to the TSCA requirement of 99.9999
percent DRE for PCBs could not be ascertained because of the
lowconcentrationofPCBsintheincineratorfeed [31,pp. 10-19].
Information on the application of incineration for the treatment
of PCB-contaminated soil and sediment at other sites is
presented in Table 2 [30][32]. For further site-specific
information contact the EPA individual listed or obtain the
reference indicated.
Process Residuals—
Three major waste streams generated by incineration are: solids
from the incinerator and APC system, water from the APC
system, and emissions from the incinerator. Ash is commonly
either air-cooled or quenched with water after discharge from
the combustion chamber. Dewatering or
solidification/stabilization of the ash may also have to be
applied since the ash could contain leachable metals at
concentrations above regulatory limits. The alkalinity of the
matrix may influence the leachability of the ash [33, p. 63]. The
flue gases from the incinerator are treated by APC systems such
as electrostatic
precipitators or venturi scrubbers before discharge through a
stack. A high-pH liquid waste may be generated by the APC
system. This waste may contain high concentrations of
chlorides, volatile metals, trace organics, metal particulates,
and other inorganic particulates. Wastewater requiring
treatment may be subjected to neutralization, chemical
precipitation, reverse osmosis, settling, evaporation, filtration,
or carbon adsorption before discharge [15, p. 127].
SITE Demonstration and Emerging Projects—
As of November 1992, the SITE Program included two
demonstrated incineration systems reportedly capable of
treating PCBs in soil and sediment. The technology developer,
system name, status of the technology, and EPA contact for
these systems are presented in Table 3 [20].
Contact—
Technology-specific questions regarding incineration may be
directed to Donald A. Oberacker (RREL) at (513) 569-7510.
Demonstrated Remedial Technologies
Thermal Desorption
Thermal desorption is an ex situ means to physically separate
volatile and semivolatile contaminants from soil, sediment,
sludge, and filter cake by heating them at temperatures high
enough to volatilize the organic contaminants. It is generally
cost-effective to implement thermal desorption on wastes
containing up to 10 percent organics and a minimum of 20
percent solids [34, p. 2].
Table 2. Application of Incineration at Selected Superfund Sites with PCB-Contaminated
Soil or Sediment
Site
Florida Steel, Fl [30][32]
Twin City Army Ammunition
Plant, MN [30][32]
Rose Township, Ml [30][32]
LaSalle Electric
Utilities, IL [30] [32]
New Bedford
Harbor, MA [32]
Douglassville, PA [32]
Type of
Medium
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Sediment
Sediment
Status
Process residuals
management in predesign.
Pilot-scale tests
completed 1989.
Full-scale remediation
started. Completion
expected summer 1993.
Completion expected
summer 1993.
Remediation ongoing
Full-scale design
completed. Remediation to
begin winter 1993.
Lead
Federal lead/
Fund financed
PRP lead
U.S. Army/
Federal oversight
PRP lead/
Federal oversight
State lead
Federal lead/
Fund financed
PRP lead/ Federal
oversight
Contact
Randy Bryant
(404) 347-2643
Larry LeVeque
(312) 886^359
Kevin Adler
(312) 886-7078
Dave Seeley
(312) 886-7058
Gail Carman
(617)223-5522
Victor Janosik
(215)597-8996
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Table 3. Innovative Incineration Systems Currently Accepted Into the SITE Program [20]
Developer
Gruppo Italimpresse
Ogden Environmental
Services
System Name
Infrared Thermal
Destruction a
Circulating Bed
Combuster a
Status
Two SITE demonstrations were
conducted in 1987 (AARs and TERs
available). Used in full-scale
remediation.
SITE demonstration was conducted in
1 988 (TER available).
EPA Contact
Laurel Staley
(513)569-7863
Douglas Grosse
(513)569-7844
Demonstration Program
Process Description—
Thermal desorption is a process that uses either an indirect or
direct heat exchange to heat organic contaminants to a
temperature high enough to volatilize and separate them from
a contaminated solid medium. Air, combustion gas, or an inert
gas is used to transfer vaporized contaminants from the
medium. The bed temperatures achieved (usually between
300°F and 1,000°F) and residence times used by thermal
desorption systems will volatilize selected contaminants and
drive off water, but typically not oxidize nor destroy organic
compounds [34, p. 1].
The primary stages of a thermal desorption system are
materials handling, desorption, particulate removal, and offgas
treatment. Materials handling requires excavation of the
contaminated soil or sediment. Typically, objects larger than
one to two inches in diameter are screened, crushed or
shredded and, if still too large, rejected. The medium is then
delivered by gravity to the desorber inlet or conveyed by
augers to afeedhopper, rotary airlock, or other equipment [35].
As the contaminants are desorbed, they volatilize and are
transferred to the gas stream. An inert gas, such as nitrogen,
may be injected as a sweep stream to prevent contaminant
combustion and to aid in volatilizing and removing the
contaminants [36] [37]. Other systems simply direct the hot gas
stream from the desorption unit to the offgas treatment system
[38]. Offgas from desorption is typically processed to remove
particulates that remain in the gas-contaminated stream after
the desorption step. Organics in the offgas may be treated
onsite, collected on activated carbon, or recovered in
condensation equipment. The selection of the gas treatment
system will depend on the concentrations and types of
contaminants, air emission standards, and the economics of
the offgas treatment sy stem(s) employed. Methods commonly
used to remove the particulates from the gas stream are
cyclones, wet scrubbers, and baghouses.
Site Requirements—
Thermal desorption systems are typically transported on
modified flatbed semitrailers. Since most systems consist of
three components (desorber, particulate control, and gas
treatment), space requirements onsite are typically less than
150 by 150 feet, exclusive of materials handling and
decontamination
areas. Standard 440V, three-phase electrical service is generally
needed. Water must be available at the site. The quantity of
water needed is equipment- and site-specific.
A site safety plan covering all onsite activities should be
developed. An emergency shut down plan also should be
prepared. Special handling measures should be provided to
hold any process residual streams until they have been tested
to determine their acceptability for disposal or release.
Depending on the site, a method to store waste that has been
prepared for treatment may also be necessary. Storage
capacity will depend on waste volume and equipment feed
rates.
Performance —
As of October 1 992, thermal desorption technologies had been
selected as the remedial action at seven Superfund sites with
PCB-contaminated soil or sediment [39]. Performance
objectives must consider the existing site contaminant levels
and relative cleanup goals for soil and sediment at the site.
System performance is typically measured by the comparison
of untreated solid contaminant levels with those of the
processed solids. The actual bed temperature and residence
time are primary factors affecting performance in thermal
desorption. These factors are controlled in the desorption unit
by using a series of increasing temperature zones [36], multiple
passes of the medium through the desorber where the
operating temperature is sequentially increased, separate
compartments where the heat transfer fluid temperature is
higher, or sequential processing into higher temperature zones
In June 1 99 1 , an EPA SITE demonstration was performed at the
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund site in Waukegan
Harbor, Illinois. The site was primarily contaminated with
PCBs, along with VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. The technology
vendor's system used a combination of thermal desorption and
chemical dehalogenation. Approximately 253 tons of
contaminated soil were treated. The average PCB
concentration in the feed soil was 9,173 mg/kg; the average
final concentration was 2 mg/kg, which is a 99.98 percent
removal efficiency. The concentration of PCBs in the stack gas
was 0.834 (ig/dscm (a 99.9999 percent removal efficiency). The
pH of the soil rose from 8.59 in the contaminated soil to 1 1 .35
in the treated soil. This was likely due to the addition of
sodium bicarbonate used to reduce PCB emissions [42, pp. 3,
C-l through C-31]. Information
8 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
on the application of thermal desorption for the treatment of
PCB-contaminated soil and sediment at other sites is presented
in Table 4 [32] [39].
Process Residuals—
Operation of thermal desorption systems may create up to
eight process residual streams: treated medium, oversized
medium and debris rejects, condensed contaminants, water,
parti culate control system dust, clean off gas, spent carbon,
and aqueous phase activated carbon. Treated medium, debris,
and oversized rejects may be suitable for replacement onsite,
or may require offsite disposal.
The vaporized organic contaminants can be captured by
condensation or passing the offgas through a carbon
adsorption bed or other treatment system. Condensed
contaminants would then have to be destroyed by another
technology. Organic compounds may also be destroyed by
using an offgas combustion chamber or a catalytic oxidation
unit integrated into the thermal desorption system [22, p. 5].
When offgas is condensed, the resulting water stream may
contain significant contamination, depending on the boiling
points and solubilities of the contaminants, and may require
further treatment (i.e., carbon adsorption). If the condensed
water is relatively clean, it may be used to suppress the dust
from the treated medium. If carbon adsorption is used to
remove contaminants from the offgas or condensed water,
spent carbon will be generated, which is either returned to the
supplier for reactivation or incineration, or regenerated onsite
[22, p. 5].
