-------
range of petroleum hydrocarbons (such as fuels
and oils) have been successfully treated with
LST in the laboratory and the field.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into EPA's SITE
Demonstration Program in 1987. The developer
currently is seeking a private party to co-fund a
3-to-4-month demonstration of LST technology
on an organic waste.
The technology has been applied in the field
over a dozen times to treat wood preservative
sludges in impoundment-type LST systems. In
addition, the technology has treated petroleum
refinery impoundment sludges in two field-
based pilot demonstrations and several
laboratory treatability studies.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
Site information was not provided for this
publication.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Ronald Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7856
Technology Developer Contact:
Merv Cooper
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
1011 S.W. Klickitat Way, Suite 207
Seattle, WA 98134
206/624-9349
FAX: 206/624-2839
son
Water
'—h
i
•^
s
Microbes
Dewater
Cleaned
Soil
Return Soils
to Site
Air
Liquid and Solids Biological Treatment
54
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Soil Slurry-Sequencing Batch Bioreactor
Explosives (TNT, RDX, HMX) in Soil
Technology Description
In this treatment process, explosives-
contaminated soils and water are biologically
treated in a tank or reactor. This treatment may
be applied to soils contaminated with TNT,
RDX, HMX, and other potential wastes
associated with explosives. Contaminated soils
are excavated and pre-screened to remove large
rocks and debris. During the Fill period, the
soils are mixed with water to produce a water-
based slurry (typically 10-40 percent solids by
weight) and pumped into the reactors. The
reactors are designed and instrumented with
various process controls. After the Fill, a
chemical feed system will deliver required
amounts of co-substrate, nutrients, nitrate, and
Ph adjusting chemicals.
During the React period which follows, the
mixers remain on and the microbial consortium
degrades contaminants. When oxygen is
serving as the exogenous electron acceptor, the
aeration and mixing system is used to suspend
the slurry. When nitrate is the electron
acceptor, only the mixing system is used. In
either case, the co-substrate serves as the
primary carbon source. The time provided for
the React cycle is dictated by the rate at which
the explosive are degraded.
The mixed, treated slurry is then removed from
the reactor in the Draw cycle and dewatered.
Process water is recycled to the extent possible.
Operation of the soil slurry-sequencing batch
bioreactor depends on three factors:
• Enhancement of appropriate microbial
consortia;
• Operations under appropriate conditions
with a suitable electron acceptor; and
• Daily replacement of a volume of soil to
provide new soil for microbial processing.
This treatment technology is best suited for sites
contaminated with small volumes of
contaminated soil where incineration would be
cost prohibitive.
Technology Performance
Previous bench-scale studies using soils
contaminated with explosives from Joliet Army
Ammunition Plant (JAAP) demonstrated the
feasibility of this technology. Using microbial
consortia isolated from JAAP, bench-scale
studies showed that microbial degradation of
contaminated soils could be accomplished with
electron acceptors under aerobic and anoxic
conditions with malate as a co-substrate.
Aerobic reactors reduced TNT concentrations
from about 1,300 mg/kg to less than 10 mg/kg
in 15 days. Anoxic reactors achieved the same
kind of reduction but at a slower rate. The
same study indicated that this technology was
the most suitable reactor system for full-scale
implementation. A pilot-scale field demonstra-
tion using the technology was conducted in
1992.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
55
-------
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant is located in
Joliet, Illinois. JAAP is a government-owned,
contractor-operated installation currently
maintained in a non-producing, standby
condition. JAAP is divided into two major
functional areas: a load-assemble-pack (LAP)
area and a manufacturing area. The LAP area
contains munitions filling and assembly lines,
storage magazines, and a demilitarization area.
The LAP was placed on the National Priorities
List in 1989. Soils from Group 61 in the LAP
area will be used in the demonstration project.
Group 61 was constructed in 1941 to support
World War n efforts and has been the site of
demilitarization operations for various
munitions. During these operations, steam was
used to remove the explosives from munitions.
The solids in the contaminated process water
were settled out in a sump and the overflow
water was discharged into a 10-acre ridge and
furrow system (evaporating pond). The primary
explosive contaminant is 2,4,6-TNT with
concentrations ranging from 20-14,400 mg/kg.
Contacts
Capt. Kevin Keehan
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: ENAEC-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410/671-2054
Technology Developer Contacts:
John Manning, Project Manager
Carlo Montemagno, Program Manager
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Ave
Argonne, IL 60439-4815
56
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Vegetation-Enhanced Biodegradation
TCE and PCE in Soil
Technology Description
In this process, plants are cultivated to
encourage root-associated (rhizosphere)
microorganisms to degrade contaminants. TCE
and PCE in concentrations of 10,000 ppb are
targeted. The technology also has been
demonstrated for PAH compounds.
Greenhouse studies have proven the principal
involved in this process. Pine trees were the
most effective plant tested in these studies.
Mineralization was demonstrated with
radiolabels.
The process is limited, probably to about 20
feet, by the depth of penetration of the roots
and/or root exudates.
Technology Performance
The process is being tested in pilot-scale field
plots at DOE's Savannah River Site near Aiken,
South Carolina, as part of the agency's on-going
Integrated Demonstration Project. Site
characterization and greenhouse studies have
been completed.
Remediation Costs
Use of this process is expected to cost less than
$50,000/acre treated.
General Site Information
This process is being tested at DOE's Savannah
River Site near Aiken, South Carolina.
Contact
Terry Hazen
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
P.O. Box 616
Building 773-42A
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 725-5178
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
57
-------
58
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
-------
-------
Chemical Treatment
Chemical Detoxification of
Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds
Dioxin and Herbicides in Soil
Technology Description
This chemical detoxification of chlorinated
aromatic compounds treats soils that have been
contaminated with dioxin, herbicides, or other
chlorinated aromatic contaminants.
The contaminated soil is excavated and a deter-
mination of the water content is made. If the
water content is too high, the soil is dehydrated.
Soil is placed in the reactor with the reagent and
heated to 100°C to 150°C. The reagent is a
1:1:1 mixture of potassium hydroxide, polyeth-
ylene glycol, and dimethyl sulfoxide. After
reaction, the reactor is drained and the soil is
rinsed with clean water to remove excess re-
agents. Treated soil might be replaced in its
original location depending upon the effective-
ness of the decontamination and local environ-
mental regulations.
Technology Performance
Demonstrations of this method achieved greater
than 99.9 percent decontamination. Several
advantages of this method were indicated:
• It is relatively inexpensive for contaminants
at low concentrations (in the ppm range);
• The reagents can be recycled;
• The products of the decontamination are not
toxic and are not biodegradable;
• Bioassay studies show that the reaction
products do not bioaccumulate or biocon-
centrate; they do not cause mutagenicity,
nor are they toxic to aquatic organisms or
mammals;
• The chlorine atoms are replaced by glycol
chains producing non-toxic aromatic com-
pounds and inorganic chloride compounds;
and
• The equipment components are commer-
cially available.
Despite the numerous advantages of this tech-
nology, it also has limitations:
• For high contaminant concentrations, in the
percent range, incineration could be less
expensive to use;
« Water might interfere with the reactions
between the reagents and the chlorinated
aromatic compounds; and
• Some chlorinated compounds, such as
hexachlorophene-24, are not degraded as
effectively as others.
Remediation Costs
The costs are in the range of $100 to $200/ton.
The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
(NCEL) reports that the costs might be on the
order of $300/yd3. The most expensive item is
the reagent.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
61
-------
General Site Information
Small-scale pilot testing was conducted on
dioxin-contaminated soil in the laboratory.
Larger-scale pilots are planned for the near
future by the EPA laboratory at Edison, New
Jersey.
Contacts
Deh Bin Chan
Environmental Restoration Division
Code L71
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Port Hueneme, California 93043
805/982-4191
Additional information is available from:
Charles Rogers
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King
Cincinnati, Ohio 45286
513/569-7757
62
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
\
Chemical Treatment
Chemical Treatment and Immobilization
Organic Compounds, Heavy Metals, Oil, and Grease in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
This treatment system is capable of chemically
destroying certain chlorinated organics and
immobilizing heavy metals. The technology
mixes hazardous wastes, cement or fly ash,
water, and one of 18 patented reagents com-
monly known as "Chloranan." In the case of
chlorinated organics, the process uses metal-
scavenging techniques to remove chlorine atoms
and replace them with hydrogen atoms. Metals
are fixed at their lowest solubility point.
Soils, sludges, and sediments can be treated in
situ or excavated and treated ex situ. Sediments
can also be treated underwater. Blending is
accomplished in batches, with volumetric
throughput rated at 120 tons/hr.
The treatment process begins by adding
Chloranan and water to the blending unit,
followed by the waste and mixing for 2 min-
utes. The cement is added and mixed for a
similar time. After 12 hours, the treated materi-
al hardens into a concrete-like mass that exhib-
its unconfined compressive strengths (UCS) in
the 1,000 to 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi)
range, with permeabilities of about 10"9 centime-
ters per second (cm/sec). Results may vary. It
is capable of withstanding several hundred
cycles of freeze and thaw weathering.
This technology has been refined since the 1987
SITE demonstration and is now capable of
destroying certain chlorinated organics and also
immobilizing other wastes, including very high
levels of metals. The organics and inorganics
can be treated separately or together with no
impact on the chemistry of the process.
Technology Performance
This technology was demonstrated in October
1987 at a former oil processing plant in Doug-
lassville, Pennsylvania. An Applications Analy-
sis Report (EPA/540/A5-89/001) and a Technol-
ogy Evaluation Report (EPA/540/5-89/001a) are
available. A report on long-term monitoring
may be obtained from EPA's Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory.
Since the demonstration in 1987, the technology
has been greatly enhanced through the develop-
ment of 17 more reagent formulations that
expand dechlorination of many chlorinated
organics to include PCBs, ethylene dichloride
(EDC), trichlorethylene (TCE), and others.
Remediation of heavily contaminated oily soils
and sludges has been accomplished, as well as
remediation of a California Superfund site with
up to 220,000 ppm of zinc. The Canadian
Government selected this process as one to test
for underwater treatment of PCBs and VOCs
found in sediments. A demonstration for En-
vironment Canada is due to be completed in
August 1993, in Montreal, Quebec.
Comparisons of the 7-day, 28-day, 9-month, and
22-month sample test results for the soil are
generally favorable. The physical test results
were very good, with UCS between 220 and
1,570 psi. Very low permeabilities were record-
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
63
-------
ed, and the porosity of the treated wastes was
moderate. Durability test results showed no
change in physical strength after the wet and
dry and freeze and thaw cycles. The waste
volume increased by about 120 percent. How-
ever, refinements of the technology now restrict
volumetric increases to the 15 to 25 percent
range. Using less additives reduces strength,
but toxicity reduction is not affected. There
appears to be an inverse relationship between
physical strength and organic contaminant
concentration.
The results of the leaching tests were mixed.
The Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) results of the stabilized wastes were
very low; essentially, all concentrations of
metals, VOCs, and semivolatUe organics were
below 1 ppm. Lead leachate concentrations
dropped by a factor of 200 to below 100 ppb.
Volatile and semivolatile organic concentrations,
however, did not change from the untreated soil
TCLP. Oil and grease concentrations were
greater in the treated waste TCLP (4 ppm) than
in the untreated waste (less than 2 ppm).
The process can treat contaminated material
with high concentrations (up to 25 percent) of
oil. However, during the SITE demonstration,
volatiles and base and neutral extractables were
not immobilized significantly.
Heavy metals were immobilized. In many
instances, leachate reductions were greater by a
factor of 100.
The physical properties of the treated waste
include high unconfined compressive strengths,
low permeabilities, and good weathering proper-
ties.
Remediation Costs
The process, based on tests at Douglassville,
Pennsylvania, was economical, with costs
ranging from $40 to 60/ton for processing heavy
metals waste, and between $75 to 100/ton for
wastes with' heavy organic content.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a former
oil processing plant in Douglassville, Pennsylva-
nia. The site soil contained high levels of oil
and grease (250,000 ppm) and heavy metals
(22,000 ppm lead), and low levels of VOCs
(100 ppm) and PCBs (75 ppm).
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul R. dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Ray Funderburk
Funderburk and Associates
Rt. 1, Box 250
Oakwood, Texas 75855
800/227-6543 or
903/545-2002
64
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Combined Chemical Binding, Precipitation,
and Physical Separation
Heavy Metals and Radionuclides in Waters
Technology Description
This technology removes heavy metals and
radionuclides from contaminated waters. In
addition, it can be used to restore ground water
from mining operations, treat naturally occurring
radioactive materials (NORM) in water or scale
from petroleum operations, and remediate man-
made radionuclides stored in tanks, pits, barrels,
or other containers.
The process combines the proprietary powder
(RHM-1000) and a complex mixture of oxides,
silicates, and other reactive binding agents, with
a contaminated water stream. Selectively en-
hanced complexing and sorption processes form
flocculants and colloids, that are removed by
precipitation and physical filtration. The pH,
mixing dynamics, processing rates, and powder
constituents are optimized by chemical modeling
studies and laboratory tests. The contaminants
are concentrated in a stabilized filter and
precipitate sludge, that is then dewatered. The
dewatered sludge meets Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure criteria and may, depending
on the contaminants, be classified as non-haz-
ardous.
The field pilot unit is skid-mounted and consists
of four main components: a pump unit, a feed
and eductor unit, a mixing tank, and a clarifier
tank. The centrifugal pump unit can deliver up
to 50 gpm to the system. Water from the pump
passes through the restrictor nozzle in the feed
and eductor unit, reducing the air pressure at the
outlet of an attached hopper unit. RHM-1000
powder is placed in the upper hopper, which is
powered by compressed air. The upper hopper
delivers a controlled and very low volume of
RHM-1000 to the lower hopper. Reduced air
pressure draws it into the water stream. The
water passes through a two-stage mixing pro-
cess and is then sent to the mixing tank. A
diaphragm pump, driven by compressed air,
draws water from the tank's base and re-injects
it through a jet nozzle that also draws surroun-
ding water through holes in its base. The mixed
water and RHM-1000 powder pass over a weir
into the clarifier tank and through a block of
inclined coalescing tubes. Precipitates collect in
the tank's base and are drained off. Additional
conventional filters can be added to the system
outflow as required. The process is designed
for continuous operation and can be expanded
from 25 to 1,500 gpm.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in July 1990 and
was demonstrated late in 1992 at a uranium site
in Texas.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
65
-------
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a uranium
site in Texas.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Annette Gatchett
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7620
Technology Developer Contacts:
E.B. (Ted) Daniels
TechTran Environmental, Inc.
9800 Northwest Freeway, Suite 302
Houston, TX 77092
713/688-2390
FAX: 713/883-9144
TECHTRAN RHM-1000 PILOT UNIT
.PUMP UNIT
.FEED AND EDUCTOR VI IT
MIXING TANK
CtARIFlER TANK
••
-------
Chemical Treatment
TM
perox-pure
Fuel Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated Solvents, and PCBs in Ground Water
Technology Description
The perox-pure™ technology is designed to
destroy dissolved organic contaminants in
ground water or wastewater through an
advanced chemical oxidation process using
ultraviolet (UV) radiation and hydrogen perox-
ide. Hydrogen peroxide is added to the contam-
inated water, and the mixture is then fed into
the treatment system. The treatment system
contains four or more compartments in the
oxidation chamber. Each compartment contains
one high intensity UV lamp mounted in a quartz
sleeve. The contaminated water flows in the
space between the chamber wall and the quartz
tube in which each UV lamp is mounted.
UV light catalyzes the chemical oxidation of the
organic contaminants in water by its combined
effect upon the organics and its reaction with
hydrogen peroxide. First, many organic con-
taminants that absorb UV light may undergo a
change in their chemical structure or may
become more reactive with chemical oxidants.
Second, and more importantly, UV light catalyz-
es the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide to
produce hydroxyl radicals, which are powerful
chemical oxidants. Hydroxyl radicals react with
organic contaminants, destroying them and
producing harmless by-products, such as carbon
dioxide, halides, and water. The process pro-
duces no hazardous by-products or air emis-
sions.
This technology treats ground water and waste-
water contaminated with chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, PCBs, phenolics, fuel hydrocarbons,
and other toxic compounds at concentrations
ranging from a few thousand milligrams per
liter to one microgram per liter. In cases where
the contaminant concentration is greater than the
technology alone can handle, the process can be
combined with other processes such as air
stripping, steam stripping, or biological treat-
ment for optimal treatment results.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in July 1991.
The demonstration at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300, a Super-
fund site, was completed in September 1992.
During the demonstration, about 40,000 gal of
ground water contaminated with VOCs were
treated. The principal contaminants were TCE
and PCE present at concentrations of about
1,000 and 100 ug/L, respectively. Ground water
was pumped from two wells into a 7,500-gal
bladder tank to minimize any variability in
influent characteristics. In addition, cartridge
filters were used to remove suspended solids
greater than 3 microns from the ground water
before it entered the bladder tank. Treated
ground water was stored in two 20,000-gal steel
tanks before being discharged.
The demonstration was conducted in three
phases. Phase 1 consisted of eight runs; Phase
2 consisted of four runs, and Phase 3 consisted
of two runs. The principal operating parame-
ters of the system, hydrogen peroxide does,
influent pH, and flow rate (hydraulic retention
time) were varied during Phase 1 to observe
treatment system performance under different
F:ederal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
67
-------
conditions. Preferred operating conditions,
those under which the concentrations of effluent
VOCs were reduced below target levels at the
least cost, were then determined for the system.
Phase 2 involved spiked ground water and
reproducibility tests. Ground water was spiked
with about 300 ug/L each of 1,1-dichloroethane
(DCA), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), and chloro-
form. These compounds were chosen because
they are difficult to oxidize and because they
were not present in the ground water at high
concentrations. This phase also was designed to
evaluate the reproducibility of treatment system
performance at the preferred operating condi-
tions determined in Phase 1.
In Phase 3, the effectiveness of quartz tube
wipers was evaluated by performing two runs
using spiked ground water.
Key findings from the demonstration will be
published by EPA in an Applications Analysis
Report and Technology Evaluation Report.
Preliminary findings include the following:
• Preferred operating conditions from Phase 1
were (1) influent hydrogen peroxide at 40
mg/L, (2) the hydrogen peroxide in influent
to Reactors 2 through 6 at 25 mg/L, (3) the
influent pH at 5.0, and (4) flow rate at 10
gal/rnin.
• During the three reproducibility runs, aver-
age removal efficiencies for chloroform,
DCA, PCE, TCA, and TCE after Reactor 1
were 46.1 percent, 70.3 percent, 95.9 per-
cent, 21.0 percent, and 98.4 percent, respec-
tively.
• System setup and shakedown took about
five days. The system required little or no
attention after operating conditions were
established, there were no major operation-
al problems that affected system perfor-
mance.
This technology has been applied to over 60
different sites throughout the United States,
Canada, and Europe, including National Priori-
ties List, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), Department of Energy, and De-
partment of Defense sites. These units are
treating contaminated ground water, industrial
wastewater, landfill leachates, potable water,
and industrial reuse streams.
Remediation Costs
Economic data from three case studies indicate
that ground water remediation costs for a 50-
gal/min system could range from about $7 to
$11/1,000 gal, depending on contaminated
ground water characteristics. Of these, direct
treatment costs for this system could range from
about $3 to $5/1,000 gal.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at the Law-
rence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
Superfund site in Livermore, California. LLNL
is a U.S. Department of Energy facility.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7665
Technology Developer Contact:
Chris Giggy
Peroxidation Systems, Inc.
5151 East Broadway, Suite 600
Tucson, AZ 85711
602/790-8383
68
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Physical Separation/Chemical Extraction
Radionuclides and Metals in Sediments
Technology Description
In this process, soils are screened, classified,
and placed into a leaching unit with hot nitric
acid. Contaminants — cesium-137, cobalt-60,
and chromium—are removed from the leachate
using a system of ion exchange, reverse osmo-
sis, precipitation, or evaporation. In a similar
process, contaminants are sequentially exposed
to milder leachates such as oxalic acid and
hydrogen peroxide. This process is designed to
remove successive layers of weathering deposits
from surfaces of the soil particles.
The process produces sludge from leaching and
precipitation, large-grained material from the
screening plant, and residuals from the other
processes. Ultimate disposal options include
solidification, calcining leachate, and storage of
residuals.
Technology Performance
A'pilot-scale test of the process was completed
late in 1992 at the DOE's Idaho National Engi-
neering Laboratory (ENEL) Superfund site.
Testing results indicated excellent removal
efficiencies for cobalt-60 and chromium, utiliz-
ing either the sequential extraction or the hot
nitric acid. Cesium-137 could be removed only
with successive dissolution steps in nitric acid.
Approximately 30 percent of the soil matrix was
co-dissolved in order to achieve release of most
of the cesium-137. A full-scale process plant
will not be constructed. An Explanation of
Significant Differences in the Interim Action
Record of Decision has been signed.
Remediation Costs
Engineering estimates are about $l,000/yd3 of
soil treated by acid wash. Total cost of the
INEL remediation project is estimated at about
$20 million.
General Site Information
The contaminated area is a warm waste pond at
the INEL test reactor area, formerly used for
testing of materials used in nuclear reactors.
INEL is located in Idaho Pah's, Idaho.
Contact
Robert Montgomery
EG&G Idaho
P.O. Box 1625-1542
Idaho FaUs, ID 83415
208/525-3937
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
69
-------
Chemical Treatment
PO*WW*ER™ Evaporation and Catalytic Oxidation
VOCs and Non-volatile Organic Compounds in Ground Water
Technology Description
PO*WW*ER™ is a technology developed to
treat wastewaters, such as leachates, ground
waters, and process waters, containing mixtures
of salts, metals, and organic compounds. The
proprietary technology is a combination of
evaporation and catalytic oxidation processes.
Wastewater is concentrated in an evaporator by
boiling off most of the water and the volatile
contaminants, both organic and inorganic. Air
or oxygen is added to the vapor, and the mix-
ture is forced through a catalyst bed, where the
organic and inorganic compounds are oxidized.
This stream, composed of mainly steam, passes
through a scrubber, if necessary, to remove any
acid gases formed during oxidation. The stream
is then condensed or vented to the atmosphere.
If condensed, the resulting water is suitable for
most uses, or for discharge. The resulting
concentrated solution is either disposed of or
treated further, depending on the nature of the
waste.
The PO*WW*ER™ technology can be used to
treat complex wastewaters that contain volatile
and non-volatile organic compounds, salts,
metals, and volatile inorganic compounds.
Suitable wastes include leachates, contaminated
ground waters, and process waters. The system
can be designed for any capacity, depending on
the application and the volume of the waste-
water. Typical commercial systems range from
10 to 1,000 gpm.
Technology Performance
The PO*WW*ER™ technology was demonstrat-
ed under the EPA SITE Program in September
1992 at the Lake Charles Treatment Center site
in Lake Charles, Louisiana. During the demon-
stration, a 0.25 gpm pilot-plant treated landfill
leachate contaminated with VOCs, SVOCs,
ammonia, cyanide, metals, and other inorganic
contaminants. The system achieved a total
solids concentration of about 32 to 1. VOCs,
SVOCs, ammonia, and cyanide, all of which
were present in the feed waste, were not detect-
ed in the product condensate. Inorganic con-
taminants were concentrated in the brine
solution Non-condensable gas emissions met the
proposed regulatory requirements for the site.
Remediation Costs
Economic data indicate that the capital cost for
a 50 gpm system is about $4 million. Annual
operating and maintenance cost at a Superfund
site are estimated to be about $3.3 million. At
an annual inflation rate of 5 percent, the total
cost of a project lasting 15 years is estimated to
be about $110/1,000 gal of aqueous waste
treated. The total cost of a 30-year project is
estimated to be about $100/1,000 gal treated.
General Site Information
Chemical Waste Management's Lake Charles
Treatment Center site is located near the cities
of Sulphur and Lake Charles in Southwest
Louisiana. The site has facilities that include a
70
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
hazardous waste landfill, a high-capacity stabili-
zation unit, and drum managing and decanting
facilities. During the SITE demonstration,
about 590 gal of unspiked landfill leachate from
the site were treated.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Randy Parker
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7271
Technology Developer Contact:
Matt Husain
Chemical Waste Management
1950 South Batavia Ave.
Geneva Research Center
Geneva, JL 60134
708/513-4591
FAX: 708/513-6401
Vent
L_L
fl—J HI—1 » Cooling
4| . JfU-i Water
Feed
Condenaate
Evaporator
Oxldteer Scrubber Condenser
Basic PO*WW*ER™ Process
Brine
Discharge
Preheafer
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
71
-------
Chemical Treatment
SAREX Chemical Fixation Process
Low-Level Metals and Organics in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
The SAREX chemical fixation process is a
thermal and chemical reactive (fixation) process
that removes VOCs and SVOCs, and the re-
maining constituents of organic and inorganic
sludge materials in a stable matrix. The process
uses specially prepared lime and proprietary,
non-toxic chemicals (a reagent blend) mixed
proportionally to catalyze and control the reac-
tions. The treated product displays chemical
properties which conform to toxic EPA stan-
dards for resource recovery and site restoration.
The product also exhibits high structural integri-
ty, with a fine, granular, soil-like consistency, of
limited solubility. It is free flowing until com-
pacted (50 to 80 psi), isolating the remaining
constituents from environmental influences.
Depending on the characteristics of the waste
material, it may be covered with a liquid neu-
tralizing reagent that initiates the chemical
reactions and helps prevent vapor emissions. If
required, the waste material may be moved to
the neutralization (blending) tank where a
"make-up" reagent slurry is added, depending
on material characteristics. The waste is placed
on the feed hopper.
The reagent is measured and placed on the
transfer conveyor so that the reagent and waste
mixture would advance to the single-screw
homogenizer, where it is thoroughly blended to
a uniform consistency. The reagent blend reacts
exothermally with the hazardous constituents to
initiate the removal of the VOCs and SVOCs.
The process, now about 70 percent complete,
continues in the multi-screw, jacketed, non-
contacting processor for curing (a predetermined
curing time allows reactions to occur within a
controlled environment). In the processor, the
mixture can be thermally processed at a high
temperature to complete the process. The
processed material exits the processor onto a
discharge conveyor for movement into specially
designed sealed transport containers.
Contaminant loss into the air (mobility) during
processing is eliminated by use of a specially
designed vapor recovery system and processed
prior to release into the air. Dust particles are
removed in a baghouse, and the vapors are
routed through a series of water scrubbers,
which cool the vapors (below 120°F) and re-
move any condensates. The vapors then pass
through two demisters and a positive displace-
ment blower to remove additional condensates.
A freon chilling unit (37°F or 0°F) cools the
remaining vapors, which are sent to a storage
tank. The final vapor stream is polished in two
charcoal vapor packs before being emitted into
the air.
The SAREX process is applicable to a wide
variety of organic and inorganic materials.
These include sludges that contain high concen-
trations of hazardous constituents, with no upper
limit of oil or organic content. No constituents
interfere with the fixation reactions, and water
content is not an obstacle, although there may
be steaming caused by the exothermic reactions.
The following material types can be processed
by the SAREX system:
72
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
• Large crude oil spills
• Refinery sludges
• Hydrocarbon-contaminated soils
• Lube oil acid sludges
• Tars
In addition, metals are captured within the
treated matrix and will pass the TCLP. This
proves to be advantageous, because most on-site
cleanup programs focus on sludge ponds or
impoundments that have received many different
types of compounds and debris over several
years.
Technology Performance
During the development of the SAREX CFP
technology, data has been gathered from labora-
tory analysis, process demonstrations, and on-
site projects. Samples of sludges from two
ponds were analyzed for surface and bottom
characteristics. After treatment of the samples,
the products were analyzed in powder and
molded pellet form.
A field demonstration was conducted during
1987 at a midwest refinery by treating approxi-
mately 400 cubic yards of lube oil acid
sludges. Two projects each were completed in
the midwest, California, and Australia.
An EPA SITE Program demonstration is sched-
uled for completion this year.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This process has been demonstrated at sites in
the midwest, California, and Australia.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
Technology Developer Contact:
Joseph DeFranco
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.
1762 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714
714/261-8860
FAX: 714/261-6010
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
73
-------
Chemical Treatment
Solar Detoxification
VOCs in Ground Water
Technology Description
This technology exposes VOCs in ground water
to sunlight in the presence of a non-toxic cata-
lyst (TiOz), causing the VOCs to break down
into non-toxic compounds, such as carbon
dioxide, chloride ions, and water.
The process involves a system consisting of a
pumping station, a set of solar reflectors, and
the reactors, which are narrow Pyrex pipes that
hold the contaminated water and the catalyst.
During operation, contaminated water is drawn
into the pumping station where the flow rate
through the solar detoxification system is adjust-
ed, the pH is lowered, and the catalyst is added.
The solar reflectors concentrate the sun's light,
focus it directly on the Pyrex reactors, and
oxidize the VOCs. After moving through the
reactors, the water is cooled and its pH is
readjusted as necessary. At this point, based on
monitoring results, the ground water can be
reckculated through the system or the catalyst
can be filtered out and the water sent on for
secondary treatment for legal discharge to the
environment within permitted levels.
Technology Performance
This system was field tested at Lawrence Liver-
more National Laboratory in California in 1991.
The project clearly demonstrated the destruction
of TCE-contaminated ground water to non-
detectable levels. While the demonstration did
not require full capacity, the system used was
capable of treating more than 7,000 gpd.
About 200 Ibs of used TiO2, containing 2 ppm
chromium, was produced during treatment of
some 50,000 gallons of ground water. Due to
the chromium content, this would require further
treatment as a hazardous waste.
While there were few operational problems, the
test confirmed that salts in ground water (chlo-
rides, nitrates, bicarbonates) absorb UV photons
and hydroxyl radicals, which can reduce process
efficiency.
Remediation Costs
No cost information available.
General Site Information
The field demonstration was conducted at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL), Livermore, California. During World
War n, LLNL was the site of a naval air station
with responsibilities for training and aircraft
maintenance. At that time, TCE and other
VOCs were used to clean engine parts, and
large quantities of these compounds found their
way into the ground water beneath the site.
Contact
Jesse L. Yow, Jr.
Environmental Technology Program
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, MS L-207
Livermore, CA 94550
510/422-3521
74
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Xanthate Treatment
Heavy Metals in Ground Water and Wastewater
Technology Description
This is a process in which metals are removed
through precipitation. Metal contaminants in
the water exchange with Na+ ions contained by
the xanthated material to form an insoluble
complex. The heavy metals-laden material can
then be removed from solution by sedimentation
and filtration.
Currently, hydroxide precipitation is used exten-
sively in the treatment of heavy metal-contami-
nated ground waters and wastewater. Xanthate
treatment offers many advantages over hydrox-
ide precipitation, including the following:
• A higher degree of rnetal removal;
• Less sensitivity to pH fluctuation (metal
xanthates do not exhibit amphoteric solubili-
ties);
• Less sensitivity to the presence of com-
plexing agents;
• Improved sludge dewatering properties; and
• The capability of the selective removal of
metals.
Technology Performance
The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station (WES) has performed bench- and
pilot-scale treatability studies on xanthate pre-
cipitation. Studies are currently being conduct-
ed to evaluate the use of xanthates for metal
segregation and recycling.
Remediation Costs
Costs will vary with application, but treatment
costs should be similar to currently used precipi-
tation methods.
General Site Information
This process has been tested at the U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station in
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Contact
Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS 39180
601/634-3700
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
75
_
-------
76
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
THERMAL TREATMENT
-------
-------
Thermal Treatment
Anaerobic Thermal Processor
PCBs, Chlorinated Pesticides, and VOCs in Soil and Refinery Wastes
Technology Description
The anaerobic thermal processor (ATP) is a
thermal desorption process. It heats and mixes
contaminated soils, sludges, and liquids in a
special rotary kiln that uses indirect heat. The
unit desorbs, collects, and recondenses
hydrocarbons and other pollutants found in
contaminated materials. The unit also can be
used in conjunction with a dehalogenation
process to destroy halogenated hydrocarbons
through a thermal and chemical process.
The kiln portion of the system contains four
separate internal thermal zones: preheat, retort,
combustion, and cooling. In the preheat zone,
water and VOCs vaporize. The vaporized
contaminants and water are removed under a
slight vacuum to a vapor cooling system for
condensation. As condensation occurs, light
hydrocarbon vapors separate into liquid, oil, and
non-condensable gas phases.
From the preheat zone, the hot solids and heavy
hydrocarbons pass through a proprietary sand
seal to the retort zone. The sand seal allows the
passage of solids and inhibits the passage of
gases, including contaminants, from one zone to
the other. Concurrently, hot treated soil from
the combustion zone enters the retort zone
through a second sand seal. This hot treated
soil provides the thermal energy necessary to
desorb the heavy contaminants. Heavy oils
vaporize in the retort zone, and thermal cracking
of hydrocarbons forms coke and low molecular
weight gases. The vaporized contaminants are
removed under a slight vacuum to the gas
handling system. After cyclones remove dust
from gases, the gases are cooled, and condensed
oil is separated into its various fractions.
The coked soil passes through a third sand seal
from the retort zone to the combustion zone.
Coke is burned, along with auxiliary fuel, and
some of the hot soil is recycled to the retort
zone. The remainder is sent to the cooling
zone. Flue gases from the combustion zone are
treated prior to discharge. The flue gas
treatment system consists of the following units
set up in series: a cyclone and baghouse for
particle removal, a wet scrubber for removal of
acid gases, and a carbon adsorption bed for
removal of trace organic compounds.
The combusted soil that enters the cooling zone
is cooled in the annular space between the
outside of the preheat zone and the outer shell
of the kiln. Here, the heat from the soils is
transferred to the soils in the retort and preheat
zones. The cooled treated soil and coke exiting
the cooling zone is quenched with water, then
transported by conveyor to a storage pile.
When the ATP is used to dechlorinate
contaminants, the contaminated soils are sprayed
with an oil mixture containing an alkaline
reagent and polyethylene glycol, or other
reagents. The oil acts as a carrier for the
dehalogenation reagents. In the unit, the
reagents dehalogenate or chemically break down
chlorinated compounds, including PCBs.
The technology can be used for oil recovery
from tar sands and shales, dechlorination of
PCBs and chlorinated pesticides in soils and
sludges, separation of oils and water from
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
79
-------
refinery wastes and spills, and general removal
of hazardous organic compounds from soils and
sludges.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in March 1991.
Full-scale demonstrations were conducted at the
Wide Beach Development Superfund site in
Brant, New York, in 1991 and at the Outboard
Marine Corporation site in Waukegan, Illinois,
in 1992.
Results from these demonstrations included the
following:
• The ATP unit removed over 99 percent of
the PCBs in the contaminated soil, resulting
in PCB levels below the desired cleanup
concentration of 2 ppm.
• The ATP did not appear to create dioxins or
furans.
• No volatile or semivolatile organic
degradation products were detected in the
treated soil. There were also no leachable
VOCs or SVOCs detected in the treated
soil.
• No operational problems affecting the
ATP's ability to treat the contaminated soil
were observed.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
Full-scale demonstrations have been conducted
at the Wide Beach Development Superfund site
in Brant, New York, and at the Outboard
Marine Corporation site in Waukegan, Illinois.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Joseph Hutton
Canonie Environmental Services Corp.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
219/926-7169
80
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Key
Gas Streams
Solid Streams
Coked Solids
Flue Gas
Discharge
v_F
Cooling Zone
Low Temp. ~~| - -
Steam arid — I
Hydrocarbon _*• ~^s
Vapors Flow I s
Feed
Stocks'
Combustion Zone
"—-- •« • •*
Flue Gas
Preheat Zone
*
\ Sand Seal
Evolved Steam
and Organics
Spent Solid„
Tailings /
Spent Solids
Kiln End Seals
Retort
Zone
HC Vapors
\
±*L
m \
• Solids Recycle
Coked Solids
Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP)
Hydrocarbon
and Steam
Vapors Row
Auxiliary
Burners
Combustion
Air Flow
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
81
-------
Thermal Treatment
Cyclone Furnace
Organics and Metals in Soil
Technology Description
This technology is designed to decontaminate
wastes containing both organic and metal
contaminants. The cyclone furnace retains
heavy metals in a non-leachable slag and
vaporizes and incinerates the organic materials.
The treated soils resemble natural obsidian
(volcanic glass), similar to the final product
from vitrification.
The furnace is a horizontal cylinder and is
designed for heat release rates greater than
450,000 British thermal units (BtuVfoot3 (coal)
and gas temperatures exceeding 3,000°R
Natural gas and preheated primary combustion
air (820°F) enter the furnace tangentially.
Secondary air (820°F), natural gas, and the
synthetic soil matrix (SSM) enter tangentially
along the cyclone barrel (secondary air inlet
location). The resulting swirling action
efficiently mixes air and fuel and increases
combustion gas residence time. Dry SSM has
been tested at pilot-scale feed rates of both 50
and 200 Ib/hr. The SSM is retained on the
furnace wall by centrifugal action; it melts and
captures a portion of the heavy metals. The
organics are destroyed in the molten slag layer.
The slag exits the cyclone furnace (slag
temperature at this location is 2,400°F) and is
dropped into a water-filled slag tank where it
solidifies into a non-leachable vitrified material.
A small quantity of the soil also exits as fly ash
from the furnace and is collected in a baghouse.
This technology may be applied to high-ash
solids (such as sludges and sediments) and soils
containing volatile and non-volatile organics and
heavy metals. The less volatile metals are
captured more readily in the slag. The
technology would be well-suited to mixed waste
soils contaminated with organics and non-
volatile radionuclides (such as plutonium,
thorium, uranium). Because vitrification has
been listed as a Best Demonstrated Achievable
Technology (BOAT) for arsenic and selenium
wastes, the cyclone furnace may be applicable
to these wastes as well.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in August 1991
and was demonstrated at the developer's facility
in 1991, using synthetic soil matrices spiked
with heavy metals, semivolatile organics, and
radionuclide surrogates. The process was
demonstrated using an EPA-supplied, wet SSM
spiked with lead, cadmium, chromium,
anthracene, dimethylphthalate, and simulated
radionuclides—bismuth, strontium, and
zirconium. Almost 3 tons of SSM were
processed during the demonstration at a feed
rate of 170 Ib/hr.
The vitrified slag TCLP teachabilities were 0.29
mg/L for lead, 0.12 mg/L for cadmium, and
0.30 mg/L for chromium (all pass the EPA
TCLP limits). Almost 95 percent of the non-
combustible SSM was incorporated into the
slag. Greater than 75 percent of the chromium,
greater than 88 percent of the bismuth, and
greater than 97 percent of the zirconium were
captured in the slag. Volume reduction was 29
percent on a dry basis. Destruction and removal
efficiencies (DRE) for anthracene and
82
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
dimethylphthalate were greater than 99.997
percent and 99.998 percent, respectively. Stack
particulates were 0.001 grams per dry standard
cubic feet (g/dscf) at 7 percent oxygen, which is
below the RCRA limit of 0.08 g/dscf. Carbon
monoxide and total hydrocarbons in the flue gas
were 6.0 ppm and 8.3 ppm, respectively. The
simulated radionuclides were immobilized in the
vitrified slag as measured using the American
Nuclear Society 16.1 Method.
The demonstration results have been
documented by EPA in an Applications
Analysis Report (EPA/540/AR-92/017). The
report also is available from NTIS (PB93-
122315).
Remediation Costs
Economic analysis, performed by an EPA
contractor as part of the SITE demonstration,
estimated costs of $528/ton of contaminated soil
for a system treating 20,000 tons of
contaminated soil at 3.3 tons/hr.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at the
Babcock and Wilcox Company's facility in
Alliance, Ohio.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contact:
Lawrence King
Babcock & Wilcox Co.
1562 Beeson Street
Alliance, OH 44601
216/829-7576
Combustion
air
Natural gas
injectors
Natural gas
Soil Injector
Inside furnace
Slag tap
\
Cyclone
barrel
Slag
quenching
tank
Cyclone Furnace
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
83
-------
Thermal Treatment
Dynamic Underground Stripping
Organics in Concentrated Underground Plumes (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology is used to treat underground
leaks of organic contaminants, such as those
from underground storage tanks, which can be
a source of ground water contamination. The
technology heats the contaminated soil with a
site-specific combination of steam injection and
three-phase electrical heating to speed the
contaminant removal process. Because it is a
highly energetic process, real-time monitoring is
used for process control and to ensure that
contaminants are not inadvertently mobilized or
moved to unanticipated areas.
Injection wells are installed in permeable areas
surrounding the concentrated plume, and one or
more extraction wells are installed in the center.
The extraction wells are pumped to depress the
water table in the center of the pattern. Then,
steam is injected through the perimeter wells to
heat and sweep the formation. Injection
pressure is controlled according to depth, and is
lower in shallow applications.
As the steam is forced into the wells, the earth
is heated to the boiling point of water. The
advancing pressure front displaces ground water
toward the extraction well. Near the steam-
condensate front, organics are distilled into the
vapor phase, transported to the front, and
condensed there. The zone of advancing steam
displaces the condensed liquids toward the
recovery wells. When the steam reaches the
wells, vacuum extraction is used as the removal
mechanism.
At a selected time in the process, electrode
assemblies placed in the impermeable layers of
the ground are turned on, passing 480 V current
through the formation at up to several hundred
amperes per electrode. This heats clay and fine-
grained sediments, causing any water and
contaminants trapped within to vaporize and be
forced into the steam zones to be swept toward
the extraction wells. Electrical heating may be
followed by one or more additional steam
injection phases for contaminant removal and to
keep permeable zones hot as ground water
returns.
Technology Performance
A demonstration of this technology at a gasoline
spill site at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) in California, was
conducted during 1993. The demonstration
involved six injection wells around the
perimeter of the spill zone and three extraction
wells, used to maintain the required liquid and
vapor removal rates. Preliminary results
indicate the removal of more than 5,000 gal of
gasoline from the lower part of the spill during
nine weeks of extraction.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
84
Federal Remediation technologies Roundtable
-------
General Site Information
Approximately 17,000 gal of gasoline were
spilled at the LLNL site. An estimated 5,000 gal
were trapped beneath the water table because of
a 30-ft rise in the water table. The remainder of
the spill was in the vadose zone.
