EPA/542/B-92/003
August 1992
Synopses of Federal
Demonstrations of Innovative
Site Remediation Technologies
Second Edition
ui
o
Federal
Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Synopses of Federal
Demonstrations of Innovative
Site Remediation Technologies
Second Edition
Prepared by the Member Agencies of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
1992
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
This document has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
68-W2-004. It has been subject to administrative review by all agencies participating in the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable, and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Table of Contents
BIOREMEDIATION
Above-Ground Biological Treatment of Trichloroethylene 3
Aerated Static Pile Composting 4
Aerated Static Pile Composting 7
* Aerobic Composting Optimization 10
Biodecontamination of Fuel Oil Spills 13
Biodegradation 15
Biodegradation of Lube Oil Contaminated Soils 17
* BIO-FIX Beads 18
Biological Aqueous Treatment System 19
* Biological Degradation of Cyanide 21
* Biological Treatment 22
* Bioremediation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons 24
Bioremediation/Vacuum Extraction 25
* Bioslurry Reactor 26
* Bioventing 28
* Deep In Situ Bioremediation Process 30
Enhanced In Situ Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
in the Vadose Zone 32
* Enzyme Catalyzed, Accelerated Biodegradation 34
Geolock and Bio-Drain Treatment Platform 35
* Immobilized Cell Bioreactor (ICB) Biotreatment System 37
In Situ Biodegradation 39
* In Situ Biodegradation 40
* In Situ Enhanced Bioremediation 42
* Liquids and Solids Biological Treatment (LST) 43
Pact® Treatment System 45
* Soil Slurry-Sequencing Batch Bioreactor 47
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
* Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process 51
Chemical Detoxification of Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds 53
Chemical Oxidation and Cyanide Destruction 55
Combined Chemical Binding, Precipitation, and
Physical Separation of Radionuclides 57
* DeChlor/KGME Process 59
* Particle Separation Process 61
* perox-pure™ 63
* Photolytic Oxidation Process 65
* Physical Separation/Chemical Extraction 67
* PO*WW*ER™ Evaporation and Catalytic Oxidation 68
* Solar Detoxification 70
* Xanthate Treatment 71
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Table of Contents (cont'd)
THERMAL TREATMENT
* Anaerobic Thermal Process 75
* Cyclone Furnace 77
Desorption and Vapor Extraction System 79
* Dynamic Underground Stripping 81
* High-Temperature Thermal Processor 83
Low-Temperature Thermal Stripping 85
Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3) 88
* Molten Salt Oxidation 91
* Plasma Arc Vitrification 94
Radio Frequency (RF) Thermal Soil Decontamination 96
X*TRAX™ Low-Temperature Thermal Desorption 98
VAPOR EXTRACTION
Groundwater Vapor Recovery System 103
In Situ Air Stripping with Horizontal Wells 104
* In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction 107
In Situ Soil Venting 108
In Situ Soil Venting 110
In Situ Steam and Air Stripping Process Ill
* In Situ Steam-Enhanced Extraction (ISEE) 113
Integrated Vapor Extraction and Steam Vacuum Stripping 115
* Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) 117
* Steam Injection and Vacuum Extraction (SIVE) 118
Vacuum-Induced Soil Venting 120
* Vapor Extraction and Bioventing Design 121
Vapor Extraction System 122
SOIL WASHING
BioGenesis Soil Cleaning Process 125
* Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes (CROW) Process 127
Debris Washing System 129
* Soil Restoration Unit 131
Soil Treatment with Extraksol™ 133
* Soil Washer for Radioactive Soil 135
* Soil Washing 136
* Soil Washing/Catalytic Ozone Oxidation 137
* Son Washing System 139
Solvent Extraction 141
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Table of Contents (cont'd)
OTHER PHYSICAL TREATMENT
* Advanced Oxidation Process 145
* Advanced Oxidation Process 146
Carver-Greenfield Process for Extraction of Oily Waste 147
Catalytic Decontamination 149
* Entrained-Bed Gasification 151
* Filtration 153
* Hydraulic Fracturing 154
* Hydraulic Soil Mixing 156
* Hydrolytic Terrestrial Dissipation 157
In Situ Vitrification 159
In Situ Vitrification 161
* Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Catalytic Oxidation 163
Precipitation, Microfiltration, and Sludge Dewatering 165
Rotary Air Stripping 167
* Thermal Gas Phase Reduction Process 169
Ultrafiltration 171
Ultraviolet Radiation and Oxidation 173
* Ultraviolet Radiation, Hydrogen Peroxide, and Ozone 175
Wetlands-Based Treatment 176
APPENDIX A
Incineration and Solidification Demonstrations 181
APPENDIX B
General Technology Development Programs 209
U.S. DOE Integrated Demonstrations 211
U.S. DOI Technology Development 219
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable iii
-------
PREFACE
This collection of abstracts, compiled by the Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable, describes
field demonstrations of innovative technologies to treat hazardous waste. This document updates and
expands information presented in the first edition of the collection which was published in 1991.
Synopses appearing for the first time in this edition are denoted in the Table of Contents by an asterisk.
The collection is intended to be an information resource for hazardous waste site project managers
for assessing the availability and viability of innovative technologies for treating contaminated ground
water, soils, and sludge. It is also intended to assist government agencies in coordinating ongoing
hazardous waste remediation technology research initiatives, particularly those sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Innovative technologies, for the purposes
of this compendium, are defined as those technologies for which detailed performance and cost data are
not readily available.
The demonstrations contained herein have all been sponsored by EPA, DOD, DOE, and DOI. In
total, 91 demonstrations in six different technology categories are described. These demonstrations
involve the use of innovative technologies to treat soil and ground water. A matrix listing the
demonstration categories, the type of contaminant, media that can be treated, and the treatment setting
for innovative technologies demonstrated is provided in Exhibit 1 on page ix. Although descriptions of
demonstrations involving more conventional treatment technologies, such as incineration and
solidification, do not appear in the main body of this edition, a selection of such abstracts have been
included in Appendix A for your information.
This document focuses on specific demonstrations projects. However, Appendix B describes more
general demonstration programs being undertaken by the Departments of Energy and Interior.
This document represents a starting point in the review of technologies available for application to
hazardous waste sites. This compendium should not be looked upon as a sole source for this
information — it does not represent all innovative technologies nor all technology demonstrations
performed by these agencies. Only Federally sponsored studies and demonstrations that have tested
innovative remedial technologies with site specific wastes under realistic conditions as a part of large
pilot- or full-scale field demonstrations are included. Those studies included represent all that were
provided to the Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable at the time of publication. Information
collection efforts are ongoing.
The Federal Remediation Roundtable
This publication was prepared under the auspices of the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (Roundtable). This organization was created to establish a process for applied hazardous
waste site remediation technology information exchange, to consider cooperative efforts of mutual
interest, and to develop strategies and analyze remedial problems that will benefit from the application
of innovative technologies. The Roundtable is comprised of representatives from several Federal
agencies:
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office (EPA/TIO)
The mission of the Technology Innovation Office (TIO) is to increase applications of innovative
treatment technology by government and industry to contaminated waste sites, soils, and ground
water. TIO intends to increase usage of innovative techniques by removing regulatory and
institutional impediments and providing richer technology and market information to targeted
audiences of Federal agencies, States, consulting engineering firms, responsible parties, technology
developers, and the investment community. The scope of the mission extends to Superfund sites,
corrective action sites under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and underground
storage tank cleanups. By contrast, TIO is not a focus for EPA interest in treatment technologies
for industrial or municipal waste streams, for recycling, or for waste minimization.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (EPA/ORD)
The Office of Research and Development Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program supports development of technologies for assessing and treating waste from Superfund sites.
The SITE program was authorized by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
with the goal of identifying technologies, other than land disposal, that are suitable for treating
Superfund wastes. The program provides an opportunity for technology developers to demonstrate
their technology's capability to successfully process and remediate Superfund waste. EPA evaluates
the technology and provides an assessment of potential for future use for Superfund cleanup actions.