Offgas from a thermal desorption unit will contain entrained
particulates from the medium, vaporized organic contaminants,
and water vapor. Particulates are removed by conventional
equipment such as cyclones, fabric filters, or wet scrubbers.
When offgas is destroyed by a combustion process,
compliance with incineration emission standards may be
required; therefore, obtaining
the necessary permits and demonstrating compliance prior to
beginning the remediation may be advantageous. This
approach is also advantageous since it would not leave
residuals requiring further treatment [22, p. 5].
SITE Demonstration and Emerging Projects—
As of November 1992, the SITE Program listed six
demonstrated thermal desorption systems capable of treating
PCBs in soil and sediment. Two of these systems are no longer
active in the Program. The Program also listed one emerging
system with potential capability. The technology vendor,
system name, status of the technology, and EPA contact for
these systems are presented in Table 5 [20].
Contact—
Technology-specific questions regarding thermal desorption
may be directed to Paul dePercin (RREL) at (513) 569-7797.
Chemical Dehalogenation
Chemical dehalogenation includes technologies such as base-
catalyzed decomposition (BCD), alkaline metal hydroxide/
polyethylene glycol (APEG), and potassium metal hydroxide/
polyethylene glycol(KPEG ). These technologies all employ
chemical reactions to remove halogen atoms (chlorine atoms
for PCBs) from organic molecules. Due to performance
concerns described below, very little research on APEG is
performed anymore; thus, it will be briefly discussed in this
document. KPEG™ is no longer in use and will not be
discussed in this document.
Process Description—
The BCD process was developed by RREL in Cincinnati, Ohio.
This process, which does not use polyethylene glycol (PEG)
as a primary reagent, has been used to remediate soil and
sediment contaminated with chlorinated organic compounds.
BCD is an efficient, relatively inexpensive treatment process
for
Table 4. Application of Thermal Desorption at Selected Sites with PCB-Contaminated
Soil or Sediment [32][39]
Site
Re-Solve, MA
Wide Beach, NY*
Martin Marietta
(Denver Aerospace),
Carter Industries, Ml
Solvent Savers, NY
Type of
Medium
Soil and
Sediment
Soil and
Sediment
Soil
CO
Soil
Soil
Status
Construction in progress.
Remediation completed in
1992.
Predesign completed in
1992. Implementation plan
under review.
30% design review
completed.
Predesign completion
planned summer 1994.
Lead
PRP lead/
Federal oversight
PRP lead/
Federal oversight
State lead under
RCRA
PRP lead/
Federal oversight
PRP lead/Federal
oversight
Contact
Rick Cavagnera
(617)573-5731
Herb King
(212)264-1129
George Dancik
(303)293-1506
John Peterson
(312) 886-4439
Lisa Wong
(212) 264-9348
* Combined thermal desorption-chemical dehalogenation system.
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Table 5. Innovative Thermal Desorption Systems Currently Accepted Into the SITE Program [20]
Developer
Chemical Waste
Management
Recycling Sciences
International, Inc.
Clean Berkshires
(formerly Retech)
Soil Tech ATP System,
Inc.
Texarome, Inc.
Eco Logic Intl.
IT Corporation
System Name
XTRAX™ a
Desorption and Vapor
Extraction System
(DAVES)3
High Temperature Thermal
Processor a
Anaerobic Thermal
Processor a
Solid Waste Desorption a
Thermal Gas Phase
Reduction Process a
Mixed Waste Treatment
Process b
Status
Full-scale system remediating
soil and conducting a SITE
demonstration at a Superfund
site (reports in preparation).
System no longer active in
Program..
Commercial-scale system in
operation. SITE demonstration
proposed for fall 1993.
Two SITE demonstrations were
conducted during May 1991 and
June 1992 (reports in
preparation).
System no longer active in
Program.
SITE demonstration conducted in
1992. (Bulletin available, reports
in preparation.)
Pilot-scale testing under the
Program planned for spring 1994.
EPA Contact
Paul dePercin
(513)569-7797
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863
Ronald Lewis
(513) 569-7856
Paul dePercin
(513) 569-7797
John Martin
(513)569-7758
Gordon Evans
(513) 569-7684
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
Demonstration Program
Emerging Program
PCBs. The process can be employed using either sodium
hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate, or aliphatic hydrocarbons as
hydrogen donors [43]. The U.S. Navy and EPA have
developed a BCD unit typifying the process. The
contaminated soil is first screened, processed with a crusher
and pug mill, and stockpiled. This stockpile is mixed with
sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) in the amount of 10 percent of
the weight of the stockpile and is heated for about 1 hour at
630°F in a rotary reactor. PCBs are completely dechlorinated
and partially volatilized in this step. The PCBs in the vapor
condensate, residual dust, spent carbon, and filter cake are
dechlorinated after about 2 hours at 662°F in a stirred-tank
slurry (i.e., liquid phase) reactor (STR) utilizing a high boiling
point hydrocarbon oil, catalyst, and sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
[44, p. 1].
The APEG chemical dehalogenation system is applicable to
aromatic halogenated compounds, including PCBs [45]. APEG
partially dehalogenates the pollutant to form a glycol etheror
a hydroxylated compound and an alkali metal salt, which are
water-soluble by-products. The disadvantages of the APEG
process are that it often takes numerous cycles of the process
to achieve the desired results, the process only effects partial
dehalogenation, and the formation of dioxins and furans often
occurs when the process is implemented [43].
Site Requirements—
Access roads capable of supporting semitrailers are required
to transport the BCD components to the site. A BCD unit with
the capacity to treat 1 ton per hour requires 0.75 to 1 acre of
space when fully assembled. Diesel fuel or natural gas must be
available to heat the primary reactor. Standard 440V,
three-phase electrical service is required for downstream
processing and operation of the secondary reactor. Water for
cooling and washing must be accessible, and provisions for
onsite or offsite wastewater disposal must be established [44,
p. 4].
A site safety plan covering all onsite activities should be
developed. An emergency shut down plan also should be
prepared. Special handling measures should be provided to
hold any process residual streams until they have been tested
to determine their acceptability for disposal or release.
Depending on the site, a method to store waste that has been
prepared for treatment may also be necessary. Storage
capacity will depend on waste volume and equipment feed
rates.
Performance—
As of October 1992, chemical dehalogenation technologies
had been selected as the remedial action at three Superfund
sites with PCB-contaminated soil or sediment [39]. Performance
10 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
primarily measured by comparing the PCB concentration in the
soil or sediment before and after treatment. The presence of
metals in the PCB-contaminated media affects performance by
scavenging the hydrogen ions, requiring increased amounts
of the hydrogen donating reagent.
Depending on the process used, BCD is capable of treating
PCBs at virtually any concentration [43]. In 1991 and 1992,
40,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil with initial
concentrations of 100 to 600 ppm were treated at a Superfund
Site in Brandt, New York by the BCD process [20, p. 141]. In
1992, the BCD technology achieved a 99.999 percent
destruction efficiency at the Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site.
BCD was used as part of a treatment train along with thermal
desorption in the remediation of the site [20, p. 141].
Laboratory research has shown that BCD treatment of PCBs
does not produce chlorinated dioxins (CDDs) and furans
(CDFs). In fact, the process has been shown to destroy these
classes of compounds, reducing 455 ppb of tetra-CDD and 869
ppb of tetra-CDF to 1.42 ppb and 0.73 ppb, respectively [46].
Process Residuals—
Whereas APEG residuals contain partially dechlorinated
compounds with chlorine and hydroxyl groups (which make
them water soluble and slightly toxic), the BCD process
produces only biphenyl and low-boiling olefinics (which are
not water soluble and much less toxic) and sodium chloride.
The treated water and condensate from the treatment process
can generally be discharged to a publicly-owned treatment
works (POT W) after being pumped through activated carbon.
Depending on regulatory status and co-contaminants, the
treated soil may be suitable for replacement onsite. The
decontaminated sludge from the STR can generally be
disposed of in the same way as municipal sewage sludge.
Before final disposition, however, both the treated soil and
sludge must be analyzed to ensure conformance with
regulatory requirements.
SITE Demonstration and Emerging Projects—
Other than the RREL-sponsored BCD process, one emerging
chemical treatment process is funded for the next fiscal year.
This chemical oxidation research utilizes photocatalytic
degradation for PCB-contaminated sediment and waters. The
developer is the State University of New York at Oswego. The
EPA contact is Hector Moreno who can be contacted at (513)
569-7882
Contact—
Technology-specific questions regarding chemical
dehalogenation may be directed to Fred Kawahara or Harold
Sparks (treatabrlrty tests) at (513) 569-7313 or (513) 569-7516.
Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction does not destroy wastes but is a physical
means of separating hazardous contaminants from soil and
sediment, thereby reducing the volume of the hazardous waste
that must be treated. It is generally applicable to organic
wastes, using an organic chemical as a solvent in which to
collect and concentrate the contaminant(s) of concern [47, p.
30].
Process Description—
The primary stages of the solvent extraction technology are
media preparation, contaminant extraction, solvent/media
separation, contaminant collection, and solvent recycling.
Waste preparation includes excavation or moving the waste
material to the process where it is normally screened to remove
debris and large objects. Depending upon the process vendor
and whether the process is semi-batch or continuous, the
waste may need to be made pumpable by the addition of
solvent or water.
In the extractor, the soil or sediment and solvent mix, and the
organic contaminant dissolves into the solvent. The extraction
behavior exhibited by this technology is typical of a mass-
transfer-controlled process, although equilibrium
considerations often become limiting factors. It is important to
have a competent source conduct a laboratory-scale
treatability test to determine whether mass transfer or
equilibrium will be controlling. The controlling factor is critical
to the design of the unit and to the determination of whether
the technology is appropriate for the waste.
The extracted organics are removed from the extractor with the
solvent and go to the separator, where the pressure or
temperature is changed, causing the organic contaminants to
separate from the solvent [48, p. 4-2]. The solvent is recycled
to the extractor and the concentrated contaminants are
removed from the separator [49, p. 1].
Site Requirements—
Typical commercial-scale units (50 to 70 tons per day) may
require a setup area of 10,000 square feet. Standard 440V, three
phase electrical service is generally needed. Water must be
available at the site.
A site safety plan covering all onsite activities should be
developed. An emergency shut down plan also should be
prepared. Special handling measures should be provided to
hold any process residual streams until they have been tested
to determine their acceptability for disposal or release.
Depending on the site, a method to store waste that has been
prepared for treatment may also be necessary. Storage
capacity will depend on waste volume and equipment feed
rates.
Performance—
As of October 1992, solvent extraction technologies had been
selected as the remedial action for PCB-contaminated soil or
sediment at four Superfund sites [39]. The performance of
solvent extraction systems is usually determined by comparing
initial and final PCB concentrations in the contaminated media.
The number of times the medium must be recycled through the
system (the number of passes) in order to meet the treatment
goal is another measure of system performance.
An EPA SITE demonstration using the solvent extraction
technology was conducted during July 1992. The material
tested consisted of bottom sediment from the Grand Calumet
River in Gary, Indiana. Initial PCB concentrations averaged
between 12 mg/kg and 430 mg/kg. The process removed
greater than 99 percent of the PCB contaminants from the
sediment [50, pp. 1-2]. Information on the application of
solvent extraction for the treatment of PCB-contaminated soil
and sediment at other sites is presented in Table 6 [32] [39].
Process Residuals-
There are three main process streams generated by this
technology: the extract containing concentrated contaminants,
the treated soil or sludge, and the separated water. The extract
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
11
-------
contains contaminants concentrated into a smaller volume,
which requires further treatment such as incineration or
dehalogenation.
The treated solids may need to be dewatered, forming a dry
solid and a separate water stream. The volume of product
water depends on the inherent dewatering capability of the
liquid-solid separation process, the specific water requirement
for feed slurrying, and initial soil or sediment water content.
The water should be analyzed to determine if treatment is
necessary before discharge. Since the solvent is an organic
material, some residue may remain in the soil matrix. This can
be mitigated by solvent selection, and if necessary, an
additional separation stage.
SITE Demonstration and Emerging Projects-
As of November 1992, the SITE Program listed five innovative
solvent extraction system reportedly capable of treating PCBs
in soil and sediment. The Program also listed one emerging
system with this capability. Information on these systems is
presented in Table 7 [20].
Contact—
Technology-specific questions regarding solvent extraction
may be directed to Mark Meckes (RREL) at (513) 569-7348.
Soil Washing
Soil washing is an ex situ water-based remedial technology
that mechanically mixes, washes, and rinses soil to remove
contaminants. The process removes contaminants from soil in
one of two ways: by dissolving or suspending them in the
wash
solution (which is later treated by conventional wastewater
treatment methods), or by concentrating them into a smaller
volume of soil through simple particle size separation
techniques.
The process of reducing soil contamination through the use of
particle size separation is effective because contaminants that
chemically or physically bind to soil or sediment often
preferentially adhere to the clay or silt fractions. Contaminants
in media containing a high percentage (greater than 40 percent)
of silt- and clay-sized particles, typically are strongly adsorbed
and difficult to remove [51, p. 3]. Washing processes that
separate the fine clay and silt particles from the coarser sand
and gravel particles separate and concentrate the
contaminants into a smaller volume of soil that can be further
treated or disposed of. The clean, larger fraction can be
returned to the site for continued use.
Process Description—
The primary stages in the soil washing process are soil
preparation, washing, soil and water separation, wastewater
treatment, and vapor treatment when required. Soil preparation
includes the excavation or moving of contaminated soil to the
process, where it is normally screened to remove debris and
large objects. Depending upon the technology and whether
the process is semi-batch or continuous, the soil may be made
pumpable by the addition of water.
The contaminated soil is mixed with washwater and possibly
surfactants (also chelating agents for metals) to remove
contaminants from soil and transfer them to the extraction
fluid. The soil and washwater are then separated, and the soil
is rinsed with clean water. Clean soil is then removed from the
process as product. Suspended soil particles are recovered, as
Table 6. Application of Solvent Extraction at Selected Superfund Sites
with PCB-Contaminated Soil or Sediment [32][39]
Site
New Bedford Harbor, MA
O'Conner, ME
General Refining, GA
Carolina Transformer, NC
Norwood PCBs, MA
Pinette's Salvage Yard, ME
Type of
Media
Sediment
Soil and
Sediment
Sludge
Solids
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Status
Pilot-scale demonstration
completed. Full-scale
application not planned.
Beginning design.
Remediation
completed 1987.
In design; completion
expected December 1993.
In design.
Technology performed
inadequately. ROD
amended to land disposal.
Lead
Federal lead/
Fund financed
PRP lead/
Federal oversight
Federal lead/
Fund financed
Federal lead/
Fund financed
Federal lead/
Fund financed
Federal lead/
Fund financed
Contact
Gail Carman
(617) 223-5522
Ross Gilleland
(617) 573-5766
Shane Hitchcock
(404) 347-3931
Michael
Townsend
(404)347-7791
Bob Cianciarulo
(617) 573-5778
Ross Gilleland
(617) 573-5766
12 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Table 7. Innovative Solvent Extraction Systems Currently Accepted Into the SITE Program [20]
Developer
Sanexen - Sanivan
Group
CF Systems
Corporation
Dehydro-Tech
Corporation
Resources
Conservation Company
(RCC)
Terra-Klean Corp.
(Formerly Sevenson
Extraction Technology,
Inc.)
ART International, Inc.
System Name
Extrasol™3
Solvent Extraction a
Carver-Greenfield
process for Extraction
of Oily Wastes a
B.E.S.T.®Solvent
Extraction a
Soil Restoration Unit a
Low-Energy Solvent b
Extraction Process
Status
Several pilot-scale tests have been
conducted. Demonstration was
cancelled by the developer.
SITE demonstration completed in
1988 (AAR and TER available).
Completed one commercial treatment
operation.
SITE demonstration completed in
1991 (AAR and TER available).
SITE demonstration completed in
1992 (AAR and TER available).
Used for full-scale remediation at two
Superfund sites. SITE demonstration
is planned for 1993.
Pilot plant tests are ongoing.
EPA Contact
Mark Meckes
(513)569-7348
Laurel Staley
(513)569-7863
Laurel Staley
(513)569-7863
Mark Meckes
(513)569-7348
Mark Meckes
(513)569-7348
S. Jackson
Hubbard
(513)569-7507
Demonstration Program
Emerging Program
sludge, directly from the spent washwater using gravity
separation and, when necessary, flocculation with a polymer
or other chemical. Sand particles larger than 50 to 80 (jm can be
easily separated because of their relatively high settling
velocity; equipment such as settling chambers are often used.
Coarse soil particles are generally separated with a trommel or
vibrating screen device. The separated smaller particles will
most likely be of less quantity but carry higher levels of
contamination than the original soil and, therefore, should be
targeted for either further treatment or secure disposal. Water
used in the soil washing process is treated by conventional
wastewater treatment processes to enable it to be recycled for
further use. Residual solids such as spent ion exchange resin
and carbon, and sludges from biological treatment, may require
post-treatment to ensure safe disposal or release. Vapor
treatment may be needed to control air emissions from
excavation, feed preparation, and extraction processes; these
emissions are collected and treated, normally by carbon
adsorption or incineration, before being released to the
atmosphere [51, p. 5].