Contact
Roger D. Aines or
Robin L. Newmark
Dynamic Underground Stripping Project
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808
University of California
Livermore, CA 94550
415/423-7184 or 3644
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
85
-------
Thermal Treatment
High-Temperature Thermal Processor
Organics in Solids and Sludges
Technology Description
The high temperature thermal processor is a
thermal desorption system that can treat solids
and sludges contaminated with organic
constituents. The system consists of material
feed equipment, a thermal processor, a
paniculate removal system, an indirect
condensing system, and activated carbon beds.
Waste from the feed hopper is fed to the
thermal processor, which consists of a jacketed
trough that houses two intermeshing, counter-
rotational screw conveyors. The rotation of the
screws moves material through the processor.
A molten salt eutectic, consisting primarily of
potassium nitrate, serves as the heat transfer
media. This salt melt has heat transfer
characteristics similar to those of oils and
allows maximum processing temperatures of up
to 850°F. The salt melt is non-combustible and
poses no risk of explosion, and potential vapors
are non-toxic. The heated transfer media
continuously circulates through the hollow
flights and shafts of each screw and also
circulates through the jacketed trough. An
electric or fuel oiVgas-fired heater is used to
maintain the temperature of the transfer media.
Treated product is cooled to less than 150°F for
safe handling.
A particulate removal system (such as a cyclone
or quench tower), an indirect condensing
system, and activated carbon beds are used to
control off-gases. The processor operates under
slight negative pressure to exhaust the
volatilized constituents (moisture and organics)
to the off-gas control system. An inert
atmosphere is maintained in the headspace of
the processor using air lock devices at the feed
inlet and solids exit and an inert carrier gas
(such as nitrogen) to maintain an oxygen
concentration of less than 3 percent. The
oxygen and organic content of the off-gas are
continuously monitored as it exits the processor.
Entrained particulate matter is collected and
combined with the treated solids on a batch
basis. The volatilized moisture and organics are
subsequently condensed and decanted. A mist
eliminator minimizes carry-over of entrained
moisture and contaminants after the condenser.
Any remaining non-condensable gases are
passed through activated carbon beds to control
volatile organic compound emissions.
This system can treat soils, sediments, and
sludges contaminated with VOCs and SVOCs,
including PCBs. Work to date has focused
primarily on RCRA wastes from the petroleum
refinery industry. Testing indicates the system
has the potential to treat cyanide-contaminated
materials from petroleum refineries and
manufactured gas plant sites. With the
exception of mercury, the process is not suitable
for treating heavy metals. Wastes must be
prescreened to a particle size of less than 1 inch
before "treatment.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in June 1991. A
commercial-scale system is operating at a Gulf
86
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Coast refinery, and the developer is offering on-
site testing using a mobile pilot-scale system
with a capacity of 0.5 tons/hr. The SITE
demonstration is being conducted at the
Niagara-Mohawk Power Company, a manufac-
turing gas plant site, in Harbour Point, New
York.
Remediation Costs
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Ronald Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction and Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7856
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
The SITE Program demonstration is being
conducted at the Niagara-Mohawk Power
Company site in Harbour Point, New York.
Technology Developer Contact:
Mark McCabe
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
9 Pond Lane
Concord, MA 01742
508/371-1422
RECYCLED PURGE GAS
TO STACK/ATMOSPHERE
FEED
FROM HOPPER
HEAT
SOURCE
COOLING
WATER
MAKE-UP
• PURGE
GAS
QUENCH
WATER
RECYCLE TO
PURGE GAS
STREAM
ACTIVATED
CARBON
BEDS
OFF
GASES
THERMAL
DESORPTtON
UNIT
COOLING UNIT
ft
TREATED
4 PRODUCT
WATER
High Temperature Thermal Processor
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
87
-------
Thermal Treatment
HRUBOUT® Process
Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Soils (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The HRUBOUT® Process removes VOCs and
SVOCs from contaminated soils. Heated air is
injected into the soil below the zone of
contamination, evaporating the soil moisture and
removing volatile and Semivolatile
hydrocarbons. As the water evaporates, soil
porosity and permeability is increased, further
facilitating the air flow at higher temperatures.
Non-volatiles are removed in place by slow
oxidation at the higher temperature ranges.
Injection wells are drilled in predetermined
distribution patterns to a depth below the
contamination. The wells are equipped with
steel casing, perforated at the bottom and
cemented into the hole above the perforations.
This base in then cemented into the hole.
Heated, compressed air is introduced at
temperatures up to 1,200 °F, and the pressure is
slowly increased to force the soil water up
uniformly. As the air progresses upward
through the soil, the moisture is evaporated,
taking with it the VOCs and SVOCs. A surface
collection system captures the exhaust gases
under negative pressure and conducts them to a
thermal oxidizer where the hydrocarbons are
thermally destroyed at 1,500°F.
The air is heated in a 2.9 million-Btu/hr
adiabatic burner. The incinerator has a rating of
3.1 million Btu/hr. The air blower can deliver
up to 8,500 Ibs/hr. The units employ a fully
modulating fuel train run with natural gas or
propane. All equipment is mounted on custom-
designed mobile units and operates 24 hours/
day.
The process is capable of treating soils in the
vadose zone contaminated with halogenated or
non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs at a wide
concentration range. Gasoline, solvents, diesel
oil, jet fuel, heating oil, crude oil, lubricating
oil, creosotes, and hydraulic oils are the primary
hydrocarbons suitable for treatment. There is
no residual output from the treatment site,
eliminating any potential future liability.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Program in 1992. The demonstration was
conducted late in 1992 at Kelly Air Force Base
in San Antonio, Texas.
Pilot-testing in a sandy clay loam indicated that
the process begins volatilizing gasoline in the
vadose zone in 14 to 16 days and diesel in 17 to
19 days. The technology required 13 days to
vaporize the soil water. After these tests were
conducted, equipment development increased
heated air injection capability by 70 percent.
Additional research and development has shown
that excavated contaminated soils may be
treated by distributing the soils over a horizontal
perforated piping grid. The process injects the
pressurized heated air via the grid system,
collects the resulting vapors beneath an
impermeable covering, and directs those vapors
into the thermal oxidizer. A containerized
version of the above process also has been
developed. Future containers may be large
enough to treat 40 yd3 of contained soil.
88
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Additional patents for broadened applications of
this technology are pending. The process was
approved by the Texas Water Commission in
1991.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This process was demonstrated at Kelly Air
Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Reinaldo Matias
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7149
Technology Developer Contact:
Michael Hrubetz
Barbara Hrubetz
Hrubetz Environmental Services, Inc.
5949 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 .
Dallas, TX 75225
214/363-7833
FAX: 214/691-8545
HOT COMPRESSED AIR BURNER/BLOWER
(250--1200°F)
TO ATMOSPHERE
INCINERATOR
VENT GAS VENT GAS
COLLECTION
7— pslg = 0
VADOSE
ZONE
• HOT AIR INJECTION WELLS -
T = 250°-1200°F
pslg = 5-22
WATER TABLE
HRUBOUT* Process
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
89
-------
\
Thermal Treatment
In Situ Vitrification
Organics and Inorganics in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
This in situ vitrification (ISV) process uses an
electric current to melt soil or sludge at
extremely high temperatures (1,600°C to
2,000°C), thus destroying organic pollutants by
pyrolysis. Inorganic pollutants are incorporated
within the vitrified mass, which has glass
properties. Water vapor and organic pyrolysis
by-products are captured in a hood, which
draws the contaminants into an off-gas treatment
system that removes particulates and other
pollutants.
The vitrification process begins by inserting
large electrodes into contaminated zones con-
taining sufficient soil to support the formation
of a melt. An array (usually square) of four
electrodes is placed to the desked treatment
depth in the volume to be treated. Because soil
typically has low electrical conductivity, flaked
graphite and glass frit are placed on the soil
surface between the electrodes to provide a
starter path for electric current. The electric
current passes through the electrodes and begins
to melt soil at the surface. As power is applied,
the melt continues to grow downward, at a rate
of 1 to 2 inches/hr. The large-scale ISV system
melts soil at a rate of 4 to 6 tons/hr.
The mobile ISV system is mounted on three
semitrailers. Electric power is usually taken
from a utility distribution system at transmission
voltages of 12.5 or 13.8 kilovolts. Power also
may be generated on-site by a diesel generator.
The electrical supply system has an isolated
ground circuit to provide appropriate operational
safety.
Air flow through the hood is controlled to
maintain a negative pressure. An ample supply
of air provides excess oxygen for combustion of
any pyrolysis products and organic vapors from
the treatment volume. Off-gases are treated by
quenching, pH controlled scrubbing, dewatering
(mist elimination), heating (for dewpoint
control), paniculate filtration, and activated
carbon adsorption.
Individual settings (placement of electrodes)
may grow to encompass a total melt mass of
1,000 tons and a maximum width of 35 feet.
Single-setting depths as great as 25 feet are
considered possible. Depths exceeding 19 feet
have been achieved with existing large-scale
ISV equipment. Adjacent settings can be
positioned to fuse to each other and to com-
pletely process the desired volume at a site.
Stacked settings to reach deep contamination are
also possible. Void volume present in
particulate materials (20 to 40 percent for
typical soils) is removed during processing,
reducing the waste volume.
The ISV process can be used to destroy or
remove organics and to immobilize inorganics
in contaminated soils or sludges. In saturated
soils or sludges, water is driven off at the 100°C
isotherm moving in advance of the melt. Water
removal increases energy consumption and
associated costs. Also, sludges must contain a
sufficient amount of glass-forming material
(non-volatile, non-destructible solids) to produce
a molten mass that will destroy or remove
organic pollutants and immobilize inorganic
pollutants. The ISV process is limited by (1)
individual void volumes in excess of 150 ft3, (2)
90
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
rubble exceeding 20 percent by weight, and (3)
combustible organics in the soil or sludge
exceeding 5 to 10 weight percent, depending on
the heat value.
Technology Performance
The ISV process has been operated for test and
demonstration purposes at pilot scale 22 times
and at large scale 10 times. Sites have included
Geosafe's test site and the DOE's Hanford
Nuclear Reservation, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. More than 130 tests at various
scales have been performed on a broad range of
waste types in soils and sludges. The EPA
SITE Program demonstration is being conducted
during 1993 at the Parsons/ETM Superfund site
in Grand Ledge, Michigan. Geosafe is currently
doing further technology testing before any field
remediation work.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology has been demonstrated at a
variety of sites, including Geosafe's test site in
Kirkland, Washington, and the DOE's Hanford
Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, and Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Teri Richardson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7949
Technology Developer Contact:
James Hansen
Geosafe Corporation
303 Park Place, Suite 126
Kirkland, WA 98033
206/822-4000
FAX: 206/827-6608
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
91
_
-------
Thermal Treatment
In Situ Vitrification
Organics, Inorganics, and Radionuclides in Soils
Technology Description
This in situ vitrification (ISV) process fixes
fission products and immobilizes or destroys
mixtures of hazardous chemicals in soils. This
technology can be applied to radionuclides,
heavy metals, and hazardous organic-
contaminated soil.
ISV is the conversion of contaminated soil into
a durable glass and crystalline waste form
through melting the soil by joule heating.
Contaminants are destroyed by or immobilized
in molten glass (melted soil). Soil is melted by
electrical energy from electrodes that are placed
in the ground. Off-gas from this process is
treated by conventional off-gas treatment
methods.
This technology has a number of benefits.
Specifically, ISV may safely immobilize or
destroy both radioactive and hazardous chem-
icals before they impact the ground water or
other ecosystems. It is applicable to soils
contaminated with fission products, transuranics,
hazardous metals, and hazardous organics. It
reduces the risk to the public by immobilizing
or destroying radioactive and hazardous mater-
ials in the soil. Finally, in situ treatment poses
a lower potential risk to workers than traditional
treatments because contaminants are not brought
to the surface. This technology, however, has
not yet been demonstrated at depths beyond
twenty feet.
The ISV technology can be applied to a wide
range of soil types and contaminants. Melt
depths of approximately 5 meters are considered
the practical limit for most sites at this time.
However, additional research is being conducted
to ultimately achieve melt depths of up to 10
meters. There are no practical limits for inor-
ganic contaminants; current processing systems
are designed to process up to 8 wt. percent
organics based on heat loading considerations.
High moisture soils can generally be processed,
but saturated soils with free flowing ground
water would require the use of methods to
minimize ground water recharge. With use of
electrode feeding technology (vertically move-
able electrodes), inclusions such as scrap metals
and buried piping can be processed without
concern of electrical short circuits.
Technology Performance
Recent field-scale demonstrations have been
conducted at the DOE's Hanford Reservation
and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. During a
large-scale demonstration at the Hanford site, a
liquid waste disposal crib constructed of wooden
timber was vitrified producing a monolith of
over 800 tons in size. Contamination in soils in
and below the crib contained heavy metals, such
as lead and chromium, and radionuclides,
including an estimated 900 mCi of strontium-90
and 150 mCi of cesium-137. The demonstration
was conducted in 1990. Coring of the block
was completed in 1991. Key results from the
study indicated the following:
• The ISV process maintained an 87 percent
on-line operating efficiency during the test;
• The off-gas treatment system easily accom-
modated the additional off-gas and heat
92
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
loads from the thermal decomposition of the
crib's wooden timbers;
• Analyses of cores taken from the monolith
revealed a homogeneous composition due to
the convective mixing currents that occur in
the melt;
• The resulting glass and crystalline product
easily passed TCLP criteria;
• Chromium and lead retention in the melt
was greater that 99.99 percent, and the
retention in the melt for cesium-137 was
greater than 99.98 percent;
• Leach testing (monolithic static tests in
water at 90°C) indicated that the vitrified
product was comparable in durability to
both high-level waste borosilicate glasses
and natural analogs such as granite; and
• Melt depth was limited to 4.3 meters (the
bottom of the crib) and was hindered by a
cobble layer beneath the crib.
A second ISV field demonstration was con-
ducted in May 1991 on a one-quarter-scale
liquid waste disposal trench containing 10 mCi
of cesium-137. The trench was designed to
simulate the liquid waste disposal trenches at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, many of which
contain thousands of Curies of cesium-137 and
strontium-90. The test was conducted over a
five-day period and achieved a melt depth of
about 2.75 meters, exceeding expectations for
the pilot-scale system. Key results included the
following:
• Approximately 97.6 wt. percent of cesium
was retained in the melt. A paniculate filter
system installed on the off-gas line was
used to effectively prevent the balance of
cesium that was volatilized during the vitri-
fication process (2.4 wt. percent) from
reaching the off-gas treatment trailer;
• Surrounding soils were determined to be
free of cesium contamination indicating that
no outward migration occurred;
• Post-test evaluations of the vitrified product
revealed that the cesium partitioned in the
glass phases of the block rather than in the
crystalline phases or at phase boundaries;
• No volatilization of strontium-90 or
plutonium-239/240 was detected, and
>99.993 percent of these non-volatile
radionuclides were retained in the melt;
• The use of added rare earth tracers (cerium,
lanthanum, and neodymium) as surrogates
for transuranic isotopes led to estimated
melt retentions of >99.9995 percent; and
• Leach testing of crushed vitrified product (-
100 to +200 mesh) in water at 90°C
revealed that the normalized releases of the
vitrified material are typically less than
high-level waste borosilicate glasses.
Additional large-scale ISV performance data
will be obtained by the Geosafe Corporation.
The company was expected to commence
commercial ISV operations in 1993, including
large-scale equipment operational tests and two
multiple-setting remedial demonstrations.
Remediation Costs
Costs of approximately $300 to $450/ton of soil,
exclusive of costs for mobilization and demo-
bilization of the process equipment, are
expected.
General Site Information
Demonstrations of this technology have been
conducted at DOE's Hanford Reservation in
Richland, Washington, and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Contact
Leo E. Thompson
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
MS P7-34
P.O. Box 999
Richland, Washington 99352
509/376-5150
James E. Hansen
Geosafe Corporation
2950 George Washington Way
Richland, WA 99352
509/375-0710
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
93
-------
Thermal Treatment
Low-Temperature Thermal Aeration (LTTA®)
Organics in Soils, Sediments, and Sludges
Technology Description
This technology is a low-temperature desorption
process that removes organic compounds from
contaminated soils by heating the soils up to
800°F. The main components of the process
include (1) a materials dryer, (2) a pug mill, (3)
two cyclonic separators, (4) a baghouse, (5) a
wet Venturi scrubber, (6) a liquid-phase
granular activated carbon (GAG) column, and
(7) two vapor-phase GAG beds.
A front-end loader transports contaminated soils
to feed hoppers, which release the coil onto a
conveyor belt. The conveyor belt transports the
contaminated soils into the materials dryer.
Contaminated soils in the materials dryer are
heated by a parallel-flow hot air stream heated
by a propane/fuel oil burner. The materials
dryer is a rotating drum equipped with
longitudinal flights for soil mixing.
Processed soil is discharged to an enclosed pug
mill where water is added to cool it and to
control fugitive dust emissions. Treated soil is
released onto a discharge conveyor and
stockpiled. The stockpiled soil is tested on site
to confirm that it meets cleanup goals and then
disposed or retreated as required.
The exhaust air stream from the materials dryer,
containing vaporized organic contaminants and
airborne soil particulates, is treated with a series
of standard air pollution control devices before
being vented to the atmosphere.
The process can remove VOCs and SVOCs,
organochlorine pesticides (OCPs),
organophosphorous pesticides (OPPs), and total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) from soils,
sediments, and some sludges. The technology
has been used at full scale to remove VOCs
such as benzene, toluene, PCE, TCE, • and
dichloroethylene (DCE); SVOCs such as
acenaphthene, chrysene, naphthalene, and
pyrene; OCPs such as DDT and its metabolites;
OPPs such as ethyl parathion and methyl
parathion; and TPHs. The developer has
reported removal efficiencies of greater than 99
percent for VOCs at concentrations up to 5,400
mg/kg, greater than 92 percent for pesticides up
to 1,500 mg/kg, and 67 to 96 percent for
SVOCs up to 6.5 mg/kg.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1992. A
demonstration was performed on soils
contaminated with OCPs at a pesticide site in
Arizona in September 1992. Key findings from
the demonstration include:
• The process met the specified cleanup
criteria for the site, a sliding scale criteria
correlating the concentrations of DDT-
family compounds (ODD, DDE, DDT) with
concentrations of toxaphene. The maximum
allowable pesticide concentration in the
treated soil were 3.52 mg/kg of DDT-family
compounds and 1.09 mg/kg of toxaphene.
• Residual levels of all the pesticides in the
treated soil generally were near or below to
the laboratory detection limit, except 4,4-
DDE which was found at residual
concentrations of 0.1 to 1.5 mg/kg. Removal
94
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
efficiencies for pesticides found in the feed
soil at quantifiable concentrations, except
4,4-DDE, were greater than 99.8 percent.
The removal efficiency for 4,4-DDE was
just over 90.2 percent.
The process did not generate dioxins or
furans as products of incomplete combustion
or thermal transformation.
Some thermal breakdown products were
formed within the process. These included
acetone, acrylonitrile, benzoic acid, benzyl
alcohol, benzaldehyde, dihydrofuranone,
phenol, and methyl phenol. These products
were removed extensively in the untreated
scrubber liquor and the vapor-phase GAC
beds. The stack emissions included some of
the compounds at low concentrations.
The average emissions rate for compounds
detected at quantifiable levels in the stack
gas included 4,4-DDE at 0.000043 Ib/hr,
chloromethane at 0.020 Ib/hr, benzene at
0.053 Ib/hr, and toluene at 0.008 Ib/hr. The
presence of acetonitrile and acrylonitrile in
the stack emissions is being confirmed.
The process performed efficiently with no
down time during the demonstration. A
staff of six to eight is required for
operation, including site supervisors, an
excavation crew, support staff, and
laboratory chemists for next day
confirmation testing. The process layout
requires space for eight to 10 flat-bed
trailers and sufficient area (150 ft x 150 ft)
to stage feed and treated soils.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a pesticide
site in Arizona. The full-scale system has been
used in remediation of six sites, including three
Superfund sites.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contacts:
Chetan Trivedi
Joseph Button
Canonie Environmental Services Corp.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
219/926-7169
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
_
-------
''..::'S^££r>:::i
".TREATtD HATERUL*.. ..•*'
.". .**, „•* .
='»* "***.', *,*» * "•"**„ ."••*•*.
I**-lt ***** *v*. 1:'»,
j***.* V-*.* '/.»•.* *r*c*
ACTIVATED. CARBON
• TRAILER..- •. ••
IWACTED WAIERtAL.'.•-•.'. ,':
Low Temperature Thermal Aeration
96
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
Low-Temperature Thermal Stripping
Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil
Technology Description
Low-temperature thermal stripping removes
VOCs such as chlorinated solvents and fuels
from soils. The technology is applicable to
contaminated soils associated with fire training
pits, burn pits, spills, and lagoons.
Contaminants having boiling points as high as
500°C have been removed from soils.
In 1985, the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency sponsored the development of
a low-temperature thermal stripping process
which used a Holo-Flite screw thermal
processor. Contaminated soil is fed through an
opening at the top of the system, called the soil
feed hopper. The soil falls into the main part of
the system, or thermal processor. The thermal
processor consists of two separate but identical
units, each containing four large, hollow screws.
The screws are 18 inches in diameter and 20
feet long. As the screws turn, they churn the
soil, breaking it up and pushing it from the feed
end of the processor to the discharge end.
Simultaneously, hot oil is pumped through the
inside of the screws. The constant churning of
the soil and movement of hot oil up and down
the length of the screws heat the soil and
volatilize the VOCs. Additional heat is
provided by the walls of the processor, called
the trough jacket, which also contains flowing
hot oil. The thermal processor heats up to a
maximum of about 650°F.
•r,
This method does, however, have a number of
limitations: this is a media transfer technique
rather than a destructive technique; treatment of
the gaseous effluent prior to discharge might be
required, depending upon local regulations;
bench-scale evaluation should be conducted
before pilot testing or implementation (the
equipment for the bench-scale test is available
and will fit in a standard laboratory hood);
lower explosive limits must be considered when
treating soils contaminated with flammable
solvents; an inert gas such as nitrogen might be
considered as an alternative to air to reduce the
risk of combustion or explosion; and since this
is a low-temperature method, , metal
contaminants will not be removed.
Technology Performance
The results from a pilot-scale field
demonstration of this technology were extremely
positive. Eighteen days of formal testing were
completed in 22 consecutive calendar days.
During this period, more than 10,000 pounds of
contaminated soils were processed. Upon
completion of the formal testing, 10 additional
days of testing were conducted to optimize
system performance. During this period, more
than 5,000 pounds of contaminated soils were
processed. A comparison of the VOCs
measured in the processed soil and stack gas
indicated that a greater than 99.9 percent
destruction and removal efficiency was
achieved. A summary of the soil concentrations
and maximum VOC removal efficiencies is
provided in Table 1. Stack emissions were in
compliance with all Federal and state
regulations (including those for VOCs, hydrogen
chloride (HCL), carbon monoxide (CO), and
particulates). After processing, regulatory
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
97
-------
approval was granted to dispose of the treated
soils on site as backfill.
Remediation Costs
To treat a site containing 15,000 to 80,000 tons
of contaminated soil, the optimally-sized process
costs would be $74/ton and $160/ton,
respectively, without flue gas treatment. If
afterburner exhaust gases are treated prior to
discharge, the respective costs are $87/ton and
$184/ton.
General Site Information
A large-scale pilot test was conducted at
Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania. The demonstration was
conducted between August 5 and September 16,
1985. The feed soils were excavated from
lagoons in the K-l Area which received organic
liquids from industrial operations at the Depot.
The contaminants were TCE, DCE, PCE, and
xylene.
Contact
Capt. Kevin Keehan
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: ENAEC-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410/671-2054
Technology Developer Contact:
Mike Cosmos
Weston Services, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
215/430-7423
Table 1. Summary of Soil VOC Concentrations and Maximum VOC Removal Efficiencies
VOC
Dichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylene*
Other VOCs
Total VOCs
Feed Soil Average
(ppm)
83
1,673
429
64
14
2,263
Concentrations
Maximum (ppm)
470
19,000
2,500
380
88
22,438
Maximum Removal
Efficiency
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
* Xylene is not classified as a VOC since its boiling point is approximately 140°C. However, it
was included in this study to evaluate the effectiveness of this technology on higher boiling point
semivolatile compounds.
98
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
\
Thermal Treatment
Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3®)
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics in Soil
Technology Description
The basis of the LT3® technology is the thermal
processor, an indirect heat exchanger used to
dry and heat contaminated soils. The process
includes three main steps: soil treatment,
emissions control, and water treatment.
Equipment used in the process is mounted on
three tractor trailer beds for transport and
operation, and it requires an areas of about
5,000 ft2.
The thermal processor consists of two covered
troughs that house four intermeshed screw
conveyors. The covered Houghs and screws are
hollow to allow circulation of hot oil, providing
indirect heating of the soils. Each screw moves
the soil through the processor and thoroughly
mixes the material.
The heating of the soil to 400°F to 500°F
evaporates contaminants from the soil. Soil is
discharged from the thermal processor into a
conditioner where a water spray cools it and
minimizes dust emissions. A fan draws
desorbed organics from the processor through a
baghouse filter. Depending on the contaminant
characteristics, dust from the filter may be
retreated, combined with treated materials, or
drummed separately for on-site disposal.
Exhaust gas from the filter is drawn through an
air-cooled condenser to remove most of the
water vapor and organics. It then is passed
through a second refrigerated condenser and is
treated by carbon adsorption.
The condensate streams from the LT3® system
are treated to separate light and heavy organic
phases from the water phase. The water is
treated by carbon adsorption until it is free of
contaminants. Treated condensate often is used
for soil conditioning, and only the organic
phases are disposed off site.
This technology can be applied to soils
contaminated with VOCs and SVOCs. Soils
contaminated with coal tar, drill cuttings (oil-
based mud), No. 2 diesel fuel, JP-4 jet fuel,
leaded and unleaded gasoline, petroleum
hydrocarbons, halogenated and non-halogenated
solvents, and PAHs have been treated using this
technology.
Technology Performance
A full-scale demonstration was conducted at
Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, in 1989. The demonstration was
designed to remove jet propulsion fuel (JP-4)
and chlorinated organic compounds, such as
TCE, from contaminated soils. The only
modification to the basic system was the
addition of a scrubber system to control acid gas
emissions.
The demonstration showed conclusively that the
technology was effective in reducing the
concentration of not only JP-4 but also all
compounds originally specified in the Test Plan.
All cleanup level goals could be met by heating
the processed soil above 215°F. This was a
considerably lower temperature than anticipated.
As a result, all cleanup goals were met while
processing soil at rates 25 percent in excess of
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
99
-------
the design capacity. The treatment capacity was
18,000 to 20,000 Ibs/hr.
The demonstration was discontinued when
PCBs were discovered in the feed and processed
soils, because the system had not been designed
to process PCBs.
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in September
1991 and demonstrated at the Anderson
Development Company (ADC) Superfund site in
Adrian, Michigan. The site was contaminated
with VOCs, SVOCs, and 4,4-methylenebis (2-
chloroaniline) (MBOCA). Feed preparation for
the sludge at the site included lime and ferric
chloride addition, followed by filter press
dewatering to a moisture content of 14 percent
to 44 percent. During the demonstration,
contaminated sludge was heated to above 500°F
for a residence time of 90 min. The system
throughput was about 2.1 tons/hr. Key findings
include the following:
• The system removed VOCs to below
method detection limits (less than 0.060 mg/
kg for most compounds).
• The system achieved MBOCA removal
efficiencies greater than 88 percent;
concentrations in the treated sludge ranged
from 3.0 to 9.6 mg/kg.
• The system decreased the concentrations of
all SVOCs in the sludge, with two
exceptions. An increase in phenol
concentration most likely was due to
chemical transformations during heating. A
minor leak of heat transfer fluid, containing
triphenylene, probably caused the apparent
increase in chrysene concentration.
• Dioxin and furans were formed in the
system, but the 2,3,7,8-TCDD isomer was
not detected in treated sludge.
• Stack emissions of non-methane total
hydrocarbons increased from 6.7 to 11 ppm
by volume during the demonstration; the
maximum emission rate was 0.2 Ib/day.
The maximum particulates emission rate
was 0.02 Ib/day, and no chlorides were
measured in stack gases.
Remediation Costs
Based on the demonstration at Tinker Air Force
Base, the unit cost for processing and
decontaminating soil with similar contaminants
is $86/ton soil at an average processing rate of
8 tons/hr. Total estimated costs, including
mobilization and demobilization, to process
5,000 tons would be $116/ton. Fixed costs for
mobilization, start up, and demobilization would
be approximately $150,000.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at Tinker air
force Base in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and at
the Anderson Development Company Superfund
site in Adrian, Michigan.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Rick Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
Capt. Kevin Keehan
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ENAEC-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD 21010-5401
410/671-2054
Technology Developer Contact:
Mike Cosmos
Weston Services, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
215/430-7423
100
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
SwMpgai
To atmo«ph«r«
Hot oil burnw oil-gates
- Fuel/combustion air
Truck tod
conveyor
lessor oH-
•"* conveyor '
gases
Organia
3-Phaso
oil/water
separator
1
W»ler
Carbon
adsorption
i
Waler lank
3L- 55-Galton drum
t
To atmosphere
Schematic diagram of the LT3® system
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
101
-------
Thermal Treatment
Molten Salt Oxidation Process
Radionuclides, Organics, Oils, Graphite,
Chemical Warfare Agents, Explosives in Liquids and Solids
Technology Description
The Molten Salt Oxidation (MSO) Process is
carried out in a highly reactive oxidizing and
catalytic medium. It uses a sparged bed of
turbulent molten salt such as sodium carbonate
at 800°C to 1,000°C with waste and air
introduced beneath the surface of the molten
salt. Generally, the heat of oxidation of the
waste keeps the salt molten. The off-gas,
containing carbon dioxide, steam, nitrogen, and
un-rcacted oxygen is cleaned of particulates by
passing the gas through standard filters before
discharging to the atmosphere.
i
MSO has a high treatment potential for
radioactive and hazardous forms of high-heating
liquids (organic solvents, waste oils), low-
heating value liquids (high-halogen content
organic liquids), other wastes (pesticides,
herbicides, PCBs, chemical warfare agents,
explosives, propellants, infectious wastes), and
gases (VOCs and acid gases). By virtue of the
latter, MSO could replace conventional wet-
scrubbers as a superior dry-scrubber system for
use with incinerators. The typical residence
time is two seconds for the treatment of wastes
by the MSO Process.
Wastes containing heavy metals are converted to
oxides and retained in the melt. Organic solids
and other combustible materials are destroyed,
but MSO is not suitable for direct treatment of
inert solids, such as soils and rubble. However,
MSO can treat the extracted residuals of
commercially available soils pretreatment
technologies such as vapor extraction, solvent
extraction, thermal desorption, and base-
catalyzed dechlorination. Carbon has been
destroyed in all of the process demonstrations,
including graphite oxidation and coal
gasification.
Ash and the reaction products of acid gases and
salt are retained in the molten salt. The MSO
Process has been tested at 900°C for the
destruction of solid combustible waste-bearing
plutonium at TRU levels (>100 mCi/g).
Measurable amounts of plutonium downstream
of the oxidizer have shown that 99.9 percent of
the plutonium remains in the melt.
The final waste form is a product of the spent
salt disposal or recycle subsystem. In the
destruction of chlorinated waste compounds, the
melt becomes unreactive as the salt converts to
approximately 90 percent sodium chloride
(NaCl). The NaCl can be discarded unless it is
contaminated with radionuclides. These can be
extracted from the disposable salt by ion
exchange chemistry coupled with biosorption
techniques. Otherwise, when the salt is reusable
but contains ash and possibly metal products,
conventional dissolution and fractional filtration
techniques with radionuclide extraction apply.
Technology Performance
Fundamental theoretical studies, experimental
investigations, and demonstrations were
supported by DOE and Rockwell International
for about 20 years until 1982 when it was
determined that MSO offered no cost advantage
102
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
over incineration. Prior to 1982, Rockwell had
conducted bench-scale unit (1 to 2 Ib/hr feed
rate) tests on chlordane and hexachlorobenzene
or EPA as well as a variety of other wastes in
other programs. In these programs, Rockwell
conducted bench-scale tests to demonstrate the
destruction of PCBs for the Canadian Electric
Association. Using the Rockwell bench-scale
unit, Edgewood Arsenal personnel in 1976
demonstrated the high-efficiency destruction of
the chemical warfare agents VX, GB, and
mustard. In June 1993, the Committee on
Alternative Chemical Demilitarization
Technologies reported on MSO as one of the
viable alternatives to incineration for the
destruction of stockpiled chemical warfare
agents. Rockwell conducted tests on a pilot-
scale unit (270 Ib/hr feed rate) to demonstrate
the destruction of hazardous chemicals such as
chlordane and hexachlorobenzene for EPA. The
largest Rockwell MSO unit (2,000 Ib/hr feed
rate) was built and operated for DOE in 1973 to
demonstrate MSO as a coal gasification
technology.
Remediation Costs
Molten salt oxidation costs are very specific to
the type of waste and size of equipment. Costs
as low as $500/ton are possible. No firm cost
information is available for other applications of
MSO as a primary treatment system or as an
incinerator off-gas dry-scrubber system. The
DOE currently is engaged in a five-year MSO
project plan which is expected to begin yielding
that information.
General Site Information
The DOE five-year MSO project plan leads to
commercial-scale operation of an MSO pilot
plant at the Oak Ridge Reservation in
Tennessee by 1997. Rockwell International is
the principal industry partner. Prototype
treatability tests of mixed (radioactive and
hazardous) waste are being conducted at several
DOE installations: Energy Technology
Engineering Center (ETEC); Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National
Laboratory. ETEC recently completed
destruction of 50 gallons of mixed waste
hydraulic oils contaminated with Cs-137, Sr-90,
and Co-60. At the Alberta (Canada) Special
Waste Treatment Center Incinerator Research
Facility, a prototype MSO unit designed to treat
incinerator flue gas will be operated to evaluate
the effectiveness of MSO as a dry-scrubber for
controlling gas emissions from incinerators.
Contact
Lawnie H. Taylor
U.S. Department of Energy
EM-43
Washington, DC 20585
301/903-8119
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
103
-------
Feed System (acid gases,
combustible solids, organic liquids,
aqueous solutions, and slurries)
Waste (mixed wastes, PCBs, CFCs,
propellants, munitions, chemical
warfare agents, graphite, and other
low-ash organics)
Sodium
Carbonate
Air
CO,H20,N2,02
Removed Particulates
(NaCI, Na2C02)
Salt Melt Retains
Metal/Radionuclides
Sodium Salts
co;,ci-, so;, Etc.
Spent Salt Disposal
Without Recycle
Salt
Recycle
Option
Chemical
(Partial Listing)
Destroyed (%)
PCS
Para-arsanilic acid
Chloroform
Trichloroethane
Diphenylamine HCL
Nitroethane
HCB
Chlorodane
VX
GB
Mustard
Waste Oil With TCE
6-9's
>5 - 9's
>5 - 9's
>5-9's
>5 - 9's
>4 - 9's
9-9's
7-9's
>7 - 9's
>8 - 9's
>6 - 9's
>6 - 9's
, The Molten Salt Oxidation (MSO) Process
104
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
*
Thermal Treatment
Plasma Arc Vitrification
Organics and Metals in Soils and Sludge
Technology Description
Plasma Arc Vitrification occurs in a plasma
centrifugal furnace by a thermal treatment
process where heat from a transferred plasma
arc torch creates a molten bath that detoxifies
the feed material. Solids melt and are vitrified
in the molten bath at 2,800°F to 3,000°F. Metals
are retained in this phase which, when cooled,
forms a non-leachable, glassy residue which
meets TCLP criteria.
Waste material is fed into a sealed centrifuge
where it is heated to 1,800°F by the plasma
torch. Organic material is evaporated and
destroyed almost immediately.
Off-gas travels through a gas/slag separation
chamber to a secondary combustion chamber
where it remains at more than 2,000°F for more
than 2 seconds. The gas then flows through an
off-gas treatment system.
The off-gas treatment system removes
particulates, organic vapors, and volatilized
metals. Off-gas monitoring verifies that
applicable environmental regulations are met.
The design of the off-gas treatment system
depends on the waste material.
Inorganic material is reduced to a molten phase
that is uniformly heated and mixed by the
centrifuge and the plasma arc. Material can be
added in-process to control slag quality. When
the centrifuge is slowed, the molten material is
discharged as a homogeneous, non-leachable
glassy slag into a mold or drum in the slag
collection chamber.
The entire system is hermetically sealed and
operated below atmospheric pressure to prevent
leakage of process gases. Pressure relief valves
connected to a closed surge tank provide relief
if gas pressures in the furnace exceed safe
levels. Vented gas is held in the tank and
recycled into the furnace.
The technology is most appropriate for mixed
waste, transuranic waste, chemical plant
residues and by-products, soils containing heavy
metals and organics, incinerator ash, munitions,
sludge, and hospital waste.
Technology Performance
The EPA SITE Program demonstration was
conducted in 1991 at DOE's Component
Development and Integration Facility in Butte,
Montana. During the demonstration, the furnace
processed approximately 4,000 Ibs of waste.
The waste consisted of soil with heavy metals
from the Silver Bow Creek Superfund site,
spiked with 28,000 ppm zinc oxide and 1,000
ppm hexachlorobenzene and mixed in a 90-to-
10 weight ratio with No. 2 diesel oil. All feed
and effluent streams were sampled. The
Applications Analysis Report (EPA/540/A5-91/
007) has been published. Key results include
the following:
• Hexachlorobenzene was at or below
detection limits in all off-gas samples
(minimum DRE ranged from 99.9968
percent to 99.9999 percent);
• The treated material met TCLP standards
for organic and inorganic constituents;
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
105
-------
The treated material contained a high
percentage of metals in the feed soil;
Particulates in the off-gas exceeded the
regulatory standard (the system is being
modified accordingly); and
Remediation Costs
According to EPA's Applications Analysis
Report, the unit cost of this technology depends
on the waste feed rate to the furnace. For a
feed rate of 500 Ib/hr and an on-line percentage
of 70 percent, the cost is estimated to be
$l,816/ton; for a 2,200 Ib/hr feed rate, the cost
would be $757/ton.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at DOE's
Component Development and Integration
Facility in Butte, Montana.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contacts:
R. C. Eschenbach
L.B. Leland
Retech, Inc.
P.O. Box 997
100 Henry Station
Ukiah, CA 95482
707/462-6522
FAX: 707/462-4103
FEEDER
EXHAUST
STACK
PLASMA TORCH
GAS TREATMENT
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
SLAG
CHAMBER
Plasma Centrifugal Furnace
106
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
Radio Frequency (RF) Thermal Soil Decontamination
Solvents and Volatile and Semivolatile Petroleum in Soils (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The radio frequency (RF) thermal soil
decontamination process removes volatile
hazardous waste materials through in situ radio
frequency heating of the soil and volatilization
of the hazardous substances. This technology
can be applied to fire training pits, spills, and
sludge pits containing solvents and volatile and
Semivolatile petroleum.
Radio frequency heating is performed by the
application of electromagnetic energy in a
medically approved radio frequency band. The
energy is delivered by electrodes placed in holes
drilled through the soil. The mechanism of heat
generation is similar to that of a microwave
oven and does not rely on the thermal properties
of the soil matrix. The power source for a
three-row (ground-excitor-ground) single module
electrode array is a 45 kw electric generator.
The exact frequency of operation is selected
after evaluation of the dielectric properties of
the soil matrix and the size of the area requiring
treatment. The gases and vapors formed in the
soil matrix can be recovered at the surface or
through the electrodes used for the heating
process. Condensation and collection of the
concentrated vapor stream is used to capture the
contaminant above ground. The system consists
of four components: the RF energy deposition
electrode array; a RF power generator, electrical
transmission, monitoring, and control system; a
vapor extractions and containment system; and
a gas and liquid condensate handling and
treatment system.
This technology has a number of advantages:
• Demonstrations have shown higher than 90
percent reduction of hazardous hydrocarbons
from soils;
• Contaminants are recovered in a relatively
concentrated form without dilution from
large volumes of air or combustion gases;
• This is an in situ method; soil does not have
to be excavated; and
• All equipment is portable.
Limitations of this technology include:
• High moisture or presence of ground water
in the treatment zone will result in
excessive power requirements to heat the
soil; and
• The method may or may not be used if
large buried metal objects are in the
treatment zone.
• Cool down may cause backflow of
surrounding contaminants into the treated
core of depression.
Technology Performance
The pilot-scale field demonstration in 1985 at
Volk Field Air National Guard Base, Camp
Douglas, Wisconsin, produced positive results:
• 94 to 99 percent decontamination of a 500
ft3 block of soil was achieved during a 12-
day period. Ninety-seven percent of
Semivolatile hydrocarbons and 99 percent of
volatile aromatics and aliphatics were
removed;
• Contaminant removal at the 2-meter depth,
the fringe of the heated zone, exceeded 95
percent;
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
107
-------
• The 70 to 76 percent contaminant reduction
in the immediate area outside the heated
zone indicates that there was no net
migration of contaminant from the heated
area to the surrounding soil; and
• Substantial removal of high boiling
contaminants can be achieved at
temperatures significantly lower than their
boiling point. This occurs due to the long
residence time provided at lower
temperatures and steam distillation provided
by the native moisture.
Remediation Costs
It is estimated that the treatment cost will vary
between $28 to $60/ton of soil. Based on
bench-scale tests, it is estimated that the
treatment of a 3-acre site to a depth of 8 feet
containing 12 percent moisture raised to a
temperature of 170°C would cost $42/ton. The
treatment of such a site would require about one
year. The initial capital equipment investment
for full-scale projects is estimated to be about
$1.5 million. Power requirements are
approximately 500 kilowatt-hours/yd3 to reach a
temperature of 150°C.
