&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/540/SR-93/508
March 1994
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Technology Demonstration
Summary
EPA RREL's Mobile Volume
Reduction Unit
A Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) demonstration of the
mobile Volume Reduction Unit (VRU)
was conducted in November 1992 at
the Escambia Wood Treating Company
Superfund Site in Pensacola, FL. The
VRU is a soil washing technology that
may be used to rid soils of organic
contaminants. The VRU is designed to
remove contaminants by suspending
them in a wash solution and by reduc-
ing the volume of contaminated mate-
rial through particle size separation.
For the SITE demonstration, the VRU
was used to treat soil contaminated
with wood-treating agents, pentachlo-
rophenol (PCP) and creosote-fraction
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Demonstration test results indi-
cate that the VRU soil washing system
successfully separated the contami-
nated soil into two unique streams:
washed soil and fines slurry. The
washed soil was safely returned to the
site following treatment. The fines
slurry, Which carried the majority of
the pollutants from the feed soil, un-
derwent additional treatment to sepa-
rate the fines from the water.
An economic analysis was conducted
to estimate costs for a commercial
treatment system using the VRU tech-
nology. This analysis was based on
the pilot-scale results from the SITE
demonstration. The economic analysis
was developed for a commercial unit
projected to be capable of treating ap-
proximately 10 tons per hour (tph) of
contaminated soil. The cost to
remediate 20,000 tons of contaminated
soil using this commercial unit is esti-
mated to be $130 per ton if the system
is online 90% of the time. Treatment
costs appear to be competitive with
other available technologies.
This Summary was developed by EPA's
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH, to announce key findings
of the SITE program demonstration that is
fully documented in two separate reports.
(see ordering information on back).
Introduction
In response to the Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act of 1986,
EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment and Office of Solid Waste and Emer-
gency Response have established the
SITE Program to accelerate the develop-
ment, demonstration, and use of new or
innovative technologies as alternatives to
current treatment systems for hazardous
wastes.
-------
The major objective of the SITE Pro-
gram is to develop reliable performance
and cost information for innovative tech-
nologies. One such technology is EPA's
mobile VRU, which was demonstrated over
a 2-wk period beginning November 5,
1992, and ending November 13, 1992.
The demonstration was conducted at the
Escambia Wood Treating Company
Superfund Site in Pensacoia, FL.
The VRU is a soil washing technology
designed to rid soils of organic contami-
nants through particle size separation and
solubilization. The concept of reducing soil
contamination through the use of particle
size separation is based on the finding
that most organic and inorganic contami-
nants tend to bind to fine clay and silt
particles primarily by physical processes.
Critical and noncritical project objectives
were established to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the process. Critical param-
eters provided data to support project ob-
jectives. Noncritical measurements
provided additional information on the
technology's applicability to other
Superfund sites and allowed observation
and documentation of any process perfor-
mance anomalies. The following were the
critical project objectives:
• Determine the system's ability to re-
move 90% of the PGP and creosote-
fractfon PAH contaminants from the
feed soil.
• Determine the system's ability to re-
turn 80% of the solids in feed soil as
washed soil.
* Perform mass balances on the fol-
lowing:
- Total material: This is the ratio of
the total mass of all output streams
from the soil washing segment of
the VRU to the total mass of all
corresponding input streams.
- Total dry solids: This is the ratio of
the total mass of dry solids in all
output streams from the soil wash-
ing segment of the VRU to the total
mass of dry solids in all correspond-
ing input streams.
- POP: This is the ratio of the total
mass of POP in all output streams
from the soil washing segment of
the VRU to the total mass of PCP
in corresponding input streams.
— PAHs: This is the ratio of the total
mass of PAHs in all output streams
from the soil washing segment of
the VRU to the total mass of PAHs
in all corresponding input streams.
• Verify VRU operating conditions: This
includes measuring the pH of the
wash water, the ratio of surfactant to
wash water, and the temperature.
The noncritical project objectives of this
demonstration were to determine the
technology's general applicability and to
document process performance. The non-
critical project objectives were as follows:
• Determine removal efficiencies of the
unit operations in the water purifica-
tion system.
• Develop operating costs. .