The SITE program has currently evaluated or supported research efforts for about 135 innovative
treatment technologies. The SITE program is administered by EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), operating through the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense, Environment (DASD (E)), establishes policy and monitors the Armed Forces' execution
of the DOD hazardous waste site clean-up program. The Defense Environmental Restoration
Program (DERP) funds activities at over 17,000 DOD sites located on nearly 1,700 properties
through the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The DOD works cooperatively with the
Environmental Protection Agency and the States toward the goal of taking timely, effective, and
efficient actions at all stages of the DERP. Research and development of better methods for site
investigation and cleanup is an important part of DERP. Many innovative technologies have been
developed and demonstrated to improve the speed and cost-effectiveness of DOD site cleanups.
U.S. Air Force Civil Engineering and Support Agency (AFCESA)
The Air Force Civil Engineering and Support Agency (AFCESA) is responsible for identifying,
developing, and testing technologies that may be useful for remediating contaminated sites as part
of the Air Force's Installation Remediation Program.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
In support of the Army's Installation Restoration (IR) Program, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has the responsibility of ensuring the development of necessary and improved technology
for conduct of the Program. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is also charged with the
responsibility for developing improved pollution abatement and environmental control technology
vi Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
in support of the U.S. Army Material Command industrial complex (Pollution Abatement or PAECT
Program). The purpose of the IR Decontamination Development Program is to provide R&D
support to required assessment and clean-up actions at Army installations. Efforts include evaluating
commercially available state-of-the-art technologies as well as developing new, innovative
technologies that are more economical and efficient than existing technology. The PAECT program
addresses waste minimization and disposal alternatives for the Army's industrial operations.
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA)
The U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA), a Field Operating
Activity (FOA) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a major focal point in the program
management and support efforts of the Army-wide environmental program. With its principal focus
directed toward supporting the installation in achieving and maintaining environmental compliance,
the Agency's activities fall into five major categories:
— Environmental Compliance;
- Installation Restoration Program (IRP);
~ Environmental Training and Awareness;
-- Research and Development (R & D); and
~ Environmental Information Management.
U.S. Navy, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL)
The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) develops technologies for restoration efforts
at Navy and Marine Corps Installations. NCEL serves as a consultant to project managers at Navy
restoration sites, planning and conducting applied research and demonstration projects to support
restoration objectives.
Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Restoration
The Department of Energy (DOE) is faced with the largest environmental clean-up task ever to
confront the United States. The primary objectives of DOE's Environmental Restoration (ER)
Program are to stabilize radioactive waste or perform decontamination and decommissioning at
contaminated DOE and legislatively authorized non-government installations and sites; conduct
assessments and characterization of DOE sites to determine if there is the potential for radioactive
and hazardous waste releases; and to protect human health and the environment. The goal of the
Environmental Restoration Program is the cleanup of contaminated DOE and legislatively authorized
sites within 30 years.
Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Technology Development
DOE's Office of Technology Development was established to identify technologies in the
research and development and demonstration (RD&D) stage, and to demonstrate, test, and evaluate
those technologies that will provide DOE with accelerated and/or improved methods for achieving
its environmental goals as specified in its Five-Year Plan.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable vii
-------
Department of Interior (DOI)
As the principal conservator of the Nation's public lands and natural resources, the Department
of Interior (DOI) has three primary areas of waste management concern: abandoned mine sites;
illegal dumping on Federal lands; and landfills that were leased to counties and municipalities. DOI
manages wastes to safeguard resource values and to protect the lives and health of the millions of
people who work, live, and recreate on lands managed by DOI. The Bureau of Mines, the Bureau
of Reclamation, and the Geological Survey are the primary agencies within DOI who provide
technical consultation and research assistance to DOI and other Federal agencies for solution of
waste management problems. For example, extensive research conducted by the nine research
laboratories of the Bureau of Mines is directly applicable to the management of mining and mineral
waste problems. This technology has been extended to encompass the cost-effective treatment of
other inorganic wastes.
Future Demonstrations
This publication will be updated on a periodic basis. If you will be conducting a demonstration
featuring an innovative hazardous waste treatment technology in the future, or if you are aware of a
project that is relevant to this collection but has been omitted, please forward this information to TIO:
Daniel M. Powell
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW, OS-HOW
Washington, DC 20460
For your convenience, we have included, at the end of this volume, the Innovative Remedial
Technologies Information Collection Form to guide you in formatting the information for inclusion in
this compendium. The Roundtable developed this form as a model for use in collecting findings on
innovative technologies and their applications, effectiveness, and costs.
The form is intended to facilitate new data collection efforts, and it indicates the data we are most
interested in capturing. If, however, you have already collected and recorded the information in an
alternative format, please feel free to forward any previously written abstract or summary. We will
reformat it to be included in this compendium.
If you have any comments on the usefulness and clarity of this publication, please complete the
suggestion form on the last page, and send it to Daniel Powell at the address listed above.
viii Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
I?
II
.0
I
6C.
e -o
O
U
1
o
I
vm
89f|JB[OA!UIOT PUB
S9Jp|OA|Uiee PUB
cal
a
Vapor Extraction
60
'o
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
IX
-------
Bioremediation
-------
Bioremediation
Above-Ground Biological Treatment of Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene (TCE) in Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
In this treatment, methane-degrading bacteria
co-metabolize short-chain, chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons. This technology is applicable to
the removal of short chain chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons from water. It can be used as an
above-ground "pump and treat" method for in
situ remediation or the removal of similar
compounds from any water stream.
An enzyme, a non-specific oxygenase that
metabolizes methane, attacks trichloroethylene
(TCE). The bacteria cannot, however, use TCE
as "food" but must have methane as a carbon
source. The reaction can take place in a
bioreactor or in situ. A mixture of oxygen and
methane is passed through the reactor or
reaction zone to sustain the microbial
population. The contaminated water is allowed
to percolate down through the bed. The
packing material can be soil, but care must be
taken to avoid plugging.
Technology Performance
A pilot-scale test of this treatment technology
was conducted at Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma, during 1989. Ground Water
contaminated with TCE was pumped up from a
contamination site and flowed through the
bioreactor. Approximately 80 percent
destruction of TCE was achieved. Flow rate
through the reactor was two to three L/min,
with a retention time of 20 to 50 minutes in the
reactor. No hazardous intermediate compounds
are created with this process.
A joint effort is currently underway by the
AFCESA and the DOE Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) to perform a comparison
test in the field between two bioreactors capable
of biodegrading TCE within a mixture of other
solvents. A reactor inoculated with a mixed
methanotrophic culture will be operated
alongside a bioreactor seeded with a
Pseudomonas culture capable of degrading TCE
in the presence of some aromatic compounds.
The two reactors will be run side by side at the
K-25 site (Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant)
at ORNL. The objectives of the study include
determining which culture is most effective at
biodegrading a waste mixture such as found at
the K-25 site and optimizing this bioreactor
process.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
Contact
Captain Catherine M. Vogel
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
904/283-6036
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Aerated Static Pile Composting
Explosives (TNT, RDX, HMX) in Lagoon Sediments
Technology Description
Composting is a process by which organic
materials are biodegraded by microorganisms,
resulting in the production of organic and
inorganic by-products and energy in the form of
heat. This heat is trapped within the compost
matrix, leading to the self-heating phenomenon
known as composting. Composting is initiated
by mixing biodegradable organic matter
(explosives in this study), with organic carbon
sources and bulking agents, which are added to
enhance the porosity of the mixture to be
composted.
In "static pile" composting, an aeration/heat
removal system is utilized to increase process
control over the composting system. The
aeration/heat removal system typically takes the
form of a network of perforated pipe underlying
the compost pile. The pipe is attached to a
mechanical blower and air is periodically drawn
or forced through the compost to effect aeration
and heat removal.
The composting test facilities were constructed
of concrete test pads with runoff collection
systems and sumps, covered by a roof to protect
the compost piles from weather and to minimize
the amount of moisture collected in the sump.
Bulking agents and carbon sources consisted of
horse manure, alfalfa, straw, fertilizer, and horse
feed. Baled straw was used to contain the pile
contents, and was arranged in a ring around the
perimeter of each pile. Sawdust and hardwood
mulch were used to construct the pile bases,
provide additional bulking material, and insulate
the piles. After mixing, the compost was
transported to the composting pads. Each
compost pile contained a system of pipes
connected to a blower, as described above. A
cross-sectional schematic diagram of a compost
pile is provided.