General Site Information
A bench-scale pilot test (volume <20 drums)
has been conducted at ITT Research Institute
facilities. A full-scale demonstration was
completed in seven feet of sandy soil at Volk
Field (ANGB), Wisconsin, during October 1989.
Another pilot-scale demonstration was
conducted in 1993 at Kelly AFB, San Antonio,
Texas, in clay soil 10 to 30 feet deep.
Contact
Paul F. Carpenter
AL/EQW
139 Barnes Drive
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
904/523-6022
«F Fewer
Soure*
Vapor Strricr
Exciter Elcccrodii
Ground El«ccrodtt i
,
' —. Ott *nd Vapor
Trtiltwnc Sysctn
RF Thermal Soil Decontamination
108
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
Six-Phase Soil Heating
VOCs in Soils (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology removes VOCs as vapors from
contaminated soil. Six electrodes are placed in
a circle surrounding a central vent. Six-phase
current, each electrode receiving a single phase,
is applied to the electrodes. Resistive heating
dissipates the electrical energy in the
contaminated zone, and vapor is withdrawn
from the central vent as in conventional soil
vapor extraction (SVE).
Compared with SVE, six-phase heating
accelerates remediation. By raising the soil
temperature, the vapor pressure of VOCs
increases which, in turn, accelerates their
removal. If the temperature increase is
sufficient, six-phase heating also may allow
cost-effective remediation of SVOCs by soil
vapor extraction.
Applying this technology requires additional
equipment and increases electrical usage.
Further development work may be required to
address safety concerns and design approaches
for sites with underground pipes or utilities,
large quantities of buried metal debris, or other
conductive objects.
Site geology must be amenable to the instal-
lation of electrodes, and sufficient soil moisture
must be maintained near the electrodes to avoid
excessive drying which reduces electrical
heating.
The technology produces no waste, but, as with
conventional SVE and bioventing, off-gases
must be treated or collected prior to atmospheric
release. Proper design of vents in conjunction
with covers that may be placed on the surface
of the soil generally is sufficient to ensure that
soil off-gases are safely contained during
operation.
Technology Performance
This technology is currently being demonstrated
at a contaminated site on DOE's Hanford
Reservation as part of the agency's VOCs at
Arid Sites Integrated Demonstration Program.
Remediation Costs
Although the cost is dependent on the soil and
moisture content of the soil, it is estimated that
this technology costs $30 to $60/yd3 of soil
cleaned.
General Site Information
This technology is slated for demonstration at
DOE's Hanford Reservation in Richland,
Washington. The Hanford Site, located in
southeastern Washington State, is an area of
approximately 600 square miles that was
selected in 1943 for producing nuclear materials
in support of the United States' effort in World
war n. Hanford's operations over the last 40+
years have been dedicated to nuclear materials,
electrical generation, diverse types of research,
and waste management. Some of these
operations produced aqueous and organic wastes
that were discharged to the soil column.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
109
-------
Contacts
W.O. Heath
T.M. Bergsman
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
P.O. Box 999, MS1N P7-41
Richland, WA 99352
509/376-0554 and 3638
110
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
Thermally Enhanced Vapor Extraction
VOCs in Soils (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
Organic waste landfil]. disposal cells, fire
training pits, and chemical production processes
often co-disposed a wide spectrum of organic
chemicals (from low boiling point organic
solvents to very high boiling point oils). These
mixtures are difficult to remediate by vacuum
vapor extraction technology due to the low mass
removal rates. Innovative in situ soil heating
technologies combined with in situ soil vapor
extraction can increase the mass removal rates
and reduce the cost of in situ remediation of
difficult, high boiling point organic waste
mixtures.
Three rows of electrodes are placed through the
treatment zone (tri-plate array configuration)
down to a depth of 25 feet. The center row
electrodes are connected as the excitor (energy
input) source and the two exterior rows are used
as ground/guard electrodes to help contain the
input energy to the treatment zone. Next,
surface hardware connecting the electrodes is
installed. Two dual purpose vacuum vapor
extraction wells/electrodes are installed as part
of the excitor array. A vacuum blower and off-
gas treatment system provide for the removal of
the heated soil contaminants.
Resistive heating technology passes power-line
frequency (60 Hz) through the soil using the
conductive path of the residual soil water.
Power-line frequency energy input is controlled
through a multi-tap transformer to allow for the
changing impedance of the soil as soil water is
removed. Voltages begin at about 200 V and
can be increased in steps up to 1,600 V. Water
addition to the excitor electrodes is necessary to
moderate the increased soil resistance caused by
removal of the soil water. This technology
vaporizes the added water into steam and
enhances contaminant removal. When the
temperature nears 100°C, the resistive heating
energy input becomes constrained by the
increased soil resistance (lack of residual soil
water as a current conducting path). At this
point, it is not effective to continue with the
resistive heating mode, and switching to radio
frequency (RF) heating is indicated.
RF heating uses high frequency microwaves (2
to 20 MHz) to heat the soil by dielectric
heating. The RF energy is transmitted through
the soils without using residual soil water as the
conductive path. Energy deposition is a
function of the frequency applied and the
dielectric features of the soil medium.
Frequency selection is based on tradeoffs of the
wave penetration depth (lower frequencies
penetrate further) and the dielectric constant of
the soil profile. Typical frequencies used are
around 6.78 MHz. The energy output from the
RF transmitter is passed through a network of
capacitors to match the impedance of the soil in
the treatment zone to the output of the power
transmitter. This hardware is necessary to
minimize the energy reflected from the soil and
maximize the energy absorbed by the soil.
With adjustment of the transmitter frequency
and matching network, soil heating can continue
to 250°C or higher.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
111
-------
Technology Performance
RF heating has been successfully demonstrated
at Volk Field Air National Guard Base at Camp
Douglas, Wisconsin; Basin F at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Colorado; and Kelly Air
Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. A
demonstration combining the using of resistive
heating technology and RF heating is scheduled
for the fall of 1993 at an organic waste disposal
cell at the Chemical Waste Landfill at DOE's
Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
Remediation Costs
Full-scale treatment costs are estimated to be
$15 to $30/ton depending on the soil moisture
content (5 to 20 percent) arid treatment
temperature (100°C to 250°C).
General Site Information
This technology will be demonstrated at the
Chemical Waste Landfill at DOE's Sandia
National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Contacts
Facih'ty Contact:
Darrell Bandy
DOE Albuquerque Operations
P.O. Box 5400
Albuquerque, NM 87115-5400
505/845-6100
Other Contacts:
James M. Phelan
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5800
505/845-9892
Guggilam Sresty
ITT Research Institute
3300 South Federal St.
Chicago, IL 60616
312/567-4232
112
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
Vitrification Furnace
Residues from Incineration of Municipal Wastes
Technology Description
This technology is used to treat residues from
incineration or municipal wastes. The residues
are melted to form a glassy slag and a metallic
phase using a portion of the electrical energy
recovered from consuming the wastes. The
density of the resulting slag triples that of the
residue, and the melted metallic fraction is 10
times more dense that the residue. In addition,
the vitrified products appear to be
environmentally benign, as is typical of glasses,
and the vitrified products may have some
economic value as aggregate in cement and as
construction fill material.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) has enabled an experimental program
to vitrify the residues from incinerators burning
municipal wastes. The experimental program
currently is being conducted at the Bureau's
Albany Metallurgy Research Center in Albany,
Oregon.
The Bureau's vitrification furnace is a state-of-
the-art electric arc furnace with water-cooled
roof and sidewalls. The corrosive nature of the
molten incinerator residues rules out
conventional refractory-lined furnaces for this
application. A dedicated feeder and off-gas
treatment system complete the facility.
Technology Performance
In recent melting tests to fine-tune the facility,
about 20,000 Ibs of residues were melted.
These materials included combined bottom and
fly ash from three municipal solid waste (MSW)
incinerators, bottom ash from a sewage sludge
incinerator, and fly ash from an incinerator
burning refuse-derived fuel (RDF). The
combined MSW residues and the RDF fly ash
produced black glasses not unlike natural
obsidian, whereas the sewage sludge produced
a crystalline product.
An extended test, in which more than 80,000 Ibs
of these incinerator residues were melted in a
continuous 100-hr process, confirmed the
previous results. Comprehensive
characterization and chemical analyses of the
as-received residues were conducted prior to the
melting tests. Similar analyses of the melted
residues were conducted, along with leaching
tests specified by EPA.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
Tests of this technology have been performed at
the U.S. Bureau of Mines' Albany Metallurgy
Research Center in Albany, Oregon.
Contact
Paul C. Turner
U.S. Bureau of Mines
1450 S.W. Queen Avenue
Albany, OR 97321
503/967-5863
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
113
-------
uss
Thermal Treatment
X*TRAX™ Thermal Desorption
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics and PCBs in Soil
Technology Description
The X*TRAX™ technology is a thermal
desorption process designed to separate organic
contaminants from soils, sludges, and other
solid media. It does not involve incineration.
Contaminated solids are fed into an externally
heated rotary dryer where temperatures range
from 750°F to 950°F. Evaporated contaminants
are removed by a recirculating nitrogen carrier
gas that is maintained at less than 4 percent
oxygen to prevent combustion. Solids leaving
the dryer are cooled with treated water to
reduce dusting when the solids are returned and
compacted in their original location.
The nitrogen carrier gas is treated to remove
and recover dust particles, organic vapors, and
water vapors. Dust particles and 10 to 30
percent of the organic contaminants are removed
by an eductor scrubber. Scrubber liquid collects
in a phase separator from which sludges and
organic liquid phases are pumped to a filter
press, producing filter cake and filtrate. The
filtrate is then separated into organic liquid and
water phases. Most contaminants removed from
the feed solids are transferred to the organic
liquids or the filter cake. The filter cake
typically is blended batchwise with feed solids
and reprocessed in the system, while the
concentrated organic liquids are treated or
disposed off site.
The gas exiting the scrubber passes through two
condensers, where it is cooled to less than 40°F.
The condensers separate most of the remaining
water and organic vapors from the gas stream.
Organic vapors are recovered as organic liquids;
water is treated by carbon adsorption and either
used to cool and reduce dusting from treated
solids or treated and discharged. Approximately
5 to 10 percent of the gas is cleaned by passing
it through a paniculate filter and a carbon
adsorption system before it is discharged to the
atmosphere. The volume of gas released from
this process vent is approximately 100 to 200
times less, than an equivalent capacity
incinerator.
The system can process a wide variety of solids
at feed rates up to 7.5 tons/hr. The technology
is most effective for solids with a moisture
content of less than 50 percent. Screening of
material greater than in size than 2.25 inches
may be required for some applications.
The system has been used to treat PCBs,
halogenated and non-halogenated solvents,
SVOCs, PAHs, pesticides, herbicides, fuel oils,
BTEX, and mercury. The system also has been
used to treat RCRA hazardous wastes, such as
petroleum refinery wastes and multisource
leachate treatment residues, to meet Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment
standards.
Technology Performance
EPA conducted a SITE Program demonstration
in 1992 at the Re-solve Superfund site in North
Dartmouth, Massachusetts. During the
demonstration, about 215 tons of soil were
treated at an average feed rate of 4.9 tons/hr, a
residence time of 2 hr, and an average treated
soil temperature of 732°F. PCB concentrations
114
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
in contaminated soil ranged from 180 to 515
mg/kg. Key findings include:
• The system successfully removed PCBs
from feed soil and met the site-specific
treatment standard of 25 mg/kg for treated
soils. PCB concentrations in all treated soil
samples were less than 1.0 mg/kg, and the
average concentration was 0.25 mg/kg. The
average PCB removal efficiency was 99.9
percent.
• Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD)
and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF)
were not formed within the system.
• Organic air emissions from the process vent
were negligible (0.4 grams/day). No PCBs
were detected in the vent gases.
• The system effectively removed organic
contaminants from feed soil.
Concentrations of tetrachloroethene, TPHs,
and oil and grease were reduced to below
detectable levels in treated soil.
• Metals concentrations and soil physical
properties were not altered by the system.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Carl Palmer
Rust Remedial Services
Clemson Technical Center
100 Technology Drive
Anderson, SC 29625
803/646-2413
Remediation Costs
For most materials, the technology can process
120 to 180 tons/day at a cost ranging from $125
to $225/ton of feed.
General Site Information
A full-scale demonstration under the EPA SITE
Program was conducted at the Re-Solve, Inc.,
Superfund site in North Dartmouth,
Massachusetts.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
115
-------
Propano
Supply
Contaminated
Solids
^
J*
I f
X'Trax™
Rotary
Dryer
A ' L^
Dry ^
Solids ™
-Carrier Gas -7
Carrier Gas
Product
Cooler
i
^ (? Treated "
^\L Soffcfe ^
>— j .-,--.- r- :-TT—
k Treating
Cooling Water
c
Cake
Makeup
Wafer
\4r
^^i
s»
Scrubl
Uqul
Organk
Liquid
Filti
Eductor
Scrubber
jer
d
\
r
Scrubber
Phase
Separator
•\r 1
Filter
Press
•ate
i
t
r
r
Filtrate
Tank
/
._>
Sludg
/
•\
/
e
\
r
^(f Organic \\
*Al Liquid J)
Concfe
i
Condensate
r
Condensate
Phase — ^->
Separator ^
i
r^
/ Onsite /
/ Water /
I Treatment/
•\
r
([ Excess \\
^L Water Jl
^
<>-
Activated
» Carbon
Canister
- Condensed
Water
L/qu/e/ Flow
Solids Flow
Gas Flow
Input
Output
X*TRAX™ Thermal Desorption
116
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
VAPOR EXTRACTION
-------
-------
Vapor Extraction
Ground Water Vapor Recovery System
Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
In this treatment, injection and extraction wells
are placed outside and inside of an area of
contamination. Positive pressure, from either
water or air, is placed on the injection wells.
Water is pumped from the extraction wells to a
thermal aeration system to drive off the
contaminants. Resulting vapors go to an
internal combustion engine. If enough free
product is available in the ground water during
the cleanup process, waste hydrocarbons could
be used to power the engine without the need
for additional fuel.
Technology Performance
Full-scale implementation of this system began
in 1991 at the Seal Beach Navy Weapons
Station. This method is applicable for volatile
fuels or other volatile organic compounds. This
treatment requires that the contaminant be
combustible. Air permits are required in some
areas.
Remediation Costs
The capitol cost for purchasing and installing
the engine and wells is between $70,000 and
$100,000.
General Site Information
This technology is being used at full-scale to
remediate volatile fuels and other VOCs at the
Seal Beach Navy Weapons Station in Calif ornia.
Contacts
Vern Novstrup
Naval Energy and Environmental Support
Activity, Code 112E
Port Hueneme, California 93043
805/982-2636
Rebecca Coleman-Roush
Remediation Service, International
P.O. Box 1601
Oxnard, California 93032
805/644-5892
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
119
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Air Stripping
with Horizontal Wells
TCE and PCE in Soil and Ground Water
Technology Description
In situ air stripping using horizontal wells is
designed to concurrently remediate unsaturated-
zone soils and ground water containing VOCs.
The in situ air stripping concept utilizes two
parallel horizontal wells: one below the water
table and one in the unsaturated (vadose) zone.
The deeper well is used as a delivery system for
the air injection. VOCs are stripped from the
ground water into the injected vapor phase and
are removed from the subsurface by drawing a
vacuum on the shallower well in the vadose
zone. Horizontal wells are used because they
provide more surface area for injection of
reactants and extraction of contaminants and
they have great utility for subsurface access
under existing facilities. The technology is
based on Henry's Law and the affinity of VOCs
for the vapor phase. The technology is
probably most effective in soils with high
permeability and likely works best in sandier
units with no significant aquitards between the
injection and extraction wells.
In a typical demonstration of this technology, a
vacuum is drawn on the shallow well for a
period of two weeks, and concentration and
temperature of the extracted vapors are
measured at least three times a day. Air
injection is then added at three different rates
and at two different temperatures. Each of the
operating regimes is operated for a minimum of
two weeks. Helium tracer tests were also
conducted to learn more about vapor flow paths
and the heterogeneity of the system between the
two wells. To assist with analysis and
monitoring of the demonstration, tubes of
varying lengths were installed in both horizontal
wells to monitor pressure and concentrations
along their entire length.
Technology Performance
Almost 16,000 Ibs of solvents were removed
during a demonstration at the DOE Savannah
River Site (SRS). Extraction rates during the
vapor extraction phase averaged 110 Ibs of
VOCs/day. The extraction flow rate was
constant at approximately 580 scfm during the
entire length of the test. During the air
injection periods with medium (170 scfm) and
high (270 scfm) rates, approximately 130 Ibs of
VOCs were removed daily.
Concentrations of chlorinated solvents removed
during vapor extraction decreased rapidly only
during the first two days of operation. Initial
concentrations were as high as 5,000 ppm but
stabilized at 200 to 300 ppm. Concentrations of
VOCs in the ground water were significantly
reduced in several of the monitoring wells. For
example, ground water from two monitoring
wells showed changes from 1,600 and 1,800
ug/L TCE at the beginning of the test to 10 to
30 ug/L at the end of the 20 weeks. However,
ground water in several of the wells showed no
significant change and ground water in three
wells actually showed increases in TCE
concentrations. One possible explanation for
this is that more contaminated water at depth
(below the monitoring point) was being forced
upward due to air injection.
120
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
The activity of indigenous microorganisms was
found to increase at least an order of magnitude
during the air injection periods. This activity
then decreased when the air injection was
terminated. It is possible that simple injection
of air stimulated microorganisms that have the
potential to degrade TCE. Injection of heated
air appeared to have no effect on the amount of
contaminant extracted from the shallow well.
Remediation Costs
The cost of the remediation demonstration
project, not including site characterization was
approximately $300,000, or $20/lb of
contaminant removed. Site preparation costs,
including well installation were $300,000 to
$450,000. Equipment for this demonstration
test was rented; however, purchase of the
vacuum blower and compressor would be in the
range of $200,000.
General Site Information
This 20-week field demonstration project was
conducted at the DOE Savannah River Site
(SRS) in Aiken, South Carolina, between July
and December 1990. TCE and PCE were used
at SRS as metal degreasing solvents for a
number of years. The in situ test was
conducted at the SRS Integrated Demonstration
Site in the M-Area, along an abandoned process
sewer line that carried wastes to a seepage basin
which was operated between 1958 and 1985. A
ground water plume containing elevated levels
of these compounds exists over an area greater
than one square mile. The sewer line acted as
a source of VOCs; it is known to have leaked at
numerous locations along its length. Because
the source of contamination was linear at this
particular location within the overall plume,
horizontal wells were selected as the
injection/extraction system.
The Savannah River Site is located on the upper
Atlantic Coastal Plain. The site is underlain by
a thick wedge of unconsolidated Tertiary and
Cretaceous sediments that overlay the basement,
which consists of preCambrian and Paleozoic
metamorphic rocks and consolidated Triassic
sediments. Ground water flow at the site is
controlled by hydrologic boundaries: flow at
and immediately below the water table is to
local tributaries, and flow in the lower aquifer is
to the Savannah River or one of its major
tributaries. The water table is located at
approximately 135 feet. Ground water in the
vicinity of the process sewer line contains
elevated concentrations of TCE and PCE to
depths greater than 180 feet.
Contacts
Facility Contact:
Mike O'Rear
DOE Savannah River
Aiken, South Carolina
803/725-5541
Contractor Contact:
Brian B. Looney
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Aiken, South Carolina
803/725-5181
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
121
-------
Injection Point for Air
Extraction of Air Containing Volatile Compounds
Diagram of In Situ Air Stripping with Horizontal Wells
122
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
/« Sift* Soil Vapor Extraction
Industrial Sludge, Waste Solvents, Fuel and Oil
in Soils
Technology Description
This technology is used to treat soils
contaminated with VOCs, including TCE, DCE,
vinyl chloride, toluene, chlorobenzenes, and
xylenes. The process is used in vadose zone
soils. The technology does not work in ground
water or saturated zone soils and is ineffective
for removal of semivolatiles and metals.
Vadose zone extraction wells are installed at
various targeted depths. A vacuum is applied
and contaminants are pulled to the surface
where they are treated with a catalytic oxidation
unit prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
Technology Performance
A large scale pilot test involving 17 wells began
in February 1993 at McClellan Air Force Base
in California. Target contaminants are VOCs in
the 100 to 1,000 ppm range. In addition, the
Air Force is evaluating the effectiveness of
enhancements such as hot air injection into the
waste pit materials. Results of the
demonstration and a complete evaluation of the
system will be published in 1994.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
The test is being conducted at a former fuel and
solvent disposal site in the northwest part of
McClellan Air Force Base, a Superfund site.
The test area is one of 15 such sites located in
Operable Unit D and contains approximately
400,000 ft3 of contaminated soil.
Contacts
Facility Contact:
Fran Slavich
Jerry Styles
SM-ALC/EMR
McCleUan AFB, CA 95652
916/643-0533
EPA Project Manager:
Ramon Mendoza
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/744-2410
Technology Developer Contact:
Joseph Danko
CH2M Hill
2300 NW Walnut Blvd.
Corvallis, OR 97330
503/752-4271
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
123
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Soil Venting
Fuels and Trichloroethylene in Unsaturated Soils
Technology Description
The in situ soil venting process removes volatile
contaminants such as fuels and TCE from
unsaturated soils. This technology can be
applied to fibre training pits, spills, and the
unsaturated zone beneath leach pits. The
method is most applicable for contamination in
fairly permeable soils.
Venting wells are placed in the unsaturated zone
and connected to a manifold and blower. A
vacuum is applied to the manifold, and gases
are extracted from the soil and fed to the
treatment system. The air flow sweeps out the
soil gas, disrupting the equilibrium existing
between the contaminant adsorbed on the soil
and its vapor phase. This results in further
volatilization of the contaminant on the soil and
subsequent removal in the air stream.
Depending upon the individual site and the
depth of the contaminated zone, it might be
necessary to seal the surface to the throughput
of air.
This technology has a number of advantages.
Specifically, it is inexpensive, especially if the
emissions require no treatment. The equipment
is easily emplaced. It is less expensive than
excavation at depths greater than 40 feet
Operation is simple, excavation of contaminated
soil is not required, and the site is not
destroyed.
Despite the advantages of this technology,
limitations do exist. This process is a transfer-
of-media method; the waste is not destroyed.
At depths of less than 10 feet, excavation could
be less expensive, depending upon the type of
waste treatment required. The contamination
must be located in the unsaturated zone above
the nearest aquifer. Prior bench-scale testing is
important in determining the effectiveness of the
method to a specific site. To date, few field
data exist on the level of cleanup. If the
contamination includes toxic volatile organic
carbons, then treatment of the vented gases may
be required. The level of treatment is based
upon local requirements.
Technology Performance
Analysis of the technology demonstration at Hill
Air Force Base (AFB) in Utah have shown the
following results:
Soil gas venting may provide oxygen for
biodegradation;
• Based on data from extracted gases, 80
percent of a 100,000-liter fuel spill was
removed in 9 months of operation;
• Soil analysis following a full-scale in situ
field test indicated an average fuel
residual of less than 100 ppm in the soils;
• At initial air flow rates of 250 ft3/min, the
full-scale system was removing 50 gpd of
JP-4 from the soil. The venting rates
were then increased to over 1,000 ftVmin.
After 10 months of venting, over 100,000
Ibs of JP-4 had been removed. Hill AFB
continues to operate the system at a
reduced flow rate to enhance the in situ
biodegradation of remaining
hydrocarbons; and
124
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Approximately 20-25 percent of the
reduction in fuel hydrocarbons was
caused by biodegradation.
Remediation Costs
The costs range from $15/ton of contaminated
soil, excluding emission treatment, up to
approximately $85/ton using activated carbon
emission treatment. Estimated costs of this
technology for sandy soils is $10/yd3. Catalytic
incineration of VOCs can double this cost.
However, at Hill AFB, catalytic incineration
only cost $10/yd3.
General Site Information
Operation of a full-scale in situ soil-venting
system at a 27,000-gallon JP-4 spill at Hill
AFB, Utah, began in December 1988. A full-
scale in situ field test was completed in October
1989. ESL TR 90-21 Vol I, Literature Review,
Vol n, Soil Venting Guidance Manual, and Vol
HI, Full Scale Test Results, available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
document results of this effort. A cost
spreadsheet is part of the design manual (Vol H)
for soil venting systems and is available on
request from the contact below.
Contact
Capt. Edward G. Marchand
AL/EQW
139 Barnes Drive
Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403-5001
904/283-6023
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
125
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Soil Venting
Volatile Contaminants in Unsaturated Soil
Technology Description
This in situ soil venting, or in situ volatilization,
process removes solvents from soils without
excavation. Vents (slotted pipes) are installed
in the soil and a blower draws air through the
vents to cause the compounds to volatilize into
the air stream. At the surface the VOCs in the
exhaust are dispersed directly into the air or
through carbon vessels. In short, this process is
based on air stripping technology.
This methods is most applicable for contami-
nation at depths greater than 40 feet in fairly
permeable soils. Depending on the individual
site and depth of the contaminated zone, it
might be necessary to seal the surface with a
clay cap to prevent channeling. This measure
will also prevent any further contamination of
the ground water by rainwater percolating down
through the VOC-laden soils to the water table
below.
Technology Performance
Prior to startup of the systems at the Twin
Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) in
Minnesota, a pilot study removed 22,900 Ibs of
VOCs from one of the proposed sites.
Continued operation of the system at this site
for 7 years has removed a total of 133,623 Ibs
of VOCs. At a second site, the system removed
97,700 Ibs of contaminants over the same time
period, from early 1986 to early 1993.
Initial removal rates at the site where the pilot
study was performed were 400 Ibs/day of
VOCs; removal rates near the end of operation
averaged 15 Ibs/day. Initial removal rates at the
other site were 2,000 Ibs/day and decreased to
a rate of 1 to 2 Ibs/day later in the operation.
Downtime can be incurred when the activated
carbon becomes saturated with VOCs and must
be replaced. The two TCAAP soil venting
systems are shut down over night and on
weekends due to noise complaints from nearby
residents.
Remediation Costs
The 1986 cost to construct the 40-vent system
was $212,000; the 89-vent system cost
$424,000. Costs to operate the systems at
current removal rates are $1.24/lb and $28.85/lb,
respectively. The 89-vent system removal costs
are higher relative to the 40-vent system due to
the following factors: (a) carbon vessels were
used on the 89-vent system to control air
emissions; (b) lesser quantities of VOCs were
extracted by the 89-vent system; and (c) VOC
removal rates for the 89-vent system have
dropped significantly during recent years.
General Site Information
This method has been implemented at two
separate source areas at the TCAAP. Both
systems began operation in early 1986.
One area formerly contained three disposal pits
that were used for the disposal of solvents,
thinners, varnishes, and contaminated rags for
126
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
more than 20 years. The system at this site has
40 vents and four 20-hp blowers. The average
depth of the vents is 30 feet.
The other site was a landfill area and was used
as a general dump for many items, including
cleaning materials, for about 30 years. The 89
vents in this system have been installed to an
average depth of 40 feet, and the system uses
four 40-hp blowers.
Contact
Erik Hangeland
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ENAEC-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010
410/671-2054
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
127
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Steam and Air Stripping
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics and Hydrocarbons in Soil
Technology Description
In this technology, a transportable treatment unit
Detoxifler™ is used for in situ steam and air
stripping of volatile organics from contaminated
soil.
The two main components of the on-site
treatment equipment are the process tower and
process train. The process tower contains two
counter-rotating hollow-stem drills, each with a
modified cutting bit 5 feet in diameter, capable
of operating to a 27-foot depth. Each drill
contains two concentric pipes. The inner pipe
is used to convey steam to the rotating cutting
blades. The steam is supplied by an oil-fired
boiler at 450°F and 450 psig. The outer pipe
conveys air at approximately 300°F and 250
psig to the rotating blades. Steam is piped to
the top of the drills and injected through the
cutting blades. The steam heats the ground
being remediated, increasing the vapor pressure
of the volatile contaminants, and thereby
increasing the rate at which they can be
stripped. Both the air and steam serve as
carriers to convey these contaminants to the
surface. A metal box, called a shroud, seals the
process area above the rotating cutter blades
from the outside environment, collects the
volatile contaminants, and ducts them to the
process train.
In the process train, the volatile contaminants
and the water vapor are removed from the
off-gas stream by condensation. The condensed
water is separated from the contaminants by
distillation, then filtered through activated
carbon beds and subsequently used as make-up
water for a wet cooling tower. Steam is also
used to regenerate the activated carbon beds and
as the heat source for distilling the volatile
contaminants from the condensed liquid stream.
The recovered concentrated organic liquid can
be recycled or used as a fuel in an incinerator.
This technology also is used to treat
contaminated soil by injecting a wide range of
reactive chemicals. Chemical injection
processes include solidification/stabilization plus
neutralization, oxidation, and bioremediation.
The dual injection capabilities permit additional
versatility. Each kelly bar can deliver two
materials to the augers for injection into the
soil. The injection systems replace the process
train and are mounted on the same chassis that
supports the technology's drilling tower.
The technology is applicable to VOCs, such as
hydrocarbons and solvents, with sufficient vapor
pressure in the soil. The technology is not
limited by soil particle size, initial porosity,
chemical concentration, or viscosity. The
process is also capable of significantly reducing
the concentration of semivolatile organic
compounds in soil. In regard to stabilization
and solidification, this technology also treats
inorganics, heavy metals, and mixed wastes.
Technology Performance
An EPA SITE Program demonstration was
performed in 1989 at the Annex Terminal, San
Pedro, California. Twelve soil blocks were
treated for VOCs and SVOCs. Various liquid
samples were collected from the process during
128
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
operation, and the process operating procedures
were closely monitored and recorded. Post-
treatment soil samples were collected and
analyzed by EPA methods 8240 and 8270. In
January 1990, six blocks that had been
previously treated in the saturated zone were
analyzed by EPA methods 8240 and 8270. The
Applications Analysis Report (EPA/540/A5-
90/008) was published in 1991.
The following results were obtained during the
SITE demonstration of the technology:
• More than 85 percent of the VOCs in the
soil was removed;
• Up to 55 percent of SVOCs in the soil
was removed;
• Fugitive air emissions from the process
were very low;
• No downward migration of contaminants
resulted from the soil treatment; and
• The process was timely with a treatment
rate of 3 yd3/hr.
Remediation Costs
According to the EPA Applications Analysis
Report, an economic analysis showed that costs
range from $252 to $317/yd3 with on-line
percentages of 70 to 90 percent.
General Site Information
This technology has been demonstrated at the
Annex Terminal in San Pedro, California.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Phillip LaMori
NOVATERRA, Inc.
373 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 210
Torrance, CA 90501
310/328-9433
Augon
Detoxifier™ Process Schematic
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
129
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Steam-Enhanced Extraction (SEE)
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics in Soil
Technology Description
The in situ steam-enhanced extraction (SEE)
process removes VOCs and SVOCs from
contaminated soils both above and below the
water table. Steam is forced through the soil by
injection wells to thermally enhance the vapor
and liquid extraction processes. Liquids are
pumped from the subsurface to dewater the site.
Air, steam, and organic contaminant vapors are
extracted from low-pressure recovery wells.
Recovered contaminants are either condensed
and collected as a separate phase, processed in
aqueous solution with the pumped water, or
passed on to an air treatment system. After
steam reaches the extraction wells and the
contaminated region has reached a uniform
steam temperature, steam injection continues
cyclically to maintain energy levels and enhance
mass transfer.
The process is used to extract VOCs and
SVOCs from contaminated soils and ground
water. The primary applicable compounds are
hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel, and jet
fuel, solvents such as TCE, trichloroethane
(TCA), and PCE. The process may be adapted
to prevent downward movement of DNAPLs.
The benefits of this technology are the
drastically reduced volumes of contaminated
fluid to be treated on the surface, order-of-
magnitude decreases in the time for remediation,
applicability to liquid contaminants both above
and below the water table, and potential for
recycling recovered separate phase
contaminants. The process can be implemented
with standard boilers, fluid cooling, and
separation equipment. The process cannot be
applied to contaminated soil very near the
surface unless a cap exists. A license to use
this patented technology can be obtained from
the University of California Office of
Technology Transfer (a portion of the royalty
supports further University research). Site-
specific design, field operation, and technical
training is offered to licensed companies by
Udell Technologies, Inc.
Technology Performance
In 1988, a successful pilot-scale demonstration
of the process was completed at a site
contaminated by a mixture of solvents. More
than 750 Ibs of contaminants were removed
from the 10-foot-diameter, 12-foot-deep
unsaturated test region.
The technology is being demonstrated under the
EPA SITE Demonstration Program at a burn pit
with soil contaminated by waste oil mixed with
VOCs, SVOCs, and metals at McClellan Air
Force Base in Sacramento, California.
A full-scale demonstration of this technology
has been conducted at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in Livermore, California.
Gasoline is dispersed above and below the
water table, and the water table depth has
decreased by 25 feet since the spill occurred.
The lateral distribution of second liquid phase
gasoline is within a diameter of 150 feet. In the
first 36 days of the demonstration, free product
gasoline was recovered from the regions above
and below the water table. Recovery rates were
about 10 times greater than those the could be
130
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
achieved by vacuum extraction alone. The
majority of the recovered gasoline came from
the condenser either as a separate phase liquid
or in the effluent air stream. Approximately
2,000 gal of gasoline were recovered after the
first pass of steam injection.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
An interagency agreement between the Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) in Port
Hueneme, California, and the EPA Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) in
Cincinnati, Ohio, has been signed to enable a
pilot-scale demonstration of this process at the
LeMoore Naval Air Station, California. A full-
scale demonstrations has been conducted at
DOE's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in Livermore, California, and the
SITE Program demonstration is being conducted
at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento,
California.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Kent S. Udell
Environmental Restoration Laboratory
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
510/642-2928
FAX: 510/642-6163
Udell Technologies, Inc.
1456 Campus Drive
Berkeley, CA 94708
510/644-4474
FAX: 510/644-4473
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
131
-------
Woter
Supply
Vapors From
Extraction Wells
Liquid
Trap
Steam to
Injection Wells
1
Coaling
Tower
Cooling Tower Pump
^\
Knock
out
Drum
0
o
Vacuum Pump
Air
Treatment
Condensata Pump
Liquids from
Extraction Welts
Separation
Equipment
n
•Make-up Water
-Air
• Contaminant
•Woter
Air
i
Contaminant —«
Water
In Situ Steam Enhanced Extraction Process
132
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Vacuum Extraction
VOCs in Vadose or Unsaturated Zone Soils
Technology Description
In situ vacuum extraction is the process of
removing and treating VOCs from the vadose or
unsaturated zone of soils. These compounds
often can be removed from the vadose zone
before they contaminate ground water.
This process uses readily available equipment
such as extraction and monitoring wells,
manifold piping, a vapor and liquid separator, a
vacuum pump, and an emission control device
(such as an activated carbon filter). After the
contaminated area is completely defined,
extraction wells are installed and connected by
piping to the vacuum extraction and treatment
system.
A vacuum pump draws the subsurface
contaminants from the extraction wells to the
liquid/gas separator. The contaminants are then
treated using an activated carbon adsorption
filter or a catalytic oxidizer before the gases are
discharged to the atmosphere. Subsurface
vacuum and soil vapor concentrations are
monitored using vadose zone monitoring wells.
The technology is effective in virtually all
hydrogeological settings and can reduce soil
contaminant levels from saturated conditions to
non-detectable. The process works in low
permeability soils (clays) with sufficient
porosity. Dual vacuum extraction of ground
water and vapor quickly restores ground water
quality to drinking water standards. In addition,
the technology is less expensive than other
methods of remediation, such as incineration.
Typical contaminant recovery rates range from
20 to 2,500 Ibs/day, depending on the degree of
contamination at the site.
Vacuum extraction technology is effective in
treating soils containing virtually all VOCs and
has successfully removed more than 40 types of
chemicals, including gasoline and diesel
hydrocarbons.
Technology Performance
The vacuum extraction process was first
demonstrated at the Superfund site in Puerto
Rico, and the developer has since applied the
technology at nine additional Superfund sites
and at more than 400 other waste sites
throughout the United States, Europe, and
Japan.
The process was demonstrated under the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program at Groveland
Wells Superfund site in Groveland,
Massachusetts, in 1987-1988. The technology
successfully remediated soils contaminated with
TCE. The Technology Evaluation Report (EPA/
5405-89/003a) and Applications Analysis Report
(EPA/540/A5-89/003) are available from EPA.
The demonstration used four extraction wells to
pump contaminants to the process system.
During the 56-day operational period, 1,300 Ibs
of VOCs, mainly TCE, were extracted from
both highly permeable strata and low
permeability clays. The process achieved non-
detectable levels of VOCs at some locations and
reduced the VOC concentrations in soil gas by
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
133
-------
95 percent. Average reductions were 92 percent
for sandy soils and 90 percent for clays. Field
evaluations have yielded the following
conclusions:
• VOCs can be reduced to non-detectable
levels;
• Major considerations in applying this
technology are volatility of the
contaminants and site soils. Ideal
measured permeabilities are at 10"4 to 10"8
cm/sec.
• Pilot demonstrations are necessary at sites
with complex geology or contaminant
distributions;
• Contaminants should have a Henry's Law
constant of 0.0001 or higher.
Remediation Costs
Treatment costs are typically $40/ton but can
range from $10 to $150/ton, depending on
requirements for gas effluent or wastewater
treatment.
General Site Information
This process has been demonstrated at several
Superfund sites, including one in Puerto Rico
and one in Groveland, Massachusetts. In
addition, the technology has been used
extensively at sites throughout the United States,
Europe, and Japan.
Contacts
EPA Project manager:
Mary Stinson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908/321-6683
Technology Developer Contact:
James Malot
Terra Vac, Inc.
356 Fortaleza Street
P.O. Box 1591
San Juan, PR 00903
809/723-9171
VAPOR PHASE
CARBON CANISTERS
TO ATMOSPHERE
GROUNDWATER AND
LIQUIDS DISPOSAL
(TREATMENT BY OTHERS)
DUAL VACUUM
EXTRACTION WELLS
In Situ Vacuum Extraction Process
134
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
Integrated Vapor Extraction and Steam Vacuum Stripping
VOCs in Soil and Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The integrated AquaDetox/SVE system
simultaneously treats ground water and soil
contaminated with VOCs. The integrated
system consists of two basic processes: an
AquaDetox moderate vacuum stripping tower
that uses low-pressure steam to treat
contaminated ground water; and a soil gas vapor
extraction/reinjection (SVE) process to treat
contaminated soil. The two processes form a
closed-loop system that provides simultaneous
in situ remediation of contaminated ground
water and soil with no air emissions.
AquaDetox is a high-efficiency, counter-current
stripping technology developed by Dow
Chemical Company. A single-stage unit will
typically reduce up to 99.99 percent of VOCs
from water. The SVE system uses a vacuum to
treat a VOC-contaminated soil mass, inducing a
flow of air through the soil and removing vapor
phase VOCs with the extracted soil gas. The
soil gas is then treated by carbon beds to
remove additional VOCs and reinjected into the
ground. The AquaDetox and SVE systems
share a granulated activated carbon (GAC) unit.
Non-condensable vapor from the AquaDetox
system is combined with the vapor from the
SVE compressor and is decontaminated by the
GAC unit. By-products of the system are a
free-phase recyclable product and treated water.
Mineral regenerable carbon will require disposal
after approximately three years.
A key component of the closed-loop system is
a vent header unit designed to collect the non-
condensable gases extracted from the ground
water or air that may leak into the portion of the
process operating below atmospheric pressure.
Further, the steam used to regenerate the carbon
beds is condensed and treated in the AquaDetox
system.
This technology removes VOCs, including
chlorinated hydrocarbons, in ground water and
soil. Sites with contaminated ground water and
soils containing TCE, PCE, and other VOCs are
suitable for this on-site treatment process.
Technology Performance
The AquaDetox/SVE system is currently being
used at the Lockheed Aeronautical Systems
Company in Burbank, California. The system
is treating ground water contaminated with as
much as 2,200 ppb TCE and 11,000 ppb PCE,
and soil gas with a total VOC concentration of
6,000 ppm. Contaminated ground water is
being treated at a rate of up to 1,200 gpm while
soil gas is removed and treated at a rate of 300
ftVmin. The system occupies approximately
4,000 ft2. It has been operating for more than
three years—operating 95 percent of the time,
with 5 percent downtime for scheduled or non-
scheduled repairs.
An EPA SITE Program demonstration project
was evaluated as part of the ongoing
remediation effort at the San Fernando Valley
Groundwater Basin Superfund site in Burbank,
California. Demonstration testing was
conducted in 1990. The Applications Analysis
Report (EPA/540/A5-91/002) was published in
1991.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
135
-------
Key results from the demonstration include the
following:
• The technology successfully treated
ground water and soil gas contaminated
with VOCs;
Efficiencies were in the 99.92 to 99.99
percent range for removal of VOCs from
contaminated ground water. VOC
removal efficiencies for soil gas ranged
from 98.0 to 99.9 percent when the GAG
beds were regenerated according to
SWD-specified frequency (8-hr shifts).
VOC removal efficiencies dropped to as
low as 93.4 percent when the GAC beds
were regenerated less frequently;
• The technology produced effluent ground
water that complied with regulatory
discharge requirements for TCE and PCE
(5 u/L for each compound);
• The GAC beds effectively removed
VOCs from contaminated soil gas even
after 24 hrs of continuous operation
without steam regeneration; and
• Steam consumption dropped with
decreasing tower pressures. The system
was more efficient at lower operating
tower pressures.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at the San
Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin Superfund
site in Burbank, California. It also is being
used to treat groundwater at the Lockheed
Aeronautical Systems Company in Burbank.
Contacts
EPA Project Managers:
Norma Lewis
Gordon Evans
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7665 and 7684
Technology Developer Contact:
David Bluestein
AWD Technologies, Inc.