Process and Facility
Description
The demonstration of the VRU was per-
formed at the Escambia Wood Treating
Company Superfund Site located in
Pensacoia, FL. The 26-acre facility, now
closed, used PCP and creosote to treat
wood products from 1943 to 1982. A typi-
cal VRU setup is shown in Figure 1. For
this demonstration, the VRU was com-
posed of two segments: soil washing and
water treatment. The soil washing seg-
ment produces fines slurry and washed
soil streams. The water treatment seg-
ment treats the fines slurry by separating
the fines and removing pollutants from the
wash water through a series of steps in-
cluding sedimentation, flocculation, filtra-
tion, and carbon adsorption.
7n this setup, the soil is fed to the
miniwasher at a controlled rate of approxi-
mately 100 Ib/h by the screw conveyor.
Filtered wash water is added to the soil in
the miniwasher and also sprayed onto an
internal slotted trommel screen [with a 10-
mesh (2-mm) slot opening] in the
miniwasher. Two vibrascreens continu-
ously segregate soil into various size frac-
tions. For the demonstration, 10-mesh (2-
mm) and 100-mesh (0.15-mm) screens
were used.
Miniwasher overflow (the stream exiting
the top of the washer), which contains the
coarse soil fraction, falls onto the first 10-
mesh (2-mm) vibrascreen. Solids that over-
flow the first vibrascreen [less than
1/4 in, greater than 10 mesh (0.15 mm)]
flow by gravity down to a recovery drum.
The underflow (the stream exiting the bot-
tom) is pumped at a controlled rate to the
second 100-mesh (0.15-mm) vibrascreen,
where it is joined by the miniwasher
underflow.
The overflow from the second
vibrascreen [less than 10 mesh (2 mm),
greater than 100 mesh (0.15 mm)] is grav-
ity fed to the recovery drum containing the
overflow from the first vibrascreen. The
second vibrascreen underflow (a fines
slurry) drains into a tank with a mixer.
Slurry from the 100-mesh (0.15-mm)
screen (fines slurry) tank, which contains
particles less than 100 mesh (0.15 mm) in
size, is pumped to the Corrugated Plate
Interceptor (CPI). Materials lighter than
water (floatables such as oil) flow over an
internal weir, collect in a compartment
within the CPI, and drain by gravity to a
drum for disposal. Solids settled in the
CPI [particles less than 100 mesh (0.15
mm)] are discharged by the bottom auger
to a recovery drum.
An aqueous slurry, which contains fines
less than about 400 mesh (0.038 mm),
overflows the CPI and gravity feeds into a
tank with a mixer. The slurry is then
pumped to a static mixer located upstream
of the floe clarifier's mix tank. Flocculating
chemicals, such as liquid alum and aque-
ous polyelectrolyte solutions, are metered
into the static mixer tank to neutralize the
electrostatic charges on colloidal particles
(clay/humus) and promote coagulation.
The slurry is then discharged into the floe
chamber, which has a variable- speed agi-
tator to stimulate floe growth. The floe
slurry overflows into the clarifier (another
CPI). Bottom solids are augured to a drum
for disposal.
Clarified water is polished with the ob-
jective of reducing suspended solids and
organics to low levels that permit recy-
cling of spent wash water. Water is
pumped from the floe settler overflow tank
at a controlled rate through cartridge-type
polishing filters operating in parallel to re-
move soil fines greater than 4 x 10~4 in.
Water leaving the cartridge filter flows
through activated carbon drums for re-
moval of hydrocarbons. The carbon drums
may be operated either in series or paral-
lel. Hydrocarbon breakthrough is moni-
tored by sampling; drums are replaced
when breakthrough is detected.
Feed Soil Characteristics
PAH- and PGP-contaminated soil from
the former Escambia Wood Treating Com-
pany site was excavated and then treated
by the VRU. Contaminant levels in the
excavated soil from the Escambia Wood
Treating Company site ranged from the
low parts per million (ppm) to percent lev-
els. For the SITE demonstration, the ex-
cavated soil was homogenized and manu-
ally processed through a 1/4-in. screen
before it was fed to the VRU. Contami-
nant concentrations in the feed soil after
homogenization and screening are pre-
sented in Table 1.