Technology Performance
The primary objective of this study was to
evaluate the utility of aerated static pile
composting as a technology for remediating
soils and sediments contaminated with the
explosives TNT, HMX, RDX, and tetryl.
Secondary objectives included evaluating the
efficacy of thermophilic (55°C) versus
mesophilic (35°C) composting, evaluating
different materials handling and process control
strategies, and determining transformation
products when Standard Analytical Reference
Materials (SARMs) were available.
Temperature was the primary test variable
investigated. The temperature of one set of
compost piles was kept within the mesophilic
range; the temperature of the second set of piles
was kept in the thermophilic range. The initial
concentration of explosives in test sediments
collected from the lagoon was 17,000 mg/kg.
Phase I (piles 1 and 2) was conducted with a
mixture of lagoon sediments, sawdust, wood
chips, and a straw/manure mixture. Based on
data received from phase I, phase n (piles 3 and
4) added alfalfa and horse feed to the compost
mixture to increase the concentration of
biodegradable organic carbon in the compost
mixture. After 153 days of composting, the
solvent-extractable total explosives were
reduced to 376 mg/kg and 74 mg/kg in the
mesophilic and thermophilic piles, respectively.
The mean percent reductions of extractable
TNT, RDX and HMX were 99.6, 94.8, and 86.9
weight-percent in the mesophilic piles, and 99.9,
99.1, and 95.6 weight-percent in the
thermophilic piles.
The results of this field demonstration indicate
that composting is a feasible technology for
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
decontaminating explosives-contaminated soils
and sediments. Further investigation is
warranted for optimizing the materials balance
and soil loading rate for mixtures to be
composted, minimizing bulking agent used, and
developing a design and operation management
plan for a full-scale composting facility. In
addition, the compost residue should be
subjected to a toxicity evaluation and more
extensively analyzed to determine the final fates
of HMX, RDX, TNT, and tetryl.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
General Site Information
This field-scale demonstration project was
conducted at the Louisiana Army Ammunitions
Plant (LAAP). Compost piles were constructed
and tested at LAAP between December 1987
and April 1988. Phase I piles were tested for
33 days; phase n piles were tested for 153 days.
Approximately 21 cubic yards of sediment was
excavated from Pink Water Lagoon No. 4 for
use in this study.
LAAP was built to load and pack ordinance for
the U.S. Army. Explosives have never been
manufactured at the facility, but are brought in
and utilized in loading, assembling, and packing
lines. Initially, the area where the field
demonstration was conducted was used as a
burning grounds to dispose of out-of-
specification ordnance. These burning pits were
converted to lagoons in the mid-1940s. The
lagoons were used to dispose of wastewater
generated during wash down of the munitions
loading lines. Equipment used to load
munitions was washed with water, and the
resulting wastewater contained high
concentrations of suspended explosives ("pink
water"). Pink water was transported to the
unlined lagoons and dumped into individual
lagoons via a concrete spillway. Suspended
explosives settled to the bottom of the lagoons.
Over the period of approximately 30 years
during which pink water was disposed of in the
lagoons, high concentrations of explosives
accumulated in the upper sediment. The highest
concentrations (300,000 to 600,000 mg/kg)
accumulated near the spillways. In October
1984, the pink water lagoon site at LAPP was
proposed for inclusion on the National Priority
List (NPL).
Contacts
USATHAMA
Capt. Kevin Keehan
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410/671-2054
Technology Developer Contact:
Richard T. Williams — Section Manager
P. Scott Ziegenfuss — Project Scientist
Peter J. Marks — Project Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
One Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Boot
Concra* p*d (irX30*X8- thick)
Aerated Static Pile Composting Test Facility
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Aerated Static Pile Composting
Propellents (Nitrocellulose) in Soil and Sediments
Technology Description
Composting is a process by which organic
materials are biodegraded by microorganisms,
resulting in the production of organic and
inorganic byproducts and energy in the form of
heat. This heat is trapped within the compost
matrix, leading to the self-heating phenomenon
known as composting. Composting is initiated
by mixing biodegradable organic matter
(nitrocellulose (NC) in this study), with organic
carbon sources and bulking agents, which are
added to enhance the porosity of the mixture to
be composted.
In "static pile" composting, an aeration/heat
removal system is utilized to increase process
control over the composting system. The
aeration/heat removal system typically takes the
form of a network of perforated pipe underlying
the compost pile. The pipe is attached to a
mechanical blower and air is periodically drawn
or forced through the compost to effect aeration
and heat removal. The primary objective of
hazardous materials composting is to convert
hazardous substances into innocuous products
for ultimate disposal, such as land application.
The composting test facilities were constructed
of concrete test pads with runoff collection
systems and sumps, covered by a roof to protect
the compost piles from weather and to minimize
the amount of moisture collected in the sump.
Bulking agents and carbon sources consisted of
a cow manure slurry, alfalfa, straw, and horse
feed. Baled straw was used to contain the pile
contents, and was arranged in a ring around the
perimeter of each pile. Sawdust and hardwood
mulch were used to construct the pile bases,
provide additional bulking material, and insulate
the piles. After mixing, the compost was
transported to the composting pads. Each
compost pile contained a system of perforated
and non-perforated pipes connected to a blower.
The blowers were used to pull air through the
compost piles to promote aeration and remove
excess heat. A cross-sectional schematic
diagram of a compost pile is provided.
Technology Performance
The primary objective of this study was to
evaluate the utility of aerated static pile
composting as a technology for NC fine (out-of-
specification NC) remediation and destruction of
soils contaminated with NC. Secondary
objectives included evaluating the efficacy of
thermophilic (55°C) versus mesophilic (35°C)
composting, determining a maximum soil
loading rate, and comparing different process
control and material handling strategies.
The test variable in compost piles 1 and 2
(phase I) was temperature. The temperature of
pile 1 was kept within the mesophilic range, and
the temperature of pile 2 was kept in the
thermophilic range. The concentration of NC in
test soils collected from the dredge basin were
18,800 mg/kg for phase I tests. After mixing,
total NC concentration in pile 1 was 3,670
mg/kg, and concentration in pile 2 was 3,608
mg/kg. After 152 days of the study, mean total
NC concentrations were 651 mg/kg and 54
mg/kg, respectively. Information concerning the
effect of temperature on the NC concentration
was inconclusive, however, because there were
apparent discrepancies in the starting data
gathered for pile 1.
The test variable in piles 3 and 4 (phase n) was
the degree of soil loading within each pile. The
initial soil loading was increased from 19
percent in phase I to 22 percent in pile 3, and
32.5 percent in pile 4. The concentration of NC
in tests soils collected for phase n was 17,027
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
mg/kg. After mixing, the concentration of NC
in pile 3 was 7,907 mg/kg, and 13,086 mg/kg in
pile 4. After 112 days of the study, total mean
concentrations of NC were 30 mg/kg and 16
mg/kg, respectively. Both piles showed greater
than 99.5 percent reduction of NC from the
starting point of the test. These results suggest
that successful composting will likely occur at
sediment loading rates of up to 50 percent or
exceeding 50 weight-percent.
The results of this field demonstration indicate
that composting is a feasible technology for
reducing the extractable NC concentration in
contaminated soils. In addition, this study
provides tentative evidence indicating that NC
can be degraded when incorporated into a
mixture to be composted at a high
concentration.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
General Site Information
This field-scale demonstration project was
conducted at the Badger Army Ammunitions
Plant (BAAP) in Sauk County, Wisconsin.
Four compost piles were constructed at BAAP
during the period from April 1988 to January
1989. The first set of compost piles was tested
for 151 days; the second set was tested for 112
days. Approximately 13 cubic yards of test
soils were excavated from Dredge Spoil Basin
No. 1 for use in this study.
Constructed in 1942, the plant operated
intermittently over a 33-year period, producing
single- and double-base propellants for rocket,
cannon, and small arms ammunition. During
the plant's period of active operation, various
chemical materials were produced, and the
associated wastes and manufacturing byproducts
were disposed on site. The wastes included
acids, nitroglycerin, and nitrocellulose (NC). As
a result of the disposal practices, contamination
of soils, the underlying aquifer, and, to some
extent, surface waters has occurred.
