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
-------
|