EPA/540/2-89/001
                                             August 1989
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse
                  Abstracts
                              U.S. Erv»-.»
                              Resicn •>,-•
                              77lV,r.,;'
                               '
       Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
        Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
                               Disclaimer
This final report was furnished to the U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency by
COM  Federal  Programs Corporation, Fairfax, Virginia  22033, in  fulfillment  of
Contract No.  68-01-6939, Work Assignment No.  355-H900.  The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed in the abstracts are those of the authors of
the treatability  reports and are not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency or the cooperating Agencies. Mention of company or product
name is not to be considered as an endorsement by  the  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

-------
                          Executive Summary
The  Superfund Treatability  Clearinghouse  Abstracts  (Clearinghouse) were
created to  provide  access  to essential  treatability  information  by U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) personnel and other interested parties.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of  1980,  as  amended by  the Superfund  Amendments  and
Reauthorization Act (SARA)  of  1986,  preference  is to be  given to treatment
alternatives that permanently reduce the volume,  toxicity,  or mobility  of  the
hazardous waste. The  Clearinghouse initiative  provides access  to some initial
treatability studies that have been conducted at hazardous waste sites.

These initial studies were those collected to  aid in the development of treatment
methods for  excavated  soils which would trigger the Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) under the 1984  Hazardous and  Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the
Resource  Conservation and  Recovery Act  (RCRA). The  studies presented
contain treatability data  on various technologies for  soil and  debris. Alternatives
are being considered  by the Office of Emergency  and Remedial  Response
(OERR) to collect  additional treatability studies and expand the scope of  the
Clearinghouse  to  include a  more  complete  coverage of  different  media,
technologies, contaminants, and  report sources.

This  document is  designed  for use by the EPA  and other interested  parties
involved  in  hazardous  waste site  remediation projects.  The  abstracts  are
presented in a  standard format and are indexed  to assist the  User in locating the
studies deemed to  be relevant to their site-specific  problem. The copies of the
treatability study source reports  are  contained  in the  EPA Librarys' Hazardous
Waste Collection. A cognizant contact  is listed  on  each abstract to provide the
User with an  additional information  source to learn  more  about each study.
Some quality assurance limitations exist for these reports,  and the information
presented may not be  appropriate for  all  uses. The User must determine  the
appropriateness of  each abstract and each treatability study sources report on a
case-by case basis.
                                    in

-------
                           Table of Contents
Chapter                                                          Page

1     Introduction and Background  	    1
      1.1    Scope  	    1
      1.2   Development	    2
      1.3   Intended Users   	    3
      1.4   Treatability Clearinghouse Updates  	    3
      1.5   Limitations   	    3
      1.6   Organization of the Report  	    3

2     Framework of the Treatability Clearinghouse   	    5

3     Methodology for Using the Treatability
      Clearinghouse Abstracts  	    9


4     Compilation of Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts  	   45

5     References	   121
Appendix A
 Description of Contaminant Groups  	   123

-------
                              List of Tables
Table                                                             Page

 2.1     Format of Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse
           Abstract  	   7

 2.2     Technology Groups and Treatment Processes  	   8

 2.3     Abstract Data Lists   	   8

 3.1     Reference List for Contaminant Group Identification
           Sorted by Contaminant Groups  	    11

 3.2     Reference List for Contaminant Group Identification
           Sorted by Chemical Name  	    17

 3.3     Index of Treatability Study Abstracts by Treatment  	    25

 3.4     Index of Treatability Study Abstracts by
          Contaminant Group  	    31
                                      VI

-------
                          Acknowledgments
This document was prepared within EPA's  Hazardous Site  Control Division,
Russel Wyer, Director, under the direction of Don White, former  Chief of the
Remedial Planning and Response Branch. Carloine Roe  was the  EPA  Project
Coordinator.  Additional EPA support was provided by select EPA Headquarters
and Regional personnel who supplied valuable comments and recommendations.

Camp  Dresser & McKee  of Fairfax,  Virginia  prepared and collected  the
treatability study reports (Contract 69-01-6939 ). The COM project manager was
William Koski.
                                   VII

-------
                                            Chapter 1
                               Introduction and Background
The Comprehensive  Environmental  Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 as
amended by  the  Superfund  Amendments and
Reauthorization  Act  (SARA)  of  1986 authorizes the
U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)  to
identify,  investigate,  and  remediate abandoned
hazardous waste sites in this  country. SARA identifies
a preference to utilize alternatives that  use  treatment
as a principal  element.  Treatment  technologies that
should  be utilized are those that  permanently reduce
the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous
waste.
The EPA realizes  that  access to  accurate and
pertinent  information is essential to the  acceptance of
these treatment technologies.  The  valuable work
which has been done in this area must be compiled in
a usable  fashion so that the work on future sites can
build on this existing  information. A  Clearinghouse for
this  purpose  has  been established  to  make
information  available  to  the Agency  and  other
interested parties.
The Superfund Treatability  Clearinghouse is designed
to facilitate  communication  among  EPA  Regional
offices  and their contractors regarding the types of
treatability studies  conducted  to date  and  the
performance of  the various technologies.  This
document contains abstracts of  a limited number of
treatability studies performed  to date.  The treatability
study source reports are available in the EPA library's
Hazardous  Waste  Collection.  This compilation  of
treatability study abstracts  allows  the user to quickly
screen  all abstracted documents to  identify the most
promising studies  for  their  individual site-specific
application. Then the  source reports can be reviewed
for more  specific information taking  into consideration
the appropriateness of applying the information to the
User's specific site.
The  1984 Hazardous and  Solid  Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to the Resource Conservation  and Recovery
Act  (RCRA)  prohibit continued land  disposal  of
untreated  hazardous  wastes and  require  EPA  to
develop treatment standards that must be met before
disposal of contaminated soil  from Superfund sites is
allowed. The EPA Office of Emergency and  Remedial
Response (OERR) contracted COM Federal Programs
Corporation to  assist the  Agency  in fulfilling  these
obligations. An extensive soil treatment data collection
effort was conducted  throughout 1987 and  1988. The
results  from several  hundred previously conducted
studies were  collected and  reviewed.  These  initial
abstracts are from those studies  which focused on
treatment methods for excavated soils.
The results of this  intensive  data  collection  and
evaluation  effort  are contained  in  "Summary of
Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated
Soil, March 1989" (Technical Report EPA/540/2-89/ ).
This  summary report  contains  a  quantitative
comparison  of the  effectiveness  of  different
technologies  on various groups  of contaminants.
Using the  available treatability  study data, removal
efficiencies were  computed  for  each  of  these
technologies   and  ranked  according  to  their
effectiveness  on each  group of contaminants.  The
summary  report  presents effective  treatment
technologies for each contaminant group and provides
a  general  description  of  the technologies.   This
summary report may  also be used as a reference in
developing a  treatability  variance  for  the Land
Disposal Restrictions.

By comparison,   the  Superfund  Treatability
Clearinghouse provides additional specific design and
operational  information for each of the technologies by
making  available the  treatability  source  reports.
Although not  necessary,  the  User may  use  the
information contained  in  the Clearinghouse in
conjunction with  the summary report previously
described to identify treatment technology categories
which warrant further site-specific investigation.

1.1   Scope

The treatability  study  source  reports that were
abstracted  are documents  obtained  from various
sources  including  EPA  Superfund removal  and
remedial  activities;  EPA Office of  Research  and
Development  (OR&D) tests;  Department of Defense
and Department of Energy  studies;  state programs;
private party studies; and vendor demonstrations.  The
studies vary in completeness and  technical quality.
The source reports range from short papers to lengthy
multi-volume reports on full-scale test results.
The treatability studies abstracted cover a wide variety
of test  conditions.  The  studies  include  National
Priorities   List  (NPL) and  non-NPL  sites  and
encompass bench,  pilot, and full-scale  studies.  The
majority of the Clearinghouse treatability study reports
contain site-specific treatability information; however,
several examples are related to manufactured soils as
well. More than one abstract will appear for any report
that presents analytical results  for  more than  one
technology. Currently,  the  Superfund Treatability

-------
Clearinghouse is  focused on  soil and  sludge,  but
eventually it will be expanded to include other media
(surface water and  ground water). It is necessary to
recognize that some of these treatment  technologies
are still under development and the  effectiveness of
the technologies  on variable waste concentrations,
combinations  of  contaminants,  and differing  soil
characteristics is not fully documented.
There  will be  a continuing effort by EPA to collect
results from additional treatability studies and  expand
the field of technologies, contaminants,  and  media
covered  by  the Clearinghouse.  The SITE program,
OR&D research,  and RCRA/CERCLA  investigations
and remediations  are areas which will yield additional
studies applicable  to this effort.

1.2    Development
The   Superfund  Treatability  Clearinghouse  was
developed in response  to  the  need  to facilitate
communication regarding  treatability information  for
the remediation of hazardous waste sites. This EPA
OERR  initiative  is  the   first  step to  develop  a
clearinghouse  of treatability studies. Over the past two
years, a large number of treatability documents were
collected, evaluated, and screened so that  preliminary
conclusions  could  be  drawn   regarding  the
effectiveness  of  the  various  technologies  on
commonly  occurring classes of  contaminated  soils.
Information from these reports  was used  to develop
the "Summary of  Treatment Technology Effectiveness
for Contaminated  Soils",  referenced previously.  The
screened set of  documents,  providing quantitative
treatment results from this group of reports, was used
for this Superfund  Treatability  Clearinghouse report.
This  currently available information  is  presented as
received,  without  independent validation, to  facilitate
timely technology transfer. Due to the developmental
status of some of the technologies, the reproducibility
of the results cannot be ensured. However,  a User
who has a thorough knowledge of their specific site
conditions, can select treatment technology categories
which warrant further site-specific investigation.
The  Superfund Treatability  Clearinghouse Abstracts
were  developed to  capture information that would be
most  useful to a  User with a site-specific hazardous
waste problem. Each abstract is identified by a unique
Document Number, which can be used  to locate  the
abstract within this report and to locate the treatability
study  source  report in the  EPA library's  Hazardous
Waste  Collection. The first  section of  the  abstract
contains data  on the treatment process, the document
reference, a  cognizant contact,  and selected site-
specific  information from the  document. The  text
includes a   background  summary,  operational
information,  and  performance  results  based  on
conclusions documented  in the  treatability  report. The
results and conclusions are not necessarily  those of
the EPA. Information is then provided on the site-
specific  contaminants.  If  a  concise table  of
performance data was available in the study, this table
was  also included.  An advisory  statement regarding
quality assurance  of  the  data appears with  each
abstract.
The  key elements  of  interest to the  User  are the
contaminants to  be  treated  and  the  treatment
technology. For  a  small number of  studies,  there  is
insufficient  information on a  specific technology or
contaminant to assist the User. Thus technologies and
contaminants have been grouped to  identify a larger
set  of  studies that  may   be  of  interest.  This
contaminant grouping is consistent with  the regulatory
development  of  Land Disposal  Restrictions  for soils
and debris by the Office of Solid Waste. The chemical
compounds were  classified  into  one  of  thirteen
treatability groups:
   •  Halogenated non polar aromatics (W01)
   •  PCBs,  halogenated  dioxms, furans, and their
     precursors (W02)
   •  Halogenated  phenols, cresols,  amines,  thiols,
     and other polar aromatics (W03)
   •  Halogenated aliphatic compounds (W04)
   •  Halogenated cyclic aliphatics, ethers, esters, and
     ketones (W05)
   •  Nitrated  aromatic and  aliphatic  compounds
     (W06)
   •  Heterocyclics  and  simple  non-halogenated
     aromatics (WOT)
   •  Polynuclear aromatics (W08)
   •  Other polar non-halogenated organic compounds
     (W09)
   •  Non-volatile metals (W10)
   •  Volatile metals (W11)
   •  Other inorganics (W12)
   •  Other organics (W13)
The  many  discrete  treatment  technologies  were
classified into four technology  groups:
   •  Thermal treatment
   •  Physical/chemical treatment
   •  Biological treatment
   •  Immobilization
The  ability of the  User to screen all studies,  which
have been made available in the EPA libraries, and to
identify a  cognizant  contact will  allow appropriate
follow-up  to  identify  promising technologies for  the
User's application.  By  building  on  this past
experience, technologies  that  reduce  the  volume,
toxicity, or mobility  of the hazardous  waste  will be
encouraged and more widely used.

-------
1.3   Intended Users

The  intended  Users are primarily  project managers
from EPA,  contractors, or other  parties, with a site-
specific hazardous waste problem to remediate. This
Clearinghouse provides an  information source  useful
during  the  Remedial  Investigation/Feasibility  Study
(RI/FS) and early Remedial  Design  (RD)  phases. The
information  can assist  in technology selection, data
development  to  support  the  technology evaluation,
and design  of additional treatability studies.


1.4   Treatability Clearinghouse  Update

OERR  is considering alternatives  and mechanisms for
updates  to the Treatability  Clearinghouse. It  is
envisioned  that the Clearinghouse  information  would
be updated periodically. Additional  treatability studies
would be abstracted and abstract changes would be
implemented as information  is received and resources
allow.

Plans are underway to load the  abstract information
into  the OSWER  Solid  and  Hazardous  Waste
Technology Transfer Electronic  Bulletin  Board, This
mechanism will allow  more  flexible  access and
updating. Mr.  Jim  Cummings  from EPA's  Office  of
Program  Management Technology  (202-382-4686,
FTS) can be  contacted  for  further information on
access to  the  Bulletin  Board  and progress  on
including this treatability information.

1.5   Limitations

This compilation of treatability abstracts  does  not
encompass all known treatability studies conducted to
date. It does not include all  OR&D studies, any in-situ
studies, or  all media capable  of being  treated. The
media  covered in this  report  are limited to  soil and
sludge.  Other  study sources,  both site-specific and
general, such as EPA OR&D,  should be  consulted as
appropriate. EPA's  intent is to progressively expand
the Clearinghouse coverage to include ground water
and surface water treatability studies.

Each  of  the  treatability  studies reviewed  for the
Superfund  Treatability  Clearinghouse   project was
conducted for  a different purpose and in response to
different requirements. As a result, the treatment data
in the  reports  may have  several   of the  following
limitations.

   •  Treatment  data were unavailable for  some
     contaminants.

   •  Some  treatment technologies were only tested at
     laboratory/bench or pilot  scales, thereby limiting
     the applicability of data.
   • The untreated and treated soils from a particular
     test were sometimes analyzed  using  different
     analytical procedures.
   • The degradation products from waste destruction
     technologies  were  seldom   identified  or
     quantified, preventing  a  complete evaluation of
     the technologies' effectiveness.
   • Some  treatment   technologies   transfer
     contaminants  from  one medium  to  another;
     these  cross media  impacts were not always
     quantified.
   • Different analytical   protocols  were   used to
     generate treatment data for different tests. These
     various  protocols  may  not yield  comparable
     results.
   • Quality   assurance/quality  control   (QA/QC)
     procedures  used  for  field  sampling   and
     laboratory analysis were inconsistently reported,
     and few studies were  independently validated or
     reviewed, limiting the reliability of the data.
Many of these treatment  technologies are still under
development, and  the  effectiveness  of  the
technologies  on variable  waste  concentrations,
combinations  of contaminants, and in  the presence of
various  soil  characteristics  is   only   partially
documented.  Because  the   average   removal
efficiencies presented  herein are  based  on highly
variable data,  and are subject  to a  great deal of
uncertainty, caution should be   utilized  in  selecting
technologies for further evaluation.
The level of QA/QC  reported in each treatability study
source report is  indicated  in the Operational
Information  section of each abstract. As noted above,
there are many limitations to the quality and quantity
of the available data. For  this  reason, a note "Quality
assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses"
appears on each page to  advise the User to make an
independent determination as to  the applicability  and
appropriateness of the data for the purposes intended.

1.6  Organization of the Report
This report  describes the format  and  the contents of
the Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse and  presents
recommendations  for  the  use  of  this  information.
Chapter 2 contains a more  detailed description of the
abstract format. Chapter  3  provides the methodology
for  using the Clearinghouse Abstracts and associated
treatability  study  source  reports. An index to  the
abstracts is provided  in  Chapter 3.   The  abstracts
themselves are included  in Chapter 4 in alphabetical
order  by  the unique   Document  Number.  The
treatability study  source  reports  are  available in  the
EPA library's Hazardous Waste Collection, also sorted
in alphabetical  order by the  unique  Document
Number.

-------
                                              Chapter 2
                                 Framework of the Treatability
                                           Clearinghouse
The  Superfund  Treatability Clearinghouse  was
designed  for use by  the  project  personnel  or
reviewers  of  remedial  investigation/feasibility  studies
and  remedial  design  studies.  The  Treatability
Abstracts  have  been  designed  to  provide  the
information necessary  for the User to identify the
potentially  applicable studies  and  to determine
whether each study is of further interest with  respect
to a site-specific project. Once an applicable study is
identified,  the treatability study source report  can  be
found  in  the  EPA  library's Hazardous  Waste
Collection, using the unique Document Number  listed
on the abstract. A cognizant contact is also listed  on
the abstract, who  may be able to provide additional or
updated information on the treatability study.
The  standard format  of the  abstract  is provided  in
Table 2.1. There are both text and fixed format fields.
Information from  the  treatability  reports is used  to
complete  the  abstract  fields.  The  fixed  format
information was selected  to  enable indexing of the
information in various ways.  The  text  provides  an
overview  of  the  document  and,   where  possible,
specific information of interest to  remedial  project
personnel.
Each  element of  the abstract format  presented  in
Table 1 is discussed below:

     Treatment  Process: The standard  format of this
     information   is  Technology  Group-Process
     Description.  It was recognized that this would  be
     one  of  the  data elements  of primary  interest
     which could be used as a  sort criterion. Table
     2.2 lists the  process descriptions for each of the
     technology  groups - biological,  immobilization,
     physical/chemical,  and  thermal.  It should  be
     noted that  technologies where thermal  energy is
     used to change  the  phase of the contaminant
     (low  temperature thermal stripping) have  been
     included in  the  physical/chemical  technology
     group.   The  process descriptions listed  on the
     abstracts are  those reported  in  the  treatability
     report. If there is  more than one technology, with
     sufficient information  to  be  abstracted within a
     treatability  report, a  separate  abstract was
     created to  characterize each technology.

     Media: The  standard format of this information
     is: Medium/Description  of medium. Medium  is
     one of the  choices from the  list  contained  in
Table  2.3.  A  description of the  medium  is
included  to  characterize the type  of  medium
tested. In the case of soil,  the description relates
to the soil matrix.

Document Reference: The Document Reference
is in a standard format as follows: author; title of
document; who the report  was prepared for;  the
number of  pages in  the  document;  and  the
document date. This  reference appears on  the
cover sheet  of the treatability study.

Document Type: There is considerable variability
in the  scope and size of  documents.  To assist
the  User in  evaluating the treatability study,  the
document type is  identified  on  the  abstract.
Table  2.3  lists  the  various  document  types
contained in the Clearinghouse.
Contact:  The Contact is, in general, the person
from which  the treatability report was  received
who is knowledgeable  about  that  study.  The
format  is  as  follows: name;   organization;
address;  and telephone  number.  This contact is
listed to  allow follow-up or consultation on  the
study.
Site Name: The format of  this information is  the
Name  of the site  and category of the site. The
name of  the site  is that which it is commonly
referred to. A list  of site categories is contained
in Table 2.3.

Location of Test:  This information  indicates
where  the test  was  conducted. This is  not
always apparent because many of the tests  are
not  conducted at the site where the test samples
were taken.

Background: This text describes  the treatability
study document and what  type of information it
contains.  It  also  identifies the purpose  in
conducting the treatability tests.

Operational  Information: This text  describes test
parameters such as the scale of the test (bench,
pilot,  or  full-scale test);  the  quantity of  test
materials; the contaminants; the  soil  matrix, if
applicable; and  other key operational information
related to the study.

Performance: This text reports the results of  the
tests and key findings  or conclusions reached by
the  study's authors. This can include failures as
well as  successes.  Cost effectiveness  is
discussed if  it was reported.

-------
Confam/nanfs: This section provides information
about the contaminants reported on in the study.
The  contaminants  are  identified  by Chemical
Abstract Service (CAS) number to facilitate data
input  and  concise   identification.  The
contaminants  are  further  grouped  into
contaminant groups or  treatability groups. This
grouping is the same  as  the treatability grouping
used by the Office  of Solid Waste for regulatory
development of the Land Disposal  Restrictions
(U.S.  EPA, OSW, 1988).  The grouping assists in
the  evaluation  of  treatability  results   for
contaminants that  possess similar physical  and
chemical characteristics.  The  definition of these
groups is found in Appendix  A. Each group is
identified  by a  code number for purposes  of
managing this data, e.g.,  W01.

The   thirteen  treatability  groups and  the
respective compounds within each are presented
in Table  3.1. Further, the compounds are listed
in alphabetical  order in  Table  3.2. These tables
are designed to assist the User  in identifying  the
correct  contaminant  group  for  a  site-specific
compound.

Table: In  the instance where  a  one-page table
captured  a major part  of   the  performance
information in  a study, be  it treatability or cost,
the table was included as  part  of the abstract.
These tables  were  selectively  included  in the
abstracts to add to the performance information
available to the User.

MM/YY-#: This  note  at  the bottom right hand
corner is the month and year the abstract was
created and the file number. This note indicates
when the abstract was last updated.
Document Number: XXXX-X: This unique 4-letter
code located in the bottom right hand corner was
assigned to the abstract and the corresponding
treatability   study  source  report to  facilitate
identification.  Using  this  unique  number,  an
abstract  can be identified  in the Clearinghouse
document and  the treatability source report can
be  identified in the  EPA  library's  Hazardous
Waste Collection. If more than one technology is
abstracted from a single document, an  additional
number is assigned at the end of the Document
Number.
NOTE: The note  "Quality assurance of data  may not  be
appropriate for all uses." is on the bottom of all abstract pages
to remind the User that the information is of variable quality. It
is the responsibility of the User to determine if the information
is suitable for the site-specific purpose.

-------
 Table 2.1.  Format of Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstract

  Treatment Process:   Technology Group - Process Description
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test

BACKGROUND: (General overview of the treatability study
document)
Media/Description
Author, title, organization prepared for, number of pages, date
Type
Name, organization, address, telephone number
Name (site category)
Location
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: (Operational details of
study, QA/QC)
PERFORMANCE: (Performance data and information)
CONTAMINANTS:
Analytical data  is (or is not) provided in  the treatability
study report.
 Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants
 WXX - Group name  Number      Name
(Selected summary table from report)
                                                   NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate
                                                           for all uses.
                                                   MM/YY-*
                                                   Document Number  XXXX-X

-------
Table 2.2.   Technology Groups and Treatment Processes Contained in the Superfund
              Treatability Clearinghouse
 Technology
 Group
Process Description
Technology
Group
Process Description
 Biological
 Thermal
 Immobilization
Biological
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Combined Biological
Composting
Incineration
Rotary Kiln
Liquid Injection
Fluidized Bed Combustion
Infrared
Plasma Arc
Critical Water Oxidation
Wet Air Oxidation
Phrolysis
Circulating Bed Combust
Aqueous Thermal Decomp
Vitrification
Hearth Incineration
Molten Glass Incineration
Molten Salt Incineration
Immobilization
Sorption
Stabilization
M icroencapsulation
Cement Solidification
Flyash Solidification
Carbonate Immobilization
In-Situ Solidification
Physical/Chemical
Physical/Chemical
Reduction/Oxidation
Neutralization
Dechlonnation
Hydrolysis
Air Stripping/Steam Stripping
Vacuum ExtractionDistillation
Activiated Carbon Adsorp
Evaporation
Soil Washing/Filtration
Phase Separation
Chemical Extraction Precipitation
Electrodialysis
Electrochemical
Soil Gas Vapor Extraction
Chelation and Extraction
Ion Exchange Resin
Mechanical Aeration
Plastic Media Blasting
In-Situ Soil Air Stripping
Magnetic Separation
Drying.Active
Drying, Ambient Air
Blow/Compressor Aeration
Dehalogenation
Alkaline Destruction/Aque
Low Temp Stripping
Thermal Desop/UV Photolysis
RF/Microwave In-Situ
            Table 2.3.   Abstract Data Lists
             Media
           Document Type
                        Site Category
             Water
             Sludge
             Soil
             Debris
             Liquid waste
             Solid waste
             Air
             Other
           EPA OR&D Report
           Memo
           Conference Paper
           Journal Paper
           ContractorA/endorTreatability Study
           Other Treatability Report
                        NPL

                        NPL (Federal facility)
                        Non-NPL
                        Non-NPL (Federal facility)

                        Unspecified
                                                     8

-------
                                              Chapter 3
                                   Methodology for Using the
                             Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts
This document,  with its compilation  of  abstracts, is
designed to be used with the treatability study source
reports. To assist the User in finding  the abstracts of
possible  interest for review, two  indices have been
developed. The  indices  are presented in Tables 3.3
and  3.4.  The indices list the  Treatment  Category,
Treatment Process, Contaminant  Groups/Codes,
Media, Test Scale,  and  Document Number for each
treatability ategory, and  finally  by  treatment process.
report. Table 3.3 presents  an  index sorted first  by
treatment category  followed by treatment  process,
with a third-level  sort by  contaminant group. Table 3.4
presents an index sorted first by  contaminant group,
then by  treatment  Before using  these  indices,  the
User will  have to determine  the contaminant
group/code to which  their  specific  contaminant  of
interest belongs,  using Table 3.2.
The Document Number  on the indices (Tables 3.3 &
3.4) enables  the User to identify  particular  abstracts
from the  compilation  of Treatability Clearinghouse
Abstracts (Chapter 4). In Chapter 4, the abstracts are
presented in alphabetical order by  Document Number.
When  the documents of interest are identified,  the
source reports  can be  found in  the EPA  library's
Hazardous Waste Collection  arranged in alphabetical
order by  Document Number under the title Super-fund
Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts.

3.1   Examples of How to Utilize the
      Indices
Two scenarios are provided  demonstrating the use of
the indices; one for each of the approaches discussed
above.
Case 1  - A remedial  project manager  (RPM)  is
responsible for  cleaning  up a  site containing soils
contaminated with lead,  and he needs  to  determine
the type of technologies  that would be appropriate to
remediate the site. The RPM must first determine the
contaminant  group in  which lead is  a  member. To
accomplish this, Table 3.2 is used  (Reference List for
Contaminant Group Identification, Sorted  by Chemical
Name).  The specific chemical contaminants are listed
alphabetically by  chemical  names. Lead appears in
the contaminant group entitled Volatile  Metals. The
Index of Treatability Study Abstracts  by  Contaminant
Groups,  Table  3.4, is  then  utilized to identify what
abstracts are associated with the treatment of volatile
metals.  Seventeen  records  are identified  that  are
associated with  treating volatile  metals.

The  treatability  processes  identified   involve
immobilization, physical chemical,  and  thermal
treatment categories.  Upon  review of the abstracts
relating  to  volatile  metals  (Chapter  4.0), it  is
determined that six abstracts deal specifically  with the
treatability  of  lead.  These abstracts include soil
washing  and immobilization  technologies. The other
abstracts deal with  different  metals  and the
incineration  of  mixtures of  metals and   organic
compounds. Cost,  performance data,  and  site
characteristics  are provided in the  abstracts.  The
related studies  can be reviewed in the EPA  library's
Hazardous  Waste Collection.  Also,  the  identified
contacts may be able to provide additional information.

Case 2  - Another RPM is responsible for cleaning up
a site containing dioxin,  and he  wants  to  consider
utilizing  dechlorinating  agents to accomplish the
cleanup.  Dechlorination is located on Table 3.3 (Index
of Treatability Study  Abstracts  by  Treatment)  under
the Physical/ Chemical Treatment Category, and five
abstracts dealing  with  dechlorination of  dioxin
contaminated  sludges and soils  are  listed.  The
abstracts are EUZD,  FBZZ-1,  FCFR-6,  FCLC, and
EUTV. It should  be  noted  that the  abstracts  may
address  one or all  of  the contaminants   in the
contaminant  group. For this scenario,  dioxins, furans,
and  PCBs  are  the elements  of contaminant group
W02.  These five abstracts can then  be  reviewed  to
obtain information on  treatment performance, costs,
site conditions,  etc. Further  detailed  information can
be obtained by reviewing the source reports or talking
to the cognizant contacts.

-------
  TABLE 3.1.  Reference List for Contaminant Group Identification Sorted by Contaminant Groups
W01 -
HALOGENATEO NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
                                                    W02 - DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
           Chemical Name
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
BENZYL CHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZILATE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
TOTAL CHLOROBENZENES
TOTAL TRICHLOROBENZENES
                            CAS Number"
                           95-94-3
                           120-82-1
                           95-50-1
                           541-73-1
                           106-46-7
                           91-58-7
                           72-54-8
                           72-55-9
                           50-29-3
                           100-44-7
                           108-90-7
                           570-15-6
                           118-74-1
                           608-93-5
                           T108-90-7
                           TOT-TCB
           Chemical Name
CAS Number*
 1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN  30746-58-8
 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN  1746-01 -6
 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN    F1746-01 -6
 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID   93-76-5
 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID (2,4- 94-75-7
 D)
 2-(2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXY)PROPIONIC  93-72-1
 ACID
 DECACHLOROBIPHENYLS              JPCB
 DICHLOROBIPHENYLS                 BPCB
 HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYLS             GPCB
 HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS         HEPCDD
 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS         HEPCDF
 HEXACHLOROBIPHENYLS              FPCB
 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS          HEXCDD
 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURANS          HEXCDF
 MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL               APCB
 NONACHLOROBIPHENYLS              IPCB
 OCTACHLOROBIPHENYLS              HPCB
 OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS          OCDD
 OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS          OCDF
 PCB-1016                           12674-11-2
 PCB-1221                            11104-28-2
 PCB-1232                           11141-16-5
 PCB-1242                           53469-21-9
 PCB-1248                           12672-29-6
 PCB-1254                           11097-69-1
 PCB-1260                           11096-82-5
 PENTACHLOROBIPHENYLS             EPCB
 PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS         PCDD
 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS         PCDF
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYLS             DPCB
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS         TCDD
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS         TCDF
TOTAL DIOXINS AND FURANS           TOT-DF
TOTAL FURANS                       TOT-FUR
TOTAL PCB'S                        1336-36-3
TRICHLOROBIPHENYLS                 CPCB
"CAS number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to
 uniquely identify a compound.                     3/89
                                                11

-------
  TABLE 3.1. (Continued)
W03 - HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
           Chemical Name            CAS Number*
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL          58-90-2
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL              95-95-4
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL              88-06-2
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL                120-83-2
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL                87-65-0
2-CHLOROPHENOL                   95-57-8
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE              91-94-1
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL                34DCP
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER        101 -55-3
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL           59-50-7
4-CHLOROANILINE                   106-47-8
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER       7005-72-3
METHOXYCHLOR                     72-43-5
P-CHLOROBENZENESULFONIC ACID      PCBSA
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL SULFIOE      CPMS
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL SULFONE     CPMS02
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL SULFOXIDE   CPMSO
PENTACHLOROPHENOL               87-86-5
SUPONA                           470-90-6
                                                    W04 - HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
           Chemical Name
CAS Number*
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE           630-20-6
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE               71-55-6
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE           79-34-5
1,1,2-TRICHLORO-l ,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE 76-13-1
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE               79-00-5
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE                 75-34-3
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE                 75-35-4
1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPAINE        96-12-8
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE                 107-06-2
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE                78-87-5
2-CHLORO-1.3-BUTADIENE              126-99-8
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE             75-27-4
BROMOFORM                        75-25-2
BROMOMETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE)     74-83-9
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE              56-23-5
CHLOROETHANE                      75-00-3
CHLOROFORM                        67-66-3
CHLOROMETHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE)   74-87-3
CIS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE              156-59-2
CIS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE             10061-01-5
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE             124-48-1
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE          75-71-8
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE                 106-93-4
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE               87-68-3
HEXACHLOROETHANE                 67-72-1
METHYLENE CHLORIDE                 75-09-2
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
PENTACHLOROETHANE                76-01 -7
TETRACHLOROETHENE                 127-18-4
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE           156-60-5
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE          10061 -02-6
TRICHLOROETHENE                   79-01-6
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE           75-69-4
VINYL CHLORIDE                      75-01-4
 *CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to
  uniquely identify a compound.                     3/89
                                                 12

-------
  TABLE 3.1. (Continued)
W05 - HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
                                                      W06 - NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
           Chemical Name
CAS Number*
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER           110-75-8
3-CHLOROPROPIONITRILE               542-76-7
ALDRIN                              309-00-2
ALPHA-BHC                          319-84-6
BETA-BHC                            319-85-7
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE        111-91-1
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER             111 -44-4
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER        39638-32-9
CHLORDANE                          57-74-9
CHLOROMETHYL METHYL ETHER         542-88-1
DELTA-BHC                          319-86-8
DIELDRIN                            60-57-1
ENDOSULFAN I                        959-98-8
ENDOSULFAN II                       33213-65-9
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE                 1031-07
ENDRIN                              72-20-8
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE                    7421-93-4
ENDRIN KETONE                      53494-70-5
EPICHLOROHYDRIN                    106-89-8
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)                 58-89-9
HEPTACHLOR                         76-44-8
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE                 1024-57-3
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE        77-47-4
HEXACHLORONORBORNADIENE          3389-71 -7
ISODRIN                             465-73-6
OCTACHLOROCYCLOPENTENE           706-78-5
TOXAPHENE                          8001-35-2
                                                                 Chemical Name
                                                      CAS Number*
                 1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,3,5-TRIAZINE 121 -82-4
                 2,4-DINITROPHENOL                   51-28-5
                 2,4-DINITROTOLUENE                  121-14-2
                 2,6-DINITROTOLUENE                  606-20-2
                 2-AMINO-4.6-DINITROTOLUENE           T99-55-8
                 2-METHYL-4.6-DINITROPHENOL           534-52-1
                 2-NITROANILINE                       88-74-4
                 2-NITROPHENOL                      88-75-5
                 3-NITROANILINE                       99-09-2
                 4-NITROANILINE                       100-01-6
                 4-NITROPHENOL                      100-02-7
                 DINITROBENZENE                     25154-54-5
                 ETHYL PARATHION                    56-38-2
                 HMX                                135-HMX
                 METHYL PARATHION                   298-00-0
                 NITROBENZENE                       98-95-3
                 NITROCELLULOSE                     9004-70-0
                 PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE          82-68-8
                 TRINITROBENZENE                    99-35-4
                 TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAMINE     479-45-8
                 (TETRYL)
                 TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)               118-96-7
                 W07 - HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
                                                                 Chemical Name
                                                      CAS Number*
 *CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to
 uniquely identify a compound.                       3/89
                 1-ETHYL-2-METHYL-BENZENE            611-14-3
                 ALKYL BENZENE                      ABC
                 AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS            TOT-AR
                 BENZENE                            71-43-2
                 BENZENE, TOLUENE, ETHYLBENZENE,     BTEX
                 XYLENES
                 ETHYLBENZENE                       100-41-4
                 ISOPROPYLBENZENE                  98-82-8
                 M-XYLENE                           108-38-3
                 O&P XYLENE                         95-47-6
                 O-XYLENE                           97-47-6
                 P-XYLENE                            106-42-3
                 PYRIDINE                            110-86-1
                 STYRENE                            100-42-5
                 TOLUENE                            108-88-3
                 XYLENES (TOTAL)                     1330-20-7
                                                   13

