«EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, PC 20460
Off ice of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 4§2$8
Superfund
October 1994
Engineering Bulletin
In Situ Vitrification
• -\ •.
Treatment
Purpose
Section 121(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to select remedies
that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maxi-
mum extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions ;n
which treatment "permanently and significantly reduces the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances pollut-
ants and contaminants as a principal element " The Engineer-
ing Bulletins are a series of documents that summarize tl le latest
information available on selected treatment and site remedia-
tion technologies and related issues. They provide summaries
of and references for the latest information to help remedial
project managers, on-scene coordinators, contractors, and
other site cleanup managers understand the type of data and
site characteristics needed to evaluate a technology fot poten-
tial applicabittty to their Superfund or other hazardous waste
site. Those documents that describe individual treatment
technologies focus on remedial investigation scoping needs.
Addenda will be issued periodically to update the original
bulletins.
Abstract
In situ vitrification (ISV) uses electrical power to heat and
melt soil, sludge, mine tailings, buried wastes, and sediments
contaminated with organic, inorganic, and metal-bearing haz-
ardous wastes. The molten material cools to form a hard,
monolithic, chemically inert, stable glass and crystalline prod-
uct that incorporates and immobilizes the thermally stable
inorganic compounds and heavy metals in the hazardous
waste. The slag product material is glass-like with very low
leaching characteristics.
Organic 'wastes are initially vaporized or pyrolyzecf by the
process. These contaminants migrate to the surface where the
majority are then burned within a hood covering the treatment
area; the remainder are treated in an off gas treatment system.
ISV uses a square array of four electrodes that are inserted
into the surface of the ground. Electrical power is applied to the
electrodes which, through a starter path of graphite and glass
* [reference number, page number]
frit, establish an electric current in the soil. The electric current
generates heat and melts the starter path and the soil; typical
soil melt temperature is 2,900°F to 3,600°F. An electrode feed
system (EPS) drives the electrodes in the soil as the molten mass
continues to grow downward and outward until the melt zone
reaches the desired depth and width. The process is repeated
in square arrays until the desired volume of soil has been
vitrified. The process can typically treat up to 1,000 tons of
material in one melt setting.
ISV technology has been under development and testing
since 1980 [1, p. 1 ]*. ISV was developed originally for possible
application to soils contaminated with radioactive materials. In
this application, trans-uranium radionuclides are incorporated
in the vitrified mass. At this time there is only one vendor of
commercially available in situ vitrification systems. The
technology description, status, and performance data are
quoted from the published work of this vendor.
ISV is the proposed remediation technology at eight sites,
six of which are EPA Superfund sites [2] [3]. Full-scale units have
been constructed. Even so, the technology should be consid-
ered emerging in its full-scale application to Superfund sites.
EPS mechanisms have recently been developed for pilot- and
full-scale systems. This bulletin provides information on the
technology applicability, limitations, the types of residuals
produced, the latest performance data, site requirements, the
status of the technology, and sources for further information.
Site-specific treatability studies are the best means of
establishing the applicability and projecting the likely perfor-
mance of an ISV system. Determination of whether ISV is the
best treatment alternative will be based on multiple site-specific
factors, cost, and effectiveness. The EPA Contact indicated at
the end of this bulletin can assist in the location of other
contacts and sources of information necessary for such treat-
ability studies.
Technology Applicability
ISV has been reported to be effective in treating a large
variety of organic and inorganic wastes based on the results of
engineering- and pilot-scale tests. The technology also has
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
proven effectiveness in treating radioactive wastes based on the
results of full-scale tests. Radioactive wastes and sludges,
contaminated soils and sediments, incinerator ashes, industrial
wastes and sludges, medical wastes, mine tailings, and
underground storage tank waste can all potentially be vitrified
[4, p. 4-1].