Site Requirements—
Access roads are required for transport of vehicles to and from
the site. Typically, mobile soil washing systems are located
onsite and may occupy up to 4 acres for a 20 ton-per-hour
unit; the exact area will depend on the vendor system selected,
the amount of soil storage space required, and the number of
tanks or ponds needed for washwater preparation and
wastewater treatment.
Typical utilities required are water, electricity, steam, and
compressed air. An estimate of the net (consumed) quantity of
local water required for soil washing, including water cleanup
and recirculation, is 130 to 800 gallons per cubic yard of soil
(approximately 0.05 to 0.3 gallons per pound of soil) [51, p. 5].
A site safety plan covering all onsite activities should be
developed. An emergency shut down plan also should be
prepared. Special handling measures should be provided to
hold any process residual streams until they have been tested
to determine their acceptability for disposal or release.
Depending on the site, a method to store waste that has been
prepared for treatment may also be necessary. Storage
capacity will depend on waste volume and equipment feed
rates.
Performance—
The performance of soil washing systems is usually evaluated
by comparing initial PCB concentrations in the contaminated
feed with the concentrations in the recovered (clean) soil
fraction, fine soil fraction, wastewater treatment sludge, and
the washwater. The number of times the medium must be
recycled through the system in order to meet the treatment
goal is another measure of system performance.
In 1992, an EPA SITE Program Demonstration was conducted
at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Confined Disposal
Facility in the SaginawBay of Lake Huron. The sediment at the
site was comprised mostly of sand. The process successfully
separated the less than 45-micron grain fraction from the input
soil or sediment, concentrating this fraction into the output
fines, and producing two other output streams, a humic
fraction and a
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
13
-------
washed coarse fraction. The overall average initial
concentration of PCBs was approximately 1.35 mg/kg. During
Test 1, the average concentrations of the PCBs in the output
streams were as follows: humic fraction- 10.4 mg/kg; washed
coarse fraction- 0.194 mg/kg; and clarifier underflow or fines-
4.61 mg/kg. During Test 2, the average concentrations were:
humic fraction- 13.4 mg/kg; washed coarse fraction- 0.189
mg/kg; and clarifier underflow- 3.68 mg/kg. An 86 percent
removal efficiency was obtained when comparing the initial
feed concentration to the final washed coarse fraction [52, pp.
6-11].
Process Residuals-
There are four main waste streams generated during soil
washing: contaminated fines and humics from the soil washing
unit, wastewater, wastewater treatment sludges and residuals,
and air emissions.
Contaminated clay fines and humics resulting from the process
may require further treatment using acceptable remedial
technologies in order to permit disposal in an environmentally
safe manner [53]. Most will remain suspended in the
washwater supernatant after treatment and ultimately settle out
to form the wastewater treatment sludge. Discharge water may
need
treatment to meet appropriate discharge standards prior to
release to a local, publicly owned wastewater treatment works
orreceiving stream. To the maximum extent practical, this water
should be recovered and reused in the washing process. The
wastewater treatment process residual solids, such as spent
carbon and spent ion exchange resin, must be appropriately
treated before disposal. Any air emissions from the waste
preparation area or the washing unit should be collected and
treated to meet applicable regulatory standards.
SITE Demonstration and Emerging Projects—
As of November 1992, the EPA SITE Program listed five
demonstrated soil washing systems reportedly capable of
treating PCBs in soil and sediment. One of these systems is no
longer active in the Program. The Program also listed two
emerging systems with this capability. Information on these
systems is presented in Table 8 [20].
Contact—
Technology-specific questions regarding soil washing may be
directed to Mary K. Stinson (RREL) at (908) 321-6683.
Table 8. Innovative Soil Washing Systems Currently Accepted Into the SITE Program [20]
Developer
System Name
Status
EPA Contact
Bergmann USA
BioGenesis Enterprises,
Inc.
Biotrol, Inc.
Excalibur Enterprises, Inc.
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
New Jersey Institute of
Technology
Williams Environmental
Services, Inc.
Soil and Sediment
Washing a
Soil Washing Process
Soil Washing System ;
Soil Washing and
Catalytic Ozone
Oxidation a
Volume Reduction Unit a
GHEA Associates
Process b
Soil Washing
Two SITE demonstrations were
conducted in 1992 (reports in
preparation).
SITE demonstration conducted
in 1992 (reports available). Full
commercial operation began in
1992.
SITE demonstration conducted
in 1989(AARandTER
available).
System no longer active in
Program.
SITE demonstration conducted
in 1992 (reports in preparation).
Tests have been conducted and
the final report is available.
Developer completed first year
of research and elected to leave
the SITE Emerging Technology
Program. Project summary
available in 1993.
S. Jackson
Hubbard (513)
569-7507
Annette Gatchett
(513)569-7697
Mary Stinson
(908) 321-6683
Norma Lewis
(513)569-7665
Teri Richardson
(513)569-7949
Anette Gatchett
(513)569-7697
S. Jackson
Hubbard (513)
569-7507
Demonstration Program
Emerging Program
14 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Emerging Remedial Technologies
Solidification/Stabilization
Waste stabilization involves the addition of a binder, such as
Portland cement, cement kiln dust, or fly ash to a waste to
convert contaminants into a less soluble, mobile, or toxic form.
Waste solidification involves the addition of a binding agent,
such as Portland cement or asphalt, to the waste encapsulating
the contaminants in solid material. Solidifying waste improves
its materials handling characteristics and reduces permeability
to leaching agents by reducing waste porosity and exposed
surface area. Solidification/stabilization (S/S) processes utilize
one or both of these techniques and are fundamentally
different from other PCB remedial technologies in that they
reduce the mobility of PCBs, but do not concentrate or destroy
them [54].
Process Description—
Ex situ S/S processes involve (1) soil or sediment excavation,
(2) classification to remove oversized debris, (3) mixing and
pouring and, (4) off gas treatment, if necessary. In situ
processes generally have only two steps: (1) mixing and (2)
off gas treatment, if necessary. Both approaches require that
the soil or sediment be mixed with the binding agents and
water in a batch or continuous system. In ex situ applications,
the resultant slurry can be (1) poured into containers (e.g.,
55-gallon drums) or molds for curing and then disposed of
onsite or off site, (2) disposed of in onsite waste management
cells ortrenches, (3) injected into the subsurface environment,
or (4) reused as construction material with the appropriate
regulatory approvals. In in situ applications, the S/S agents are
injected into the subsurface environment in the proper
proportions and mixed with the soil or sediment using
backhoes for surface mixing or augers for deep mixing [54].
Site Requirements—
The site must be prepared for the construction, operation,
maintenance, decontamination, and ultimately
decommissioning of the equipment. An area must be cleared
for heavy equipment access roads, automobile and truck
parking lots, material transfer stations, the S/S process
equipment, setup areas, decontamination areas, the electrical
generator, equipment sheds, storage tanks, sanitary and
process wastewater collection and treatment systems, workers'
quarters, and approved disposal facilities (if required). The size
of the area required for the process equipment depends on
severalfactors, including the type of S/S process involved, the
required treatment capacity of the system, and site
characteristics, especially soil topography and load-bearing
capacity. A small mobile ex situ unit could occupy a space as
small as that taken up by two standard flatbed trailers. An in
situ system may require a larger area to accommodate drilling
rigs and equipment decontamination areas [54].
A site safety plan covering all onsite activities should be
developed. An emergency shut down plan also should be
prepared. Special handling measures should be provided to
hold any process residual streams until they have been tested
to determine their acceptability for disposal or release.
Depending on the site, a method to store waste that has been
prepared for treatment may also be necessary. Storage
capacity will depend on waste volume and equipment feed
rates.
Performance—
Evaluation of the effectiveness of S/S as a technology for the
remediation of PCBs in soil and sediment often provides
inconclusive results. The effectiveness of S/S technologies is
most often measured using leachability tests. Due to the
hydrophobic properties of PCBs, test results typically do not
show significant differences between the leachability of PCBs
in the untreated and treated medium. A portion of the PCBs
may volatilize during heating and mixing with the S/S agents;
the remaining PCBs appear to stay in the solidified mass. High
concentrations of PCBs and other organics may in fact impede
the setting of cement, pozzolan, or organic-polymer S/S
materials. High organic concentrations also may decrease
longterm durability and allow escape of volatiles during
mixing.