-------
Table 1. Contaminant Concentrations in the
Feed Soil (ppm, dry weight basis)
Average Range
PAHs
POP
920
130
480 to 1,500
43 to 200
Sampling and Monitoring
During the demonstration, the VRU op-
erated at a feed rate of approximately 100
Ib/h with wash water-to-feed (W/F) ratio of
6 to 1. The physical condition of the wash
water was modified during the demonstra-
tion with combinations of surfactant, caus-
tic, and temperature as follows:
• Condition 1: no surfactant, no pH ad-
justment, no temperature adjustment
• Condition 2: surfactant addition, no
pH adjustment, no temperature ad-
justment
• Condition 3: surfactant addition, pH
adjustment, temperature adjustment
The VRU operated under Conditions 1
and 2 three consecutive times; each run
was 4 hr in duration. On the 7th day of
testing, the generator that supplied the
power to the test site failed, and conse-
quently, testing was terminated and the
data were not used. In order to remain on
schedule and collect an equivalent amount
of data for the third set of conditions, two
6-hr runs were conducted under Condi-
tion 3. Sample collection and flow mea-
surements began when each run reached
steady state. The unit ran for approxi-
mately 1 hr before reaching steady state
conditions. The sampling locations, which
are designated S1, S2, etc., are described
in Table 2.
Results and Discussion
PGP removal efficiency was calculated
for Conditions 1, 2, and 3. Under Condi-
tion 1, the average PCP removal efficiency
was 81%, which is below the project ob-
jective of achieving at least 90%. Under
Condition 2, which employed surfactant
addition only, the average removal effi-
ciency was 93%. This performance ex-
ceeds the project objective and reflects
the surfactant's ability to pull hydrophobic
PCP into the wash water. Under Condi-
tion 3, which employed surfactant addition
and pH and temperature adjustment, 97%
of the PCP was removed. These data
illustrate that the PCP removal efficiency
Water Heater
Makeup Water Tank
Slowdown Tank
Carbon Drums
Emissions Control
Screw Conveyor
Trommel Screen
Mirii-Washer
Screen Soil Fractions
Electric Generator Floc-Clarifier
Filter Package
Figure 1. Typical VRU operational setup.
-------
Table 2. Sampling Locations for VRU Demonstration Test
Process Stream
(Sample Location)
Matrix
Feed Soil (S1)
Feed Water (S2)
Surfactant (S3)
Caustic (S4)
Washed Soil (S5)
Fines Slurry (S6)
Water Floatables (S7)
CPI Fines (S8)
Flocculant Fines (S9)
Clarified Water (S10)
Post-Filtration Water (S11)
Post-Carbon Adsorption Water (S12)
Solid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Solid
Slurry
Liquid
Slurry
Slurry
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
is clearly enhanced by surfactant addition
and pH and temperature adjustment.
PAH removal efficiency was calculated
for Conditions 1, 2, and 3. Under Condi-
tion 1, the average PAH removal efficiency
was 76%, which is again below the project
objective of achieving at least 90%. Under
Condition 2, the average removal efficiency
was 86%. This performance is also below
the project objective; however, the large
rise in removal efficiency reflects the
surfactant's ability to transfer PAHs into
the wash water. The average PAH re-
moval efficiency for Condition 3 increased
to 96%. These data illustrate that the PAH
removal efficiency is clearly enhanced by
surfactant addition and pH and tempera-
ture adjustment.
As soil travels through the VRU, the
sand and gravel fraction of the soil are
separated from the contaminated fines
(i.e., fines particles). The relatively non-
hazardous sand and gravel fraction exits
the system as washed soil. By comparing
the mass of dry solids in the feed soil with
tha mass of dry solids in the washed soil,
solids recoveries of 96%, 95%, and 81%
were calculated for soils treated under
Conditions 1, 2, and 3. These recoveries
exceed the project objective that at least
80% of the solids.present in the feed soil
would be returned to the site as washed
sol).
Washed soil recovery was also deter-
mined on a normalized basis, which com-
pares the mass of dry solids in washed
soil to the combined mass of dry solids in
washed soil and fines slurry. Normalized
data minimize the effect that potential bi-
ases in the total solids balance could have
on this evaluation. Average, washed soil
recoveries on a normalized basis of 90%,
88%, and 86% were determined for Con-
ditions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These
recoveries exceed the project objectives
that at least 80% of the solids present in
the feed soil would be returned to the site
as washed soil.