Organic contaminants at concentrations of 5 to 10 perce? it
by weight and inorganic contaminants at concentrations of 5
to 15 percent by weight are generally acceptable for 15V
treatment [5, p. 1 3]. The effectiveness of the ISV technology on
treating various contaminants in soil, sludge, and sediments is
given in Table 1. Examples of constituents within contaminant
groups are provided in the "Technology Screening Guide for
Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges" [6]. Table 1 is based
on current available information or professional judgment
where no information was available. The proven effectiveness
of the technology for a particular site or waste does not ensure
that it will be effective at all sites or that the treatment levels
achieved will be acceptable at other sites. For the ratings used
for this table, demonstrated effectiveness means that at some
scale, treatability tests have shown that the technology was
effective for that particular contaminant and matrix. The
ratings of potential effectiveness or no expected effectiveness
are both based upon expert opinion. Where potential effective-
ness is indicated, the technology is believed capable of success-
fully treating the contaminant group in a particular matrix. The
technology is expected to work for all contaminant groups
listed.
ISV processing requires that sufficient glass-forming ma-
terials (e.g., silicon and aluminum oxides) be present within the
waste materials to form and support a high-temperature melt.
To form a melt, sufficient (typically 2 to 5 percent) monovalent
alkali cations (e.g., sodium and potassium) must be present to
provide the degree of electrical conductivity needed for the
process to operate efficiently. If the natural material does not
meet this requirement, fluxing materials such as sodium car-
bonate can be added to the base material. Typically, these
conditions are met by most soils, sediments, tailings, and
process sludges.
Differences in soil characteristics such as permeability and
density generally do not affect overall chemical composition of
the soil or the ability to use ISV. In many site locations, the soil
profile may be stratified and present nonuniform characteristics
that can affect the melt rate and dimensions of the vitrified
Before applying the ISV technology, soil stratification
mass.
must be defined so that it may be factored into the remedial
design.
Table 1
Effectiveness of ISV on General Contaminant
Groups for Soil, Sludges, and Sediments
Contaminant Groups
"c
a
2»
o
o
r
•active
oc
Halogenated volatiles
Halogenated semivolatiles
Nonhalogenated volatiles
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Pesticides (halogenated)
Dioxins/Furans
Organic cyanides
Organic corrosives
Volatile metals
Nonvolatile metals
Asbestos
Radioactive materials
Inorganic corrosives
Inorganic cyanides
Oxidizers
Reducers
Effectiveness
Soil Sludge Sediments
V
T
T
V
T
T
V
T
T
T
T
V
•
•
T
V
T
T
T
T
V
V
T
T
V
T
V
T
•
•
T
T
T
T
T
T
m Demonstrated Effectiveness: Successful treatability test at
some scale has been completed
T Potential Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology will
work
D No Expected Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology
will not work
[
Limitations
The ISV process can treat soils saturated with water;
however, additional power is used to dry the soil prior to
melting and may increase the cost of remediation by 10
percent. ISV is more economical to implement when the soil to
be vitrified has a low moisture content. Progression of a melt
into saturated soil enclosed in a container can result in a
gaseous steam release that can cause the molten glass to
spatter.
When treating a contaminated zone in an aquifer, it may
be necessary to lower the water table below the zone of
contamination in order to vitrify to the desired depth. Alterna-
tively, a hydraulic barrier (e.g., slurry wall) could be placed
upstream of the contamination to divert the aquifer flow
around the treatment zone. Treatment in a water-saturated
zone may result in movement of some of the contaminants
from the treatment zone to surrounding areas, thereby reduc-
ing the amount of contaminants being destroyed, immobi-
lized, or removed.
The maximum ISV depth obtainable is influenced by
several factors, including spacing between electrodes, amount
of power available, variations in soil composition and gradation
between different strata, depth to groundwater, soil perme-
ability within an aquifer, surface heat loss during ISV, and waste
and soil density. To date, treatment depths of only 19 feet have
been demonstrated [4, p. 7-6].