Process Residuals—
Under normal operating conditions neither ex situ nor in situ
S/S technologies generate significant quantities of
contaminated liquid or solid waste. Certain S/S proj ects require
treatment of the offgas. Prescreening collects debris and
materials too large for subsequent treatment; this material may
have to be further treated. Treated media that cannot be
returned to the original location may have to be disposed
off site [54].
SITE Demonstration and Emerging Projects-
As of November 1992, the SITE Program listed four
demonstrated S/S systems reportedly capable of treating PCBs
in soil and sediment. Table 9 provides information on these
systems. No applicable emerging S/S systems were included
in the program [20].
Contact—
Technology-specific questions regarding S/S may be directed
to Patncia M. Enckson (RREL) at (513) 569-7884.
Bioremediation
Biodegradation refers to the breakdown of organic compounds
by microorganisms. Making use of indigenous or exogenous
bacteria, bioremediation techniques attempt to optimize the
microorganisms' ability to reduce complex organic compounds
to simpler ones, and completely mineralize others.
Bioremediation of contaminated soil and sediment can be
performed, at a higher rate, in the presence of oxygen
(aerobically), or more slowly under near oxygen-free
conditions (anaerobically).
Process Description—
Solid-phase, slurry-phase, soil-heaping, and composting
technologies are commonly employed ex situ bioremediation
systems. Solid-phase bioremediation (sometimes referred to as
land treatment or land farming) is a process that treats soil in
above-grade systems. Slurry-phase bioremediation typically
uses onsite stirred-tank reactors to combine PCB-contaminated
soil or sediment with water. Soil heaping involves piling
contaminated soil in heaps with aeration being accomplished
by pulling a vacuum through the heap. Composting is a
thermophilic process that involves the co-storage of
contaminated soil with bulking agents, such as chopped hay
or wood chips [55, pp. 3-7].
In situ technologies encourage contaminant biodegradation by
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
15
-------
Table 9. Innovative Solidification/Stabilization Systems Currently Accepted Into the SITE Program [20]
Developer
Funderburk &
Associates
International Waste
Technologies/GeoCon,
Inc.
S.M.W. Seiko, Inc.
Soliditech, Inc.
System Name
Dechlorination and
Immobilization a
In Situ Solidification
and Stabilization
Process a
In Situ Solidification
and Stabilization a
Ex Situ Solidification
and Stabilization a
Status
SITE demonstration conducted in
1987 (AAR and TER available). Used
to remediate one Superfund site.
SITE demonstration conducted in
1988 (AAR and TER available).
Demonstration site being selected.
SITE demonstration conducted in
1988 (AAR and TER available).
EPA Contact
Paul dePercin
(513)569-7797
Mary Stinson
(908) 321-6683
S. Jackson
Hubbard (513)
569-7507
S. Jackson
Hubbard (513)
569-7507
a Demonstration Program
enhancing site conditions (e.g., nutrient concentrations, pH,
etc.) without substantially disturbing the impacted media.
These technologies often employ systems to increase the
availability of water, nutrients, electron acceptors, and
microorganisms (if microbial addition is employed). Oxygen
concentrations may also be increased through systems such
as bioventing.
PCBs may be degraded aerobically, anaerobically, or through
a combination of the two. Laboratory and field studies indicate
that PCB compounds with fewer chlorine atoms are amenable
to complete mineralization by way of oxidative degradation
[56]. PCB compounds with higher chlorine content are
generally resistant to oxidative degradation. However, these
highly chlorinated molecules may be partially degraded
through reductive dechlorination, which is an anaerobic
process that removes chlorine while leaving the bipheny 1 rings
intact. The byproducts of reductive dechlorination may then
be amenable to aerobic degradation [57, p. 179].
Site Requirements—
Normally, access roads are required during either in situ or ex
situ treatment. These roads must be capable of supporting the
movement of heavy equipment both on and off the site. During
ex situ applications, access roads are needed to transport
commercial treatment (i.e., reactor tanks) and support systems
(i.e., pre- and post-treatment equipment). During in situ
treatment, adequate access roads are needed to transport
heavy equipment (i.e., well-drilling rigs and backhoes) used to
install wells or infiltration trenches. The soil bearing capacity
and traction onsite can also affect vehicular traffic.
Space requirements depend on the specific technology
employed. In general, during in situ applications the area
required to set up mixing equipment is insignificant.
Installation of infiltration galleries and wells to circulate
amendment-laden water, however, will require from several
hundred to several thousand square feet of clear surface area.
During ex situ applications more open space will typically be
required for equipment setup (e.g., 0.5 to 1 acre per million
gallons of reactor volume during slurry treatment). Electrical
requirements will depend on the type of technology required.
Standard 440V
three-phase electrical service may be needed during larger ex
situ applications. However, during most in situ applications,
standard 220V, three-phase electrical service will adequately
power most pumps and mixing equipment [58, p. 3].
Water is used for a variety of purposes during biological
treatment. A readily available water suppy is therefore needed
at most sites. City water or clean groundwater may be used.
Contaminated groundwater may be used if permitted by the
appropriate regulatory agency. The quantity of water needed
is site- and process-specific.
Climate can influence site requirements by necessitating
covers to protect against heavy rainfall or cold for the
extended time periods necessary for bioremediation [58, p. 3].
Waste storage is not normally required for in situ
biodegradation.
A site safety plan covering all onsite activities should be
developed. An emergency shut down plan also should be
prepared. Special handling measures should be provided to
hold any process residual streams until they have been tested
to determine their acceptability for disposal or release.
Depending on the site, a method to store waste that has been
prepared for treatment may also be necessary. Storage
capacity will depend on waste volume and equipment feed
rates.
Performance—
Historically, PCBs have been considered resistant to
biodegradation. However, the results of laboratory studies on
PCB biodegradability and the results from environmental
monitoring studies indicate that PCBs do biodegrade in the
environment, but at a very slow rate. This is true of PCBs with
any level of chlorination. However, to date, there is not a
process demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction that can accelerate
PCB biodegradation to rates necessary to make such a process
commercially viable for use in site cleanups. EPA requires
evidence that PCB molecules have been biologically degraded,
not attenuated by nonbiological processes (bulking agents in
composting can sorb PCBs, making them non-extractable by
standard EPA methods and consequently leading to false
conclusions on the effectiveness of biodegradation). More
research on the bioremediation of PCB-contaminated soil and
16 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
sediment is needed to provide data of known quality with
which to properly evaluate the performance of the technology
before it can be used for site remediation. To date, all of the
permits issued by EPA for the bioremediation of PCBs have
been for research and development; none have been issued for
commercial projects.
Process Residuals—
In situ systems generally do not have discrete process
residuals. Depending on the type of ex situ system employed,
residuals may include contaminated water and possibly
offgases. A portion of the PCBs typically adsorbed to the soil
or sediment particles will not be available for biodegradation
during active bioremediation treatment. Biodegradation of
contaminants that does not completely mineralize the
compounds will produce substances that may be of
environmental concern [57, p. 151].
SITE Demonstration and Emerging Projects—
As of November 1992, the SITE Program listed two
demonstrated bioremediation systems reportedly capable of
treating PCBs in soil and sediment. However, no technology
currently exists that is capable of biodegrading PCBs on a
scale large enough to be used for site remediation. There were
three emerging technologies for the treatment of
PCB-contaminated soil or sediment [20]. Table 10 presents
information on these systems.
Contact—
Technology-specific questions regarding bioremediation may
be directed to Edward Opatken (RREL) at (513) 569-7855.
Vitrification
Vitrification can be used to treat soil and sediment containing
organic, inorganic, and radioactive contaminants. All existing
vitrification technologies use heat to melt the contaminated
soil or sediment, which forms a rigid, glassy product when it
cools. The volume of this vitrified product is typically 20 to 45
percent less than the volume of the untreated soil or sediment
[59].
Organic contaminants, including PCBs, are destroyed by the
high temperatures used during vitrification. The destruction
mechanismis either pyroly sis (in an oxygen-poor environment)
or oxidation (in an oxygen-rich environment) [59].
Vitrification can either be performed in situ or ex situ. At this
time, there is only one vendor of commercially available in situ
vitrification systems.
Process Description—
In situ vitrification (ISV) typically uses a square array of four
electrodes up to 18 feet apart. The electrodes are inserted or
gravity fed into the ground to the desired treatment depth. The
gravity feed approach is being used at the Parsons, MI site (a
non-PCB site). An electric current flows through the electrodes
and generates heat, melting first a starter path and then the
soil, which typically melts at 1,100° C to 1,400°C [60]. The
molten mass continues to grow downward and outward until
the melt zone reaches the desired depth and width. The
process can typically produce individual melts of up to 1,000
tons, which solidify into vitrified monoliths upon cooling [61 ].