Contacts
USATHAMA
Capt. Kevin Keehan
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410/671-2054
Technology Developer Contact:
Richard T. Williams — Section Manager
P. Scott Ziegenfuss — Project Scientist
Peter J. Marks — Project Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
One Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Roof
Wood chip
cover and
base
Ventilation pipe Nx /
Concrete pad (18'X30'X8" thick)
' X
Aerated Static Pile Composting Test Facility
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Aerobic Composting Optimization
Explosives (TNT, RDX, HMX) in Contaminated Soil and Sediment
Technology Description
Composting is a controlled biological process by
which biodegradable materials are converted by
microorganisms to innocuous, stabilized by-
products. In most cases, this is achieved by the
use of indigenous microorganisms. Explosives-
contaminated soils are excavated and mixed
with bulking agents, such as wood chips, and
organic amendments, such as animal, fruit, and
vegetative wastes. Maximum degradation
efficiency is controlled by maintaining moisture
content, pH, oxygenation, temperature, and the
carbon-to-nitrogen ratio. There are three
process designs used in composting: aerated
static piles, windrowing, and mechanically
agitated in-vessel composting. This technology
requires substantial space to conduct the
composting operation and results in a volumetric
increase in material due to the addition of
amendment material.
The composting demonstration at Louisiana
Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP) demonstrated
that aerobic, thermophilic composting is able to
reduce the concentration of explosives (TNT,
RDX, and HMX) and associated toxicity to
acceptable health-based clean-up levels.
However, an economic analysis determined that
full-scale implementation of composting of
explosives-contaminated soils using previously
investigated design parameters was not
economically competitive with incineration. An
optimization field demonstration was initiated at
a National Priority List (NPL) site at Umatilla
Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon, to
investigate several process design parameters
that would make this technology more cost
effective. In addition, extensive chemical
characterization and toxicity studies were
conducted on the final composted product.
The primary objective of this study was to
increase the quantity of soil processed in a
composting treatment system per unit of time.
Since soil throughput is dependent on the rates
of degradation and the percent soil loading, the
key variables investigated in the study were
amendment mixture composition and percent
contaminated soil loading. In addition, two
technologies were evaluated: aerated static pile
and mechanically agitated in-vessel composting
systems.
Amendment selection was based on adiabatic
testing using a combination of fifteen readily
available agricultural wastes. The amendments
selected and their approximate costs are
provided in Table 1. Percent soil loading was
investigated using seven 3-cubic-yard aerated
static pile systems which were constructed from
fiberglass to model actual static pile conditions.
Different soil amendment ratios and amendment
mixture compositions were investigated using a
special 7-cubic-yard pilot-scale mechanically
agitated in-vessel (MATV) system constructed
according to rigorous explosive safety standards.
The MAIV system uses rotating augurs attached
to the rotating cover to mix the compost.
The static pile systems and the MAIV system
were housed in greenhouses to protect them
from the environment and prevent the spreading
of contaminated dust. A computer-based data
acquisition and control system was used to
monitor and regulate the environment in each of
the compost systems. Temperatures were kept
from exceeding 55°C using forced aeration and
the moisture content was maintained at between
45 and 50 percent. Compost samples were
taken at various time intervals, homogenized
and split into two fractions. One fraction was
analyzed for the presence of TNT, RDX, and
HMX, while the other was tested for toxicity.
10
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Since the implementation of this technology will
be based on its ability to meet health-based
clean-up criteria, the resultant composted
material was subjected to chemical
characterization and lexicological evaluation.
Technology Performance
The study confirmed the LAAP composting
study results which indicated that composting
can effectively treat TNT-, RDX-, and HMX-
contaminated matrices. The study indicated that
both static pile and MATV composting
technological approaches are effective in
degrading explosives. The percent reduction of
explosives observed in the tests are provided in
Table 2. Other major findings include the
following:
• In the static pile tests, the majority of the
degradation occurred in the first 44 days,
while the majority of the degradation
occurred in the first 10 days in the MAIV
tests;
• The amendment composition is an important
parameter in achieving maximum reduction
of RDX and HMX; the maximum loading
level for both appears to be 30 volume
percent;
• Mixing is important in achieving rapid and
extensive destruction of explosives (A pilot-
scale composting windrow demonstration
has been initiated as a result of this finding
and is scheduled for completion in FY92);
• Chemical characterization and toxicity
testing concluded that composting can
effectively reduce the concentrations of
explosives and bacterial mutagenicity in
contaminated soil and can reduce the
aquatic toxicity of leachate compounds.
Additional studies are being sponsored to
determine the long-term effectiveness of
composting and the nature of the binding of the
biotrans formation products.
Remediation Costs
Costs will vary with the amount of soil to be
treated, availability of amendments, type of
process design employed, and time allowed to
remediate the site. Costs for composting 8,000
tons of explosives-contaminated soils are
estimated to be 50 percent less expensive than
incinerating the same amount of soil.
General Site Information
Umatilla Depot Activity in Hermiston, Oregon,
was selected as the site for this demonstration.
Between 1950 and 1965, it was the site of a
facility for recovering explosives from
unserviceable munitions. The process resulted
in large quantities of explosives-contaminated
water which was discharged into unlined
settling basins. These washout lagoons were
placed on the NPL in 1987 because of the
presence of explosives in the water table
aquifer. Hand-excavated soils from these
lagoons were used in this demonstration.
Contacts
Capt. Kevin Keehan
USATHAMA
Attn: CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410/671-2054
Technology Developer Contact:
Richard T. Williams, Section Manager
Peter J. Marks, Project Manager
Weston, Inc.
One Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
11
-------
Table 1. UMDA Amendment Composition and Approximate Cost
Amendment
Mix
A
Sawdust
Apple pomace
Chicken manure
Chopped potato
Horse manure/straw
Buffalo manure
Alfalfa
Horse feed
Cow manure
Cost per ton
30%
15%
20%
35%
$15
B
50%
10%
32%
8%
$200
C
22%
6%
17%
22%
33%
$11
Table 2. Percent Reduction of Explosives
Test
(%soil)
Static Pile:
0% (Control)
7%
10%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Mechanical:
10%
10%
25%
40%
Amendment
Mix
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
Percent Reduction
TNT
n/a
91
96
99
94
98
79
97
99
99
97
RDX
n/a
73
46
93
16
22
0
90
99
97
18
HMX
n/a
39
21
80
5
11
2
29
95
68
0
n/a — Uncontaminated soil, no explosives present
12
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Biodecontamination of Fuel Oil Spills
Fuel Oil in Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
In this treatment, biodegradation is
accomplished by applying special oil-degrading
bacteria to a bioreactor while filling the reactor
with leachate water. As the reactor overflows
from a secondary clarifier, bacteria are carried
to a spray field sump and to injection wells.
Surface sprayers apply the treated leachate
water on the spray field while the injection
wells apply the treated leachate water to oil
spill-contaminated soil under the buildings. As
more water is added to the system and the
ground under the buildings, the contaminated
area becomes saturated. Run-off water along
with leachate water is collected in a trench
down-slope from the contaminated area. The
collected water is pumped back to the aerated
bioreactor where bacterial growth on the high
surface area matrix, on which some of the
bacteria are immobilized, occurs. Nutrient and
detergent are added to the oxygen-enriched
treated leachate water along with bacteria, and
it is recirculated to the spray field and injection
wells.
Technology Performance
The microorganisms function best
temperatures between 20°C and 35°C.
at
Remediation Costs
The site was cleaned to a satisfactory level for
approximately $37,000, not including shipping
the equipment to the site, installation labor
supplied by facility personnel, and analytical
costs.
General Site Information
This method was implemented to clean up a
fuel oil spill resulting from leaking pipes which
connected to #2 diesel fuel storage tanks at a
Naval Communication Station at Thurso,
Scotland. The contaminated area had a
considerable slope, and the contaminated soil
was a thin layer over a relatively impermeable
rock substrate. In this case, oil was entrapped
in the soil matrix beneath boiler and power
buildings, an area approximately 800 m2. The
project lasted from February to October 1985.