49 Stevenson Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/227-0822
Remediation Costs
The system is estimated to cost approximately
$3.2, $4.3, and $5.8 million for the 500-, 1,000-,
and 3,000-gpm systems, respectively, with total
annual operation and maintenance costs of about
$410,000, $630,000, and $1,500,000,
respectively.
136
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
NONCONDESABLES
Integrated Vapor Extraction and Steam Vacuum Stripping
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
137
-------
Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
JP-4 Jet Fuel in Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology consists of a system of air
extraction wells installed throughout the
contaminated soils. The wells are connected to
a blower system capable of extracting air
through the soil matrix. Volatile compounds
present in the soil gas and adsorbed on the soils
are volatilized and withdrawn from the soil.
Soil vapor extraction also can be used to
enhance biological processes in the soil to treat
semivolatiles or non-volatiles by increasing the
oxygen content of the soil gas.
The SVE system may consist of one or more 4-
inch PVC inlet and/or air extraction wells. The
anticipated depth of the wells will be about 60
feet. The system can be skid-mounted and
located away from the impacted area. It
includes a blower with muffler, air/water
separator, vacuum relief valve, and gauges.
Sample ports and direct reading instrumentation
also can be included. Air emissions can be
treated by a thermal treatment unit or granular
activated carbon (GAG). Volatile compounds in
the blower discharge will be treated before
discharging to the atmosphere. If GAG is
selected, the spent carbon and liquid wastes
resulting from condensation of soil moisture in
the SVE system are then disposed of at a
permitted treatment facility.
Technology Performance
Full-scale remediation of the North Fire
Training Area at Luke Air Force Base in
Glcndale, Arizona, was conducted in 1992. The
SVE system used consisted of two 60-foot
extraction wells operating at 100 scfm. Target
contaminants are benzene at 16 ppm,
ethylbenzene at 84 ppm, toluene at 183 ppm,
xylene at 336 ppm, and TRPH at 1,380 ppm.
Soil borings and soil gas samples were used to
evaluate effectiveness of the treatment.
Residual condensate was collected from
extraction well piping at a rate of 8 gpd and
incinerated.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
The remediation involves 35,000 yd3 of
contaminated soil at the North Fire Training
Area. Currently not in use, the area had been
the scene of fire training exercises using JP-4
jet fuel since 1973.
Contacts
Jerome Stolinsky
CEMRO-ED-ED
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Brandeis Bldg., 6th Floor
210 S. 16 Street
Omaha, NE 68102
138
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
Steam-Enhanced Recovery Process (SERF)
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics in Soils (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This process removes most VOCs and SVOCS
from contaminated soils in situ above and below
the water table. The technology is applicable to
the in situ remediation of contaminated soils
below ground surface and can be used to treat
below or around permanent structures. The
process accelerates contaminant removal rates
and can be effective in all soil types. Steam is
forced through the soil by injection wells to
thermally enhance the recovery process.
Extraction wells are used to pump and treat
ground water and to transport steams and
vaporized contaminants to the surface.
Recovered nonaqueous liquids are separated by
gravity separation. Hydrocarbons are collected
for recycling, and water is treated before being
discharged to the storm drain or sewer. Vapors
can be condensed and treated by any of several
vapor treatment techniques-for example, thermal
oxidation or catalytic oxidation. The technology
uses readily available components such as
extraction and monitoring wells, manifold
piping, vapor and liquid separators, vacuum
pumps, and gas emission control equipment.
The process can be used to extract VOCs and
SVOCs from contaminated soils and perched
ground water. Compounds suitable for
treatment are hydrocarbons, solvents, or
mixtures of these compounds. After application
of the process, subsurface conditions are
excellent for biodegradation of residual
contaminants. The process cannot be applied to
contaminated soil very near the ground surface
unless a cap exists. Denser-than-water
compounds can be treated only in low
concentrations unless a geologic barrier exists to
prevent downward percolation.
Technology Performance
The EPA SITE demonstration of this technology
was completed in early 1993 at Huntington
Beach, California. The soil site was
contaminated by a large diesel fuel spill.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a diesel
fuel spill site in Huntington Beach, California.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
139
-------
Technology Developer Contact:
Ron Van Sickle
Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 10011
1240 Rosecrans Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
310/536-6547
Trailer: 714/375-6445
HYDROCARBON
LIQUID
LIQUIDS
{HYDROCARBONS/^
WATER)
HYDROCARBON VAPOR,
1 ic SltAM VAPOR w
LIQUID/VAPOR
RECOVERY
WELL
AIR COMPRESSOR
SOIL CONTAMINATED
BY HYDROCARBONS
AIR UFT
PUMP
Steam Enhanced Recovery Process
140
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
Subsurface Volatilization and Ventilation System (SVVS)
Organics in Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The SVVS uses a network of injection and
extraction wells (collectively, a reactor nest) to
treat subsurface organic contaminants via soil
vacuum extraction combined with in situ
biodegradation. Each systems is custom-
designed to meet site-specific conditions. A
series of injection and. extraction wells in
installed at a site. The number and spacing of
the wells depends on the results of applying a
design parameters matrix and modeling, as well
as physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics. One or more vacuum pumps
create negative pressure to extract contaminated
vapors, while an air compressor simultaneously
creates positive pressure across the site. Control
is maintained at a Vapor Control Unit that
houses pumps, control valves, gauges, and other
control mechanisms. At most underground
storage tank (UST) sites, the extraction wells
are placed above the eater table and the
injection wells are placed below the ground
water. The exact depth of the injection wells
and screen interval are additional design
considerations.
To enhance vaporization, solar panels are
occasionally used to heat the injected air.
Additional valves for limiting or increasing the
air flow and pressure are placed on individual
reactor nest lines (radials) or, at some sites, on
individual well points. Depending on ground
water depths and fluctuation, horizontal vacuum
screens, "stubbed screens," or multiple-depth
completions can be applied. The systems is
dynamic: positive and negative air flow can be
shifted to different locations on site to place the
most remediation stress on the areas requiring it.
Negative pressure is maintained at a suitable
level to prevent escape of vapors.
Because it provides oxygen to the subsurface,
the SVVS can enhance in situ biodegradation at
a site, the technology, unlike most air sparging
systems, is designed and operated to enhance
bioremediation, so it can decrease project life
significantly. These processes are normally
monitored by checking dissolved oxygen levels
in the aquifer, recording carbon dioxide in lines
and at the emission point, and periodically
sampling microbial populations. If air quality
permits require it, VOC emissions can be
treated by a biological filter (patent-pending)
that uses indigenous microbes from the site.
The developer is focusing on increasing the
microbiological effectiveness of the system and
completing the testing of a mobile unit. The
mobile unit will allow field pilot tests to support
the design process. This unit also will permit
actual remediation of small sites and of small,
recalcitrant areas on large sites.
The technology is applicable to sites with leaks
or spills of gasoline, diesel fuels, and other
hydrocarbons. The systems is very effective on
BTEX contamination. It also can be used to
contain contaminant plumes through its unique
vacuum and air injection techniques. The
technology should be effective in treating soils
contaminated with virtually any material that
has some volatility or is biodegradable. The
technology can be applied to contaminated soil,
sludges, free-phase hydrocarbon product, and
ground water. By changing the injected gases
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
141
-------
to cause anaerobic conditions and properly
supporting the microbial populations, the SVVS
can be used to remove nitrate from ground
water. The aerobic SWS raises ihe redox
potential of ground water, to precipitate and
remove heavy metals.
Technology Performance
The SVVS has been used at 30 UST sites in
New Mexico and Texas. This technology was
accepted into the EPA SITE Demonstration
Program in 1991. A site in Buchanan,
Michigan, was selected for a demonstration
which began in 1992 and will be completed in
1993.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Kim Lisa Kreiton
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7328
Technology Developer Contact:
Gale Billings
Billings and Associates, Inc.
3816 Academy Parkway North, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
505/345-1116
FAX: 505/345-1756
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
A SITE Program demonstration is ongoing at a
site in Buchanan, Michigan.
142
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Subsurface Volatilization and Ventilation System (SVVS)
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
143
-------
Vapor Extraction
Vacuum-Induced Soil Venting
Gasoline in Unsaturated Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The vacuum-induced venting process provides
in situ cleanup of gasoline contamination above
and below the water table. It reduces
contamination to levels low enough to eliminate
further leaching or desorption of gasoline into
the ground water. This technology can be
applied to hydrocarbon fuels in unsaturated soil.
A vapor/ground-water extraction well, and a
well for monitoring the vacuum induced venting
are installed in the gas spill area. The vapor
extraction/monitor wells each have five
individually screened intervals in the unsaturated
zone and two screened intervals below the water
table. A vacuum-extraction system with thermal
oxidizer is installed using one well to remediate
the spill area. The vacuum-extraction system
operates with a vacuum of between 20-25
inches of mercury and with a flow rate of
approximately 60 ftYmin. The present system
uses an open pipe at the top of an air-driven
pump, which is manually adjusted to follow the
gasoline water interface. Both wells are used
for skimming gasoline.
Technology Performance
Results from testing the vacuum-induced soil
venting technology at the DOE's Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) were
positive:
• Approximately 100 gallons of free
product were removed with this system;
Approximately 5,000 gallons of gasoline
were removed via vacuum-induced
venting over a 12-month period;
Over the 12-month period, total fuel
hydrocarbon concentrations (measured at
the inlet of the thermal oxidizer),
decreased from 16,000 ppm to about
3,000-4,000 ppm; and
The thermal oxidizer that destroys the
gaseous hydrocarbons as they are
removed operated with a 99.8 percent
destruction efficiency.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
Prior to 1979, approximately 17,000 gallons of
regular gasoline leaked into the soil and ground
water from an underground fuel storage tank at
the DOE's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. Vacuum-induced venting was
demonstrated at this site as a method to clean
the gasoline contamination in situ.
Contact
DOE, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
University of California
P.O. Box 808
Livermore, California 94550
144
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
Vapor Extraction System
Solvents in Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology uses a vacuum pump/blower to
treat vadose zone soils contaminated with
VOCs. The increased airflow in the vadose
zone resulting from use of the vapor extraction
system also assists in the biodegradation of
other organics.
Vapor, extracted using the process, is treated
using a thermal burner or catalytic oxidation
prior to being discharged to the atmosphere.
Entrained contaminated water, if any, is
transported off site to a permitted facility for
treatment.
Technology Performance
Full-scale remediation of a site at the
Sacramento Army Depot in California was
conducted late in 1992 and early in 1993.
Target contaminants were ethylbenzene,
butanone, xylene and PCE.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
The remediation involves about 200 yd3 of soil
in the Tank 2 area of the Sacramento Army
Depot in California. Contamination in the area
was found to a depth of 18 feet, with the
majority between 9 and 18 feet. The
contaminated area currently is covered with a
slab. The tank has been removed.
Contacts
Facility Contact:
Ron Oburn
Environmental Management Division
Sacramento Army Depot
8350 Fruitridge Road, M552
Sacramento, CA 95825
916/388-4344
Technology Developer Contact:
Bob Cox
Terra Vac
14204 Doolittle Drive
San Leandro, CA 945777
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
145
-------
146
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
SOIL WASHING
-------
-------
Soil Washing
BEST™ Solvent Extraction Process
PCBs, PAHs, and Pesticides in Oily Sludges and Soil
Technology Description
Solvent extraction treats oily sludges and soils
contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides
by separating the sludges into three fractions :
oil, water, and solids. As the fractions separate,
contaminants are partitioned into each fraction.
For example, PCBs are concentrated in the oil
fraction, while metals are separated into the
solids fraction. The volume and toxicity of the
original waste is thereby reduced, and concen-
trated waste streams can be efficiently treated
for disposal.
The BEST™ process is a mobile solvent extrac-
tion system that uses one or more secondary or
tertiary amines (usually triethylamine [TEA] to
separate organics from soils and sludges. TEA
is hydrophobic above 20 °C and hydrophilic
below 20°C. This property allows the process
to extract both aqueous and nonaqueous com-
pounds by simply changing the temperature.
Because TEA is flammable in the presence of
oxygen, the treatment system must be sealed
from the atmosphere and operated under a
nitrogen blanket. Before treatment, the pH of
the waste material must be raised to greater than
10, so that TEA will be conserved for recycling
through the process. The pH may be adjusted
by adding sodium hydroxide. Pretreatment
also includes screening the waste to remove
large particles.
The process begins by mixing and agitating the
cold solvent and waste in a cold extraction tank.
Solids from the cold extraction tank are trans-
ferred to the extractor/dryer, a horizontal steam-
jacketed vessel with rotating paddles. Hydro-
carbons and water in the waste simultaneously
solubilize with the TEA, creating a homoge-
neous mixture. As the solvent breaks the oil-
water-solid emulsions in the waste, the solids
are released and allowed to settle by gravity.
The solvent mixture is decanted and centrifuged
to remove fine particles. After extraction, the
treated solids are kept moist to prevent dusting.
The solvent mixture from the extractor/dryer is
heated. As the mixture's temperature increases,
the water separates from the organics and
solvent. The organics-solvent fraction is decant-
ed and sent to a stripping column, where the
solvent is recycled. The organics are discharged
for recycling or disposal. The water is passed
to a second stripping column where residual
solvent is recovered for recycling. The water is
typically discharged to a local wastewater
treatment plant.
The technology is modular, allowing for on-site
treatment. Based on bench-scale treatability
tests, the process significantly reduces the
hydrocarbon concentration in the solids. It also
concentrates the contaminants into a smaller
volume, allowing for the efficient final treat-
ment and disposal. Other advantages of the
technology include the production of dry solids,
and recovery and reuse of soil.
The process can be used to remove most hydro-
carbons or oily contaminants in sediments,
sludges, or soils, including PCBs, PAHs and
pesticides (see next page). Performance can be
influenced by the presence of detergents and
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
149
-------
emulsifiers, low pH materials, and reactivity of
the organics with the solvent.
preparation, estimated at $100,000; and other
fixed costs, estimated at $91,500.
SPECIFIC WASTES CAPABLE OF TREATMENT BY
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
RCRA-LIstcd Hazardous Wastes
Creosote-Saturated Sludge
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Float
Slop Oil Emulsion Solids
Heal Exchanger Bundle Cleaning Sludge
API Separator Sludge
Leaded Tank Bottoms
Non-Listed Hazardous Wastes
Primary Oil/Solids/Water Separation Sludges
Secondary Oil/Solids/Water Separation Sludges
Bio-Sludges
Cooling Tower Sludges
HF Alkylation Sludges
Waste FCC Catalyst
Spent Catalyst
Strctford Unit Solution
Tank Bottoms
Treated Clays
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1987. The
SITE demonstration of the BEST™ process was
completed in 1992 at the Grand Calumet River.
Results of the demonstration are documented in
an EPA Applications Analysis Report (EPA/
540/AR-92/079). The first full-scale BEST™
unit was used at the General Refining Superfund
site in Garden City, Georgia. Solvent extraction
is the selected remedial action at the Ewan
Property site in New Jersey, the Norwood PCB
site in Massachusetts, and the Alcoa site in
Massena, New York. It is also the preferred
alternative at the F. O'Connor site in Maine.
General Site Information
This technology has been demonstrated at the
Grand Calumet River site in Illinois, and a full-
scale unit was used at the General Refining
Superfund site in Garden City, Georgia.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Mark Meckes
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7348
Technology Developer Contact:
Lanny Weimer
Resources Conservation Company
3630 Cornus Lane
Ellicott City, MD 21043
301-596-6066
Fax: 410-465-2887
Remediation Costs
Based on the SITE demonstration, cost for a
186-ton/day system have been estimated at
$94.19/ton treated. This excludes mobilization
and demobilization, estimated at $680,000;
equipment checkout, estimated at $56,000; site
150
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
PRIMARY EXTRACTION/ I SECONDARY EXTRACTION/ 1
DEWATEMNi) I SOUDS DRYING 1
SOLVENT
RECOVERY
I
BEST Solvent Cleanup Unit
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
151
-------
Soil Washing
BioGenesis3*1 Soil Washing Process
Volatile and Non-Volatile Hydrocarbons and PCBs in Soil
Technology Description
The BioGenesis8" process uses a specialized
truck, a complex surfactant, and water to clean
soil contaminated with organics. Ancillary
equipment includes gravity oil and water separa-
tors, coalescing filters, and a bioreactor. All
equipment is mobile, and treatment normally
occurs on site. The cleaning rate for oil con-
tamination of 5,000 ppm is 30-65 tons/hr. A
single wash removes 85 to 99 percent of hydro-
carbon contamination, up to 15,000 ppm.
Higher concentrations require additional washes.
Up to 65 tons (35 yd3) of contaminated soil are
loaded into a washer unit containing water and
BioGenesis8*1 cleaner. The BioGenesis8" cleaner
is a light alkaline mixture of natural and organic
materials containing no hazardous or petrochem-
ical ingredients. For 15 to 30 minutes, aeration
equipment agitates the mixture, washing the
soil, and encapsulating oil molecules with
BioGenesis8" cleaner. After washing, the ex-
tracted oil is reclaimed, wash water is recycled
or treated, and the soil is dumped from the soil
washer. Hazardous organics, such as PCBs, can
be extracted in the same manner and then
processed by using compound-specific treatment
methods.
Advantages of BioGenesis8** include (1) treat-
ment of soils containing both volatile and non-
volatile oils, (2) treatment of soil containing up
to 50 percent clays, (3) high processing rates,
(4) on-site operation, (5) production of reusable
oil, treatable water, and soil suitable for on-site
backfill, (6) the absence of air pollution, except
during excavation, (7) and accelerated biodegra-
dation of oil residuals in the soil.
This technology extracts volatile and non-vola-
tile oils, chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides,
and other organics from most types of soils,
including clays. Treatable contaminants include
crude oil, heating oils, diesel fuel, gasoline,
PCBs, and PAHs.
Technology Performance
The BioGenesisSM technology was accepted into
the EPA SITE Demonstration Program in June
1990. The process was demonstrated at Santa
Maria, California, in May 1992 and at a mid-
west refinery in November 1992. Full commer-
cial operations began in Wisconsin in September
1992.
Research continues to extend application of the
technology to acid extractables, base and neutral
extractables, pesticides, and acutely hazardous
materials.
Remediation Costs
BioGenesis8" soil washing technology costs $40
to $150/ton depending on five major factors:
• type of contaminant—Residual oils require
more cleaning time and chemical than does
diesel. The presence of hazardous compo-
nents, such as benzene or PCBs, adds the
safety costs associated with hazardous waste
processing;
152
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
• quantity of contaminant—Very high levels,
such as 30,000 to 60,000 ppm, may require
multiple washes depending on the cleaning
standard;
• cleanup goal—Achieving 100 ppm residuals
costs more than achieving 1,000 ppm;
• soil type—Sandy soil costs less to clean
than soil with high clay content; and
• job size—On a per-ton basis, production
efficiency is higher and costs are lower for
larger jobs.
These cost ranges include moving soil from a
stockpile, washing it, and returning it to the
stockpile. They also include internal quality
assurance testing, but do not include testing for
outside entities.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a site in
Santa Maria, California, and at a midwest
refinery site.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Annette Gatchett
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7697
Technology Developer Contacts:
Charles Wilde
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc.
10626 Beechnut Court
Fairfax Station, VA 22039-1296
703/250-3442
FAX: 703/250-3559
Mohsen Amiran
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc.
330 South Mt. Prospect Rd.
Des Plaines, IL 60016
708/827-0024
FAX: 708/827-0025
Contaminated
Soil
Clean
So!)
35 ions/hour
Washer Unit
Oily
Water
Oil for
Reclamation
Oil/Water
Separation
Air
Recycle to Next Load
Oil for
Reclamation
Oily
Water
Coalescing Filters
and
Bioreactor
BioGenesis
Cleaner
Water
Soil Washing Process
Clean
Water
BioGenesis Air
Degrader
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
153
-------
^eosr%
3
o
»
Soil Washing
Carver-Greenfield Process
Oil-Soluble Organics in Soils, Sediments, and Sludges
Technology Description
The Carver-Greenfield (C-G) Process® is a
solvent extraction process designed to separate
hazardous oil-soluble organic contaminants from
sludges, soils, and sediments. The process
involves adding to the waste a "carrier" oil,
which, removes hazardous organics from con-
taminated solid particles and concentrates them
in the oil phase. In most applications, a food-
grade oil with a boiling point of 400°F is used
as the carrier oil. Typically, 5 to 10 Ibs of
carrier oil is used for each pound of solids.
Fkst, carrier oil is added to the waste in a
mixing tank. The mixture is then transferred to
a high-efficiency evaporator where the water is
removed. Next, the dry mixture is fed to a
centrifuge that separates the oil from the solid
particles. Additional solvent extractions and
ccntrifuging take place at this point. After final
centrifuging, any residual carrier oil is removed
by hydro-extraction, a de-oiling process that
uses hot nitrogen gas to separate oil from solids.
The final solids product typically contains low
percentages of water and oil. In the full-scale
system, recirculated oil is distilled to recover
carrier oil, which is subsequently reused.
By-products from the process include: (1) a
concentrated mixture of the extracted oil-soluble
compounds, (2) a water product virtually free of
solids and oils, and (3) a clean, dry solid.
The C-G Process can be applied to wastes
containing water and organic contaminants.
Commercial C-G Process plants have been used
to treat materials with high water content, such
as meat rendering waste, municipal sewage
sludge, paper mill sludge, brewery treatment
plant sludge, pharmaceutical plant waste, and
leather dyeing waste. The system cannot pro-
cess large particles. If necessary, waste feed
should be pretreated using a grinder to a max-
imum particle size of about 1/4 inch. The
process can treat wastes with oil-soluble con-
tents ranging from ppm levels up to 75 percent.
Because the process is based on a dewatering
technology, it can treat waste streams containing
up to 99 percent water.
Technology Performance
The process was demonstrated in 1991 on
drilling muds excavated from the PAB Oil
Superfund site in Abbeville, Louisiana. The
demonstration was conducted at EPA's research
facility in Edison, New Jersey. A trailer-mount-
ed C-G unit treated about 640 Ibs of drilling
mud wastes in two separate test runs.
Operation of the system:
• generated a treated solids product that
passed TCLP criteria for volatiles,
semivolatiles, and metals;
• successfully separated the feed stream into
its constituent water, oil, and solids frac-
tions;
• removed 94 to 96 percent of the indigenous
oil and 100% of the indigenous TPH from
the solid fraction (see on next page); and
154
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
• produced a dry final solids product contain-
ing less than 1 percent carrier oil.
Demonstration results have been published by
EPA in an Applications Analysis Report (EPA/
540/AR-92/002). The report also is available
froniNTIS (PB93-101152).
Remediation Costs
Based on remediating 23,000 tons of spent
drilling fluids, C-G Process technology specific
costs would be typically in the range of $100 to
220/ton of drilling mud waste feed and would
be expected to be comparable for similar feeds.
Site-specific costs, which include the cost of
residual disposal, range from minimal
(<$10/ton) to more than $300/ton of drilling
mud waste feed and are very sensitive to the
assumed residuals disposition and associated
costs or credits. Costs to treat other materials
could be in the range of $50 to $100/ton.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at EPA's
Edison, New Jersey, facility using waste from
the PAB Oil Superfund site in Abbeville, Loui-
siana.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contact:
Theodore D. Trowbridge
Dehydro-Tech Corporation
6 Great Meadow Lane
East Hanover, NJ 07936
201/887-2182
FAX 201/887-2548
Demonstration Results
Test Run #1
Test Run #2
Parameter
Solids
Indigenous Oil
Water
Carrier Oil
Feed, %
52.4
17.5
21.8
N/D1
Solids
Product, %
96.6
1.45
N/D1
0.93
Feed, %
52.4
7.28
34.7
N/D1
Solids Prod-
uct, %
98.3
0.85
N/D1
0.89
Percent Indigenous Oil
Removal2
Percent Indigenous TPH
Removal
95.9
100
94.3
100
N/D: Not Detected
Percent removal is based on the solids fraction of the influent feed.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
155
-------
Vent to
Treatment
Feed
Sludoe/SoB/
Woito
Corrlor OH
Makeup
Dry
Solids
Product
Light
*~O Oil Soluble
Components
Extracted
O Oil Soluble
Components
Carver-Greenfield Process® Schematic Diagram
156
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Debris Washing System
Organics, PCBs, Pesticides, and Inorganics in Debris
Technology Description
This technology was developed to decontami-
nate debris currently found at Superfiind sites.
The pilot-scale debris washing system (DWS)
includes 300-gallon spray and wash tanks,
surfactant and rinse water holding tanks, and an
oil-water separator. The DWS uses a
diatomaceous earth filter, an activated carbon
column, and an ion exchange column to treat
the decontamination solution. Other required
equipment includes pumps, a stirrer motor, a
tank heater, a metal debris basket, and particu-
late filters.
The DWS unit is transported on a 48-foot
semitrailer. At the treatment site, the DWS unit
is assembled on a 25-by-24-foot concrete pad
and enclosed in a temporary shelter.
A basket of debris is placed in the spray tank
with a forklift, where it is sprayed with an
aqueous detergent solution. High-pressure water
jets blast contaminants and dirt from the debris.
Detergent solution is continually cleaned and
recycled through a filter system.
The spray and wash tanks are supplied with
water at 140°F, at a pressure of 60 Ibs/psig.
The detergent solution and rinse water are
treated by oil-water separation, particulate
filtration, activated carbon adsorption, and ion
exchange. About 1,000 gallons of liquid are
used during the decontamination process.
The DWS can be applied on site to various
types of debris (metallic, masonry, or other solid
debris) contaminated with hazardous chemicals,
such as pesticides, PCBs, lead, and other metals.
Technology Performance
The first pilot-scale test was performed at Carter
Industrial Superfund site in Detroit, Michigan.
PCB reductions averaged 58 percent in Batch 1
and 81 percent in Batch 2. Design changes
were made and tested on the unit before addi-
tional field testing.
An upgraded pilot-scale DWS at the PCB-
contaminated Gray Superfund site in Hopkins-
ville, Kentucky, during December 1989. PCB
levels on the surfaces of metallic transformer
casings were reduced to less than or equal to 10
ug/100 cm2 PCBs. All 75 contaminated trans-
former casings on site were decontaminated to
EPA cleanup criteria and sold to a scrap metal
dealer.
The DWS was also field tested at the Shaver's
Farm Superfund site in Walker County, Georgia.
The contaminants of concern were benzonitrile
and dicamba. After being cut into sections, 55-
gallon drums were placed in the DWS and
carried through the decontamination process.
Benzonitrile and dicamba levels on drum surfac-
es were reduced from the average pretreatment
concentrations of 4,556 and 23 ug/100 cm2 to
average concentrations of 10 and 1 ug/100 cm2,
respectively. Results have been published in a
Technology Evaluation Report (EPA/540/5-
91/006a).
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
157
-------
A full-scale version of the DWS has been
designed and is available for demonstration.
This system is similar to the pilot-scale system;
however, the equipment, which will be mounted
on two 48-foot semi-trailers, has been scaled up
to permit processing of 10 to 20 tons/day.
Remediation Costs
The cost for design, engineering, equipment
procurement, fabrication, and installation of the
pilot-scale DWS was approximately $75,000.
The cost of conducting each demonstration—site
preparation, mobilization, equipment set-up,
operations/test runs, sample collections, chemi-
cal analyses, and demobilization—was $122,000
for the Gray PCB site and $140,000 for the
Shaver's Farm site. These costs may not be
representative of any actual site operation
because of the experimental nature of the pilot-
scale system which is relatively labor intensive
and has a low processing rate.
General Site Information
Demonstrations and field tests of this technolo-
gy have been conducted at the Carter Industrial
Superfund site in Detroit, Michigan, a Super-
fund site in HopMnsville, Kentucky, and the
Shaver's Farm Superfund site in Walker Coun-
ty, Georgia.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Naomi Barkley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7854
Technology Developer Contact:
Michael Taylor and Majid Dosani
IT Corporation
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246
513/782-4700
__.„_
¥
St«p 1-Sproy Cyctt
Stop 2-Woth Cydt
St«p 3-RViw dyd«
D£ F««r
Wattr Trwtm.nl SUp
Pump
Activated Carbon
Pilot-Scale Debris Washing System
158
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Enhanced Soil Washing with SOIL*EXi"
Radionuclides and Heavy Metals in Soil and Debris
Technology Description
This technology is designed for selective extrac-
tion of heavy metals and radionuclides from soil
and debris. Specific contaminants addressed by
the technology include plutonium, americium,
uranium, radium, lead, chromium, and organics
such as TCE and
Pretreatment, consisting of manual segregation
of sheets of plastic, pieces of deteriorated and
broken drums, and large shards of metal, is
required. This is followed by size separation of
soil/debris to particles smaller than 2 inches.
The treatment portion of the process involves
selective dissolution of the contaminants, com-
bined with the use of surfactants to remove
organic materials. This is followed by solid/
liquid separation, with a side-stream to a waste
concentration unit, and volatile organic destruc-
tion using the evaporation-plus-catalytic-oxida-
tion technology, PO*WW*ER™. (Seethe Chem-
ical Treatment section for a description of the
PO*WW*ER™ technology.)
The process produces four outlet streams: clean
soil/debris, concentrated contaminants, con-
densed water for re-use in the cycle, and air
discharge of carbon dioxide and nitrogen from
the oxidized organic compounds.
varying degrees of decontamination factors
(DFs). A pilot-scale plant is being constructed,
and pilot-scale treatability studies, with bench-
scale support, are being conducted at the
Clemson Technical Center in Anderson, SC.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
Clemson Technical Center is a facility licensed
and permitted to handle radioactive and hazard-
ous materials and was developed as a site for
demonstration of technologies treating mixed,
radioactive, and hazardous wastes.
Contact
Doug MacKensie
EG&G Idaho/U.S. DOE
P.O. Box 1625-3920
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3920
208/526-6265
Technology Performance
Bench-scale tests of soils with plutonium and
uranium have been conducted showing effective
and selective removal of contaminants with
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
159
-------
Surfactant
p..,,
Extraction
Module
Liquids
Sollds _
Concsntrale
Extraction
Module
P
Sollds
Dawatarlng
Subsystem
Filtrate
Reagents
< -Process Water*
Extraction
Subsystem
Wash Water
Process
Makeup
Water
I
„ Catalvtlc
Oxidation
t
Concentrated
Treatment
Residual
PO'WWER™
• fiuhffvfitam
Enhanced Soil Washing Process Flow Diagram
160
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Particle Separation Process
PCBs and Metals in Sediments
Technology Description
This technology separates contaminated particles
by density and grain size. The technology
operates on the hypothesis that most contamina-
tion is concentrated in the fine particle fraction
(-63 micron fines), and that contamination of
larger particles generally is not extensive.
In this technology, contaminated soil is screened
to remove coarse rock and debris. Water and
chemical additives (such as surfactants, acids,
bases, and chelants) are added to the soil to
produce a slurry feed. The slurry feed flows to
an attrition scrubbing machine. Rotary trommel
screws, dense media separators, and other
equipment create mechanical and fluid shear
stress, removing contaminated silts and clay
from granular soil panicles. Different separa-
tion processes then create output streams con-
sisting of granular soil particles, silts, clays, and
wash water.
Upflow classification and separation, also
known as elutriation, is used to separate light
contaminated specific gravity materials, such as
leaves, twigs, roots, or wood chips.
This technology is suitable for treating sediment
contaminated with PCBs. The technology has
been applied to soils and sediments contaminat-
ed with organics and heavy metals, including
cadmium, chromium, lead, creosote, copper,
cyanides, fuel residues, mercury, heavy petro-
leum, nickel, PCBs, radionuclides, and zinc.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in winter 1991.
A pilot-scale, on-site demonstration was con-
ducted from October 1991 to June 1992 at the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Saginaw Bay
Confined Disposal Facility in Bay City, Michi-
gan. The demonstration was part of the Assess-
ment and Remediation of Contaminated Sedi-
ments (ARCS) Program authorized by the Water
Quality Act of 1987. Approximately 30 yd3 of
sediments dredged from the Saginaw River was
treated each day during the demonstration.
Contaminants and grain size were monitored at
23 points in the process.
The process also was field evaluated in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, in April 1992.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
Demonstrations and evaluations of this technolo-
gy have been conducted at the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' Saginaw Bay Confined Disposal
Facility in Bay City, Michigan, and at a site in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
161
-------
r
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
Technology Developer Contact:
Rick Traver
Bergmann USA
1550 Airport Road
Gallatin,TN 37066-3739
615/452-5500
Additional Contacts:
Jim Galloway
Frank Snite
U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit
Box 1027
Detroit, MI 48231-1027
313/226-6760
162
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
RENEU™ Extraction Technology
Organics in Soil
Technology Description
This RENEU™ Extraction Technology is a
mobile system that removes organic compounds
from soil. Concentrations can be reduced from
as high as 325,000 ppm to non-detectable,
depending on the soil and contaminants. The
system can handle sand, clay, and soil aggre-
gates up to 3 inches in diameter. Processing
treatment rates range from 5 to over 45 tons/hr.
The technology uses a proprietary, azeotropic
fluid that works in bom the liquid and gas
phase. The fluid physically breaks the adsorp-
tion bond between the contaminant and the soil
under ambient conditions. Upon contact with
the fluid, contaminants are released from the
solid surface and form a colloidal suspension.
The fluid/organic contaminant emulsion is
centrifuged. The contaminants are then extract-
ed from the fluid through a
liquefaction/distillation process. The fluid can
be formulated to have a boiling point from 80°
to 120°F. All fluid and contaminant vapors are
collected and routed to the liquification/dis-
tillation unit. The extracted fluid can be reused.
The system does not require significant pretreat-
ment or processing water. Application equip-
ment consists of a Transportable Treatment Unit
(TTU), a centrifuge, and a Gas Liquefaction and
Distillation Unit (GLDU). The TTU consists of
the hopper and auger processor coupled with the
RENEU™ storage and delivery system and is
mounted on one trailer. The second trailer
carries the centrifuge, GLDU, and, when need-
ed, a generator to power both. The centrifuge
spins the dampened soil. The GLDU collects
the liquid and gaseous contaminants captured in
the fluid, then separates the fluid from the
contaminants by distillation.
A skip loader transports the contaminated soil
into the hopper of the TTU, which feeds the soil
directly into the treatment chamber. Contami-
nated soil is screened and broken up in the
hopper before it proceeds to the auger.
In the treatment chamber, several pressure spray
heads apply the fluid directly onto the contami-
nated soil. Residence time is varied by feed
rate, which depends on contaminant and soil
conditions.
Four vacuum hoses on top of the auger housing
create a slight negative pressure. Volatilized
material is captured and liquefied in the GLDU.
The treated soil is conveyed from the auger
outlet into the centrifuge, where it receives an ,
optional final rinse of fluid. After centrifuging,
the soil is routed to a holding area prior to
sampling and backfilling.
The system extracts organic compounds includ-
ing gasoline, diesel, jet fuels, waste oils, oil
processing sludges, and various other hydrocar-
bon-based contaminants in most types of soils,
including clays. Additional applications are
being investigated.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable'
163
-------
Technology Performance
Contacts
The technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in June 1992. A
demonstration was conducted in 1992.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
EPA Project Manager:
Michelle Simon
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7469
Technology Developer Contact:
James Mier
Terrasys, Inc.
912-D Pancho Road
Camarillo, CA 93012
805-389-6766
Fax: 805-389-6770
Contaminated
Soil
Hopper (1)
RENEU (FactoryOlrect) \ i
Storage Tanks (3) \- J
0 i. I "* ; I *
Treatment
RENEU (Distilled) Chamber (6)
Storage Tanks (3)
n ^ Gasi
^<£
i
j
Iquefactlon
Hnn 1 tnlt C\\
Soil
RENEU
Vapor
Liquid
Extract
Auger (2)
Centrifuge (4)
Waste Container
Reneu™ Extraction System
164
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Restoration Unit
PCBs, PCP, Creosote, Chlorinated Solvents, Naphthalene,
Diesel Oil, Used Motor Oil, Jet Fuel, Grease, and Organic Pesticides in Soil
Technology Description
The soil restoration unit is a mobile solvent
extraction device designed to remove organic
contaminants from soil. Extraction of soil
contaminants is performed with a mixture of
organic solvents in a closed loop, counter-cur-
rent process that recycles all solvents. The
technology uses a combination of up to 14
solvents, each of which can dissolve specific
contaminants in the soil and mixes freely with
water. None of the solvents is a listed hazard-
ous waste, and the most commonly used sol-
vents are approved by the Food and Drug
Administration as food additives for human
consumption. The solvents are typically heated
to efficiently strip the contaminants from the
soil.
Contaminated soil is fed into a hopper, and then
mixed to form a slurry. Soil in the slurry is
continually leached by clean solvent. The
return leachate from the modules is monitored
for contaminants so that the soil may be re-
tained within the system until any residual
contaminants within the soil are reduced to
targeted levels. The soil restoration unit offers
"hot spot protection," in which real-time moni-
toring of the contaminant levels alleviates the
problems associated with treating localized areas
of higher contamination.
Used solvent from the slurry modules is stripped
of contaminants by distillation. Materials
extracted from the soil remain in distillation
residuals and are periodically flushed from the
system into 55-gal. drums for off-site disposal.
distillate from the columns is fractionally sepa-
rated to remove the lower boiling point contami-
nants from the solvent. The clean solvent is
then reused in the system, completing the closed
solvent loop.
Treated soil and solvent slurry is then sent to a
closed-loop dryer system that removes the
solvent from the soil. The solvent vapors in the
dryer are monitored with an organic vapor
monitor that indicates when the treatment has
been completed.
This technology is can remove PCBs, PCP,
creosote, chlorinated solvents, naphthalene,
diesel oil, used motor oil, jet fuel, grease,
organic pesticides, and other organic contami-
nants in soil. It has not been tested using
contaminated sediments and sludges as feed
stock.
Technology Performance
The soil restoration unit has been used for
remediation of the Traband Warehouse site in
Oklahoma. Results from that site are shown
below:
Test
A
B
C
Initial PCBs
Cone, (ppm)
740
S10
2,500
Final PCBs
Cone, (ppm)
77
3
93
Required
No. of Percent
Passes Reduction
1 90
1 99+
4 96
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
165
-------
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology was used for PCB remediation
at Traband Warehouse in Oklahoma. An Emer-
gency Response action, cleanup of the site has
been completed.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Mark Meckes
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7348
Technology Developer Contact:
Alan Cash
Terra-Kleen Corporation
7321 North Hammond Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73132
405/728-0001
FAX: 405/728-0016
Clean Soil Exit
Soil and Solvent Slurry Modules
Soil Restoration Unit
166
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
f-
Soil Washing
Soil Washer for Radioactive Soil
Radionuclides in Soils
Technology Description
This technology is designed to reduce the
volume of soils contaminated with low concen-
trations of radionuclides. The process is used
with soils in which radioactivity is concentrated
in the fine soil particles and in friable coatings
around the larger particles.
The soil washer uses attrition mills to liberate
the contaminated coatings and then uses hydro-
classifiers to separate the contaminated fines
and coatings. Next, a filter press dewaters the
contaminated portion in preparation for off-site
disposal. The clean portion remains on site,
reducing the high costs of transporting and
burying large volumes of low-level radioactive
soil.
Technology Performance
The soil washer was tested with soil from the
Montclair Superfund site in New Jersey. The
result was a 56 percent volume reduction of 40
picoCuries/gram soil, with the clean portion at
11 picoCuries/gram. The soil washer also
achieved steady-state operations for 8 hours,
with little operator assistance, at the rate of
approximately 1 ton/hr. The plant is now being
optimized in preparation for the second round of
testing.
This process was developed as part of EPA's
Volume Reduction/Chemical Extraction
(VORCE) Program which also involves labora-
tory screening and bench-scale testing of soils
for active Department of Energy sites. These
include the Nevada Test Site, Hanford Reserva-
tion, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
Rocky Flats, the Fernald Plant, and two other
New Jersey sites that are part of DOE's Former-
ly Utilized Site Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP).
Remediation Costs
Disposal and transportation cost is being
negotiated. Based on the first round of testing
of the pilot soil washing plant, volume reduction
at a rate of about 1.5 yd3/hr has an operational
cost of about $300/hr.
General Site Information
This technology is being developed for the
Montclair and the West Orange and Glen Ridge
Superfund sites, both in New Jersey.
Contact
EPA Project Manager:
Mike Eagle
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, ANR-461
Washington, DC 20460
202/233-9376
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
167
-------
Soil Washing
Soil WasMng
Metals in Oxidation Lagoons
Technology Description
In this process, soil is treated with a wash
reagent that facilitates the transfer of contami-
nants, primarily heavy metals and arsenic, from
the soil to the wash liquid. The wash liquid
then will be neutralized with a caustic to precip-
itate the metals from the solution. The precipi-
tated metals will be disposed of in a landfill.
Technology Performance
Full-scale remediation of 12,000 yds3 of soil at
the Sacramento (California) Army Depot was
conducted in 1992. The soil had been found to
be contaminated to a depth of 18 inches. Pri-
mary contaminants were cadmium, nickel, lead,
and copper.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This remediation project involves a group of
four contaminated oxidation lagoons at the
Sacramento Army Depot in California. The
lagoons currently are not in use and are covered
partially with vegetation. Three drainage ditch-
es and a dry section of a nearby creek also have
been contaminated from spillover from the
lagoons following rainstorms.
Contact
Dan Oburn •
Environmental Management Division
Sacramento Army Depot
8350 Fruitridge Road, M552
Sacramento, CA 95325
916/388-4344
168
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Washing
Uranium in Soil
Technology Description
In this process, a mixture of soil and leachant is
attrition scrubbed for one minute to solubilize
the uranium from the soil. The contents of the
attrition scrubber then flow into the mineral jig
where the fine uranium particles and contami-
nated solutions are separated from the soil. The
contaminated materials overflow from the jig,
while clean soils exit from the bottom. The
bottom soils are then screened and washed to
remove any uranium residuals. The fines slurry
from the jig is treated to remove organic materi-
als, then flocked and removed from process
using a rotary screen and classifier. The
leachant is reactivated and recycled.