Mass balances are obtained by com-
paring the mass entering a system to the
mass exiting the system. The mass bal-
ance closures calculated for the VRU dem-
onstration are summarized in Table 3.
For the total material balance, the re-
covery is the percentage of the material
entering the system as feed soil and wash
water that was recovered from the system
as washed soil and fines slurry. The project
objective for the total material balances
was that closures would be between 90%
and 110%. A review of balance closures
reveals that acceptable performance cri-
teria were met for Conditions 1 (104%)
and 3 (98%) but not Condition 2 (113%).
During Condition 2, it was noted that the
mass"flow rate measurement of the fines
slurry may have been affected by sam-
pling procedures employed during the
demonstration. This resulted in inflated
mass flow rates. The procedure was modi-
fied and the percent closures dropped to
the acceptable range. Dry solids recover-
ies during the VRU demonstration were
107%, 109% and 94% for Conditions 1, 2,
and 3, respectively, which meet project
objectives of recoveries between 85% and
115%.
Under Condition 1, the average mass
balance closures for PCP and PAHs were
101% and 87%, respectively. The aver-
age PCP and PAH recoveries for Condi-
tions 2 and 3 were below 80% and there-
fore did not meet the project objectives.
Because low PCP and PAH closures were
experienced when surfactant was added
to the wash water, it seems probable that
the surfactant interfered with the PCP and
PAH analyses.
The VRU's effectiveness is based on its
ability to separate soil fines [less than 100
mesh (0.15 mm)] from the coarser gravel
and sand fraction of the soil [greater than
100 mesh (0.15 mm)]. Significant con-
taminant concentration reductions can be
realized by the VRU, provided the major-
ity of the contaminants present in the feed
soil concentrate in the fines. Table 4 indi-
cates the percentage of fines and coarse
sand and gravel fraction from the feed soil
recovered in the washed soil and fines
slurry. The data indicate the majority of
the small particles were partitioned to the
fines slurry.
Pollutants were removed from the fines
slurry stream by a water treatment se-
quence that included settling, flocculation,
filtration, and carbon adsorption. Follow-
ing treatment in the CPI, where the fines
were separated by gravity, the overflow
was pumped to a flocculation/clarification
system for additional fines partitioning. CPI
and floe tank underflow streams were col-
lected and were to be analyzed for PCP
and PAHs; however, problems with the
analysis produced data of limited useful-
ness. Clarified water from floe tank over-
flow was pumped through cartridge pol-
ishing filters operated in parallel to remove
soil fines greater than 4 x 10'4. Water
exiting these filters then passed through
activated carbon drums for hydrocarbon
removal. The clarified water was analyzed
for total organic carbon (TOC) and total
residue (TR), which is the sum of total
suspended solids (TSS) and total dissolved
solids (TDS). Table 5 lists the TOC levels
of the clarified water, water from the filters
and activated carbon, and feed water.
Table 6 lists the TR levels from the clari-
Table 3. Average Mass Balance Closures (%)
Total Material Dry Solids
PCP
PAHs
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
104
113
98
107
109
94
94
19
13
88
28
14
-------
Table 4. Distribution of Fines and Coarse Gravel and Sand (%, dry weight basis)
Condition
Washed Soil
Fines Slurry
Closure
1
31
75
106
Fines
2
41
83
124
Coarse Sand and
3
54
110
164
1
104
1
105
2
102
2
104
Gravel
3
82
2
84
fied water, water from the filters and acti-
vated carbon, and feed water.
TOC reduction was affected significantly
when surfactant was introduced into the
system during Conditions 2 and 3. The
efficiency was affected because surfac-
tant was adsorbed on the carbon along
with the contaminants. Instead of having
the carbon available to adsorb the con-
taminants, many of the adsorption sites
were occupied by the surfactant.
Unadsorbed contaminants exited the car-
bon drum, which caused an increase in
TOC. TOC efficiency could be improved
by removing the surfactant before it en-
ters the carbon canisters or by using an-
other organic removal technology. The TR
reduction from the filter unit was minimal,
indicating that a finer-sized filter is needed.