Contact
Deh Bin Chan
Environmental Restoration Division, Code L71
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805/982-4191
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
13
-------
LEACHATE COLLECITON PUMP—*-||
BIOREACTOR T
DETERGENT
SPRAY FIELD PUMF
INJECTION
WELLS
LEACHATE
SPRAY FIELD SYSTEM COLLECTION
TRENCH
Biodecontamination Process
14
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Biodegradation
TCE in Soil and Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This biodegradation process has two phases: (1)
use of pump and treat bioreactors to degrade
trichloroethylene (TCE) and polychloroethylene
(PCE) in ground water and (2) use of vegetation
to encourage a rhizosphere that can degrade
TCE and PCE in surface soil. The first phase
has three parts: isolating microbes from TCE-
contaminated soil that are capable of degrading
TCE and PCE in water, optimizing the
degradation capabilities of these microbe in
laboratory bioreactors; and building and testing
a pilot-scale (10 gpm) bioreactor at C&P
Burning Rubble Pits.
One benefit from this task is that large-scale
bioreactors can be used in various pump and
treat scenarios of ground water to remove both
TCE and other volatile and non-volatile
organics. Another benefit from this task is that
whenever organic chemicals contaminate surface
soils, selective vegetation and cultivation
techniques can be used to remediate the site in
a very aesthetic and cost-effective manner.
Technology Performance
This process was recently tested at DOE's
Savannah River site. The results from the first
task were positive:
• Bacteria that can aerobically degrade TCE
was isolated from native soil;
• Propane or methane was found to stimulate
TCE degradation more than several other
electron donors;
• Fluidized expanded bed bioreactors, using
propane or methane as a primary energy
source, were 99 percent and 50 percent
effective in reducing TCE concentrations in
water, respectively; and
• Other wastes were also degraded when
mixed wastes were used in the reactor.
The results from the second task were also
positive:
• Vegetated soil was demonstrated to oxidize
TCE-contaminated soil faster than un-
vegetated soil or sterilized soil at the
Miscellaneous Chemical Basin;
• Vegetation analysis showed no difference
with normal vegetation succession for the
area;
• Four of the dominant plants at the test site
were compared and found to have
significantly different abilities to encourage
TCE degradation; and
• Phospholipid fatty acid analysis of the
rhizosphere defined the physiological state
of rhizosphere microbes.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
General Site Information
Biodegradation technology was tested at
Savannah River Site, Miscellaneous Chemical
Basin, and C&P Burning Rubble Pits to remove
TCE from soil and ground water.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
15
-------
Contact
Terry C. Hazen
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Savannah River Laboratory
Environmental Sciences Section
Aiken, SC 29802
803/725-6211
16 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Biodegradation of Lube Oil-
Contaminated Soils
Motor Oil in Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This treatment process requires the addition of
inoculant and nutrients to the contaminated soils
during disking. (The nutrients in the pilot
studies have consisted of sodium acetate,
minerals — potassium, magnesium, ammonium,
phosphate, and sulfate ions — and Tween 80, a
surfactant.) Afterward, the site is covered with
plastic sheeting. The plastic sheeting must have
holes to allow the transport of air.
This method is applicable for oil spills at
maintenance facilities, air strips, along roadways
and streets, and parking lots. Although research
on the method has been directed to degradation
of used lubrication oil, it should be applicable to
almost any non-functionalized aliphatic
hydrocarbon.
Technology Performance
A small-scale pilot test has been conducted at
the U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Laboratory in Champaign, Illinois. Noticeable
reduction in contaminant concentrations were
evident after four to six weeks. Pilot plots
consisted of plastic tubs containing eight
kilograms of contaminated soil placed outside
and covered with plastic. Flask tests were
conducted initially to identify optimum
conditions.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
Contact
Jean Donnelly
U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research
Laboratory
P.O. Box 4005
Champaign, Illinois 61820
217/352-6511
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
17
-------
Bioremediation
BIO-FIX BEADS
Metals in Water
Technology Description
Porous polymeric beads containing immobilized
biological materials have been developed to
extract toxic metals from water. The beads,
designated as BIO-FIX beads, are prepared by
blending biomass such as sphagnum peat moss
or algae into a polymer solution and spraying
the mixture into water. The beads have distinct
advantages over traditional methods of utilizing
biological materials in that they have excellent
handling characteristics and can be used in
conventional processing equipment or low-
maintenance systems. Cadmium, lead, and
mercury are a few of the many metals readily
removed by BIO-FIX beads from acid mine
drainage (AMD) waters, metallurgical and
chemical industry wastewaters, and
contaminated ground waters. Because of their
affinity for metal ions at very low
concentrations, National Drinking Water
Standards and other discharge criteria are
frequently met. Adsorbed metals are removed
from the beads using dilute mineral acids. In
many cases, the extracted metals are further
concentrated to allow recycle of the metal
values.
Technology Performance
Field testing of BIO-FIX bead technology to
remove heavy metals from AMD waters has
been conducted at four sites. These tests were
conducted in cooperation with government
agencies and private mining operations. Two of
the field tests utilized a standard column system,
while the other two tests employed a low-
maintenance circuit developed to treat AMD
problems in remote areas. The tests ranged in
duration from two weeks to 11 months and
more than 200,000 gallons of wastewater were
processed. The results were encouraging and
indicated that drinking water standards and
aquatic wildlife standards could be routinely
achieved for copper, cadmium, lead, zinc,
manganese, iron, cobalt, and nickel. BIO-FIX
beads proved to be chemically and physically
stable over repeated loading-elution cycles and
were not affected by adverse climatic conditions
such as cold temperature or heavy snows.
Remediation Costs
BIO-FIX technology has been licensed from the
Bureau of Mines by three environmental
remediation companies and is available for
commercial application. Cost information will
be supplied upon request.
Contact
Tom Jeffers
Supervisory Chemical Engineer
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Salt Lake City Research Center
729 Arapeen Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
801/524-6164
18
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Biological Aqueous Treatment System
PCP, Creosote Components, Gasoline and Fuel Oil Components,
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Phenolics, and Solvents in Ground Water
Technology Description
The BioTrol aqueous treatment system (BATS)
is a patented biological treatment system that is
effective for treating contaminated ground water
and process water. The system uses an
amended microbial mixture, which is a
microbial population indigenous to the
wastewater to which a specific microorganism
has been added. This system removes the target
contaminants, as well as the naturally occurring
background organics.
Contaminated water enters a mix tank, where
the pH is adjusted and inorganic nutrients are
added. If necessary, the water is heated to an
optimum temperature, using both a heater and a
heat exchanger to minimize energy costs. The
water then flows to the reactor, where the
contaminants are biodegraded.
The microorganisms that perform the
degradation are immobilized in a multiple-cell,
submerged, fixed-film bioreactor. Each cell is
filled with a highly porous packing material to
which the microbes adhere. For aerobic
conditions, air is supplied by fine bubble
membrane diffusers mounted at the bottom of
each cell. The system may also run under
anaerobic conditions.
As the water flows through the bioreactor, the
contaminants are degraded to biological end-
products, predominantly carbon dioxide and
water. The resulting effluent may be discharged
to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or
may be reused on site. In some cases,
discharge with a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit may be
possible.
This technology may be applied to a wide
variety of wastewaters, including ground water,
lagoons, and process water. Contaminants
amenable to treatment include
pentachlorophenol, creosote components,
gasoline and fuel oil components, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, phenolics, and solvents. Other
potential target waste streams include coal tar
residues and organic pesticides. The technology
may also be effective for treating certain
inorganic compounds such as nitrates; however,
this application has not yet been demonstrated.
The system does not treat metals.
Technology Performance
During 1986 and 1987, BioTrol Inc., performed
a successful 9-month pilot field test of BATS at
a wood-preserving facility. Since that time, the
firm has installed nine full-scale systems and
has performed several pilot-scale
demonstrations. These systems have
successfully treated waters contaminated with
gasoline, mineral spirit solvents, phenols, and
creosote.
The SITE demonstration of the BATS
technology took place from July 24 to
September 1, 1989, at the MacGillis and Gibbs
Superfund site in New Brighton, Minnesota.
The system was operated continuously for 6
weeks at three different flow rates.
Results of the demonstration indicate that
pentachlorophenol (PCP) was reduced to less
than 1 part per million at all flow rates.
Removal percentage was as high as 97 percent
at the lowest flow rate. The Applications
Analysis Report (AAR) (EPA/540/A5-91/001)
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
19
-------
has been published. The Technology Evaluation
Report (TER) will be available in 1992.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Mary Stinson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908/321-6683
Technology Developer Contacts:
Dennis Chilcote
BioTrol, Inc.