-------
 TABLE 3.1. (Continued)
W08 • POLYNUCLEAR AROMAT1CS
Chemical Name
1 -METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BIPHENYL
CHRYSENE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
INDENO(1 ,2,3-CD)PYRENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
CAS Number*
90-12-0
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
92-52-4
218-01-9
53-70-3
132-64-9
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
TOT-PAH

W09 - OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
           Chemical Name             CAS Number"
1,2-BENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID        117-82-8
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE               122-66-7
1,4DIOXANE                         123-91-1
1-PROPANOL                         71-23-8
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL                  105-67-9
2-BUTANONE                         78-93-3
2-ETHOXYETHANOL                    110-80-5
2-HEPTANONE                        110-43-0
2-HEXANONE                         591-78-6
2-METHYLPHENOL                     95-48-7
3-METHYL PHENOL                    108-39-4
4-HYDROXY-4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE     123-42-2
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE               108-10-1
4-METHYL-3-PENTEN-2-ONE             141 -79-7
4-METHYL-4-PENTEN-2-ONE             3744-02-3
W09 - OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (continued)
           Chemical Name            CAS Number*
4-METHYLPHENOL                     106-44-5
5-METHYL-2-HEXANONE                110-12-3
ACETONE                            67-64-1
ACETONITRILE                        75-05-8
ACETOPHENONE                      98-86-2
ACROLEIN                            107-02-8
ACRYLONITRILE                       107-37-1
ALLYL ALCOHOL                      107-18-6
ANILINE                             62-53-3
BENZIDINE                           92-87-5
BENZOIC ACID                        65-85-0
BENZOIC ACID, DIHYDROXY             T119-36-8
BENZYL ALCOHOL                     100-51-6
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE          117-81-7
BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE             85-68-7
CARBON DISULFIDE                    75-15-0
CRESOLS                            1319-77-3
CYCLOHEXANONE                     108-94-1
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE                84-74-2
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE                117-84-0
DIETHYL PHTHALATE                  84-66-2
DIMETHOXYETHANE                   110-71-4
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE                 131-11-3
DIPHENYLAMINE                      122-39-4
ETHANOL.2-ETHOXY ACETATE           111-15-9
ETHOXYETHYLENE                    109-92-2
ETHYL ACETATE                      141 -78-6
ETHYLENE OXIDE                     75-21-8
HEXADECANOIC  ACID                  57-10-3
HEXANEDIOIC ACID, DIOCTYL ESTER     123-79-5
ISOBUTANOL                         78-83-1
ISOPHORONE                         78-59-1
METHANOL                          67-56-1
METHYL METHACRYLATE               80-62-6
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE          621 -64-7
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE            62-75-9
ORGANIC CYANIDE                    C57-12-5
PHENOL                            108-95-2
PROPANOIC ACI0.2-METHYL            74381 -40-1
TRIETHYLAMINE                       121-44-8
VINYL ACETATE                       108-05-4
 *CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to
  uniquely identify a compound.                     3/89
                                                   14

-------
  TABLE 3.1.  (Continued)
W10 • NON-VOLATILE METALS
            Chemical Name
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT)
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LITHIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
VANADIUM
 CAS Number*
7429-90-5
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-70-2
7440-47-3
18540-29-9
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-89-6
7439-93-2
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
7439-98-7
7440-02-0
7440-09-7
7440-23-5
7440-24-6
7440-62-2
W11 - VOLATILE METALS
Chemical Name
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
LEAD
MERCURY
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
ZINC
CAS Number*
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-31-5
7440-32-6
7440-66-6
*CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to
 uniquely identify a compound.                        3/89
                                                      15

-------
W12 • OTHER INORGANICS
           Chemical Name
CAS Number"
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN               N7664-41 -7
ASBESTOS (FIBROUS)                 01332-21-4
BORON                             7440-42-8
CARBON MONOXIDE                  XCOX
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND            COD
CHLORIDE                          CHLORIDE
CYANIDE                            57-12-5
DESTRUCTION REMOVAL EFFICIENCY     XDRE-%
FLUORIDE                           16984-48-8
HCI EMMISSIONS KG/HR                X7647-01 -0
HYDRAZINE                         302-01-2
HYDROCYANIC ACID                  74-90-8
NITRATE AS N                        NO3
OXIDES OF NITROGEN                 XNOX
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS G/DSCF        XPART-A
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS MG/DSCM      XPART
pH                                 XPH
PHOSPHATE                         PO4
PHOSPHORUS                        7723-14-0
SILICON                            7440-21-3
SULFATE                            SULFATE
SULFIDE                            A57-12-5
THALLIUM SULFATE                   10031-59-1
URANIUM                           7440-61-1
YITRIUM                            10361-92-9
                                                  16

-------
TABLE 3.2.  Reference List for Contaminant Group Identification Sorted by Chemical Name
Chemical Name                        Contaminant Groups/Codes
                                                CAS Number
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLORO-1,2,2-TRIFLUOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2,3,4-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-BENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID
1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
1,3,5-TRINITROHEXAHYDRO-1,3,5-TRIAZINE
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1.4DIOXANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 -ETHYL-2-METHYL-BENZENE
1 -METHYLNAPHTHALENE
1 -METHYLPHENANTHRENE
1-PENTENE-3-OL
1 -PROPANOL
2 METHYL PROPANE
2(3H)FURANONE,DIHYDRO
2(5H)-FURANONE, 5,5-DIMETHYL
2,3,4 TRIMETHYL HEXANE
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3-DIMETHYL HEPTANE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID (2,4-D)
2,4-DIMETHYL HEPTANE
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,5-DIMETHYL HEPTANE
2,6,10,14 TETRAMETHYL HEXADECANE
2,6,10,14 TETRAMETHYL PENTADECANE
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-(2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOXY)PROPIONIC
ACID
2-AMINO-4,6-DINITROTOLUENE
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            630-20-6
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            71-55-6
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            79-34-5
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            76-13-1
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            79-00-5
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            75-34-3
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            75-35-4
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       30746-58-8
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 95-94-3
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 120-82-1
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             117-82-8
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            96-12-8
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 95-50-1
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            107-06-2
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            78-87-5
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             122-66-7
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     121-82-4
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 541-73-1
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             123-91 -1
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 106-46-7
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    611 -14-3
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                      90-12-0
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             1 -MP
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             616-25-1
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             71 -23-8
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             75-28-5
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             96-48-0
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             20019-64-1
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             921 -47-1
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        58-90-2
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       1746-01 -6
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       F1746-01 -6
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             3074-71-3
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        95-95-4
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       93-76-5
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        88-06-2
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        120-83-2
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       94-75-7
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             2213-23-2
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             105-67-9
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     51-28-5
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     121-14-2
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             2216-30-0
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             638-36-8
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             1921 -70-6
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        87-65-0
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     606-20-2
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       93-72-1

W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     T99-55-8
"CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to uniquely identify a compound.
                                                                                          3/89
                                                17

-------
TABLE 3.2.  (Continued)
Chemical Name
Contaminant Groups/Codes
CAS Number*
2-BUTANONE
2-CHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
2-CHLOROETHANOL PHOSPHATE
2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-ETHOXYETHANOL
2-HEPTANONE
2-HEXANONE
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLPHENOL
2-NITROANILINE
2-NITROPHENOL
3 HEXON-2-ONE-5-METHYL
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3,3-DIMETHYL HEXANE
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,5-DIMETHYL HEPTANE
3-CHLOROPROPIONITRILE
3-METHYL OCTANE
3-METHYL PHENOL
3-NITROANILINE
4 PENTIN 2-ONE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROANILINE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-HYDROXY-4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
4-METHYL OCTANE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
4-METHYL-3-PENTEN-2-ONE
4-METHYL-4-PENTEN-2-ONE
4-METHYLPHENOL
4-NITROANILINE
4-NITROPHENOL
4-PENTEN-2-ONE
4H-1,2,4 TRIAZALE, 4 METHYL
5-METHYL-2-HEXANONE
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ (A)ANTHRACENE
9,9' -DICHLOROFLUORENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACETONE
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             78-93-3
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS           126-99-8
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             115-96-8
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     110-75-8
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 91-58-7
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        95-57-8
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             110-80-5
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             110-43-0
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             591-78-6
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     534-52-1
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                     91-57-6
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             95-48-7
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     88-74-4
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     88-75-5
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             5166-53-0
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        91 -94-1
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             563-16-6
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        34DCP
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             926-82-9
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     542-76-7
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             2216-33-3
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             108-39-4
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     99-09-2
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             13891 -87-7
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 72-54-8
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 72-55-9
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 50-29-3
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        101-55-3
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        59-50-7
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        106-47-8
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        7005-72-3
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             123-42-2
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             2216-34-4
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             108-10-1
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             141-79-7
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             3744-02-3
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             106-44-5
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     100-01 -6
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     100-02-7
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             1389-18-7
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             1057-00-8
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             110-12-3
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             57-97-6
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             C86-73-7
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                     83-32-9
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                     208-96-8
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             67-64-1
*CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to uniquely  identify a compound.
                                                     3/89
                                                18

-------
TABLE 3.2.  (Continued)
Chemical Name
Contaminant Groups/Codes
CAS Number*
ACETONITRILE
ACETOPHENONE
ACROLEIN
ACRYLONITRILE
ALDRIN
ALK20
ALKANE (19.71)
ALKANE (25.02)
ALKANE (27.81)
ALKYL BENZENE
ALLYL ALCOHOL
ALPHA-BHC
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
ANTIMONY
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
ARSENIC
ASBESTOS (FIBROUS)
AZULENE.7-ETHYL-1,4-DEMETHYL
BARIUM
BENZAMIDE.2-HYDROXY-N-PHENYL
BENZENE
BENZENE, TOLUENE.ETHYLBENZENE,
XYLENES
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZOIC ACID, DIHYDROXY
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL CHLORIDE
BERYLLIUM
BETA-BHC
BIPHENYL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BORON
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
BROMOMETHANE (METHYL BROMIDE)
BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE
C10 AROMATIC (9.7-11.5)
C7 ALIPHATIC (20.68)
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             75-05-8
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             98-86-2
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             107-02-8
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             107-37-1
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     309-00-2
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             ALK20
W13OTHERORGANICS                             ALK19
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             ALK25
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             ALK27
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    ABC
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             107-18-6
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     319-84-6
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7429-90-5
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                            N7664-41 -7
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             62-53-3
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                      120-12-7
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7440-36-0
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    TOT-AR
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7440-38-2
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                            01332-21-4
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             1529-05-5
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7440-39-3
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             87-17-2
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    71 -43-2
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    BTEX

W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             92-87-5
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                      56-55-3
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                      50-32-8
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                      205-99-2
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                      191 -24-2
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                      207-08-9
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             65-85-0
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             T119-36-8
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             100-51-6
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS  100-44-7
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7440-41-7
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     319-85-7
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                      92-52-4
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     111-91 -1
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     111 -44-4
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     39638-32-9
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             117-81 -7
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                            7440-42-8
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            75-27-4
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            75-25-2
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            74-83-9
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             85-68-7
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             C10AR97
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             C7AL
*CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to uniquely identify a compound.
                                                    3/89
                                                19

-------
TABLE 3.2.  (Continued)
Chemical Name
Contaminant Groups/Codes
CAS Number*
C9 AROMATIC (37.54)
C9 AROMATIC (7.6-9.0)
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CAPTAN
CARBAZOLE (9-AZAFLUORENE)
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON MONOXIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CHLORDANE
CHLORIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZILATE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE (METHYL CHLORIDE)
CHLOROMETHYL METHYL ETHER
CHLOROPHENESIC ACID
CHLOROPHENIC ACID
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM (HEXAVALENT)
CHRYSENE
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
COBALT
COPPER
CRESOLS
CRUDE OIL
CYANIDE
CYCLOHEXANONE
DECACHLOROBIPHENYLS
DECENE
DELTA-BHC
DESTRUCTION REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIAZINON
DIBENZ (A,H) ACRIDINE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DICHLOROBIPHENYLS
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DICYCLOPENTADIENE
DIELDRIN
DIESEL FUEL, OIL, PETROL
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHOXYETHANE
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W12 OTHER INORGANICS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W12 OTHER INORGANICS
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
W12 OTHER INORGANICS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W13OTHERORGANICS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W12 OTHER INORGANICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
W12 OTHER INORGANICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
 *CAS Number' Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to uniquely identify a compound.
C9AR37
C9AR76
7440-43-9
7440-70-2
133-06-2
A86-73-7
75-15-0
xcox
56-23-5
COD
57-74-9
CHLORIDE
108-90-7
570-15-6
75-00-3
67-66-3
74-87-3
542-88-1
CPEA
CPA
7440-47-3
18540-29-9
218-01-9
156-59-2
10061-01-5
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
1319-77-3
CRUDE
57-12-5
108-94-1
JPCB
19699-18-0
319-86-8
XDRE-%
84-74-2
117-84-0
333-41 -5
226-36-8
53-70-3
132-64-9
124-48-1
BPCB
75-71-8
77-73-6
60-57-1
DIESEL
84-66-2
110-71-4

     3/89
                                                20

-------
TABLE 3.2.  (Continued)
Chemical Name
Contaminant Groups/Codes
CAS Number*
DIMETHYL TEREPHTHALATE
DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE
DINITROBENZENE
DIPHENYLAMINE
EICOSANE
ENDOSULFANI
ENDOSULFAN II
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRIN KETONE
EPICHLOROHYDRIN
ETHANOL.2-ETHOXY ACETATE
ETHOXYETHYLENE
ETHYL ACETATE
ETHYL PARATHION
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE
ETHYLENE OXIDE
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
FLUORIDE
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
GLYPHOSATE
HCI EMMISSIONS KG/HR
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYLS
HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
HEPTADECANE
HEPTANE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYLS
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLORONORBORNADIENE
HEXADECANE
HEXADECANOIC ACID
HEXANE
HEXANEDIOIC ACID, DIOCTYL ESTER
HMX
HYDRAZINE
HYDROCYANIC ACID
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
IRON
ISOBUTANOL
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             A131 -11 -3
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             DMN
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     25154-54-5
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             122-39-4
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             112-95-8
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     959-98-8
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     33213-65-9
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     1031 -07-8
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     72-20-8
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     7421 -93-4
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     53494-70-5
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     106-89-8
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             111-15-9
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             109-92-2
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             141-78-6
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     56-38-2
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    100-41 -4
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS           106-93-4
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             75-21-8
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                     206-44-0
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                     86-73-7
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           16984-48-8
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     58-89-9
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             GLY
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           X7647-01-0
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     76-44-8
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     1024-57-3
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS      GPCB
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS      HEPCDD
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS      HEPCDF
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             629-78-7
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             142-82-5
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 118-74-1
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS      FPCB
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS           87-68-3
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     77-47-4
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS      HEXCDD
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS      HEXCDF
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS           67-72-1
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     3389-71-7
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             544-76-3
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             57-10-3
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             110-54-3
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             123-79-5
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     135-HMX
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           302-01-2
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           74-90-8
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                     193-39-5
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7439-89-6
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             78-83-1
"CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to uniquely identify a compound.
                                                    3/89
                                               21

-------
TABLE 3.2. (Continued)
Chemical Name
Contaminant Groups/Codes
CAS Number*
ISODRIN
ISOPHORONE
ISOPROPYLBENZENE
LEAD
LITHIUM
M-XYLENE
MAGNESIUM
MALATHION
MANGANESE
MERCURY
METHANOL
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYL PARATHION
METHYLCYCLOPENTANE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROMETHANE)
MINERAL OIL
MOLYBDENUM
MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
NAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
NITRATE AS N
NITROBENZENE
NITROCELLULOSE
NONACHLOROBIPHENYLS
NONANE
O&P XYLENE
0-XYLENE
OCTACHLOROBIPHENYLS
OCTACHLOROCYCLOPENTENE
OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
OCTADECANE
OIL AND GREASE
ORGANIC CYANIDE
OTHER VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
P-CHLOROBENZENESULFONIC ACID
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL SULFIDE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL SULFONE
P-CHLOROPHENYLMETHYL SULFOXIDE
P-XYLENE
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS G/DSCF
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS MG/DSCM
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     465-73-6
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             78-59-1
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    98-82-8
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7439-92-1
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7439-93-2
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    108-38-3
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7439-95-4
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             121 -75-5
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7439-96-5
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7439-97-6
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             67-56-1
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        72-43-5
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             80-62-6
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     298-00-0
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             96-37-7
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            75-09-2

W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             8020-83-5
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7439-98-7
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       APCB
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             621 -64-7
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             62-75-9
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             86-30-6
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                      91-20-3
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7440-02-0
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           NO3
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     98-95-3
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     9004-70-0
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       IPCB
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             111 -84-2
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    95-47-6
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    97-47-6
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       HPCB
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     706-78-5
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       OCDD
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       OCDF
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             593-45-3
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             TOT-OIL
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             C57-12-5
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             OTH-VOC
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           XNOX
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        PCBSA
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        CPMS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        CPMSO2
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        CPMSO
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL              106-42-3
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           XPART-A
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           XPART
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       12674-11 -2
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       11104-28-2
"CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to uniquely identify a compound.
                                                    3/89
                                               22

-------
TABLE 3.2.  (Continued)
Chemical Name
Contaminant Groups/Codes
CAS Number*
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYLS
PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
PENTACHLOROETHANE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTADECANE
PENTANE
PH
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS
PHORATE
PHOSPHATE
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
PRONAMIDE
PROPANOIC ACID.2-METHYL
PYRENE
PYRIDINE
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
STYRENE
SULFATE
SULFIDE
SUPONA
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYLS
TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS
TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACOSANE HEXAMETHYL
THALLIUM
THALLIUM SULFATE
TIN
TITANIUM
TOLUENE
TOTAL CHLOROBENZENES
TOTAL DIOXINS AND FURANS
TOTAL EXTRACTABLE HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL FURANS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       11141-16-5
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       53469-21 -9
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       12672-29-6
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       11097-69-1
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       11096-82-5
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS 608-93-5
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       EPCB
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       PCDD
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       PCDF
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            76-01 -7
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     82-68-8
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        87-86-5
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             629-62-9
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             109-66-0
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           XPH
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                     85-01-8
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             108-95-2
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             PHEN
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             298-02-2
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           PO4
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           7723-14-0
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7440-09-7
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             23950-58-5
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             74381-40-1
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                     129-00-0
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    110-86-1
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7782-49-2
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           7440-21-3
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7440-22-4
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7440-23-5
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7440-24-6
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    100-42-5
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           SULFATE
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           A57-12-5
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS        470-90-6
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       DPCB
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       TCDD
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       TCDF
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            127-18-4
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             111-01-3
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7440-28-0
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           10031-59-1
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7440-31-5
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7440-32-6
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS    108-88-3
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS T108-90-7
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       TOT-DF
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             TEH
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       TOT-FUR
"CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to uniquely identify a compound.
                                                    3/89
                                               23

-------
TABLE 3.2.  (Continued)
Chemical Name
Contaminant Groups/Codes
CAS Number*
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
TOTAL ORGANIC HALOGENS
TOTAL RGB'S
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
TOTAL TRICHLOROBENZENES
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANICS
TOXAPHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROBIPHENYLS
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
TRIETHYLAMINE
TRIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE
TRINITROBENZENE
TRINITROPHENLYMETHYLNITRAMINE
(TETRYL)
TRINITROTOLUENE (TNT)
URANIUM
VANADIUM
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENES (TOTAL)
YITRIUM
ZINC
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             THC
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             TOC
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             TOX
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       1336-36-3
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             TOT-PETROL
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS                     TOT-PAH

W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS TOT-TCB
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             TOT-VOC
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES     8001 -35-2
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            156-60-5
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            10061 -02-6
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS       CPCB
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            79-01 -6
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            75-69-4
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             121 -44-8
W13 OTHER ORGANICS                             TMN
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     99-35-4
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     479-45-8

W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS     118-96-7
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           7440-61-1
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS                         7440-62-2
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS             108-05-4
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS            75-01-4
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS   1330-20-7
W12 OTHER INORGANICS                           10361-92-9
W11 VOLATILE METALS                             7440-66-6
*CAS Number: Chemical Abstract Service Number assigned to uniquely identify a compound.
                                                    3/89
                                               24

-------
TABLE 3.3. Index of Treatability Study Abstracts by Treatment
Treatment
Category
BIOLOGICAL
Treatment
Process
BIOLOGICAL
BIOLOGICAL
Contaminant Groups/Codes
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
Media
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
Scale
PILOT
PILOT
Docu-
ment
Number
EURK
EWGC
           AEROBIC

           AEROBIC
           AEROBIC

           ANAEROBIC

           COMPOSTING
           COMPOSTING

           COMPOSTING
IMMOBILIZ-  STABILIZATION
ATION
           STABILIZATION

           CEMENT
           SOLIDIFICATION

           CEMENT
           SOLIDIFICATION
            FLYASH
            SOLIDIFICATION
            FLYASH
            SOLIDIFICATION
            FLYASH
            SOLIDIFICATION
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS

W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W11 VOLATILE METALS

W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS

W11 VOLATILE METALS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS

W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS

W11 VOLATILE METALS
W12 OTHER INORGANICS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC
BENCH  EZUU

PILOT   EZZA
SLUDGE/-
OTHER
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/LAGOON
SED
SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/CLAYEY
PILOT   FCQP

BENCH  EZUU

BENCH  EUQX
PILOT   EURS

PILOT   EURT
BENCH  EURY
SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FCAK
SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  EUXT
SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FHMF
SOIL/CLAYEY   BENCH  EURY
SLUDGE/-
METAL FNSH
PILOT   FAAP
SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FHMF
3/89
                                                25

-------
TABLE 3.3. (Continued)
Treatment
Category
Treatment
Process
Contaminant Groups/Codes
                                                            Media
                    Docu-
                    ment
             Scale   Number
IMMOBILIZ-
ATION
PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
            CARBONATE
            IMMOBILIZATION
REDUCTION/-
OXIDATION
            DECHLORINATION
            DECHLORINATION
            DECHLORINATION
            DECHLORINATION
            DECHLORINATION
            SOIL WASHING



            SOIL WASHING


            SOIL WASHING

            SOIL WASHING
            SOIL WASHING
            SOIL WASHING
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W12 OTHER INORGANICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH FHMF
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FHMF
SOIL/GENERIC  FULL   EWFZ
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT   EUZD
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FBZZ-1
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FCFR-6
                                                            SLUDGE/OTHER BENCH  FCLC
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  EUTV
                                                            SOIL/SILTY    FULL   EUTT



                                                            SOIL/ROCKS   FULL   EUTT


                                                            SOIL/SANDY   BENCH EUZU

                                                            SOIL/SANDY   FULL   EVAR
                                                            SOIL/SANDY    BENCH  FRET
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  EUQW
3/89
                                                26

-------
TABLE 3.3. (Continued)
Treatment
Category
Treatment
Process
Contaminant Groups/Codes
Media
       Docu-
       ment
Scale   Number
PHYSICAL/-   SOIL WASHING
CHEMICAL
THERMAL
            CHEMICAL
            EXTRACTION
            LOW TEMP
            STRIPPING
            LOW TEMP
            STRIPPING
            LOW TEMP
            STRIPPING
            LOW TEMP
            STRIPPING
            LOW TEMP
            STRIPPING
            LOW TEMP
            STRIPPING

            LOW TEMP
            STRIPPING
THERMAL
DESOP/UV
PHOTOLYS
INCINERATION
               W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
                                           SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH EUQW
               W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
               W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
               W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
               W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
               W11 VOLATILE METALS
               W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS  SOIL/LAGOON  BENCH  EURU
                                                           SED
               W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS         SOIL/SILTY     PILOT   EUQS

               W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
               W13 OTHER ORGANICS
               W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC         SOIL/GENERIC  FULL    EXPE
                   COMPOUNDS
               W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
               W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
               W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
               W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
               W13 OTHER ORGANICS
               W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS         SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FCMK
               W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
               W13 OTHER ORGANICS
               W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC         SOIL/SANDY
                   COMPOUNDS
               W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
               W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
               W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS SLUDGE/OILY
                                                        PILOT  FCSF
                                                        PILOT  FCSP-1
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS

W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
                                                           SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  EZYQ
                                                           SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  EZYQ
                                                                      SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT  EWGE
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS SOIL/LAGOON
                                           SED
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W12 OTHER INORGANICS
                                                                                   BENCH EUWW1
3/89
                                               27

-------
TABLE 3.3. (Continued)
Treatment
Category
Treatment
Process
Contaminant Groups/Codes
Media
Scale
Docu-
ment
Number
THERMAL
INCINERATION
            INCINERATION
           ROTARY KILN
           ROTARY KILN

           ROTARY KILN
           ROTARY KILN
            ROTARY KILN
            INFRARED
            INFRARED
            INFRARED
            INFRARED
            CRITICAL WATER
            OXIDATION
            PYROLYSIS
            PYROLYSIS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W03 HAL PHENOLS, CRESOLS, ETHERS, & THIOLS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W10 NON-VOLATILE METALS
W11 VOLATILE METALS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
    COMPOUNDS
W04 HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
W07 HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
                                                                       SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  EZYN
                                                           SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH FDBP
                                                           SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT  EURP
                                                           SOIL/SANDY   FULL   EUZH

                                                           SLUDGE/OILY  PILOT  EXPC
                                                           SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT  EZUY
                                                           SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT  EUZM
                                                           SOIL/GENERIC PILOT  EUTR
                                                           SOIL/GENERIC PILOT  EWQD
                                                            SOIL/CLAYEY  PILOT  EZZB
                                                            SLUDGE/OTHER PILOT   EZZC
                                                            SOIL/WATER-  BENCH  FBZZ-2
                                                            WAY SED
                                                            SOIL/SANDY   PILOT   EXPO
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC PILOT   FCFR-4
3/89
                                                28

-------
TABLE 3.3. (Continued)


                            Contaminant Groups/Codes                      Media        Scale   merit
                                                                                           Number

THERMAL   CIRCULATING BED   W01 HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC         SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT   EUXM
           COMBUST.            COMPOUNDS
                            W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
           CIRCULATING BED   W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS   SOIL/CLAYEY   PILOT   EWHC
           COMBUST.
           CIRCULATING BED   W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS   SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT   FCFR-3
           COMBUST.
3/89
                                                29

-------
Table 3.4.  Index of Treatability Study Abstracts by Contaminant Groups
            (W01 Halogenated Non-Polar Aromatic Compounds)
Treatment
Category
BIOLOGICAL





IMMOBILIZATI
ON




PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL










THERMAL











Treatment
Process
AEROBIC

AEROBIC

ANAEROBIC

CEMENT
SOLIDIFICATION
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
CARBONATE
IMMOBILIZATION
REDUCTION/OXIDAT
ION
DECHLORINATION

SOIL WASHING

LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
INCINERATION

ROTARY KILN

ROTARY KILN

INFRARED

INFRARED

CIRCULATING BED
COMBUST
Contaminant Groups/Codes
W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

W01

HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON -POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
HALOGENATED NON-POLAR AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS
Media
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/SANDY

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/CLAYEY

SOIL/GENERIC

Scale
BENCH

PILOT

BENCH

BENCH

BENCH

BENCH

FULL

BENCH

BENCH

FULL

PILOT

BENCH

BENCH

PILOT

PILOT

PILOT

PILOT

PILOT

Docu-
ment
Number
EZUU

EZZA

EZUU

FHMF

FHMF

FHMF

EWFZ

EUTV

EUQW

EXPE

FCSF

EZYQ

FDBP

EZUY

EUZM

EWQD

EZZB

EUXM

3/89
                                                31

-------
TABLE 3.4. Continued
             (W02 Dioxins/Furans/PCBs & Their Precursors)
Treatment
Category
BIOLOGICAL

PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL










THERMAL















Treatment
Process
AEROBIC

DECHLORINATION

DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION

SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
THERMAL
DESOP/UV
PHOTOLYS
INCINERATION
ROTARY KILN
INFRARED
INFRARED
INFRARED

CRITICAL WATER
OXIDATION
PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
CIRCULATING BED
COMBUST
CIRCULATING BED
COMBUST
CIRCULATING BED
COMBUST
Contaminant Groups/Codes
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS


W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS
W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

W02 DIOXINS/FURANS/PCBS & THEIR PRECURSORS

Media
SLUDGE/-
OTHER
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SLUDGE/-
OTHER
SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/GENERIC


SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SLUDGE/-
OTHER
SOIL/WATERW
AY SED
SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/CLAYEY

SOIL/GENERIC

Scale
PILOT

PILOT

BENCH
BENCH
BENCH

BENCH
FULL
BENCH
PILOT


BENCH
FULL
PILOT
PILOT
PILOT

BENCH

PILOT
PILOT
PILOT

PILOT

PILOT

Docu-
ment
Number
FCQP

EUZD

FBZZ-1
FCFR-6
FCLC

EUZU
EVAR
FRET
EWGE


EZYN
EUZH
EUTR
EWQD
EZZC

FBZZ-2

EXPO
FCFR-4
EUXM

EWHC

FCFR-3

3/89
                                                32

-------
TABLE 3.4. Continued
           (W03 Hatogenated Phenols, Cresols, Ethers, & Thiols)
Treatment
Category
BIOLOGICAL
IMMOBILIZA-
TION


PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL

THERMAL
Treatment
Process
BIOLOGICAL
CEMENT
SOLIDIFICATION
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
CARBONATE
IMMOBILIZATION
DECHLORINATION
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
INCINERATION
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
Contaminant Groups/Codes
W03
W03
W03
W03
W03
W03
W03
W03
W03
W03
W03
HAL
HAL
HAL
HAL
HAL
PHENOLS,
PHENOLS,
PHENOLS,
PHENOLS,
PHENOLS,
HAL PHENOLS,
HAL PHENOLS,
HAL PHENOLS,
HAL
HAL
HAL
PHENOLS,
PHENOLS,
PHENOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
CRESOLS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
ETHERS,
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
THIOLS
THIOLS
THIOLS
THIOLS
THIOLS
THIOLS
THIOLS
THIOLS
THIOLS
THIOLS
THIOLS
Media
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/GENERIC
Scale
PILOT
BENCH
BENCH
BENCH
BENCH
BENCH
BENCH
BENCH
BENCH
FULL
PILOT
Docu-
ment
Number
EWGC
FHMF
FHMF
FHMF
EUTV
EUZU
EUQW
EZYQ
FDBP
EUZH
EUZM
3/89
                                                 33

-------
TABLE 3.4. Continued
            (W04 Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds)
Treatment
Category
BIOLOGICAL
IMMOBILIZA-
TION




PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL








PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL


THERMAL



Treatment
Process
AEROBIC
CEMENT
SOLIDIFICATION
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
CARBONATE
IMMOBILIZATION
REDUCTION/OXIDATI
ON
DECHLORINATION
SOIL WASHING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
INCINERATION
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
INFRARED
Contaminant Groups/Codes
W04
W04

W04

W04

W04

W04
W04
W04

W04

W04

W04

W04

W04
W04
W04
W04
HALOGENATED
ALIPHATIC
HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC

HALOGENATED


ALIPHATIC

HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC

HALOGENATED

HALOGENATED
HALOGENATED
HALOGENATED

HALOGENATED

HALOGENATED

HALOGENATED

HALOGENATED

HALOGENATED
HALOGENATED
HALOGENATED
HALOGENATED

ALIPHATIC

ALIPHATIC
ALIPHATIC
ALIPHATIC

ALIPHATIC

ALIPHATIC

ALIPHATIC

ALIPHATIC

ALIPHATIC
ALIPHATIC
ALIPHATIC
ALIPHATIC
COMPOUNDS
COMPOUNDS

COMPOUNDS

COMPOUNDS

COMPOUNDS

COMPOUNDS
COMPOUNDS
COMPOUNDS

COMPOUNDS

COMPOUNDS

COMPOUNDS

COMPOUNDS

COMPOUNDS
COMPOUNDS
COMPOUNDS
COMPOUNDS
Media
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIUGENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC
SOIUGENERIC
SOIL/SILTY

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIUGENERIC

SOIUSANDY

SOIUGENERIC

SOIUGENERIC
SLUDGE/OILY
SOIUGENERIC
SOIUCLAYEY
Scale
PILOT
BENCH

BENCH

BENCH

FULL

BENCH
BENCH
PILOT

FULL

BENCH

PILOT

BENCH

BENCH
PILOT
PILOT
PILOT
Docu-
ment
Number
EZZA
FHMF

FHMF

FHMF

EWFZ

EUTV
EUQW
EUQS

EXPE

FCMK

FCSF

EZYQ

FDBP
EXPC
EUZM
EZZB
 3/89
                                               34

-------
TABLE 3.4.  Continued
            (W05 Halogenated Cyclic  Aliphatics/Ethers/Esters/Ketones)

                                                                                             Docu-
Treatment    Treatment                                                                         ment
Category    Process          Contaminant Groups/Codes                       Media        Scale   Number

THERMAL    INCINERATION     W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES  SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  EZYN
            INCINERATION     W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES  SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FDBP
            ROTARY KILN      W05 HAL CYC ALIPHATICS/ETHERS/ESTERS/KETONES  SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT   EZUY
3/89
                                                 35

-------
TABLE 3.4. Continued
            (W06 Nitrated Aromatic ft Aliphatic Compounds)
Treatment   Treatment
Category    Process
Contaminant Groups/Codes
                    Docu-
Media        Scale   ment
                    Number
BIOLOGICAL  COMPOSTING     W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS SOIL/LAGOON  PILOT   EURS
                                                                      SED
           COMPOSTING     W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS SOIL/SANDY   PILOT   EURT
PHYSICAL/-  CHEMICAL        W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS SOIL/LAGOON  BENCH  EURU
CHEMICAL   EXTRACTION                                                 SED
THERMAL    INCINERATION     W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS SOIL/LAGOON  BENCH  EUWW1
                                                                      SED
           ROTARY KILN     W06 NITRATED AROMATIC & ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT   EURP
3/89
                                               36

-------
TABLE &4. Continued
            (W07 Heterocyclics & Simple Non-Hal Aromatics)
Treatment
Category
BIOLOGICAL

IMMOBILIZA-
TION




PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL






PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL










THERMAL

THERMAL





Treatment
Process
AEROBIC

CEMENT
SOLIDIFICATION
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
CARBONATE
IMMOBILIZATION
REDUCTION/-
OXIDATION
DECHLORINATION

SOIL WASHING

SOIL WASHING

LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
INCINERATION

ROTARY KILN

ROTARY KILN

INFRARED

Contaminant Groups/Codes
W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

W07

HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
HETEROCYCLICS & SIMPLE NON-HAL
AROMATICS
Media
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/ROCKS

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/SILTY

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/SANDY

SLUDGE/OILY

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SLUDGE/OILY

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/CLAYEY

Scale
PILOT

BENCH

BENCH

BENCH

FULL

BENCH

FULL

BENCH

PILOT

FULL

BENCH

PILOT

PILOT

BENCH

BENCH

PILOT

PILOT

PILOT

Docu-
ment
Number
EZZA

FHMF

FHMF

FHMF

EWFZ

EUTV

EUTT

EUQW

EUQS

EXPE

FCMK

FCSF

FCSP-1

EZYQ

FDBP

EXPC

EUZM

EZZB

3/89
                                               37

-------
TABLE 3.4. Continued
            (W08 Polynuclear Aromatics)
Treatment   Treatment
Category    Process
                Contaminant Groups/Codes
                                            Media
       Docu-
       ment
Scale   Number
BIOLOGICAL BIOLOGICAL
           AEROBIC
           COMPOSTING
IMMOBILIZATI CEMENT
ON
PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL
THERMAL
SOLIDIFICATION
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
CARBONATE
IMMOBILIZATION
DECHLORINATION

SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
INCINERATION
ROTARY KILN
INFRARED
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS

W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS

W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS

W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS

W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS

W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS

W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS

W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
W08 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT   EWGC
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT   EZZA
                                                            SOIL/SANDY    BENCH  EUQX
                                                            SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FHMF
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/SILTY
SOIL/ROCKS
SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SLUDGE/OILY
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/CLAYEY
BENCH
BENCH
BENCH
FULL
FULL
FULL
BENCH
FULL
PILOT
BENCH
BENCH
PILOT
PILOT
FHMF
FHMF
EUTV
EUTT
EUTT
EVAR
EUQW
EXPE
FCSP-1
EZYQ
EZYN
EUZM
EZZB
3/89
                                                38

-------
TABLE 3.4.  Continued
            (W09 Other Polar Organic Compounds)
 Treatment
 Category
Treatment
Process
Contaminant Groups/Codes
Media
Scale
Docu-
ment
Number
 BIOLOGICAL  BIOLOGICAL
            AEROBIC
 IMMOBILIZATI CEMENT
 ON
PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
SOLIDIFICATION
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
CARBONATE
IMMOBILIZATION
DECHLORINATION

SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
INCINERATION
INCINERATION
ROTARY KILN
INFRARED
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
W09 OTHER POLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/SANDY
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC

SLUDGE/OILY

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/CLAYEY
PILOT
PILOT
BENCH

BENCH

BENCH

BENCH

FULL
BENCH
FULL

PILOT

BENCH

BENCH
BENCH
PILOT
PILOT
EURK
EZZA
FHMF

FHMF

FHMF

EUTV

EVAR
EUQW
EXPE

FCSP-1

EZYQ

EZYN
FDBP
EUZM
EZZB
3/89
                                               39

-------
TABLE 3.4.  Continued
            (W10 Non-Volatile Metals)
Treatment
Category
            Treatment
            Process
Contaminant Groups/Codes
Media
Scale
Docu-
ment
Number
IMMOBILIZATI STABILIZATION
ON
            CEMENT
            SOLIDIFICATION
            CEMENT
            SOLIDIFICATION
            FLYASH
            SOLIDIFICATION
            FLYASH
            SOLIDIFICATION
            CARBONATE
            IMMOBILIZATION
            DECHLORINATION
PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL
THERMAL
            SOIL WASHING
            LOW TEMP
            STRIPPING
            INCINERATION

            INCINERATION
            ROTARY KILN
            ROTARY KILN
W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS

W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS

W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS

W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS

W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS

W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS

W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS

W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS
W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS

W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS

W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS
W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS
W10  NON-VOLATILE METALS
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SLUDGE/METAL
FNSH
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/LAGOON
SED
SOIL/GENERIC
SLUDGE/OILY
SOIL/GENERIC
BENCH

BENCH

BENCH

PILOT

BENCH

BENCH

BENCH

BENCH
BENCH
FCAK

EUXT

FHMF

FAAP

FHMF

FHMF

EUTV

EUQW
EZYQ
BENCH EUWW1
                                                                                       BENCH
                                                                                       PILOT
                                                                                       PILOT
       EZYN
       EXPC
       EUZM
 3/89
                                                  40

-------
TABLE 3.4. Continued
            (W11  Volatile Metals)
Treatment
Category
IMMOBILIZATI
ON







IMMOBILIZATI
ON




PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL





THERMAL

THERMAL


Treatment
Process
STABILIZATION

STABILIZATION
CEMENT
SOLIDIFICATION
CEMENT
SOLIDIFICATION
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
FLYASH
SOLIDIFICATION
CARBONATE
IMMOBILIZATION
REDUCTION/-
OXIDATION
DECHLORINATION
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
INCINERATION

INCINERATION
ROTARY KILN
ROTARY KILN
Contaminant Groups/Codes
W11

W11
W11

W11

W11

W11

W11

W11

W11

W11
W11
W11
W11

W11

W11
W11
W11
VOLATILE

VOLATILE
VOLATILE

VOLATILE

VOLATILE

VOLATILE

VOLATILE

VOLATILE

VOLATILE

VOLATILE
VOLATILE
VOLATILE
VOLATILE

VOLATILE

VOLATILE
VOLATILE
VOLATILE
METALS

METALS
METALS

METALS

METALS

METALS

METALS

METALS

METALS

METALS
METALS
METALS
METALS

METALS

METALS
METALS
METALS
Media
SOIL/CLAYEY

SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/CLAYEY

SLUDGE/-
METAL FNSH
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/SILTY
SOIL/GENERIC
SOIL/GENERIC

SOIL/LAGOON
SED
SOIL/GENERIC
SLUDGE/OILY
SOIL/GENERIC
Scale
BENCH

BENCH
BENCH

BENCH

BENCH

PILOT

BENCH

BENCH

FULL

BENCH
FULL
BENCH
BENCH

BENCH

BENCH
PILOT
PILOT
Docu-
ment
Number
EURY

FCAK
EUXT

FHMF

EURY

FAAP

FHMF

FHMF

EWFZ

EUTV
EUTT
EUQW
EZYQ

EUWW1

EZYN
EXPC
EUZM
3/89
                                                41

-------
TABLE 3.4.  Continued
            (W12  Other Inorganics)
Treatment    Treatment
Category     Process
Contaminant Groups/Codes
Media
       Docu-
       ment
Scale   Number
IMMOBILIZATI FLYASH
ON         SOLIDIFICATION
PHYSICAL/-   SOIL WASHING
CHEMICAL
THERMAL    INCINERATION
W12 OTHER INORGANICS

W12 OTHER INORGANICS

W12 OTHER INORGANICS
SLUDGE/-
METAL FNSH
SOIL/SILTY     FULL
PILOT  FAAP

       EUTT
SOIL/LAGOON  BENCH EUWW1
SED
 3/89
                                                  42

-------
TABLE 3.4. Continued
            (W13 Other Organics)
Treatment
Category
Treatment Process Contaminant Groups/Codes
                                            Media
                    Docu-
                    ment
             Scale   Number
BIOLOGICAL
PHYSICAL/-
CHEMICAL
THERMAL
BIOLOGICAL
REDUCTION/-
OXIDATION
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
SOIL WASHING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
LOW TEMP
STRIPPING
INCINERATION
ROTARY KILN
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS

W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS

W13 OTHER ORGANICS

W13 OTHER ORGANICS

W13 OTHER ORGANICS
W13 OTHER ORGANICS
SOIL/GENERIC  PILOT   EWGC
SOIL/GENERIC  FULL   EWFZ

SOIL7SILTY     FULL   EUTT
SOIL/ROCKS   FULL   EUTT
SOIL/SANDY   FULL   EVAR
SOIL/SILTY     PILOT   EUQS

SOIL/GENERIC  FULL   EXPE

SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FCMK

SOIL/GENERIC  BENCH  FDBP
SLUDGE/OILY   PILOT   EXPC
3/89
                                                43

-------

-------
                    Chapter 4
Compilation of Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts
         Abstracts are sorted by Document Number.
                         45

-------

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:   Physical/Chemical - Low Temperature Thermal Stripping
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Sandy and Silty
Roy F. Weston, Inc. "Pilot Investigation of Low- Temperature Stripping of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) From Soil: Volume 1 - Technical Report and Volume II -
Appendices."  Technical report prepared for USATHAMA 123 pp. June 1986.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-571-2054
Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA (NPL - Federal facility)
West Chester, PA
BACKGROUND:     The U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials  Agency  (USATHAMA)  is  investigating
technologies to treat soils contaminated with  solvents.  A
pilot study of low  temperature  thermal  stripping  was
conducted  at  Letterkenny  Army Depot  (LEAD) near
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, from 8/5/85 to 9/16/85.

OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:    Soils from two lagoons
at LEAD that were used for the disposal of  organic liquids
were chosen for treatment. The total VOC  concentrations
in feed soils  were approximately  3503 ppm.  The soils
were sandy and treated at 10 pounds per feed cycle.  The
unit was  designed for processing  385  pounds per hour.
Soils were treated in a thermal processor, an  indirect heat
exchanger which  was used to heat and consequently dry
the contaminated  soil and  volatilize  the  contaminants.
Contaminants in the off-gases were thermally  destroyed in
an afterburner.

   The pilot investigation  was  completed in  two  phases.
Phase I consisted of 18 test runs completed  to evaluate the
effect on VOC removal  efficiency of varying  operating
conditions (i.e., soil discharge temperature, soil residence
time, and air  inlet temperature).   The 18 test runs were
designed  in a matrix  format to investigate three levels  of
soil discharge temperature: 50°C,  100°C and  150°C; three
levels of soil residence time: 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and
60  minutes;  and two  levels  of  air  inlet temperature:
ambient and 90°C.

   Phase  II of the  Pilot study consisted of 10 "optimization"
test runs. There  were  four  primary  purposes  for the
optimization  runs:   1) to evaluate the effect on VOC
removal efficiency of varying operating conditions beyond
the limits  set for Phase I of the investigation  (i.e., maximum
soil discharge temperature and maximum  soil  residence
time); 2) to evaluate the VOC removal rate along the length
of the  unit; 3) to evaluate the VOC  removal  efficiency
associated with  three  "duplicate"  test runs; and 4)  to
                            evaluate  the  VOC removal  efficiency  associated  with
                            reprocessing soils.
                            PERFORMANCE:     The  study concludes that process
                            variables  can be manipulated to achieve desired effluent
                            concentrations  (i.e., 100 ppm, 10 ppm, 1  ppm, etc.)  As
                            conducted, VOCs  were  removed to concentrations below
                            100 ppm. The level of removal was a direct and predictable
                            function  of  VOC  feed  concentration, residence  time,
                            moisture  content, heat input, and generating temperature.
                            VOC removal efficiencies associated with an elevated air
                            inlet temperature were  generally lower  than  those
                            associated  with  ambient air  inlet temperature.    The
                            appendices  provide  extensive  analytical  methods
                            information and other QA/QC information.

                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                             Treatability Group   CAS Number   Contaminants	
                             W04-Halogenated
                             Aliphatic Solvents
127-18-4
                                               156-60-5
                                               79-01-6
                             W07-Heterocyctics and 1330-20-7
                             Simple Aromatics
                             W13-OtherOrganics   TOT-VOC
Tetrachloroethene

Trans-1,2-
dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (Total)

Total Volatile Organics
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-1                   Document Number: EUQS
                                                    47

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Physical/Chemical - Soil Washing
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
PEI Associates, Inc. "CERCLA BOAT SARM Preparation and Results of Physical Soils
Washing Experiments (Final Report)." Prepared for U.S. EPA.  Approximately 75 pp.
October 1987.
EPA ORD Report Site
Richard Traver, Staff Engineer
U.S. EPA, ORD
Woodbndge Avenue
Edison, NJ  08837
201-321-6677
Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL) Site Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT)
ORD -  Edison, NJ
BACKGROUND'  This study reports on the results of work
preparing  30,000  Ibs  of  SARM  or  synthetic analytical
reference matrix, a surrogate soil  containing a wide range
of contaminants.  It also reports the results of bench scale
treatability experiments designed to simulate EPA's mobile
soil washing system,  where SARM samples were washed
to determine the efficiency of using chelatmg reagent and
surfactants to remove contaminants from the SARMs

OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  SARMs were developed
to support testing of various  cleanup  technologies  in
support of the  Superfund  BOAT program  Superfund sites
were surveyed  to evaluate the type of soils present and the
concentrations  of  contaminant in  the  soils. The  final soil
composition selected  consists of 30% clay,  25%  silt, 20%
sand, 20% topsoil and 5% gravel.  A prescribed list  of
chemicals were  added to the  soils.   The contaminants
include volatile and  semi-volatile organics,  chlorinated
organic compounds and the metals Pb, Zn, Cd, As, Cu, Cr
and Ni.  Four  different SARM formulations were  prepared
containing  high and  low  levels of metals  and  organics.
They will be used by the EPA in subsequent treatability
studies.
   Different  solutions containing  SARM samples  were
tested in  bench scale shaker tests to determine the ability
of a chelant (EDTA),  a sufactact  (TIDE)  and plain water
solvent to remove various  contaminants from the fine and
coarse fractions of soils.  The degree  of  contamination  in
both the coarse and fine fraction was determined  by TCLP
tests  and total waste analysis  (SW-846,  3rd  edition).  A
QA/QC discussion is contained in   the report  and  a
complete QA/QC plan is appended
PERFORMANCE.  After  samples  were treated on the
bench scale shaker table the SARM soils  were put through
a wet sieve to  separate fine from  coarse materials and the
fractions  were analyzed  using  TCLP  tests and  total
analysis.   Tap  water was as effective in removing the  VOC
as the other solutions.  PH and temperature had  very little
effect  on VOC reduction. The semi-volatile organics  were
removed slightly better by the 0.5%  TIDE than  plain tap
water. A chelant concentration of 3 moles of EDTA to total
metals was most effective in removing  metals.   Chelant
reaction time for removal was 15 to 30 minutes.  Arsenic
                             and chromium  showed  the  poorest  removal  efficiencies
                             while Cd, Zn, Cu and Ni were easily chelated by EDTA.
                             The soil is divided into three particle size classes > 2 mm,
                             2 mm to 250 ym and < 250 ym  The washes removed
                             contaminants from the  2 larger classes of soils to levels
                             below the  proposed TCLP  limits.   These soil classes
                             comprise 42%  by  weight of  the  SARM  and  could
                             potentially be classified as non-hazardous  and  be returned
                             to the site.  The contaminated fines could be stabilized and
                             treated further.   This study revealed  the  SARM could be
                             cleaned by soils  washing and Ihe contaminated soil  volume
                             could be reduced..

                             CONTAMINANTS

                              Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants
                              WOi-Halogenated
                              Nonpolar Aromatic
                              Compounds
                              W03-Halogenated
                              Phenols, Cresols,
                              Ethers, and Thiols
                              W04-Halogenated
                              Aliphatic Compounds
                              W07-Simple Nonpolar
                              Aromatics and
                              Heterocyclics
                              W08-Polynuclear
                              Aromatics
                              W09-Other Polar
                              Organic Compounds

                              W10-Non-Volatile
                              Metals

                              W11-Volatile Metals
108-90-7
87-86-5
107-06-2
127-18-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
100-41-4
120-12-7


117-81-7

67-64-1
7440-50-8
7440-02-0
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
7440-43-9
7440-38-2
Chlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Styrene
Xylenes
Ethylbenzene
Anthracene

Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
Acetone
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-42                  Document Number:  EUOW
                                                      48

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:   Biological - Composting/Biodegradation
  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Sandy
Portier R., et al. "Field Plot Test Report, Phase III Engineering Design, Old Inger
Superfund Site, Darrow, Louisiana."  Approximately 250 pp. November 1986.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Timothy Mahon
U.S. EPA - Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-6444
Old Inger Site, LA (NPL)
Ascension Parish, LA
BACKGROUND:  This project report describes the results
of biodegradation with indigenous microorganisms on soils
at an  oil  reclamation plant.  The  site occupied about 16
acres  including a 7.5 acre swamp  The wastes were oily
sludges found  in lagoons, diked tank containment  areas,
buried waste areas and in the swamp.  Wastes identified at
the  site were consistent with hazardous materials used at
an oil reclamation plant. Benzene, toluene and PAHs were
present; no  PCBs  were found and  very low  levels of
chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy metals were detected.
Numerous PAHs such as naphthalene, methyl naphthalene,
anthracene and fluorene were detected in lagoon soils and
buried waste soils.  The concentrations of PAH compounds
ranged from  less than 100 ppm to approximately 5700 ppm
for phenanthrene.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:   The purpose  of the
study was to determine microorganism loading rate on the
silt  and sandy clay soils.  Task I was a screening test to
determine the  maximum  toxicant  loading  rates.    After
selection  of the loading rate, Task II was mesocosm tests
in the laboratory  where loading,  nutrients and  other
parameters could be controlled.  This included evaluation
of commercially  available bacterial  cultures.   Field
verification studies  (Task  III) were conducted  on  special
plots  set off at the  site and the  plots  were loaded
sequentially with different waste types. The volume  of soil
which  was treated was not reported.  The duration  of the
treatment was 35 days. The report contains a discussion
of the  mechanism of biodegradation and  an  appendix
showing the  actual chemical reaction  pathways associated
with the biodegradation of various PAH compounds.

PERFORMANCE:   Optimal  loading rates of  the various
contaminants  were  shown  to  induce  microbial
biotransformations.   All  of  the  compounds studied
decreased in concentration over time, but no specific
correlations were presented or discussed by the authors.
Data that was generated only indicated gross trends and no
contaminant  destruction efficiencies were reported.  Also
there was no analysis for toxic intermediates in this study
                            and  the authors  suggested that toxic intermediate
                            production  needed to be evaluated  further   No  specific
                            QA/QC procedures were reported.  The authors state that
                            microbial degradation and  detoxification  of  the site  is
                            scientifically verifiable and economically feasible although
                            no discussion of the economics was contained in the study.
                            Post closure monitoring of soils and leachate from the site
                            was recommended for 30 years.

                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical data is  provided in  the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                              Treatability Group  CAS Number     Contaminants
                             W08-Polynuclear
                             Aromatic
120-12-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
208-96-8
86-73-7
206-44-0
Anthracene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-11                  Document Number:  EUQX
                                                     49

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:    Biological - Combined Biological
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/generic
GCA Corp.  "Endangerment Assessment and Feasibility Study, Picillo Site, Coventry,
Rhode Island."  Vol. I, III.  Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement. 15pp. March 1985.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Kenneth Wrenger
Enforcement Project Manager
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal  Bldg.
Room 2003
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3637
Picillo Site, Rl (NPL)
Coventry, Rl
BACKGROUND:  This treatability study report consists of
limited pages  from a study by GCA Corp. Endangerment
Assessment and Feasibility Study  on the  Picillo  Site,
Coventry, R.I. which reported on the change in contaminant
concentrations in several stockpiles of soils.  One stockpile
containing phenol  concentrations up  to 870  ppm  was
landfarmed  by spreading  and irrigating the waste  with
microorganisms. Other stockpiles  are mentioned  but
insufficient details  are  provided  to  determine  treatment
methods or results.

OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Excavated soils  were
stockpiled in three impoundments.   The soils in the  area
are mainly  sand and gravel till.   The  largest pile (3500
cubic yards) has PCB contamination.  A second stockpile
(2000 cubic yards) which was contaminated  with phenols
was landfarmed by spreading the soil on an underdrain and
liner system,  and  irrigating  the soil.  No details are
provided  on the microorganisms or  other facts  related to
this irrigation.
PERFORMANCE:  Concentrations of PCBs,  phenols, and
volatile organics were reduced by the  treatment.   In the
large impoundment,  concentrations of  PCBs were
decreased from approximately 700 ppm to an average of
37 ppm  after 3 1/2 years by  the  use of  landfarming.
Several volatile organics were also present in this stockpile,
although the  concentrations  were not  discussed.
Landfarming in the  second impoundment reduced phenol
concentrations from approximately 900 ppm to 70 ppm.

   The limited data available does not  allow  the treatment
performance to be accurately assessed. There  is no  one-
to-one correspondence in  the analysis of the influent and
effluent  concentrations.   Some contaminants reported
effluent  concentrations  greater than  the  influent
concentrations.
There is no QA/QC information, however,  a  laboratory
working for the state provided the analytical services.
                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability study  report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
                             Treatability Group   CAS Number   Contaminants
                             W09-Other Polar
                             Organic Compounds
108-95-2
Phenol
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-2                  Document Number:  EURK
                                                    50

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Rotary Kiln
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/generic
Roy F Weston, Inc.  "Incineration Test of Explosives Contaminated Soils at Savanna
Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois." Prepared for USATHAMA. Approximately 200
pp. April 1984.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study

Wayne Sisk
U.S DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-671-2054
Savanna Army Depot (NPL - Federal facility)

Savanna, IL
BACKGROUND-  The primary objective of these tests was
to  demonstrate the effectiveness of  incineration  as  a
decontamination method for explosives contaminated  soils.
A  pilot-scale rotary  kiln incinerator,  manufactured  by
ThermAII, Inc., was used to treat both  sandy and clayey
soils which had been contaminated  by wastewater  from
explosives production and demilitarization   The test was
performed at Savanna Army Depot Activity (SADA), Illinois,
the sandy soils came from SADA and  the clayey soils were
shipped in  from  the  Louisiana  Army  Ammunition  Plant
(LAAP), Louisiana.
OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION  The feed  soil  TNT
concentrations ranged from 88,100 ppm to  406,000  ppm.
The  SADA  soil  was  purposely excavated  from  more
concentrated regions of the  lagoon  so  that  a higher
destruction  removal efficiency  (ORE) could be  achieved.
There  were  19 daily  tests completed  in 20  consecutive
days.  After the initial  run at 500  Ib/hr. and SOOT, elevated
levels of explosives were detected in the ash, fabric filter
ash,  and flue gas.   Therefore, subsequent runs  were
conducted on feed rates no higher  than  400 Ib/hr. and
afterburner temperatures no lower than 1200°F. Each run
was  with approximately  1000  pounds  of  soil   Primary
chamber  temperatures of greater than  1400°F were not
required.
   In addition to these trial  burns  25,000  pounds of soil
were treated in a six day steady-state  production run.  This
run was at 400 Ib/hr, a primary chamber  temperature of
MOOT and  secondary  chamber temperature of 1800T.
These  conditions had consistently demonstrated complete
destruction of explosives  in the stack  gas and kiln ash and
successfully  disposed of all excavated test materials.
PERFORMANCE    The soil residence times could not  be
measured in the field, so they were estimated from the ash
production rate. The  residence time averaged 83 minutes
for the  SADA runs and 72 minutes for the LAAP runs.

   TNT concentrations in the soil ash ranged from 2.55 to
26.9 ppm.   Only  RDX  and TNB were detected on one
occasion, each as a residual explosive or a combustion by-
                            product in the ash. Ash residues were not hazardous due
                            to the characteristics of EP Toxicity or reactivity.

                               The document concludes that this incineration system is
                            transportable and can  operate  under a wide  range  of
                            conditions  It also demonstrated that ash residues are non-
                            hazardous  and  stack  emissions  measured were  in
                            compliance with all Federal and state regulations.

                               QA/QC procedures  are  included  in  the report and
                            detailed in an appendix.
                            CONTAMINANTS

                            Analytical data is  provided in the treatability study  report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants  by treatability  group
                            was:


                             Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants
                             W06-Nitrated         135-HMX
                             Aromatics & Ahphatics


                                                121-82-4
                                                99-35-4
                                                118-96-7
                                                25154-54-5
                                                T99-55-8
1,3,5,7-Tetranitro-
octahydro-1,3,5,7-
tetracyclo-octane
(HMX)
Hexahydro-1,3,5-
trinitro-l,3,5-tnazine
(RDX)
Tnmtrobenzene
Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
Dimtrobenzene
2-Ammo-4,6-
dinitrotoluene
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-3                   Document Number:  EURP
                                                     51

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Biological - Composting
  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact
  Site Name:

  Location of Test:
Soil/Lagoon Sediment
Atlantic Research Corp.  "Composting Explosives/ Organics Contaminated Soils."
Technical report prepared for USATHAMA.  198pp.  May 1986.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD  21010-5401
301-671-2054
Badger Army Ammunition Plant (Non-NPL - Federal facility) and Louisiana AAP (NPL
Federal facility)
Baraboo, Wl and Shreveport, LA
BACKGROUND:  Laboratory scale and pilot scale studies
were conducted to evaluate composting to treat sediments
and soils containing explosive  and  organic compounds.
Sediment and  soil from  lagoons at Army ammunition
plants,  located  in  Louisiana, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
contained high  concentrations of TNT, nitrocellulose, and
RDX, and moderate levels of HMX and tetryl.  Laboratory
experiments using 14C-labeled tracers were used to follow
the fate of each explosive  Two types of composts (hay-
horse feed and sewage sludge-wood shavings)  and three
rates of sediment/soil addition to the compost were utilized
in these studies.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Six 488 gallon tanks 5
feet in diameter  and  4  feet  in height were  used as
composters.   These were placed  in greenhouses.  Two
drums  of contaminated sediment from a  dredging mound
were used.  The composts were incubated at 60°C with
continuous aeration for 6-10 weeks. Offgasses  from  the
composts were monitored  for 14C and at the completion of
the incubation,  composts were analyzed for the explosives,
extractable i4C-labeled  degradates and unextracted
residual 14C.
PERFORMANCE:    TNT  degraded rapidly in all  the
sewage sludge composts but  breakdown in a  hay-horse
feed compost was adversely affected by the higher rates of
sediment addition.  Cleavage of the benzene ring during
TNT breakdown did not appear to be significant.
   RDX was almost completely degraded in  composts
amended with  sediment during  10  weeks of  incubation.
Increased  rates  of sediment addition  significantly
decreased the  rate of  RDX breakdown in both  hay-horse
feed and to a  lesser extent in  sewage  sludge composts.
Substantial  losses of 14C  from  the composts  as 14CO2
demonstrated  that RDX  is completely  metabolized to
natural products.
   HMX did not degrade in the hay-horse feed composts,
but levels were reduced by 30-50% during 10  weeks of
incubation in the sewage  sludge composts.  HMX losses
                            were lowest in  the composts with  the  higher  rates  of
                            sediment addition.
                               Tetryl was  highly  susceptible  to degradation  by
                            composting.  90-100% tetryl was lost after composting for
                            44 days.  Apparent rates of tetryl  breakdown were  not
                            strongly influenced by the sediment loading rates.
                               The half-lives for TNT,  RDX, and HMX using  the hay-
                            horse feed  compost  were   1.6,  3.0,  and 4.7  weeks,
                            respectively. No loss of explosives in  the sewage sludge
                            compost was observed during  7 weeks of composting.
                            Half-lives of TNT, RDX, HMX, and tetryl in the compost of
                            manure  mixed with hay and  saw dust were 1.0,  2.5, 3.3,
                            and  1.2 weeks, respectively.   In  the sewage sludge
                            composts 92-97%  degradation o) cellulose occurred within
                            4 weeks.  Leaching of  explosives and  heavy metals from
                            the composts was minimal.  The  economics of full  scale
                            composting are presented.
                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical data is provided in  the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability  group is:

                             Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants
                             Woe-Nitrated
                             Aromatics & Aliphatics
118-96-7      Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
121-82-4      Hexahydro-1,3,5-
             Trinitro-l,3,5-tnazine
             (RDX)
135-HMX      1,3,5,7-Tetranitro-
             octahydro-1,3,5,7-
             tetracyclooctane (HMX)
479-45-8      Tetryl
90Q4-70-0     Nitrocellulose
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-4                  Document Number:  EURS
                                                    52

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:    Biological - Composting
  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Sandy
Atlantic Research Corp.  "Composting of Explosives." Prepared for USATHAMA. 107 pp.
September 1982.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD  21010-5401
301-571-2054
Manufactured Waste (NPL - Federal facility)
Aberdeen, MD (USATHAMA)
BACKGROUND:  This treatability study was conducted by
Atlantic Research Corporation for the U.S. Army Toxic and
Hazardous Material Agency.  The objective of  this bench-
scale study was to determine the extent to which TNT and
RDX concentrations were reduced by composting for a six
week  period.   A  second objective was to determine if
bench-scale composting  studies accurately simulate  the
activity of larger  composts by  comparison  of parallel
studies monitoring TNT and  RDX reductions in laboratory
studies  (50g  dry  weight) and  pilot-scale greenhouse
composts (10kg dry weight).  A final objective of the study
was to determine the leachability of TNT and RDX from the
compost.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Labeled 1«C-TNT or  14C'
RDX were used in the  laboratory studies.  Radio tracer
compounds were  utilized to determine the  amount of
explosives degraded and the  mechanism of degradation by
composting.   Sandy soils were spiked  with  production
grade explosives and a  compost consisting  of hay  and
horse feed. This mixture was incubated  at approximately
55°C under aerobic conditions.

   In the greenhouse studies,  pilot-scale composts of
approximately 10,000 g of sandy soil containing production
grade TNT (2%  by weight) RDX  (1%  by weight)  were
composted for four to six weeks.  Aerobic conditions were
maintained in these composts by a forced aeration system
and frequent mixing. No external heat source was utilized.
PERFORMANCE:   In the laboratory, TNT  concentrations
were reduced  by 82.6% at the end of  six  weeks of
composting.   No  significant quantities  of  14CC>2 were
evolved,  indicating  that composting  did  not result in
cleavage of the ring structure of the TNT molecule.  Trace
quantities  of  reduction  products  (4-amino-2,  6-
dinitrotoluene and  2-amino-4, 6-dinitrotoluene) were found
in  one of three replicate composts after  six  weeks of
composting.   The  RDX  laboratory composts  showed a
reduction in  the  RDX  concentration of 78.3% after  six
                            weeks of composting. Significant amounts of 14CO? were
                            produced by the RDX compost, indicating that cleavage of
                            the RDX molecule occurred.

                              The greenhouse compost studies  demonstrated a very
                            rapid decrease in  the TNT  concentration.   At  the  three
                            week sampling time, the initial TNT  concentration of 2%
                            had been reduced by 99.9%.  Analysis of the four  week
                            TNT compost extract confirmed that the TNT concentration
                            in the composed material was below  the detection limit of
                            16.9 ppm.   Greenhouse  composting  of RDX  resulted in a
                            61%  reduction in the RDX concentration after three weeks
                            from an  initial concentration of 1%, with  total reduction of
                            82% following six weeks  of composting. Reduction of RDX
                            and TNT  in  the  leachate  to  13   ppm  andl 4  ppm
                            respectively paralleled the above results.

                              QA/QC  procedures  for the study  are  not  stated,
                            however, the  document does  report several  standard
                            operational procedures for the laboratory analysis.
                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability  study report
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                             Treatability Group   CAS Number   Contaminants
                             WOe-Nitrated  Aromatic 118-96-7
                             and Aliphatics        121-82-4
Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
Hexahydro-1,3,5-
trinitro-l,3,5-tnazine
(RDX)
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-5                   Document Number: EURT
                                                    53

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - Chemical Extraction
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Lagoon Sediment
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.  "Final Report:  Development of Optimum
Treatment System for Wastewater Lagoons Phase II - Solvent Extraction Laboratory
Testing."  Prepared for USATHAMA, 85 pp. October 1984.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen  Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-571-2054
Ft. Wingate, NM; Navajo, AZ; and Shreveport, LA (NPL - Federal facility)
Gainsville, FL
BACKGROUND:  The U.S. Army  surveyed innovative
treatment  techniques  for  restoration of hazardous waste
lagoons and selected solvent extraction  as  cost-effective
restoration for further study.  This treatability study focuses
on treatment of organic (explosive) contaminated  lagoon
sediments which  are the result of munitions production
operations. Primary  contaminants of concern  included the
following explosives:  TNT, DNT,  RDX and Tetryl.   This
was a laboratory study of solid extraction where the solvent
is used in excess and the effectiveness of a single contact
is limited by the ability to physically separate the liquid and
soil fractions.  The treatability goal is to  reduce explosive
contaminant level to  10 mg/kg.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Sediments tested  were
obtained from Navajo Army Depot (AD), AZ (predominantly
volcanic cinders); Ft. Wingate AD,  NM (mostly clay), and
Louisiana  Army Ammunition Plant.  Explosive content of
sediments ranged from 0.1-99%  and  moisture  content
ranged from 238-42.8%.  (Report  provides characteristics
information on  sediments.)  Acetone was selected  as the
leaching  agent based on the  solubility  of contaminants,
cost, and availability.  Laboratory tests included: solubility,
leaching  efficiencies,  and  settling  tests.  Solubility  tests
evaluated water/acetone ratios to determine optimum
operational range for individual contaminants and mixtures.
Leaching  tests  evaluated effectiveness of  countercurrent
extraction to  determine  contact time  required  for
equilibrium  of  explosives  between leachate  and  the
sediments.  Multiple  leaching  tests were  performed by
shaking sediment with acetone/water mixture in 1-liter
graduated cylinders  for 30 minutes followed by solid-liquid
separation. Settling  tests were performed on two soils with
significant solid content to determine settling rate to aid in
design of waste water treatment unit.
Report  provides  a  discussion  of  sampling and analysis
methods and provides limited QA/QC information.

PERFORMANCE: Laboratory teachability studies indicated
that  wet,  explosive-ladened sediments can  be effectively
decontaminated by leaching with an acetone/water mixture.
In general, three to four contact  stages of 30 minutes  each
                             were required to reduce the explosives level to less than 10
                             mg/kg.  A fifth  contact stage with  a  50% efficiency would
                             have been required to achieve the goal for the  Louisiana
                             sediment    Solubility tests  demonstrated a  non-linear
                             solubility  of explosives  with  acetone/water.   Saturated
                             solutions between 50  and  90% acetone form a two-phase
                             liquid solution which  should  be avoided since this could
                             hinder  penetration of solvent through  sediment.   A
                             conceptual treatment system design is provided  based on
                             results of tests  Calculated 4 stage removal efficiencies are
                             shown in the bottom table

                             CONTAMINANTS:

                             Analytical data  is provided in  the  treatability study report.
                             The breakdown of the  contaminants by treatability group is:

                              Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants
Woe-Nitrated
Compounds
Aromatic 118-96-7
99-35-4
121-82-4
Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
Tnnitrobenzene (TNB)
Hexahydro-1,3,5-
trmitro-1 ,3,5-tnazme
(RDX)
                             Initial Sediment Explosives Concentration, Final  Sediment
                             Explosives Concentration, and Calculated 4-Stage Removal
                             Efficiencies


Sediment
Ft. Wingate
AD
Navajo AD
Louisiana
NOTE: This
more
Initial
Explosives
Concen-
trations
(mg/Kg)
1,200
19,000
420,000
is a partial listing
information.
Final
Explosives
Concen-
trations
(mg/kg)
6.0
7.0
17.0
of data. Refer to

4-Stage
Removal
Efficiency
%
99.5
99.96
99.996
the document for
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-45             Document Number: EURU
                                                      54

-------
                     SUPERRJND TREATABiLITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   immobilization - Cement and Fly Ash Solidification
  Media.
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test
Ecology and Environment, inc. "Summary Report on the Field Investigation of the Sapp
Battery Site  Jackson County, Florida "  Approximately 170 pp. in two volumes.
Technical report prepared for  Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER).
November 1986
Cuntrar.torA/endor (Testability Study
Knsten I oopen
U S EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
41)4-347-4727
Sapp Battery Site, Jackson County, FL (NPL)

 KJI kboii County, H
BACKGROUND.    ihis  treatabihty  study  presents the
results of field investigations at  the  Sapp Battery site  in
Florida,  an  abandoned  battery  recycling operation   The
site is estimated to contain  14,300 cubic yards of soils with
lead levels  in  excess of 1,000  ppm   The  soils in the
immediate vicinity of the site are a mixture of brown sand
and yellow-brown sandy loam to  a depth of five feet   A
detailed QA/QC plan and analytical protocols is described
in  the second  volume to the study  A sampling  program
and fixation study was conducted  to evaluate cementitious
and pozzolanic cementation  technologies  for  leachate
minimization potential    This abstract will focus  on the
fixation study and the ability of the processes evaluated  to
immobilize heavy metals

OPERATIONAL  INFGHMAHON  I he cement  base
solidification process involves sealing  the contaminated soil
in  a portland  cement rnatnx    The   pozzolanic  process
involves sealing the contaminated soil in a matrix of lime
and fly ash.  Soil samples  from 0 to 5 and 5 to 10 foot
depth intervals were composited and used  Analysis of the
composite  sample  showed  7100  rng/kg of  lead    Soil
samples were mixed  with  varying  percentages  of
solidification agent and water and allowed to set
PERFORMANCE:   I hree poz/olanii., three  cementitious
solidification mixes  and one control were prepared for the
EP Toxicity leaching test   The  results  of the chemical
fixation analysis are shown in the table on the next  page
The  results  indicate  that the cementitious  mixture  was
much more effective  m binding  lead  than the pozzolanic
cement  mixture (fly ash and lime)  The  pot (land  cement
mixture exhibited excellent binding capacity for all samples
(1126A through 0). Compared to the maximum allowable
concentration of 5 nig/liter (EP loxicity), the analysis of the
fixed  samples  weie at 01  near  the  lead detection  limit.
Lead  concentrations in the  leachate  from the pozzolanic
mixture  were much higher  than  in  the portland  cement
mixture  The authors offer no explanation for the difference
but did indicate that the sods can bo solidified to reduce
lead concentrations m the loachate to acceptable le»els  It
                             is anticipated that cement requirements could be  reduced
                             and heavy  metal control  increased through  process
                             optimization.