Multiple melts can be combined for the remediation of an entire
site. Offgas collection systems such as tents or hoods are
generally necessary.
Table 10. Innovative Bioremediation Systems Currently Accepted
Into the SITE Program [20]
Developer
In-Situ Fixation Company
International Environmental
Technology
Institute of Gas
Technology
Institute of Gas
Technology
IT Corporation
System Name
Deep In Situ
Bioremediation Process3
Geolock and Biodrain
Treatment Platform a
Chemical and Biological
Treatment (CBT) b
Fluid Extraction-
Biological Degradation
Process (FEBD) b
Photolytic and Biological
Soil Detoxification b
Status
Demonstration site selected.
Demonstration site being selected.
Accepted into the SITE Emerging
Technology Program 1991.
Second year of testing completed
(reports in preparation).
Project completed (reports in
preparation).
EPA Contact
Edward Opatken
(513)569-7855
Randy Parker
(513)569-7271
Naomi Barkely
(513)569-7854
Annette
Gatchett (513)
569-7697
Randy Parker
(513)569-7271
Demonstration Program
Emerging Program
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
17
-------
There are a number of ex situ vitrification systems
commercially available that can be distinguished from one
another primarily by the heating method employed. Ex situ
processes typically heat the contaminated media at
temperatures between 1,000 and 2,000 °C. In thermal heating,
the heat for the vitrification of the contaminated material is
generated by the combustion of an external fuel source. In the
other heating methods, the heat is generated electrically. Ex
situ j oule heating utilizes an electric current that flows through
the contaminated material, producing resistance and thereby
producing heat. Ex situ vitrification by plasma heating relies on
the conversion of a gas into a plasma by applying energy to it
using an electrical arc. In microwave heating, the contaminated
materialis heated by electromagnetic radiation. Miscellaneous
other electrical processes such as resistance heating,
induction heating, and electric arc heating have also been used
for ex situ vitrification [61].
Site Requirements—
There are very few site requirements for offsite ex situ
vitrification, since the only onsite activity is excavation.
Access to the site must be available for the excavation
equipment, and a site safety plan must be developed.
For ISV systems, areas must be cleared for heavy equipment
access roads, automobile and truck parking lots, the ISV
equipment, setup areas, equipment sheds, and workers'
quarters [59]. The ISV system also requires electricity, typically
between 800 kilowatt-hours/ton (kWh/ton) and 1,000 kWh/ton
for the full-scale system. The electricity can be supplied by a
utility distribution system or generated onsite by a diesel
generator [61].
A site safety plan covering all onsite ISV activities should be
developed. An emergency shut down plan also should be
prepared. Special handling measures should be provided to
hold any process residual streams (i.e., offgas treatment
residues) until they have been tested to determine their
acceptability for disposal or release.
Performance—
The effectiveness of vitrification for the treatment of PCB-
contaminated soil or sediment is difficult to assess. Sampling
and analysis of the glass matrix produced by vitrification is
difficult, since current EPA leachability and total digestion
methods are not designed for a glass matrix.
In April 1991, a fire involving the full-scale collection ISV
hooding occurred at the Geosafe Hanford, Washington test
site. The vendor was testing a new, lighter hooding material.
The hooding caught fire during the test when a spattering of
the melt occurred. For a period of time after the incident,
Geosafe suspended full-scale field operations. A new offgas
collection hood was then designed, composed entirely of metal
rather than the high-temperature fabric that was previously
used. The new design is heavier than the fabric hood, but is
capable of being transported by the same equipment [59].
Process Residuals—
The main residuals produced during operation of the
vitrification technology are the vitrified mass of soil or
sediment and scrubber water. When vitrification is conducted
in situ, the vitrified product can be left in place after treatment.
The vitrified product from ex situ vitrification should also be
acceptable for onsite or offsite disposal [59].
The scrubber water, filters, and activated carbon used to treat
offgases from vitrification systems may require further
treatment or disposal. Typical scrubber water treatment
consists of passing the water through diatomaceous earth and
activated carbon, followed by reuse or discharge to a sanitary
sewer. Contaminated activated carbon or diatomaceous earth
can be treated by the vitrification system [59].
SITE Demonstration and Emerging Projects—
As of November 1992, the SITE Program listed one
demonstrated vitrification system reportedly capable of
treating PCBs in soil and sediment. The program also listed
one emerging system with this capability. Table 11 provides
information on these systems [20].
Contact—
Technology-specific questions regarding ISV may be directed
to Teri Richardson at (513) 569-7949.
Current Research
White Rot Fungus
White rot fungus is currently undergoing research in order to
assess its ability to treat PCB-contaminated soil and sediment.
White rot fungus treatment uses fungi to treat soil in situ. The
Table 11. Innovative Vitrification Systems Currently Accepted Into the SITE Program [20]
Developer
System Name
Status
EPA Contact
Geosafe Corporation In Situ Vitrification (ISV)a
Vortec Corporation
Oxidation and
Vitrification Process b
Large-scale tests have been conducted.
SITE demonstration conducted fall 1993.
Additional test to be conducted in
conjunction with DOE.
Teri Richardson
(513)569-7949
Teri Richardson
(513)569-7949
Demonstration Program
Emerging Program
18 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
fungus is cultivated in a reactor and allowed to grow for 2 to
4 days. Once enough of the fungus has grown, the reactor
conditions are altered to force the fungus into a secondary
metabolic state. In this state, the fungus excretes enzymes
capable of degrading organic compounds through catalyzed
oxidation reactions [2, p. 4.32].
Organic materials inoculated with the fungi are then
mechanically mixed into the contaminated soil. Because this
technology uses a living organism (the fungi), the greatest
degree of success occurs with optimal growing conditions.
Additives that enhance growing conditions may be required
for successful treatment. Moisture control is necessary, and
temperature control may be utilized [20, pp. 148-149].
Failed Technologies
Quicklime
The performance of the stabilization agent quicklime (calcium
oxide, or CaO) as a chemical dehalogenation compound was
investigated after observing large reductions in PCB
concentrations at Superfund sites when cement kiln dust was
added to PCB-contaminated wastes. Low PCB recoveries in
openvessel quicklime application tests indicated the
possibility that significant PCB destruction had occurred.
Subsequent studies, however, confirmed that the primary
mechanism for PCB removal is volatilization and stripping
(resulting from the exothermic reaction associated with lime
slaking), and that only a small percentage of the initial PCB
content was decomposed by partial dechlorination and
hydroxyl substitution [62, p. 6-3]. It was also determined that
improper laboratory
procedures failed to completely extract the PCBs from the
matrices and led to the conclusion that quicklime was
decomposing PCBs [63, pp. 34-40]. Therefore, it was concluded
that quicklime treatment of PCB-contaminated soil or sediment
did not result in significant chemical dehalogenation.
Use of Treatment Trains
Because of the presence of additional contaminants in PCB-
contaminated soil and sediment, or due to the need for further
treatment of process residuals, remedial technologies may
have to be employed sequentially. These treatment trains
increaseboth the effectiveness and cost of remediation. When
selecting remedial alternatives for a site, OSCs and RPMs
should factor in the performance and cost parameters
associated with the use of treatment trains.
Comparison of Remedial Technologies
Costs
Figure 1 presents cost ranges for the technologies discussed
in this paper. These ranges can aid OSCs and RPMs in
selecting a remedial technology for a site with
PCB-contaminated soil and sediment. The reader is cautioned
that these data may not include the cost of many site-specific
factors and necessary modifications, including disposal costs
for those technologies that concentrate and separate PCBs.
These data are derived from conversations with various EPA
RPMs, technology experts, and from vendor databases, and
may not reflect the final cost incurred after implementation is
completed [64). The
Remedial Technology
Incineration
Thermal Desorption
Chemical Dehalogenation
Solvent Extraction
Soil Washing
Solidification/Stabilization
Vitrification
280
225
110
60
50
230
310
100
1000
380
580
540
1000
0
I
100
I
200
r
300
I
400
I
500
I
600
I
700
r
800
900
1000
COST ($/ton)
Note: Current cost information on bioremediation is very limited and not included in this chart.
Source: Derived from EPA RPMs, technology experts, and vendor databases.
Figure 1. Estimated Cost Ranges of PCB Remediation Technologies.
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
19
-------
Table 12. Critical Factors Affecting Cost Ranges
for Technology Alternatives for Remediating
PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
\ REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY N^
^^X^VX^
COST FACTORS
Particle size heterogeneity
High moisture content
PCB concentration
Regulatory compliance
Residuals/offgases
requiring treatment
Excavation
Site preparation
Undersized treatment unit
capacity
Long-term monitoring
High clay content
Required chemicals
Water usage
Fuel/electricity usage
j
*
*
it
*
Thermal Desorption
Chemical Dehatogenafion
Solvent Extraction
Soil Washing
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
'*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
\
SoJidrfication/StatMlization
Bioremediation
Vrtrtfication
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Note: Technologies for which a cost factor is identified by "V
generally incur increased cost due to this factor. If a factor
increases cost only for the ex situ subgroup of a tech-
nology the technology will show an *•*.