An economic analysis has been devel-
oped to estimate costs (not including prof-
its) for a commercial treatment system.
The analysis is based on the results of
Table 5. TOC Levels in Water Streams (ppm)
the SITE demonstration, which used the
pilot- scale EPA VRU, operating at ap-
proximately 100 Ib/h.
It is projected that the commercial unit
will operate at 10-tph. The cost to
remediate 20,000 tons of contaminated
soil using a 10-tph VRU is estimated at
$130 per ton if the system is online 90%
of the time. Treatment costs increase as
the percent online factor decreases. Pro-
jected unit costs for a smaller site (10,000
tons of contaminated soil) are $163 per
ton; projected unit costs for a larger site
(200,000 tons) are $101 per ton.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
The VRU soil washing system success-
fully separated the contaminated soil into
two unique streams: washed soil and fines
slurry. The washed soil was safely re-
turned to the site following treatment. The
fines slurry, which carried the majority of
Feed Water Clarified Water Post-Filtration Post-Carbon
Water Adsorption Water
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
<1.0 11.5
<1.5 1,045
<1 .02 825
11
1,075
697.5
<1.0
283
305
Table 6. TR Levels in Water Streams (ppm)
Feed Water Clarified Water Post-Filtration Post-Carbon
Water Adsorption Water
Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
70
73
62
260
2,200
6,075
247.5
2,025
5,075
115
557.5
2,550
the pollutants from the feed soil, under-
went additional treatment to separate the
fines from the water.
The demonstration was divided into
three phases (Conditions 1, 2, and 3) that
evaluated the performance of the VRU
under varying wash water conditions. Un-
der Condition 1, using only ambient tem-
perature wash water with no additives,
average PCP and PAH removal efficien-
cies were 80% and 75%, respectively.
Under Condition 2, with the addition of
surfactant to ambient temperature wash
water, average PCP and PAH removal
efficiencies improved to 92% and 86%,
respectively. Under Condition 3, with the
addition of surfactant and caustic (for pH
adjustment) to the wash water at an el-
evated temperature, average PCP and
PAH removal efficiencies of 98% and 96%,
respectively, were achieved, exceeding the
project objective of 90% removal.
The results show the positive impact
that surfactant, pH adjustment, and in-
creased temperature have on PCP and
PAH removal efficiency. However, from
these data it is not possible to determine
whether pH adjustment, temperature, or
both these factors caused the increased
removal efficiency in Condition 3.
The ability of the VRU to .produce
washed soil that meets the target cleanup
levels of 30 ppm PCP, 50 ppm carcino-
genic creosote, and 100 ppm total creo^
sots was also evaluated.. The average
washed soil contaminant concentrations
for Condition 1 were 29 ppm PCP, 17
ppm carcinogenic creosote, and 240 ppm
total creosote. Under Condition 2, washed
soil contaminant concentrations improved
to 12 ppm PCP, 10 ppm carcinogenic
creosote, and 130 ppm total creosote.
Under Condition 3, washed soil contami-
nant concentrations further improved to 3
ppm PCP, 2.8 ppm carcinogenic creo-
sote, and 38 ppm total creosote.
Another primary objective of this SITE
demonstration was to determine whether
the VRU could recover 80% of the con-
taminated feed soil as clean washed soil.
Washed soils recoveries of 96%, 95%,
and 81% were calculated for Conditions
1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Washed soil recovery was also deter-
mined on a normalized basis that com-
pared the mass of dry solids in washed
soil to the combined mass of dry solids in
washed soil and fines slurry. Average
washed soil recoveries on a normalized
basis of 89%, 88%, and 86% were deter-
mined for Conditions 1, 2, and 3. This
indicates steady performance of the VRU
in treating a uniform feed soil. The system
consistently segregated the feed solids
-------
into washed soil and fines slurry, appear-
ing to be unaffected by fluctuations in
feed rate, W/F ratio, wash water addi-
tives, or other operating parameters.