11 Peavey Road
Chaska, MN 55318
612/448-2515
FAX: 612/448-6050
Pamela Sheehan
BioTrol, Inc.
210 Carnegie Center, Suite 101
Princeton, NJ 08540
609/951-0314
FAX: 609/951-0316
Jnfluent
Heat
Exchanger
Blowers
Bioreactor processing system
20
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Biological Degradation of Cyanide
Decommissioning of Precious Metals Heap Leaching Facilities
Technology Description
This bacterial treatment system provides
alternative rinsing technology for
decommissioning precious metals heap leach
facilities. This alternative increases the rate of
cyanide degradation in heaps by activating
natural populations of cyanide-oxidizing bacteria
indigenous to the site and/or introducing
additional populations of natural bacteria with
known cyanide-degrading capabilities.
The bacteria-enhanced process increases the rate
of cyanide rinsing from the heaps and enables
complete water recycling. This has three major
advantages: it eliminates the need for toxic or
corrosive chemicals to destroy the cyanide in
process solutions; it diminishes the amount of
fresh water needed for cyanide rinsing; and it
eliminates the water balance problem caused by
the large volumes of contaminated wastewater
generated during conventional rinsing that must
be evaporated. Ideally, the bacteria-enhanced
rinsing will completely and permanently destroy
the cyanide in the process solutions as well as
in the heaps.
To implement this technology, cyanide in the
process water will be bacterially oxidized as it
is pumped through the activated carbon columns
in the gold recovery plant and the collection
pond. Treated water, containing cyanide-
degrading bacteria, is then used to rinse and
degrade cyanide in the heaps. If the bacteria
present in the rinse water are not sufficient,
nutrients and/or known cyanide-oxidizing
bacteria will be added to the heaps.
Incorporation of biological cyanide oxidation
into precious metals heap decommissioning
procedures will decrease the time required to
meet final closure limits, decrease water
requirements during the rinsing process, and
eliminate the need for toxic or corrosive
chemicals for cyanide degradation.
Technology Performance
Commercial application of the process is
designed to use the carbon adsorption columns
in the gold recovery plant, the collection pond,
or the heap as bioreactors. Laboratory tests
were conducted to simulate these conditions.
Bacteria effectively oxidized cyanide to varying
degrees in each instance. For example, in tests
designed to simulate the gold recovery plant,
bacteria oxidized cyanide from between 50 and
170 ppm WAD CN in the feed solution to 0.1
ppm WAD CN in the treated water in <1 hour.
Field demonstration of the biological cyanide
oxidation system is scheduled to occur during
decommissioning of a Nevada heap leach
operation in the Summer of 1992.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
Contact
Paulette Altringer
Group Supervisor
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Salt Lake City Research Center
729 Arapeen Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84108-1283
801/524-6152
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
21
-------
Bioremediation
Biological Treatment
Nitrates, CC14, and CHC13 in Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Treatment Description
This biological treatment system simultaneously
removes nitrates and organics from
contaminated ground water in situ. The
technology relies on wells within the
contaminated region to introduce and distribute
nutrients to achieve favorable conditions for
microbial metabolism of the contaminants. If
indigenous bacteria do not possess the ability to
destroy target compounds, other strains of
aquifer microbes can also be introduced to the
subsurface.
At DOE's Hanford Site, the technology will be
demonstrated by remediating a portion of the
aquifer which is contaminated with nitrates,
CCU, and CHC13. The treatment process will
use facultative anaerobic microorganisms
isolated from the Hanford Site that have been
shown to degrade both nitrates and
Technology Performance
Carbon tetrachloride and nitrate destruction by
indigenous Hanford microorganisms has been
demonstrated with simulated ground water in
bench- and pilot-scale reactors. For example, a
pilot-scale agitated slurry reactor processing a
simulated ground-water feed containing 400-
ppm and 200-ppb CC^ and acetate as the
primary carbon source, demonstrated greater
than 99 percent and 93 percent destruction of
nitrate and CC^, respectively. Work is
proceeding to measure hydrodynamic and
pertinent chemical properties of the proposed in
situ bioremediation test site, and to rigorously
study the kinetics of contaminant destruction
and growth of the microorganisms. This
information is being incorporated into 1- and 3-
dimensional simulations of in situ
bioremediation to help design proper
remediation conditions.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available at this time.
General Site Information
The Hanford Site, located in southeastern
Washington State, is an area of approximately
600 square miles that was selected in 1943 for
producing nuclear materials in support of the
United States' effort in World war H.
Hanford's operations over the last 40+ years
have been dedicated to nuclear materials,
electrical generation, diverse types of research,
and waste management. Some of these
operations have produced aqueous and organic
wastes that were discharged to the soil column.
In the 200 West area of the Hanford Site,
plutonium recovery processes discharged CCV
bearing solutions to three liquid waste disposal
facilities: a trench, tile field, and crib. A
minimum of 637 tons of CC^ was disposed to
the subsurface, primarily between 1955 and
1973, along with co-contaminants such as
tributyl phosphate, lard oil, cadmium, nitrates,
hydroxides, fluorides, sulfates, chloroform, and
various radionuclides, including plutonium.
Near the disposal site, CC^ vapors have been
encountered in the vadose zone during well-
drilling operations, and ground-water
contamination from CC^ covers 5 km2.
Concentrations up to 1,000 times the EPA
drinking water standard of 5 ppb have been
measured in the ground water. In addition,
nitrate concentrations up to 10 times the EPA
drinking water standard of 44 ppm have been
measured in the same area of the Site.
22
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Contact
Thomas M. Brouns
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
P.O. Box 999, MSIN P7-41
Richland, Washington 99352
509/376-7855
Rodney S. Skeen
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
P.O. Box 999, MSIN P7-41
Richland, WA 99352
509/376-6371
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 23
-------
Bioremediation
Bioremediation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Unleaded Gasoline in Soil and Ground Water
Technology Description
Target contaminants for this treatment, are
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX) in concentrations ranging from 1 ppb to
4 ppm. Site soil is placed in bioreactors and
contaminated ground water is pumped through
the bioreactors. Native microorganisms degrade
the BTEX.
Technology Performance
A pilot-scale demonstration was conducted at
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach in
California. Three 80-litre-capacity bioreactors
were used and operated at a capacity of 72 L
per day or less. The treatment was evaluated
using data from gas chromatography on the
influent, effluent, and several sampling points
during the process. The demonstration resulted
in effluent water being cleaned to drinking
water standards for BTEX.
General Site Information
The pilot-scale demonstration was conducted at
an unleaded gasoline spill site at Naval
Weapons Station Seal Beach in California
between 1989 and 1991.
Contact
Steve MacDonald
NWS Seal Beach
Code 0923
Seal Beach, CA 90740
310/594-7273
Carmen Lebron
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Code 171
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805/982-1615
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
24
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Bioremediation/Vacuum Extraction
Petroleum Fuels in Soil
Technology Description
This process begins with removing soil
contaminated with fuels and stockpiling it for
treatment. This technology can be applied to
soils contaminated with diesel, JP-5, or other
fuels that have leaked from underground storage
tanks.
In order to decontaminate the stockpiled soil, it
is processed through a screen to eliminate rocks
greater than four inches in diameter. The
screened soil is transported to a site that is
protected by a 40-milliliter liner with eight
inches of sand base. A three-foot layer of
contaminated soil is spread along the base of the
prepared pile and then a series of vacuum
extraction pipes are trenched in the soil and
connected to a Vacuum Extraction System
(VES) blower. The VES blower provides
movement of oxygen through the pile. The
remaining soil is piled into a trapezoid shape
about 15 feet high, 200 feet long, and 60 feet
wide. Fertilizer is added, and an irrigation
system is installed. Computer-controlled
sensors are placed within the pile to monitor
temperature, pressure, and soil moisture.
Technology Performance
The field pilot test conducted in Bridgeport,
California, showed two results:
• After approximately two months of
operation, the average concentration of total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) was 120
ppm; and
• The Navy declared the tested site was
"clean" in a report prepared for the
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Remediation Costs
Remediation costs are estimated at
approximately $80 per ton of soil at the
Bridgeport, California, pilot project.
General Site Information
A field pilot test was conducted at Bridgeport,
California in fiscal year 1989.