Source: Derived from technology experts and EPA
Engineering Bulletins.
financial feasibility of using any of these technologies for the
treatment of PCB-contaminated soil or sediment at a particular
site should not be determined by using this chart alone. Also,
due to extremely limited cost information on the application of
bioremediation to the cleanup of PCB-contaminated soil and
sediment, cost ranges for this technology are not presented.
Table 12 presents critical factors affecting the cost ranges
presented in Figure 1. This table is designed for
intertechnology comparison, and the reader is cautioned that
critical cost factors for individual systems may vary. Several
factors, such as site preparation and treatment capacity, are
critical to all listed technologies. Others, including water usage
and long-term monitoring, are critical to only a few groups.
Table 13. Advantages for Technology Alternatives
for Remediating PCB-Contaminated
Soil and Sediment
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
ADVANTAGES
Proven ability to reduce
high concentrations to
cleanup goals
Destroys PCBs
Can be implemented in situ
Concentrates PCBs,
reducing disposal costs
Effective across wide range
of soil/sediment
characteristics
Effective on inorganic
co-contaminants
Notes: - Technologies for which a specific advantage is applicable
are identified by a "* ".
Source: Derived from technology experts and
EPA Engineering Bulletins.
Advantages and Limitations
Table 13 lists the advantages inherent in the remedial
technologies described in this paper. Table 14 presents
limitations potentially encountered when implementing these
technologies for the treatment of PCB-contaminated soil and
sediment. This information is generally applicable for
intertechnology comparisons. The reader is cautioned,
however, that individual systems within a technology group
may have different advantages and limitations, or varying
degrees of a listed advantage or limitation.
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT CONTROLS
After treatment of PCB-contaminated soil or sediment is
completed, residual concentrations of PCBs may remain in the
treated medium. If the chosen technology treated the soil or
sediment in situ, or if the treated media is to be reused onsite,
long-term management controls may be required. Table 15
presents a general framework of recommended controls for
PCB-contaminated soil or sediment remaining onsite, and
20 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Table 14. Limitations for Technology Alternatives
For Remediating PCB-Contaminated
Soil and Sediment
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
LIMITATIONS
High moisture content
adversely effects treatment
PCBs must be destroyed by
another technology
Produces other residuals
that must be treated and/or
disposed
Sensitive to media particle
PH
Not proven to treat all PCB
congeners
Sensitive to
co-contaminants
Offgases must be treated
prior to release
Often subject to negative
public opinion
Volume and/or
characteristic changes to
treated media
Potentially affected by
ambient temperature
extremes
Difficult to measure
effectiveness of treatment
Long-term monitoring
required for onsite
treatment
Incineration
V
T
V
T
T
|
V
T
T
T
Chemical Dehalogenation
T
T
T
V
T
Solvent Extraction |
T
V
en
c
1
T
T
T
T
1
1
1
V
T
V
V
•
T
V
Bioremediation
V
T
T
T
T
j
V
•
T
T
T
T
Notes: - Technologies for which a specific limitation is applicable
are identified by a "T". Limitations that only apply to the
ex situ subgroup of a technology are identified by a *•".
chemical landfill requirements for disposal of
PCB-contaminated media under! SC A regulations. If disposal
of PCBs regulated by TSCA (i.e., PCB concentrations equal to
or greater than 50 ppm) occurred after 1978, the landfill
requirements must be addressed for soil or sediment that was
not incinerated or treated by an equivalent method. In certain
situations, TSCA waivers of specific chemical waste landfill
requirements may be possible. If disposal occurred before
1978, RCRA closure requirements instead of TSCA chemical
waste landfill requirements would usually be the ARAR [4, p.
47].
SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following EPA hotlines, databases, and reports offer
additional information on the remediation of PCB-contaminated
soil and sediment. The reader is also encouraged to review
sources referenced in this paper.
TSCA Assistance Hotline. Washington, D.C., (202) 554-
1404.
RCRA/Superfund Assistance Hotline. Washington, D. C.,
(800) 424-9346.
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL)
Treatability Database. Available on disk and through the
ATTIC database. Contact Glenn Shaul -(513) 569-7408 or
Tom Holdsworth (513) 569-7675.
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
(ATTIC) database. U.S. EPA Assistance - (908) 906-6828.
Online database searching - (301) 670-3808.
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISIT!) database. Available on disk - (800)
245-4505 or (703) 883-8448.
Records of Decision System (RODS) database. Systems
Information, Mania Ellis-(703) 603-8884
!he Clean-Up Information Bulletin Board (CLU-IN).
System Operator -(301) 589-8368. Online communication
- (301) 589-8366.
Office of Research and Development (ORD) Bulletin
Board. Assistance - (513) 569-7272, Online Communication
- (513) 569-7610 or (800) 258-9605.
Federal Remediation !echnologies Roundtable. Federal
Publications on Alternative and Innovative !reatment
!echnologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation,
Second Edition. EPA/542/B-92/001, August 1992.
Innovative !reatment Technologies: Overview and Guide
to Information Sources. EPA/540/9-91/002, October 1991.
Table 16 lists EPA Regional Superfund Engineering Forum
contacts and other sources of assistance in remediation of
PCB-contaminated soil and sediment.
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
21
-------
i^i
fll
ip
ill
^
LB
II £
;« i
I! *
r s
• •s:
Is I
- _
5:'ii
* i| s
111 I
& Iiil
i ill?
£ saga:
Hi illl
I
<2
i
•g
[3
fl
| g
.if
it
if
s
I
I
I
S
£
11
S-
iii
< in
i
Ilji
*H
I* i
Ji'
ij{
ifli
11
III
* •*
8-
1
*
i1
\*
* 3!
f!
*
j
P
1
i
Jl ii
C5 _
-w r^
l S
22 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Table 16. Engineering Forum and PCB
Remediation Contacts
EPA Regional Superfund Engineering Forum Contacts
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Superfund Innovative
Program
Program
Management
SITE MailingList/
Solicitation (RFPs)
Demonstration
Program
Emerging
Technologies
Program
Other Contacts
Superfund
Technical Support
Program
Technology
Innovative Office
Engineering Forum-
Headquarters
TSCA Regulatory
Assistance
Lynne Jenings
Richard Ho
Paul Leonard
Jon Bornholm
Anthony H.
Holoska
Deborah Griswold
Steve Kinser
Desiree Golub
Ken Erickson
(617)565-9834
(212)264-9543
(215)597-3163
(404) 347-7791
(312)886-7603
(214)655-8520
(913)551-7728
(303)293-1838
(415)744-2324
Bob Stamnes (206) 553-1 51 2
Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Robert Olexsey
William Frietsch
John Martin
Norma Lewis
Ben Blaney
Walter Kovalick
Richard Steimle
Winston Lue
(513)569-7871
(513)569-7659
(513)569-7658
(513)569-7665
(513)569-7406
(202) 382-4363
(703) 308-8846
(202) 260-3962
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Issue Paper was prepared by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
(ORD), Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL),
Cincinnati, Ohio, with the assistance of Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) under Contract No. 68-C8-
0048 (WA 0-41). Ms. Brumlda Davila served as the EPA
Technical Project Manager. Mr. Kurt Whitford was SAIC's
Work Assignment Manager. This document was written by
Ms. Davila (RREL), Mr. Whitford, and Mr. Enc Saylor (SAIC).
The paper was extensively reviewed by Steve Kinser and Paul
Leonard as well as other members of the EPA Regional
Superfund Engineering Forum. The authors are especially
grateful to Ms. Akiko Frietsch and other SAIC personnel who
contributed significantly to the production of this document.
The following otherpersonnel have contributed their time and
comments by participating in peer reviews of the document:
Ben Blaney, Donald Oberacker, Patricia Erickson, Paul de
Percin, Charles Rogers, Mark C. Meckes, Mary Stinson, Teri
Richardson, and Edward Opatken of EPA-RREL, and Tom
Simmons of EPA-Operations Branch. The following personnell
provided outside peer review of the document: Seth Frisbee of
ENSR; Frank Darmiento of Darmiento Environmental
Management; Toni Allen of Piper and Marbury; and Lori
Traweek of the American Gas Association. The following
SAIC personnel participated in peer review of the document:
Cyde Dial, Jim Rawe, and Robert Hartley.