Mass balances were calculated for total
materials, total dry solids, total POP, and
total PAHs for each condition. Closure
rates between 90% and 110% were
achieved for Conditions 1 and 3 for total
mass. Sampling procedures contributed
to a less than acceptable total materials
closure rate of 113% for Condition 2. Clo-
sure rates between 85% and 115% were
achieved for Conditions 1, 2, and 3 for
total dry solids. Mass balances for PGP
and PAHs achieved closure rates of be-
tween 85% and 175% for Condition 1
only. Mass balances for Conditions 2 and
3 were considered invalid and attributed
to surfactant addition that adversely af-
fected the analyses.
The VRU is designed to return feed soil
that is greater than 100 mesh (0.15 mm)
in size as washed soil. The data from the
demonstration indicate this soil is an ideal
candidate for treatment by the VRU. Ex-
cellent results for partitioning the greater
than 100- mesh (0.15-mm) particles
(coarse sand and gravel) to the washed
soil were achieved. Only 1% to 2% of
these particles was detected in the fines
slurry, A majority of less than 100-mesh
(0.15-mm) particles (fines) were isolated
in the fines slurry stream; however, the
partitioning was not as complete.
PGP and PAH solid fraction data con-
firm that material from the CPI and floe/
clarifier was highly contaminated. A more
complete partitioning of the less than 100-
mesh (0.15-mm) particles to the fines slurry
may lead to decreased contaminant lev-
els in washed soil and to increased re-
moval efficiency. An additional series of
unit operations, such as a trommel washer
and dispersing agent (e.g., sodium
hexametaphosphate) employed after the
vibrascreens, may help reduce the level
of fines in washed soil. The VRU was
designed with the ability to recycle water
treatment subsystem effluent to the
miniwasher; however, water quality crite-
ria for recycling have not been defined.
Although the developer claimed that the
effluent after water treatment would be of
sufficient quality to permit recycling into
the water tank for reuse as wash water,
this claim was not evaluated during the
demonstration. Prior to the demonstration,
the developer chose to operate the VRU
without recycling. The developer indicated
that the CPI/floc tank did not settle out as
much as expected, allowing more solids
and TOG to pass through the filters and
carbon. Based on the data presented in
Tables 5 and 6, the treated water pro-
duced during Condition 1 is considered
potentially suitable for recycling. The
treated water produced during Conditions
2 and 3 contained significantly higher lev-
els of TOC and TR and would likely re-
quire further treatment before it could be
recycled. If the treated water cannot be
reused as wash water, then it must be
disposed of. Disposal options may include
discharge to a local publicly-owned treat-
ment works (POTW). Discharge to a
POTW will typically be regulated accord-
ing to the industrial wastewater pretreat-
ment standards of the POTW. These stan-
dards are specified by EPA for certain
industries. Depending on the site, the
treated wash water may fall into one spe-
cific industrial category. If it does not, the
pretreatment standards for the wash wa-
ter will be determined by the POTW and
will depend on site-specific parameters
such as flow rate of the wash water, con-
taminants present, design of the POTW,
and receiving stream water quality stan-
dards. The developer indicated that solids
did not settle out in the CPI and floe/
clarifier as much as expected, allowing
more solids and organics to pass through
the filters and carbon. Excessive solids
may adversely affect the process by plug-
ging water lines. The commercial-scale
VRU proposed by EPA appears to be
suited to the remediation of soils and other
solid wastes contaminated with organic
compounds. Treatment costs appear to
be competitive with other available tech-
nologies. The cost to remediate 20,000
tons of contaminated soil using a 10-tph
VRU is estimated at $130 per ton if the
system is on-line 90% of the time. Treat-
ment costs increase as the percent on-
line factor decreases. Projected unit costs
for a smaller site (10,000 tons of contami-
nated soil) are $163 per ton; projected
unit costs for a larger site (200,000 tons)
are $101 per ton.
•&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994 - 5HMW7/802ZO
-------
-------
The EPA Project Manager, Teri Richardson, is with the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268 (see below)
The complete report, entitled "Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program
Demonstration EPA RREL Mobile Reduction,Unit"
(Order No. PB94-136264; Cost: $27.00, subjectto change) will be available
only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
A related report, entitled "Applications Analysis Report EPA RREL Mobile
Volume Reduction Unit" (EPA/540/AR-93/508) is available as long as
supplies last from:
ORD Publications
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7562
The EPA Project Manager can be contacted at:
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
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/S40/SR-93/508
------- |