The presence of large inclusions in the area to be treated
can limit the use of the ISV process. Inclusions are highly
concentrated contaminant layers, void volumes, containers,
rnetal scrap, general refuse, demolition debris, rock, or other
heterogeneous materials within the treatment volume. Figure
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Vitrification Treatment
-------
1 gives limits for inclusions within the treatment volume [7, p.
17]. If massive void spaces exist, a large subsidence could result
in a very short time period. These problems, as well as those
caused by other large inclusions, may be detected by ground
penetrometry or other geologic investigations. Some inclu-
sions such as void volumes, containers, and solid combustible
refuse can potentially generate gases. However, the oversized
hooding is intended to control and mitigate any release. If large
volumes of offgases are generated during a short time period,
the off gas treatment system may overload, Vitrification of
flammable or explosive objects can result in spattering of the
molten glass. Underground storage tanks can be treated only
if they are filled with soil prior to the vitrification process.
Sampling and analysis of the glass matrix produced by ISV
is difficult and must be carefully planned prior to conducting a
treatability study or site remediation. Current EPA digestion
methods for metal analyses are not designed to dissolve the
glass matrix. The metal concentration measured by •.» standard
nitric/hydrochloric acid digestion (SW 846, Method 3050) will
likely be highly dependent on the particle size of the material
prior to digestion. The digestion specified will not dissolve glass
but will leach some metals from the exposed surfaces. Closure
of mass balance for the system, therefore, can often oe incom-
plete. However, a recently developed digestion met iod using
hydrofluoric acid with microwave digestion has beer known to
improve metal analysis for this type of matrix.
Technology Description
Several methods and configurations exist for the applica-
tion of ISV. At a site that has only a relatively shallow layer of
contamination, the contaminated layer may be excavated and
transported to a pit where the vitrification will take place. At
other sites where the contamination is much deeper, thermal
barriers could be placed along the site to be vitrified and
prevent the movement of heat and glass into adjacent areas.
This will force the heat energy downward and melt depths will
be increased.
This bulletin describes the more conventional approach to
using ISV; a checkerboard pattern of melts is used to encapsu-
late the waste and control the potential for lateral migration.
The holes in the checkerboard are then vitrified to complete the
remediation of the site.
Figure 2 shows a typical ISV equipment layout. ISV uses a
square array of electrodes up to 18 feet apart, which is inserted
to a depth of 1 to 5 feet and potentially can treat down to a
depth of 20 feet to remediate a contaminated area. A full-scale
system can remediate at a rate of 3 to 5 tons per hour [4, p. 3-
6] until a maximum mass of 800 to 1,000 tons has been treated.
Since soil is not electrically conductive once the moisture has
been driven off, a conductive mixture of flaked graphite and
glass frit is placed between the electrodes to act as a starter
path, as shown in Figure 3. Power is supplied to the electrodes,
which establishes an electrical current in the starter path. The
resultant power heats the starter path and surrounding soil up
to 3,600°F, which is well above the melting temperature of
typical soils (2,000°F to 2,600°F). The graphite starter path
eventually is consumed by oxidation and the current is trans-
ferred to the soil which is electrically conductive in the molten
state. A typical downward growth rate is 1 to 2 inches per hour.
The thermal gradient surrounding the melt is typically 300°F to
480°F per inch. As the vitrified zone grows, it incorporates
metals and either vaporizes or pyrolizes organic contaminants.