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
23
-------
REFERENCES
1. Amend, L. and P. Lederman. "Critical Evaluation of PCB
RemediationTechnologies." Environmental Progress,
Volume 11. August 1992. pp. 173-177.
2. "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)-Regulations and
Treatment Technologies." The Hazardous Waste
Consultant. May/June 1992. pp. 4.1-4.37.
3. Sittig, Marshall. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous
Chemical and Carcinogens, Third Edition. Noyes
Publications. 1991.
4. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with
PCB Contamination. EPA/540/G-90/007, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. August 1990.
5. Development of Advisory Levels for Polychlorinated
Biphenyl(PCBs) Cleanup. Project Summary. EPA/600/S6-
86/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1987.
6. A Guide on Remedial Actions at Superfund Sites with
PCB Contamination. Quick Reference Fact Sheet. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. August 1990.
7. Federal Register. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Exclusions,
Exemptions, and Use Authorizations; Proposed Rule 52
FR 25849-50. Office of the Federal Register, Washington,
D.C. JulyS, 1987.
8. 40 CFR 761. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce,
and Use Prohibitions. Office of the Federal Register,
Washington, D.C. July 1992.
9. 40 CFR 268.42. Land Disposal Restrictions, Subpart D-
Treatment Standards. Office of the Federal Register,
Washington, D.C. July 1992.
10. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities.
EPA/540/G-87/003, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. March 1987.
11. Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. Handbook.
EPA/625/6-91/028,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
April 1991.
12. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume II,
Third Edition, SW-846. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. December 1987.
13. Technology Preselection Data Requirements. Engineering
Bulletin.EPA/540/S-92/009,U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. October 1992.
14. Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for
Contaminated Soil. EPA/540/2-89/053, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. June 1990.
15. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA
Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004, US. Environmental
Protection Agency. September 1988.
16. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Third Edition.
NIOSH 84-100, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Washington, D.C. June 1988.
17. Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup
Standards, Volume 1: Soil and Solid Media.
EPA/230/02-89-042, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. February 1989.
18. Conversations between Dr. Seth Frisbie of ENSR and
SAIC personnel. May 1993.
19. Fast, Low-Cost Water and Soil Analysis for Aromatics
and Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Hnu-Hanby Environmental
Field Test Kits. HNU Systems Inc. Marketing Brochure.
1993.
20. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program: Technology Profiles, Fifth Edition. EPA/540/R-
92/077, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November
1992.
21. Erickson, M. Analytical Chemistry for PCBs, Second
Edition. McGraw and Hill. 1992. pp. 63-89.
22. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA:
ThermalDesorption Remedy Selection, Interim Guidance.
EPA/540/R-92/074a, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. September 1992.
23. Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview.
OSWER Directive 9380.3-02FS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1987.
24. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under
CERCLA: Final. EPA/540/R-92/071 a, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 1992.
25. Issues Affecting the Applicability and Success of
Remedial/Removal Incineration Projects. Superfund
/Engineering Issue. EPA/540/2-91 /004, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. February 1991.
26. Considerations for Evaluating the Impact of Metals
Partitioning During the Incineration of Contaminated Soils
from Superfund Sites. Superfund Engineering Issue.
EPA/540/5-92/014,U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.
September 1992.
27. Shirco Infrared Incineration System, Applications
Analysis Report. EPA/540/A5-89/010,U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. June 1989.
28. Gupta, G., A. Sherman, and A. Gangadharan. Hazardous
Waste Incineration: The Process and the
Regulatory/Institutional Hurdles. Foster Wheeler
Enviresponse, Inc., Livingston, NJ. (undated).
29. Record Of Decision database. Print out of Abstracts for
PCBs in Soil and Sediment in FY90 and 91. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1993.
30. ROD Annual Report FY1990. EPA/540/8-91/067, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. July 1991.
31. Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program
Demonstration Test, Shirco Pilot-Scale Infrared
Incineration System at the Rose Township Demode Road
Superfund Site, Volume I. EPA/540/5-89/007a, U.S.
EnvironmentalProtection Agency. April 1989.
32. Conversations between SAIC and EPA personnel. June
1993.
24 Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
33. Technology Evaluation Report SITE Program
Demonstration Test, Shirco Infrared Incineration System,
Peak Oil, Brandon, Flonda. EPA/540/5-88/002a, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. September 1988.
34. Thermal Desorption Treatment. Engineering Bulletin.
EPA/540/2-91/008,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
May 1991.
35. Abrisharnian, R. Thermal Treatment of Refinery Sludges
and Contaminated Soils. Presented at American Petroleum
Institute Meetings. Orlando, Florida. 1990.
36. T.D.I. Services, Marketing Brochures. Circa 1990.
37. Swanstrom, C., and C. Palmer. X*TRAX™ Transportable
Thermal Separator for Organic Contaminated Solids.
Presented at Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. May 1990.
38. Canonie Environmental Services Corp., Low Temperature
Thermal Aeration (LTTA®)Marketing Brochures. Circa
1990.
39. Innovative Treatment Technologies. Send-Annual Status
Report (Fourth Edition). EP A/5 42/R-92/011, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. October 1992.
40. Soil Tech, Inc., AOSTRA - Taciuk Processor Marketing
Brochure. Circa 1990.
41. Ritcey, R., and F. Schwartz. Anaerobic Pyrolysis of Waste
Solids and Sludges - The AOSTRA Taciuk Process
System. Presented at Environmental Hazards Conference
and Exposition. Seattle, Washington. May 1990.
42. Applications Analysis Report Wide Beach Development
Site and Outboard Marine Corporation Site. Anaerobic
Thermal Processor. Soil Tech ATP Systems, Inc. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, (Final Draft). 1993. Paul
dePercin,EPA Technical Project Manager, (513) 569-7797'.
43. Rogers, C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Personnal communication of June 28,1993.
44. Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP).
Technical Data Sheet. U.S. Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Fort Hueneme, CA, undated.
45. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment.
Engineering Bulletin. EPA/540/2-90/015, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. September 1990.
46. Kernel, A. Memorandum to C. Rogers. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. November 3,1992.
47. Raghavan, R., D. Dietz, and E. Coles. Cleaning Excavated
Soil Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-art Review.
EPA/600/2-89/034,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
Edison, NJ. December 1988.
48. Rowe, G. Evaluation of Treatment Technologies for Listed
Petroleum Refinery Wastes, Chapter 4. API Waste
Technologies Task Force, Washington, D.C. December
1987.
49. Applications Analysis Report, CF Systems Organics
Extraction Process, New Bedford Harbor, MA.
EPA/540/A5-90/002, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. August 1990.
50. Applications Analysis Report. Resources Conservation
Company, Inc. B.E.S.T® Solvent Extraction Technology.
EPA/540/AR-92/079. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. June 1993.
51. Soil Washing Treatment. Engineering Bulletin. EPA/
540/2-90/017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
September 1990.
52. Applications Analysis Report Bergmann USA.
Soil/Sediment Washing Technology. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. (Preliminary Draft). January 1993. S.
Jackson Hubbard, EPA Technical Project Manager, (513)
569-7507.
53. Superfund LDR Guide #6A: Obtaining a Soil and Debris
Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions. OSWER
Directive 9347.3-06FS, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. July 1989.
54. Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics.
Engineering Bulletin. EPA/SC/S-92/015, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. February 1993.
55. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCL A:
Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy Screening, Interim
Guidance. EPA/540/2-91/013A, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. July 1991.
56. Microbial Decomposition of Chlorinated Aromatic
Compounds. EPA/600/2-86/090, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. September 1986.
57. Abromowicz, et al. 1991 In Situ Hudson River Research
Study: A Field Study on Biodegradation of PCBs in
Hudson River Sediments - Final Report. General Electric
Company. February 1992.
58. Slurry Biodegradation Engineering Bulletin. EP A/540/2 -
90/016,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September
1990.
59. In Situ Vitrification Treatment. Engineering Bulletin
(Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993.
Eugene Harris, EPA Technical Project Monitor, (513) 569-
7862.
60. Fitzpatrick, V., C. Timmerman, and J. Buetl. In Situ
Vitrification: An Innovative Thermal Treatment
Technology. In: Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste
Management. EPA/600/9-87/018F, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1987. pp. 305-322.
61. Handbook: Vitrification Technologies for Treatment of
Hazardous and Radioactive Waste. EPA/625/R-92/002,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1992.
62. Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste
Materials. Technical Resource Document.
EPA/530/R93/012, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
June 1993.
63. Fate of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Soil
Following Stabilization with Quicklime. EPA/600/2-91/052,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1991.
64. VISITT Database, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1993.
Technology Alternatives for the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
25
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/540/S-93/506
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 Q:
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
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
------- |