                             CONTAMiNANTS.

                             Analytical data is provided in  the treatability study report
                             The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is.

                              Tieatabihty Group   CAS Number   Contaminants
                             W11-Volatile Metals
                                                439-92-1
                          Lead
                             NOTE
This is a partial listing of data.  Refer to the document for
more information.
                                                       NOTE:
                                                       3/89-29
                                     Quality assurance of data may not be
                                     appropriate for all uses.
                                                    Document Number: EURY
                                                     55

-------
Results of Chemical  Analysis of Extracts From EP
Toxicity Tests
1
Samples



Maximum
Allowable
EP Toxicity
Concentra-
tions
(mg/l)
Pozzo-
lanic
E & E Lab
Number 1126D
86- *
Sample Ash:
Identity Lime:
Soil:
0.25:
0.25:
1
Lead (mg/l) 76.4
Cemen-
titious
E & E Lab 1126A
Number
86-'
Sample Con-
Identity crete: Soil
0.5:1
Lead (mg/l) 0.085
1126E
Ash:
Lime:
Soil:
0.5:
0.5:
1
<0.06

1126B
Con-
crete: Soil
1:1
<0.06
1126F
Ash: Blank
Lime:
Soil:
0.75:
0.75-
1
7.17 <0.06

1126C
Con-
crete: Soil
1.5:1
<0.06



5.0




5.0
 86-1126 is a composite of 9 samples. The untreated composite
 sample has a  lead concentration of 71,000 mg/kg.   The EP
 Toxicity Test on  the control sample (untreated  composite soil
 material) yielded 59.4 mg/l.
                                                         NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                  appropriate for all uses.
                                                         3/89-29                  Document Number:  EURY
                                                       56

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Infrared Incineration
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test
Soil/generic
Shirco Infrared Systems. "Final Report: On-Site Incineration of Shirco Infrared Systems
Portable Pilot Test Unit, Times Beach Dioxin Research Facility, Times Beach, Missouri."
Technical report prepared for U.S. EPA. approx. 200 pp.  November 1985.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
U.S. EPA - Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-236-2800

Times Beach Dioxin Research Facility, MO (NPL)

Times Beach, MO
BACKGROUND:   During the period of July 8 - July  12,
1985, the Shirco Infrared Systems Portable Pilot Test Unit
was  in operation  at the Times  Beach Dioxin  Research
Facility to demonstrate  the capability of Shirco's  infrared
technology to decontaminate silty soil laden with  2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin  (TCDD)  at  a concentration
range of  156 to 306 ppb.  Emissions sampling and final
analysis was performed by  Environmental Research &
Technology,  Inc.  (ERT), while laboratory  analysis of  the
emissions and soil samples was performed by  Roy  F.
Weston Inc.  Shirco Infrared Systems prepared the testing
procedure protocol and operated the furnace system.

OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  A single 55 gallon drum
of contaminated road bed soil which  had been screened
through 1/2 inch mesh  and  homogenized in a mixer was
used. Two primary furnace solid phase residence times
were evaluated: 30 minutes and 15 minutes.  Emissions
and soil sample testing  accompanied  both of these tests.
A consistent  furnace feed rate averaging 47.7 Ib/hr at a 1
inch  bed depth was maintained  during  the 30  minute
residence time test. The feed rate during the 15  minute
residence time test averaged 48.1 Ib/hr with a 0.75 inch
bed depth.

    An important  process  parameter during  testing was
chamber temperature, in both the primary and secondary
chambers.   Over  the  effective process length   of the
primary chamber, temperature was controlled in two equal
length zones.  During the 30 minute residence time test,
the feed end zone maintained a  nominal temperature  of
1560°F and the discharge end zone maintained a  nominal
1550°F.   For the   15 minute residence  time  test, the
respective temperatures  were both 1490°F. The secondary
combustion chamber was heated by a propane burner and
its temperature was maintained above 2200°F during both
tests. The nominal  secondary chamber temperatures were
2250°F and 2235°F, respectively, for the 30 and 15 minute
primary chamber residence time tests.

PERFORMANCE:   For  both  tests,  the  soil discharge
concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was less than 38 parts per
trillion.   Based upon  the expected detection limit of  50
picograms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD as measured  by  the  Weston
                            GC/MS system and the sampling volume capability of the
                            ERT emissions test equipment, the feed rates were more
                            than  adequate to confirm  the  required  99.9999%
                            Destruction  Removal  Efficiency (ORE).  Particulate
                            emissions were well below the standard of .08 gi/SCF @
                            7% 02.  Laboratory QA/QC procedures are discussed in the
                            report.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is  provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                             Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants
                             W02-
                             Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
1746-01-6
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxm (TCDD)
                                                      NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-6                  Document Number: EUTR
                                                    57

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:   Physical/Chemical - Soil Washing/Chemical Extraction
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Silty
Assmk, J.W. "Extractive Methods for Soil Decontamination, A General Survey and
Review of Operational Treatment Installations." Apeldoorn, Netherlands.  Technical
Report.  13pp. November 1985.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL
Woodbndge Avenue
Edison, NJ  08837-3579
212-264-2525
Ecotechniek BV (Non-NPL)
Netherlands
BACKGROUND:  The treatability study report  provides a
general overview of soil decontamination by extraction and
reports on the field  application of three specific different
soil washing/solvent extraction  systems  Each system  is
similar m  design and  removed contaminants  from soil
including crude oil and metals.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The soil to be cleaned is
mechanically  pretreated to remove  large objects such as
pieces of wood, vegetation remains, concrete, stones, and
drums, while  hard clods of soil are  reduced tn size   The
sieve  residue  may be cleaned separately  The pretreated
soil is then mixed with  an extracting agent such as acids,
bases, surface active agents, etc.  The primary purpose of
this step is to transfer  the contaminants to the extraction
fluid, either as particles or as a solute.

    The soil and the extracting agent are separated.  The
contaminants, the  smaller  soil particles (clay  and  silt
particles)  and the  soluble  components  m  the soil are
generally carried off with the extraction agent   The soil
undergoes subsequent washing  with  clean extracting
agents and/or water to  remove as much of the remaining
extraction fluid as possible.  The larger particles carried off
with the extraction phase are separated as best as possible
and, if required, undergo a subsequent washing with clean
extracting  agent.   The contaminated extraction  fluid  is
cleaned and can  be re-used after the addition of chemicals.
PERFORMANCE.   All  types  of contaminants  may be
removed  from  the soil  by extraction  if they  can be
dissolved  in  the extracting  agent or dispersed  in the
extraction  phase    Extraction  is  especially  suitable for
sandy soil, low in humus and clay content, because of the
sand  particles' (50-80 urn) relatively high settling velocity.
Sludge  residue  from this  process  generally  has to be
disposed  of.   Currently,  four  installations for  extractive
cleaning  of  excavated   soil  are  operational  in the
Netherlands   The  operational soil  washing  installations
have  proven  successful  for removing cyanides;  PNAs
(polynuclear  aromatics) and mineral oil, heavy  metals;
halogenated  hydrocarbons  and other contaminants with
efficiencies exceeding 80% (see bottom table).
                             CONTAMINANTS:
                             Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
                             The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                              Treatability Group   CAS Number   Contaminants	
                             W07-Heterocyclics &
                             Simple Aromatics
                             W08-Polynuclear
                             Aromatics
                             W11-Volatile Metals
                             Wl2-0ther Inorganics
                             Wl3-0ther Organics
TOT-AR

TOT-PAH

7439-92-1
7440-66-6
57-12-5
TOX
CRUDE
Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Total Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Total organic halogens
Crude Oil
                             Contaminant Removal Efficiency
Contaminant
CN (galvanic)
Zn
Cd
Ni
Pb
Aromatics
PNAs
Crude Oil
NOTE: This
more
Initial
Concentration
ppm
450
1600-3000
66-125
250-890
100
240
295
79
is a partial listing
information.
Final
Concentration
After Treatment
15
300-500
5-10
85-95
25
41
15
2.3
of data. Refer to
Removal
Efficiency
%
(approximate)
94
83
92
66-89
75
81
95
97
the document for
                                                        NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-10                  Document Number:  EUTT
                                                      58

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - Dechlorination
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Tierman, T.O., Ph.D., "Development of Treatment Data on the KPEG Process for
CERCLA/BDAT Standards."  Approximately 60 pp.  Prepared for U.S. EPA, HWERL.
January 1988.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
C  Rogers
U.S. EPA, HWERL
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513-569-7757
BOAT SARM - Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio
BACKGROUND:   This report  describes the results  of
laboratory studies on  KPEG treatment  of synthetic soils
contaminated with a variety of compounds, both organic
and inorganic   The  U.S.  EPA provided  soils  to  Wright
State  University to conduct the KPEG  study.  Problems
were encountered in obtaining homogeneous soil samples
and in the analysis of contaminants in the soils and in the
analysis for  VOCs in the reaction products of the KPEG
treatment tests.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: EPA provided 50 pounds
each of four different standard  analytical reference matrix
(SARM) samples which were prepared  under a separate
work assignment  Each of  the soil samples  were  spiked
with  different concentrations of  known  volatile organic
compounds  (ethylbenzene,  xylene, tetrachloroethylene,
chlorobenzene, styrene,  1,2-dichloroethane and acetone),
three  semi-volatiles  (anthracene, bis  (2-ethylphenyl)
phthalte and  pentachlorophenol) and seven metals (Cd, Ca,
Cr, Pb, As, Ni and Zn). The authors found the SARM soil
samples  to  be  non-homogenous  with condensation  and
pooling  of the liquid contaminants occurring  in the soil
samples.  Samples could  not be homogenized due to the
high moisture content of the sample. 500 gram aliquots  of
the  SARM soils were  removed,  placed in  a two  liter
reaction vessel and reacted with KPEG for 1 hour at 100°C
to observe if  the KPEG process  effectively removed certain
contaminants.  The  KPEG reagent was  provided by the
U.S.  EPA. Samples  before and  after  treatment  were
measured  by  purge/trap GC/MS.    The  analytical
procedures had to be extensively modified due to the high
levels of contaminants  present in the reaction products.
The author attributed the substantial scatter in the results  to
the problem of the nonhomogenous SARM that were used.
Heavy  metal  analyses were performed  by an  EPA CLP
Laboratory.
PERFORMANCE:   The  metal  analysis in  treated  and
untreated  samples revealed that KPEG  treatment  and
subsequent  water washing did   not reduce the metal
concentrations.  Overall metal materials balance was poor
The volatile and semi-volatile organic data also exhibited
very  poor mass  balance  and a  large scatter in  results.
However, the KPEG  appears  to  have reacted with  and
                             essentially  completely destroyed  dichloroethane and
                             tetrachloro-ethylene.   The other two chlorinated organics
                             were not destroyed since temperatures higher than  100°C
                             are required to dechlorinate these  compounds.  The other
                             organic compounds, xylene, ethylbenzene and styrene  do
                             not appear to be destroyed by this  treatment  The acetone
                             data  is suspect due  to  volatility  problems, instrument
                             saturation, etc.  A QA review could not be conducted due
                             to the enormous concentrations of the analyte present in
                             the  various  samples  and the inapplicability of  EPA
                             analytical  methods.   The analytical  data  obtained  are
                             believed to be, at best, semi-quantitative indicators  of the
                             KPEG processes ability to treat contaminated soils.
                             CONTAMINANTS
                             Analytical data  is provided in  the treatability  study report
                             The breakdown of the contaminates by treatability group is1

                             Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants
                             WOi-Halogenated
                             Aromatic Compounds
                             W03-Halogenated
                             Phenols, Cresols and
                             Thiols
                             W04-Halogenated
                             Aliphatic Solvents
                             W07-Heterocyclics and
                             Simple Aromatics

                             W08-Polynuclear
                             Aromatics
                             W09-Other Polar
                             Organic Compounds

                             WlO-Non-Volatile
                             Metals

                             W11 -Volatile Metals
108-90-7

87-86-5
107-06-2
127-18-4
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
120-12-7

67-64-1
117-81-7

7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7440-02-0
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
Chlorobenzene

Pentachlorophenol
1,2-dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylene (total)
Anthracene

Acetone
bis (2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-37                 Document Number:  EUTV
                                                     59

-------

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Incineration
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Lagoon Sediment
Atlantic Research Corp.  "Engineering and Development Support of General Decon
Technology for the U.S. Army's Installation/Restoration Program." Prepared for
USATHAMA under contract DAAK11-80-C0027. Four volumes with a total of
approximately 500 pp. April-June 1982.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Wayne Sisk
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
301-671-2054
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant (NPL - Federal facility)
Atlantic Research Corp.,  Alexandria, VA
BACKGROUND:  This document reports on the results of
bench-scale tests of treatment technologies for explosive-
containing sediment  located  in  lagoons  at Army
ammunition  plants.   A  companion  literature  search
identified the  appropriate  explosives  remediation
technologies to be  evaluated.  Cost estimates for various
treatment technologies were made based on the laboratory
data.
OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:    Sediment samples
contaminated  with  the explosives  TNT, RDX,  tetryl and
nitro cellulose from the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant
were used in the  laboratory tests.  Explosive levels  in
lagoon #4 sediments  were at or  below  1000  yg/g.
Samples from lagoons 9 and 11 had much higher RDX and
TNT levels (1000 to 109,000 yg/gm  of soil).  The report
contains a detailed QA/QC plan and analytical protocol.

PERFORMANCE:   Incineration  tests  were conducted by
placing approximately  4g of  sediment  in a crucible and
placing the crucibles  in  a muffle furnace for  varying
amounts  of  time.   Residues  were analyzed  for
contaminants of interest.  Table I shows the results of the
incineration tests.   Incineration at temperatures as low as
300-500°C for  30 minutes  time  can  remove  all the
contaminants from the  sediments.    While  all  of the
explosives can be reduced to their detection limits at the
lower temperatures,  it  is  possible  that some  toxic
decomposition  products  may  remain.   It  is,  therefore,
important  to use temperatures which  reduce the total
organic  contents   as  measured  by  chemical  oxygen
demand  (COD) to acceptable  levels.   This can  be
accomplished  at temperatures of 500°-700°C and  reaction
times of 30 minutes.  Since explosive volatilization  may
occur,  it  will be   important  in  a pilot scale study to
determine whether any  vaporized  explosives can  be
detected in the  exhaust gases.  Costs for treatment can
vary from  $100,000/year to $2,000,000/year depending on
the water  content  of the slurry that is  incinerated.  In
addition to incineration, acetone extraction,  gamma
irradiation, wet air  oxidation, and  water extraction  tests
were conducted and results reported in this document.  Of
the five  procedures tested only incineration and  acetone
                            extraction proved effective in removing contaminants from
                            sediments.  Incineration equipment  is available  and  pilot
                            tests were recommended.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
                             Treatability Group   CAS Number   Contaminants
                             W06-Nitrated
                             Aromatics and
                             Aliphatics
                             Wio-Non-Volatile
                             Metals

                             W11 -Volatile Metals
                             Wl2-Other Inorganics
121 -82-4      Hexahydro-1,3,5-trmitro-
             1,3,5-tnazme (RDX)
118-96-7      Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
479-45-8      Tnnitrophenylmethyl-
             nitramine (tetryl)
7440-47-3     Chromium
7439-92-1     Lead
7440-43-9     Cadmium
COD         Chemical Oxygen
             Demand
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-28                Document Number: EUWW-1
                                                    61

-------
Incineration of Lagoon 9 Sediment Explosives Levels

                       Concentration in Dry Sediment
Temperature
(°C)
No heat
200


300


500


700


900


Time
(mm.)

5
30
60
5
30
60
5
30
60
5
30
60
5
30
60
TNT
(yg/g)
424,000
10,000
1,500
1,350
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
RDX Tetry I
(yg/g) (yg/g)
159,000 15,800
<1 114
< 1 < 0 3
<1 =0.3
< 1 <0 3
<1 <03
< 1 < 0 3
<1 <03
<1 <03
<1 <0.3
< 1 <03
< 1 <03
< 1 <0.3
< 1 
-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Circulating Bed Combustion (CBC)
  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/generic
GA Technologies, Inc.  "PCB Destruction Facility Circulating Bed Combustor.1
Technical report prepared for U.S. EPA. 24 pp.  December 1985.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Hiroshi Dodohara
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O Box 85178
San Diego, CA 92138-5178
619-455-2383
Gulf Oil Corp., Berkley  Heights, NJ (Non-NPL)
Berkley Heights, NJ
BACKGROUND:   This  treatability study reports on  an
evaluation  of  a  pilot-scale, transportable, circulating  bed
combustor (CBC) for the incineration of PCB contaminated
soils.   This May  1985  test was  for  a  demonstration to
support a permit application for operation in California

OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:  The CBC demonstration
utilized a spiked soil (10,000 ppm  PCB concentration)  at a
feed rate of 400 pounds per hour and  a CBC  operating
temperature of 1800°F No information was provided on the
soil.   Three four-hour runs were completed;  however,
because problems occurred in the sampling of particulates
in the initial test, a fourth abbreviated  run of two hours  was
conducted solely  for collecting  a  particulates  sample.
Three supplementary runs were conducted to evaluate low
combustion temperatures (1625°F) and to incinerate PCB-
contaminated  soil.  Feed soil,  fly  ash, and bed  ash were
sampled and  analyzed.   Stack emissions samples were
collected  for  particulates,  semi-volatile organics,   and
volatile organics.
PERFORMANCE:   Destruction  Removal  Efficiencies
(DREs) ranged from 99.9999%  to 99.995% for PCB except
for  1  run  which resulted  in  a 99.82%  efficiency.   No
significant PCB stack emissions were indicated. Particulate
stack emissions  during one test did not meet the standard
for stationary air point sources.  High  particulate emissions
were attributed to a  high process air supply  inadvertently
applied to the  air bag filtration unit. Another significant test
value was the  residual dioxin and  furan in the treated  soil.
High values  of  1.33 ppb for  dioxins and  furans were
indicated in the fly ash.
    Several operational  problems were  reported    The
damp, irregularly shaped soil feed  material used during the
trials clogged the transfer ducts in the unit. Agglomeration
of the soil also  occurred in the combustor bed, affecting
mixing efficiency with direct reduction in the combustion
efficiency.

    Other  problems occurred  with the  stack  sampling
method  During  one stack sampling sequence, fly ash  was
inadvertently dispersed throughout  the operating  bay,
resulting in the  evacuation of  the entire office/pilot plant
building.  Siloxanes were present  in the stack gas stream
and interfered in  the laboratory  procedures to analyze the
                            stack gas samples.   However,  the  siloxanes may have
                            been from silicone sealant which was used to  install an in-
                            line oxygen monitor, or from silicone rubber sealants in the
                            sampling trains or similar sources.  The demonstration trial
                            runs and the supplementary tests indicated  that the
                            formation of agglomerates  affected  the  combustion
                            efficiency of the  CBC  unit, and increased the emission of
                            products of incomplete combustion (PICs).

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability  study  report.
                            The  breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group     CAS Number   Contaminants
                            WOl-Halogenated
                            Aromatic Compounds
                            W02-
                            Dioxms/Furans/PCBs
TOT-TCB

11096-82-5
12672-29-6
Total Trichlorobenzenes

PCB 1260
PCB-1248
                                                       NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-9                   Document Number:  EUXM
                                                     63

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREAT ABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Immobilization - Cement Solidification
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Sand and Silt
Firestone Resource, Inc. (Three Documents).  "Soil Stabilization Pilot Study, United
Chrome NPL Site, Corvallis, Oregon" and "Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
United Chrome NPL Site Pilot Study" and "Health and Safety Program, United Chrome
NPL Site Pilot Study." Technical reports prepared for U.S. EPA - Region 10 and DEP of
Oregon. Approximately 45 pages.  February 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
John Banch
U.S. EPA- Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101
206-442-8562
United Chrome, OR (NPL)
Corvallis, OR
BACKGROUND:   This document is  a project plan for a
pilot  study  at  the United  Chrome NPL site, Corvallis,
Oregon  and includes the  health  and safety  and quality
assurance/quality control plans.  The plan reports results of
a bench-scale study of the treatment process as measured
by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
test.   The purpose of this  study,  conducted by Firestone
Resources  Inc., was to  evaluate the effectiveness of  soil
stabilization technologies to reduce the leaching of heavy
metals and  to "pretreat" contaminated  soils for subsequent
off-site management
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The data  available from
this  1985 study  are  bench scale  data involving 1400
pounds of soil from the Western Processing NPL site which
was  generated to support  the proposal/work plan for the
United  Chrome  NPL  site.   Three commercial  soil
stabilization vendors submitted to EPA  14  stabilized  soil
cylinders representing the  "best achievable performance"
of their technology. One of the bench-tests was performed
by Firestone  Resources,  Inc. (FRI).  The  FRI treatment
process  consisted of using an inorganic  polymer with
cement  that was applied to the excavated  site soil.  The
extraction protocol used in the analysis was TCLP,  and
both treated and  untreated  soil were analyzed.  Region 10
confirmed with these  bench tests that soil stabilization as
performed by these vendors is  effective in reducing leach
rate of heavy metals in sands/silt matrices with  little organic
co-contammation.
    Contained in  the document  is site description data,
work plan  description  data, and  a proposed  sample
analysis plan.
    The  QA/QC plan  for the pilot test is an attachment to
the first  volume of the  study, and  is  extensive  in  the
referenced  methodology

PERFORMANCE:   The  bench tests indicated  reduction of
heavy metal  leachate concentrations to   low levels as
measured by TCLP procedures The results  of the FRI test
are  shown in  the bottom  table.   Through groundwater
modeling  using  as  inputs  the  reductions  in  leachate
strength as measured by these tests, soils stabilization  was
                            demonstrated to be  capable  of  achieving water quality
                            criteria at  the  Western Processing  test site.  Pilot
                            demonstration of this treatment process is planned for the
                            United Chrome NPL site.

                            CONTAMINANTS:
Treatability Group
WlO-Nonvolatile Metals
W11 -Volatile Metals
CAS Number
7440-39-3
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7440-02-0
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
Contaminants
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
                            TCLP Leachates  From the Western Processing
                                          Soil        Stabilized Percent
                                          Leachate      Soil    Reduction
Contaminant
Zinc
Lead
Barium
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Cadmium
Notes:
123,700 38.5
12,115 15.5
1,165 ND
227.5 32
107 ND
50 35
1 7 0.4
a) All concentration in iig/l
b) ND - Not Detectable
99.97%
99.87%
100.00%
85.93%
100.00%
30.00%
97.65%

                                       c) This is a partial listing of data.
                                         Refer to the document for more
                                           information.
                                                       NOTE:

                                                       3/89-874
                                     Quality assurance of data may not be
                                     appropriate for all uses.
                                                    Document Number.  EUXT
                                                     64

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - Dechlorination
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
U.S. EPA.  "Preliminary Report on Treatment/Detoxification Alternatives for PCBs and
Chlorinated Organics."  U.S. EPA ORD, HWERL. Cincinnati, Ohio. 31 pp. September
1985.
EPA ORD Report
Charles Rogers , U.S. EPA, ORD-HWERL
26 W  Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati,  OH 45268
513-569-7757
Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Buffalo, NY
BACKGROUND:  The EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory  (HWERL) report  summarizes the
development of systems to dechlorinate  polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs)
and chlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs)  using a series of
reaaents  prepared from  alkali metals  and  polyethylene
glycols (KPEG).

OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:   The  data for this
document are  pilot-scale  data for  the  KPEG-350  slurry
process and bench-scale data with various reagents for the
slurry.

The pilot-scale slurry process was tested on  a Buffalo, NY
PCB contaminated site on July  15-20, 1985.  The slurry
reactor was a 55-gallon metal drum equipped with  a lid,
electric heating tape and a rocking mechanism that mixed
reagent into soil.   The original PCB concentration in soil
ranged from  22-66 ppm.  Approximately 150 Ibs. of soil
were added to the reactor along with 50 Ibs. of reagent.
The treatment  time ranged from  2-2.5  hours  at
temperatures of 75°-100°C. PCBs were  reduced from 22-
66 ppm to less than 1  ppm after 2.5 hours of reaction with
more than 90% of the reagent recovered for reuse.

The bench-scale data  included  several  of the  tests
conducted on the  effects of radio-frequency (RF)  heating
on  the in-situ process.   The document reports that RF
heating of the soil was effective.
PERFORMANCE:  The report indicates  PCBs and dioxin
concentrations can be reduced to less than 1 ppm and  1
ppb respectively  by the slurry  process. The document
concludes  that  the  in-situ process  under  ambient
conditions is not as effective as the slurry process in the
destruction of PCB- or PCDD-contaminated soils. It should
also be noted that the document  does not report any
analysis on  transformation  products  This  needs  to be
addressed, because when chemically altering PCBs, it is
necessary to know what the transformation  products are
and their potential toxicities.

Costs of the process are estimated at  $100 to $300/ton
with the in-situ cost being higher due to reagent loss. The
document reports on some methodology, procedures, and
                            QA/QC protocols  and indicates  gas chromatograph/mass
                            spectroscopy  as the  primary method  of  analysis.
                            Laboratory QA/QC is not discussed in detail.

                            CONTAMINANTS.

                            Analytical data is  provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group     CAS Number   Contaminants
                            W02-
                            Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
1336-36-3
Total PCBs
                                                      NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-13                 Document Number:  EUZD
                                                    65

-------

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:    Thermal Treatment - Rotary Kiln Incineration
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Sandy
AFESC, Tyndall AFB.  "Full Scale Rotary Kiln Incinerator Field Trial:  Phase I, Verification
Trial Burn on Dioxm/Herbicide Orange Contaminated Soil." Internal technical report. 21
pp  Undated.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Major Terry Stoddart
U S. DOD/AFESC
Bldg. 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, MS (Non-NPL - Federal facility)
Gulfport, MS
BACKGROUND:   This treatability  study  reports on  the
results of one of a  series of field trials  using various
remedial  action  technologies  that may  be capable  of
restoring  Herbicide Orange (HO)/Dioxm contaminated sites.
A full-scale field trial using  a rotary kiln  incinerator capable
of processing up  to 6 tons  per hour of dioxin contaminated
soil was  conducted at the Naval  Construction  Battalion
Center, Gulfport, MS.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Concentrations  of HO  on
the  site range from less than 0.1  ppb to over 500 ppb.  It
was estimated that a total of 11,000 tons of sandy or sandy
loam soils contaminated with HO could be excavated and
treated.   The ENESCO mobile  incinerator used in the test
was capable of treating  100 tons of dioxin contaminated
soil daily.   The system  successfully   demonstrated
99.9999% Destruction Removal Efficiency (ORE) for  PCB
and Dioxin surrogates.  In the incinerator, the  soil was
heated to 1000-1800°F in the rotary kiln which burned or
volatilized all the gases. The gases were then drawn into a
secondary combustion chamber (SCC) operated at 2000-
2400°F for 2.2 seconds  in an  excess  O2  atmosphere to
ensure complete combustion.
The residence time of the  contaminated soil  in the rotary
kiln could be varied from 30 to 60 minutes by altering the
kilns'  rotation  speed  and/or the angle  of  attack.   Air
pollution  control  equipment  on  the  system   included
cyclones  for particulate control,  a packed tower, a scrubber
and a 35  foot stack.  The packed tower  removed HCL from
the  gas stream.   The scrubber was designed to remove
additional HCL and larger particulates (>3 microns).
PERFORMANCE:   The  trial  burns were structured  to
evaluate  system   performance  at various  feed  rates  to
ensure the mobile incinerator  could be operated over  a
range of conditions with minimal environmental impacts   A
total  of  five  individual  tests  were  conducted  with
contaminated soil feed  rates  ranging  from 2 6  to  6.3
tons/hour.  The  unit would be brought  to steady state
temperatures and the sampling of the feedstock, treated
soil and  stack gases  would be  initiated.   The  "running
                             time"  of each  test was dictated  by the  time  required to
                             collect a stack gas sample  The results of five different trial
                             runs revealed that the incinerator is capable of removing
                             dioxin  and HO from the soil matrix to concentrations not
                             detectable at 10 yg/kg (10 ppb).  The results of a test run
                             are shown in  the table on the following  page.  The only
                             operational  problem resulted  from  wet soil from heavy
                             rains.  Soil drying would solve the  problem.
                             EPA dioxin  protocols from  SW 846  were  followed.  These
                             tests were considered successful and follow-up tests on
                             incinerator reliability, maintainability, and cost effectiveness
                             are planned. The treated soils should  be delistable under
                             RCRA based on the data.

                             CONTAMINANTS:

                             Analytical data is provided in  the treatability study report.
                             The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                             Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants
                             W02-
                             Dioxms/Furans/PCBs
            93-76-5


            94-75-7

            1746-01-6


            F1746-01-6
                                                OCDD
                             W03-Halogenated     95-95-4
                             Phenols, Cresols and   34DCP
                             Thiols

                             Note:
2,4,5-
Tnchlorophenoxyacetic
acid (2,4,5-T)
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic
acid (2,4-D)
2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxm
2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
furan
Octachlorobenzodioxms
2,4,5-Tnchlorophenol
3,4-Dichlorophenol
This is a partial listing of data.  Refer to the
document for more information.
                                                        NOTE:  Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-14                  Document Number:  EUZH
                                                     67

-------
Results of Chemical Analyses of Soil Treated in Rotary Kiln (Concentration as no/kg)
Test 1
Analyte

2,4,0
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-
Trichorophenol
3,4-
Dichlorophenol
TCDD
OCDD
TCDF
2.82
Feed
56,000
100,000
1,600
ND(330)
32.1
0.70
0.45
tons/hr)
Treated
ND (20)
ND(2)
ND (1600)
ND(330)
ND (.0015)
0.0024
ND
/ r\f\t~\ae\
Test2
(3.64
Feed
tons/hr)
Treated
3,300,000 ND (20)
510,000
3,700
ND(330)
54.2
0.64
0.49
ND(2)
NO (1600)
ND(330)
ND(.0015)
0.00437
0.0129
Test3
(3.71
Feed
120,000
220,000
3,600
ND(330)
38.0
0.72
0.58
tons/hr)
Treated
ND (20)
ND (2)
ND (1600)
ND(330)
ND
(.00089)
0.0193
0.0160
Test 4
(5.22
Feed
23,000
47,000
8,000
ND(330)
45.8
0.80
0.66
tons/hr)
Treated
ND (20)
ND (2)
ND(1600)
ND(330)
ND (.0022)
0.0227
0.0067
Test5
(6.31
Feed
400,000
840,000
5,700
370
60.6
1.2
1.2
tons/hr)
Treated
ND (20)
ND (2)
ND (1600)
ND(330)
ND (.0025)
0.0116
0.0108
ND = Not Detected At The Indicated Limit
                                                   NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                           appropriate for all uses.
                                                   3/89-14                Document Number: EUZH
                                                 68

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:    Thermal Treatment - Rotary Kiln
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
PEI Associates, Inc. "BOAT Incineration of CERCLA SARMS at the John Zink Company
Test Facility (Final Project Report)" Technical report prepared for U.S. EPA, ORD,
HWERL, Cincinnati, OH. 375 pp. November 1987.
EPA ORD Report
Robert Thurnau
U.S. EPA-ORD
HWERL-ORD
26 Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7629
BOAT SARM-Manufactured Waste  (Non-NPL)
ORD-Edison, NJ
BACKGROUND:   This  report presents the results of a
treatability study of rotary kiln incineration of  a synthetic
"Superfund  soil"  bearing a  wide  range  of chemical
contaminants typically occurring  at Superfund sites. This
surrogate soil is referred to  as a synthetic analytical
reference matrix (SARM), and was composed of clay, sand,
silt,  topsoil, and  gravel.    Two  concentrations  of
contaminants were added to this material to  produce
SARM  I and SARM II;  volatile and  semivolatile organics
(3000 ppm in SARM II  and 30,000 ppm in  SARM  I), and
metals  (1000 ppm in SARM I and  II).
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Three 4-hour test burns
were conducted on each SARM at the John Zink pilot plant
facility  in Tulsa, Oklahoma using a rotary  kiln  incineration
system capable  of handling 1000 Ib/hr of  low  BTU solids.
The runs were conducted on September 16-18, 1987.  The
temperature  and feed rates were reasonably close to  the
goals of 1800°  F  in the kiln, 2000°  F in the secondary
chamber, and nominal feed rates  of 1000 Ib/hr. Excess air
was  maintained  at about 3%  in the kiln and about 5% in
the secondary. Emissions of O2, CO2,  and  CO were steady
throughout the tests.
PERFORMANCE:  The  contaminant concentrations in  the
ash,  scrubber water, and flue  gas  were  measured to
evaluate the performance of  the treatment. Little or  no
volatiles were measured in the ash, except for acetone and
phthalate, and  these  appear  to  be due  to  sample
contamination.   Metal   concentrations  in  the ash were
unexpectedly low (50 to 80%  lower than in the feed).  As
expected, cadmium was at least 99.9% lower in the ash,
due to volatilization. Only arsenic concentrations increased
in the  ash (more  than  double the concentrations in  the
feed).   The  scrubber  water  was essentially  free of all
organics,  and  contained only low ppm concentrations of
metals.  Critical emission parameters (oxygen, HCI, and
CO)  were within  RCRA  allowable  limits.  The ORE
performance standard  of  99.99% was achieved  for  the
designed critical principal volatile organic contaminants for
each SARM type.  The  ORE for  the principal semi-volatile
                            organic contaminants show that anthracene was effectively
                            destroyed. ORE data for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate showed
                            three runs meeting the 99.99% criteria.
                            The document discusses QA/QC procedures in detail.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants
WOl-Halogenated
Aromatic Compounds
W03-Halogenated
Phenols, Cresols and
Thiols
W04-Halogenated
Aliphatic Solvents
W07-Heterocyclics and
Simple Aromatics
W08-Polynuclear
108-90-7
87-86-5
107-06-2
127-18-4
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
120-12-7
Chlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes
Anthracene
                            Aromatics
                            W09-Other Polar      67-64-1
                            Organic Compounds    117-81-7
                            WlO-Halogenated Non- 7440-02-0
                            Polar Aromatic        7440-47-3
                            Compounds          7440-50-8
                            W11-Halogenated Non- 7439-92-1
                            Polar Aromatic        7440-43-9
                            Compounds          7440-66-6
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Nickel
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Cadmium
Zinc
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-41                 Document Number:  EUZM
                                                    69

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Physical/Chemical - In-situ Soil Washing
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Sandy
Science Applications International Corporation. "Treatment of Contaminated Soils with
Aqueous Surfactants (Interim Report)."  and "Project Summary: Treatment of
Contaminated Soils with Aqueous Surfactants."  Prepared for U.S. EPA, HWERL, ORD.
46 pp.  December 1985.
EPA ORD Report
Richard Traver
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL - Releases Control Branch
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
201-321-6677

Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
HWERL/EPA ORD Cincinnati, OH
BACKGROUND:   This  treatability  study  reports on  the
results, conclusions  and recommendations  of  a project
performed to develop a technical base for decisions for the
use of surfactants in aqueous solutions to wash soils in-
situ.   The  study  reports  on the  selection  of  soil and
contaminants, the test equipment and methods, the results
of the various  surfactant  concentrations  tested  and  the
results of tests to remove the surfactants from the leachate.
OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION.   Aqueous  nonionic
surfactants,  high  boiling point crude oil, PCBs and
chlorophenols were selected for testing.  A fine to coarse
loamy soil  with  0.12 percent  TOC  by weight and
permeability of 10-3cm/s was selected  for testing.  Shaker
table partitioning experiments were conducted to determine
the  minimum   surfactant  concentration  required  to
accomplish  acceptable  soil  cleanup. This was  done for
each  of the  selected contaminants. The soil was spiked
and  packed in  a  3 inch  by 5  ft.  column for  washing.
Recycling of washing solution was  tested and cleaning of
the contaminants from the surfactant solution was tested.
PERFORMANCE:  The extent of contaminant removal from
the soil was 92  percent for the PCBs, using 0.75 percent
each  of Adsee 799  (Witco Chemical)  and Hyonic NP-90
(Diamond Shamrock)  in water.   For  the  petroleum
hydrocarbons, the  removal  with a 2  percent  aqueous
solution of each surfactant was 93 percent.  Water alone
removed all  but 0.56 percent chlorophenol after  the tenth
pore volume of  water.   Leachate treatment alternatives of
foam  fractionations,  sorbent adsorption, ultrafiltration  and
surfactant hydrolysis were tested  in the laboratory.  The
tests  were  able to  concentrate  the contaminants in the
wastewater  to  facilitate disposal,  and  clean the  water
enough to allow for reuse or disposal in a publicly owned
treatment works.  The study recommends further tests on
other  surfactants  in  particular  their  amenability to
separation and reuse.   Report concludes that the use of
aqueous  surfactants is a potentially useful technology for
                            in-situ cleanup  of hydrophobic and  slightly  hydrophilic
                            organic contaminants in soil

                            CONTAMINANTS.