Wastewater effluent is a by-product of this
process. Effluent must be analyzed for hazard-
ous constituents. Existing wastewater treatment
technologies should allow the wastewater to be
treated and returned to a useable water source.
Technology Performance
This technology is commercially available and
has been used in the field. It is being evaluated
at DOE's Fernald Site, near Cincinnati, Ohio, as
part of its Integrated Technology Demonstration
program for Uranium Soils.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
The Fernald Site is located on 1,050 acres near
the Great Miami River, 18 miles northwest of
Cincinnati, OH. Established in the early 1950s,
the production complex was used for processing
uranium and its compounds from natural urani-
um ore concentrates. As the primary production
site for uranium metal for defense projects in
the past, the facility was key to national
security.
Contact
Kimberly Nuhfer
Fernald Environmental Remediation Manage-
ment Corporation
P.O. Box 398704
Cincinnati, OH 45239-8704
513/648-6556
FAX: 513/648-6914
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
169
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Washing/Catalytic Ozone Oxidation
SVOCs, PCBs, PCP, Pesticides, Dioxin, and Cyanide
in Soil, Sludge, and Ground Water
Technology Description
The Excalibur technology is designed to treat
soils with organic and inorganic contaminants.
The technology is a two-stage process: the first
stage extracts the contaminants from the soil,
and the second stage oxidizes contaminants
present in the extract. The extraction is carried
out using ultra-pure water and ultrasound.
Oxidation involves the use of ozone, and ultra-
violet light. The treatment products of this
technology are decontaminated soil and inert
salts.
After excavation, contaminated soil is passed
through a 1-inch screen. Soil particles retained
on the screen are crushed using a hammermill
and sent back to the screen. Soil particles
passing through the screen are sent to a soil
washer, where ultra-pure water extracts the
contaminants from the screened soil. Ultra-
sound acts as a catalyst to enhance soil washing.
Typically, 10 volumes of water are added per
volume of soil, generating a slurry of about 10
to 20 percent solids by weight. This slurry is
conveyed to a solid/liquid separator, such as a
centrifuge or cyclone, to separate the decontami-
nated soil from the contaminated water. The
decontaminated soil can be returned to its
original location or disposed of appropriately.
After the solid/liquid separation, any oil present
in the contaminated water is recovered using an
oil/water separator. The contaminated water is
ozonated prior to oil/water separation to aid in
oil recovery. The water then flows through a
filter to remove any fine particles. After the
particles are filtered, the water flows through a
carbon filter and a deionizer to reduce the
contaminant load on the multichamber reactor.
In the multi-chamber reactor, ozone gas, ultravi-
olet light, and ultrasound are applied to the
contaminated water. Ultraviolet light and
ultrasound catalyze the oxidation of contami-
nants by ozone. The treated water (ultrapure
water) flows out of the reactor to a storage tank
and is reused to wash another batch of soil. If
makeup water is required, additional ultrapure
water is generated on site by treating tap water
with ozone and ultrasound.
The treatment system is also equipped with a
carbon filter to treat the off-gas from the reac-
tor. The carbon filters are biologically activated
to regenerate the spent carbon.
System capacities range from 1 ftVhr of solids
(water flow rate of 1 gpm) to 27 yd3/hr of solids
(with a water flow rate of 50 gpm). The treat-
ment units available for the EPA SITE Program
demonstration can treat 1 to 5 yd3/hr of solids.
This technology can be applied to soils, solids,
sludges, leachates, and ground water containing
organics such as PCBs, PCP, pesticides and
herbicides, dioxins, and inorganics, including
cyanides. The technology could effectively treat
total contaminant concentrations ranging from 1
ppm to 20,000 ppm. Soils and solids greater
than 1 inch in diameter need to be crushed prior
to treatment.
170
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Technology Performance
Contacts
The Excalibur technology was accepted into the
EPA SITE Demonstration Program in July
1989. The Coleman-Evans site in Jacksonville,
Florida, has been selected for a SITE demon-
stration.
Remediation Costs
Depending upon the level of contaminants and
type of soils, costs range from $70 to $130/yd3
with no need for landfilling, incineration, or
chemical treatment.
General Site Information
This technology is expected to be demonstrated
at the Coleman-Evans site in Jacksonville,
Florida.
EPA Project Manager:
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7665
Technology Developer Contacts:
Lucas Boeve
Excalibur Enterprises, Inc.
Calle Pedro Clisante, #12
Sosua, Dominican Republic
809/571-3418 or 1724
FAX: 809/571-3453 or 3419
Excalibur Treatment System Flow Diagram
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
171
-------
\
s
Soil Washing
Soil Washing Plant
Radionuclides and Heavy Metals in Soil
Technology Description
The Soil Washing Plant is a highly portable,
cost-effective, above ground process for reduc-
ing the overall volume of contaminated soil
requiring treatment.
The demonstration plant is contained on an 8-
foot-by-40-foot trailer and transported with a
pickup truck. The processing rate depends on
the percentage of soil fines in the feed material.
During the EPA SITE Program demonstration,
the system processed between 2.5 and 5 tons/hr
of contaminated soil; however, the unit can
operate at up to 20 tons/hr. The system uses
conventional mineral processing equipment for
dcagglomeration, density separation, and materi-
al sizing, centered around a patented process for
effective fine particle separation. By use of
high attrition and wash water, soil contaminants
arc partitioned to fine soil fractions. Oversized
coarse soil fractions are washed in clean water
before exiting the plant for redeposition on site.
Process water is containerized, recirculated, and
treated to remove suspended and dissolved
contaminants. Fine contaminated soil fractions
are containerized automatically during plant
operation.
The system can be up-scaled. A 150-ton/hour
plant, built in 1989 for mining gold, processed
47,000 yds3 (71,400 tons) of material.
The technology can be used to treat soil con-
taminated with radioactive and heavy metals.
Metals concentration will not influence system
throughput. Currently the developer is design-
ing a plant that employs soil washing for
remediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil.
The technology recirculates all process water
and containerizes the entire waste stream; the
only non-containerized products leaving the
plant are washed, clean coarse soil fractions. Its
complete containment of the waste stream
makes the system an environmentally responsi-
ble approach to soil remediation.
Technology Performance
The Soil Washing Plant was accepted into the
EPA SITE Demonstration Program in winter
1991. Under the Program, the system was
demonstrated in the late summer 1992 for the
remediation of lead-contaminated soil at the
Alaska Battery Enterprises (ABE) Superfund
site in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at the Alaska
Battery Enterprises (ABE) Superfund site in
Fairbanks, Alaska. The ABE site was added to
the National Priorities List because of high
levels of lead found in site soils and the poten-
tial for ground water contamination. The lead
contamination resulted from past manufacturing
172
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
and recycling of batteries at the site. EPA
removed some contaminated soil from the site
in 1988 and 1989. Further site testing in 1990
revealed that additional contaminated soil re-
mained on site. This technology was selected
primarily because the site soil gravel and sand,
with a minimum of clay and silt. These soil
characteristics make the site highly amenable to
this soil washing system. Analysis of the
excavated soil revealed large quantities of
metallic lead and contaminated battery casings;
the developer quickly modified its process to
separate these additional contaminants.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Hugh Masters
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908-321-6678
Technology Developer Contact:
Craig Jones
BESCORP
P.O.Box 73520
Fairbanks, AK 99707
907-452-2512
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
173
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Washing System
PAHs, PCBs, PCP, Pesticides, and Metals in Soil
Technology Description
This soil washing system is a patented, water-
based, volume reduction process for treating
excavated soil. Soil washing may be applied to
contaminants concentrated in the fine-size
fraction of soil (silt, clay, and soil organic
matter) and the mainly surficial contamination
associated with the coarse (sand and gravel) soil
fraction. The goal is for the soil product to
meet appropriate cleanup standards.
After debris is removed, soil is mixed with
water and subjected to various unit operations
common to the mineral processing industry.
Process steps can include mixing trommels, pug
mills, vibrating screens, froth flotation cells,
attrition scrubbing machines, hydrocyclones,
screw classifiers, and various dewatering opera-
tions.
The core of the process is a multi-stage, coun-
ter-current, intensive scrubbing ckcuit with
inter-stage classification. The scrubbing action
disintegrates soil aggregates, freeing contaminat-
ed fine particles from the coarser sand and
gravel. In addition, surficial contamination is
removed from the coarse fraction by the abra-
sive scouring action of the particles themselves.
Contaminants may also be solubQized, as dictat-
ed by solubility characteristics or partition
coefficients.
The contaminated residual products can be
treated by other methods. Process water is
normally recycled after biological or physical
treatment. Options for the contaminated fines
include off-site disposal, incineration, stabiliza-
tion, and biological treatment.
This technology was initially developed to clean
soils contaminated with wood preserving wastes
such as PAHs and PCP. The technology may
also be applied to soils contaminated with
petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, PCBs,
various industrial chemicals, and metals.
Technology Performance
The EPA SITE demonstration of the soil wash-
ing technology took place in 1989 at the
MacGillis and Gibbs Superfund site in New
Brighton, Minnesota. A pilot-scale unit with a
treatment capacity of 500 Ibs/hr was operated 24
hrs/day during the demonstration. Feed for the
first phase of the demonstration (2 days) con-
sisted of soil contaminated with 130 ppm PCP
and 247 ppm total PAHs. During the second
phase (7 days), soil containing 680 ppm PCP
and 404 ppm total PAHs was fed to the system.
Contaminated process water from soil washing
was treated biologically in a fixed-film reactor
and was recycled. A portion of the contaminat-
ed fines generated during soil washing was
treated biologically in a three-stage, pilot-scale
E1MCO Biolift® reactor system supplied by the
EIMCO Process Equipment Company.
Following is a summary of the results of the
demonstration of this technology:
• Feed soil (dry weight basis) was successful-
ly separated into 83 percent washed soil, 10
174
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
percent woody residues, and 7 percent fines.
The washed soil retained about 10 percent
of the feed soil contamination; while 90
percent of the feed soil contamination was
contained within the woody residues, fines
and process wastes.
• The soil washer achieved up to 89 percent
removal of PCP and 88 percent of total
PAHs, based on the difference between ppm
levels in the contaminated (wet) feed soil
and the washed soil.
• The system degraded up to 94 percent of
PCP in the process water from soil washing.
PAH removal could not be determined due
to low influent concentrations.
The Applications Analysis Report (EPA/540/
A5-91/003) is available from EPA.
Remediation Costs
Cost of a commercial-scale soil washing system,
assuming use of all three technologies, was
estimated to be $168/ton. Incineration of
woody material accounts for 76 percent of the
cost.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at the
MacGillis and Gibbs Superfund site in New
Brighton, Minnesota.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Mary Stinson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908/321-6683
Technology Developer Contacts:
Dennis Chilcote
BioTrol, Inc.
10300 Valley View Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
612/942-8032
FAX: 612/942-8526
Excavate
Contaminated
Soil
Screen
f
Ovmlz*
Debrti
Slu
Rocydo
r
Multi-Sin
Wash In;
Circuit
9«
1 ••
-J 1 j
Contaminated
Water
*
Washed
Sand
Contaminate!
SBt/aay
4
Wotor Treotmen
System (ATS)
*
dean
Wotor
t
Bio— Slurry
Reactor
|
Oewat
1
sr
Treated
Slit/Cloy
BioTrol Soil Washing System Process Diagram
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
175
-------
Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, and Petroleum Wastes
in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
This technology uses liquified gases as solvent
to extract organics from sludges, contaminated
soils, and wastewater. Propane is the solvent
typically used for sludges and contaminated
soils, while carbon dioxide is used for waste-
water streams. The system is available as either
a continuous flow unit for pumpable wastes or
a batch system for non-pumpable soils and
sludges.
Contaminated solids, slurries, or wastewaters are
fed into the extractor along with solvent. Typi-
cally, more than 99 percent of the organics are
extracted from the feed. Following phase
separation of the solvent and organics, the
mixture of solvent and organics passes from the
treated feed to the solvent recovery system.
Once in the solvent recovery system, the solvent
is vaporized and recycled as fresh solvent. The
organics are drawn off and either reused or
disposed of. Treated feed is discharged from
the extractor as a slurry in water.
The extractor design is different for contaminat-
ed wastewaters and semisolids. A tray tower
contactor is used for wastewaters, and a series
of extractor/decanters are used for solids and
semisolids.
This technology can be applied to soils and
sludges containing VOCs and SVOCs and other
higher boiling complex organics, such as PAHs,
PCBs, dioxins, and PCP. This process can treat
refinery wastes and organically contaminated
wastewater.
Technology Performance
Under the EPA SITE Program, a mobile demon-
stration unit (MDU) was tested on PCB-laden
sediments from the New Bedford (Massachu-
setts) Harbor Superfund site during September
1988. PCB concentrations in the harbor sedi-
ment ranged from 300 ppm to 2,500 ppm. The
Technology Evaluation Report (EPA/540/5-90/
002) and the Applications Analysis Report
(EPA/540/A5-90/002) were published in August
1990.
CF Systems Corporation completed the first
commercial on-site treatment operation at Star
Enterprise, in Port Arthur, Texas. The propane-
based solvent extraction unit processed listed
refinery K- and F-wastes, producing treated
solids that met EPA land-ban requirements.
The unit operated continually from March 1991
to March 1992, with an on-line availability in
excess of 90 percent. Following fixation for
heavy metals, the treated solids were disposed
of in a Class I landfill.
During operation, 100 percent of the feed mate-
rial treated met land-ban specifications. Multi-
ple feeds, including API separator solids, slop
oil emulsion solids, slop oils, and contaminated
soils, were treated.
This technology has been selected by EPA
Region 6 and Texas Water Commission on a
"sole source" basis for clean up of the 80,000
cubic yard United Creosoting site at Conroe,
Texas. This Superfund site is heavily contami-
nated with wood treatment wastes.
176
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other on-going demonstrations and applications
of this technology include an on-site pilot
demonstration at the O'Connor Superfund site in
Augusta, Maine for Central Maine Power .
This site is heavily contaminated with PCBs and
has a cleanup standard of 1 ppm.
This technology was demonstrated concurrently
with dredging studies managed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Contaminated sedi-
ments were treated by the CF Systems Pit
Clean-up Unit, using a liquified propane and
butane mixture as the extraction solvent. Ex-
traction efficiencies were high, despite some
operating difficulties during the tests. Develop-
ment of full-scale commercial systems, includ-
ing batch extractors, eliminated problems with
the pilot plant at the New Bedford site. The
field evaluation yielded the following results:
• Extraction efficiencies of 90 to 98 percent
were achieved on sediments containing
between 360 and 2,575 ppm PCBs. PCB
concentrations were as low as 8 ppm in the
treated sediment
• In the laboratory, extraction efficiencies of
99.9 percent have been obtained for volatile
and semivolatile organics in aqueous and
semisolid wastes.
• Operating problems included solids reten-
tion in the system hardware and foaming in
receiving tanks. Successful corrective
measures were implemented in the full-scale
commercial units.
Remediation Costs
Projected costs for PCB cleanups are estimated
at approximately $150 to $450/ton, including
material handling and pre- and post-treatment
costs. These costs are highly sensitive to the
utilization factor and job size, which may result
in lower costs for large cleanups.
General Site Information
This technology has been demonstrated at the
New Bedford Harbor Superfund site in New
Bedford, Massachusetts, and the O'Connor site
in Augusta, Maine. It has been used commer-
cially at the Star Enterprise site in Port Arthur,
Texas, and has been selected for cleanup of the
United Creosoting site in Conroe, Texas.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contact:
Chris Shallice
CF Systems Corporation
3D Gill Street
Woburn, MA 01801
617/937-0800
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
177
-------
Recovered
Organlcs
Treated Cake
To Disposal
Solvent Extraction Remediation Process
178
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Volume Reduction Unit
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics and Metals in Soils
Technology Description
The Volume Reduction Unit (VRU) is a pilot-
scale, mobile soil washing system designed to
remove organic contaminants from soil through
particle separation and solubilization. The VRU
can process 100 Ibs/hr (dry weight).
The process subsystems include soil handling
and conveying, soil washing and coarse screen-
ing, fine particle separation, flocculation/
clarification, water treatment, and utilities. The
VRU is controlled and monitored with conven-
tional industrial process instrumentation and
hardware.
The VRU can treat soils that contain organics
such as creosote, PCP, pesticides, PAHs, VOCs,
SVOCs, and metals.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in summer 1992.
The demonstration was conducted in November
1992 at a wood preserving site in Pensacola,
Florida.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a wood
preserving site in Pensacola, Florida.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Teri Richardson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7949
Technology Developer Contact:
Patrick Augustin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908-906-6992
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
179
-------
SlOf»B»
Water Heater.
\
D«ccfiTr«B«r
•Rommel Sown **
Mint-Wash.*
\a
Oiiuly
Screened Soil Fiactions
FWtrPacfcag*
Volume Reduction Unit
180
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
OTHER PHYSICAL TREATMENT
-------
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Advanced Oxidation Process
VOCs in Ground Water
Technology Description
This technology uses the oxidative power of the
advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) to destroy
ordnance contaminants in ground water. The
AOPs involve using ultraviolet (UV) radiation,
hydrogen peroxide, and ozone in various combi-
nations to produce hydroxyl radicals to destroy
the target organics. Although UV, hydrogen
peroxide, and ozone have oxidative power indi-
vidually, the primary oxidative power in the
AOP reactions are from the hydroxyl radicals.
Laboratory studies both in formal laboratory
setting and in commercial vendor shops were
conducted to determine the capabilities of the
AOP reactions available currently to destroy
low-level ordnance contaminants in ground
water. The treatment goals were to reach
treatment criteria for ordnance compounds
specified in Washington State regulations.
Laboratory findings indicated that the best AOP
option is UV/ozone which can treat the ground
water to meet specified treatment criteria: 2.9
ug/L for TNT and 0.8 ug/L for RDX. Because
the oxidation of ordnance compounds can result
in production of more toxic by-products, studies
are being conducted to avoid undesirable results.
The organics targeted in this effort are TNT and
RDX, the most frequently found and persistent
components of ordnance contamination. Con-
tamination is the result of past ordnance-related
disposal practices. As these organics are not
readily soluble, their concentrations in contami-
nated ground water are typically low. However,
their presence in the drinking water supply aqui-
fer presents a health threat and is closely regu-
lated.
Technology Performance
A field technology demonstration was conducted
in the Spring of 1993 at Bangor Subase in
Washington. A full-scale system will be de-
signed as part of the effort to contain the mi-
grating plume. The pump and treat effort is a
part of the Interim Remedial Action for the
Bangor site.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This process was demonstrated at Bangor
SUBASE in Washington.
Contact
Carmen LeBron
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
560 Laboratory Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
805/982-1616
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
183
-------
Andy Law (EPA)
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
560 Laboratory Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
805/982-1650
805/982-1409 (FAX)
184
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Advanced Oxidation Process
VOCs in Ground Water
Technology Description
This technology employs the oxidative power of
the different advanced oxidation processes
(AOPs) to destroy organic contaminants in
ground water. The AOPs involve using ultravi-
olet (UV) radiation, hydrogen peroxide, and
ozone in various combinations to generate
hydroxyl radicals to destroy the target organics.
Although UV, hydrogen peroxide, and ozone
have oxidative power individually, the hydroxyl
radical reactions are the most important.
Based on laboratory study findings, a two-
staged approach was developed for an on-site
demonstration of the AOP technology. This
approach exploited the varied reaction condi-
tions of different AOPs to optimize the organics
destruction efficiency. The two stages involved
first applying ozone/peroxide at high pH and
secondly ozone/UV at low pH. A third stage
using peroxide/UV was also tested as a polish-
ing stage and to provide added assurance for a
clean discharge.
This technology demonstration was targeted at
treating ground water contaminated with organic
pollutants from past fire fighting exercises. The
pollutants came from aqueous film form foam
(AFFF), a fire fighting agent; various fuels; and
other combustible materials used in the exercis-
es. The pollutants detected included chlorinated
hydrocarbons and fuel components. The con-
taminant concentrations in the ground water
ranged from 50 to 100 ppm measured as Total
Organic Carbon (TOC).
Technology Performance
The on-site technology demonstration was
completed in 1991 at a U.S. Navy site in Lake-
hurst, New Jersey. It was demonstrated that the
AOP was effective in the destruction of individ-
ual contaminants as well as TOC, and that a
one-stage AOP system may be adequate for
trace contaminant removal.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This process was demonstrated at a U.S. Navy
site in Lakehurst, New Jersey.
Contacts
Andy Law (TPA)
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
560 Laboratory Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
805/982-1650
Technology Developer Contact:
Gary Peyton
Illinois State Water Survey
2204 Griffith Drive
Champaign, IL 61820-7495
217/333-5905
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
185
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Air Sparging
VOCs in Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology allows VOCs to be removed
from the aquifer without removing the contami-
nated water. The system provides a means to
convert a ground water contamination problem
into a vapor stream that can be easily treated at
the surface.
The process creates an in-well air stripped that
volatilizes VOCs contained in the ground water
and removes them as a vapor. The vapor is
then extracted under a vacuum and treated at the
surface. The system consists of a special well
design that is a weH within as well. The inner
well extends from the surface into the unsaturat-
ed zone and is screened in the zone of contami-
nation. The outer well extends from the surface
through the vadose zone and may terminate
above the water table. This outer well may be
screened in the vadose zone so it can be used
for soil vapor extraction. A gas injection line is
placed in the inner well and releases bubbles in
the well at an elevation beneath the zone of
contamination. The bubbles rise in the well and
collect VOCs that are naturally transferred from
the liquid phase to the gas bubbles. The bub-
bles and water rise within the well until they hit
a packer which is placed in the inner well above
the elevation of the water table. The inner well
is screened just below the packer, allowing the
water and bubble mixture to escape into the
annular space between the inner and outer well.
The water falls down the annular space and is
returned to the water table. The gas bubbles
pop and are vacuumed off via a vacuum line
extending from the surface into the annular
space.
The system recirculates the ground water
through air-lift pumping. The air-lift pumping
creates a ground water circulation cell in which
the ground water becomes cleaner and cleaner
with each pass through the in-well air stripper.
This system eliminates the need for handling
contaminated water above ground and for
disposing or storing partially treated water.
There is no need for an above-ground air strip-
ping tower or storage tanks to contain tritiated
water that is free of VOCs.
This method allows for recirculating surfactants
and catalysts, if needed. In addition, a single
well can be used for extraction of soil vapors as
well as for ground water remediation.
Technology Performance
This technology will be demonstrated over the
next two to three years at DOE's Hanford
Reservation as part of the agency's Integrated
Technology Demonstration Program for Arid
Sites.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
186
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
General Site Information
This technology will be demonstrated at DOE's
Hanford Reservation, which comprises about
560 square miles in the southeastern part of
Washington State.
Contacts
Steve Stein
Environmental Management Organization
Pacific Northwest Division
4000 N.E. 41st Street
Seattle, WA 98105
206/528-3340
Steven M. Gorelick
Stanford University
Dept. of Applied Earth Sciences
Stanford, CA 94305-2225
415/725-2950
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
187
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Catalytic Decontamination
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Ground Water
Technology Description
This catalytic decontamination process is a
closed system that treats VOCs in ground water
producing innocuous end products. This tech-
nology can be useful when cross-media transfer
of the contamination, which may occur with
other processes, such as air stripping, is unac-
ceptable. This technology is primarily a ground
water restoration technique, although surface
water can be treated as well It is especially
applicable for highly contaminated waters such
as leachates.
The system used in the pilot study consists of
two "loops." The first loop consists of air
drying, ozone generation, and injection of the
ozone into the vapor-liquid contact tank. Air
effluent passes through a catalytic destruction
unit and returns to the air drier. The second
loop is open and consists of a water inlet from
the ground water source, pretreatment, introduc-
tion into the vapor-liquid contact tank, and
discharge. The water pretreatment might consist
of filtering, water softening, iron removal, or
defoaming.
This technology has a number of advantages:
• The process is closed circuit, i.e., there is
no air effluent;
• It operates at negative air pressure, thus,
reducing the risk of accidental contamina-
tion due to leaks; and
• It is a destructive, rather than a cross-media
transfer technique.
Despite these advantages, this technology also
has limitations:
• The method might not be cost effective with
respect to methods that have air effluents;
• When treating high concentrations, a po-
tentially large consumption of ozone will
result;
• When treating anoxic leachates, reduced
metal compounds are likely to be present;
« These reduced metal compounds will react
with the ozone and can form insoluble
precipitates as well as result in large ozone
consumption;
• The metal precipitates could require exten-
sive system cleaning;
• The method requires considerable energy for
the generation of UV light, dry air, ozone,
pumps, and blowers; and
• Biofouling can occur on the UV light tubes.
Technology Performance
The results from a small-scale pilot test con-
ducted at Fort Dix, New Jersey were both
positive and negative:
• Although total organic carbon concentration
was not reduced, the concentration of vola-
tile halogenated organics (VHO) was re-
duced up to 90 percent; and
188
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Without the inclusion of UV light in the
treatment, the VHO concentration was
reduced, but methylene chloride was not
affected and dichloroethanes were not re-
duced below detection limits.
Remediation Costs
Based on limited experience to date, the oper-
ating and maintenance costs of this method have
not been developed in detail, but are expected to
be in the range of $1 to $8/1,000 gal, depending
upon the concentration of the contaminants and
the amount of pretreatment required. Equip-
ment for treating 50,000 gal/day of ground
water, with an organic halide concentration in
the range of 75 to 100 g/L, would cost in the
range of $150,000 to $200,000, without installa-
tion.
General Site Information
A small-scale pilot testing (1 to 10 drums) has
been conducted at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Contact
Steve Maloney
USACERL
P.O. Box 4005
Champaign, EL 61820
217/373-6740
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
189
-------
Other Physical Treatment
CAV-OX® Process
Organics in Ground Water and Wastewater
Technology Description
The CAV-OX® process uses a synergistic com-
bination of hydrodynamic cavitation and ultra-
violet radiation to oxidize contaminants in
water. The process is designed to remove
organic contaminants from waste streams and
groundwater without releasing volatile gaseous
organic compounds. Treatment costs using the
CAV-OX® process are estimated by the devel-
oper to be about half the cost of advanced
ultraviolet (UV) oxidation systems and substan-
tially less expensive than carbon absorption. In
addition, because the process equipment has
only one moving part, maintenance costs are
minimal. The process is designed to achieve
reduction levels necessary for meeting discharge
specifications for most aqueous contaminants.
The CAV-OX® process cannot handle free
product or highly turbid waste streams, because
these conditions tend to lower the efficiency of
the ultraviolet reactor, however, the CAV-OX®
cavitation chamber itself is unaffected in such
cases.
Free radicals are generated and maintained by
the system's combination of cavitation, UV
excitation, and where necessary, the addition of
hydrogen peroxide and metal catalysts. Neither
the cavitation chamber nor the UV lamp or
hydrogen peroxide reaction generates toxic by-
products or air emissions. UV lamp output can
be varied from 60 watts to over 15,000 watts,
depending on the contaminant stream.
The process is designed to treat liquid waste,
specifically groundwater or wastewater contami-
nated with organic compounds. Organics such
as benzene can be treated to non-detectable
levels; others such as 1,1-dichloroethane are
treated typically to 96 percent removal efficien-
cies. Living organisms such as salmonella and
E. Coli are also significantly reduced.
Technology Performance
The CAV-OX® process has been tested at
several private and public sites. Recent tests at
a Superfund site treated leachate containing 15
different contaminants. PCP, one of the major
contaminants, was reduced by 96 percent in one
test series. In other tests, the process has suc-
cessfully treated cyanide contamination.
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in summer 1992.
The demonstration was conducted in March
1993 at Edwards Air Force Base in Edwards,
California.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This process has been tested at several private
and public sites, including the San Bernardino
and Orange County, California, Water Depart-
ments. The SITE Program demonstration was
conducted at Edwards Air Force Base in Ed-
wards, California.
190
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Richard Eilers
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7809
Technology Developer Contacts:
Dale Cox
Jack Simser
Magnum Water Technology
600 Lairport Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-322-4143 or 310-640-7000
Fax: 310-640-7005
GROUND WATER
HOLDING TANK
INFLUENT
CAV-OX® II
H.E. U.V. REACTOR
(OPTIONAL)
CAV-OX® I
L.E. U.V. REACTOR
CAV-OX®
CHAMBER
The CAV-OX® Process
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
191
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Chemtact™ Gaseous Waste Treatment
Organics and Inorganics in Gaseous Waste Streams
Technology Description
The Chemtact™ system uses gas scrubber tech-
nology to remove organic and inorganic contam-
inants from gaseous waste streams. Atomizing
nozzles within the scrubber chamber disperse
droplets of a controlled chemical solution. Very
small droplet sizes, less than 10 microns, and a
longer retention time than in traditional scrub-
bers result in a once-through system that gener-
ates low volumes of liquid residuals. These
residuals are then treated by conventional tech-
niques.
Gas scrubbing is a volume reduction technology
that transfers contaminants from the gas phase
to a liquid phase. The selection of absorbent
liquid is based on the chemical characteristics of
the contaminants
Three mobile units are currently available: (1) a
one-stage, 2,500-ft?/min system; (2) a two-stage,
800-ftVmin system; and (3) a three-stage, 100-
f t?/min system. The equipment is trailer-mount-
ed and can be transported to waste sites.
Performance tests treating benzene, toluene,
xylene, and other hydrocarbons have shown
removal in the 85 to 100 percent range. Pure
streams are easier to adjust to obtain high
removals. In addition, phenol and formaldehyde
emission control tests indicate approximately 94
percent removals.
This technology can be used to treat gaseous
waste streams containing a wide variety of
organic or inorganic contaminants, but it is best
suited for VOCs. The system can be used with
source processes that generate a contaminated
gaseous exhaust, such as air stripping of groun-
dwater or leachate, soil aeration, or exhaust
emissions from dryers or incinerators.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1989. The
developer has several installations in operation
for VOC removal. The developer is also con-
ducting treatability studies and making appropri-
ate system modifications.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
Site information was not provided for this
publication.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Ronald Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7856
192
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Technology Developer Contact:
Robert Rafson
Quad Environmental Technologies Corporation
3605 Woodhead Drive, Suite #103
Northbrook, IL 60062
708-564-5070
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
193
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes (CROW™) Process
Coal Tar Derivatives and Petroleum By-products in Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The contained recovery of oily wastes
(CROW™) process recovers oily wastes from the
ground by adapting a technology presently used
for secondary petroleum recovery and for prima-
ry production of heavy oil and tar sand bitumen.
Steam and hot-water displacement are used to
move accumulated oily wastes and water to
production wells for above ground treatment.
Injection and production wells are first installed
in soil contaminated with oily wastes. Low-
quality steam is then injected below the deepest
penetration of organic liquids. The steam
condenses, causing rising hot water to dislodge
and sweep buoyant organic liquids upward into
the more permeable soil regions. Hot water is
injected above the impermeable soil regions to
heat and mobilize the oil waste accumulations.
The mobilized wastes are the recovered by hot-
water displacement.
When the oily wastes are displaced, the organic
liquid saturations in the subsurface pore space
increase, forming an oil bank. The hot water
injection displaces the oil bank to the production
well. Behind the oil bank, the oil saturation is
reduced to an immobile residual saturation in
the subsurface pore space. The oil and water
produced are treated for reuse or discharge.
In situ biological treatment may follow the
displacement and is continued until ground
water contaminants are no longer detected in
any water samples from the site. During treat-
ment, all mobilized organic liquids and water-
soluble contaminants are contained within the
original boundaries of oily waste accumulations.
Hazardous materials are contained laterally by
ground water isolation, and vertically by organic
liquid flotation. Excess water is treated in
compliance with discharge regulations.
The process removes large portions of oily
waste accumulations; stops the downward and
lateral migration of organic contaminants;
immobilizes any residual saturation of oily
wastes; and reduces the volume, mobility, and
toxicity of oily wastes. It can be used for
shallow and deep contaminated areas and uses
readily available mobile equipment.
This technology can be applied to manufactured
gas plants, wood-treating sites, petroleum-refin-
ing facilities,and other sites with soils contain-
ing light to dense organic liquids, such as coal
tars, pentachlorophenol solutions, creosote, and
petroleum by-products.
Technology Performance
This technology was tested both at the laborato-
ry and pilot-scale under the EPA SITE Emerg-
ing Technology Program. The program showed
the effectiveness of the hot-water displacement
and displayed the benefits from the inclusion of
chemicals with the hot water. The final report
for the Emerging Technology Program was
submitted to EPA.
Based on results of this project in the Emerging
Technology Program, this technology was
invited to participate in the SITE Demonstration
Program. The technology was demonstrated at
194
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
the Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L)
Brodhead Creek site at Stroudsburg, Pennsylva-
nia in early 1993. The site contains an area
having high concentrations of by-products from
a former operation. All documentation and site
plans are being prepared.
Sponsors for this program, in addition to EPA
and PP&L, are the Gas Research Institute, the
Electric Power Institute, and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy. Remediation Technologies,
Inc., will assist Western Research Institute in
operation of the technology for demonstration,
with emphasis on the treatment of the produced
fluids for disposal.
This technology has also been demonstrated on
a pilot scale at a wood treatment site in Minne-
sota. Removal of nonaqueous phase liquids in
the pilot test was the same as that predicted by
treatability studies. Full-scale remediation of
this site was planned for mid-1993.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology was scheduled to be demon-
strated at the Pennsylvania Power and Light
(PP&L) Brodhead Creek site in Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Eugene Harris
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7862
Technology Developer Contact:
Lyle Johnson
Western Research Institute
P.O. Box 3395
University Station
Laramie, WY 82071-3395
307/721-2281
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
195
-------
Injection Well
Production Well
Steam-Stripped
Water «
Low-Quality
Steam '
Sn1
.' • • . • • • i
Residual Oil • • l~
• Saturation.' '. •' •
t
Hot-Water
Reinjection
Absorption Layer
• X •
Oil and Water
Production
—I
Accumu!at1on.;&fe&ng£
'.V; Hot-Water
Flotation •
Steam
"injection
CROW™ Subsurface Development
196
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Electrochemical Reduction and Immobilization
Hexavalent Chromium and Other Heavy Metals in Ground Water (/» Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This process uses electrochemical reactions to
generate ions for removal of hexavalent chromi-
um and other metals from groundwater. As
contaminated water is pumped from an aquifer
through the treatment cell, electrical current
passes from electrode to electrode through the
process water. The electrical exchange induces
the release of ferrous and hydroxyl ions from
opposite sides of each electrode. A small gap
size coupled with the electrode'potentials of
hexavalent chromium and ferrous ion causes the
reduction of hexavalent chromium to occur
almost instantaneously. Depending on the pH,
various solids may form. They include chromi-
um hydroxide, hydrous ferric oxide, and a
chromium-substituted hydrous iron complex.
For in situ chromate reduction to occur, a slight
excess of ferrous iron must be provided. This
concentration is based on the hexavalent chro-
mium concentration in the groundwater, site-
specific hydraulics, and the desired rate of site
cleanup. Dilution is avoided by introducing
ferrous ions in situ, and using the aquifer's water
to convey them. Following their injection,
soluble ferrous ions circulate until they contact
either chromate containing solids or chromate
ions. In conventional pump and treat schemes,
chromate dragout results in long treatment
times. Through in situ reduction of chromates
adsorbed on the soil matrix and contained in
precipitates, treatment times should be reduced
by more than 50 percent.
If implemented properly under favorable pH
conditions, complete chromate reduction can be
achieved without the need for sludge handling.
As chromate reduction occurs, iron and chromi-
um solids are filtered out and stabilized in the
soil/ When precipitates are not formed due to
unfavorable pH, the system could easily be
applied to a pump and treat process and operat-
ed until chromium removal goals are achieved.
Eliminating dragout shortens system life and
minimizes sludge handling. Another option is
to combine a pump-and-treat scheme with in
•situ chromate reduction to maximize the cleanup
rate, reduce aquifer contaminant loads, and
provide water for irrigation or industry.
Another benefit of this method is that hydrous
iron oxide adsorbs heavy metals. When iron
solids are immobilized in the soil, the concen-
trations of other contaminants in the ground
water decrease significantly because of adsorp-
tion and co-precipitation.
The pilot plant is designed to treat ground water
contaminated with hexavalent chromium in
concentrations of 1 to 50 ppm and other heavy
metals (2 to 10 ppm), including zinc, copper,
nickel, lead, and antimony. A full-scale system
can be engineered to handle any flow rate as
well as elevated contaminant loads. Each
system will be site-specific and designed to
achieve all remediation objectives.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1992. The
process was evaluated in early 1993 at a site
where Andco has an operating ground water
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
197
-------
treatment system. Although the process can be
used for remediation of both confined and
unconfined aquifers, water from an unconfined
source was treated during the demonstration.
The Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. site is con-
taminated with hexavalent chromium as a result
of using sodium dichromate in production
processes. Ground water is being treated by the
electrochemical process at a rate of 50 to 120
gpm. After treatment, clean water is reinjected
into the ground through an infiltration trench
downgradient of the site.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Douglas Grosse
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology Developer Contact:
Michael Brewster
Gary Peck
Andco Environmental Processes, Inc.
595 Commerce Drive
Amherst,NY 14228-2380
716/691-2100
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at the Kerr-
McGee Chemical Corporation site in Wisconsin.
ANDCO
ELECTROCHEMICAL
PROCESS
GROUND
SURFACE
UNCONFINED
AQUIFISR
CONFINED
AQUIFISR
Electrochemical In Situ Chromate Reduction and Heavy Metal Immobilization Process
198
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
\
Other Physical Treatment
Filtration
Heavy Metals and Radionuclides in Waters
Technology Description
The colloid sorption filter is a "polishing"
filtration process that removes inorganic heavy
metals and non-tritium radionuclides from
industrial wastewater and ground water. The
filter unit employs inorganic, insoluble beads/
particles (Filter Flow-1000) contained in a
dynamic, flow-through configuration resembling
a filter plate. The pollutants are removed from
the water via sorption, chemical complexing,
and hydroxide precipitation. By employing site-
specific optimization of the water chemistry
prior to filtration, the methodology removes
heavy metal and radionuclide ions, colloids, and
colloidal aggregates. A three-step process is
used to achieve heavy metal and radionuclide
removal. First, water is treated chemically to
optimize formation of colloids and colloidal
aggregates. Second, a prefilter removes the
larger particles and solids. Third, the filter bed
removes the contaminants to the compliance
standard desired. By controlling the water
chemistry, water flux rate, and bed volume, the
methodology can be used to remove heavy
metals and radionuclides in a few to several
hundred gpm.
The process is designed for either batch or
continuous flow applications at fixed installa-
tions or for field mobile operations. The field
unit can be retrofitted to existing primary solids
water treatment systems or used as a polishing
filter for new installations or on-site remediation
applications.
The methodology has applications for heavy
metal and radionuclide remediation from pond
water, tank water, ground water, or for in-line
industrial wastewater treatment systems. The
technology also has been successful in removing
natural occurring radioactive materials (NORM),
man-made low level radioactive wastes (LLRW)
and transuranic (TRU) pollutants from ground
water and wastewater.
Technology Performance
The methodology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in July 1990.
EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) are
co-sponsoring the technology evaluation. Bench
tests have been conducted at the DOE Rocky
Flats Facility, Golden, Colorado, using ground-
water samples contaminated with heavy metals
and radioactive materials.
Remediation Costs
Capital cost for a trailer plus unit (25 gpm) is
about $150,000; operational costs are about
$1.50 to $2.00/1,000 gaUons processed.
General Site Information
Bench-scale tests have been conducted at
DOE's Rocky Flats Facility in Golden, Colora-
do.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
199
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Annette Gatchett
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7697
Technology Developer Contact:
Tod Johnson
Filter Flow Technology, Inc.
3027 Marina Bay Drive, Suite 110
League City, TX 77573
713/334-2522
FAX: 713/334-7501
200
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
FORAGER® Sponge
Heavy Metals in Waters
Technology Description
The FORAGER® sponge is an open-ceUed
cellulose sponge incorporating an amine-con-
taining polymer that has a selective affinity for
aqueous heavy metals in both cationic and
anionic states, The polymer prefers to form
complexes with ions of transition-group heavy
metals, providing ligand sites that surround the
metal and form a coordination complex. The
polymer's order of affinity for metals in
influenced by solution parameters such as pH,
temperature, and total ionic content.
The removal efficiency for transition-group
heavy metals is about 90 percent at a flow rate
of 1 bed volume/minute, the highly porous
nature of the sponge speeds diffusional effects,
thereby promoting high rates of ion absorption.
The sponge can be used in columns, fishnet-
type enclosures, or rotating drums. When using
column operations, flow rates of 3 bed volumes/
minute can be obtained at hydrostatic pressures
only 2 feet above the bed and without additional
pressurization. Therefore, sponge-packed col-
umns are suitable for unattended field use.
Absorbed ions can be eluted from the sponge
using techniques typically employed to regener-
ate ion exchange resins and activated carbon.
Following elution, the sponge can be used in the
next absorption cycle. The number of useful
cycles depends on the nature of the absorbed
ions and the elution technique used. Alterna-
tively, the metal-saturated sponge can be incin-
erated. In some cases, it may be preferable to
compact the sponge by drying it to an extremely
small volume to facilitate disposal.
The sponge can scavenge metals in concentra-
tion levels of ppm and ppb from industrial
discharges, municipal sewage process streams,
and acid mine drainage waters.
When remediating ground water, elongated nets
that confine the sponge are placed in wells and
removed when saturated.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1991. The
sponge has been found effective in removing
trace heavy metals from acid mine drainage
waters at three locations in Colorado.
In bench-scale tests, mercury, lead, nickel,
cadmium, and chromium have been reduced to
below detectable levels at Superfund sites.
In a field-scale installation at a photoprocessing
operation that generates an aqueous effluent
having 6 Ibs/day of chromate and 0.8 Ibs/day of
silver, 75 percent reductions were achieved at a
cost of $l,100/month.