The pyrolyzed products migrate to the surface of the vitrified
zone, where they may oxidize in the presence of oxygen. A
hood placed over the processing area is used to collect combus-
Figure 1
General Limits for Inclusion Within Volume to Be Treated
Figure 2
ISV Equipment System
Electrodes
Void
Volumes
(individual
<150cu-ft)
Rubble
(10-20wt%)
Metal (5-15 wt%)
Combustible
Soli-is
(5-10wt%)
Combustible
- Packages
{individual
<30 eu-ft)
\
Continuous Metal
(<90% distance
between
electrodes)
Off-Gas Hood
Controlled Air Input
Utility or Dtoaal-
Generatad
Powar
Clean Emissions
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Vitrification Treatment
-------
Figure 3
Stages of ISV Processing
Graphite and Glass
Frit Starter Path
Electrodes to
Desired Depth
Subsidence
Backfill Over
Completed
Monolith
Contaminated
Soil Region
Natural Soil
Vitrified Monolith
tion gases, which are treated in an offgas treatment system.
As the melt grows downward and outward, power is
maintained at sufficient levels to overcome the heat losses to
the hood and surrounding soil. Generally, the melt grows
outward to form a melt width approximately 50 percent wider
than the electrode spacing. This growth varies as a function c I
electrode spacing and melt depth. The molten zone is roughly
a square with slightly rounded corners, a shape that reflects the
higher power density around the electrodes. As the melt grow s
in size, the electrical resistance of the melt decreases; thus, the
ratio between the voltage and the current must be adjusted
periodically to maintain operation at an acceptable power
level.
The EF S, now an integral part of all operations, enhances
the ability of ISV to treat soils containing high concentrations of
metal. In EFS operations, the electrodes are independently fed
to the molten soil as the melt proceeds downward instead of
being placed in the soil prior to the startup of the test. The
system improves processing control at sites with high concen-
trations of metal. For example, upon encountering a full or
partial electrical short, the affected electrodes are simply raised
and held above the molten metal pool at the bottom of the
melt. During this time, the melt continues to grow downward.
The electrodes can then be reinserted into the melt to the r
original depth and resume electrode feeding operations. These
advances have been incorporated into the pilot- and the full
scale ISV systems [8].
The treatment area is covered by a newly designed octag
onal-shaped offgas collection hood with a maximum distance
of 60 feet between the sides. The hood has three manual
viewing ports and provision for video monitoring or recording.
The hood is connected to an offgas treatment trailer and i
backup offgas treatment system. During the process, the
offgases are drawn by a 1,850 standard cubic feet per minute
(scfm) blower into the trailer, Flow of air through the hood is
controlled to maintain a vacuum of 0.5 to 2,0 inches H2O on the
system. The offgas temperatures are typically 210°F to 750°:
when they enter the treatment system. The gases are then
treated by quenching, scrubbing, mist-elimination, heating,
particulate filtration, and activated carbon adsorption. The
backup offgas treatment system is used in the event of a power
outage and is powered by a diesel generator. The backup
system is designed to treat gases that may evolve from the melt
until power is restored to the process and electrodes [9].
Process Residuals
The main process residual produced during operation of
the ISV technology is the vitrified soil itself. The vitrified
monolith is Seft in place after treatment due to its nonhazardous
nature. The volume of the ISV product formed generally is 20
to 45 percent less than the initial volume treated. Because of
the volume reduction during processing, it is covered with
clean backfill. It is possible, however, to excavate and remove
the vitrified soil in smaller pieces if onsite disposal is not
acceptable at a given site.
Typically, the residual product from soil applications has
a compressive strength approximately 5 to 20 times greater
and a tensile strength approximately 7 to 11 times greater than
unreinforced concrete [4, p. 5-3]. It is usually not affected by
either wet/dry or freeze/thaw cycling [10, p. 3]. Existing data
indicate that the vitrified mass is devoid of residual organic* and
passes EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
test criteria for priority pollutant metals. The ISV residual also
has been found to have acceptable biotoxicity relative to near-
surface life forms [11, p. 79]. The clean backfill can be used to
revegetate the site or other end uses.