                            Analytical data is provided  in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is-

                            Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants	
                            W02-Dioxins,
                            Furans.PCBs
                            W03-Halogenated
                            Phenols, Cresols and
                            Thiols
1336-36-3     Total PCBs

87-86-5       Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
             Cresols, Thiols
                                                       NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-32                  Document Number. EUZU
                                                     70

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Physical/Chemical - Soil Washing
  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact:


  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Sandy
Summary report. "Harbauer Soil Cleaning System." 10 pp. Received at U.S. EPA
Headquarters on November 20, 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
W. Werner, President
Harbauer, Inc.
Berlin, W. Germany
Pintsch Oil Site (Non-NPL)
Berlin, West Germany
BACKGROUND:  This document reports on the use of a
soil cleaning system to remove contaminants from various
types of soils by washing  and concurrently vibrating the
soils to force the contaminant into the  liquid phase.  The
system was  developed by  Harbauer and is being  used  in
Berlin, Germany at a site contaminated with waste oils
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The contaminated soil  is
mixed with the extractant  liquid and  introduced  into  a
decontamination chamber.  The chamber contains a device
resembling a giant auger to  which mechanical energy  is
applied axially  in  the  form of vibrations.  Separation  is
achieved continuously  as the contaminated soil  is moved
through the system. A vibrating system was utilized as it
allows for  control  of process  conditions.  The two most
important  parameters  affecting system performance are
residence  time and the energy  density of the vibrations.
Residence time is varied by controlling the rotation speed
of the auger  which moves  the material  through  the
chamber.   Energy  density  is controlled by altering the
frequency  and amplitude of the vibrations. There are four
basic process  parameters  that  must  be  optimized or
controlled for a successful cleanup. They are: 1) producing
a  stable  soil/liquid suspension,  2)  extraction  of  the
pollutants  through  the  use of  mechanical energy, 3)
separation  of the soil/liquid phases after extraction  and 4)
separation  of the pollutant from the water phase and reuse
of the extractant.  The system is closed but no information
was  provided on  system capacity.   No QA/QC  plan  is
contained in the document.  No site specific information on
the amount  of soils requiring  treatment or contaminant
levels was provided.  Dirty water from the  soil  washing
operation at the Berlin  site  is incorporated into the  overall
groundwater cleanup process.  This water meets  effluent
standards  and  may be released directly into neighboring
waterways.

PERFORMANCE:   The current state  of the art allows for
use of this technique in 0.06 mm to 0.6 mm particle  size
range.   Research  is  being  conducted to extend  the
technique  down to  the 0.006  mm particle  size range to
clean clay  and other fine  materials. Tests were conducted
on  a variety of different soils (sandy, silt and clay)
contaminated with organic petroleum product,  phenol
chloride, PAH,  PCB and cyanides.  Removal efficiencies
ranged from 84%  to  100%.   Clay soil had the  lowest
                             removal efficiency.  The bottom table shows the results of
                             tests on contaminated clay soil.  The technique appears to
                             remove various contaminants from the soil,  however, no
                             information is provided on the  amount of contaminant the
                             water extraction process alone removes versus the amount
                             of contaminant removed by the energy mtroducedinto the
                             system.   No  results  were provided on  the effect  of
                             increasing the energy density  on contaminant removal
                             efficiency.
                             CONTAMINANTS:

                             Analytical data is  provided in the treatability study report
                             The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                             Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants	
                             W02-Dioxms,
                             Furans,PCBs
                             W08-Polynuclear
                             Aromatics
                             W09-Other Polar
                             Compounds
                             Wl3-OtherOrganics
1336-36-3     Total PCBs

TOT-PAH     Total Polycyclic Aromatic
             Hydrocarbons
108-95-2      Phenol

TEH          Total Extractable
             Hydrocarbons
TOC          Total Organic Carbon
                             Results of Soil Washing Tests on a Clay Soil
Pollutants

Total Organics
Petroleum Extract
Phenol
PAH
EOX (mgCI-/kg)
PCB
Input
Pollutant Level


Total




(mg/kg)
4440
165

948
335
11 3
Remaining
Pollutant
Level
(mg/kg)
159
22.5

91 4
ND
1 3
Washing
Success
% Removed
96 4
86.4

904
100
883
ND = None Detected
Note: This is
a partial
listing of data.
Refer to the
document for
more information.
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-26                  Document Number: EVAR
                                                     71

-------

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - Reduction/Oxidation
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Smith, D.L and I.H. Sabberwal.  "On-site Remediation of Gasoline-Contaminated Soil."
15 pp.  Technical paper presented at the International Congress on Hazardous Materials
Management, Chattanooga, TN, June 8-12, 1987.
Conference Paper
Ronald E. Lewis
Associate Waste Management Engineer
State of California Dept. of Health Services
Toxic Substances Control Division
714.744 p Street
Sacramento,  CA 95814
916-322-3670
Soil Treatment Project, Southern California (Non-NPL)
Los Angeles, CA
BACKGROUND:   This treatability study  reports on  the
results of  tests aimed  at treating gasoline  contaminated
soils at seven different sites using hydrogen peroxide to
oxidize  gasoline  constitutents  to  CO2  and  H20  in  the
presence of a proprietary synthetic polysilicate catalyst.

OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The author reviews the
magnitude of the contamination problems associated with
leaking  underground  storage  tanks  with emphasis on
problems in  California.  The use  of hydrogen peroxide to
oxidize  hydrocarbons  is then  discussed along with its
attributes  (no hazardous residue  formation) and its
drawbacks  (slow  reaction  time  oxidizing saturated
hydrocarbons). A table showing the ability of H202 to react
with  various classes of compounds  is  included  in  the
document  along with a table showing  the various types of
organic constitutents present  in  gasoline.   The authors
discuss the  mechanism whereby a  patented  synthetic
polysilicate named  "Landtreat" is used  to  enhance  the
H202 oxidation of  soils contaminated  with  gasoline.
Basically the polysilicate acts as a catalyst to enhance the
oxidation  of  the  organic  species.   Through  a  high-
temperature, high-vacuum  process, Frankel  defects  are
created in the matrix of the  polysilicate.  These defects
become active sites which increase the absorptive capacity
of the  "Landtreat".  UV light also enhances the reaction
rate.  Furthermore, the active sites on the "Landtreat" react
with cations, specifically heavy  metals, converting them to
metal silicates which pass the EP toxicity test.

The soil to be treated is excavated, mixed with "Landtreat"
and sprayed with a solution of H2O2 in water.  The soil is
mixed with a backhoe, frontloader  or similar earth mover to
ensure adequate contact. QA/QC and Health and  Safety
procedures are discussed in  the document.   Cost for
treating the soil ranges from $70-$130 per cubic yard.

PERFORMANCE:  The information presented in  the report
are from  actual soil  treatment  projects  performed  in
southern California.  In general,  between 300  and 1500
cubic yards of soil were treated. Dry sandy and sandy clay
                             soils were reported. Project completion time took from 3 to
                             7 days work onsite excluding excavation, lab analysis, and
                             backfilling.   Average treatment efficiencies  for  total
                             petroleum  hydrocarbons  (TPH) ranged  from  96% to in
                             excess of 99%  depending on the site characteristics. The
                             results of a seven  day test at one site and the amount of
                             total petroleum  hydrocarbons removed is  shown in Table 1.
                             The results indicate  that the  oxidation of hydrocarbon
                             contaminated soils by H202 in the presence of a synthetic
                             catalyst is a technically viable soil remediation method.

                             CONTAMINANTS:

                             Analytical data  is provided in the treatability study report.
                             The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                             Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants	
                             WOl-Halogenated
                             Nonpolar Aromatic
                             Compounds
                             W04 - Halogenated
                             Aliphatic Compounds
                             W07-Simple Nonpolar
                             Aromatics and
                             Heterocyclic
                             W11 -Volatile Metals
                             Wi3-OtherOrganics
108-90-7
106-93-4

71-43-2
108-88-3
95-47-6
100-41-4
108-38-3
7439-92-1
TOT-PETROL
Chlorobenzene
Ethylene dibromide

Benzene
Toluene
O&P-Xylene
Ethylbenzene
M-Xylene
Lead
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
                                                       NOTE:  Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-25                  Document Number:  EWFZ
                                                     73

-------
Total    Petroleum    Hydrocarbon
Concentrations at Site 6  Before  and After
Treatment
   Untreated Soil       Treated Soil*
       (ppm)               (ppm)


        6,700                  6.9

        4,300                <2.0

        1,803                 15.8

        8,884                 15.2

        1,663                < 2

       40,302                  6

          71.7                 4

* There ts no direct correlation between  treated
 and untreated soil for the results shown above.
 Untreated soil  samples were taken at  various
 depths during  excavation  and  the  treated
 samples were  taken from various parts of the
 treatment  pile subsequent to  mixing and
 treatment.
Note:  This is a partial listing of data. Refer to
      the document for more  information.
                                                   NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                             appropriate for all uses.
                                                   3/89-25                   Document Number:  EWFZ
                                                 74

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Biological - Aerobic
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Koppers Co., Inc. "Evaluation of an Engineered Biodegradation System at the Nashua,
N.H. Site." Technical report prepared for Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc.
Approximately 106 pages. April 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Ann Hegnauer
Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc.
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
202-429-6552
Nashua Site NH (NPL)
Nashua, NH
BACKGROUND:  The treatability study report presents the
results of both laboratory and field  studies conducted  by
Koppers on soils from the Nashua, N.H.,  NPL site.  The
purpose of these studies was to provide the necessary data
to evaluate  a full-scale  design  for  the Engineered
Biodegradation System (EBDS) to treat wood preservative
residues found in the soils at this  site.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:   The laboratory bench-
scale  studies consisted  of  a  soil  pan  study and  a  soil
column study.  The soil pan study evaluated the influence
of soil moisture, nutrients, and level of waste application on
biodegradation.   The  soil  column  study evaluated  the
mobility of waste constituents in soil, air, and water

In the pilot-scale field study, which was  performed onsite,
the treatment unit with an area of 10,000 sq ft was loaded
with 1 foot of contaminated soil.  The soil from the Nashua
site was not  characterized. Cow  manure, lime,  water, and
fertilizer were added,  and the mixture  was rototilled  to
maintain  aerobic  conditions.   The  test was  run  for
approximately 6 months.

PERFORMANCE:    Highest  initial  contaminant
concentrations were 7707 ppm for  oil  and grease, 2143
ppm  for PAH,  and  133 ppm  for  PCP.   In  the  field
investigation, over  80% of PCP and napthalene, and 90%
of the PAHs  were  chemically/biologically degraded by the
pilot-scale EBDS.   The  pilot-scale aerobic design was
applied to the soils  utilizing operating  parameters  (i.e.,
moisture  content,  additive agents like fertilizer and lime)
established from the bench  scale study.   The  EBDS unit
promotes the  growth  of unspecified  indigenous
microorganisms to biodegrade contaminants.

Both  the potential  problems of fugitive emissions and
leachate run-off were  addressed  in  the pilot study design.
Tests  results for both of the potential problems showed that
negligible amounts of runoff and fugitive emissions were
generated.   Bench-scale data  and pilot-scale  data is
available in the document.

The study does not report the analysis for potential toxic
intermediates (transformation  products) that may be
                            produced  from the microbial degradation.   Further, no
                            QA/QC  protocols  are  reported  in  the  document.  The
                            document  reports  total waste  analysis and toxicity
                            characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) extract analysis
                            data.  There were no influent TCLP analyses to  match the
                            effluent TCLP concentrations remaining in the soil.
                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical  data is  provided in the treatability study  report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group    CAS Number Contaminants	
                            W03-Halogenated      87-86-5
                            Phenols, Cresols, Thiols
                            W08-Polynuclear
                            Aromatics            TOT-PAH
                            W13-0ther Orgamcs
                                                TOT-OIL
Pentachlorophenols
Total Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Oil and Grease
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-8                  Document Number:  EWGC
                                                     75

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - UV Photolysis
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact
  Site Name:
  Location of Test-
Soil/Generic
International Technology Corp., AFESC, EG&G Idaho, Inc. "Technology Demonstration
of a Thermal Desorption/UV Photolysis Process for Decontaminating Soils Containing
Herbicide Orange."Prepared for EG&G Idaho.  14pp. Technical report.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Major Terry Stoddart
U.S.  DOD/AFESC
BLDG 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
NCBC Gulfport, MS; Johnston Island; and Guam (Non-NPL)
Gulfport, MS and Guam
BACKGROUND:  This treatability study report presents the
results of laboratory and field tests on the effectiveness of
a new decontamination process for soils containing 2,4-
D/2,4,5-T and traces of dioxin.  The process employs three
operations,  thermal  desorption,  condensation  and
absorption  of contaminants  into a  solvent  and photo
decomposition. Bench-scale  tests  were  conducted  to
establish the  relationships  between time and temperature
and treatment efficiency. A pilot-scale  (100 Ibs/hr) system
evaluation was conducted at two sites  to evaluate system
performance and develop scale-up information.
OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:   The  intent of  the
laboratory  and pilot-scale tests  was to reduce  the
combined dibenzo dioxin  and furan  constituents, which
originate from Herbicide Orange (HO), to less than 1 ng/g.
This level represents the anticipated soil cleanup criteria.
The  soils  used   had  similar concentrations  of  HO
contaminants,  but  were different types  of  soil.   In  the
laboratory the contaminated soil is passed through thermal
desorber and the  off gases from the  soils, including the
contaminants, are  passed through  a scrubber that uses a
hydrocarbon solvent.  Contaminants dissolve in the solvent
and the solvents are  passed through a flow reactor which
subjects the contaminant to UV radiation to decompose the
contaminant molecules.  Testing was conducted on  soil
samples from three HO  contaminated  sites;  Johnson
Island, Eglin  AFB  and  NCBC in  Biloxi, MS.   The  soils
tested had  2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations  greater  than  100
ng/g of soil and 2,4,-D/2,4,5-T levels greater than 1000 ng/g
soil.  Tests were  run at three different temperatures  and
two different  power levels  using high  intensity UV quartz
mercury vapor lamps.

Pilot tests were conducted  at the NCBC site using a rotary
indirect calciner as the desorber, an  off gas transfer  and
scrubber system and a photochemical reactor to irradiate
the contaminants  contained in the scrubber solution.  A
1200-watt high intensity mercury  vapor lamp was used to
irradiate the contaminated  scrubber solution.  No QA/QC
plan  was contained in  the document.  No discussion of
analytical techniques utilized to detect HO  and associated
compounds is contained in  the paper.  A detailed  list of soil
properties (particle size distribution, surface area, organic
                             matter, etc.) from the three different sites is contained in
                             the document
                             PERFORMANCE: Laboratory  studies revealed that thermal
                             desorption/UV  photolysis destroyed all  compounds  to
                             below their analytical detection limit  (which was generally
                             less than 0.1  ng/g)   The concentration  of 2.3,7,8-TCDD
                             was reduced from 200 ng/g to less than 1  ng/g. Insoluble
                             brown tars (presumably phenolic tars)  were deposited on
                             the surfaces of the reactor vessel and lamp well. Reaction
                             kinetics  quantum   yields and  rate  constants  were
                             determined.  Pilot tests also produced soil containing less
                             than 1 ng/g of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.  The bottom  table shows the
                             results of the tests

                             CONTAMINANTS:
                             Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
                             The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                             Treatability Group     CAS Number  Contaminants
                             W02-
                             Dioxms/Furans/PCBs
1746-01-6     2,3,7,8-
             Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
             (TCDD)
                             Effect of Treatment Conditions on Residual 2,3,7,8-TCDD
                             During NCBC Pilot Thermal Desorption Tests
                             T   .  SoH    Res,dence     Soi|       2,3,78-TCDDb
                             Test  Feed     Timea   Temperature       (ng/g)
INO. Mate , ,
(kg/hr) (mm)
1 13.6
2 13.6
3 25
4 44
5 20
Notes: a)Soil
40
40
19
10.5
24
residence time in
(°G) Initial Residual
560
560
560
560
460
heated zone.
260
272
236
266
233

ND
ND
NO
ND
0.5

                                    b)Detection level for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was generally less
                                     than 0.1 ng/g with a range of 0.018 to 0.51 ng/g.
                                    c)This is a partial listing of data  Refer to the document
                                      for more information.
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-43                 Document Number:  EWGE
                                                      76

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Circulating Bed Combustion (CBC)
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Clayey
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. "BOAT Treatability Data for Soils, Sludges and
Debris From the Circulating Bed Combustion (CBC) Process." Technical report prepared
for U.S. EPA. 31 pp June 1987
Memo and Conference Paper
Major Terry Stoddart
U.S. DOD/AFESC
Bldg 1117
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
904-283-2949
Circulating Bed Combustion Demonstration Facility (Non-NPL)
California
BACKGROUND:  The two  papers provide a  general
overview  of the Ogden circulating  bed combustion and
summary data of both PCB laden soils for EPA-TSCA and
a test on  RCRA liquid organic wastes for the California Air
Resources Board (GARB).  This abstract will discuss  the
results of the PCB  test, which was planned, monitored and
approved by the EPA.

OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:    The  primary  CBC
components are the  combustion  chamber, hot  cyclone
collector,  flue  gas  cooler,  baghouse, and stack. Auxiliary
systems include feeders (solids, liquids, sludges), forced-
draft and induced-draft fans, ash conveyer,  compressed
air,  cooling tower, and  building ventilation.  Operating
parameters, schematic diagram  and cost estimates  are
provided.

Atmospheric primary air is pumped  into the lower portion
of the combustion chamber  where  the bed material is
fluidized by turbulent mixing of the air and solids.  Larger
solids gravitate downward to form a  more dense fluidized
bed  in the lowest combustor  zone.  The  forced-draft
primary  air carries smaller  solids up to the  top of  the
combustor.  Secondary air is supplied to various locations
in the combustion chamber to ensure complete combustion
and minimize formation of nitrogen oxides (NOX).

Auxiliary fuel and  pressurized contaminated soil feed  are
individually introduced into the lower  combustion chamber
Capability also exists to feed liquid wastes. Dry limestone
sorbent is added to  control  gaseous emissions of sulfur,
phosphates, chlorines, or other halogens.

Elutriated solids are separated from  the flue gas by a  hot
cyclone and remjected into the lower combustor  using a
proprietary non-mechanical seal.  Injection, burning and
reaction of fuel, contaminated soil feed, sorbent, and ash
components are the inputs  and outputs of a continuing
chemical process which destroys the  hazardous wastes.

A trial burn of  PCB-contammated soils  was completed in
GA Technologies transportable Circulating Bed Combustor
(CBC). Over 4000  pounds of soil containing 1% PCB were
treated in  three identical 4-hour runs at 1800° F.   The
                            sampling and analysis and the resulting data were obtained
                            in accordance with the QA/QC protocol of EPA. Third party
                            sampling and analysis contractors were  used (along) with
                            on-site and in-lab observation by EPA.

                            PERFORMANCE:   Destruction  and  removal efficiencies
                            (DREs)  were greater than  99.9999% and PCB levels in
                            combustor ash were less than 200 ppb  (see the table on
                            the following page). No chlorinated dioxms or furans were
                            detected in the stack gas, bed ash, or fly ash.  In addition,
                            no significant concentrations of the Products of Incomplete
                            Combustion (PICs) were detected. Combustion efficiencies
                            were greater than 99.9%, with CO concentrations less than
                            50  ppm and  NOX  concentrations less than 75  ppm.
                            Particulate emissions were generally below 0.08 grain/dscf
                            and HCL emissions were maintained below 4.0 Ib/hr by
                            introducing limestone directly  into the  combustor.   It is
                            noted that PCB test data led to the first TSCA permit for
                            transportable PCB  incinerator operation in  all 10  EPA
                            regions.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided  in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants
                            W02-
                            Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
1336-36-3
Total PCBs
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-46                 Document Number:  EWHC
                                                    77

-------
PCS Trial Burn Operational Data and Test Results
Parameter
TSCA
Require-
ment
Test Duration, hr 4
Operating
Temperature, °F
Soil Feed Rate,
Ib/hr
Total Soil Feed,
Ib
PCB
Concentration in
Feed
ORE %
PCB
Concentration
Bed Ash, ppm
Fly Ash, ppm
Dioxm/Furan
Concentration
Stack Gas, ppm
Bed Ash, ppm
Fly Ash, ppm
Combustion
Efficiency, %
Acid Gas
Release, Ib/hr
Paniculate
Emissions,
grain/scf (dry)
Excess Oxygen,
CO, ppm
CO2, %
NOX, ppm
--
_._

--

ppm

> 99.9999


<2
<2


—
—
~
>99.9
<4.0

<0.08

>3.0
~
—
~
Test Number
1
4
1800
328

1592

1 1 ,000

99.999995


0.0035
0.066


NO'
ND
ND
99.94
0.16

0.0952

7.9
35
6.2
26
2
4
1800
412

1321

12,000

99.999981


0.033
0.0099


ND
ND
ND
99.95
0.58

0.043

6.8
28
6.0
25
3
4
1800
324

1711

9,800

99.999977


0.186
0.0032


ND
ND
ND
99.97
0.70

0.0024

6.8
22
7.5
76
1 ND = Not Detected
2 Derived from 2-hour makeup test
Note:   This is a partial listing of data.  Refer to the document for
       more information.
                                                         NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                  appropriate for all uses.
                                                         3/89-46                  Document Number:  EWHC
                                                      78

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Infrared
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.  "Abstract On-site Incineration Testing of Shirco Infrared
Systems Portable Demonstration Unit-Contaminated Soils Treatability Study."  Prepared
for Dakonta GmbH Hamburg and Ingelheim, West Germany, 3 pp.  June 1987.

Abstract
Scott  P. Berdine
Ecova Corporation (formerly Shirco)
1415 Whitlock Lane
Suite  100
Carrollton, TX 7506
214-404-7540
Boehringer's Lindane Facility (Non-NPL)

West  Germany
BACKGROUND:  In August of 1986, Shirco was contracted
by  Dekonta  GmbH, a  West German  hazardous waste
treatment company, to perform treatability studies at one of
the largest dioxin-contaminated sites in the  world.  The
Shirco  Infrared process was  selected by Dekonta after  a
two year study and evaluation of existing  and emerging
technologies for soils decontamination.

    The West German hazardous  waste  management
regulations, which are established and enforced on a state
by  state basis, differ somewhat from those in the U .S.
Transportation  of dioxm-bearmg wastes, for instance, is
strictly prohibited.   Hence,  mobile technologies offer
distinct advantages for multiple site remediation.

OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:   Tests were conducted
using the  Shirco  Portable  Demonstration Unit during  the
months of November 1986 and February 1987. Over 3000
kg  of contaminated  soil were processed in  100 hours of
testing.   Various operating  condition's including   soil
contaminant  level, feed  rate, primary  chamber temperature
and residence time, co-flow and counterflow operation,  and
gas atmosphere (air vs. nitrogen) were tested to determine
the effect on soils decontamination levels and exhaust  gas
emissions.  The organic contaminants in the  soils included
dioxins, furans, chlorobenzenes,  chlorophenols,  2,4,5-T,
and hexachlorocyclohexanes.  Contaminant concentrations
on  soils ranged from 4  to 7500 ppb  for  dioxins, 3 to 5700
for furans and from 33 to 16,600 ppm for chlorobenzenes.
No QA/QC data was presented.

PERFORMANCE:   Results  of approximately  20 tests
indicate exhaust  gas concentrations  of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from
less than 20 pg/m3 to  88 pg/m3,  whereas field "blanks"
showed concentrations ranging from 33 pg/m3 to 73 pg/m3.

The source  of the high blank  concentrations  is currently
under investigation, therefore, the  validity of the reported
values cannot be established  at present.  A brief summary
of the data is on the attached  table.
                             CONTAMINANTS:

                             Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
                             The breakdown of contaminants by treatability group is:

                             Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants	
                             WOl-Halogenated     108-90-7       Total Chlorobenzenes
                             Aromatic Compounds
                             W02-               HEPCDD       Total Heptachlorodibenzo-
                             Dioxins/Furans/PCBs                 dioxin
                                                OCDF         Octachlorodibenzofurans
                                                OCDD         Octachlorodibenzo-dioxm
                                                PCDD         Total Pentachlorodibenzo-
                                                              dioxin
                                                HEXCDD       Total Hexachlorodibenzo-
                                                              dioxin
                                                TCDF         Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-
                                                              furan
                                                1746-01 -6      2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
                                                              p-dioxm (TCDD)
                                                TCDD         Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-
                                                              dioxins
                                                HEPCDD       Total Heptachlorodibenzo-
                                                              dioxin
                                                PCDF         Total Pentachlorodibenzo-
                                                              furans
                                                HEXCDF       Total Hexachlorodibenzo-
                                                              furans
                                                HEPCDF       Total Heptachlorodibenzo-
                                                              furans
                             NOTE:
This is a partial listing of data.  Refer to the document for
more information.
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-47                  Document Number:  EWQD
                                                      79

-------
West Germany Dioxin Test Summary Soil Feed and Ash Quality Data
                               DIOXINS
FURANS
Soil
Identification
2 Feed (ppb)
2 Ash
2 Feed (ppb)
2 Ash (ppt)
1 Feed (ppb)
1 Ash (ppt)
4 Feed (ppb)
4 Ash (ppt)
6 Feed (ppb)
6 Ash (ppt)
2 Feed (ppb)
2 Ash (ppt)
1 Feed (ppb)
1 Ash (ppt)

2,3,7,8
TCDD *
6.7
ND
4.4
ND
24
ND
38
ND
34
ND





TCDD
67
ND
6.0
ND
33
ND
42
ND
38
ND
NOT

NOT


PCDD
4.0
ND
18
ND
36
ND
41
ND
27
ND
YET

YET


HXCDD HPCDD
17 50
ND ND
121 340
5.1 18
115 2S2
ND 15
109 280
17 6.8
90 238
15 9.2
AVAIL ABLE

AVAIL ABLE


OCDD
202
ND
2301
60
7458
50
5940
15
5160
20





TCDF
--
ND
12
15
33
52
67
125
49
70





PCDF
3.1
ND
53
27
41
45
44
111
34
54





HXCDF
9.4
ND
58
20
54
26
129
58
80
24





HPCDF
14.6
ND
98
24
174
23
128
34
106
13





OCDF
353
ND
358
12
3151
12
5660
12
4700
6.2




- Chloro-
benzenes
58,000
1,200
169,000
9,600
242,000
4,700
33,000
16,000
40,000
4,600
16,612,000
11,000
16,526,000
7,400
NOTE: ND = Not Detectable .
Detection Limits:   a. 2,3,7,8 TCDD = 1 -2 ppt
               b. All others = 5 ppt
Primary Chamber Temperature:  1550-1650°F
Solid Phase Residence Time: 15 minutes
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-47                 Document Number: EWQD
                                                    80

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:   Thermal - Rotary Kiln
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Clayey
Acurex Corp., Environmental Systems Divisions, Combustion Research Facility.  "CRF
Test Burn of RGB-Contaminated Wastes from the BROS Superfund Site "
Approximately 300 pp.  Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development.
March 1987.
EPA ORD Report
Donald Lynch
U.S. EPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York,  NY 10278
212-264-8216
BROS Superfund Site (NPL)
Jefferson, AR
BACKGROUND: This report provides results of test burns
at the EPA Combustion Research Facility on waste from
Bridgeport Rental and Oil Service (BROS) Superfund site,
NJ.   The purpose of the study was to  (1) determine if
waste could be incinerated  safely;  (2) comply  with the
Toxic  Substances  Control  Act  (TSCA)  regulations
governing PCB-contaminated waste; and (3) determine if
residuals could be classified as non-hazardous.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:    Rotary  kiln was
cocurrent propane  fired and  had  a maximum design
capacity of 900°C (1650°F) with a gaseous residence time
of  1.7 seconds for  10% excess  O2 in  flue  gas.
Containerized solvents were  fed in  1.5 gallon fiber packs
using a ram feeder.  Liquids and  sludge were fed using a
progressive cavity pump through a water-cooled lance.  Air
pollution  control (APC) equipment  included a venturi
scrubber/quench with a 30 inch.  W.D.  pressure drop
followed by a packed tower scrubber.  A backup dry air
pollution control system was utilized  to ensure ultimate
emissions would be within the applicable regulatory limits.
Scrubber system blowdown was directed to a  chemical
sewer, if non-hazardous, or stored in tanks for management
at a  RCRA facility, if hazardous.  Waste included:  lagoon
surface oil, lagoon sludge, and soil.   Average composition:
210-600 ppm PCB,  low to 38% water, 23.2-10,000 Btu/lb.
The soil was a clay mud containing rocks, grass, roots, and
twigs.
Twelve tests were performed during 7/21/88 through 9/4/88
(test time  was five weeks).   Tests  involved  variation of:
waste feed,  kiln temperature,  excess Oj, rotation time
(solid retention time).  The  report  provides  specific
information  on unit  design  (schematic diagram  included)
and  provides test data.  Sampling and analysis and  QA
information is also provided.
PERFORMANCE:    The PCB  emission  results  are
summarized in the table on the following page.  The test
failed to meet the TSCA regulations for 99.9999 percent
destruction  efficiency  (DE) at  the  stack gas  effluent as
measured  after  the  scrubber discharge  flue gas.   DE
                            results ranged from 99.992 to 99.9998.  On average DEs
                            were highest for surface oil and  lowest for the soil sludge
                            mixtures.  Data indicated no clear correlation between key
                            process parameters and DE.  Analysis indicates that  a gas
                            residence time of 2.0  seconds  in the afterburner  and a
                            temperature of 1200°C would be required for this unit to
                            achieve TSCA requirements.  This is twice the residence
                            time achieved in this test.
                            Scrubber  blowdown PCB  content was below detection
                            levels (<1 ug/L). Kiln  ash was  below detection level for
                            PCBs except for ash from  surface oil which tested at 2.55
                            pg/g.   Particulate  and  HCL  emissions  were  within
                            regulatory limits.  Metal concentrations in leachate samples
                            from ash were below the EP toxicity limit.

                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical data is provided in  the treatability study  report.
                            The breakdown of contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W04-Halogenated
Aliphatic Solvents



W07-Heterocyclics and
Simple Aromatics

WlO-Non-Volatile
Metals
W1 1 -Volatile Metals

Wl3-OtherOrganics
CAS Number
75-35-4
78-87-5
56-23-5
79-01-6
75-34-3
71-43-2
108-88-3
71-43-2
7440-39-3
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-38-2
110-54-3
Contaminants
1 ,1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Carbon Tetrachlonde
Trichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Toluene
Benzene
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Arsenic
Hexane
                            NOTE: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
                                  more information.
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-48                 Document Number: EXPC
                                                    81

-------
PCB Emission Rate and DE Summary

                      Feed
                 (Arochlor 1254)
                       Emission (Arochlor
                       1254) at scrubber
                           discharge
  Waste
   Type
Test
No.
Concen-
 tration   Rate
(mg/kg)  (mg/s)
       Concen-
        tration
      (ng/dscm)
        Rate
        (yg/s)
                 Weighted
                  average
          DE        DE
        (percent)  (percent)
  Lagoon
 surface oil
    Soil
  Sludge
  Soil plus
   sludge
  1
  2
  3

  1
  2
  3

  1
  2
  3

  1
  2
  3
  282
  296
  280

  67.3
  167
  95.4

  250
  250
  250

  78.6
  120
  170
 1.38
 1.68
 1.85

0.834
 2.02
 1.20

 2.77
 246
 2.27

0913
 1.39
 2.04
207
212
180

 32
 39
 52

 9
 42
 82

 49
 73
109
0.097
 0.12
0.060

0.0093
0.011
0021

0.0039
0.019
0.037

0.021
0.031
0.041
 99.9930
 99 9929
 99.9968

 99.9989
 99.9995
 99.9983

99.99986
99.99923
 99.9984

 99.9977
 99.9978
 99.9980
                                                    99.9944
99.9990
99.9992
 99.979
                                     NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                              appropriate for all uses.
                                     3/89-48                  Document Number:  EXPC
                                   82

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Pyrolysis
  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Sandy
J. M. Huber Corp.  "Advanced Electric Reactor (AER) for the Treatment of Dioxin-
Contaminated Soils." 14 pp. February 1984.
Memo
James Boyd
J.M. Huber Corporation
P.O. Box 2831
Borgen,  TX 79007
806-274-6331
J.M Huber Corp. - Borgen, TX (Non-NPL)
Borgen,  TX
BACKGROUND:  This newsletter reports on  the  Huber
Technology Groups  (HTG) high temperature advanced
hazardous waste  treatment technology  capable  of very
high destruction  and  removal efficiencies  of  various
hazardous  wastes.   This  newsletter  addresses  the
destruction of PCBs in an  EPA certification test of the HTG
Advanced Electric Reactor.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The Advanced Electric
Reactor of HTG is a high temperature electrically heated
low gas flow reactor, capable of attaining temperatures of
4,000°F to 4,500°F under  low flow conditions, which  allows
for  relatively long residence times; i.e., 5 seconds.  For
comparison purposes, a rotary  kiln has only a one  to two
second residence  time. Soils can also be treated and after
removal of contaminants  they  can  be  landfilled.    The
reactor can be  connected to off-the-shelf stack  gas
cleaning  equipment to   ensure high  removal  of  all
pollutants. The reactor vessel uses nitrogen gas.  Oxygen
is absent  from the combustion process thus preventing the
formation of unwanted oxygen containing by-products,
such as dioxin and furans. The system is mobile and was
used in a PCB destruction test witnessed by the U.S. EPA
and  Texas Air Board.   There  is no discussion  of the
analytical techniques used to measure PCBs.  No QA/QC
discussion is included.
PERFORMANCE:   The results of a  trial burn run  of the
HTG Advanced Electrical  Reactor in  removing PCBs are
shown in the  table on  the  following  page.   Initial
concentration of  Arochlor  1260 was 3000 ppm.    The
Destruction Efficiencies were 99.9999% in all  but  one of
the tests.  Solid phase soil PCB concentrations were well
below the 50 ppm  level  after  treatment.  No HCI,  CI2,
dioxins or furans  were observed at the  stack. Only trace
NOX and  particulate levels were  observed.   Chlorine
removal efficiency in the  scrubber and carbon beds were
greater than  99.999%.  An  accompanying  document
indicated  that the reactor technique could  also destroy
dioxin  contaminated material to below  current detection
                            levels.  However,  there were no detailed results  of dioxin
                            tests reported in the newsletter.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided  in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants	
                            W02-               11096-82-5
                            Dioxms/Furans/PCBs
                            NOTE: This is a partial listing of data.
                                  more information.
  PCB-1260
Refer to the document for
                                                      NOTE:  Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                              appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-49                 Document Number:  EXPD
                                                    83

-------
Summary of Results: EPA Certification Test

                                        % Gas-
                        Pi     Total     Phase
 Run          Feed    Temp.     N2     Cyclone
  #    Date   #/Min     (°F)     (scfm)      (DE)
            Solid Phase
 Control    PCBs,  PPM
  Stack       Treated
  (ORE)        Feed
  1   9/27/83    15.1    4100     147.2    99.99992

  2   9/28/83    15.7    4100     147.2    99.99992


  3   9/29/83    15.7    4100     147.2    99.99960


  4   9/29/83    15.8    4100     147.2    99.99995
99.9999950       0.0005

99.9999994     < 0.0005


99.9999980       0.0006


99.9999940       0.0010
                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                       3/89-49                  Document Number:  EXPO
                                     84

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
   Treatment Process:   Physical/Chemical - Low Temperature Thermal Stripping
   Media:
   Document Reference:
   Document Type:
   Contact:
   Site Name:
   Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Canonie Environmental Services Corp. "Soil Remediation and Site Closure McKin
Superfund Site," Gray, Maine.  Technical report of approximately 250 pp. prepared for
U.S. EPA.  July 1987.

Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3715
McKin Superfund Site, Gray, ME (NPL)

Gray, ME
BACKGROUND:   This treatability  study report  describes
soil remediation and site closure activities conducted at the
McKin Superfund site in Maine. The work described in this
report involves the removal of volatile organic compounds
and petroleum residues  from contaminated  soils by low
temperature thermal aeration  in an enclosed environment.
The  report discusses  the  enclosed  aeration  process,
impact  of the  operation  on  ambient  air  quality,
effectiveness of the system, cleanup costs,  and disposal of
accumulated on-site materials used in the project.

OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The soil aeration system
utilized during the site cleanup consisted of a thermal
dryer, a  baghouse for  control of  particulate  matter,  a
scrubber  to remove  water soluble gases, and a vapor
phase carbon  treatment system to remove organics from
the vapor phase.  Soils were screened to remove boulders
and debris, and fed through the system a number of times
via a conveyer  to  ensure  complete aeration.    Soil
temperatures  were maintained at 250 - 400°F to facilitate
volatilization of organics. Soil was solidified with concrete
after treatment. 11,500 cubic  yards of soil were processed
at the site. Soil types are discussed in reports on previous
studies  conducted  on the site.   Organic vapor
concentrations were  monitored at  the  site  boundaries,
periodic air quality monitoring was conducted at  10 nearby
residences  and high volume particulate  sampling  was
conducted at  the site.  Ambient hydrocarbon levels were
well  below (between 0.002 to  0.01  ppm)  the  level
established as a health standard (2 ppm).
During the pilot study, ambient particulate  standards were
exceeded  on  three occasions.  Changes  in  the material
handling  system  reduced  fugitive  dust  emissions  and
allowed for the processing of 10,000 cubic yards of soils
without further exceedences of the air quality  standard for
total  solid particles.  Various references  are  made to
QA/QC and  to the  EPA  standard  methods  for  VOC
analysis.

PERFORMANCE:   The excavated/aerated  soils from the
site satisfy the performance standard specified in the site
Record  of Decision (ROD)(0.1   ppm   of  TCE).
                            Concentrations of VOCs  and petroleum products before
                            and after treatment of soils are shown in the table on the
                            following page.

                            Significant reduction in the levels of various contaminants
                            before and  after treatment  are  noted.   Groundwater
                            modeling demonstrated that groundwater criteria specified
                            in the ROD were met.  A detailed cost breakdown of the
                            use of aeration to remediate soils contaminated with  VOC
                            and petroleum hydrocarbons is provided.  Based on this
                            data,  the  average  cost  for  treating the  soils  at  this
                            Superfund site is $252 per cubic yard. Aeration was utilized
                            to remediate contaminated soil and  not violate ambient air
                            quality criteria at this site.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants
                            WOl-Halogenated
                            Aromatic Compounds
                            W04-Halogenated
                            Aliphatic Solvents
                            W07-Heterocychcs and
                            Simple Aromatics

                            W08-Polynuclear
                            Aromatics
                            W09-Other Polar
                            Organic Compounds
                            Wl3-Other Organics
95-50-1

71-55-6
75-35-4
127-18-4
79-01-6
71-43-2
100-41-4
108-88-3
1330-20-7
120-12-7
91-20-3
206-44-0
85-01-8
85-68-7
78-59-1
TEH
1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1,1,1 -Tnchloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene
Anthracene
Naphthalene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Isophorone
Total Extractable
Hydrocarbons
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-31                  Document Number:  EXPE
                                                     85

-------
Concentrations of VOCs and Petroleum Products Before
and After Treatment of Soils

                     Pretreatment
                         Soil      Post-treatment
                    Concentration  Soil Concentration
     Compound         (mg/kg)     (mg/kg)
trans 1,1,-
dichloroethane
trichloroethene (TCE)
1,1,1 , -trichloroethene
Toluene
Xylenes
0.11
7.3
0.13
35
84
ND .02
ND .02
ND .02
ND 1.0
ND 1.0
ND - None detected at 0.2 or 1.0 ppm
Note:   This is a partial listing of data.  Refer to the document for
       more information.
                                                        NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                  appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-31                  Document Number:  EXPE
                                                      86

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Biological - Aerobic and Anaerobic
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
NUS Corporation.  "Leetown Pesticide Site Treatability Study." Four progress reports
in internal memorandum form. 62 pp. (total).  Written under EPA Contract.  July 1986 -
January 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
William Hagel
Regional Project Manager
U.S.  EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA  19107
215-597-9800
Leetown Pesticide Site, Leetown, WV (NPL)
NUS, Pittsburgh, PA
BACKGROUND:  This document is composed of a series
of progress reports pertaining to a bench-scale treatability
study which utilized biodegradation to remediate  pesticide
contaminated soils  (DDT  and  DDE)  at the  Leetown
Pesticide NPL site.   Treatment consisted  of  aerobic,
anaerobic and fungal processes  to biodegrade  the  DDT
and DDE.

OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:   Nutrients  such as
manure, sewage sludge and wood chips were added to the
soils to promote the growth of  microbes  capable  of
degrading  the pesticides.  More than 400  biodegradation
cells were used  over 4 test periods.   Efforts to control
temperature, pH  and moisture  content  were attempted
during the study.  One report states that  DDT degradation
appears to  take place at 35° under anaerobic conditions
and that DDE degradation takes place in acidic media.  The
microbes used  in the test  were not  specified but  are
indigenous to the site.  Baseline DDT and DDE levels were
approximately 7,000 pg of DDT per Kg soil and 1000 ug of
DDE per Kg of soil.
An extraction procedure with hexane done on the  soil to
analyze for  DDT was criticized for being  a quick  and  dirty
extraction with no cleanup of the extract.  Other  concerns
reported were strongly sorbed  compounds may not be
detected, interference  from  naturally  occurring organic
matter  could skew the results  and  lack of  standard
analytical protocols could  introduce extraneous  variables
into the data.    Specific  information  pertaining to  the
quantity or type  of contaminated  soils was not included in
the report.
PERFORMANCE:   In December of 1986 an  analysis of
variance (ANOVA) of the  results was conducted  to
determine if there is any statistically significant difference
between the various samples collected from  each of the
different treatment cells and to  determine if there  is  a
significant difference in DDT  and  DDE concentrations  from
one cell treatment to the next. The ANOVA indicated there
is  no  significant difference between  the various  cell
configurations.    Hence  the  average concentration
                            calculated  for each cell configuration is representative of
                            the  population mean.   A review of the sampling  data
                            reported in the December 30th progress report suggests
                            that  anaerobic  vessels operating  under  incubated
                            conditions  represented the best method of degrading DDT
                            in the  soils.   The authors  report  that the  indigenous
                            microbial populations can be used to degrade DDT at the
                            Leetown Pesticide Site.  A preliminary estimate of the time
                            for this process to reduce DDT plus DDE to desired action
                            levels of 300 yg/kg of total  DDT and metabolites was  8
                            months.   Both  DDT  and  DDE are  degraded  under
                            anaerobic  conditions,  and anaerobic vessels operating
                            under incubated conditions represent the best  method of
                            degrading  DDT.  Further work was recommended  on the
                            toxicity and  environmental mobility  of the metabolites
                            present from  the  recommended composting  scheme  as
                            well as controlled bench and pilot testing.
                            No  QA/QC  procedures  were  reported; however,  quality
                            control issues were  discussed and this work  was done
                            under an EPA contract.
                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants	
                            WOl-Halogenated
                            Nonpolar Aromatic
                            Compounds
50-29-3       1,1,1 -trichloro-2,2-bis(4-
             chlorophenyl)ethane (4,4-
             DDT)
72-55-9       1,1 -dichloro-2,2-bis (4-
             chlorophenyl)ethene (4,4-
             DDE)
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-21                  Document Number:  EZUU
                                                    87

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Rotary Kiln
  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact-
       Name:
   Location of Test
Soil/Generic
Vesta Technology, Ltd.  "Trial Burn Test Report, Part I -  Data Summaries." Draft
report of approximately 25 pp. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Region IV, March 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Ned Jessup
U.S EPA -  Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-4727
Aberdeen, NC, Superfund Site (NPL)
Aberdeen, NC
BACKGROUND:  This treatability study summary reports
on the results of a trial burn of pesticide-contaminated soil
from the Aberdeen, NC Superfund site.  The trial burn
using the Vesta mobile rotary kiln incinerator was designed
to demonstrate that this system can destroy the pesticides
in a manner consistent with RCRA standards.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The soil was fed to the
incinerator at rates of 960 to 1023 pounds per hour. There
were three trial runs completed, each  for approximately 3
hours. No details are provided on the soil matrix or QA/QC
accomplished.   Since this  Trial Burn Test Report is a
summary of  analytical results, additional  operational
information is not presented.
PERFORMANCE:  The primary standards of performance
were:
        1. Destruction of the pesticides from the soil fed
          to the incinerator.
        2. Destruction/removal of the  designated principal
          organic hazardous pollutants (POHC's).
        3. Particulate stack emissions.
        4. Hydrogen chloride stack emissions.
Secondary standards included:
        1. Other pesticide stack emissions.
        2. Carbon monoxide emissions.
        3. Dioxin, furan  and other  chlorinated  organic
          emissions.
The soil  treated had initial concentrations of P.P-DDT and
alpha-BHC of greater than 131 and 29 ppm, respectively.
The pesticides  in  the soil fed to the incinerator were
effectively removed, as evidenced by the removal of  the
principal organic  hazardous pollutants,  P,  P-DDT and
alpha-BHC  (99.993%  and  99.998%  removal efficiency,
respectively).   All  other pesticides  found  in the
contaminated soil were not detected in the  treated soil.
TCDD (dioxins) and TCDF  (furans) were not found in  the
treated  soil.  The  destruction  and removal efficiency, of
99.993   percent  particulate  stack  emissions to  .02
grains/dscf and hydrogen chloride  stack emissions of 99.2
percent removal were in compliance with RCRA criteria for
particulate stack emissions of .08 grains/dscf and hydrogen
                            chloride stack emissions removal of 99 percent.  Carbon
                            monoxide stack emissions and combustion efficiency were
                            indicative  of  good combustion,  except for one test run
                            which  experienced  startup  difficulties.   Other stack
                            emission parameters (flow.temperature, moisture, oxygen,
                            and  carbon  dioxide)  indicated  successful  operation.
                            Quality control field blanks were collected and described.

                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability study  report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminant's by treatability group is.
                             Treatability Group    CAS Number Contaminants
                             WOl-Halogenated
                             Aromatic Compounds
72-55-9
                                                72-54-8
                                                50-29-3
                             W05-Halogenated      1024-57-3
                             Cyclic Aliphatics/Ethers/ 1031-07-8
                             Esters/Ketones        309-00-2
                                                319-85-7
                                                33213-65-9
                                                58-89-9
                                                60-57-1
                                                72-20-8
                                                7421-93-4
                                                76-44-8
                                                959-98-8
                                                319-86-8
1,1-Dichloro-2-2-bis (4-
chlorophenyl) ethene (4,4-
DDE)
i,l-Dichloro-2,2-bis (4-
chlorophenyl)ethane (4,4-
DDD)
1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis (4-
chlorophenyl)ethane (4,4-
DDT)
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan Sulfate
Aldnn
Beta-BHC
Endosulfan II
Gamma-BHC
Dieldnn
Endnn
Endrm Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Endosulfan I
Delta-BHC
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-16                  Document Number:  EZUY
                                                      88

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

   Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Incineration
   Media:
   Document Reference:


   Document Type:
   Contact:
   Site Name:
   Location of Test
Soil/Generic

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.  "Final Report, Phase I - Immediate
Assessment, Acme Solvents Site." Technical report of approximately 40 pp. submitted
to the Acme Solvents Technical Committee.  November 1985.

Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
David Favero
U.S. EPA - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL  60604
312-386-4749
Acme Solvents Site (NPL)

Rockford, IL
BACKGROUND:  This is a site assessment and feasibility
study of incineration alternatives at the ACME Solvents Site
at Rockford,  Illinois.  The document contains  laboratory
results that are reported to simulate incineration conditions
but no details on test methods were provided.

OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:   The  document
summarizes  the geophysical investigation, the  delineation
of the contaminated  zones and their  volumes and the
sampling locations.   Out  of  43 samples taken  at  18
locations, 20 were selected to be sent to an environmental
laboratory for  analysis  of percent moisture  (volatiles),
percent ash, total chloride, total sulfur, Btu value and total
PCBs.  Two  samples were analyzed  for organic  priority
pollutants, pesticides and PCBs.   No  details  on test
methods were provided.  Details on the  soil matrix of each
sample were summarized (the majority are silty soil). The
ash from each of the 20 samples was analyzed for EP toxic
metals. The data from these 20 samples is summarized as
well as the more complete analysis results from the two
samples.

This basic data was used in an  analysis  of feasibility, costs
and relative merits of off-site and on site incineration of the
contaminated site material. Specific alternatives are costed
for an on site rotary kiln and an off-site rotary kiln.
PERFORMANCE:  The laboratory test on the  soil  for EP
toxicity showed the  resulting ash/decontaminated soil was
consistently well  below  EPA limits for  hazardous  wastes
classification.   Heavy  metal levels in the  decontaminated
ash ranged from a high of 2.26 mg/l for  Cr to a low of less
than .009 mg/l for Se.  All were well below the EP toxicity
levels defined in 40 CFR 261.4  except for chromium which
is about 50% of  the  allowed EP toxicity  level  of 5 mg/l.
PCBs were reduced from  3600 to less  than 4  yg/kg dry.
There are no details provided on the laboratory incineration
process,  sampling   protocols, QA/QC  protocols  or
conclusions.

The economic analysis  comparing  onsite and off-site
incineration  showed onsite  incineration  could  be
                            accomplished at  one-third  the  cost  and with  the  same
                            implementation time as the off-site incineration.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in the  treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
W02-
Dioxms/Furans/PCBs
W05-Halogenated
Cyclic Ahphatics/Ethers/
Esters/Ketones
W08-Polynuclear
Aromatics


W09-Other Polar
Organic Compounds




WlO-Non-Volatile
Metals
W11 -Volatile Metals



CAS Number
12674-11-2
11096-82-5
57-74-9
58-89-9

83-32-9
91-20-3
85-01-8
86-73-7
117-81-7
85-68-7
84-74-2
117-84-0
78-59-1
108-95-2
7440-39-3

7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
Contaminants
PCB-1016
PCB-1260
Chlordane
Gamma-BHC(Lindane)

Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Fluorene
Bis(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Isophorene
Phenol
Barium

Lead
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-27                  Document Number:  EZYN
                                                    89

-------

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
   Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - Low Temperature Thermal Stripping
   Media:
   Document Reference:


   Document Type:
   Contact:
   Site Name:
   Location of rest-
Soil/Generic
PEI Associates, Inc.  "Low Temperature Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Debris Using
the IT Laboratory Scale Thermal Desorption Furnaces."  Prepared for U.S. EPA,
HWERL, Cincinnati, OH.  120pp. October 1987.
EPA ORD Report
Robert Thurnau
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-596-7692
BOAT SARM-Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
ORD - Edison, NJ
BACKGROUND:   This  study  report  on  laboratory
experiments  on low temperature treatment of soils using
thermal  desorption.   The purpose  of the study was to
determine if  thermal desorption could remove volatile  and
semi-volatile  contaminants from a synthetically prepared
soil spiked with predetermined quantities of contaminants.
This  study  supports  the  U.S.  EPA's  program  to
demonstrate  various technologies for treating contaminated
soils for the  purposes of CERCLA/SARA compliance with
the proposed 1988 banning of land disposal of wastes.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The laboratory testing
program consisted of  15 separate bench-scale tests.  The
EPA synthetic  soil  had  two  levels of contaminants which
are shown in  the  table on the next page.    Thermal
desorption tests were conducted at three temperatures
150°C, 350°C and 500°C for 30 minutes to determine the
effect of temperature on thermal desorption efficiency. The
surrogate  soil  or synthetic  analytical reference matrix
(SARM) is similar to  Superfund site soils and is  30%  by
volume clay, 25%  silt,  20%  sand,  20% topsoil  and  5%
gravel. The  SARMs were air dried  to minimize moisture.
Approximately 80 gms of SARM soil  were used in the tests
in  the tray furnace.  The tray furnace  interior space is
approximately 10 cm wide, 14 cm high and 21  cm deep. A
QA/QC plan  is contained in the study.  Gas bags were
utilized to collect off  gas samples from the  furnace and
THC, CO, CH4 and C2H5 were analyzed by GC.  Soils were
analyzed for the  remaining SARM constituents using
GC/MS.
PERFORMANCE: Thermal desorption of volatile and semi-
volatile contaminants from soils at moderate temperatures
can be achieved with  reasonable success.  At 550°C most
of  the volatile  constituents  are removed  to below  the
one/ppm level.  Acetone appeared to remain in the matrix
possibly due to bound water in  the  soil.   Semivolatile
constituents are also removed to a large extent except  for
pentachorophenol.  Anthracene and phalate are removed to
levels near the  detection limit. At 350°C temperature most
of  the volatile  contaminants  are removed down to the 1
ppm level except for acetone.  Semivolatiles are reduced at
                            350°C, though not significantly.  The author cautions not to
                            place quantitative credence  in  the results  since the
                            precision of duplicate samples indicated that the data is
                            only useful in a qualitative manner.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided  in the  treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group   CAS Number Contaminants	
                            W01 -Halogenated
                            Aromatic Compounds
                            WO3-Halogenated
                            Phenols, Cresols, Thiols
                            W04-Halogenated
                            Aliphatic Solvents
                            W07-Heterocychcs and
                            Simple Aromatics

                            W08-Polynuclear
                            Aromatics
                            W09-0ther Polar
                            Organic Compounds
                            W10-Non-Volatile
                            Metals

                            W11-Volatile Metals
108-90-7      Chlorobenzene

87-86-5       Pentachlorophenol

107-06-2      1,2-Dichloroethane
127-18-4      Tetrachloroethene
100-42-5      Styrene
100-41 -4      Ethylbenzene
1330-20-7     Xylenes
120-12-7      Anthracene

67-64-1        Acetone
117-81 -7      Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
7440-02-0     Nickel
7440-47-3     Chromium
7440-50-8     Copper
7440-38-2     Arsenic
7440-43-9     Cadmium
7439-92-1     Lead
7440-66-6     Zinc
                                                       NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-40                  Document Number: EZYQ
                                                    91

-------
SARM  Contaminants  Utilized  in
Thermal Desorption  Test and Their
Concentrations in the Soil (ppm)
                       High    Low
Volatiles
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobezene
Styrene
1 ,2 Dichloroethane
Acetone
Semivolatiles
3200
8200
600
400
1000
600
6800

320
820
60
40
100
60
680

Anthracene              6500    650
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phtahalate  2500    250
Pentachlorophenol         1000    100
         Metals
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
280
450
  20
  10
190
  30
  30
Note:  This is a partial listing of data. Refer to
      the document for more information.
                                                NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                         appropriate for all uses.
                                                3/89-40                  Document Number:  EZYQ
                                              92

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Biological - Aerobic
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact
   Site Name:
   Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
ECOVA Corporation.  "Final Report:  Soil Treatment Pilot Study Brio/DOP Site."
Technical Report No.  861014/1 (Ecova No.) prepared for U.S EPA Brio Site Task Force.
Approximately 130 pp. June 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Louis Bannka
U S. EPA - Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
212-655-6735
Brio OOP Site (NPL)
Friendswood, TX
BACKGROUND:   Bench and pilot-scale  studies  were
conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of  using  solid-
phase biodegradation  for destroying  portions of  organic
constituents present  in  the soil.   The  predominant
constituents at the BRIO OOP site located in Texas were
volatile compounds such as: methylene chloride, 15-17,000
ppb;  1,2-dichloroethane,  25-195,000  ppb;  1,1,2-
trichloroethane, 25-195,000 ppb.   Semivolatile compounds
were present in lower concentrations: phenanthrene, 1,392-
15,083 ppb; anthracene and fluorene,  440-563 ppb (single
samples only).
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Aerobic microorganisms
present in soil samples removed from  the site ranged from
103 to 105 colony forming units per gram weight of wet soil,
indicating the site contained a diverse microbial population.
Bench-scale and pilot-scale tests were conducted.   The
pilot-scale solid phase treatment facility consisted of a
lined soil treatment area with a leachate  collection  system,
water/nutrient distribution system,  emission control  system,
a microbiological  management system, and greenhouse
enclosure  and support facilities.   The  pilot  facility was
operated for 94  days commencing  in  January of  1987.
Two hundred (200) cubic yards of soil removed from  the
site  were placed in  the pilot  facility, inoculated  with
microorganisms,  nutrients were  added  (inorganic N&P),
and  the  soils  were tilled daily  to  ensure  contact and
aeration.  Tilling  also facilitated air  stripping  of the more
volatile organics.  Volatile compounds  were trapped by
activated carbon absorbers at the pilot facility.
PERFORMANCE:   The  pilot-scale treatment  facility
demonstrated under field conditions  that a  solid-phase
treatment process could be used  to successfully treat the
organic constituents  present in the site soil  The  process
removed the volatile organic  compounds by air stripping,
and  destroyed  semivolatile  organic compounds  by
biodegradation.   More  than  99% of  the volatile  organic
compounds  were removed  within  the  first  21  days  of
operation. However, the biodegradation  of the semivolatile
organic  constituents was much slower.  It was estimated
that approximately 131  days  would  be required to reduce
                            the phenanthrene concentrations to non-detectable levels
                            in the treatment facility.  The time required to treat affected
                            soils and materials (volatile/ semivolatile organics) in a solid
                            phase treatment  process  might be unacceptably long if
                            rapid remediation is required.
                            No actual tests  were conducted  on a  full  scale facility.
                            However,  the  authors discuss the feasibility of full  scale
                            tests and postulate  that aqueous phase  biodegradation
                            could  enhance  the  rate  of removal of  the organic
                            components  by  improving  the  contact  between
                            microorganisms, nutrients, and oxygen.   No treatment cost
                            data was provided.   Numerous  references  to  the
                            biodegradation   of  specific  organic  compounds are
                            contained in this document. EPA analytical methods were
                            utilized to analyze for volatile organics.  A QA/QC plan is
                            contained in the  document  along with a  statistical analysis
                            of the data.
                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical data is provided  in the  treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
                             Treatability Group   CAS Number Contaminants
                             WOl-Halogenated
                             Aromatic Compounds
                             W04-Halogenated
                             Aliphatic Solvents
                             W07-Heterocyclics and
                             Simple Aromatics
                             W08-Polynuclear
                             Aromatics

                             W09-Other Polar
                             Organic Compounds
108-90-7      Chlorobenzene

79-34-5       1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
79-00-5       1,1,2-Tnchloroethane
75-09-2       Methylene Chloride
75-34-3       1,1 -Dichloroethane
100-41 -4      Ethylbenzene
100-42-5      Styrene
71-43-2       Benzene
108-88-3      Toluene
1330-20-7     Xylenes
91 -20-3       Naphthalene
85-01 -8       Phenanthrene
91 -57-6       2-Methylnaphthalene
67-64-1       Acetone
78-93-3       2-Butanone
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-20                   Document Number:  EZZA
                                                      93

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Destruction - Infrared
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
   Site Name:
   Location of Test
Soil/Clayey
Shirco Infrared Systems. "Final Report, Onsite Incineration Testing at Brio Site,
Friendswood, Texas" Final Technical Report No. 8467-87-1 prepared for the U.S. EPA
Brio Task Force. Approximately 750 pp. February 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building,  Room 2203
Boston, MA  02203
617-565-3715
Brio Refinery Superfund Site (NPL)
Friendswood, TX
BACKGROUND:   Shirco Infrared Systems,  operated  a
pilot-scale infrared unit on-site at  the Brio Refinery Site in
Texas.  Eight tests were run over a four day period with
various soil compositions, including clay-like soils from four
pits.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The objectives of these
thermal pilot treatment tests on excavated pit material were
as follows:
1.   To  determine  the  incinerator  ash  chemical
    composition.
2.   To demonstrate that the incinerator feed system can
    reliably provide a continuous,  blended feed  to  the
    incinerator and deposit this feed material  in a uniform
    manner on the incinerator belt.
3.   To  demonstrate  that  the incinerator can  meet  the
    RCRA  required  > 99.99%  destruction  efficiency  for
    Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHCs).
4.   To  provide design  information  and economic data
    required to evaluate  the  feasibility  of  incinerating
    certain Brio Site pit wastes.
The  feed analyses  targeted approximately  120 priority
pollutants. However, only 18 were usually found above the
detection limits. Each sample tested was about 50 pounds
and was spiked with carbon  tetrachloride as  the principal
organic  hazardous constituent.  The soil was mechanically
worked  and screened  to  break up clay lumps.   The
destruction of the spiked  contaminant was used to measure
the success of the testing.   Other analyses  performed
included analysis  of the scrubber  inlet and  outlet, stack
flow,  and ash.  The ash analyses  included  a  mass and
volume reduction analysis.
PERFORMANCE:   Removal  efficiency  under  all test
conditions with 12 or 18 minute primary chamber residence
time at 1600°F was greater  than 99.9997%.  The cost of
treatment with  their  largest mobile unit, which will process
67,000 tons per year, was estimated at $119 per ton. This
does not  include  costs of feed  excavation, feed
                            preparation, interest and taxes  The document details each
                            aspect of the tests, which lends much credibility to its data.
                            QA/QC and sampling protocol are given along with  details
                            of the  testing  procedures, test equipment,  materials, and
                            results.   Sections  are  devoted  entirely to  results,  safety
                            procedures, an economic analysis  and conclusions and
                            recommendations.

                            CONTAMINANTS.
                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability study  report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group    CAS Number Contaminants	
                             W01 -Halogenated
                             Aromatic Compounds
                             W04-Halogenated
                             Aliphatic Solvents
                             W07-Heterocyclics and
                             Simple Aromatics

                             W08-Polynuclear
                             Aromatics
                             W09-Other Polar
                             Organic Compounds
108-90-7      Chlorobenzene

71-55-6       1,1,1-Tnchloroethane
79-34-5       1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
75-35-4       1,1-Dichloroethene
107-06-2      1,2-Dichloroethane
56-23-5       Carbon Tetrachloride
67-66-3       Chloroform
127-18-4      Tetrachloroethene
79-01 -6       Tnchloroethene
75-01 -4       Vinyl Chloride
71-43-2       Benzene
100-41-4      Ethylbenzene
100-42-5      Styrene
91-20-3       Naphthalene
85-01-8       Phenanthrene
67-64-1       Acetone
75-15-0       Carbon Disulfide
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-15                  Document Number: EZZB
                                                      94

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Infrared
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Sludge
Shirco Infrared Systems Portable Test Unit. "Final Report - Demonstration Test On-
Site PCS Destruction, Shirco Infrared Portable Unit at Florida Steel Indiantown Mill Site,
Indiantown, Florida." Technical report of approximately 180 pp. prepared for internal
use by Shirco. September 1986.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
John Kroske
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30336
Florida Steel  Indiantown Mill Site, FL (NPL)
Shirco, Joplin, MO
BACKGROUND: This document reports on the results of a
Florida Steel Corporation study to develop and evaluate
cleanup  alternatives  for  onsite  treatment  of PCB
contaminated soils.   The results of this  study aided in the
selection  of  an  approach  to  remediate  the site
Demonstration tests on incinerating PCBs were conducted
at the site May 13-15, I986 by Shirco Infrared Systems of
Dallas,  Texas    The  purpose  of the  tests  was  to
demonstrate the capability of the  Shirco System  to meet
the requirements  of 40 CFR Part 761 while detoxifying the
soil.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Soils at the Florida Steel
Corporation Site  were contaminated  with  PCBs  in  the
concentration range of 76 to 2970 ppm. The report does
not provide any specific details on the amount of site soil
contaminated, or  the types of  soils undergoing treatment.
The Shirco Portable  Pilot Test Unit used in the tests is a
three  stage system;  infrared furnace, propane fired
afterburner, and scrubber.   The  waste  materials  are
weighed in batches and placed on a conveyer belt which
feeds the material to  the furnace.  The soil is heated in the
infrared furnace for a minimum residence time of 15 to 25
minutes, soil/ash is discharged  and the exhaust gas passes
into  the  propane-fired afterburner.    The afterburner
operates at temperatures from 1900 to  2200°F.  Minimum
afterburner residence time is two seconds. The afterburner
exhaust  gases are  analyzed  for various  contaminants
associated with PCB degradation products,  as required by
40 CFR  761.  Additionally the  afterburner  exhaust is
continuously monitored for O2, CO2, CO and NO* levels.  A
QA/QC plan is contained in this report.

PERFORMANCE:  Six tests were  conducted to determine
the Destruction Removal  Efficiencies (ORE) for PCBs.  In
four of six tests the ORE of 99.9999% was  achieved  The
remaining  two  tests  achieved  a slightly lower DRE than
required; 99.999 and 99.998.  The author believes this was
due in one instance to low concentrations of PCB in the
waste feed stream, and in  the second  instance, to a low
level of excess 02.  This low excess 02 level indicates that
for the Shirco unit the minimum permissible 02 level in the
                            afterburner exhaust should be  increased from that  level
                            used in  the program.  The tests that met  the DRE  had
                            afterburner O2   from 9 to  13%.  Test five, the low  PCB
                            DRE  test,  had  an  02 concentration  of  6.9%.
                            Concentrations  of particulates  in  the flue  gas were  well
                            within the limit of 0.08 gr/scf.  HCI emissions for each  test
                            were less than  4 Ibs/hr.  Also,  scrubber effluent and  flue
                            gases were analyzed for dioxins and furon in one test  run.
                            None were found within detection limits.
                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical data  is provided  in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group   CAS Number Contaminants	
                            W02-
                            Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
APCB        Monochlorobiphenyl
BPCB        Dichlorobiphenyl
CPCB        Trichlorobiphenyl
DPCB        Tetrachlorobiphenyl
EPCB        Pentachlorobiphenyl
FPCB        Hexachlorobiphenyl
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-23                  Document Number:  EZZC
                                                     95

-------

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:    Immobilization - Flyash Solidification
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Sludge/Metal Finishing
VeriTec Corp  Case Study, Hazardous Waste Management Utilizing Lime.  Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Lime Association, Phoenix, Arizona.
pp. April 9, 1987.
Conference Paper
Andre DuPont
National Lime Association
3601 North  Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA  22201
703-243-LIME
VeriTec Corp  (Non-NPL)
Knoxville, TN
13
BACKGROUND:   This  report presents  the  results of
treating a plating  sludge  having high levels of Cu, Ni and
Cr with a lime fly ash additive.  The pozzolonic reaction
solidified the sludge.  The results of various leaching tests
are presented and discussed.  An economic  analysis
suggests  that the mixture used  was more cost  effective
than other  types  of  solidifying  agents and processes.
Various additive  sludge  ratios are  recommended  and a
conceptual system design along with costs is presented.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:   The  sludge  that  was
investigated was a Cu-Ni-Cr hydroxide sludge from alkaline
pH precipitation  of  a  plating-rinse  wastewater.    The
untreated sludge contains 35 g/kg of Cu, 65g/kg Ni and 72
g/kg of Cr.   Sludge density  is 1.133  g/cc.  Lab  tests
revealed  that  solidification was feasible  and  that the
solidified samples displayed considerable unconfined
compressive  strength.   The structural  strength  was
reported to be between 100-125  psi.  Lab tests  were
followed with field tests to determine the effect of leaching
on the solid samples. At 21 days  treated samples were
subject to the  EPA-RCRA  EP  toxicity  procedures,
deionized water  leaching procedures, and  the  Multiple
Extraction  Procedure (MEP) leaching test.    Detailed
explanation  of the leaching procedures are given along with
methods  of analysis used  to  determine  heavy  metal
concentrations.  No QA/QC information  is contained in the
report.
PERFORMANCE:  Laboratory  simulation studies  revealed
that the fixation process could reduce the EP toxicity.  EP
toxicity tests for Cr, Ni and Cu with initial concentrations of
73.0,  65.6 and 22.0 mg/l, respectively,  were reduced by
treatment to 2.9, 1.0 and  1.0 mg/l, respectively.  Field tests
reveal that levels of Ni, Cr and Cu can all be reduced by
the fixation process.   The following tables  show  results
from the various leaching tests. Cyanide (CN) is  not used
in the plant, however, CN was found at 0.13 and 0.05  ppm
in the raw sludge leachate samples.  CN was <0.01 in all
treated sludge samples showing  this fixation process also
retards low level  leaching of cyanides.  Total chromium
was  reduced from 22 to .02 -  .05 ppm in one  set of
                            samples and from 3.5 ppm to 0.4 - 0.1  ppm in another set
                            of samples.  Nickel was reduced from 87 to 0.01 ppm with
                            treatment.  The authors state that they  believe the wastes
                            no longer violate hazardous waste criteria and recommend
                            that the treated wastes be delisted.