The sponge will be demonstrated, alone or as
part of CH2O Company's E-Process. The
National Lead Industry site in Pedricktown,
New Jersey, has been identified as the demon-
stration site. Treatability tests were conducted
in April 1993.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
201
-------
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
The SITE Program demonstration of this tech-
nology is tentatively scheduled for the National
Lead Industry site in Pedricktown, New Jersey,
in September/October 1993.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Carolyn Esposito
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-106)
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
908/906-6895
Technology Developer Contacts:
Norman Rainer
Dynaphore, Inc.
2709 Willard Road
Richmond, VA 23294
804/288-7109
Lou Reynolds
AdTechs Corp.
2411 Dulles Corner Park
Herndon, VA 22071
703/713-9000
202
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
ul
«
•T
Other Physical Treatment
Hydraulic Fracturing
Organics and Inorganics in Soil
Technology Description
Hydraulic fracturing is a method of creating
tabular lenses of granular material in soil or
rock. The technology is designed to enhance
remediation in low permeability geologic forma-
tions. This technology has been developed for
EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
by the University of Cincinnati (UC) at the
Center Hill facility under the EPA SITE
Demonstration Program.
A hydraulic fracture is created when fluid is
pumped down a borehole until a critical pres-
sure is reached and the enveloping soil frac-
tures. Sand-laden slurry is pumped into the
fracture as it propagates away from the bore-
hole, creating a highly permeable pathway for
delivery or recovery of fluids in the subsurface.
In over-consolidated soil, the fractures propagate
in a horizontal to sub-horizontal plane. They
are 1 to 3 centimeters thick and as much as 14
meters in diameter. In general, they are slightly
elongate in plan and asymmetric with respect to
their parent borehole. Fracture growth is moni-
tored by measuring the deformation of the
ground surface using a surveyor's level or a
recently developed laser system that displays
uplift in real time.
Hydraulic fracturing provides little remedial
effect on its own, but it offers potential for
dramatically improving the effectiveness of most
remedial technologies that require fluid flow in
the subsurface. These include soil vapor extrac-
tion, bioremediation, soil washing, and pump-
and-treat.
The technology also can be used to enhance
bioremediation. has the potential for delivery of
solids to the subsurface. Nutrients or oxygen-
releasing compounds, can be added to the slurry
as granules and injected into contaminated soil.
Technology Performance
The technology entered the EPA SITE Demon-
stration Program in 1991. Pilot-scale demon-
strations have been conducted in Oak Brook,
Illinois, and Dayton, Ohio. The Oak Brook site
is contaminated with organic solvents, and soil
vapor extraction has been used since 1991 to
remove VOCs. Hydraulic fractures were creat-
ed in two of the four wells, at depths of 6, 10,
and 15 ft below ground surface. The vapor
flow rate, soil vacuum, and contaminant yield
from the fractured and unfractured wells were
monitored regularly. Results obtained include
the following:
• Over a one-year period, the vapor yield
from hydraulically fractured weUs was an
order of magnitude greater than from
unfractured wells.
• The hydraulically fractured weUs enhanced
remediation over an area 30 times greater
than the unfractured wells.
• The presence of pore water decreased the
vapor yield from wells; water filtration into
areas where vapor extraction is being con-
ducted must be prevented.
The Dayton site, an underground storage tank
spill, is contaminated with BTEX and other
petroleum hydrocarbons. In situ bioremediation
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
203
-------
is being used for cleanup. In August 1991,
hydraulic fractures were created in one of two
wells at 4, 6, 8, and 10 ft below ground surface.
Sampling was conducted before the demonstra-
tion and twice during the demonstration at
locations 5,10, and 15 ft north of the fractured
and unfractured wells. Results obtained include
the following:
• The flow of water into the fractured well
was two orders of magnitude greater than in
the unfractured well.
• The rate of bioremediation near the frac-
tured well was 75 percent higher for BTEX
and 77 percent higher for TPH compared to
rates near the unfractured well.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Naomi Barkley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7854
Technology Developer Contact:
Larry Murdock
University of Cincinnati
Center Hill Facility
5995 Center Hill Road
Cincinnati, OH 45224
513/569-7897
Remediation Costs
Based on developer estimates, capital costs for
this technology range from $80,100 to $94,900
depending on whether laser surveying equip-
ment associated with the Ground Elevation
Measurement System (GEMS) is used. Per-day
operating costs (four to six fractures/day) total
$6,185 or from $1,030 to $l,550/fracture.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a solvent-
contaminated site in Oak Brook, Illinois, and at
a site contaminated with diesel fuel and heating
oil in Dayton, Ohio. EPA's Technology Evalu-
ation Report and Applications Analysis Report
will be available late in 1993.
204
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
«i PBff
Other Physical Treatment
MAECTITE™ Process
Lead in Soils, Sludges, Other Waste Materials, and Debris
Technology Description
This two-step process converts teachable lead
into soluble mineral crystals. The process
makes lead-contaminated wastes, that are classi-
fied as hazardous under RCRA, non-hazardous
and acceptable for landfilling as a special waste.
Seven full-scale projects have been completed to
date.
The first step in the process involves blending
a proprietary powder with lead-contaminated
material. A proprietary reagent solution then is
blended into the mature. The curing time at
normal temperature and pressure is about 4 hrs.
Testing has shown that the final product passes
EPA's paint filler test, TCLP criteria, and other
EPA tests such as the Multiple Extraction
Procedure and the Acid-Leach Procedure. The
system can treat up to 100 tons/hr.
Since the process is a chemical treatment tech-
nology, specialty equipment, instruments, and a
mobile field laboratory are required to document
the chemical control process and optimize
treatability trials during full-scale remediation
and to test treated material to make sure the end
product passes regulatory criteria and meets
treatment objectives. Equipment for existing
mobile processing may include a grizzly-shred-
der conveyor, a weightbelt conveyor, mixers,
powder silos and delivery system, and
MAEPRIC storage and dosing pumps and water
sprays. The project size and waste matrix
characteristics usually determine the system
configuration.
The mobile technology treats lead-contaminated
wastes and soils from manufacture and use of
storage batteries, pigments, leaded glass, fuel
additives, photographic materials, primary and
secondary lead smelting operations, and batter-
ies. The process can treat wastes from sites that
vary in composition from gravel to sandy soil,
clay soil, sediments, and sludge to battery
casings, baghouse dusts, and incinerator ash.
The developer has processed nearly 40,000 tons
of lead-contaminated soils, sludges, slurries,
baghouse dusts, and other materials that are
RCRA-hazardous due to leachable lead levels.
Most lead-contaminated waste materials and
debris that fail TCLP criteria for lead are suit-
able for this treatment.
The process produces a material typical of soil
in appearance and of reduce volume. No by-
products or sidestreams are generated because
the technology uses decontamination
wastewaters to dilute the proprietary reagent.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into EPA's SITE
Demonstration Program in 1991. In 1992, the
process was formally accepted into EPA's Pre-
Qualified Offerers Procurement Strategy
(PQOPS) program. It was successfully applied
at full scale in EPA's first PQOPS competitive-
ly awarded contract site in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.
The process has been proven effective at the
bench and pilot scales for more than 30 types of
waste material, including leadbird and backshot.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
205
-------
The full-scale process is cost effective and has
been demonstrated at six other full-scale sites in
Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and
Virginia.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology has been demonstrated at full
scale at sites in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, South
Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Hubbard Jackson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
Technology Developer Contacts:
Karl Yost
Dhirah Pal
MAECORP, Inc.
155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60606
312/372-3300
FAX: 312/853-4050
206
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Membrane Microfiltration
Heavy Metals, Cyanide, and Uranium in Liquids
and Inorganics, Organics, and Oily Wastes in Solids
Technology Description
This system is designed, to remove solid parti-
cles from liquid wastes, forming filter cakes
typically ranging from 40 to 60 percent solids.
The system can be manufactured as an enclosed
unit, requires little or no attention during opera-
tion, is mobile, and can be trailer-mounted.
The membrane microfiltration system uses an
automatic pressure filter, combined with a
special Tyvek filter material (Tyvek T-980)
made of spun-bound olefin. The filter material
is a thin, durable plastic fabric with tiny open-
ings (about 1 ten-millionth of a meter in diam-
eter) that allow water, other liquid, and soil
particles smaller than the openings to flow
through. Solids in the liquid stream that are too
large accumulate on the filter and can be easily
collected for disposal.
The automatic pressure filter has an upper
chamber for feeding waste through the filter and
a lower chamber for collecting the filtered liquid
(filtrate). At the start of a filter cycle, the upper
chamber is lowered to form a liquid-tight seal
against the filter. The waste feed then is
pumped into the upper chamber and through the
filter. Filtered solids accumulate on the Tyvek
surface forming a filter cake, while filtrate is
collected in the lower chamber. Following
filtration, air is fed into the upper chamber at a
pressure of about 45 psi. Air is used to remove
any liquid remaining in the upper chamber and
to further dry the cake. When the cake is dry,
the upper chamber is lifted, and the filter cake
is automatically discharged. Clean filter materi-
al is then drawn from a roll into the system for
the next cycle. Both the filter cake and the fil-
trate can be collected and treated further prior to
disposal, if necessary.
This treatment can be applied to hazardous
waste suspensions, particularly liquid heavy
metal- and cyanide-bearing wastes; ground
water contaminated with heavy metals; con-
stituents such as landfill leachate; and process
wastewaters containing uranium. The technol-
ogy is best suited for treating wastes with solid
concentrations of less than 5,000 ppm. At
higher concentrations, the cake capacity and
handling become limiting factors. The system
can treat any type of solids, including inorgan-
ics, organics, and oily wastes, with a wide
variety of particle sizes. Moreover, the system
is capable of treating liquid wastes containing
volatile organics because the unit is enclosed.
Technology Performance
This technology was demonstrated at the
Palmerton Zinc Superfund site in Palmerton,
Pennsylvania. The shallow aquifer at the site,
contaminated with dissolved heavy met-
als—such as cadmium, lead, and zinc—was
selected as the feed waste. The system treated
the waste at a rate of 1 to 2 gpm.
The demonstration was conducted over a 4-
week period in 1990. EPA has completed an
Applications Analysis Report (EPA/540/A5-90/
007), a Technology Evaluation Report (EPA/
Federal Remediation Technologies Rdundtable
207
-------
540/5-90/007), and a videotape of the demon-
stration.
Following is a summary of results of the dem-
onstration:
• Removal efficiencies for zinc and total
suspended solids ranged from 99.75 to
99.99 percent; the average was 99.95 per-
cent;
• Solids in the filter cake ranged from 30.5 to
47.1 percent;
• Dry filter cake in all test runs passed the
RCRA paint filter liquids test;
• Filtrate met the applicable NPDES standard
for zinc;
• A composite filter cake sample passed the
extraction procedure (EP) and TCLP tests
for metals.
Remediation Costs
An economic analysis was conducted of a
2.4-ft? unit, similar to the one used during the
SITE demonstration, and a 36-ft? unit. The
analysis assumed the system would operate
continuously (24 hr/day, 7 days/wk) for one
year. Annual operation and maintenance costs
were estimated to be $213,000 and $549,100 for
the 2.4-ft2 and 36-ft2 units, respectively, with
corresponding annual throughputs of 525,000
gal and 7,884,000 gal. The cost analysis as-
sumed that the filter cake and filtrate would be
disposed of as non-hazardous wastes. One-time
capital costs were $369,300 for the smaller unit
and $1,251,200 for the larger one.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at the
Palmerton Zinc Superfund site in Palmerton,
Pennsylvania, the site has a shallow aquifer
that is contaminated with dissolved heavy
metals.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
John Martin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7758
Technology Developer Contact:
Ernest Mayer
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company
Engineering Department LI 359
P.O. Box 6090
Newark, DE 19714-6090
302/366-3652
FAX: 302/366-3220
208
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Pressurized
Air
Air C>!lnder
Waste
Filter Coke
Used Tyvek
Rltrote Chamber-'
Air Bags
Waste Feed Chamber
Clean Tyvek
Filter Belt
nitrate
Discharge
Membrane Microfiltration Process
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
209
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Membrane Separation
Organics in Ground Water
Technology Description
This hazardous waste treatment system consists
of a hyperfiltration unit that extracts and con-
centrates contaminants from a variety of waste
streams—including ground water, surface water,
storm water, landfill leachates, and industrial
process wastewater. The hyperfiltration unit
removes and concentrates contaminants by
pumping contaminated liquids through porous
stainless steel tubes coated with specially for-
mulated membranes. Contaminants are collect-
ed inside the tube membrane, while "clean"
water permeates the membrane and tubes.
Depending on local requirements and regula-
tions, the clean permeate can be discharged to
the sanitary sewer for further treatment at a
publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The
concentrated contaminants are collected in a
holding tank.
Technology Performance
The membrane filtration system was demon-
strated under EPA's SITE Demonstration Pro-
gram in 1991 at the American Creosote Works
in Pensacola, Florida. Results confirmed that
this membrane system removed 95 percent of
the PAH contamination and 25 to 30 percent of
smaller phenolic compounds. This resulted in
an overall 80 percent reduction of creosote
constituents from the contaminated feed. PAH
removal was sufficient to pass local POTW
discharge standards. Demonstration of a
bioremediation unit was canceled.
Remediation Costs
The total annual cost to operate a 12-module
filtration unit ranges between $514,180 and
$1,209,700, depending on whether effluent
treatment and costs are considered, the flow rate
through the unit, the cleanup requirements, and
the cost of effluent treatment and disposal (if
required). Effluent treatment and disposal costs,
if considered, could account for up to 60 per-
cent of the total cost. Labor can account for up
to 40 percent. Processing costs are more depen-
dent on labor costs than equipment costs.
The cost of this technology has been calculated
for flow rates of 24 gpm, 12 gpm, and 7.2 gpm.
With effluent treatment, costs are $228 to $522/
1,000 gal, $456 to $1,044/1,000 gal, and $760
to $1,739/1,000 gal, respectively. Without
effluent treatment, these costs are $222/1,000
gal, $444/1,000 gal, and $739/1,000 gal, respec-
tively.
General Site Information
The membrane filtration system was demon-
strated under EPA's SITE Demonstration Pro-
gram in 1991 at the American Creosote Works
in Pensacola, Florida.
210
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Kim. Lisa Kreiton
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7328
Technology Developer Contact:
Dr. David J. Drahos
SBP Technologies, Inc.
2155-D West Park Court
Stone Mountain, GA 30087
404/498-6666
FAX: 404/498-8711
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
211
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction8" and Hot Gas Injection
VOCs and Semi-VOCs in Soil and Rock
Technology Description
An integrated treatment system incorporating
Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction3*1 (PFESM) and
Hot Gas Injection (HGI) has been jointly devel-
oped by Accutech Remedial Systems Inc., and
the Hazardous Substance Management Research
Center located at the New Jersey Institute of
Technology in Newark, New Jersey. The
system provides a cost-effective accelerated
remedial approach to low permeability
formations contaminated VOCs and SVOCs.
By forcing compressed gas into a formation at
pressures that exceed the natural in situ stresses
present, a fracture network is created, these
fractures allow subsurface air to circulate faster
and more efficiently through the formation,
which can greatly improve the rates of contami-
nant mass removal. The fracturing technology
also increases the effective area that can be
influenced from each extraction well while
intersecting new pockets of contamination that
previously were caught in the formation. Thus,
contaminants are removed faster and from a
larger section of the formation than was previ-
ously feasible.
The fracturing process coupled with an in situ
thermal process called Hot Gas Injection (HGI)
to further enhance contaminant removal. HGI
puts the energy generated during catalytic
oxidation of the contaminants back into the
ground. For sites with chlorinated compounds,
a special catalyst, which can cost-effectively
treat halogenated organics, is used for the
oxidation process. The heat from the process
warms up the formation to significantly raise the
vapor pressure of the contaminants present.
Thus, the contaminants volatilize faster, making
cleanup more efficient.
The integrated treatment system is cost-effective
for treating soils and rock where conventional in
situ technologies are limited in their effective-
ness because of the presence of low permeabili-
ty geologic formations. Halogenated and non-
halogenated VOCs and SVOCs can be remedi-
ated by this system. Activated carbon is used
when contaminant concentrations decrease to
levels where catalytic oxidation is no longer
cost-effective.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1990. The
demonstration was conducted in 1992 at a New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy Environmental Cleanup Responsibil-
ity Act (ECRA) site in Hillsborough, New
Jersey, where TCE, among other VOCs, was re-
moved from a fractured siltstone formation.
Site characteristics and the extent of contamina-
tion limited the demonstration to the comparison
of results from short term (1 to 4 hr) vacuum
extraction experiments before and after fractur-
ing of the formation. To evaluate hot gas
injection, hot air (about 200°F) generated by
compression heating was injected into one well
in the formation while extracting from one or
more other wells. Results of the demonstration
include the following:
« The process increased the extracted air flow
by more than 600 percent relative to that
212
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtabie
-------
achievable in this formation prior to fractur-
ing.
• While TCE concentration in the extracted
air remained approximately constant (about
50 ppmv), the increased air flow rate result-
ed in TCE mass removal rates after fractur-
ing that were an average of at least 675
percent higher over the 4-hr tests.
• Significantly increased extracted air flow
rates (700 to 1,400 percent) were observed
in wells 10 ft from the fracturing well.
Even in wells 20 ft away, increases in air
flow rates of 200 to 1,100 percent were
observed. Coupled with well pressure data
and tiltmeter data for surface heave, these
results suggest an effective extraction radius
of at least 20 ft.
• Even higher increases in air flow rates and
TCE mass removal rates were observed
when one or more of the monitoring wells
were opened to allow passive air inlet.
Under these conditions, air flow rates in-
creased an average of 19,000 percent and
TCE mass removal rates increased 2,300
percent.
• The results of the hot gas injection experi-
ments were inconclusive, while some
increase in the soil gas temperature in the
formation was observed, it is unclear that
this was accompanied by improvements in
TCE mass removal.
Remediation Costs
According to EPA, a cost of $140/lb of TCE
removed was estimated for a remediation of the
demonstration site or a comparable site. This
estimate was based on capital and operating cost
data provided by the developer and several
assumptions characterized as "very optimistic."
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy Environmental Cleanup Responsibil-
ity Act (ECRA) site in Hillsborough, New
Jersey.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Uwe Frank
U.S. EPA, Building 10, MS-104
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908/321-6626
Technology Developer Contact:
John Liskowitz
Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc.
Cass Street and Highway 35
Keyport, NJ 07735
908/739-6444
FAX: 908/739-0451
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
213
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Precipitation/Filtration
Radionuclides in Ground Water
Technology Description
This technology is designed to remove low to
moderate levels of naturally occurring radioac-
tive materials (NORM) from contaminated
water. Other potential applications of the
technology include cleaning up NORM-contami-
nated liquid wastes from industrial and oil-
drilling operations and contaminated ground
water at nuclear facilities.
The technology removes contaminants through
chemical complexing, adsorption, and absorp-
tion. The system uses a proprietary complexing
agent, URAL, which is an insoluble granular
material. As the URAL is combined with
contaminated water, the NORM begins to form
solids. Solids are removed as sludge by
precipitation and filtration. For the EPA SITE
Program demonstration, precipitated solids
formed will be collected in drums and tempo-
rarily stored on site before disposal at an autho-
rized off-site facility.
Primary components of the technology are the
pump, URAL feed unit, and the process unit.
The pump delivers contaminated water through
the URAL feed line, where URAL is intro-
duced. The water and URAL mixture then is
fed into the process unit, where mixing, precipi-
tation, and clarification take place. The NORM
precipitate collects in the bottom of the process
unit and is removed continuously by a precipi-
tate removal pump and stored in drums. To
meet regulatory discharge standards, hydro-
chloric acid is added to the treated water to
lower the pH to nearly neutral levels. Treated
water then passes through a filtration system
that removes any residual suspended solids
before discharge. Treated water from the SITE
demonstration will be discharged into a uranium
disposal pond on site.
Technology Performance
The EPA SITE Program demonstration was
conducted during the week of July 26, 1993, at
the Palangana Uranium Mine site in Benevides,
Texas. A treatability study on disposal pond
water from the site had been conducted in 1992.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not yet available.
General Site Information
The Palangana Uranium Mine site, located in
Benevides, Texas, is about 50 miles west of
Corpus Christi. The site occupies 161 acres and
is surrounded primarily by undeveloped land. It
is located in an area known as the South Texas
Uranium Province.
In 1968, Union Carbide Corporation, the origi-
nal owner and operator, began testing on-site
leaching of uranium at the site. This process
involved injecting chemicals into the ground
water aquifer through injection wells. The
ground water mixture then was pumped from
the aquifer through extraction wells, and the
uranium was concentrated through evaporation.
Ground water with concentrations of uranium
214
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
too low to be of value was transferred to dispos-
al ponds for dilution and eventual use in irriga-
tion. Union Carbide later began commercial
operations that included leaching, processing,
and distributing uranium.
In 1981, Chevron Resources, Inc., bought the
mine and limited its activities to small-scale
operations. Active leaching of uranium was
discontinued in 1986, and full-scale environ-
mental restoration began. The leaching opera-
tions contaminated the disposal ponds with low
to moderate levels of NORM which consists of
various isotopes of uranium and associated
decay.products. The NORM detected in the
disposal ponds are gross alpha and beta particle-
emitting contaminants, uranium, radium-226,
and thorium-230.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Annette Gatchett
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7697
Technology Developer Contact:
Ted Daniels
TechTran, Inc.
5401 Mitchelldale, Suite A4
Houston, TX 77092
713/688-2390
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
215
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Precipitation, Microflltration, and Sludge Dewatering
Pesticides, Oil, and Grease in Sludge and Leachable Soil
Technology Description
In the first step of this process, heavy metals are
chemically precipitated. The precipitates along
with all particles down to 0.2 to 0.1 micron, are
filtered through a unique fabric cross-flow
microfilter (EXXFLOW). The concentrate
stream is then dewatered in an automatic tubular
filter press of the same fabric material
(EXXPRESS).
EXXFLOW microfilter modules are fabricated
from a proprietary woven polyester array of
tubes. Wastes are pumped into the tubes from
a dynamic membrane, which produces a high
quality filtrate removing all particle sizes greater
than 0.2 - 0.1 micron. The membrane is main-
tained by the flow velocity, thereby minimizing
production declines and cleaning frequencies.
Metals are removed via filtration following
precipitation by adjusting the pH in the
EXXFLOW feed tank. The metal hydroxides or
oxides form the dynamic membrane with all
other suspended solids. The concentrate stream
will contain up to 5 percent solids for discharge
to the EXXPRESS system. The EXXFLOW
concentrate stream enters the EXXPRESS
modules with the discharge valve closed. A
semi-dry cake, up to 1/4 inch thick, is formed
on the inside of the tubular cloth. When the
discharge valve is opened, rollers on the outside
of the tube move to form a venturi within the
tube. The venturi creates an area of high veloc-
ity within the tubes, which aggressively cleans
the cloth and discharges the cake in chip form
onto a wedge wke screen. The discharge water
is recycled back to the feed tank. The
EXXPRESS filter cakes are typically 40 to 60
percent solids by weight.
Other constituent removals are possible using
seeded slurry methods in EXXFLOW. Hard-
ness can be removed by using lime. Oil and
grease can be removed by adding adsorbents.
Non-volatile organics and solvents can be re-
' moved using seeded, powdered activated carbon
or powdered ion exchange adsorbents.
In cases where the solids in the raw feed are
extremely high, EXXPRESS can be used first,
with EXXFLOW acting as a final polish for the
product water.
The EXXFLOW/EXXPRESS demonstration unit
is transportable and is skid-mounted. The unit
is designed to process approximately 30 Ibs/hr
of solids and 10 gpm of wastewater.
This technology is applicable to water contain-
ing heavy metals, pesticides, oil and grease,
bacteria, suspended solids, and constituents that
can be precipitated into particle sizes greater
than 0.1 micron. The system can handle waste
streams containing up to 5 percent solids and
produce a semi-dry cake of 40 to 60 percent
weight per weight. Non-volatile organics and
solvents can also be removed from the water by
adding powdered adsorbents.
Soils and sludge can be decontaminated through
acid leaching of the metals, followed by precipi-
tation and microfiltration. Lime sludges from
municipal, industrial, and power plant clarifiers
can also be treated by using this process.
216
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1989. Bench-
scale tests were conducted in 1990. The first
EPA application was acid mine drainage at the
Iron Mountain Mine Superfund site in Redding,
California, in late 1991.
Since 1988, this technology has been applied to
over 40 sites worldwide. System capacities
range from 1 gpm to over 2 million gal/day.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology has been applied at a variety of
sites, including the Iron Mountain Mine
Superfund site in Redding, California. Applica-
tions have included acid mine drainage, indus-
trial laundries, circuit board shops, ceramics,
agricultural chemicals, oil produced water, oil
field waste, scrubber waste, municipal waste,
water purification, water softening, clarifier
sludge dewatering, and wine and juice filtration.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
Technology Developer Contact:
Gary Bartman
EPOC Water, Inc.
3065 Sunnyside, #101
Fresno, CA 93727
209/291-8144
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
217
-------
DYNAMIC UYER
FILTRATE
MUKAIG. / /
.L..LJ / L
FILTRATE
* > »
[jnjLf—L i -v^-^ n -^^^ -"y y
FILTRATE
TEXTILE TUBE
FILTRATE
Precipitation/Microfiltration System
218
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Rochem Disc Tube Module System
Organics in Aqueous Solutions
Technology Description
This technology uses membrane separation
systems to treat a range of aqueous solutions
from seawater to leachates containing organics
solvents. The system uses osmosis through a
semipermeable membrane to separate pure water
from contaminated liquids. The application of
osmotic theory implies that when a saline
solution is separated from pure water by a
semipermeable membrane, the higher osmotic
pressure of the salt solution will cause the water
(and other compounds having high diffusion
rates through the selected membrane) to diffuse
through the membrane into the salt water.
Water will continue to permeate into the salt
solution until the osmotic pressure of the salt
solution equals the osmotic pressure of the pure
water. However, if an external pressure is
exerted on the salt solution, water will flow in
the reverse direction from the salt solution into
the pure water. This phenomenon, known as
reverse osmosis, can be employed to separate
pure water from contaminated matrices, such as
the treatment of hazardous wastes through
concentration of hazardous chemical constituents
in an aqueous brine, while pure water can be
recovered on the other side of the membrane.
Ultrafiltration (UF) is a pressure-driven mem-
brane filtration process that can be used to
separate and concentrate macromolecules and
colloids from process streams, water, and
wastewaters. UF is used in conjunction with
reverse osmosis in the Disc Tube Module
System. The size of the particle rejected by
ulttafiltration depends on the inherent properties
of the specific membrane selected for separation
and can range from small paniculate matter to
large molecules. In general, a fluid is placed
under pressure on one side of a perforated
membrane having a measures pore size. AE
materials smaller than the pore pass through,
leaving larger contaminants concentrated on the
feed side of the process. Control of pass-
through constituents can be achieved by using a
membrane with a limiting pore size or by
installing a series of membranes with succes-
sively smaller pores. Although similar to
reverse osmosis, the UF process typically cannot
separate constituents from water to the level of
purity that reverse osmosis can achieve. How-
ever, the two technologies can be used in tan-
dem, with UF removing most of the relatively
large constituents of a process stream before
application of reverse osmosis to selectively
remove the water from the remaining mixture.
The fluid dynamics and construction of the
system result in an open-channel, fully turbulent
feed and water-flow system. This configuration
prevents the accumulation of suspended solids
on the separation membranes, thereby ensuring
high efficiency filtration of water and contami-
nants. Also, the design of the disc tubes allows
for easy cleaning of the filtration medium,
providing a long service life for the membrane
components of the system.
Waste feed, process permeate, and rinse water
are potential feed materials to the reverse osmo-
sis or UF modules, which are skid-mounted and
consist of a tank and a high-pressure feed
system. The high pressure feed system consists
of a centrifugal feed pump, a prefilter cartridge
housing, and a triplex plunger pump to feed the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
219
-------
modules. The processing units themselves are
self-contained and need only electrical and
interconnection process piping to be installed
prior to operation.
This system can treat sanitary landfill leachate
containing organics and inorganic chemical
species, water-soluble oil wastes used in metal
fabricating and manufacturing industries, and
solvent-water and oil-water mixtures generated
during washing operations at metal fabricating
facilities.
Technology Performance
The technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1991. A
demonstration was conducted in 1992 at
Casmalia in Santa Barbara County, California.
This site involved the cleanup of leachate from
a hazardous waste landfill. During the demon-
stration, 1 to 2 gpm of contaminated water were
processed over a 2- to 3-week period. All feed
and residual effluent streams were sampled to
evaluate the performance of the technology.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Douglas Grosse
U.S. EPA
Risk reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7844
Technology Developer Contact:
David LaMonica
Rochem Separation Systems, Inc.
3904 Del Amo Blvd., Suite 801
Torrance, CA 90503
310/370-3160
FAX: 310/370-4988
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
A SITE Program demonstration was conducted
at Casmalia in Santa Barbara County, Califor-
nia.
220
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
TANK B
BRINE
STORAGE
NOTE: RO AND UF MODULES ARE
OPERATED INDIVIDUALLY.
DIAGRAM SHOWS PARALLEL
CONNECTION FOR ILLUSTRATION
PURPOSES ONLY.
L— -x i
Rochem Disc Tube Module System
TANK D
PERMEATE
STORAGE
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
221
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Selective Extraction
Uranium in Soil
Technology Description
This treatment uses physical separation (trom-
mel screens, centrifuge) and chemical extraction
(carbonate and citric acid) techniques to remove
uranium contaminants from a soil matrix.
The process produces uranium waste and waste-
water containing iron and aluminum. The ura-
nium waste is disposed by burial. A possible
limitation of this technology is that the second-
ary waste generated (predominantly iron) may
require disposal.
Approximately 10 volumes of treatable waste-
water is produced for each volume of soil
treated. Existing wastewater technologies
should allow the wastewater to be treated and
returned to a useable water source.
Technology Performance
This technology is being evaluated as part of
DOE's Integrated Technology Demonstration
program for Uranium Soils.
General Site Information
The process is being demonstrated at DOE's
Fernald Site. The Fernald Site is located on
1,050 acres near the Great Miami River, 18
miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio. Estab-
lished in the early 1950s, the production com-
plex was used for processing uranium and its
compounds from natural uranium ore concen-
trates. As the primary production site for
uranium metal for defense projects in the past,
the facility was key to national security.
Contact
Kimberly Nuhfer
Fernald Environmental Remediation
Management Corporation
P.O. Box 398704
Cincinnati, OH 45239-8704
513/648-6556
FAX: 513/648-6914
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
222
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Soil Recycling
Organics and Inorganics in Soils
Technology Description
This soil recycling process involves three
technologies operating in a series. The process
removes inorganic and organic contaminants in
soil to produce a reusable fill material. First is
a soil washing process that reduces the volume
of the material to be treated by concentrating
contaminants in a fine slurry mixture. Second,
heavy metals are removed from the slurry
through a process of metal dissolution. Using
acidification and selective chelation, this process
recovers all metals in their pure form. Third, a
process involving chemical hydrolysis accompa-
nied by biodegradation destroys organic contam-
inants in the slurry. The three integrated tech-
nologies are capable of cleaning contaminated
soil for reuse on industrial sites.
Clean Contaminated
Feed Sand Fine Slurry
_(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)__
Oil & grease
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.8
11
2
0.2
2
0.5
4
52
10
The chemical treatment process and biological
soil reactors achieved a 90 percent reduction in
simple polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon com-
pounds such as naphthalene, but slightly
exceeded the MOE criteria for benzo(a)pyrene.
The results are summarized below:
Contaminated
Fine Slurry
(me/ke.)
Naphthalene 52
Benzo(a)pyrene 10
Treated
Fine Slurry
<5
2.6
Technology Performance
This process was accepted into the EPA SITE
Demonstration Program in 1991. It was demon-
strated at a site in the Toronto Port Industrial
District that had been used for metals finishing
and refinery and for petroleum storage. The
objective of the demonstration was to evaluate
the ability of the process to achieve the modi-
fied Ontario Ministry of the Environment
(MOE) criteria for commercial and industrial
sites. A summary of results follows:
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a site in
the Toronto Port Industrial District in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
223
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Teri Richardson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7949
Technology Developer Contact:
Dennis Lang
Toronto Harbor Commission
60 Harbour Street
Toronto, Canada M5J 1B7
416/863-2047
FAX: 416/863-4830
224
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Thermal Gas Phase Reduction
PCBs, PAHs, Chlorophenols, and Pesticides
in Soil, Sludge, Liquids, and Gases
Technology Description
This patented process is based on the gas-phase,
thermo-chemical reaction of hydrogen with
organic and chlorinated organic compounds at
elevated temperatures. At 850°C or higher,
hydrogen reacts with organic compounds in a
process known as reduction to produce smaller,
lighter hydrocarbons. This reaction is enhanced
by the presence of water, which can also act as
a reducing agent. Because hydrogen is used to
produce a reducing atmosphere devoid of free
oxygen, the possibility of dioxin or furan forma-
tion is eliminated.
The thermo-chemical reaction takes place within
a specially designed reactor. In the process, a
mixture of preheated waste and hydrogen is
injected through nozzles mounted tarigentially
near the top of the reactor. The mixture swirls
around a central ceramic tube past glo-bar
heaters. By the time the mixture passes through
the ports at the bottom of the ceramic tube, it
has been heated to 850°C. Paniculate matter up
to 5 millimeters in diameter not entrained in the
gas stream will impact the hot refractory walls
of the reactor. Organic matter associated with
the particulate is volatilized, and the paniculate
exits out of the reactor bottom to a quench tank,
while finer particulate entrained in the gas
stream flows up the ceramic tube into an exit
elbow and through a retention zone. The reduc-
tion reaction begins at the bottom of the ceramic
tube onwards, and takes less than one second to
complete. Gases enter a scrubber where hydro-
gen chloride fine particulates are removed. The
gases that exit the scrubber consist only of
excess hydrogen, methane, and a small amount
of water vapor. Approximately 95 percent of
this gas is recirculated back into the reactor.
The remaining 5 percent is fed to a boiler where
it is used as supplementary fuel to preheat the
waste.
Because this process is not incineration, the
reactor does not require a large volume for the
addition of combustion air. The small reactor
size and the capability to recirculate gases from
the reaction make the process equipment small
enough to be mobile.
In addition, the process includes a sophisticated
on-line mass spectrometer unit as a part of the
control system. As the unit is capable of mea-
suring many organic chemicals on a continuous
basis, increases in chlorobenzene or benzene
concentrations (signalling a decrease in destruc-
tion efficiency) halt the input of waste and alert
the operator.
The technology is suitable for many types of
waste including PCBs, PAHs, chlorophenols,
pesticides, landfill leachates, and lagoon bot-
toms. The system can handle most types of
waste media, including soils, sludges, liquids,
and gases. Even those wastes with a high water
content are easily handled by the technology.
The developer has built a front-end thermal
desorption unit to preheat soils. This increased
the overall throughput of the demonstration-
scale mobile field unit to 25 tons/day. This unit
was demonstrated in 1992.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
225
-------
In the case of chlorinated organic compounds,
such as PCBs, the products of the reaction
include chloride, hydrogen, methane, and ethyl-
ene. Other non-chlorinated hazardous contami-
nants, such as PAHs, are also reduced to small-
er, lighter hydrocarbons, primarily methane and
ethylene.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1991. Testing
in Hamilton Harbour, Ontario, was completed in
1991 on PAH- and PCB-contaminated harbor
sediments. The technology achieved a destruc-
tion removal efficiency of 99.9999 percent
PCBs in the coal tar sediments.
A demonstration was completed late in 1992.
The project was a cooperative effort of U.S.
EPA, Eco Logic, Environment Canada, Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, Michigan Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, and the City of Bay
City, Michigan. The technology was demon-
strated at Middleground Landfill on PCB- and
TCE-contaminated leachates and soils.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Gordon Evans
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7684
Technology Developer Contact:
Jim Nash
ELJ Eco Logic International, Inc.
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, Ontario
Canada NO B2 KO
519/856-9591
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at Hamilton
Harbour in Ontario, Canada.
226
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Ultraviolet Radiation and Oxidation
Halogenated Hydrocarbons, VOCs, Pesticides, and PCBS in Ground Water
Technology Description
This ultraviolet (UV) radiation and oxidation
process uses UV radiation, ozone (O3), and
hydrogen peroxide (HjO^ to destroy toxic
organic compounds, particularly chlorinated
hydrocarbons, in water. The process oxidizes
compounds that are toxic or refractory (resistant
to biological oxidation) in concentrations of
ppm or ppb.
The system consists of a treatment tank module,
an air compressor and ozone generator module,
and a hydrogen peroxide feed system. It is
skid-mounted and portable, and permits on-site
treatment of a wide variety of liquid wastes,
such as industrial wastewaters, ground waters,
and leachate. The treatment tank size is deter-
mined from the expected wastewater flow rate
and the necessary hydraulic retention time to
treat the contaminated water. The approximate
UV intensity, and ozone and hydrogen peroxide
doses, are determined from pilot-scale studies.
Influent to the treatment tank is simultaneously
exposed to UV radiation, ozone, and hydrogen
peroxide to oxidize the organic compounds.
Off-gas from the treatment tank passes through
an ozone destruction (decompozon) unit, which
reduces ozone levels before air venting. The
decompozon unit also destroys VOCs stripped
off in the treatment tank. Effluent from the
treatment tank is tested and analyzed before
disposal.
Contaminated ground water, industrial waste-
waters, and leachates containing halogenated
solvents, phenol, PCP, pesticides, PCBs, and
other organic compounds are suitable for this
treatment process.
Technology Performance
A field-scale demonstration was completed in
March 1989 at a hazardous waste site in San
Jose, California. The test program was de-
signed to evaluate the performance of the Ultrox
system at several combinations of five operating
parameters: (1) influent pH, (2) retention time,
(3) ozone dose, (4) hydrogen peroxide dose, and
(5) UV radiation intensity. The Technology
Evaluation Report was published in January
1990 (EPA/540/5-89/012). The Applications
Analysis Report was published in September
1990 (EPA/540/A5-89/012).
Contaminated ground water treated by the
Ultrox system met regulatory standards at the
appropriate parameter levels. Out of 44 VOCs
in the wastewater, three were chosen to be used
as indicator parameters. They are trichloroeth-
ylene (TCE), 1,1 dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), and
1,1,1 trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), all relatively
refractory to conventional oxidation.
Removal efficiencies for TCE were about 99
percent. Removal efficiencies for 1,1-DCA and
1,1,1-TCA were about 58 percent and 85 per-
cent, respectively. Removal efficiencies for
total VOCs were about 90 percent.
For some compounds, removal from the water
phase resulted from both chemical oxidation and
stripping. Stripping accounted for 12 to 75
percent of the total removal for 1,1,1-TCA, and
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
227
-------
5 to 44 percent for 1,1-DCA. Stripping was
less than 10 percent for TCE and vinyl chlo-
ride, and was negligible for other VOCs present.
The decompozon unit reduced ozone to less
than 0.1 ppm, with efficiencies greater then
99.99 percent. VOCs present in the air within
the treatment system were not detected after
passing through the decompozon unit. There
were no harmful air emissions to the atmosphere
from the system.
Very low total organic carbon removal was
found, implying partial oxidation of organics
without complete conversion to carbon dioxide
and water.
The technology is fully commercial, with over
20 commercial systems installed. Flow rates
ranging from 5.0 gpm to 1,050 gpm are present-
ly being used in various industries and site
clean-up activities, including aerospace, Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE), petroleum, pharmaceuti-
cal, automotive, wood treating and municipal
facilities.
UV oxidation has been included in Records of
Decision for several Superfund sites where
ground water pump-and-tteat remediation meth-
ods are to be used.
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
This technology was demonstrated at a hazard-
ous waste site in San Jose, California.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7665
Technology Developer Contact:
David Fletcher
Ultrox International
2435 South Anne Street
Santa Ana, CA 92704
714/545-5557
228
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Treated Off Gaa
Compressed
Air
Catalytic Ozono
Decomposer
Reactor
Off Gas
Ozone
Generator
ULTROX®
UV/OxIdatlon Reactor
Dryer
Ground
Water
Treated
Effluent
Hydrogen Peroxide
from Feed Tank
Ultrox System (Isometric View)
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
229
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Ultraviolet Radiation, Hydrogen Peroxide, and Ozone
Trichloroethylene in Ground Water
Technology Description
This oxidation process uses ozone, ultraviolet
radiation, and hydrogen peroxide for the treat-
ment of ground water comaminated with tri-
chloroethylene (TCE).
Technology Performance
Results from the full-scale, advanced oxidation
process tested at the DOE Kansas City plant
were mostly inconclusive:
• The plant is effective in the destruction of
individual VOCs but seems to reach a
plateau for gross parameters such as total
organic carbon and total chlorinated hydro-
carbons;
• The plant has been out of service for main-
tenance and repair approximately 30 percent
of the time;
• The flow rate has averaged approximately
15 percent of the design flow rate, so the
determination of costs has been inconclu-
sive; and
• An evaluation of the true plant capacity
indicates that it can accommodate twice the
rated flow rate.
Remediation Costs
Actual costs are not available; however, the
costs are competitive with other processes.
General Site Information
A full-scale, advanced oxidation process was
tested at the DOE Kansas City Plant.
Contact
Sidney B. Garland n
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 -6317
615/574-8581
230
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Wetlands-Based Treatment
Metals in Influent Waters
Technology Description
The constructed wetlands-based treatment
technology uses natural geochemical and biolog-
ical processes inherent in a man-made wetland
ecosystem to accumulate and remove metals
from influent waters. The treatment system
incorporates principal ecosystem components
found in wetlands, including organic soils,
microbial fauna, algae, and vascular plants.