After processing for a period of time, the scrubber water,
filters, and activated carbon may contain sufficient contami-
nants to warrant treatment or disposal. Typical treatment
includes passing the contaminated scrubber water through a
filter, settling chamber, and activated carbon, then either
reusing the water or discharging it into a sanitary sewer. The
activated carbon, filter, and the solids from the settling cham-
ber can then be placed in an ISV setting for vitrification. In this
way, the destruction/chemical incorporation of contaminants
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Vitrification Treatment
-------
collected in the offgas treatment system is maximized. Only
residuals resulting from the last setting at a site must be treated
arid disposed of by means other than ISV.
Site Requirements
The components of the ISV system are contained in three
transportable trailers: an offgas and process control trailer; a
support trai ler; and an electrical trailer. The trailers are mounted
on wheels sufficient for transportation to and over a compacted
ground surface [12, p. 307].
The site must be prepared for the mobilization, operation,
maintenance, and demobilization of the equipment An area
must be cleared for heavy equipment access roads, automobile
and truck parking lots, ISV equipment, setup areas, electrical
generator, equipment sheds, and workers' quarters
The field-scale ISV equipment system requires three-phase
electric power at either 12,500 or 13,800 volts, which is usually
taken from a utility distribution system [1 3, p. 2]. At startup the
technology requires high voltage (up to 4,000 volts) to over-
come the resistance of the soil, and a current of approximately
400 amps. The soil resistance decreases as the melt pt ogresses,
so that by the end of the process, the voltage decreases to
approximately 400 volts and the current, increases up to
approximately 4,000 amps [4, p. 3-6], Alternatively, the power
may be generated onsite by means of a diesel generator.
Typical applications require 800 kilowatt hour/ton (kWh/ton)
to l,OOOkWh/ton.
Spent activated carbon, scrubber water, or other process
waste materials may be hazardous, and the handling of these
materials requires that a site safety plan be developed to
provide for personnel protection and special handling mea-
sures. Storage should be provided to hold these wastes until
they have been tested to determine their acceptability for
disposal, release, or recycling to subsequent ISV melts Storage
capacity will depend on the waste volume generated,
Site activities such as clearing vegetation, removing over-
burden, and acquiring backfill material are often necessary.
These activities are generally advantageous from a financial
point of view. For example, the cost of removal of the
top portion of clean soil would generally be much less than
the cost for labor and energy to vitrify the same volume of soil
[4, p. 9-6].
Performance Data
Performance data presented in this bulletin should not be
considered directly applicable to other Superfund sites. A
number of variables such as the specific mix and distribution of
contaminants affect system performance. A thorough charac-
terization oif the site and a well-designed and conducted
treatability study are highly recommended.
The performance data currently available are rom the
process developer. ISV has been developed through four scales
of equipment: 1) bench (5 to 20 pounds); 2) engineering (50
to 2,000 pounds); 3) pilot (10 to 50 tons); and 4) full (500 to
1,000 tons). The values in parentheses are typical masses of
vitrified products resulting from a single setting at the various
scales. Several tests have been performed at each scale and on
a variety of contaminated media.
An engineering-scale test was performed on loamy-clay
soil containing 500 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs. Figure 4
gives the final concentrations of PCBs (in ppm) in and around
the vitrified block upon completion of the test [1 3, p. 4-3]. This
figure indicates that migration of PCBs outside the vitrified
block is not a significant concern. Data from offgas emissions
and soil container smears accounted for 0.05 percent by weight
of the initial PCB quantity, which corresponds to a greater than
99.9 percent destruction efficiency (DE) for the ISV process.
This DE does not include the removal efficiency of the offgas
treatment system. Activated carbon has a 99.9 percent effi-
ciency and can remove any of these offgas emissions effectively.