                            An economic analysis of the costs associated with  fixing
                            one ton of sludge using a 1  1 mass ratio of fixing agent and
                            sludge was conducted. Pozzolonic process is the cheapest
                            of those  evaluated.   Cement costs $70 per ton whereas
                            pozzolonic  costs as low  as $12.50  per ton depending on
                            the type of fly ash used  (bulk or bagged).  Total disposal
                            costs increase  as the mass  ratio of fixing  agent  to  dry
                            weight sludge increases.  The authors provide a conceptual
                            design of a process along with estimated costs to construct
                            a  one  ton  per   day  system.    Total   system
                            capital/construction costs are estimated  to be $65,000.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is  provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group    CAS  Number  Contaminants	
                            WIO-Nonvolatile Metals  7440-47-3      Chromium
                                                7440-02-0      Nickel
                            W11-Volatile Metals    7440-43-9      Cadmium
                            Wl2-Other Inorganics   57-12-5        Cyanide

                            Leaching  Studies  of  Raw  and  LFA  Fixated  (2:1)
                            Cylinders
Untreated Treated
EPA-RCRA EPA-RCRA
Cr
Ni
Cu
73.0*
65.6
22.0
29
1.0
1.0
Untreated
D.I. H20
0.63
0.61
0.24
Treated
D.I. H20
<0.01
0.04
0.07
                             "All values in mg/l of leachate.
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-30                  Document Number:  FAAP
                                                     97

-------
       EPA-RCRA Leach  Testing  of  LFA
       Treated and Untreated Sludges
Metals Untreated
Arsenic < 0.001*
Barium 0.23
Cadmium < 0.001
Chromium 7.4
Lead <0.01
Mercury < 0.001
Selenium < 0.001
Nickel 3.9
Copper 2.4
Treated
< 0.001
0.09
< 0.001
0.81
<0.01
< 0.001
0.002
4.8
0.02









*AII values in mg/l of leachate.
Plating Sludge Leachate Levels
CN1 Cd
Raw 0.13 0.001
Un reacted
Fixated #1 <0.01 0.004
<0.01 < 0.001
Fixated #2 <0.01 < 0.001
<0.01 < 0.001
Raw 0.05 < 0.001
Unreacted
Fixated #3 <0.01 < 0.001
<0.01 < 0.001
Fixated #4 <0.01 < 0.001
<0.01 < 0.001
(mg/liter)
Ni
87.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
76.0
0.15
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

Cr
22.0
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.05
3.5
0.10
0.04
0.07
0.07
"All values in mg/l of leachate.
1CN -Cyanide
Note:  This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document
      for more information.
                                                    NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                             appropriate for all uses.
                                                    3/89-30                  Document Number: FAAP
                                                  98

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - Dechlorination
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Research Triangle Institute. "PCB Sediment Decontamination Process-Selection for
Test and Evaluation," and slide presentation on "Effective Treatment Technologies for
the Chemical Destruction of PCB."  Approximately 200 pp.  Prepared for U.S. EPA,
HWERL. May 1987.
EPA ORD Report
Dr. Clark Allen
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
919-541-5826
Guam (Non-NPL)
Research Triangle Park, NC
BACKGROUND:  This document is a report describing the
assessment of seven alternative treatment processes that
show  potential  for  decontaminating  polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated sediments.   The processes
are KPEG, MODAR Supercritical Water  Oxidation, Bio-
Clean, Ultrasonics/UV, CFS  Extraction, B.E.S.T., and Low
Energy Extraction.  Each process was evaluated using five
criteria:  the probability of cleaning sediments to 2 ppm or
less; the  availability of a  test  system; the test and
evaluation  effort  required; the  time required  for  future
availability of a commercial  treatment process;  and the
probable  cost of  treatment using the  process.  The
evaluation  of the criteria for each process was carried out
by engineering analysis of available  data and site visits to
developers' facilities.  This  report deals  with  the  KPEG
process for the destruction of PCBs.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION: The  KPEG process was
demonstrated in  the treatment of contaminated  soil  on
Guam by way of  the Galson Terraclean-CI process.  This
destroys  PCBs by nucleophilic substitution.   Potassium
hydroxide  is  reacted with polyethylene  glycol (PEG) to
form an  alkoxide.  The alkoxide reacts to produce  an ether
and potassium chloride.
Addition of an RO-group enhances the  solubility  of the
molecule and makes it  less toxic.   The reaction may
continue until several chlorine atoms are removed  from the
PCB molecule. The reagent consists of a  mixture of PEG,
potassium hydroxide, and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).
Contaminated soil or sediment  is fed  to the reactor from
55-gallon drums.  An equal volume of reagent is added to
the soil in the reactor. The reagent is blended with the soil
using a stainless steel bladed mixer.
During operation  of the system, contaminated  reagent is
mixed with make-up reagent in  the reagent  storage tank
and recirculated  into the  reaction  vessel  containing
contaminated  soil.  The reaction vessel is heated (150°C)
and the soil and reagent are kept mixed until the reaction is
complete.  Volatilized material from  the bulk storage tank
and the reaction  vessel are vented through a  charcoal
                            adsorption unit.   Water vapor is condensed and used as
                            wash water.  The reagent is decanted, weighed, and stored
                            for reuse.  The soil is washed twice with  water to remove
                            excess reagent, and the wash water is held for analysis and
                            possible treatment with activated carbon.

                            The treated soil  is held  for analysis.  If  PCB concentration
                            is  greater than  2 ppm, the soil  is retreated.   QA/QC
                            procedures are not discussed.
                            PERFORMANCE:  It was found that all of  the processes
                            assessed have merit. In  selecting the most promising ones,
                            a ranking  system was  used based on  the five criteria
                            mentioned m the background section. The processes were
                            ranked comparatively as to the desirability for  thorough
                            testing and evaluation.  The KPEG process was ranked 5th
                            with a score  of 0.58, within a range of scores from 0.49 to
                            0.62.  Laboratory-scale KPEG treatments were applied and
                            there  was a  reduction  of PCB  levels to  17.5  ppm by
                            treating the soil 5  hours at 115° to  120°C.  Residual PCBs
                            were  qualitatively  identified  as penta- and hexa-chloro
                            biphenyl.  These congeners  had been reduced  75 percent
                            and 60 percent,  respectively, by  the treatment.  Galson
                            reported reduction from 1800 to 2.3 ppm by treatment at
                            150°Cfor 2 hours.
                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical  data is provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants	
                            W02-
                            Dioxms/Furans/PCBs
1336-36-3
11096-82-5
Total PCBs
PCB-1260
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-39                  Document Number: FBZZ-1
                                                     99

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Critical Water Oxidation
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact
   Site Name:
   Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Research Triangle Institute. "PCB Sediment Decontamination Process-Selection for
Test and Evaluation," and slide presentation on "Effective Treatment Technologies for
the Chemical Destruction of PCB." Approximately 200 pp. Prepared for U.S. EPA,
HWERL.  May 1987.
EPA ORD Report
Dr. Clark Allen
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-5826
Guam (Non-NPL)
Research Triangle Park, NC
BACKGROUND:  This document is a report describing the
assessment of seven alternative treatment processes that
show  potential  for decontaminating  polychlorinated
biphenyl  (PCB)-contaminated sediments.  The processes
are KPEG,  MODAR Supercritical  Water  Oxidation,  Bio-
Clean, Ultrasonics/UV, CFS Extraction, B.E S.T .  and Low
Energy Extraction. Each process was evaluated using five
criteria:  the probability of cleaning sediments to 2 ppm or
less; the availability of a  test  system;  the test  and
evaluation effort  required; the  time  required for future
availability of a commercial treatment process; and  the
probable cost of treatment using the  process.   The
evaluation of the criteria for each process was carried out
by engineering analysis of available data and site visits to
developers' facilities. This report deals with the evaluation
of a critical water oxidation process to destroy PCBs.
OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:    The  MODAR
Supercritical Water Oxidation process utilizes water above
critical  conditions  (374°C and 22.1 MPa) to increase the
solubility of organic materials and oxygen to effect a rapid
oxidation, destroying organic contaminants. The PCBs are
found in a slurry or sludge type material.   The report
attempts to evaluate systems available from C.F. System
and Enseco.   However, the source  of the  bench-scale
study is not  given, neither are sampling  procedures,
QA/QC procedures, or conclusions.
PERFORMANCE:  It was found that all  of the processes
assessed have merit.   In  selecting  the  most promising
ones, a ranking system was used based on the five criteria
mentioned in the background section.  The processes were
ranked comparatively as to the desirability for thorough
testing and evaluation.   The MODAR  supercritical water
system was ranked 6th with  a score of 0.57, within scores
which ranged from 0.49 to 0.62.  The destruction efficiency
for PCB is given in the bottom table.
                            CONTAMINANTS:
                            Analytical data is provided in  the treatabihty study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatabihty group is.

                            Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants	
                            W02-
                            Dioxms/Furans/PCBs
                                               1336-36-3
                                                            Total PCBs
                            Waste  Destruction  Efficiency  MODAR/CECOS
                            Demonstration Organic Waste Test
                             Contam  Feed rate
                              -inant    (g/min)
              Liquid     Gaseous  Destruction
             effluent     effluent    efficiency
            rate (g/min)  rate (g/min)     %
                             PCB
                             Note:
 9.1x10"'
           <3.1x10
                                                    -7
                                                         < 4.4x10
> 99 9995
This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
more information.
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-18                  Document Number:  FBZZ-2
                                                    100

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:    Immobilization - Stabilization
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Lopat Enterprises, Inc. "Representative Selection of Laboratory Experiments and
Reports of Full-Scale Commercial Use Which Demonstrate the Effectiveness of K-20
Lead-in Soil Control System in Physical/ Chemical Solidification, Fixation, Encapsulation
& Stabilization of Certain Soil, Ash, Debris and Similar Wastes." Technical data report.
Approximately 60 pp. Assembled for COM. August  1987
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Lou Parent
Lopat Enterprises, Inc.
1750 Bloomsbury Avenue
Wanamassa, NJ 07712
201-922-6600
Confidential
Lopat Enterprises, Inc., Wanamassa, NJ
BACKGROUND:  The report consists of brief summaries of
seven bench-scale tests  conducted  by  Lopat Enterprises
for  their clients   Lopat Enterprises  report  that  their
technique will stabilize solids contaminated with inorganic
volatile and non-volatile metals (Cd, Zn, Hg.Pb, Cr, Ni, Cu),
non-metallic toxic elements  (As), and certain organics
(PCBs).
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Lopat Enterprises uses a
proprietary  technology called K-20tm Lead-in-Soil Control
System (K-20/LSC)  for  the  physical/chemical fixation,
solidification,  encapsulation,  and  stabilization  of
contaminated soil and soil-like matrices.  In the K-20/LSC
system, two liquid components are blended and  diluted
prior to application to dry waste.  Dry fixative materials are
then added to the wetted waste material, and the dry waste
are mixed  with the  K-20/LSC system  components and
allowed to  cure for a day  or more.   The formulation of
these components is site specific and proprietary.  The
volume of wastes treated  varied with  each project and was
not reported.
PERFORMANCE:  Lopat Enterprises reports that  the  K-
20/LSC system  is  capable   of  reducing   leachate
concentrations  by 90%.   The  document  presents EP
Toxicity test results before and after  fixation of electric arc
furnace dust, auto shredder residue, paint manufacturing
sludge, blasting sand, incinerator bottom ash, blast furnace
slag, and oil-soaked  soil.  Data are presented for Pb, Cd,
Zn, As, Ba, and  Cr. Initial  concentrations of lead  ranged
from 9.8 ppm  to 6200 ppm,  although they are generally
between 10 and 500 ppm.  The  initial concentrations and
the percent reductions  in  metal concentrations  in  the
leachate are summarized in the  table on the  next page.
The percent reductions were highest for lead and lowest for
chromium and barium. Costs reported were in the range of
$15 to $20 per ton. QA/QC was not reported.
                            CONTAMINANTS.
                            Analytical data is provided in the  treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group    CAS Number Contaminants	
                            W10-Nonvolatile Metals 7440-47-3
                            W11 -Volatile Metals    7439-92-1
Chromium
Lead
                            Note:  This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
                                  more information.
                                                       NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-12                  Document Number:  FCAK
                                                    101

-------
Summary of Performance Data
The  following data is  provided  by Lopat  Enterprises for  their K-20/LSC  stabilization
treatment.  The upper number is the concentration in the leachate prior to treatment,  as
determined by the EP  Toxicity  test.  (Concentrations in the auto shredder residue were
measured by the  California Administrative Manual  Waste  Extraction  Test.)   The  lower
number is the percent reduction in leachate concentration following treatment.
Waste
Pb
Cd
Zn
As
Ba
Cr
Electric arc
furnace dust

Auto shredder
residue

Incinerator
bottom ash

Blasting sand
Paint
manufacturing
sludge

Blast furnace
slag

Oil soaked soil
580 ppm
97-99%

150-250 ppm
> 80%

70.5 ppm
>99%

6200 ppm
99%

9.8 ppm
63->95%
500 ppm
99%

16.3 ppm
99%
0.023 ppm
>80%

2-6.7 ppm
> 65- > 85%

0.048 ppm
67%->90%
900-1600
> 85%
           0.17 ppm
           59->94%
           35 ppm
           > 1 -95%
          0.06 ppm
          83%
                                             1  ppm
                                             7-44%
                                           NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                    appropriate for all uses.
                                           3/89-12                   Document Number: FCAK
                                        102

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

   Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Circulating Bed Combustion
   Media:
   Document Reference:


   Document Type:
   Contact
   Site Name:
   Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Alliance Technologies Corp. "Technical Resource Document: Treatment Technologies
for Dioxm/ Containing Wastes." Technical Report EPA/600/2-86/096. 244 pp.  October
1986.
EPA ORD Report
Harold  Freeman
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-Thermal Destruction Branch
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7529
Denny  Farm Site, MO (Non-NPL)
Denny  Farm, MO
BACKGROUND:   GA Technologies conducted  the
circulating bed combustor (CBC)  pilot scale tests using
PCB-contaminated soils.  This treatability study compiles
available  information  on  those technologies  for  dioxin
containing solids, liquids and sludges, many of which are in
early stages of development.  Discussion of the CBC pilot
test is contained in this abstract. Other technologies in this
document are discussed  in Document Numbers FCFR-4
and FCFR-6.   Technologies  evaluated were  those that
destroy or change the form of  dioxin to render it less toxic.
Those technologies not tested on dioxm-containing wastes
had been tested on  PCB-containing wastes.   The report
divides the  technologies  into  thermal and  non-thermal
groups for discussion.  It was noted that incineration was
the only sufficiently demonstrated technology for treatment
of dioxin  containing  wastes  (51  FR  1733) and  RCRA
Performance  Standards for Thermal Treatment  require
99.9999 percent destruction  removal efficiency (ORE) of
the principal  organic hazardous  constituent (POHC).
Factors which  affect the  selection/use  of  a particular
technology are discussed.   Technical  performance for
treating a specific  waste type  and  costs  are  both
considered in this discussion.  A summary of  dioxin
treatment processes,  their  performance/destruction
achieved, and  estimated costs are provided in the table on
the next page  QA/QC is not discussed.
OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:   GA  Technologies
conducted trial burns on PCB-contaminated soil with 9800
to 12,000  ppm of PCB. Auxiliary fuel was used to  maintain
the bed temperature at 1600° to 1800°F. A soil feed rate of
325 to 410 pounds per hour was used.

PERFORMANCE:  A destruction efficiency exceeding six
nines (99.9999 percent) was achieved.  Costs of  fluidized
bed treatment are dependent  on fuel requirements, scale
and site conditions.   Cost estimates of from  $27/ton to
$150/ton are provided for various assumptions.
                           CONTAMINANTS.

                           Analytical data is provided in the treatability study  report.
                           The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                           Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants
                           W02-
                           Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
1336-36-3
Total PCBs
                           Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
                                more information.
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                              appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-35                 Document Number:  FCFR-3
                                                   103

-------
Summary of Dioxin Treatment Processes
Process Name           Performance/Destruction Achieved
                                                      Cost
Stationary Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Mobile Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Liquid Injection Incineration

Fluidized-bed Incineration
Infrared Incinerator (Shirco)
High Temperature Fluid Wall
(Hubev AER)
Molten Salt  (Rockwell Unit)
Supercritical Water Oxidation

Plasma Arc Pyrolysis
In-Situ Vitrification
Solvent Extraction

Stabilization/ Fixation
UV Photolysis
Chemical Dechlorination
APEG processes
Biological in situ addition of
microbes
Degradation using
Ruthemium  Tetroxide
Degradation using
Chloroiodides
Greater than 99 999 ORE demonstrated on dioxin at
combustion  research facility
Greater than 99 9999 ORE for dioxin by EPA unit; process
residuals delisted
Ocean incinerators only demonstrated 99.9 on dioxin-
contaimng herbicide orange
Greater than 99.9999 DRE demonstrated on PCBs
Greater than 99.9999 DRE on TCDD-contaminated soil
Greater than 99.999 DRE on TCDD-contaminated soil

Up to eleven nines DRE on hexachlorobenzene
99.9999 DRE  on dioxin-containing waste reported by
developer
Greater than 99.9999 destruction of PCBs and CCI4
Greater than 99.9% destruction on PCB-contaminated soil
Still bottom  extraction:  340 ppm TCDD reduced to 0.2 ppm;
60-90% removal from soils.
Tests using cement decreased leaching of TCDD
Greater than 98.7% reduction of TCDD
Reduction of 2,000 ppb TCDD to below 1 ppb for slurry
(batch process)
50-60% metabolism of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using white rot fungus

Reduction of 70 ppb TCDD to below 10 ppb in 1 hr

Up to 92%  degradation on solution of TCDD in benzene
$0.25 - $0 70/lb for
PCB solids
NA

$200 - $500/ton

$60 - $320/ton
$200 - $1,200 per ton
$300 - $600/ton

NA
$0.32 - $2.00/gallon

$300 - $1,400/ton
$120 -S250/M3
NA

NA
$250 - $1,200/ton
$296/ton for in situ,
$91/ton for slurry
NA

NA

NA
                                                    NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                              appropriate for all uses.
                                                    3/89-35                    Document Number:  FCFR-3
                                                 104

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
   Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Pyrolysis
   Media:
   Document Reference:
   Document Type:
   Contact:
   Site Name:
   Location of Test
Soil/Generic
Alliance Technologies Corp. "Technical Resource Document:  Treatment Technologies
for Dioxin-Containing Wastes." Technical Report EPA/600/2-86/096. 244 pp.  October
1986.

EPA ORD Report
Harold Freeman
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-Thermal Destruction Branch
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7529
Times Beach, MO (NPL)
Times Beach, MO
BACKGROUND:   This  report focuses  on the  pilot scale
Advanced  Electric Reactor (AER).  This treatability study
compiles available information on  those  technologies  for
dioxin containing  solids,  liquids and  sludges, many of
which are in early  stages of development.  A discussion of
the AER pilot  test is  contained in this abstract.   Other
technologies in this document are discussed in Document
Numbers FCFR-3  and  FCFR-6.   Technologies evaluated
were those that destroy or change the form of dioxin to
render it less  toxic.   Those technologies  not tested  on
dioxin-containing  wastes had  been  tested  on  PCB-
containing wastes.  The report divides the technologies into
thermal  and  non-thermal  groups  for discussion.  It was
noted  that  incineration was  the  only  sufficiently
demonstrated technology for treatment of dioxin containing
wastes (51  FR 1733) and RCRA Performance Standards for
Thermal Treatment require  99.9999  percent  destruction
removal efficiency  (ORE) of the principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC).  Factors which affect the selection/use
of a particular technology  are  discussed.   Technical
performance for treating a specific waste  type and costs
are both considered in this  discussion.   A summary of
dioxin treatment processes,  their  performance/destruction
achieved, and estimated costs are provided in the table on
the next page.  QA/QC is not discussed.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:   The AER,  owned  and
operated by J.M.  Huber  Corporation,  was used to  treat
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).  It  was  also
used in  other tests including tests at Gulfport,  Mississippi,
but these tests reported only removal  efficiencies.   Only
two data points are present  from  the Times Beach trials,
one from the treated soil and one from the baghouse catch.

The AER was  operated at 3500°F-4000°F. Heating was
accomplished using electrically heated  carbon electrodes.
A  nitrogen purge  gas  provided the reaction atmosphere
Since oxygen was not present, it was run in a pyrolytic
manner.

PERFORMANCE:  High DREs could not be demonstrated
due to the low amount of contamination  (79  ppb in the
                            influent soil).  One limitation of the AER  is that it cannot
                            handle two-phase  materials such as sludge.  Soils should
                            be dried and sized (smaller than 10 mesh)  before being fed
                            into the  reactor. Another  limitation is  that other types of
                            incineration processes are more cost effective for high BTU
                            content  material.   Since no  supplementary fuels  are
                            required, this process is better suited for low BTU material.
                            A cost estimate guideline is included.  Recently the U.S.
                            EPA and the Texas Water Commission jointly issued J.M.
                            Huber Corporation a RCRA permit which authorizes the
                            incineration of any non-nuclear  RCRA hazardous waste in
                            the AER.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in the  treatability  study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group    CAS Number Contaminants
                            W02-
                            Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
1746-01-6
                                2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-
                                p-dioxm
                   1336-36-3     Total PCBs
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
     more information.
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-36                  Document Number: FCFR-4
                                                    105

-------
Summary of Dioxin Treatment Processes
Process Name           Performance/Destruction Achieved
                                                      Cost
Stationary Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Mobile Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Liquid Injection Incineration

Fluidized-bed Incineration
Infrared Incinerator (Shirco)
High Temperature Fluid Wall
(Huber AER)
Molten Salt (Rockwell Unit)
Supercritical Water Oxidation

Plasma Arc Pyrolysis
In-Situ Vitrification
Solvent Extraction

Stabilization/ Fixation
UV Photolysis
Chemical Dechlonnation
APEG processes
Biological in situ addition of
microbes
Degradation using
Ruthemium Tetroxide
Degradation using
Chloroiodides
Greater than 99.999 ORE demonstrated on dioxin at
combustion  research facility
Greater than 99.9999 ORE for dioxin by EPA unit; process
residuals delisted
Ocean incinerators only demonstrated 99.9 on dioxin-
contammg herbicide orange
Greater than 99.9999 ORE demonstrated on PCBs
Greater than 99.9999 ORE on TCDD-contaminated soil
Greater than 99.999 ORE on TCDD-contaminated soil

Up to eleven nines ORE on hexachlorobenzene
99.9999 ORE on dioxin-containing waste reported by
developer
Greater than 99.9999 destruction of PCBs and CCI4
Greater than 99.9% destruction on PCB-contaminated soil
Still bottom  extraction:  340 ppm TCDD reduced to 0.2 ppm;
60-90% removal from soils.
Tests using  cement decreased leaching of TCDD
Greater than 98.7% reduction of TCDD
Reduction of 2,000 ppb TCDD to below 1  ppb for slurry
(batch process)
50-60% metabolism of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using white rot fungus

Reduction of 70 ppb TCDD to below 10 ppb in 1 hr

Up to 92%  degradation on solution of TCDD in benzene
$0.25 - $0.70/lb for
PCB solids
NA

$200 - $500/ton

$60 - $320/ton
$200 - $1,200 per ton
$300 - $600/ton

NA
$0.32 - $2.00/gallon

$300 - $1,400/ton
$120 - $250/M3
NA

NA
$250 - $1,200/ton
$296/ton for in situ,
$91/ton for slurry
NA

NA

NA
                                                    NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                              appropriate for all uses.
                                                    3/89-36                    Document Number:  FCFR-4
                                                 106

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
   Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - Dechlorination
   Media:
   Document Reference:


   Document Type:
   Contact:
   Site Name:
   Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Alliance Technologies Corp. "Technical Resource Document: Treatment Technologies
for Dioxin- Containing Wastes." Technical Report EPA/600/2-86/096.  244 pp.  October
1986.
EPA ORD Report
Harold  Freeman
U.S. EPA, ORD
HWERL-Thermal Destruction Branch
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati. OH 45268
513-569-7529
Denny  Farm Site, MO (Non-NPL)
Denny  Farm, MO
BACKGROUND:  This document summarizes several case
studies  on  the  applications of the Alkali  Polyethylene
Glycolate (APEG) treatment process  applied to dioxm-
contammated soil.   This treatability study  compiles
available information  on  those technologies for dioxm
containing solids, liquids and sludges, many of which are in
early stages of development.   A discussion of the APEG
technology  is  contained  in this   abstract.    Other
technologies are discussed in Document Numbers FCFR-3
and FCFR-4   Technologies  evaluated were those  that
destroy or change the form of dioxin to render it less toxic.
Those technologies not tested on dioxin-containing wastes
had been tested on PCB-containing wastes.  The report
divides  the technologies  into  thermal and  non-thermal
groups for discussion.  It  was  noted that incineration was
the only sufficiently demonstrated technology for treatment
of dioxin-containing wastes  (51  FR  1733) and RCRA
Performance Standards for Thermal  Treatment require
99.9999 percent  destruction removal  efficiency  (ORE)  of
the principal organic hazardous  constituent  (POHC).
Factors  which  affect the selection/use of  a  particular
technology  are  discussed. Technical performance  for
treating a  specific waste  type  and costs are  both
considered  in this  discussion.  A summary  of dioxin
treatment  processes,  their  performance/destruction
achieved, and estimated costs are provided in the table on
the next page. QA/QC is not discussed.

OPERATIONAL  INFORMATION:  This document
summarized several case studies on the applications of the
Alkali  Polyethylene Glycolate  (APEG) treatment  process
applied  to dioxin-contaminated  soil.   All data are either
bench or pilot scale  Two different molecular weight APEG
reagents were used. Three tests were K-400 (potassium-
based  reagent  and  polyethylene glycol  of  average
molecular weight of 400) and two tests were K-120.  It is
unclear whether  the waste matrix  was a solvent, soil,  or
contaminated  debris.   All analyses reported  were total
waste analyses.

PERFORMANCE:  The  document  concludes that  this
technology has a potential for treating soil  contaminated
                            with  dioxins.   Efficiencies improve with  increased
                            temperature.  Costs for the slurry process is estimated at
                            $91/ton and for the in situ process of $296/ton.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is  provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group   CAS Number   Contaminants
                            W02-
                            Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
                   1336-36-3     Total PCBs
                   1746-01 -6     2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-
                                p-dioxin
Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
     more information.
                                                      NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                      3/89-38                 Document Number:  FCFR-6
                                                    107

-------
Summary of Dioxin Treatment Processes
Process Name           Performance/Destruction Achieved
                                                     Cost
Stationary Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Mobile Rotary Kiln
Incineration
Liquid iniection Incineration

Fluidized-bed Incineration
Infrared Incinerator (Shirco)
High Temperature Fluid Wall
(Huber AER)
Molten Salt (Rockwell Unit)
Supercritical Water Oxidation

Plasma Arc Pyrolysis
In-Situ Vitrification
Solvent Extraction

Stabilization/ Fixation
UV Photolysis
Chemical Dechlormation
APEG processes
Biological in situ addition of
microbes
Degradation using
Ruthemium Tetroxide
Degradation using
Chloroiodides
Greater than 99.999 ORE demonstrated on dioxm at
combustion research facility
Greater than 99.9999 ORE for dioxin by EPA unit; process
residuals dehsted
Ocean incinerators only demonstrated 99.9 on dioxm-
containing herbicide orange
Greater than 99.9999 ORE demonstrated on PCBs
Greater than 99.9999 ORE on TCDD-contamtnated soil
Greater than 99.999 ORE on TCDD-contaminated soil

Up to eleven nines ORE on hexachlorobenzene
99.9999 ORE on dioxin-containmg waste reported by
developer
Greater than 99.9999 destruction of PCBs and CCI4
Greater than 99.9% destruction on PCB-contammated soil
Still bottom extraction:  34-0 ppm TCDD reduced to 0.2 ppm;
60-90% removal from soils.
Tests using cement decreased leaching of TCDD
Greater than 98.7% reduction of TCDD
Reduction of 2,000 ppb TCDD to below 1 ppb for slurry
(batch process)
50-60% metabolism of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using white rot fungus

Reduction of 70 ppb TCDD to below 10 ppb in 1 hr

Up to 92% degradation on solution of TCDD m benzene
$0.25 - $0.70/lb for
PCB solids
NA

S200 - $500/ton

$60 - $320/ton
$200 - $1,200 per ton
$300 - $600/ton

NA
$0.32 - $2.00/gallon

$300 - $1,400/ton
$120 - $250/M3
NA

NA
$250 - $1,200/ton
$296/ton for in situ,
$91/ton for slurry
NA

NA

NA
                                                    NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                              appropriate for all uses.
                                                    3/89-38                    Document Number:  FCFR-6
                                                 108

-------
                    SUPERFUNO TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
   Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - Dechlorination
   Media:
   Document Reference:


   Document Type:
   Contact:
   Site Name:
   Location of Test:
Sludge/Generic
Galson Research Corp.  "Bengart and Memel (Bench-Scale), Gulfport (Bench and Pilot-
scale), Montana Pole (Bench-scale), and Western Processing (Bench-scale) Treatability
Studies." 10 pp. July 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Timothy Geraets
Galson Research Corp.
6601 Kirkville Road
E. Syracuse, NY  13057
315-463-5160
NCBC Gulfport, MS (Non-NPL)
Galson Technical Services, Syracuse, NY
BACKGROUND:  This document  presents summary data
on the results of various treatability studies (bench  and
pilot  scale), conducted at three different sites where soils
were contaminated with dioxms or PCBs.  The synopsis is
meant to show rough performance levels under a variety of
different conditions.
The  sites discussed are  the Naval Construction Battalion
Center (NCBC) site Gulfport,  MS; Bengart & Memel site,
Buffalo,  NY; and the  Montana Pole site,  Butte, MT.  No
detailed site descriptions were provided.  There was no
discussion of laboratory analysis procedures, QA/QC plan,
or the amount of soils  used in bench scale tests.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The  APEG process for
dechlorinating hydrocarbons was utilized and the amount of
reagents/time and temperature were varied. Two different
reagent loading rates were used.  Tests were conducted in
slurry form  and in-situ at  two of the  sites (NCBC and
Bengart & Memel).  Unit  cost estimates for soil treatment
are not provided. Costs for each bench-scale test run are
estimated at $1,000  for PCBs and $2,000 for dioxin.  Dioxin
tests are more costly due to  the complicated analytical
procedures.  The scope of work for the Montana Pole site
treatability study was to see if waste oil  containing 100,000
ppb  dioxin and 2-3%  penta chlorophenol (PCB) could be
treated with  Galson Terraclene-CI APEG treatment.  The
scope of work at the NCBS  site was to determine the
kinetics of processing  dioxin contaminated soil using 30 kg
batches in a modified 55-gallon drum  reactor  unit.  The
scope of work for the  Bengart &  Memel treatability study
was  to determine if  PCB  contaminated  soils  could be
treated.

PERFORMANCE:  The results of  the tests on  the NCBC
site and Bengart & Memel soils are shown in the table on
the following page.

The results of laboratory tests at Montana Pole indicate the
reduction had  occurred,  reducing the  dioxin levels from
100,000 ppb to less than  1 ppb after operating the unit for
1 hour at 150°C.  The results of the NCBC study showed
that the soil from Gulport, MS could be decontaminated by
mixing the soil with APEG reagent  and heating to 120°C for
                            7 hours.   The results of the Bengart  & Memel  study
                            indicates the PCB soil could  be  reduced to less than  50
                            ppm by adding reagent to the soil, mixing and heating the
                            soil/reagent mass to 120°C for 12-24 hours. However,  no
                            significant  correlation  appears  to  exist between
                            performance as measured by the amount of contaminant
                            remaining  and  reagents used,  reagent ratios,  time,
                            temperature, or reagent  loading  for all the  treatability
                            studies. Contaminant destruction appears to take place  in-
                            situ or in soil slurry form.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in  the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                            Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants	
                            W02-
                            Dioxms/Furans/PCBs
1336-36-3     Total PCBs
30746-58-8    1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
             p-dioxin
TOT-DF       Total dioxins and
             furans
                            Note: This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
                                 more information.
                                                       NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-33                  Document Number:  FCLC
                                                    109

-------
Bench Scale Data on NCBC (Gulfport)
No. Source Compound Process Reagent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Gulfport
Bench Scale
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
TCDD
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
Data on Bengart &
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
In-Situ
9:9:2-P D K
VV1-P D K
9:9:2-M.D.K.
9:9:2-M.D.K
V.V.1-M.D.K.
9:9:2-M.D K
9:9:2-M.D K.
9:9:2-M.DK.
9:9:2-M D K.
V1:1-P.D.K.
V.V1-P.D.K.
1-1-1-PD K
2:2:2:1-M.D K W
2:2:2:1 -M D.K W.
2'2'2'1-M D K W
2'2'2'1-M D K W
1-W3-M D K W
1:1:1:3-M.S.K.W.
1:1:1:15-M.D.K.W.
V1.V15-M D K W
Memel (Buffalo)
9:9:2:1 -M.D.K.W.
9:9:2:1 -M.S.K.W.
1:1:2:2:1-P.T.S.K.W.
2:2:2:1 -M.DK.W
2:2:2:1 -M.S.K.W.
1:1:2:2'1-PT.D.K.W
1:1:2:2:1-P.T.D.K.W.
Loading 0TJmp
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
50%
20%
50%

100%
100%
100%
20%
20%
100%
100%
250
160
150
100
70
70
70
50
25
25
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70

100
100
150
70
70
150
150
Time
4 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
0 5 hours
2 hours
2 hours
7 days
1 day
7 days
1 day
2 days
4 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days

2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
7 days
7 days
3 days
1 day
Concentration
Before
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb
2000 ppb

77 ppm
77 ppm
1 1 2 ppm
77 ppm
77 ppm
1 1 2 ppm
83 Dom
After
< 1 oob
tjtjyj
< 1 pob
[•'(-'*•'
<1 ppb
< 1 ppb
<1 ppb
< 1 5 ppb
•^ [-'t~'I~r
<15 ppb
< 23 ppb
< 36 ppb
1000 ppb
8.5 ppb
< 1 oob
* tj\j^j
3.3 ppb
2.0 ppb
2.5 ppb
< 1 oob
yK*^
3.2 ppb
2.7 ppb
43 ppb
14 ppb

4.2 ppb
6.7 ppb
6.7 ppb
3.7 ppb
4.0 ppb
<0.1 ppb
<0.1 DDb
REAGENT COMPONENTS KEY
D = DMSO  = dimethyl sulfoxide
K = KOH = potassium hydroxide
M = MEE = methyl carbitol = methoxy-ethoxy-ethanol
P = PEG =  polyethylene glycol, avg. molecular weight of 400
S = SFLN = sulfolane = tetrahydrothiophene 1.1 -dioxide
T = TMH = triethylene glycol methyl ether and highers
W = water
TOXIC COMPOUNDS KEY
   TCDD  =  1,2,3,4-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
   PCB = polychonnated biphenyls
    Loading (%) =  100 x (reagent mass/soil mass)
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-33                  Document Number:  FCLC
                                                    110

-------
                     SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:   Physical/Chemical - Low Temperature Stripping
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test
Soil/Generic
McDevitt, N., J. Noland, and P. Marks. "Contract DAAK 11-85-C-0007 (Task Order 4)
Bench Scale Investigation of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) from Soil."  Technical
Report AMXTH-TE-CR-86092 prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., for USATHAMA (U.S.
Army). 120 pp.  January 1987.

Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Eric Kaufman
U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD  21009
301-671-2270

Letterkenny Army Depot (NPL - Federal facility)
Chambersburg, PA
BACKGROUND:    The  U.S.  Army  is  investigating
technologies to effectively  treat soil  contaminated by
organic compounds. Low temperature thermal stripping is
one alternative which couples two mechanisms: a) removal
by volatilization and b) removal by aeration. Two individual
studies were conducted  to separate the effects of each
mechanism.  This treatability study evaluates the effects of
aeration on VOC removal  efficiency.

OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  Soils at the  site  are
gravelly sand fill, and native material consisting  of sandy
clay  and  sandy silt. Soils contaminated with VOCs were
taken from  Area K of  Letterkenny  Army Depot  and is a
mixture of these soils.  Average concentration of 1,2  trans-
dichloroethylene, trichloroethylene  (TCE),   and
tetrachloroethylene were  115,   222  and 95   ppm,
respectively. Samples of 4.5 liters each were used  in the
bench-scale  tests.   Soils were  analyzed  for their  VOC
content and  then aerated in a bench-scale aeration unit.
The  target  residence time was  260 minutes. Total VOC
were analyzed  at the aeration unit outlet. In  this manner,
the input/output VOC concentration could be determined.

  Sampling and  analytical techniques  are explained for
soils, moisture content,  temperatures and other variables in
the experiments.   QC measures in the report include
explanations of equipment calibration procedures, analyses
of blanks  and duplicate  samples.
PERFORMANCE:  The effect of  total VOC concentrations
in the soils, air temperature, and soil temperature on the
VOC  removal  efficiency were  investigated.   Results
indicated that VOC  removal  efficiency  is  directly
proportional to  the  total concentration of contaminants in
the soil.  The bottom table shows the results of increasing
contaminant  concentration on the removal efficiency  of
VOCs.  The same table shows no correlation between  soil
bed temperature and removal efficiency.  As the inlet air
temperature decreased, there was an increase in removal
efficiency.  However, this increase  may be due to  the
corresponding increase in total  VOC contaminant levels.
There appears  to be a correlation  between the  moisture
                            content of the air streams and the removal efficiency, but
                            the authors  suggest  additional testing prior to drawing
                            conclusions from the currently available data.

                              A conclusion  in  the  report is  a comparison of  VOC
                            removal efficiencies associated with aeration element to the
                            thermal element VOC removal  efficiencies.  The authors
                            claim  that the  role  of  aeration in thermal stripping  is
                            minimal (a separate June 86 report is referenced). No data
                            is  presented from the  companion  report  concerning the
                            thermal element VOC removal  efficiencies.  The authors
                            also qualify their statement indicating that their conclusions
                            apply to the conditions evaluated in this study (i.e., inlet air
                            temperature, etc.).

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                             Treatability Group    CAS Number  Contaminants
                             W04-Halogenated
                             Aliphatic Solvents
127-18-4
                                                156-60-5

                                                79-01-6
                             W07-Heterocychcs and  1330-20-7
                             Simple Aromatics
                             Wi3-OtherOrganics    TOT-VOC

                             Summary of Operating Data
Tetrachloroethene

Trans-1,2-
dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Total Xylenes

Total Volatile Organics
Test
Run #
1
2
3
4
Total VOC
Concen-
tration
ng/kg
647
1,538
291,940
2,256,100
Average
Soil Bed
Temp (F)
105
90
115
102
Average
Inlet Temp
(F)
163
144
148
137
Average
Inlet Air
Moisture
Content
(% by
vol.)
1.90
2.20
0.80
1.00
VOC
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
55
70
81
93
                             Note:  This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document for
                                  more information.
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-19                  Document Number: FCMK
                                                    111

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:   Biological - Aerobic
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Sludge/Generic
Detox Industries, Inc. "Work Plan for Biodegradation of Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) at a Superfund Site." Technical report of three volumes with a total of about 20
pages and related correspondence.  Work plan prepared for General Motors Corporation,
Massena, New York.  September 1986.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Melvin Hauptman
U.S. EPA - Region  II
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-7681
Massena, NY (NPL)
Hearne Utilities, Hearne, TX
BACKGROUND:  This document is composed of a work
plan  and  additional  technical  information which
demonstrates the qualifications of Detox Industries, Inc. to
conduct remediation of a PCB contaminated  sludge  at
General Motors (GM) plant in New York.  Provided are the
results of  a field  demonstration  conducted  on sludge
containing  PCB at Hearne Utilities in Hearne, TX.  Bench-
scale  biodegradation  studies  were also conducted by
Detox Inc.  on samples of sludge  provided by GM from
their Massena, NY site.  Significant reductions  in PCB
levels were noted in the tests.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The technical summary
provided by Detox Industries, Inc. provides a description of
a field test conducted on approximately 500 Ibs. of a  PCB
contaminated sludge at the Hearne  Utility site in Hearne,
Texas.  The sludge  was placed  into  a non-leaking
bioreactor  open to ambient air. PCB transformer oil was
added to the sludge to bring the total PCB concentration to
approximately 2000  ppm.   The  mixture was stirred
constantly  to ensure aerobic conditions and  microbes and
nutrients were  added to the  reactor.  Testing time was
approximately two months (September 83 -  December 83).
Samples were  provided to NUS  Laboratories in Houston,
Texas for PCB analysis.
Bench tests were  conducted by Detox Industries, Inc. on
PCB contaminated sludge samples provided  by General
Motors from their site in Massena,  New York.  Samples
were  inoculated with  microorganisms  and  agitated  in a
water bath for  16  days.  Aliquots  were taken and sent to
Southwestern Laboratories for PCB analysis.

The technical  summaries provided very few details on the
microbes that Detox Industries, Inc. has developed for the
biodegradation of PCB other than generic  statements
indicating  that oxygen, moisture  and  nutrients  must be
present for the process to occur and that Detox Industries
                            microbes are not affected by PCB.  The work plan refers to
                            QA/QC procedures, but they are not included in the plan.

                            PERFORMANCE:  The field test at Hearne, Texas showed
                            a significant reduction of PCB from the initial concentration
                            at 2000 ppm.   Final concentrations were  as low  as  0.12
                            ppm PCB. Results of bench scale tests of samples of  PCB
                            contaminated  sludge taken from the GM site in  New  York
                            also showed reductions in  PCB levels.  The results after 16
                            days of treatment are shown in the bottom table.

                            Results of  the  various  studies  revealed  that the Detox
                            Industries, Inc. biodegradation process reduced PCB levels
                            in contaminated materials.  The U.S. EPA  approved the
                            GM request to  conduct a full-scale  pilot study of  this
                            process at the GM site in Massena, New York.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report.
                            The breakdown  of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                             Treatability Group  CAS Number Contaminants
                             W02-
                             Dioxins/Furans/PCBs
1336-36-3
Total PCBs
                             PCB (1248) Biodegradation

GM Lagoon #1
GM Digester
GM Activated Sludge
Untreated
Soil
338 ppm
1 1 0 ppm
63 ppm
Treated
Soil
107 ppm
63 ppm
6.5 ppm
%
Reduction
68.3
42.7
89.6
                             Notes: a)Treatment time - 16 days
                                   b)This is a partial listing of data Refer to the document
                                     for more information.
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of delta may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-24                  Document Number:  FCQP
                                                    112

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:   Physical/Chemical - Low Temperature Stripping
  Media:
  Document Reference:


  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Sandy
Webster, David M.  "Pilot Study of Enclosed Thermal Soil Aeration for Removal of
Volatile Organic Contamination at the McKin Superfund Site." Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association. Volume 36, No. 10, pp. 1156-1163.  October 1986.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
David Webster
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3715
McKin Superfund Site, Gray, ME (NPL)
Gray,  ME
BACKGROUND:   This paper reports on  the results of a
pilot study that treated vadose zone soil contaminated with
VOCs in an enclosed thermal  aeration system. The McKin
site, an  NPL site in Gray, Maine, was the location of the
pilot study.  The pilot study was chosen to demonstrate the
viability of excavating the soil, treating the  soil in a material
dryer  to  aerate the soils and drive off  the VOCs, and
treating the vapors to remove  contaminants.  Results of the
pilot study  revealed  that VOCs  were  reduced  to non-
detectable levels.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:   The on-site sandy soil is
contaminated  with high  levels of VOCs  including up  to
3310  ppm of  trichloroethene  (TCE)  and  1,1,1-
trichloroethane.  Soils were aerated in a materials dryer at
150°F and  380°F.  Three cubic  yards  of soils  could  be
treated per run and the  soils passed through the  system
from 3 to 8 times to ensure adequate volatilization of the
contaminants.   Exhaust  gases  from the materials dryer
were treated with a 3-stage process  including a baghouse,
a  scrubber and  vapor  phase  carbon  bed to  remove
particulates and organic  vapors prior to release.  Aerated
soils were solidified and returned to the excavated  area.
   An important objective of  the  study was  to determine
whether ambient air quality could be  maintained during soil
excavation and aeration.  Continuous air quality monitoring
for organic vapors was conducted during testing at  the site
and on the  perimeter  of the site.  Techniques to minimize
uncontrolled volatilization of  organic chemicals  from the
soil during  excavation and aeration  and to control dust
emissions were implemented. An on-site laboratory was
utilized to augment  off-site  analysis of soils for  organic
contaminants  by gas chromatography.    Methods  utilized
were EPA Method 8010 and a modified EPA Method 8020.
QA/QC is not reported.
PERFORMANCE:  Treatability tests  were conducted from
February to May 1986. During the test, parameters such as
drying temperature, dust  control and the number of drying
cycles were varied to  test their effect on the VOC removal
efficiency.   Test results indicated that  high  drying
temperatures  and increasing number  of drying  cycles
                             produced the  greatest amount of VOC reduction.  Treated
                             soils were able to achieve the EPA target of 0.1 PPM TCE.
                             The results of  various tests are shown in the bottom table.

                             The results of air monitoring for organic vapors during the
                             pilot study revealed that on-site activities had a negligible
                             effect on air quality at the site perimeter.  Pilot test results
                             indicated that  concentrations of  VOCs can be significantly
                             reduced to  non-detectable levels  and that thermal  soil
                             aeration  can  virtually  eliminate  volatile  organic
                             contaminants from the vadose zone
                             CONTAMINANTS:
                             Treatability Group
CAS Number  Contaminants
                             W01 -Halogenated      95-50-1
                             Aromatic Compounds
                             W04-Halogenated      127-18-4
                             Aliphatic Solvents
                                                 79-01-6
                             W07-Heterocyclics and  108-88-3
                             Simple Aromatics
                                                 1330-20-7
              1,2-Dichlorobenzene

              Tetrachloroethene

              Trichloroethene
              Toluene

              Xylene
                             Pre-Aeration and  Post-Aeration Concentrations of
                             Detected  Contaminants  in  Selected Soil  Aeration
                             Runs (ppm)
                                                   Pre-aeration     Post-aeration
                                                      range       concentrations
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Tnchloroe thane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
17-115
11-19
0.11-0.3
3.5-50
1-2
5-69
ND 0.05a
ND 0.05a
ND 0.05a
ND 1*>
ND 1"
ND 1b
                             Notes:   a) Not detected at a laboratory detection limit of 0.05 ppm.
                                    b) Not detected at a laboratory detection limit of 1 ppm.
                                    c) This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document
                                       for more information.
                                                       NOTE:  Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                               appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-17
                                                    Document Number:  FCSF
                                                    113

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Physical/Chemical - Low Temperature Thermal Stripping
  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Sludge/Oily
Research Triangle Institute. Information: "Input/ Output Data for Several Treatment
Technologies." Center for Hazardous Material Research.  10 pp. May 1987.
EPA ORD Report
Dr. Clark Allen
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box  12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-5826
Luwa Corp., Charlotte, NC (Non-NPL)
Charlotte, NC
BACKGROUND:   This treatability study is a pilot-scale
evaluation of  a thin-film  evaporator  (TFE)  for  volatile
organics (VO) removal from oily sludges such  as  refinery
sludges.   TFEs were studied to  evaluate their  use to
remove and recover VO from these sludges prior to land
treatment. This would reduce the amount of VO available
for  release during  land  treatment of the sludges.   The
process can also  be operated to  remove water  and low
boiling point oils, reducing  sludge volume while recovering
oil from the sludges prior to disposal.   The  organics were
recovered as a condensate and recycled to the petroleum
refinery as product.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The pilot-test was
conducted September 8-12,  1986, on  non-hazardous (as
defined by RCRA) refinery wastes, similar to hazardous
refinery wastes such as API separator sludge.  The TFE
equipment selected included a mechanical agitator device
for  producing and  agitating the film, permitting  the
processing of high  viscosity liquids  and  sludges with
suspended solids.   The mechanical agitation  at the heat
transfer  surface promotes heat transfer and maintains
precipitated  or  crystallized solids  in  manageable
suspension without fouling the heat transfer surface. A total
of 22 runs were performed using two different wastes, three
temperatures,  three flow rates and under both atmospheric
and vacuum conditions.  Five 55-gallon drums of emulsion
tank sludge were used on  Test 1-18 while the balance of
the tests were  conducted  on oily  tank bottoms.
Temperatures used were 150°C, 230°C  and 310°C.  Flow
rates  of  70-150 Ib/hr were  evaluated.   Sampling  and
analysis are discussed but no QA/QC is reported.

PERFORMANCE:  The fraction of feed  removed  by the
TFE ranged from 11 to 95.7 percent.   From 98.5  to 99.5
percent of the VO and 10  to 75 percent of the semi-
volatiles were removed from the sludge.  Results for VO for
the  extremes  of feed rate and temperature  range  are
provided  in the table on  the next page.  The  removal
efficiency for volatiles was  greater at higher temperatures.
At 150°C some of the water in the feed was  evaporated
along  with most of the VO. At 320°C essentially all of the
water  and VO  was  removed along with much of the higher
                            boiling point oils.  At this higher temperature, the amount of
                            bottom sludge produced  ranged between  10  and 13
                            percent of the feed rate, substantially reducing the amount
                            of material to  dispose of. This sludge was still pumpable.
                            The vacuum  runs produced  a milky-white emulsion as
                            condensate  which would require  further  processing.  At
                            320°C the bottoms product was only  4.3 percent of the
                            feed.  This would indicate a  two stage  process to first
                            remove VO and semi-volatiles  at atmospheric pressure and
                            then heavier  oils  under vacuum  operation  could
                            substantially  reduce the  amount  of  sludge  material
                            requiring disposal.
CONTAMINANTS:
Treatability Group
W07-Heterocyclics and
Simple Aromatics




W08-Polynuclear
Aromatics












W09-Other Polar
CAS Number
71 -43-2
100-41-4
108-38-3
95-47-6
100-42-5
108-88-3
91-57-6
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
205-99-2
207-08-9
132-64-9
91-20-3
129-00-0
86-73-7
218-01-9
50-32-8
56-55-3
85-01-8
117-84-0
Contaminants
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
M-Xylene
O&P Xylene
Styrene
Toluene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(B)fluoranthene
Benzo(K)fluoranthene
Dibenzofuran
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Flourene
Chrysene
Benzo(A)pyrene
Benzo(A)anthracene
Phenanthrene
Di-n-octylphthalate
                            Organic Compounds
                                                       NOTE:    Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-34                  Document Number: FCSP-
                                                   115

-------
TFE  Volatile Organlcs Removal for  Selected
Compounds
Test
No.
5
7
8
10
Operating
Conditions
Temper Flow
-ature rate
fC) (Ib/hr)
150 71.6
150 153.7
310 68.5
310 143.4
Reduction in concentrations from
feed (%)a
Benzene
99.58
99.73
99.72
99.76
Toluene
99.61
99.78
99.84
99.90
Ethyl-
benzene
99.48
98.83
99.68
99.78
m-
Xylene
99.54
98.64
99.67
99.75
Notes:   a) Based on GC/MS analysis.
       b) This is a partial listing of data. Refer to the document
         for more information.
                                                    NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                             appropriate for all uses.
                                                    3/89-34                 Document Number: FCSP-1
                                                  116

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT

  Treatment Process:   Thermal Treatment - Incineration
  Media:
  Document Reference:
  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of rest-
Soil/Generic
EBASCO Services Inc. "Litigation Technical Support and Services, Rocky Mountain
Arsenal (Basis F Wastes)."  Six-part technical report with a total of approximately 600 pp.
prepared for U.S. Army Program Manager's Office for Rocky Mountain Arsenal Cleanup
during April and September 1986 and March, April, and May 1987.
Contractor/Vendor Treatability Study
Bruce Huenfeld, U.S. DOD/USATHAMA
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD  21010-5401
301-617-3446
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA), CO (NPL - Federal facility)
Rocky Mountain, CO
BACKGROUND:   This report covers  incineration  tests
ranging from a laboratory test plan and bench-scale test to
full-scale testing.  This abstract reports only on the results
of bench-scale incineration  tests of contaminants  from
Basin F. Objectives  of the study  were to:   1) gather
information  on properties of  the wastes,  2) provide a
bench-scale  apparatus  to  determine  incmerability
characteristics of the wastes, 3)  demonstrate  99.99%
destruction removal efficiency (ORE), and 4) determine gas
residence time, temperature and excess O2 necessary for
99.99%  ORE.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The wastes discharged
into the  Basin F lagoon included sodium salts of  chloride,
fluoride, hydroxide, methyl phosphate, acetate, sulfate and
pesticides.   Bench-scale tests were conducted  on pure
compounds and  field samples.  Equipment was used  to
simulate three of the major  incineration mechanisms-
pyrolysis, primary  incinerator  postflame, and  afterburner
postflame.
The  laboratory bench-scale unit was designed to evaluate
thermal  destruction efficiency up to  1200°F and residence
times from 2 to 5 seconds.  The unit utilized a batch load
system with two furnaces and  a blended carrier gas.  The
first  furnace volatilized the  constituents while the carrier
gas moved the constituents to the secondary furnace which
added 02 and simulated an afterburner in a full-scale unit.
Residence times in the afterburner were  1  second or 5
seconds and in  the  primary  burner one  hour.   Primary
burner operating  temperatures were 650°, 800° and 900°
C.   Secondary afterburner  operating temperatures  were
650°, 900° and  1200°C.  O2  concentrations  were 5%  to
7%.  Sixteen successful runs were performed.
The  combustion products in  the gases were collected by a
sampling train for subsequent  analysis.   A  detailed
sampling plan is contained  in this  study.  An outline  of
QA/QC  measures that will be taken are reported in  the
"Draft Laboratory Test Plan for  Incineration  of  Basin F
Wastes  at Rocky Mountain Arsenal,  April 1986."  Samples
                             for analysis were  collected  from  soils, sludge and  liquid.
                             GC/MS was employed to analyze for ten semi-volatile
                             compounds  in  the  feed stock.    GS/MS  selective ion
                             monitoring was  used for contaminant residue and off gas
                             analysis.
                             PERFORMANCE:    A  99.99%  ORE  was  usually
                             demonstrated for the ten  principal  hazardous  organic
                             constituents.  Residues  were tested for EP  Toxicity to
                             determine the leachability of heavy metals contained in the
                             wastes.  No heavy metals exceeded the EP Toxicity limit.

                             CONTAMINANTS:
                             Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants	
                             W01-Halogenated Non- 108-90-7
                             Polar Aromatic
                             Compounds
                             W03-Halogenated     CPMS
                             Phenols Cresols and
                             Thiols              CPMS02

                                                CPMSO

                                                470-90-6
                             W04-Halogenated     96-12-8
                             Aliphatic Solvents
                             W05-Halogenated     309-00-2
                             Cyclic              72-20-8
                             Aliphatics/Ethers/Esters/ 465-73-6
                             Ketones             60-57-1
                             W07-Hetercychcs and  108-88-3
                             Simple Aromatics
            1330-20-7
            ABC
            109-92-2
            110-71-4
            T119-36-8
            142-82-5
            77-73-6
This is a partial listing of data.
more information.
                             W09-Other Polar
                             Organic Compounds

                             W13-Other Organics
                             Note:
                         Chlorobenzene
 P-Chlorophenylmethyl
 Sulfide
 P-Chlorophenyl methyl
 Sulfone
 P-Chlorophenylmethyl
 Sulfoxide
 Supona
 1,2-Dibromo-3-
 chloropropane
 Aldnn
 Endnn
 Isodnn
 Dieldnn
 Toluene
 Xylenes
 Alkyl Benzene
 Ethoxyethylene
 Dimethoxyethane
 Benzoic Acid
 Heptane
 Dicyclopentadiene
Refer to the document for
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                 appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-22                  Document Number:  FDBP
                                                     117

-------
Table 1 .    Destruction  and  Removal Efficiency of  Ten  Principal  Hazardous  Organic  Constituents  in
            Overburden Sample
 Temp °C in
 Secondary Burner 650     650    650    900   900    900    900     900    900    900    1200   1200   1200   1200
 Temp "Cm
 Primary Burner   650     650    650    650   800    800    900     900    900    900    650    900    900    900
 Gas Residence
 Time in Second
 Burner (in
 seconds)        2        2522522555225
 Oxygen Level in
 off-gas (%)      5.4
 Run Number

 % Removal
    ALDRIN
14
17
        7

        11
5.4

18
7

20
7

18
5.4

12
5.4
9
5.4     5.4

8      10
       13
                100.00   100.00 100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  99.94   100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00
                100.00                                                                       100.00
    CPMS       100.00   100.00 100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  99.99   100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00
                100.00                                                                       100.00
    CPMSO     100.00   100.00 100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  99.41   100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00
                100.00                                                                       100.00
    CPMSO2    100.00   100.00 100.00  100.00 99.99  100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00
                100.00                                                                       100.00
    DBCP       99.00   100.00 100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00
                100.00                                                                       100.00
    DIELDRIN    100.00   100.00 100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  99.97   100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00
                100.00                                                                       100.00
    ENDRIN     100.00   100.00 100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00
                100.00                                                                       100.00
    ISODRIN    100.00   100.00 100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  99.99   100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00
                100.00                                                                       100.00
    SUPONA    99.74   99.38  100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00  100.00 100.00
                100.00                                                                       100.00
                                                          NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                   appropriate for all uses.
                                                          3/89-22                   Document Number:  FDBP
                                                       118

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:    Immobilization - Solidification
  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:
  Location of Test:
Soil/Generic
Acurex Corp. "BOAT for Solidification/Stabilization Technology for Superfund Soils (Draft
Final Report)."  Prepared for U.S. EPA. 75 pp. November 17, 1987.

EPA ORD Report

Edwin Barth
U.S. EPA, ORD, HWERL
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH  45268
513-569-7669
BOAT SARM-Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)

Mountain View, CA 94039
BACKGROUND:  This report evaluates the performance of
solidification  as a  method for treating  solids  from
Superfund sites.  Tests were conducted on four different
artificially contaminated soils  which are representative of
soils found at the sites.  Contaminated soils were solidified
using  common solidification agents or binders.  Samples
were tested for unconfined compressibility at various times
after solidification and  certain samples were subjected to
the toxic contaminants/leach procedure (TCLP) tests and
total waste analysis. Volatile organics  levels  were  also
measured during solidification and long term set up of the
soils.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:  The testing was done on
four different  types  of  Synthetics Analytical  References
Mixtures (SARM) prepared under separate contract for the
EPA.  The  SARMs varied in  concentrations from high to
low with  respect to organics (2,000-20,000  ppm) and
metals (1,000-50,000 ppm). Three different binding agents
were used;  Portland cement, lime kiln dust and lime/flyash
(50/50 by wt).  Mixtures were molded according to ASTM
procedure  109-86 and  the  Unconfined  Compressive
Strength  (UCS) was measured  at 7,14,21,  and 28 days
after  curing  according  to  ASTM  104-86.   Optimal
percentage of water in the mixture was determined by cone
penetrometer tests. Volatile organics (VOC) were analyzed
after  solidification  of  the samples  using  a  Gas
Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector.
Samples  were tested  on  days  14 and  28 to determine
whether VOC  levels  changed during curing.  Total Waste
Analysis and Toxic Contaminants Leach Procedure (TLCP)
tests  were conducted on samples having  unconfined
compressibility greater than 50 psi. This study contains a
section on QA/QC procedures.
PERFORMANCE:  Compressibility values  increased with
increasing cure time.  The Portland  cement samples  had
the greatest Unconfined Compressibility Test rating (UCS)
followed by kiln dust  SARM and then the lime flyash SARM
samples. The lime flyash samples took up to two weeks to
set-up. The amount of water in the samples is critical  and
has as much  effect on the final sample properties as the
amount  of binder  used.   Analysis  of  volatile  and
semivolatile organics by GC/FID revealed  that emissions
                            dropped only slightly during the 14  to  28 day curing
                            process.  This  observation  is consistent with earlier work
                            that revealed that VOC emissions occur mostly during the
                            soil mixing period and are relatively constant  during the
                            curing process. The result of the TCLP tests revealed that
                            in certain instances  none of the heavy metals could  be
                            leached  out,  however other TCLP  results showed  heavy
                            metal concentrations greater than those in  the initial SARM
                            soil samples.   The report contained no  analysis  or
                            comment on the  results  of the TCLP  tests. The results
                            appear too  variable to  draw  any  definite conclusions
                            regarding the ability of solidification agents to  immobilize
                            heavy metals.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                             Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants
WOl-Halogenated
Aromatic Compounds
W03-Halogenated
Phenols Cresols and
Thiols
W04-Halogenated
Aliphatic Compounds
W07-Heterocychcs &
Simple Aromatics

W08-Polynuclear
108-90-7
87-86-5

107-06-2
127-18-4
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
120-12-7
Chlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol

1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes
Anthracene
                             Aromatics
                             W09-Other Polar
                             Organic Compounds
                             W10-Non-Volatile
                             metals

                             W10-Non-Volatile
                             metals

                             W11-Volatile Metals
117-81 -7      Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
67-64-1        Acetone
7440-47-3     Chromium
7440-50-8     Copper
7440-02-0     Nickel
7440-47-3     Chromium
7440-50-8     Copper
7440-02-0     Nickel
7440-43-9     Cadmium
7439-92-1     Lead
7440-66-6     Zinc
7440-38-2     Arsenic
                                                        NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                        3/89-50                  Document Number:  FHMF
                                                    119

-------
                    SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
  Treatment Process:

  Media:
  Document Reference:

  Document Type:
  Contact:
  Site Name:

  Location of Test:
Physical/Chemical - Soil Washing

Soil/Sandy
IT Corporation. "Laboratory Feasibility Testing of Prototype Soil Washing Concepts.
Prepared for U. S. EPA,  OHMSB.  47 pp. December 1983
EPA ORD Report

Franklin Freestone
HWERL - Releases Control Branch
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ  08837-3579
201-340-6630
Clarksburg Soil
OHMSETT, Leonardo, NJ (Non-NPL)

Knoxville, TN
BACKGROUND:   This  draft document  reports  on
laboratory  testing  of  several  washing solutions to
decontaminate soils  contaminated with dioxins.   The
following extractants were evaluated:  surfactant mixtures
of 0.5% to 3% Adsee 799 and 0.5% to 3% Hyonic NP90
in distilled water,  Freon TF with and without methanol, and
kerosene/diesel fuel-water mixtures.  A spiked  soil was
used for the study.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION:     One kilogram of soil
was spiked with a solution of TCDD and isooctane. TCDD
concentrations were measured using a  Soxhlet extraction
procedure.  The average starting concentration was 0.671
yg TCDD/g soil with a relative standard deviation of 3.78%.
The spiked soil was placed into a centrifuge tube,  and the
solvent to be tested was added at a 3 to 1 ratio of solvent
to soil (weight percent).  The centrifuge tube was then
sealed and placed in the reciprocating shaker for 4 hours at
low speed.   After  shaking,   the tube  was  placed  in  a
centrifuge for ten minutes  at  2000  rpm.   The clear
supernatant was  decanted and the residue  in  the tube
weighed.   A quantity of  solvent equal to the first extract
was  added to the tube  and  the procedure repeated until
three solvent extractions and  a water wash  (where
appropriate) were completed.  The supernatant  and  the
residual soil were extracted and analyzed for TCDD, and a
material balance  was calculated  for the experiment.  No
analytical QA/QC  procedures are described.
PERFORMANCE:       The  extraction  efficiency was
measured by  Soxhlet extraction of  the soil residue after it
had  undergone  three simple batch extractions with  a
specific solvent system.  The study summarizes  the data
for each of the soil  washing solutions. The overall material
balance for the extract systems ranged from 94%  to 117%
with  a mean of 101.7% and a relative standard deviation of
6.6%.
The  test  results  indicated  that  the  Freon  and
Freon/methanol extraction systems  were the most effective
extractants for the  removal of TCDD from the soil.  After
                            three batch extractions, 7.4% (50 ppb) and 2.9%  (20 ppb),
                            respectively, of TCDD remained on the soil.  The overall
                            material balances for these extractions were  101.2% and
                            96.3%, respectively.

                            Increasing the concentration of the  extractant decreased
                            the  residual TCDD concentrations  significantly.  For
                            example,  the residual concentration of TCDD decreased
                            from 27.2% to  13.2%  as the  concentration  of the
                            Adsee/Hyonic increased from 0.5%/0.5% to 3%/3%.

                            Other variables which may impact  the extraction efficiency
                            include the organic content and the soil moisture content of
                            the  soils.  The organic content of the soil will affect the
                            amount of organics that the soil will absorb, and the ability
                            to desorb these  organics.   The  soil used  in  this test
                            contained 0.2% organic matter. The moisture content of
                            the soil will significantly affect the  final process design for
                            extractants such as methanol which are non-aqueous and
                            have a limited capacity to absorb water.

                            CONTAMINANTS:

                            Analytical data is provided  in the  treatability  study report.
                            The breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:

                              Treatability Group   CAS Number  Contaminants	
                              W02-Dioxms, Furans,
                              and RGBs
1746-01-6
2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxm (TCDD)
                                                       NOTE:   Quality assurance of data may not be
                                                                appropriate for all uses.
                                                       3/89-44                 Document Number: FRET
                                                     120

-------
                                               Chapter 5
                                              References
1.   U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid       Soil. Prepared by COM Federal Programs Corporation
    Waste   Proposed Guidance Manual  BOAT  Interim       for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
    Guidance for Treatment of Contaminated  Soil at       EPA/540/2-89/053. March 1989.
    CERCLA and RCRA Corrective Action  Sites (Revision    „,,„,-.       * i  n  t  *•    A        u    ^
                                          v            3.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Hazardous
    No. b). June/, iy«H.                                    Waste  Engineering Research  Laboratory (HWERL).
2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of       Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
    Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated       Program. HWERL Symposium. May 1988.
                                                   121

-------
                                               Appendix A
The description of the contaminant groups that follow vere
taken  from  "Proposed Guidance  Manual:  BOAT Interim
Guidance for Treatment of Contaminated Soil at CERCLA
and RCRA Corrective Action Sites" prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection  Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
(BOAT Report, page 2-2, 8/31/88).

CONTAMINANT GROUPS

W01  -  HALOGENATED  NON-POLAR   AROMATIC
COMPOUNDS EXCLUDING PCBs, FURANS,   DIOXINS,
AND THEIR PRECURSORS.

Halogenated aromatic compounds contain  bromine,
fluorine,  and/or  chlorine.  This  group of compounds
contains most   of  the  halogenated  Appendix  VIII
constituents including halogenated  benzene, toluene,
naphthalene and their derivatives.  These compounds are
essentially water insoluble.

W02 - PCB'S HALOGENATED DIOXINS, FURANS, AND
THEIR PRECURSORS

These compounds  are classified as a  separate  group
because of  the more  toxic nature  and the more stringent
requirements for these  wastes.   Additionally,  wastes
containing chemical  precursors  to these materials  (e.g.,
halogenated phenoxyacetic acid derivatives) are very likely
to contain halogenated furans and dioxins as impurities.

W03 - HALOGENATED PHENOLS, CRESOLS, AMINES,
THIOLS, AND OTHER POLAR AROMATICS

This group  of compounds includes halogenated phenols,
halogenated alkyl-substituted phenols, halogenated cresols,
halogenated  amines,  and halogenated  alkyl substituted
thiols.  As  a group,  these compounds  are  more water
soluble than non-polar halogenated aromatics. In addition,
the presence of polar substituents gives  these compounds
lower vapor pressures and higher boiling points than
compounds in group W01  .

W04 - HALOGENATED ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
This  Group  includes  all brominated,  chlorinated,  and
fluorinated alkanes,  alkenes, and  acetylenes and includes
many high volume industrial halogenated solvents such as
carbon tetrachloride, trichioroethylene, perchloroethylene,
and the di-  and trichloroethane isomers.  The compounds
in this group are  generally more volatile than those
compounds  found  in  groups W01  and W03.   These
compounds are also generally water insoluble.

W05 - HALOGENATED CYCLIC ALIPHATICS, ETHERS,
ESTERS, AND KETONES

This group includes  a wide variety of halogenated aliphatic
compounds which are primarily  used  as  pesticides or
pesticide precursors,  and contains heavily-halogenated
cyclic aliphatic pesticides as well as halogenated  polar
aliphatic compounds such  as  halogenated  ethers,
carboxylic  acids,  aldehydes,  and  ketones.   These
compounds are far  less volatile than those in group W04
and generally are more water soluble.

W06  -  NITRATED  AROMATIC AND  ALIPHATIC
COMPOUNDS

The  physical/chemical  characteristics of this  class of
compounds are governed by the presence of one or more
nitro groups (-NO2).  The group includes nitrated aromatic
and aliphatic compounds because the presence of the nitro
group plays a dominating role in  the  chemistry of  these
substances. Nitrated compounds undergo unique chemical
reactions due to the presence of one or more nitro groups
for  example, nitro compounds  can be reduced to their
corresponding  amines.   Many  nitro compounds are
explosive; therefore,  some technologies can  only be used
with great care when treating these compounds.

W07  -  HETEROCYCLICS  AND  SIMPLE NON-
HALOGENATED AROMATICS

The group includes  a number of simple nonpolar aromatic
compounds and  the  Appendix VIII heterocyclic
compounds, primarily pyridme and a few alkyl-substituted
pyridine  derivatives.  This group  includes  a  number of
simple non-polar aromatic solvents  such  as  benzene,
toluene,  ethyl benzene, styrene, and the xylene isomers.
The compounds in this group are generally very volatile.

W08  -  POLYNUCLEAR  AROMATICS  AND
HETEROCYCLICS

Because of the unique chemistry of compounds containing
fused aromatic and/or heterocyclic  rings, these compounds
have been placed in  a separate group.  These compounds
have much higher boiling points than the simple aromatics
in group W07 and have low aqueous solubilities.

W09 - OTHER  POLAR NON-HALOGENATED ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS

This grouping includes many classes of  polar organic
compounds such as:

     Non-halogenated phenols, phenylethers, and cresols
     Aromatic and aliphatic alcohols
     Aromatic and aliphatic aldehydes and ketones
     Aromatic and aliphatic nitnles and isocyanates
     Sulfonic acids, Sulfones, thiols
     Phosphate  esters, carboxylic acid esters, and sulfate
     esters
  • Amines, substituted hydrazmes, and nitrosamines.

All of these compounds exhibit reasonable water solubility
and biodegradability.
W10 - NON-VOLATILE METALS

The various Appendix VIII toxic metal compounds can be
divided  into two classes:  those containing  volatile  metal
salts and those containing non-volatile metal salts.  Non-
                                                   123

-------
volatile  metals  are  defined  as those  not  possessing    W12 - OTHER ORGANICS
                                                       m (he W1Q Qr W11 groups  Compounds contained in this
                                                       group include fluoride salts, inorganic cyanide salts,
W11 - VOLATILE METALS                                sulfides, and phosphides.
Volatile metals are defined as those possessing significant    W13 ' OTHER ORGANICS
vapor pressures  below  1000°C.   Volatile metals include    This  group contains  those organic  compounds which do
compounds of lead, zinc, cadmium, and mercury.             not belong to groups W01  through W09.
                                OU.S.GOVERNMENTPRINT1NGOFFICE:1989 -StB-163/ 003i(6
                                                    124

-------