Contact
Denise Barnes
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Code L71
Port Hueneme, California 93043
805/982-1651
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
25
-------
Bioremediation
Bioslurry Reactor
PAH in Soils, Sediments, and Sludge
Technology Description
ECOVA Corporation's slurry-phase
bioremediation (biosluny) technology is
designed to biodegrade creosote-contaminated
materials by employing aerobic bacteria that use
the contaminants as their carbon source. The
technology uses batch and continuous flow
bioreactors to process polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminated soils,
sediments, and sludges. Because site-specific
environments influence biological treatment, all
chemical, physical, and microbial factors are
designed into the treatment process. The
ultimate goal is to convert organic wastes into
biomass, relatively harmless byproducts of
microbial metabolism, such as carbon dioxide,
methane, and inorganic salts. ECOVA
Corporation conducted bench- and pilot-scale
process development studies using a slurry
phase biotreatment design to evaluate
bioremediation of PAHs in creosote
contaminated soil collected from the Burlington
Northern Superfund site in Brainerd, Minnesota.
Bench-scale studies are performed prior to
pilot-scale evaluations in order to collect data to
determine the optimal treatment protocols. Data
obtained from the optimized pilot-scale program
will be used to establish treatment standards for
K001 wastes as part of the EPA's Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT)
program.
Slurry-phase biological treatment was shown to
significantly improve biodegradation rates of 4-
to 6-ring PAHs. The bioreactors are
supplemented with oxygen, nutrients, and a
specific inocula of microorganisms to enhance
the degradation process. Biological reaction
rates are accelerated in a slurry system because
of the increased contact efficiency between
contaminants and microorganisms. Results from
the pilot-scale bioreactor evaluation showed an
initial reduction of 89.3 percent of the total
soil-bound PAHs in the first two weeks. An
overall reduction of 93.4 percent was seen over
a 12-week treatment period.
Slurry-phase biological treatments can be
applied in the treatment of highly contaminated
creosote wastes. It can also be used to treat
other concentrated contaminants that can be
aerobically biodegraded, such as petroleum
wastes. The biosluny reactor system must be
engineered to maintain parameters such as pH,
temperature, and dissolved oxygen, with ranges
conducive to the desired microbial activity.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in spring 1991. From
May through September 1991, EPA conducted
a SITE demonstration using six bioslurry
reactors at EPA's Test and Evaluation Facility
in Cincinnati, Ohio. The reactors processed
creosote-contaminated soil taken from the
Burlington Northern Superfund site in Brainerd,
Minnesota.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
26
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager.
Ronald Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7856
Technology Developer Contact:
William Mahaffey
ECOVA Corporation
18640 NE 67th Court
Redmond, WA 98052-5230
206/883-1900
FAX: 206/867-2210
SOIL FROM
MIXING PROCESS
NUTRENT
SOLUTION
AMBIENT
AIR
AIR
DISCHARGE
SPARGER
SAMPLE
TAP
SAMPLE
TAP
(TYP.OF3)
STIRRED
BATCH
REACTOR
(TYP.OF6)
Process flow diagram
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
27
-------
Bioremediation
Bioventing
JP-5 Jet Fuel in Soil and Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology is used to treat soil and ground
water contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons. The treatment system consists of
dewatering wells equipped with low vacuums to
draw air through the contaminated zone and
disperse the more volatile jet fuel components.
Aeration of the vadose zone also promotes
aerobic biodegradation of fuel hydrocarbons.
Water, soil vapor, and free fuel product are
extracted from dewatering wells simultaneously.
Any water/fuel mixture is separated in an
oil/water separator, since the water requires
treatment in a permitted plant. Vapor emissions
should be low, below regulatory levels.
Biodegradation occurs within the vadose zone.
sandwiched between two clay lake bed strata.
It is unknown how this scenario will affect
achievement of cleanup goals.
Bioventing at the site is expected to continue for
about 18 months. However, total time required
for cleanup is unknown, since data on diesel
and other low volatility fuels is lacking at this
time.
Remediation Costs
Cost of this treatment, during the pilot test, is
estimated at $6S/cubic yard of contaminated
soil. This should be significantly higher than
the cost for use of the technology in full-scale
remedial operations.
Two limitations can affect use of this
technology:
» Soil temperature should be kept above 10°C
for optimal use of this technology;
• Heavy soils can impede, but do not inhibit,
oxygen gas diffusion through subsoil.
Technology Performance
A pilot test of this technology is scheduled to be
conducted in mid-1992 at Fallen Air Force Base
in Nevada. In preparation for the test, in situ
respirometry was performed at the site to test
for potential effectiveness of the bioventing
technology, and the respirometric data was
compared to sites where bioventing has been
successful.
Most of the contamination at the site is in an
impure sand horizon at a 7-to-10-foot depth,
General Site Information
The test is being conducted at a JP-5 leakage
site at New Fuel Farm at Fallon AFB in
Nevada. New Fuel Farm is being actively used
by the Navy for aircraft refueling and will
continue to be used throughout the test. In the
treatment plot, which covers just over one acre,
total TPH concentration is between 2,000 and
7,000 mg/kg (using California LUFT method).
Benzene was detected in one soil sample at 0.1
mg/kg., and arsenic is naturally high in ground
water.
The total contaminated plume at this site covers
six acres.
28
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Contact Sherry Van Duyn (Code 112E3)
Naval Civil Energy and
Gary Robertson Environmental Support Agency
Steve Klauser Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Public Works Department
NAS Fallen
Fallen, NV 89406
702/426-2784
Dr. Rob Hinchee
Jeff Kittle
Battelle Columbus Laboratory
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
614/424-4698 or 424-6122
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 29
-------
.<*.
Bioremediation
Deep In Situ Bioremediation Process
Organics in Soils
Technology Description
This process increases the efficiency and rate of
biodegradation in deep contaminated soils. The
specialized equipment system injects site-
specific microorganism mixtures, along with the
required nutrients, and homogeneously mixes
them into the contaminated soils, without
requiring any excavation. The injection and
mixing process effectively breaks down fluid
and soil strata barriers and eliminates pockets of
contaminated soil that would otherwise remain
untreated.
The process uses a twin, 5-foot-diameter dual
auger system powered and moved by a standard
backhoe. The hollow shaft auger drills into
contaminated soil, allowing the microorganism
and nutrient mixture(s) to be continually
injected through a controlled nozzle system. If
necessary, water, nutrients, and natural bacteria,
are added to the contaminated area, as
determined by a site-specific laboratory test
program.
The distribution of the microorganisms and
nutrients occurs during the initial auger action.
The auger flights break the soil loose, allowing
mixing blades to thoroughly blend the
microorganism-and-nutrient mixture with the
soil. The drilling occurs in an overlapping
manner, to ensure complete treatment of all
contaminated soil. The mixing action is
continued as the augers are withdrawn.
Treatment depth may exceed 100 feet.
The development of site-specific
microorganisms is an integral part of the
process. Laboratory bench-scale tests are
performed on the contaminated soil to determine
the water, nutrients, and, if necessary, bacteria
required for successful biodegradation.
Although some contaminants may volatilize
during remediation, volatilization has been
minimized by adding a hood around the auger
assembly and treating the captured vapors in a
filter system.
The Dual Auger system was also developed for
the treatment of inorganic contaminated soils,
by injecting reagent slurry into the soil to
solidify/stabilize contaminated waste.
Additionally, many sites require that an
impermeable barrier/containment wall be
constructed to prevent the continued migration
of pollutants through the soil and water. This
special feature allows for greater protection of
the ground water and surrounding area.
The deep in situ bioremediation process may be
applied to all organic-contaminated soils.
Varying degrees of success may occur with
different contaminants . High concentrations of
heavy metals, non-biodegradable toxic organics,
alkaline conditions, or acid conditions could
interfere with the degradation process.
No residuals or wastes are generated in this
process, as all of the treatment is performed
beneath the ground surface. Upon completion
of the remedial operations, the treated area can
be returned to its original service.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in June 1990. A
demonstration project is tentatively planned for
early fall 1992, in conjunction with the U.S. Air
Force.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
30
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Technology Developer Contact:
Contacts Richard Murray
In-Situ Fixation Company
EPA Project Manager: P.O. Box 516
Edward Opatken Chandler, AZ 85244-0516
U.S. EPA 602/821-0409
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7855
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 31
-------
Bioremediation
Enhanced In Situ Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons
in the Vadose Zone
Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Unsaturated Soil
Technology Description
Bioventing is an in situ bioremediation
technology that can be applied to the cleanup of
unsaturated soils contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons. The Air Force has identified
more than 1,400 fuel contamination sites
through the Installation Restoration Program and
therefore feels that this technology will have
very wide applicability.