Influent waters, which contain high metal con-
centrations and have a low pH, flow through the
aerobic and anaerobic zones of the wetland
ecosystem. Metals are removed by filtration,
ion exchange, adsorption, absorption, and pre-
cipitation through geochemical and microbial
oxidation and reduction. In filtration, metal
flocculates and metals that are adsorbed onto
fine sediment particles settle in quiescent ponds,
or are filtered out as the water percolates
through the soil or the plant canopy. Ion ex-
change occurs as metals in the water come into
contact with humic or other organic substances
in the soil medium. Oxidation and reduction
reactions that occur in the aerobic and anaerobic
zones, respectively, play a major role in remov-
ing metals as hydroxides and sulfides.
The wetlands-based treatment process is suitable
for acid mine drainage from metal or coal
mining activities. These wastes typically con-
tain high metals concentrations and are acidic in
nature. Wetlands treatment has been applied
with some success to wastewater in the eastern
regions of the United States. The process may
have to be adjusted to account for differences in
geology, terrain, trace metal composition, and
climate in the metal mining regions of the
western United States.
Technology Performance
As a result of the success of this technology in
the Emerging Technology Program, it was
selected for the EPA SITE Demonstration
Program.
The final year of the project under the Emerging
Technology Program was 1991. Results of a
study of drainage from the Big Five Tunnel near
Idaho Springs, Colorado, have shown that by
optimizing design parameters, removal efficien-
cy of heavy metals from the discharge can
approach the removal efficiency of chemical
precipitation treatment plants.
One of the final goals of this project was the
development of a manual that discusses design
and operating criteria for construction of a full-
scale wetland for treating acid mine discharges.
The "Wetland Designs for Mining Operations"
manual is available from NTIS.
The Demonstration Program will evaluate the
effectiveness of a full-scale wetland. The pro-
posed demonstration site is the Burleigh Tunnel
near Silver Plume, Colorado. The Burleigh
Tunnel is part of the Clear Creek/Central City
Superfund Site in Colorado.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
231
-------
Remediation Costs
Cost information was not provided for this
publication.
General Site Information
A SITE Program demonstration will be conduct-
ed at the Burleigh Tunnel near Silver Plume,
Colorado.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Edward Bates
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7774
Technology Developer Contact:
Rick Brown
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue, Room 252
Denver, CO 80220
303/692-3383
Anaerobic
Zone
Aerobic
Zone
Typical Wetland Ecosystem
232
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
-------
Incineration and Solidification
Demonstrations
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
235
-------
236
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Incineration
Circulating Bed Combustor
Halogenated and Non-Halogenated Organic Compounds and PCBs
in Soil, Sludge, and Liquids
Technology Description
The Circulating Bed Combustor (CBC) uses
high velocity air to entrain circulating solids and
create a highly turbulent combustion zone for
the efficient destruction of toxic hydrocarbons.
The commercial-size combustion chamber (36
inches in diameter) can treat up to 150 tons of
contaminated soil daily, depending on the
heating value of the feed material.
The CBC operates at fairly low temperatures
(1,450°P to 1,600°F) for this class of
technology, thus reducing operating costs and
potential emissions such as nitrogen oxides
(NOJ and carbon monoxide. Auxiliary fuel can
be natural gas, fuel oil, or diesel. No auxiliary
fuel is needed for waste streams having a net
heating value greater than 2,900 Btu/lb. The
CBC's high turbulence produces a uniform
temperature around the combustion chamber and
hot cyclone. It also promotes the complete
mixing of the waste material during combustion.
The effective mixing and relatively low
combustion temperature also reduce emissions
of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Hot
gases produced during combustion pass through
a convective gas cooler and baghouse before
being released to the atmosphere.
Waste material and limestone are fed into the
combustion chamber along with the recirculating
bed material from the hot cyclone. The
limestone neutralizes acid gases. The treated
ash is transported out of the system by an ash
conveyor for proper disposal.
The CBC process may be applied to liquids,
slurries, solids, and sludges contaminated with
corrosives, cyanides, dioxins/furans, inorganics,
metals, organics, oxidizers, pesticides, PCBs,
phenols, and volatiles.
Industrial wastes from refineries, chemical
plants, manufacturing site cleanups, and
contaminated military sites are amenable to
treatment by the CBC process. The CBC is
permitted by EPA under the Toxic Substance
Control Act (TSCA) to burn PCBs in all ten
EPA Regions, having demonstrated a 99.9999
percent destruction removal efficiency (DRE).
Waste feed for the CBC must be sized to less
than 1 inch. Metals in the waste do not inhibit
performance and become less leachable after
incineration. Treated residual ash can be
replaced on-site or stabilized for landfill
disposal if metals exceed regulatory limits.
Technology Performance
The technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in March 1989.
Ogden Environmental Services (OES) conducted
a treatability study and demonstration on wastes
obtained from a Superfund site in California
(McColl) under the guidance of the SITE
program, EPA Region 9, and the California
Department of Health Services. The pilot-scale
demonstration was conducted by using the 16-
inch-diameter CBC at Ogden's Research
Facility in San Diego, California.
The EPA SITE program concluded that the test
successfully achieved the desired goals, as
follows:
• Obtained DRE values of 99.99 percent or
greater for principal organic hazardous
constituents and minimized the formation of
products of incomplete combustion.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
237
-------
Met the OES Research Facility permit
conditions and the California South Coast
Basin emission standards.
Controlled sulfur oxide emissions by adding
limestone, and determined that the residual
materials (fly ash and bed ash) were
nonhazardous. No significant levels of
hazardous organic compounds left the
system in the stack gas or remained in the
bed and fly ash material. The CBC was
able to minimize emissions of sulfur oxide,
nitrogen oxide, and particulates. Other
regulated pollutants were controlled to well
below permit levels.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Douglas Grosse
U.S. EPA
Pdsk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7844
Technology Developer Contact:
Derrel Young
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.
12755 Woodforest Blvd.
Houston, TX 77015
713/453-8571
FAX: 713/453-8573
238
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Incineration
HRD Flame Reactor
Metals in Wastes and Residues
Technology Description
The HRD Flame Reactor system is a patented,
high-temperature thermal process designed to
safely treat dry .granular industrial residues and
wastes containing metals and organics. The
technology processes wastes by subjecting them
to a hot (greater than 2,000°C) reducing gas
produced by the combustion of solid or gaseous
hydrocarbon fuels in oxygen-enriched air. At
these temperatures volatile metals in the waste
are volatilized and organic compounds are
destroyed. The waste materials react rapidly,
producing a non-leachable slag (a glass-like
solid when cooled) and gases, including steam
and volatile metal vapors. The metal vapors
further react and cool in the combustion
chamber and cooling system to produce a metal-
enriched oxide that is collected in a baghouse.
The resulting metal oxides can be recycled to
recover the metals. The amount of volume
reduction to slag and oxide depends on the
chemical and physical properties of the waste.
Non-volatile metals are vitrified in the slag that
leaves the reactor from the slag separator. After
testing to ascertain that the slag is non-
hazardous, it generally can be recycled as clean
fill material. If the slag cannot be recycled
because it is determined to be toxic, it can be
disposed of in a permitted landfill.
The technology can be applied to granular
solids, soil, flue dusts, slags, and sludges
containing very high concentrations of heavy
metals. In general, the system requires wastes
to be dry (less than 15 percent total moisture)
and fine-grained (less than 200 mesh) to react
rapidly. Larger particles (up to 20 mesh) can be
processed but may decrease the efficiency of
metals recovery or the capacity of the reactor.
Wastes not meeting moisture-content and
particle-size criteria require pretreatment.
Generally, wastes with high concentrations of
heavy metals that have a significant market
value (zinc, lead, arsenic, and possibly silver
and gold) should enhance the overall process
economics. Product metal oxide containing
valuable metals can be processed further for
metal recovery in industrial smelters.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1990.
Currently, the prototype flame reactor
technology system operates with a capacity of 1
to 3 tons/hr in a stationary mode at the
developer's facility in Monaca, Pennsylvania.
EPA and the developer believe that a mobile
system can be designed and constructed for on-
site treatment at hazardous waste sites.
The SITE demonstration was conducted in 1991
on secondary lead smelter-soda slag from the
National Smelting and Refining Company
Superfund site in Atlanta, Georgia. The test
was conducted at the Monaca facility under a
RCRA research, development, and
demonstration permit that allowed the treatment
of Superfund wastes containing high
concentrations of metals, but only negligible
concentrations of organics. The waste material
was a granular secondary lead smelter blast
furnace soda slag containing arsenic, cadmium,
iron, lead, sodium, zinc, and other metals, plus
carbon, chlorine, silicon, sulphur, other
inorganic chemicals, and water.
A follow-up test with feed containing organics
is planned for the near future.
Results from the SITE demonstration are
documented in an EPA Applications Analysis
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
239
-------
Report (EPA/540/A5-91/005) and a Technology
Evaluation Report (EPA/540/5-91/005).
Remediation Costs
The HRD Flame Reactor system processed
secondary lead smelter soda slag during the
SITE demonstration at an estimated cost of
$932/ton. This cost included extensive testing.
Costs for this system are highly site-specific.
Variability in waste characteristics and the costs
of transporting waste to the reactor, as well as
costs of transporting, shipping, and handling
residuals, could significantly affect costs.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Donald Oberacker
Marta Richards
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7510 or 7783
Technology Developer Contact:
Regis Zagrocki
Horsehead Resource Development Co.
300 Frankfurt Road
Monaca, PA 15061
412/773-2289
240
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Incineration
Infrared Thermal Destruction
Organics in Soil and Sediment
Technology Description
The infrared thermal destruction technology is
a mobile thermal processing system that uses
electrically powered silicon carbide rods to heat
organic wastes to combustion temperatures.
Any remaining combustibles are incinerated in
an afterburner. One configuration for this
mobile system consists of four components: (1)
an electric-powered infrared primary chamber,
(2) a gas-fired secondary combustion chamber,
(3) an emissions control system, and (4) a
control center.
Waste is fed into the primary chamber and
exposed to infrared radiant heat (up to 1,850°F)
provided by silicon carbide rods above the belt.
A blower delivers air to selected locations along
the belt to control the oxidation rate of the
waste feed. The ash material in the primary
chamber is quenched by using scrubber water
effluent. The ash is then conveyed to the ash
hopper, where it is removed to a holding area
and analyzed for organic contaminants, such as
PCB content.
Volatile gases from the primary chamber flow
into the secondary chamber, which uses higher
temperatures, greater residence time, turbulence,
and supplemental energy (if required) to destroy
these gases. Gases from the secondary chamber
are vented through the emissions control system.
In the emissions control system, the particulates
are removed in a venturi scrubber. Acid vapor
is neutralized in a packed tower scrubber. An
induced draft blower draws the cleaned gases
from the scrubber into the free-standing exhaust
stack. The scrubber liquid effluent flows into a
clarifier where scrubber sludge settles out for
disposal. The liquid then flows through an
activated carbon filter for reuse or to a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) for disposal.
This technology is suitable for soils or
sediments with organic contaminants. Liquid
organic wastes can be treated after mixing with
sand or soil. Optimal waste characteristics are
as follows:
Particle size, 5 microns to 2 inches.
Moisture content, up to 50 percent by
weight.
Density, 30 to 130 Ibs/ft3.
Heating value, up to 10,000 Btu/lb.
Chlorine content, up to 5 percent by weight.
Sulfur content, up to 5 percent by weight.
Phosphorus, 0 to 300 ppm.
pH, 5 to 9.
Alkali metals, up to 1 percent by weight.
Technology Performance
EPA conducted two SITE Program
demonstrations of the infrared system. An
evaluation of a full-scale unit was conducted
during August, 1987 at the Peak Oil site in
Tampa, Florida. The system treated nearly
7,000 yd3 of waste oil sludge containing PCBs
and lead. A second pilot-scale demonstration
took place at the Rose Township/Demode Road
Superfund site in Michigan during November,
1987. Organics, PCBs, and metals in soil were
the target waste compounds to be immobilized.
In addition, the technology has been used to
remediate PCB contamination at the Florida
Steel Corporation and the LaSalle Electric
Superfund sites. The results from the two SITE
demonstrations are summarized below.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
241
-------
• PCBs were reduced to less than 1 ppm in
the ash, with a destruction removal
efficiency (DRE) for air emissions greater
than 99.99 percent (based on detection
limits).
• In the pilot-scale demonstration, the RCRA
standard for particulate emissions (180
mg/dry standard m3) was achieved. In the
full-scale demonstration, however, this
standard was not met in all runs because of
scrubber inefficiencies.
• Lead was not immobilized; however, it
remained in the ash, and significant amounts
were not transferred to the scrubber water or
emitted to the atmosphere.
• The pilot testing demonstrated satisfactory
performance with high feed rate and
reduced power consumption when fuel oil
was added to the waste feed and the
primary chamber temperature was reduced.
Results from these demonstrations have been
published by EPA in the two Applications
Analysis Reports (EPA/540/A5-89/010 and
EPA/540/A5-89/007) and two Technology
Evaluation Reports (EPA/540/5-88/002a and
EPA/540/5-89/007a).
Results from the two demonstrations, plus eight
other case studies, indicate the process is
capable of meeting both RCRA and TSCA DRE
requirements for air emissions and particulate
emissions. Restrictions in chloride levels in the
feed waste may be necessary. PCB remediation
has consistently met the TSCA guidance level
of 2 ppm in ash.
This technology is no longer available through
vendors in the United States.
Remediation Costs
Economic analysis suggests an overall waste
remediation cost up to $800/ton.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
John F. Martin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7696
Technology Developer Contact:
Gruppo Italimpresse
Rome, Italy
011-39-06-8802001
Padova, Italy
011-39-049-773490
242
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Incineration
PYRETRON® Thermal Destruction
Organics in Soil, Sludge, and Solid Waste
Technology Description
The PYRETRON® thermal destruction
technology is an integrated combustion system.
It controls the heat input into the incineration
process by using the PYRETRON® oxygen-air-
fuel burners and the dynamic control of the
level of excess oxygen available for oxidation of
hazardous waste. The PYRETRON® combustor
uses an advanced combustion concept that relies
on a new technique for mixing auxiliary fuel,
oxygen, and air in order to (1) provide the
flame envelope with enhanced stability,
luminosity, and flame core temperature and (2)
provide a reduction in the combustion volume
per million Btu of heat released.
The system is computer controlled to
automatically adjust the temperatures of the
primary and secondary combustion chambers
and the amount of excess oxygen being supplied
to the combustion process. The system has
been designed to dynamically adjust the amount
of excess oxygen in response to sudden changes
in the rate of volatilization of contaminants from
the waste.
The burner system can be fitted onto any
conventional incineration unit and used for the
burning of liquids, solids, and sludges. Solids
and sludges can also be co-incinerated when the
burner is used in conjunction with a rotary kiln
or similar equipment.
High and low Btu solid wastes contaminated
with rapidly volatilized hazardous organics are
suitable for the PYRETRON® technology. In
general, the technology is applicable to any
waste that can be incinerated. The technology
is not suitable for processing aqueous wastes,
RCRA heavy metal wastes, or inorganic wastes.
Technology Performance
An EPA SITE Program demonstration was
conducted at EPA's Combustion Research
Facility in Jefferson, Arkansas, using a mixture
of 40 percent contaminated soil from the
Stringfellow Acid Pit Superfund site in
California and 60 percent decanter tank tar
sludge from coking operations (RCRA-listed
waste K087). The demonstration began in
November 1987 and was completed at the end
of January 1988.
Both the Technology Evaluation Report
(EPA/540/5-89/008) and Applications Analysis
Report (EPA/540/A5-89/008) have been
published.
Six PAHs—naphthalene, acenaphthylene,
fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, and
fluoranthene—were selected as the principal
organic hazardous constituents (POHC) for the
test program.
The PYRETRON® technology achieved greater
than 99.99 percent destruction and removal
efficiencies (DRE) of all POHCs measured in
all test runs. Other advantages are listed below:
• The PYRETRON® technology with oxygen
enhancement achieved double the waste
throughput possible with conventional
incineration.
• All paniculate emission levels in the
scrubber system discharge were significantly
below the hazardous waste incinerator
performance standard of 180 mg/dry
standard m3 at 7 percent oxygen.
• Solid residues were contaminant-free.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
243
-------
There were no significant differences in
transient carbon monoxide level emissions
between air-only incineration and
PYRETRON® oxygen-enhanced operation
with doubled throughput rate.
Costs savings can be achieved in many
situations.
The system is capable of doubling the
capacity of a conventional rotary kiln
incinerator. This increase is more
significant for wastes with low heating
values.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contact:
Gregory Oilman
American Combustion, Inc.
4476 Park Drive
Norcross, GA 30093
404/564-4180
FAX: 404/564-4192
244
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Chemfix Process
Solid Waste in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
This solidification and stabilization process is an
inorganic system in which soluble silicates and
silicate-setting agents react with polyvalent
metal ions and other waste components to
produce a chemically and physically stable solid
material. The treated waste matrix displays
good stability, a high melting point, and a
friable texture. The treated matrix may be
similar to soil, depending upon the water
content of the feed waste.
The feed waste is first blended in the reaction
vessel with dry alumina, calcium, and silica
based reagents that are dispersed and dissolved
throughout the aqueous phase. The reagents
react with polyvalent ions in the waste and form
inorganic polymer chains (insoluble metal
silicates) throughout the aqueous phase. These
polymer chains physically entrap the organic
coUoids within the microstructure of the product
matrix. The water-soluble silicates then react
with complex ions in the presence of a silicate
setting agent, producing amorphous, colloidal
silicates (gels) and silicon dioxide, which acts as
a precipitating agent.
Most of the heavy metals in the waste become
part of the silicate gel. Some of the heavy
metals precipitate with the structure of the
silicate gel.
Since some organics may be contained in
particles larger than the silicate gel, all of the
waste is pumped through processing equipment,
creating sufficient shear in combination with
surface active chemicals to emulsify the organic
constituents. Emulsified organics are then
encapsulated and solidified and discharged to a
prepared area where the gel continues to set and
stabilize. The resulting solids, though friable,
microencapsulate any organic substances that
may have escaped emulsification. The system
can be operated at 10 to 100 percent solids in
the waste feed; water is added to drier wastes.
Portions of the water contained in the wastes
are involved in three reactions after treatment:
(1) hydration, similar to that of cement
reactions; (2) hydrolysis reactions; and (3)
equilibration through evaporation. There are no
side streams or discharges from this process.
This technology is suitable for contaminated
soils, sludges, and other solid wastes. The
process is applicable to electroplating wastes,
electric arc furnace dust, and municipal sewage
sludge containing heavy metals such as
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and
zinc.
Technology Performance
The technology was demonstrated in March
1989 at the Portable Equipment Salvage Co.,
site in Clackamas, Oregon. Preliminary results
are available in a Demonstration Bulletin
(October 1989). The Technology Evaluation
Report (TER) was published in September 1990
(EPA/540/5-89/01 la). The Applications
Analysis Report (AAR) was completed in May
1991 (EPA/540/A5-89/011). Following is a
summary of the SITE demonstration:
• The Chemfix Technology was effective in
reducing the concentrations of copper and
lead in the TCLP extracts. The
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
245
-------
concentrations in the extracts from the
treated wastes were 94 to 99 percent less
than those from the untreated wastes. Total
lead concentrations of the untreated waste
approached 14 percent.
The volume of the excavated waste material
increase ranged from 20 to 50 percent
In the durability tests, the treated wastes
showed little or no weight loss after 12
cycles of wetting and drying or freezing and
thawing.
The unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
of the wastes varied between 27 and 307
lbs/in2 after 28 days. Hydraulic
conductivity decreased by more than one
order of magnitude.
The air monitoring data suggest there was
no significant volatilization of PCBs during
the treatment process.
The cost of the treatment process was
$73/ton of raw waste treated, exclusive of
excavation, preteeatment, and disposal.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Edwin Earth
U.S. EPA
Center for Environmental Research Information
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7669
Technology Developer Contact:
Sam Pizzitola
Chemfix Technologies, Inc.
National Technology Marketing Center
161 James Drive West
St. Rose, LA 70087
504/461-0466
246
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
In Situ Solidification and Stabilization
Metals and SVOCs in Soils
Technology Description
The soil-cement mixing wall (SMW) technology
involves the in situ fixation, solidification, and
stabilization of contaminated soils. The
technology has been used for more than 18
years to mix soil, cement, and chemical grout
for various construction applications including
cutoff walls and soil stabilization. Multi-axis
overlapping hollow-stem augers are used to
inject solidification and stabilization agents into
contaminated soils in situ. The agents are then
blended into the soils. The augers are mounted
on a crawler-type base machine. A batch
mixing plant and raw materials storage tanks
also are used. This system can treat 90 to 140
yds3 of soil in 8 hours at depths of up to 100 ft
below ground surface.
The SMW technology produces a monolithic
block that extends down to the treatment depth.
The volume increase ranges from 10 to 30
percent, depending on the nature of the soil
matrix and the amount of reagents and water
required for treatment.
This technology can be applied to soils
contaminated with metals and semivolatile
organic compounds such as pesticides, PCBs,
phenols, and PAHs.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in 1989. Site
selection is underway.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
Technology Developer Contact:
David Yang
S.M.W. Seiko, Inc.
2215 Dunn Road
Hayward, CA 94545
510/783-4105
FAX: 510/783-4323
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
247
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization Process
Inorganic and Organic Compounds in Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
Technology Description
This in situ solidification and stabilization
technology immobilizes organic and inorganic
compounds in wet or dry soils, using reagents
(additives) to produce a cement-like mass. The
basic components of this technology are: (1)
Geo-Con's deep soil mixing system (DSM), a
system to deliver and mix the chemicals with
the soil in situ', and (2) a batch mixing plant to
supply the International Waste Technologies'
(IWT) proprietary treatment chemicals.
The proprietary additives generate a complex,
crystalline, connective network of inorganic
polymers. . The structural bonding in the
polymers is mainly covalent. The process
involves a two-phased reaction in which the
contaminants are first complexed in a fast acting
reaction, and then in a slow acting reaction.
The DSM system involves mechanical mixing
and injection. The system consists of one set of
cutting blades and two sets of mixing blades
attached to a vertical drive auger, which rotates
at approximately 15 rpm. Two conduits in the
auger are used to inject the additive slurry and
supplemental water. Additive injection occurs
on the downstroke; further mixing takes place
upon auger withdrawal. The treated soil
columns are 36 inches in diameter, and are
positioned in an overlapping pattern of
alternating primary and secondary soil columns.
The technology can be applied to soils,
sediments, and sludge-pond bottoms
contaminated with organic compounds and
metals. The technology has been laboratory
tested on soils containing PCBs, POP, refinery
wastes, and chlorinated and nitrated hydro-
carbons. The soil mixing technology can treat
any waste for which a physical or chemical
reagent is applicable.
Technology Performance
An EPA SITE Program demonstration was
conducted at a PCB-contaminated site in
Hialeah, Florida, in April 1988. Two 10-by-20-
foot test sectors of the site were treated — one
to a depth of 18 feet, and the other to a depth of
14 feet. Ten months after the demonstration,
long-term monitoring tests were performed on
the treated sectors. The Technology Evaluation
Report (EPA/540/5-89/004a) and Applications
Analysis Report (EPA/540/A5-89/004) have
been published.
Key findings from the demonstration are
summarized below:
• Immobilization of PCBs appears likely, but
could not be confirmed because of low PCB
concentrations in the untreated soil.
Leachate tests on treated and untreated soil
samples showed mostly undetectable PCB
levels. Leachate tests performed one year
later on -treated soil samples showed no
increase in PCB concentrations, indicating
immobilization.
• Sufficient data were not available to
evaluate the performance of the system with
regard to metals or other organic
compounds.
• Each of the test samples showed high
unconfined compressive strength, low
permeability, and low porosity. These
physical properties improved when retested
one year later, indicating the potential for
long-term durability.
248
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
• The bulk density of the soil increased 21
percent after treatment This increased the
volume of treated soil by 8.5 percent and
caused a small ground rise of one inch per
treated foot of soil.
• The unconfined cornpressive strength (UCS)
of treated soil was satisfactory, with values
up to 1,500 psi.
• The permeability of the treated soil was
satisfactory, decreasing four orders of
magnitude compared to the untreated soil,
or 10'6 and 10'7 compared to 10"2 cm/sec.
• The wet and dry weathering test on treated
soil was satisfactory. The freeze and dry
weathering test of treated soil was
unsatisfactory.
• The microstructural analysis, scanning
electron microscopy (SEM), optical
microscopy, and x-ray diffraction (XRD),
showed that the treated material was dense
and homogeneously mixed.
• Data provided by IWT indicate some
immobilization of volatile and semivolatile
organics. This may be due to organophilic
clays present in the IWT reagent. There are
insufficient data to confirm this
immobilization.
• Performance data are limited outside of
SITE demonstrations. The developer
modifies the binding agent for different
wastes. Treatability studies should be
performed for specific wastes.
The process was used to remediate the PCB-
contaminated site in Hialeah, Florida, during
1990.
Remediation Costs
Costs for this process are estimated at $194/ton
for the 1-auger machine used in the
demonstration and $ 11 I/ton for a commercial 4-
auger operation.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Mary Stinson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908/321-6683
Technology Developer Contact:
Jeff Newton
International Waste Technologies
150 North Main Street, Suite 910
Wichita, KS 67202
316/269-2660
Chris Ryan
Geo-Con, Inc.
4075 Monroeville Blvd.
Monroeville, PA 14246
412/856-7700
FAX: 412/373-3357
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
249
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
NOMIX® Technology
Metals in Waste Lagoons and Spills
Technology Description
The NOMIX® technology is a patented
solidification and stabilization process that can
be applied to contaminated media in situ,
without the need for mixing or equipment. The
technology combines specially formulated
cementitious materials with waste media.
Because the material hardens faster than
conventional concrete, there is a savings in
remediation time.
The NOMTX® solidification compounds consist
of specially formulated cements, sands,
aggregates, and various combinations thereof.
The dry components and their reacting rates
with the wet waste are closely controlled,
allowing rapid and efficient solidification. The
contaminated media may be diluted with water,
if necessary, to facilitate the solidification
process. If the addition of water is necessary, it
may be introduced into the waste media before
the addition of the preblended solidification
compounds to create a homogenous solution of
waste and water. The solidification compounds
are then poured through the waste and water
solution in a consistent manner, allowing the
complete absorption of the waste solution and
the formation of a solid mass. The process
produces a relatively homogenous treated mass
compared to that produced by solidification
processes using mixing equipment.
Applications of the technology require little
labor because mixing is accomplished simply by
pouring the solidification compounds through
the waste combination. Greater quantities of
waste can be solidified by this process than with
normal concrete mixtures because the premixed
dry compounds are more absorbent. The
permeability of the treated waste can be
controlled by adjusting the mixture's formula.
The process can address contaminated waste
contained in drums (or other containers), a
minor spill, or even a lagoon. Each of these
situations will require its own particular
installation procedures. After solidification, the
units can be moved for storage, or left in place.
The solidified mass may be encased for extra
protection with a non-shrink, structural concrete,
or a high quality waterproof coating.
The NOMIX® technology is currently most
suitable for solidification and stabilization of
aqueous wastes in the following situations:
• Solidification of drum waste;
• Solidification of minor spills in situ to
minimize soil, facility, or plant
contamination; and
• Solidification of waste lagoons for long-
term, in-place storage, or for solidification
in preparation for removal.
The technology has been applied to solutions of
arsenic trioxide, barium bromide, cadmium
acetate, mercuric chloride, potassium chromate,
selenium dioxide, silver nitrate, and zinc sulfate,
among others. Hardened masses of each waste
were subjected to TCLP analysis as well as
American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM Standard C-109) compressive tests. In
all cases, the technology significantly reduced
the leachability of each waste stream and
achieved compressive strengths of a few
hundred psi.
As the technology is improved it will become
suitable for solidification of various wastes in
soils including inorganic wastes.
250
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Technology Performance
Solidification and stabilization using the
NOMIX® Technology was accepted into the
EPA SITE Demonstration Program in March
1991. The date and place of the demonstration
are undetermined.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Teri Richardson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7949
Technology Developer Contact:
David Babcock
Hazardous Waste Control, Inc.
435 Stillson Road
Fairfield, CT 06430
203/336-7020
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
251
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification of Spent Blasting
Heavy Metals in Spent Blasting Abrasives, Grit, and Sands
Technology Description
The goal of this technology is to recycle spent
abrasives into non-hazardous product that can be
reused as a valuable commercial product
available for unrestricted public use. In this
process, abrasives are screened and mixed with
asphalt and other aggregates. Less than one
percent inert debris (wood and metal scrap) is
produced, although treatment capacity varies
with the plant. Target contaminants are lead
and copper.
Technology Performance
A field demonstration of this technology was
conducted at the Naval Construction Battalion
Center at Port Hueneme, California, from
February 1991 through February 1992. The test
involved 1,200 tons of blasting paint from
vehicles.
Remediation Costs
Costs for use of this process are estimated at
$85/ton of waste. Approximately two months
are required for design.
Contacts
Jeff Heath and Barbara Nelson
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805/982-1657
Stan Brackman
R&G Environmental Services
P.O. Box 5940
San Jose, CA 95150
408/288-4188
252
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization
Organics and Inorganics in Soil, Sludge, and Liquid
Technology Description
This solidification and stabilization technology
applies proprietary bonding agents to soils,
sludge, and liquid wastes with organic and
inorganic contaminants to treat the pollutants
within the wastes. The waste and reagent
mixture is then mixed with cementitious
materials, which form a stabilizing matrix. The
specific reagents used are selected based on the
particular waste to be treated. The resultant
material is a non-leaching, high-strength
monolith.
The process uses standard engineering and
construction equipment. Since the type and
dose of reagents depend on waste characteristics
and treatability studies, site investigations must
be conducted to determine the proper treatment
formula.
The process begins with excavation of the
waste. Materials containing large pieces of
debris must be prescreened. The waste is then
placed into a high shear mixer, along with
premeasured quantities of water and SuperSet®
(WASTECH's proprietary reagent).
Next, pozzolanic, cementitious materials are
added to the waste-reagent mixture, stabilizing
the waste and completing the treatment process.
WASTECH's treatment technology does not
generate waste by-products. The process can
also be applied in situ.
WASTECH's technology can treat a wide
variety of waste streams consisting of soils,
sludges, and raw organic streams, such as
lubricating oil, aromatic solvents, evaporator
bottoms, chelating agents, and ion exchange
resins, with contaminant concentrations ranging
from ppm levels to 40 percent by volume. The
technology can also treat wastes generated by
the petroleum, chemical, pesticide, and wood-
preserving industries, as well as wastes
generated by many other manufacturing and
industrial processes. WASTECH's technology
can also be applied to mixed wastes containing
radioactive materials, along with organic and
inorganic contaminants.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in spring of 1989.
Bench-scale evaluation of the process is
complete, and a field demonstration at Robins
Air Force Base in Macon, Georgia, was
completed in August 1991. The WASTECH
technology was used to treat high-level organic
and inorganic wastes at an industrial sludge pit.
An abbreviated demonstration with a detailed
mass balance evaluation was completed in 1992.
The technology is being commercially applied
to treat hazardous wastes contaminated with
various organics, inorganics, and mixed wastes.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
253
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Terry Lyons
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7589
Technology Developer Contact:
E. Benjamin Peacock
WASTECH, Inc.
P.O. Box 4638
114TulsaRoad
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
615/483-6515
FAX: 615/483-4239
254
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtabie
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization with Silicate Compounds
Organics and Inorganics in Ground Water, Soil, and Sludge
Technology Description
This technology for treating hazardous waste
utilizes silicate compounds to solidify and
stabilize organic and inorganic constituents in
contaminated soils, sludges, and wastewater.
The organic chemical fixatipn/solidification
technology involves the bonding of the organic
contaminants into the layers of an alumino-
silicate compound. The technology involves the
formation of insoluble chemical compounds
which reduces the overall reagent addition
compared to generic cernentitious processes.
Pretreatment of contaminated soil includes
separation of coarse and fine waste materials,
and the crushing of coarse material, reducing it
to the size required for the solidification and
stabilization technology. The screened waste is
weighed and a predetermined amount of silicate
reagent is added. The material is conveyed to
a pug mill mixer where water is added and the
mixture is blended.
Sludges are placed directly into the pug mill for
addition of reagents and mixing. The amount of
reagent required for solidification and
stabilization can be adjusted according to
variations in organic and inorganic contaminant
concentrations determined during treatability
testing. Treated material is placed in confining
pits for on-site curing or cast into molds for
transport and disposal off site.
This technology has been successfully
implemented on inorganic and organic
contaminated hazardous remediation projects,
inorganic and organic industrial wastewater
treatment systems, industrial in-process
treatment, and RCRA land ban treatment of
F006 and K061 wastes.
The technology can be applied to a wide variety
of hazardous soils, sludges, and wastewaters.
Applicable waste media include the following:
• Inorganic-contaminated soils and sludges.
Contaminants including most metals,
cyanides, fluorides, arsenates, chromates,
and selenium.
• Organic-contaminated soils and sludges.
Organic compounds including halogenated
aromatics, PAHs, and aliphatic compounds.
• Inorganic- and organic-contaminated
wastewaters. Heavy metals, emulsified and
dissolved organic compounds in ground
water and industrial wastewater, excluding
low-molecular-weight organic contaminants
such as alcohols, ketones, and glycols.
Technology Performance
Under the EPA SITE Demonstration Program,
the technology was demonstrated in November
1990 at the Selma Pressure Treating (SPT)
wood preserving site in Selma, California. The
SPT site was contaminated with both organics,
mainly PCP, and inorganics, mainly arsenic,
chromium and copper. The Applications
Analysis Report and Technology Evaluation
Report is expected to be published in 1993.
Following is a summary of the results of the
demonstration:
• The technology can treat PCP. Extract and
leachate concentrations of PCP were
reduced by up to 97 percent.
• The technology can immobilize arsenic.
TCLP and TCLP-distilled water leachate
concentrations were reduced by up to 92
and 98 percent, respectively.
• The technology can immobilize chromium
and copper. Initially low TCLP and TCLP-
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
255
-------
distilled water leachate concentrations of
chromium (0.07 to 0.27 ppm) were reduced
up to 54 percent. Initial TCLP and TCLP-
distiUed water leachate concentrations of
copper (0.4 ppm and 9.4 ppm) were reduced
up to 99 and 90 percent, respectively.
• Treatment of the wastes resulted in volume
increases ranging from 59 to 75 percent (68
percent average).
• After a 28-day curing period, the treated
wastes exhibited moderately high
unconfined compressive strengths of 260 to
350 psi.
• Permeability of the treated waste was low
(approximately 1.7 X 10'7 cm/sec). The
relative cumulative weight loss after 12 wet
and dry and 12 freeze and thaw cycles was
negligible (less than 1 percent).
Remediation Costs
This technology is expected to cost
approximately $200/yd3 when used to treat large
amounts (15,000 yd^) of waste similar to that
found at the SPT demonstration site.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Edward Bates
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7774
Technology Developer Contact:
Stephen Pelger
Scott Larsen
Silicate Technology Corporation
7655 East Gelding Drive, Suite B—2
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
602/948-7100
FAX: 602/991-3173
256
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Soliditech Solidification/Stabilization Process
Organic and Inorganic Compounds, Metals, Ore and
Grease in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
This solidification and stabilization process
immobilizes contaminants in soils and sludges
by binding them in a concrete-like, leach-
resistant matrix.
Contaminated waste materials are collected,
screened to remove oversized material, and
introduced to the batch mixer where it is mixed
with (1) water, (2) Urrichem — a proprietary
chemical reagent, (3) proprietary additives, and
(4) pozzolanic material (fly ash), kiln dust, or
cement. After it is thoroughly mixed, the
treated waste is discharged from the mixer..
Treated waste is a solidified mass with
significant unconfined compressive strength,
high stability, and a rigid texture similar to that
of concrete.
This technology is intended for treating soils
and sludges contaminated with organic
compounds, metals, inorganic compounds, and
oil and grease. Batch mixers of various
capacities are available to treat different
volumes of waste.
Technology Performance
The process was demonstrated in December
1988 at the Imperial Oil Company/Champion
Chemical Company Superfund site in
Morganville, New Jersey. This location
formerly contained bom chemical processing
and oil reclamation facilities. Wastes treated
during the demonstration were soils, filter cake,
and oily wastes from an old storage tank.
These wastes were contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons, PCBs, other organic chemicals,
and heavy metals.
Key findings from the Soliditech demonstration
are summarized below:
• Chemical analyses of extracts and leachates
showed that heavy metals present in the
untreated waste were immobilized.
• The process solidified both solid and liquid
wastes with high organic content (up to 17
percent), as well as oil and grease.
• Volatile organic compounds in the original
waste were not detected in the treated
waste.
• Physical test results of the solidified waste
samples showed: (1) unconfined
compressive strengths ranging from 390 to
860 psi; (2) very little weight loss after 12
cycles of wet and dry and freeze and maw
durability tests; (3) low permeability of the
treated waste; and (4) increased density
after treatment.
• The solidified waste increased in volume by
an average of 22 percent. Because of
solidification, the bulk density of the waste
material increased by about 35 percent.
• Semivolatile organic compounds (phenols)
were detected in the treated waste and the
TCLP extracts from the treated waste, but
not in the untreated waste or its TCLP
extracts. The presence of these compounds
is believed to result from chemical reactions
in the waste treatment mixture.
• Oil and grease content of the untreated
waste ranged from 2.8 to 17.3 percent
(28,000 to 173,000 ppm). Oil and grease
content of the TCLP extracts of the
solidified waste ranged from 2.4 to 12 ppm.
• The pH of the solidified waste ranged from
11.7 to 12.0. The pH of the untreated waste
ranged from 3.4 to 7.9.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
257
-------
• PCBs were not detected in any extracts or
leachates of the treated waste.
• Visual observation of solidified waste
contained dark inclusions about 1 millimeter
in diameter. Ongoing microstructural
studies are expected to confirm that these
inclusions are encapsulated wastes.
A Technology Evaluation Report was published
in February 1990 in two volumes. Volume I
(EPA/540/5-89/005A) is the report; Volume H
(EPA/540/5-89/005B) contains data to
supplement the report. An Applications
Analysis Report was published in September
1990 (EPA/4540/A5-89/005).
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
Technology Developer Contact:
Bill Stallworth
Soliditech, Inc.
1325 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 385
Houston, TX 77077
713/497-8558
258
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Stabilization of Small Arms Range Soils
Lead in Soil
Technology Description
In this process, contaminated soil is treated ex
situ. The soil is removed and screened to
remove bullets and other debris. Bullets
screened out in this phase of the treatment are
recycled; other debris is disposed of in a
landfill.
Screened soil is mixed with sodium silicate,
Portland cement, and water. The mixture is
then cured, and treated soil is returned to its
original location.
Target contaminants for this technology are
heavy metals, particularly lead. The goal of the
process is to reduce levels of lead to less than
EPA criteria.
Technology Performance
A field demonstration of this process was
conducted in 1990 at the SmaU Arms Range at
the Naval Air Station Mayport in Florida.
Approximately 170 yd3 of contaminated soil
was successfully treated in the demonstration.
TCLP levels of lead, copper, and zinc were
reduced — from 720 ppm to less than 0.9 ppm
for lead; from 7 ppm to less than 0.2 ppm for
copper; and from 4.1 ppm to less than 0.2 ppm
for zinc.
Remediation Costs
Estimated cost for use of this technology was
$490/ton of waste.
Contacts
Barbara Nelson and Jeff Heath
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043 ?
805/982-1668
Dr. Jeffrey Means
Battelle Memorial Institute
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
614/424-5442
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
259
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Stabilization with Lime
Hydrocarbons and Organics in Sludge
Technology Description
This technology uses lime to stabilize acidic
sludge containing at least five percent
hydrocarbons (typical of sludge produced by
recycling lubricating oils). The technology can
also stabilize waste containing up to 80 percent
organics. The process tolerates low levels of
mercury and moderate levels of lead and other
toxic metals. No hazardous materials are used
in the process. The lime and other chemicals
are specially prepared to significantly improve
their reactivity and other key characteristics.
Sludge is removed from a waste pit using
conventional earthmoving equipment and mixed
with lime in a separate blending pit. The
temperature of the material in the blending pit
rises for a brief time to about 100°C, creating
some steam. After 20 minutes, almost all of the
material is fixed, however, the chemicals mixed
in the sludge continue to react with the waste
for days. The volume of the waste is increased
by 30 percent by adding lime.
The fixed material is stored in a product pile
until the waste pit has been cleaned. The waste
is then returned to the pit and compacted to a
permeability of 10'10 cm/sec.
Technology Performance
A SITE Program demonstration is planned for
the fall of 1993 or spring of 1994.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not yet available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7507
Technology Developer Contact:
Joseph DeFranco
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.
1762 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, California 92714
714/261-8860
260
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
-------
General Technology Development
Programs
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
263
-------
264
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Air Force Technology Demonstrations
Bioventing Initiative
In May 1992, the U.S. Air Force launched an
extensive program to examine bioventing as a
remedial technique at contaminated sites across
the country. Bioventing promotes aerobic
degradation of hydrocarbons in soil by direct
injection or vacuum extraction of air.
The Air Force Bioventing Initiative targets 138
sites with diesel fuel, jet fuel, or fuel oil in soil.
In selecting sites for the initiative, the Air Force
looked for characteristics appropriate for
bioventing, such as deep vadose soil, heavy
hydrocarbon contamination, and high air
permeability, the chosen sites represent a wide
range of depths to ground water, hydrocarbon
concentrations, and soil textures.
Short-term testing began at several sites in May
to determine the air permeability and in situ
respiration of the soil. At most sites, the test
system consists of a single vent well with
screening in the unsaturated zone and three soil-
gas monitoring wells at various distances from
the vent well. By injecting air through the vent
well and measuring the pressure changes in the
soil-gas monitoring wells, the soil's air
permeability and the radius of influence of the
injection well can be determined. The rate of
biodegradation in the soil is then determined by
temporarily shutting down air injection to the
vent well and measuring the rate of in situ
oxygen respiration in the monitoring wells.