Overall, the destruction removal efficiency (ORE) range for the
combined ISV and offgas system is between 6 and 9 nines
which is greater than the 6 nines DRE required by 40 CFR
761.70 for PCB incinerators. Analysis of the offgas also indi-
cated the presence of small quantities of polychlorinated
Figure 4
Vitrified Block and Surrounding Soil Sample
Positions and PCB Concentrations
Depth
(inches)
Or-
10
15
20
25
30
35 -
40 -
1.23
<0.004
Subsidence
Cavtty <
\"'03B-/
\ f\ HQ /
0.005
Initial PCB
Soil Position
0.08 0.008 <0.004
0 05 0.002 <0.004
010 0.07
<0.004
Blank Soil
<0.004 to 0.09
0.07
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Vitrification Treatment
-------
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzof urans
(PCDFs). However,, the levels reported (0.1 \ig/L and 0.4 |j,g/
L, respectively) can be removed by the offgas treatment system.
An engineering-scale test on PCB-contaminated sediments
from New Bedford Harbor [4, p, 4-2] gave a similar DE (99.9999
percent) for the ISV process before additional treatment by the
offgas treatment system. During feasibility testing of PCB-
contaminated soil from a Spokane, Washington site, a DE
greater than 99.993 percent arid a ORE greater than 99.99999
percent were obtained [14]. During engineering-scale testing
of vitrification of simulated wastes from the Hanford Engineer-
ing Development Laboratory, a DRE of greater than 99.99
percent was obtained for a variety of organic contaminants
[15].
An engineering-scale test was performed on Idaho Na-
tional Engineering Laboratory spiked soil at the Pacific North-
west Laboratory. The soil was spiked with eight heavy metals
(Ag, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, and Se) to 0.02 percent by weight
except for lead which was spiked at 0.2 percent by weight [16 j.
The test results for metals concentrations in the leach extract
and maximum concentration limits established by EPA a e
given in Table 2.
Feasibility testing was conducted using the bench-scale
I SV equipment to treat a sample of soil from the old Jacksonville,
Arkansas water treatment plant [17]. This soil was contaminai -
ed with 2,3,7,8-tetrachloirodibenzo-p-dioxin and placed in a 5-
gallon can with a Pyrex-plate lid. Analytical results did not
detect any dioxin or furan in the vitrified material or in the
offgas. Based on analytical detection limits, the DE was greater
than 99.995 percent prior to entry into the offgas treatment
system.
Ten thousand kilograms of an industrial sludge heavily
Table 2
TCLP Extract Metal Concentrations
Idaho National Engineering Lab Soils
Metal
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Maximum
Allowable
Leachate
Concentration
(mg/L)
5.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
Contaminated
Soil
Concentration
(mg/kg)
200
200
200
200
2000
200
200
200
Vitrified Product
Leachate
Concentration
(mg/L)
<0.168
0.229
0.0098
0.01 78
0.636
<0.0001
0.098
<0.023
1
laden with zirconia and lime was vitrified successfully by the
pilot-scale I SV process. The sludge contained 55 to 70 percent
moisture by weight. The volume was observed to be reduced
significantly (more than one-third of original volume) after the
testing [18, p. 29]. Analysis of the offgas and the scrubber water
showed that the melt retained between 98 and 99 percent of
the fluorides, chlorides, and sulfates. Analysis indicated that the
destruction of organic carbon was good and that ISV was
effective in promoting nitrogen oxide (NOX) destruction. This
result minimizes the concern for environmental impact.
Soil from a fire training pit contaminated with fuel oils and
heavy metals was bench-scale tested at the Arnold Engineering
Development Center in Tennessee [19]. Results of initial testing
and analyses of the soil indicated that an electrically-conduct-
ing fluxing agent (such as sodium carbonate) with a lower
melting point was required as an addition to the soil for ISV
processing to work effectively. The onsite pilot-scale process
achieved a high destruction of organics (greater than 98
percent) and high retention of inorganics in the melt. Leach
testing using Extraction Procedure Toxicity (EP-Tox) and TCLP
tests showed that all metals of concern were below maximum
permissible limits. The tests indicate that the fluxing agent
should be distributed throughout the entire vitrification depth
for optimum operation.