Where short-term tests reveal adequate air
permeability and degradation rates, the Air
Force initiates long-term bioventing tests. The
requisite apparatus and an operation manual are
provided to each facility so that base personnel
can monitor the progress of long-term testing
for two to three years.
At small sites, long-term testing may well
complete the necessary remediation. At large
sites, data from long-term testing will be used to
design full-scale bioventing systems. By
January 1993, preliminary testing had been
completed and 33 systems had been installed at
15 Air Force Bases (AFBs) and Air National
Guard Bases (ANGBs). Initial results were very
promising, with degradation rates measured as
high as 5,000 mg/kg/year.
The Air Force's decision to examine bioventing
on such a large scale was prompted by a
successful demonstration of the technology at
Tyndall AFB, Florida. At this site, bioventing
was coupled with moisture addition to remediate
jet fuel in sandy vadose-zone soil. Before
bioventing was initiated, hydrocarbon
concentrations ranged from 30 to 23,000 mg/kg.
After seven months of treatment, one-third of
the total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and
nearly all of the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene (BTEX) had been removed. Similar
projects have been undertaken in cooperation
with the U.S. EPA's Bioremediation Field
Initiative at Hill AFB, Utah, and Eielson AFB,
Alaska.
The Tyndall AFB project demonstrated several
advantages of bioventing over alternative
oxygen delivery systems. First, bioventing uses
low-pressure air flow, so vapor phase
hydrocarbons that are volatilized during the
venting process are biodegraded before they
escape from the soil. This eliminates the need
for expensive off-gas treatment and can reduce
the cost of remediation significantly. Second,
bioventing appears to be the only cost-effective,
in situ technique for remediating non-volatile
and low-volatility hydrocarbons like fuel oil and
Federal Remediation Technologies Rouhdtable
265
-------
diesel. Third, bioventing can be used to treat
contaminants in areas where structures and
activities cannot be disturbed, because air
injection wells, air blowers, and soil-gas
monitoring wells for a relatively non-invasive
apparatus.
General Site Information
There are more than 4,300 documented Air
Force disposal sites requiring investigation and
possible remediation. At least half of these sites
are contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons.
Depending on site-specific conditions,
bioventing could.be potentially applicable at
these sites.
Under the Bioventing Initiative, bioventing
demonstrations have begun at the following Air
Force installations: Beale AFB, California; EgBn
AFB, Florida; Eielson AFB, Alaska; F.E.
Warren AFB, Wyoming; Galena AFB, Alaska;
Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts; Hill AFB, Utah;
K.I. Sawyer, Michigan; McGuire AFB, New
Jersey; Newark Air Force Station, Ohio; Offutt
AFB, Nebraska; Plattsburgh AFB, New York;
Robins AFB, Georgia; Vandenberg AFB,
California; Westover AFB, Massachusetts; and
Battle Creek ANGB, Michigan.
Contact
Maj. Ross N. Miller
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
AFCEE/EST
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
210/536-4331
FAX: 210/536-9004
266
Fr-deral Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Mixed Waste Landfill
The mission of the Mixed-Waste Landfill
Integrated Demonstration (MWLID) is to assess,
demonstrate, and transfer technologies and
systems that lead to faster, better, cheaper, and
safer in situ characterization, remediation, and
containment of landfills in arid environments
that contain heavy metals in complex mixtures
with organic, inorganic, and radioactive wastes.
The approach involves the use of non- or
minimally intrusive characterization
technologies, removal of the most mobile
contaminants that are of most concern to the
regulatory community, and use of verifiable
containment methods for the isolation of the
remaining constituents. The approach promises
to minimize risk to the public and site workers
with a significant cost savings. Beyond the
development and demonstration of these
technologies and systems, there is a strong focus
on their transfer to users in both DOE and the
commercial sector. MWLID is receiving
information from local, state, and federal
regulatory agencies, as well as commercial firms
and public interest groups on the impacts these
technologies are having.
General Site Information
MWLID is demonstrating technologies at three
sites. The Chemical Waste Landfill and the
Mixed Waste Landfill are located at Sandia
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. The other site is the RB-11 mixed
waste landfill at Kirtland Air Force Base
(KAFB), New Mexico. The KAFB site
illustrates DOE's commitment to the transfer of
technologies to non-DOE customers.
The characterization technology assessments are
focused on pre-screening, drilling, field
laboratory, and borehole technologies. Pre-
screening encompasses geostatistical routines in
the software package for borehole optimization.
Drilling applications involve directional,
subsurface access. The field laboratory uses
field deployable analytical methods for the
screening and minimization of environmental
sampling. Borehole technologies include
flexible membrane liners and downhole sensors.
The focus of remediation efforts is on the
removal of the most rapidly moving constituents
and isolation of the remaining constituents on
either an interim1 (<30 years) or permanent
basis. An integration of existing technologies is
being performed for removal of VOCs by a
Thernially Enhanced Vapor Extraction System
(TEVES), using resistance and radio frequency
(RF) heating in combination with vacuum vapor
extraction and catalytic oxidation of off-gases.
Isolation technologies include the demonstration
of innovative soil caps, the in situ emplacement
of soil grouts for verification, and the
enhancement of natural soil moisture migration
barriers.
All of the characterization technologies currently
funded by the MWLID have been demonstrated.
Remediation technologies will be demonstrated
in the near-term. Several technologies, most
notably the flexible membrane lining system
(SEAMIST™) and the directional drilling
capabilities (Ditch Witch™), are, or soon will be,
commercially available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
267
-------
Contact
Jennifer Nelson
Sandia National Laboratories
Department 6621
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5800
505/845-8348
268
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Organics in Soils and Ground Water at Non-Arid Sites
This integrated demonstration program is
developing, demonstrating, and comparing
technologies for remediation of volatile organics
(e.g., TCE, PCE) in soils and ground water at
non-arid DOE sites. The demonstration
provides for technical performance comparisons
of different available technologies at one
specific site, based on cost effectiveness, risk
reduction effectiveness, technology
effectiveness, and general acceptability.
Specifically, the demonstration involves
characterization, off-gas treatment techniques,
and other technologies associated with the
remediation of soils and ground water
contaminated with volatile organics. The
demonstration also is designed to establish
control and performance prediction methods for
the individual technologies so they can be
scaled up for full-scale remediation programs.
Technology transfer to governments agencies
and the industrial sector is a critical facet of the
DOE demonstration program.
The technology emphasis for this integrated
demonstration is in situ remediation because it
has tremendous advantages over above-ground
treatment. In situ remediation technology has
the potential to be more effective in less time at
a reduced cost and also had the benefit of
minimizing worker exposure. Three in situ
remediation systems have been or will soon be
demonstrated: (1) in situ air stripping or air
sparging, (2) in situ bioremediation, and (3) in
situ heating (ohmic [six phase]) and radio
frequency.
Directional well drilling, developed by the
petroleum and utility installation industries,
provides a tool to improve access to the
subsurface for characterization, monitoring, and
remediation. A full-scale field demonstration
using horizontal wells in combination with in
situ air stripping (air sparging) has been
conducted at the Savannah River site as part of
the Integrated Demonstration Program. Two
horizontal wells were installed along an
abandoned process sewer line that is known to
have leaked TCE and PCE. One well, installed
below the water table and within the
contaminated zone, was used for injection of air.
The second well, installed above the water
table, was used as a vapor extraction well. The
system was demonstrated for 20 weeks. A total
of 16,000 Ibs. of chlorinated solvents was
removed from the test site during the period.
Characterization technologies already
demonstrated include depth-discrete soil and
ground water sampling, cone penetrometer with
real-time analytical capabilities, and nucleic acid
probes for microbial characterization.
Monitoring technologies that have been
demonstrated include geophysical tomography,
fluid flow sensors, fiber optic chemical sensors,
real-time field analytical methods, and multi-
level vadose zone and ground water samplers.
Off-gas treatment technologies such as
photocatalytic oxidation, catalytic oxidation,
biotreatment, ion beam oxidation, steam
reforming, membrane separation, and UV
oxidation also are to be demonstrated.
General Site Information
This demonstration program is being conducted
at DOE's Savannah River Site in Aiken, South
Carolina. The Savannah River Site is located
on the upper Atlantic Coastal Plain. The site is
underlain by a thick wedge of unconsolidated
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
269
-------
Tertiary and Cretaceous sediments that overlay
the basement, which consists of pre-Cambrian
and Paleozoic metamorphic rocks and
consolidated Triassic sediments. Ground water
flow at the site is controlled by hydrologic
boundaries: flow at and immediately below the
water table is to local tributaries; and flow in
the lower aquifer is to the Savannah River or
one of its major tributaries. The water table is
located at approximately 135 feet. Ground
water in the vicinity of the process sewer line
contains elevated concentrations of TCE and
PCE to depths of greater than 180 feet.
Contact
Terry Walton
Brian B. Looney
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Savannah River Technology Center
Environmental Sciences Section
Aiken, SC 29802
803/725-5218
270
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Volatile Organic Compounds at Arid Sites
This integrated demonstration program will
develop and compare technologies for
removal/destruction of volatile organics (e.g.,
TCE, PCE) in arid sites. Control and
performance prediction methods must be
applicable to arid zones or environments with
large vadose zones. The program will cover aU
phases involved in an actual cleanup, including
all regulatory and permitting requirements,
expediting future selection and implementation
of the best technologies to show immediate and
long-term effectiveness. The demonstration
provides for technical performance comparisons
of different available technologies at one
specific site based on cost effectiveness, risk
reduction effectiveness, technology
effectiveness, and applicability.
Technologies in this integrated demonstration
include steam reforming, supported liquid
membrane separation, membrane separation, in
situ bioremediation, in situ heating, and in situ
corona destruction. The demonstration also
involves development of field screening and
real-time measurement capability and enhanced
drilling, such as sonic drilling.
General Site Information
The site for this demonstration program consists
of about 560 square miles of semi-arid terrain at
DOE's Hanford Reservation. The test location
contains primarily carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, and a variety of associated mixed
waste contaminants. About 1,000 metric tons of
carbon tetrachloride were discharged at waste
disposal cribs between 1955 and 1973.
Chemical processes to recover and. purify
plutonium at Hanford's plutonium finishing
plant resulted in the production of actinide-
bearing waste liquid. Both aqueous and organic
liquid wastes were generated, and routinely
discharged to subsurface disposal facilities. The
primary radionuclide in the waste streams was
plutonium, and the primary organic was carbon
tetrachloride.
Contact
Steve Stein
Environmental Management Organization
Pacific Northwest Division
4000 N.E. 41st Street
Seattle, WA 98105
206/528-3340
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
271
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Underground Storage Tanks
The Underground Storage Tank Integrated
Demonstration (UST-ID) was created in
February 1991 to develop alternatives to current
baseline methods for remediating underground
storage tanks (USTs). Where technology gaps
exist, the UST-ID is developing extensions to
current baselines and where uncertainties exist,
the UST-ID is developing improvements.
All technologies are being developed from a
systems perspective. For example, a state of the
art sensor for characterizing tank waste is
relatively useless without a way to place it in
the tank. The characterization system being
developed by the UST-ID therefore includes a
deployment system as well as instrumentation
and data validation tools.
Currently, the UST-ID is pursuing technologies
in four fields:
• Waste Characterization
• Waste Retrieval
• Waste Separation
• Low-level Waste (LLW) Form
These are grouped into two general areas with
complementary technical disciplines in each.
The first blends characterization and retrieval
using an arm-based manipulator system. The
retrieval portion is made up of technologies
being developed by the UST-ID and the
Robotics Integrated Program (also within EM-
50). The second group combines tank waste
separations (or pretreatment) technologies with
LLW form development.
Characterization/ Retrieval Technologies
Characterization:
Tank waste constituents range from sodium
nitrates to transuranics. The waste has three
forms: supernatant (liquid), sludges, and
saltcake that can be as hard as cement.
Radiation dose rates range from a few 100
mR/hr to 5,000 R/hr. The remediation task is
complicated by significant uncertainty regarding
the nature of the waste in a single tank.
Characterization has traditionally been limited
by high analytical costs and an inability to
obtain data from many points in the tanks.
Hence, technology development has focused on
sensors that will decrease analytical time and
generate a means for deploying sensors inside
the tank.
Technical direction of the UST-ID in
characterization is focused during FY 1993 on
spectrographic demonstration in a hot cell using
actual waste core samples. The primary
technologies currently under development and
review are the Laser Raman Scattering
Spectroscopy and the Acoustic-Optic Tunable
Filter Spectroscopy.
Retrieval:
This portion of the demonstration will focus on
four major systems: early deployment system
(EDS), light duty utility arm (LDUA), long
reach arm (LRA), and end effectors.
The EDS is a simple vertical deployment device
that can rapidly insert and retrieve a changeable
set of sensors for surveillance, mapping, and
inspection. They provide early access to a tank
for testing systems and equipment that will be
used on the LDUA. The LDUA is an
articulated robotic arm used for surveillance,
characterization, and limited sampling (e.g., 19-
272
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
L or 5-gal samples). It is designed to access a
tank through a 12-in. riser, deploy vertically 40
ft, extend horizontally a minimum of 9 ft, be
intrinsically safe, and carry with it a large
variety of end effectors for characterization,
surveillance, and limited sampling.
The LRA is a large articulated robotic arm for
full scale waste retrieval. It will be designed to
access tanks through a small riser
(approximately 40 in.). It will deploy vertically
40 ft, extend horizontally a minimum of 45 ft.,
and position as much as several hundred to a
thousand pounds of equipment. It will be
capable of retrieving all three waste forms, as
well as in-tank hardware. It is controlled by an
operator or computer. Operator and public
safety during retrieval is a key design
component.
End effectors for the LRA are being developed
to accomplish retrieval, characterization,
surveillance, and sampling.
Separations/Low-Level Waste Technologies
Separations:
This portion involves a three-phased
development approach corresponding to the
types of UST waste to be treated: supernate,
salt cake, and sludge. The first phase will focus
on removing key constituents for supernate
using ion exchange, calcination and other
methods, and methods yet to be identified for
removing selected radionuclides. The second
phase will focus on treating salt cake by
dissolution and will develop methods for
separating solids and liquids. Lastly, sludge
treatment will be developed in conjunction with
the Efficient Separations and Processing
Integrated Program.
To support the separation technologies, compact
processing units (CPU) will be developed using
a modular or distributed processing concept.
These CPUs are an alternative to a large,
permanent facility and are currently being
considered by DOE's Office of Waste
Management (EM-30) as one means of
deploying their initial separations processes.
During FY 1993, the ion exchange technologies
developed by the Savannah River National
Laboratory will be evaluated for incorporation
into the first fieldable CPU. The organic and
nitrate destruction technologies will be initiated
in late FY 1993. The CPUs will be designed
and a system specification will be developed for
competitive bid by industry.
During FY94, technologies for treating sludges
developed by the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory will be demonstrated and validated
using the transuranium extraction (TRUEX)
model. Sludge from the Melton Valley waste
tanks will be washed, the supernate passed
through ion exchange columns containing the
resorcinol-formaldehyde resin in development at
Savannah River. The sludge will be treated
with a TRUEX process, and the results will be
compared to the predictive model for TRUEX,
supported by the Argonne National Laboratory.
The LLW form development will focus on
testing two alternatives to the current disposal
form for low-level waste (grout): nitrate to
ammonia and ceramic (NAC) and polyethylene.
The NAC process destroys nitrates and produces
a ceramic LLW form in one process. The
resulting ceramic can be sintered, which would
destroy all organics by the high heat added
during the final • phase. The polyethylene
process takes a dry waste stream and
encapsulates it into a solid polyethylene matrix
that can be extruded into the desired form.
General Site Information
The technologies developed in the UST-ID
program will be used in remediation actions at
five participating DOE sites: Hanford, Fernald
Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River. The
five sites began operations between 1943 and
the early 1950s. They originally supported
nuclear fuels production, operations, and
research programs as part of the development of
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
273
-------
nuclear weapons subsequent to World War n.
Most of the site missions have evolved from
war production to peaceful uses of nuclear
power, research and development, and
environmental cleanup.
A variety of processes were used to produce
nuclear fuels at these sites. Most UST waste
was generated by the processes used to separate
nuclear fuels from other components. In the
tanks, separation chemicals mixed with the
fission and decay products generated in the
initial production step. Early separation
processes generated high concentration waste.
Modern processes were designed to minimize
these waste concentrations.
The major emphasis of the UST-ID is the
single-shell storage tanks (SSTs) located at the
Hanford site, located in the southeastern section
of Washington State near the cities of Richland,
Kennewick, and Pasco. The Hanford site has
operated since 1943 with a primary mission of
producing plutonium isotopes. Plutonium was
produced by irradiation of enriched uranium in
eight nuclear reactors located along the
Columbia River. The plutonium was separated
from the remaining uranium and fission
products by chemical processes. It was then
sent off site for further purification.
The waste generated by the different chemical
separation processes has been stored in 177
USTs for future retrieval and treatment for final
disposal. There are eight UST design types
ranging in age from six to 49 years. Of the 177
USTs, 149 are of a single carbon steel shell
with a reinforced concrete shell. The remaining
28 have dual carbon steel liners and range in
capacity from 208 to 3,785 m3 (55,000 to 1
million gal). Approximately 225,000 m3 (59.4
million gal) of high-level waste is stored in
USTs. All of the waste is alkaline with a large
percentage of sodium nitrate and nitrate salts
and metal oxides. The principle radionuclides
include ^U, 238U, 239Pu, and the uranium fission
products 90Sr and 137Cs, as well as their decay
products.
Contact
Roger Gilchrist
Technology Demonstration Program
Westinghouse Hanford Company
2355 Stevens Drive
P.O. Box 1970, MS L5-63
Richland, WA 99352
(509)376-5310
274
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Uranium Soils
The objectives of this integrated demonstration
are to:
• Demonstrate advanced technologies to
decontaminate uranium-contaminated soils;
• Demonstrate advanced technologies for field
characterization and precision excavation;
• Demonstrate a system of advanced
technologies that will work effectively
together to characterize, excavate,
decontaminate, and dispose of remaining
wastes for uranium-contaminated soils; and
• Provide a transfer of these technologies into
DOE restoration programs and the private
sector.
The demonstration is expected to be conducted
over five years. The results will go directly into
the Fernald Environmental Management Project
(FEMP) remediation process. Community
relations activities will be conducted as part of
the integrated demonstration in conjunction with
the community relations activities currently
ongoing under the FEMP CERCLA Program.
The integrated demonstration focuses on more
than just the decontamination process. It has
been organized to focus in six key areas:
• Characterization
• Excavation technologies
• Decontamination processes
• Secondary waste treatment
• Performance assessment
• Regulations
The demonstration provides for technical
performance comparisons of different available
technologies at one specific site based on cost
effectiveness, risk reduction effectiveness,
technology effectiveness, and general
applicability. Enhanced site characterization
and precise excavation technologies will be
combined with advanced uranium soil
decontamination processes to produce a
technology system for use at the FEMP and
throughout DOE for similar contamination
cleanups.
In August and September, 1992, the following
field screening characterization technologies
were demonstrated at DOE's Fernald site:
• Surface and subsurface gamma
spectroscopy.
• Mobile laser ablation inductively coupled
plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy.
• Beta scintillation detector.
• Long-range alpha detector.
The D&D and the Incinerator areas were
characterized using these technologies. In
addition, the standard grab sample and
laboratory analysis were evaluated. The results
of the technologies generally were consistent,
particularly at higher contamination, but there
was considerable scatter in the data.
The demonstration illustrated the importance of
interpreting the data in relation to regulatory
cleanup limits. Improvements for field
screening, as well as modifications for conveyor
belt application, are being made to the
techniques as a result of the demonstration
findings. In addition, a cost/benefit analysis is
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
275
-------
being conducted on the application of these
techniques.
Analysis of soil samples is aimed at
characterizing the chemical and physical
properties of both the soils and uranium wastes.
The tests are concentrating on defining the basic
chemistry and mineralogy of the soils, size
fractionation of the soils, uranium/soil fraction-
ation characteristics, leachability of the uranium
wastes, physical characterization of the
pardculate and occluded uranium waste, and the
speciation (oxidation state, chemical structure,
mode of binding) of uranium and uranium/
organic mixtures in the Fernald soils.
Analyses have shown that the uranium exists
primarily in pardculate form. It is associated
with the sand and silt fractions of the soil, but
some samples also have uranium in the clay
fraction. More than 80 percent of the uranium
is in the hexavalent oxidation state. .In general,
hexavalent uranium has greater solubility than
uranium in other oxidation states. Thus, strong
oxidizing agents may not be necessary as part of
a chemical remediation scheme.
Removal of uranium from heavy textured soils
by conventional soil washing processes is
ineffective because of the sorption of uranium
on the high silt and clay content of these soils.
A chemical extraction technique, one that
selectively extracts uranium without causing
serious physiochemical damage to the soils, is
required. Treatability tests currently are being
conducted using a number of promising
technologies.
General Site Information
This integrated demonstration is being
conducted at the Fernald Site, where uranium is
the principal soil contaminant. The Fernald Site
is located on 1,050 acres near the Great Miami
River, 18 miles northwest of Cincinnati, OH.
Established in the early 1950s, the production
complex was used for processing uranium and
its compounds from natural uranium ore
concentrates. As the primary production site for
uranium metal for defense projects in the past,
the facility was key to national security.
Following discontinuation of production at
Fernald in 1989, environmental restoration
became the mission of the site. During the 38
years of operations, the soils at the production
area received varying amounts of uranium
contamination resulting from accidental spills
and emissions.
The technical strategy adopted by the CERCLA
program is to divide the site into five distinct
units:
• CRU1 — Waste pits 1-6, Clearwell and
Bum Pit.
• CRU2 — Other waste units (fly ash
pile/solid waste landfill).
• CRU3 — Production area.
• CRU4 — Silos 1, 2, 3, and 4.
• CRU5 — Environmental media.
Site soils are composed of clays, sands, and silts
in widely varying proportions. The chemical
and physical form of the uranium contamination
varies with location and soil type.
Contact
Kimberly Nuhfer
Fernald Environmental
Management Corporation
P.O. Box 398704
Cincinnati, OH 45239-8704
513/648-6556
FAX: 513/648-6914
Remediation
276
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOI Technology Demonstrations
Borehole Slurry Extraction
The borehole miner was developed about 10
years ago to remotely extract a finite ore body
with minimal environmental disturbance.
Although developed specifically as a mining
tool, the concept would be equally applicable to
extracting contaminated material, such as might
be present under a leaking fuel tank or
surrounding a contaminated well.
Successful prototype mining tests have been
conducted on uranium ore, oil sands, and
phosphate ore. Because system operation
depends on reducing the material to a pumpable
slurry in situ, it is applicable to sandstone, soil,
or clay-like sediments. In most cases, material
to be removed for contamination remediation
would be of the proper consistency.
The system operates through a single borehole,
which extends down through the material to be
extracted. Prototype tools have been
constructed to fit into hole diameters of 6 to 12
inches. One or more water jet nozzles direct
cutting streams radially from the tool to erode
an underground cavity, roughly cylindrical in
shape. The slurried material settles toward the
bottom of the cavity where it is pumped to the
surface by means of an eductor (jet pump),
which is integral with the tool.
On the surface, the slurry is treated to remove
the values. This is usually preceded by a
dewatering step involving settling ponds and
thickeners. In a remedial operation, it would be
at this stage that the material would be
decontaminated.
After treatment, the waste material (or clean
decontaminated material) can be pumped back
into the cavity by conducting the borehole
mining operation in reverse. Backfilling the
cavity in this manner prevents surface
subsidence. In a series of phosphate mining
tests conducted in St. Johns County, Florida, a
total of 1,700 tons of phosphate ore was
extracted from a bed about 20 feet thick at a
depth of about 250 feet. The underground
cavity had a diameter of 30 to 40 feet, and
production rates in excess of 40 tonsAir were
achieved. Cavities were backfilled as part of
the tests, and subsequent topographical surveys
showed negligible subsidence.
Contact
Dr. George A. Savanick
U.S. Bureau of Mines
5629 Minnehaha Ave., South
Minneapolis, MN 55417
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
277
-------
DOI Technology Demonstrations
Characterization and Treatment of Contaminated Great Lakes Sediments
The Contaminated Great Lakes Sediments
Metals Characterization and Treatment project
is being performed under an Interagency
Agreement between the Bureau of Mines
(Bureau) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Work commenced in April
1990 by the Bureau's Minerals Separations
research group at the Salt Lake City Research
Center (SLRQ.
The project has been conducted in cooperation
with the Engineering-Technology Work Group
in the Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program. It
is designed to investigate common mineral
processing technologies as removal or
remediation alternatives for contaminated
sediments.
The Bureau's contribution to the ARCS program
has been to evaluate the application of mineral
processing (or physical separation) technologies
for removal of low levels of contamination from
large volumes of sediment. Physical separation
techniques are widely used in the mining
industry to recover valuable minerals or metals
from ores. Methods such as size classification,
magnetic separation, gravity separation, or froth
flotation, collectively known as mineral
processing, can be applied in some cases to
separate contaminants from the bulk of polluted
sediment. Since these methods are
economically applied on a very large scale to
ores of low value-to-mass ratio, they are among
the least expensive separation processes in
modem industry. The objective is to reduce the
volume of contaminated material that requires
more expensive treatment by concentrating the
contaminants, in the same way an ore is
beneficiated. For this reason, the term
"pretreatment" is used to indicate that some
smaller amount of material will require further
decontamination.
In the Characterization and Treatment project,
the SLRC has studied sediments received from
three Great Lakes priority areas of concern:
Buffalo River, NY, on Lake Erie; Indiana
Harbor-Grand Calumet River, IN, on Lake
Michigan; and Saginaw River, MI, on Lake
Huron. The sediment samples contain both
organic and inorganic contamination.
Bench-scale testing by the Bureau of Mines has
identified situations where considerable
remediation cost savings may be realized by
using mineral processing pretreatments. Among
the most promising are grain-size-separation
technology to separate contaminated silt and
clay from relatively clean sand, and froth
flotation to separate organic contaminants from
the sediment.
Contact
J. P. Allen
Principal Investigator
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Salt Lake City Research Center
729 Arapeen Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
(801) 584-4147
278
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOI Technology Demonstrations
Solid/Liquid Separation
The disposal of contaminated sediments in an
impoundment can create unique long-term
disposal problems. When the impoundment
becomes full, the material has to be loaded,
usually with a dragline, and transported to an
approved disposal facility. Suspended
sediments, also can require days and even
months to settle so that the clean water can be
safely discharged or recycled.
The dewatering system consists of a solid waste
recovery system which separates solid from
liquid, using a waste slurry as a feed material.
The feed material is continuously injected with
a known quantity and specific type of synthetic
degradable polymer (usually a polyacrylamide)
which flows through a designed pipe delivery
system. This pipe serves as a mixing system
for the polymer and feed slurry to produce
flocculated material of sufficient size and
strength while using the least quantity of
polymer possible. The flocculated material
passes over a series of properly sized slotted
screens that retain the flocculated material and
allow the "clean" water to pass through. These
"static screens" are inclined at a fixed angle to
maximize flow capacity and screen capture of
solids content. The solid waste then can be
easily transported to an approved disposal
facility instead of being disposed of in
impoundments which can leak into the ground
water and require periodic cleaning out,
resulting in a rehandling of the material.
Wastes often associated with mining operations
are infamous for their toxic and/or voluminous
quantity when compared to waste from any
other industry. A field test unit (FTU) to
remove the solids from a wastewater slurry was
demonstrated in 1992 at mining sites in
Birmingham, Alabama, and Manassas, Virginia.
This investigation was conducted on non-toxic
fine waste slurries initially disposed of in
impoundments, which were required to be
emptied periodically. Feed flow rates for the
FTU varied from 50 to 175 gpm. The solids
content of the feed material varied from 2 to 17
percent. The dewatered solids exited the system
at approximately 50 percent solids and
continued to dewater. At the end of 24 hours,
the material has a solid content of
approximately 70 percent and was still yielding
clean water.
The cost of using the polymer ranged from
$0.50 to $0.60/ton of dry solids produced when
the polymer is purchased in bulk. The polymer
cost is the most significant cost of the system.
Except for the pumps used to deliver the feed
and polymer, the remaining system relies on
gravity flow through the circuit to accomplish
separation.
Contacts
Ronald H. Church
Bernie J. Scheiner
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Tuscaloosa Research Center
University of Alabama Campus
P.O. Box L
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
205/759-9446
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
279
-------
DOI Technology Demonstrations
Solid/Liquid Separation
from 12 to 17 with the underflow discharge
containing about 31 percent solids.
Costs associated with the polymer requirements
were calculated from the original cost of the
polymer when purchased in bulk ($0.50/lb.).
Processing of 1,000 gal. of 1.5 percent
contaminated river sediments required less than
$0.01 of polymer.
Contacts
Ronald H. Church
Carl w. Smith
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Tuscaloosa Research Center
University of Alabama Campus
P.O. Box L
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
205/759-9446
Dewatering of slurries has been successfully
accomplished by the proper use of polymers in
flocculating the fine paniculate matter
suspended in mineral processing streams. The
U.S. Bureau of Mines entered into a cooperative
research effort with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for the purpose of testing the
applicability of flocculation technology to the
removal of suspended particulates resulting from
dredging of sediments from navigable
waterways.
The process consisted of feed material from the
barge being pumped through a 4-inch line to a
centrifugal pump and exiting through a 4-inch
PVC delivery system. A 1,000-gal. fiberglass
tank was used to mix the polymer concentrate.
The polymer was pumped through a 1-inch line
using a variable speed moyno type pump and
introduced to the 4-inch feed line prior to
passing through a 6-inch-by-2-foot static mixer.
The polymer/feed material slurry traveled to the
clarifying tank where the flocculated material
settled to the bottom, and allowed "clean" water
to exit the overflow.
A pilot-scale flocculation unit was operated on-
site at the Corps' confined disposal facility in
Buffalo, New York. A loaded barge containing
sediments dredged from the Buffalo River was
delivered to the confined disposal facility for
flocculation studies. Contaminated sediments
were pumped from the barge to the flocculation
unit. Tests were conducted using polymer
concentrations of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 percent,
pumped at variable flow rates. Feed from the
barge consisting of about 1.5 percent solids was
pumped through the unit at about 200 gpm.
The MTU values of the discharge water ranged
280
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOI Technology Demonstrations
Treatment of Copper Industry Waste
The primary copper industry is one of the
largest generators of mining and mineral-
processing wastes. While most of the generated
waste materials pose no threat to the
environment, some may be subject to regulation
under Subtitle C of RCRA because of their
toxic corrosive characteristics. The wastes may
include slags, sludges, dusts, and liquids. They
often contain toxic and heavy-metal
contaminants as well as metal values which are
presently discarded.
The Bureau of Mines, at the Salt Lake Research
Center, is developing a technology to recover
valuable components from these materials and
stabilize the toxic constituents in
environmentally-safe forms. Recent
investigations have been directed toward the co-
processing of two waste streams: (1) an arsenic-
laden smelter flue dust; and (2) the acidic bleed
solution from an electrolytic copper refinery.
Acid in the refinery waste is used to solubilize
the metals in the flue dust, and valuable
components are subsequently recovered using
hydrometallurgical techniques.
The vitrification of arsenic sulfide, removed
from refinery effluents and acid-plant blowdown
solutions, in a dense, non-reactive, glass-like
material has also been studied in an effort to
provide an environmentally safe option for
disposing of arsenic.
Contact
K. S. Gritton
Supervisory Metallurgical Engineer
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Salt Lake City Research Center
729 Arapeen Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
(801) 584-4170
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
281
-------
DOI Technology Demonstration
Vapor Extraction and Bioventing Design
Gasoline in Soil and Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
To date, the practice of vapor extraction has not
included the application of air flow and vapor
transport models to guide data collection
techniques for site characterization and to define
optimal extraction .and injection well locations.
Quantification of the flow patterns associated
with a vapor extraction design will lead to
rational estimates of clean-up criteria and
system performance.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ground
water flow simulator MODFLOW has been
adapted to perform airflow simulations. This
airflow simulator, referred to as AIRFLOW, has
been coupled with an optimization algorithm to
formally predict the location and pumping rates
for wells to achieve the best venting system
design given the site geology. A vapor
transport code is under development that will
allow for the calculation of enhanced microbial
degradation (bioventing) associated with the
vapor extraction system.
The success of the model application fundamen-
tally depends on the ability to characterize the
air permeability in the unsaturated zone.
Heterogeneity with respect to air permeability
due to stratification of sediments and variable
moisture content distribution must be considered
for site specific application of the models. At
the USGS gasoline spill research site at
Galloway Township, New Jersey, field methods
have been developed to determine the
distribution of air permeability in the
unsaturated zone. AIRFLOW has been
successfully applied to quantify the flow paths
for a bioventing design. A vapor concentration
data base is being constructed for future
application. of the vapor transport code for
bioventing application.
General Site Information
Field research at the Galloway Township
gasoline site began in 1988. The site is one of
sandy sediments in the New Jersey Coastal
Plain. Gasoline leaked from a small
underground storage tank and contaminated
shallow ground water. In addition to the
venting and bioventing remediation study, an
extensive investigation of natural attenuation
mechanisms, including vapor transport and the
natural rate of aerobic and anaerobic microbial
degradation of hydrocarbons, is being
conducted. The research team seeks to combine
laboratory, field, and modeling techniques to
develop practical methods for estimating the
rates of contaminant movement and attenuation.
Contact
Herbert T. Buxton
U.S. Geological Survey
810 Bear Tavern Road
W.Trenton, NJ 08628
609/771-3900
282
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOI Technology Demonstrations
Well Point Containment
There are numerous containment and leachate
control methods in use today to prevent
contaminants from reaching ground water. Each
system, however, is dependent on site-specific
conditions. Subsurface or french drains which
typically consist of continuous lengths of
perforated pipe placed in trenches excavated
below ground water level is one method often
used. In this application, contaminated ground
water which flows under a natural or induced
hydraulic gradient to the french drain is
intercepted and conveyed to a sump or storage
tank prior to wastewater treatment. When
functioning properly, french drain systems are a
cost-effective containment strategy where, at
shallow depths, the subsurface permeability is
high and there is an active hydraulic gradient.
Well point systems are another inexpensive and
versatile technique used in controlling and
containing leachate pollution. These systems
can be used to alter the water table to facilitate
construction, remove leachate for treatment,
divert ground water around a contaminated area,
or control the movement of a contaminant
plume. Well point systems can consist of one
or a series of production wells that intercept and
withdraw contaminated fluids from saturated
soils where the contaminated soils are then
pumped to wastewater treatment or storage
facilities.
A research project was undertaken by the U.S.
Bureau of Mines to determined the effectiveness
of a well point system in conjunction with a
french drain for use in capturing impoundment
leakage. The test site chosen was a chemical
company waste impoundment which was
leaking acidic waters containing elevated levels
of iron and lead. The impoundment was
surrounded by a french drain system which had
been previously installed to contain the leakage.
As the metal-laden, acidic leakage from the
impoundment mixed with uncontaminated
ground water in the french drain, the pH of the
contaminated plume increased with the resultant
precipitation of the dissolved metals. The
precipitation of metals tended to clog the french
drain and frequent cleaning was necessary to
maintain effectiveness. The well point system
was strategically placed between the leaking
impoundment and the french drain to intercept
the contaminated ground water and allow the
french drain to act as a cut-off mechanism, thus
preventing the encroachment of uncontaminated
ground water.
Initially a series of 235 well points were placed
along the northern side of the impoundment
between the impoundment and the french drain.
A network of monitoring wells was installed
near the perimeter of the impoundment to assess
changes in the ground water quality.
Monitoring wells were placed in three general
areas: in the string of weE points, in the area
between the well points and the french drain,
and outside the french drain.
Samples were collected periodically for 140
days from each of the monitoring wells to
evaluate the effectiveness of the well point
system. Lead levels remained relatively
constant throughout the test period for
monitoring wells located in the string of well
points. Once the pumping began lead levels in
the monitoring wells between the well points
and the french drain declined. Lead levels
declined throughout the test period indicating
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
283
-------
the leakage had been effectively contained. A
corresponding rise in pH was noted in the fluids
captured by the trench drain from a low pH of
2.8 prior to pumping to a high of 3.7 at the end
of the test period.
Contacts
C.W. Smith
J.T. McLendon
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Tuscaloosa Research Center
P.O. Box L
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
205/759-9460
284
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
-------
Technology Contacts
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
287
-------
288
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
U.S. AIR FORCE
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Col. James Owendoff
Directorate of Environmental Quality
202/767-4616
RESEARCH PROGRAMS:
Dr. Michael Katona
Environics Directorate
Armstrong Laboratory
904/283-6272
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS:
Lt. Col. Ross Miller
Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence
210/536-4331
U.S. ARMY
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Rick Newsome
Office of the Assistant Secretary (IL&E)
703/614-9531
RESEARCH PROGRAMS:
Dr. Clem Meyer
Directorate of Research and Development
202/272-1850
GRANTS INFORMATION:
Dr. Clem Meyer
Directorate of Research and Development
202/272-1850
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS:
General Information:
Dr. Donna Kuroda
Environmental Restoration Division
202/504-4335
Programs:
Robert Bartell
U.S. Army Environmental Center
410/671-2054
SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE
RESEARCH:
Kathy Ann Kurke
202/272-0021
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
RESEARCH PROGRAMS:
Technology Integration Division
Office of Technology Development
301/903-7911
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS:
Technology Integration Division
Office of Technology Development
301/903-7917
SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION:
Technology Integration Division
Office of Technology Development
301/903-7449
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
(CRDAs):
Technology Integration Division
Office of Technology Development
301/903-7900
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Site Cleanup Technologies:
Technology Innovation Office
703/308-8800
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
289
-------
Cleanup Technologies for Sites
Contaminated with Radioactive Material:
Office of Radiation Programs
202/233-9350
RESEARCH PROGRAMS:
General Information:
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
513/569-7418
Grants Information:
Office of Exploratory Research
202/260-7473
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS:
General Information:
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program
513/569-7696
Programs:
SITE Emerging Technologies Program
513/569-7665
SITE Demonstration Program
513/569-7891
SITE Monitoring and Measurement
Technologies Program
702/798-2432
SITE Technology Transfer Program
513/569-7562
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory (Ground Water)
405/332-2224
SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE
RESEARCH:
202/260-7473
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
(CRDAs):
513/569-7960
290
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
innovative Remedial Technologies
Information Collection Guide
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING AN ABSTRACT
The following is the suggested format for submitting a remedial technology abstract for
inclusion in the Synopses of Federal Demonstration Projects for Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies. The format has been divided into five sections each
designed to gather specific information for the abstract These five sections are:
• Technology Description;
• Technology Performance;
• Remediation Costs;
• General Site Information; and
• Contacts.
Although a form has been provided for your convenience, you may submit abstract
information without use of this form, or you may attach additional information to this form
as necessary. If possible, this information should be presented in the same order as it '
appears in this example. It is understood that many abstracts will contain only partial
information, as the projects are still being tested; however, please submit as much
information as possible, as this will assist others in better understanding the innovative
treatment technology.
Abstract information, comments, and questions relating to this project should be directed
to:
Daniel M. Powell
Technology Inoyation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W., OS-110
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Innovative Remedial Technologies
Information Collection Guide
1. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Type of Technology and
Trichloroethylene):
Exact Technology Name (e.g., Bioremediation: Aerobic Biodegradation of
Waste Description (e.g.,
PCB's in sludge):
Media Contaminated (e.g., groundwater, soil, surface water):
Targeted Contaminants and Concentrations (e.g., PCB's at 500 ppm):
Description of Treatment Process:
Description of Preliminary or Secondary Treatment,
If Any:
Summary of Monitoring Results (e.g., air emissions, waste water discharge):
Limitations of Technology (e.g., weather, soil type, depth of water table):
Page 2 * *
-------
2. TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
Overall Attainment of Clean-Up Goals (e.g., residual contamination):
Summary of Data Used to Evaluate Technology Effectiveness:
Treatment Capacity (e.g., gallons per day, tons per day):
Types and Amounts of Residual Wastes (e.g., ash, steam, wastewater):
Ultimate Disposal Options (e.g., landfilling of ash):
Malfunctions and Disruptions Encountered:
Interfering Compounds:
Description and Length of Future Maintenance and Monitoring Required:
Additional Comments: _.
* * Pace 3 * *
Page 3
-------
3. REMEDIATION COSTS
Total cost of Remediation Project, Not Including Site Investigations:
Cost of Remediaiton Project per Unit of Waste,
Not Including Site Investigations (e.g., dollars per ton):
Design Costs:
Time Required for Design:
S'rte Preparation:
Equipment Costs:
Start-up and Fixed Costs (e.g., transportation, insurance, shakedown, training):
Labor Costs (e.g., salaries and living expenses):
Consumables and Supplies (e.g., chemicals, cement):
Utilities (e.g., fuel, electricity):
Effluent Treatment and Disposal:
Residuals/waste shipping and handling:
Analytical Services:
Maintenance and Modification:
Demobilization:
Projected Costs of Future Maintenance and Monitoring per Year.
Estimated Time Required for Operation and Maintenance:
Page 4 * *
-------
4. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
Site Name:
Site Location:
Time Period Covered by the Project:
Scale of Project (i.e., treatability study, bench scale, pilot test, field demonstration or full-scale
remediation):
Site Characterization Data (to the extent that it affects the treatment process):
Volume of Area Contaminated:
Facility's Current and Previous Uses:
5. CONTACTS
Facility Contact:
Contractor Contact:
Remedial Action Contractor:
Other Contacts:
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994— 517-750 / 80728
* * Page 5 * *
-------
-------
Suggestions
If you have comments on the usefulness and clarity of this publication, or if you have suggestions on
how to improve it, please make a note on this page. This is a self-addressed mailer—just add postage,
and drop it in the mail.
-------
Daniel M. Powell
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW, 5102W
Washington, D.C. 20460
fcWfwft
-------