Technology Status
The only vendor supplying commercial systems for in situ
vitrification of hazardous wastes is Geosafe Corporation. Geosafe
is under a sublicense from the process developer, Battelle
Memorial Institute. Four scales of units are in operation ranging
from bench-scale to full-scale.
To date, only bench-, engineering-, and pilot-scale test
results are available on in situ vitrification of hazardous wastes.
Full-scale tests have been completed only on radioactive wastes.
Table 3 indicates several sites where I SV has been selected as the
remedial action [2].
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. During this time,
Geosafe completed analytical, modeling, and engineering-
scale testing to allow confident design; defined necessary
process revisions; finalized design and fabrication of a new
metal offgas collection hood; and performed additional opera-
tional acceptance testing to demonstrate the capabilities of the
equipment and operational procedures [20]. The new offgas
collection hood design is composed entirely of metal rather
than high-temperature fabric, which was previously used. The
new design is heavier than the fabric hood, but is capable of
being transported by the same equipment.
Cost estimates for this technology range from $300 to
$650 per ton of contaminated soil treated. The most significant
factor influencing cost is the depth of the soil to be treated. High
6
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Vitrification Treatment
-------
Table 3
Selected Sites Specifying ISV as the Remedial Action
Site
Primary Contaminants
Status
Parsons Chemical
Ionia City Landfill
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Wasatch Chemical
Soil: 2,000 cubic yards (yd3)
Soil with debris: 5,000 yd3
(15 feet deep)
Soil: 4,600 yd3 (10 feet deep)
Sludge: 5,800 yd3 (10 feet
deep)
Soil: 3,600 yd3 (5 feet
deep) sludge, solids
Transformer Service Facility/ Soil: 3,500 tons
TSCA Demonstration
Arnold AFB, Site 10
Crab Orchard
Wildlife Refuge
Soil with debris: 10,000 tons
Soil: 40,000 tons
Anderson Development Soil: 4,000 ton-
Biocides (pesticides), dioxins,
metals (mercury)
Volatile organic compounds
(methylene chloride, TCA,
styrene, toluene), metals (lead)
Biocides (pesticides), metals
(arsenic, mercury)
Semivolatile organic compounds
(hexachlorobenzene, penta-
chlorophenol), biocides (pesti-
cides), dioxins
PCBs
Mixed organics, heavy metals
PCBs and lead
4,4'-rnethylene bis
(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA)
Site preparation
Treatability testing
Remedial design
Remedial design
Site preparation
Site preparation
Predesign
Predesign
moisture content requires that additional energy be i ised to dry
out the soil! before the melting process can begin, thus increas-
ing the cost. Other factors that influence the cost of remedia-
tion by ISV are: the amount of site preparation required;
the specific properties of the contaminated soil (e.g., dry
density); the required depth of processing; and the unit price
of electricity.
EPA Contact
Technology-specific questions regarding ISV may be
directed to:
Ms. Teri Richardson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513)569-7949
Acknowledgments
This bulletin was prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD),
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio,
by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) un-
der Contract No. 68-CO-0048. Mr. Eugene Harris served as the
EPA Technical Project Monitor. Mr. Jim Rawe was SAIC's Work
Assignment Manager. Dr. Trevor Jackson (SAIC) was the
primary author. The author is especially grateful to Ms. Teri
Richardson of EPA-RREL, who contributed significantly by serv-
ing as a technical consultant during the development of this
document.
The following other Agency and contractor personnel
have contributed their time and comments by participating in
the expert review meetings or peer reviews of the document:
Mr. Edward Bates
Mr. Briant Charboneau
Mr. Kenton Oma
Mr. Eric Saylor
EPA-RREL
Wastren, Inc.
Eckenfelder, Inc.
SAIC
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Vitrification Treatment
•&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994 550-067/H0280
-------
REFERENCES
1 Geosafe Corporation. In Situ Vitrification for Permanent
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. Presented at Advances
in Separations; A Focus on Electrotechnologies for Prod-
ucts and Waste, Battelle, Columbus, 1989.
2. Innovative Treatment Technologies, Semi-Annual Stati s
Report (Fourth Edition). EPA/542/R-92/011, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, October 1992.
3. Conversations with Hansen, J. of Geosafe April 19
1993.
4. Vitrification Technologies for Treatment of Hazardous
and Radioactive Waste. EPA/625/R-92/002, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, May 1992.
5. Geosafe Corporation. Application and Evaluation Con-
siderations for In Situ Vitrification Technology: A Treat
ment Process for Destruction and/or Permanent
Immobilization of Hazardous Materials. April 1989
6. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA
Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1988. pp. 55-60.
7. FitzPatrick, V.F., and j.E. Hansen. In Situ Vitrification for
Remediation of Hazardous Wastes. Presented at 2nd
Annual HazMat Central Conference, Chicago Illinois
1989.
8. Farnsworth, R.K., K.H. Orna, and C.E, Bigelow. Initial
Tests on In Situ Vitrification Using Electrode Feeding
Techniques. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Ener-
gy, under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830, 1990,
9. In Situ Vitrification Technology Update. Geosafe Corpo
ration. November 1992.
10. Hansen, J.E., C.L Timmerman, and S.C. Liikala. Status
of In Situ Vitrification Technology: A Treatment Process
for Destruction and/or Permanent Immobilization. In:
Proceedings of Annual HazMat Management Confer-
ence International, Atlantic City, New Jersey, 1990 pp
317-330.
11. Greene, J.C., et al. Comparison of Toxicity Results Ob-
tained from Eluates Prepared from Non-Stabilized and
12.
13.
Stabilized Waste Site Soils. In: Proceedings of the 5th
National Conference on Hazardous Wastes and Hazard-
ous Materials, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1988. pp. 77-80.
FitzPatrick, V.F., C.L Timmerman, and J.L Buelt. In Situ
Vitrification - An Innovative Thermal Treatment Technol-
ogy. Proceedings: Second International Conference on
New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management. EPA/
600/9-87/018F, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1987. pp. 305-322.
Timmerman, C.L. In Situ Vitrification Of PCB Contami-
nated Soils. EPRI CS-4839. Electric Power Research Insti-
tute, Palo Alto, California, 1986.
14. Timmerman, C.L. Feasibility Testing of In Situ Vitrifica-
tion of PCB-Contarninated Soil from a Spokane, WA
Site. Prepared for Geosafe Corporation, Kirkland, Wash-
ington, under Contract 14506, 1989.
Koegler, S.S. Disposal of Hazardous Wastes by In Situ
Vitrification. Prepared for the U.S. Department of En-
ergy, under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830, 1987.
Farnsworth, R.K., et al. Engineering-Scale Test: No, 4: In
Situ Vitrification of Toxic Metals and Volatile Organics
Buried in INEL Soils. Prepared for the U.S. Department
of Energy, under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830, 1991.
17. Mitchell, S.j. In Situ Vitrification of Dioxin Contaminat-
ed Soils. Prepared for American Fuel and Power Corpo-
ration, Panama City, Florida, under Contract
2311211874, 1987.
18. Buelt, J.L., and ST. Freim. Demonstration of In Situ Vit-
rification for Volume Reduction of Zirconia/Lime Slud-
ges. Prepared for Teledyne Wah Chang, Albany,
Oregon, under Contract 2311205327, 1986.
19. Timmerman, C.L. Feasibility Testing of In Situ Vitrifica-
tion of Arnold Engineering Development Center Con-
taminated Soils. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Energy, under Subcontract DE-AC05-84OR21400, 1989.
20. Correspondence from Geosafe Corp. to Mr. Edward R.
Bates (RREL), September 17, 1991.
15.
16.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/S-94/504
------- |