Soil venting has been proven effective for the
physical removal of volatile hydrocarbons from
unsaturated soils. This technology can also
provide oxygen for the biological degradation of
the fuel contaminants. Common strains of soil
bacteria have been proven capable of
biodegrading fuel hydrocarbon components.
Through the optimization of the venting air flow
rates and possible nutrient/moisture addition, the
proportion of hydrocarbon removal by in situ
biodegradation can be optimized. This approach
may eliminate the need for off-gas treatment,
thereby reducing overall site remediation costs.
This technology has a number of benefits:
• It does not require excavation of the
contaminated material — this technology
will treat soil in place;
• By optimizing the amount of hydrocarbon
removal by in situ biodegradation and
thereby minimizing the amount of
hydrocarbons volatilized and removed in the
off-gas, the requirement for off-gas
treatment, such as catalytic incineration,
may be eliminated. This can reduce the
overall treatment cost by 50 percent;
The less volatile residual fuel organics
which may not be treated by soil venting
alone can be treated with bioventing.
Technology Performance
The pilot-scale field test at Tyndall AFB in
Florida was successful:
• Under optimum conditions, approximately
80 percent hydrocarbon removal could be
attributed to the mechanism of in situ
biodegradation;
• Biodegradation removal rates ranged from 2
to 20 mg/kg of soil per day; and
• Although additional nutrients and moisture
did not affect biodegradation rates at this
specific site, in situ soil temperatures did
significantly affect these rates.
Remediation Costs
Remediation costs are estimated at
approximately $12 to $15 per cubic yard of
contaminated soil. This estimate assumes no
off-gas treatment will be required.
General Site Information
A pilot-scale field test was conducted at POL
Area B at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida,
between July 1989 and August 1990. This field
study involved four small treatment plots,
approximately twenty feet by six feet by five
feet deep. The site was previously used as a
JP-4 jet fuel storage area.
32
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
To determine the applicability of implementing
bioventing technology in a sub-arctic
environment, a pilot-scale feasibility study was
started in July 1991 at a JP-4 jet fuel
contamination site at Eielson AFB, Alaska.
This effort is co-funded by the U.S. EPA to
look at the effectiveness of soil warming
techniques to enhance biodegradation rates and
extend the season during which bioventing
would be functional in a cold weather
environment.
The Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence and the Air Force Civil Engineering
Support Agency have developed a bioventing
initiative plan to test bioventing at 40 Air Force
sites contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons.
The purpose of this initiative is to gather
sufficient scientifically valid operational data
from bioventing systems to move this
technology from being innovative to proven.
Screening tests (air permeability and in situ
respiration) will first be conducted at 50
potential sites. Based on the success of the
screening tests, approximately 40 of the 50 sites
will be chosen for long-term testing of
bioventing.
To expand the range of site conditions for
which bioventing is applicable and to further
optimize the treatment process, a full-scale
bioventing demonstration is scheduled to begin
in Spring 1992. This field study will be
conducted at an Air Force fuel contamination
site in the northern United States. The effects
of in situ soil temperature on biodegradation
rates will be explored in detail as well as the
effectiveness of bioventing in a less permeable
soil, bioventing optimization through well
placement, and the use of in situ air sparging
wells for bioventing air injections wells.
Contact
Dr. Rob Hinchee
Battelle Columbus Laboratory
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
614/424-4698
Captain Catherine Vogel
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
TyndaUAFB, FL 32403
904/283-6036
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
33
-------
Bioremediation
Enzyme Catalyzed, Accelerated Biodegradation
Diesel Fuel, Heating Fuel Oil,
Hydraulic Oils and Glycol in Soil
Technology Description
This treatment, called the Bio-Treat System*,
involves ex situ bioremediation of contaminated
soil in a biocell. The treatment site is located
on a concrete pad with a surrounding drainage
ditch allowing any runoff to flow into an
oil/water separator. Using a 30-day treatment
process, hydrocarbon degrading bacteria are
applied twice, once on Day 1 and again on Day
8. Enzyme and nutrient are applied twice, once
on Day 1 and again on Day 6. Polyphasic
suspension agent (PSA) is applied five times on
Days 1, 4, 8, 18, and 21. The products are
applied with a garden hose, pump, and 300-
gallon drum. The soil is tilled with a garden
tractor after each product application and once
each week.
Monitoring consists of initial waste screening
using (EPA) tests 8015, 8020, 8240, and 8270.
Post-treatment tests used depend on
contaminants found in the waste during initial
screening.
Rainfall can affect use of this process since it
interferes with aerobic biodegradation, but
covering the biocell can eliminate this
limitation.
Technology Performance
The U.S. Marine Corps Base at Camp
Pendleton, California, conducted a pilot study of
this technology in 1991 on contaminated soil
from oil/water separator sumps at Camp
Pendleton. Target contaminants were diesel,
benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes,
with an average TPH of 29,000 ppm. After 29
days of treatment, the process had reduced total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) to an average of
88 ppm, well below the 100 ppm goal of the
study.
Capacity of the system used in the study was 50
cubic yards per month. (A larger system
proposed could handle 10,000 cubic yards per
month under an enclosed, storm-proof building.)
Total time required for operation and
maintenance was 40 days.
The process produced no residual waste. No
future maintenance of the system was required.
The remediated soils were hauled to a beneficial
use area on base. No future monitoring was
required by the local health department or water
quality authority.
Remediation Costs
Costs, including design, for the pilot,study are
estimated at $351 per cubic yard of
contaminated soil.
Contact
William Sancet
EPA Specialist
Facilities Maintenance
U.S. Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton, CA 92055
619/725-3868
Technology Developer Contact:
Steven Taracevicz
InPlant BioRemedial Services, Inc.
Houston, TX
310/987-3746
34
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Geolock and Bio-Drain Treatment Platform
Biodegradable Contaminants in Soil
Technology Description
The Geolock and Bio-drain treatment platform
is a bioremediation system that is installed in
the soil or waste matrix. The technology can be
adapted to soil characteristics, contaminant
concentrations, and geologic formations in the
area. The system is composed of an in situ
tank, an application system, and a bottom water
recovery system.
The Geolock tank, an in situ structure, is
composed of high density polyethylene (HOPE),
sometimes in conjunction with a slurry wall
An underlying permeable waterbearing zone
facilitates the creation of ingradient water flow
conditions. The tank defines the treatment area,
minimizes intrusion of off-site clean water,
minimizes the potential for release of bacterial
cultures to the aquifer, and maintains
contaminant concentration levels that facilitate
treatment. The ingradient conditions also
facilitate reverse leaching or soil washing. The
application system, called Bio-drain, is installed
within the treatment area. Bio-drain acts to
aerate the soil column and any standing water.
This creates an aerobic environment in the air
pore spaces of the soil. Other gas mixtures can
also be introduced to the soil column such as
air/methane mixtures used in biodegradation of
chlorinated organics. The cost of installation is
low, and the treatment platforms can be placed
in very dense configurations.
Existing wells or new wells are used to create
the water recovery system for removal of water
used to wash contaminated soil. By controlling
the water levels within the tank, reverse
leaching or soil washing can be conducted. The
design of the in situ tank also controls and
minimizes the volume of clean off-site water
entering the system for treatment. In-gradient
conditions minimize the potential for off-
migration of contaminants. This also creates a
condition such that the direction of migration of
existing contaminants and bacterial degradation
products is toward the surface.
Conventional biological treatment is limited by
the depth of soil aeration, the need for physical
stripping, or the need to relocate the
contaminated media to an aboveground
treatment system. The Geolock and Bio-drain
treatment platform surpasses these limitations
and reduces the health risks associated with
excavation and air releases from other treatment
technologies.
All types and concentrations of biodegradable
contaminants can be treated by this system.
Through direct degradation or co-metabolism,
microorganisms can degrade most organic
substances. Only a limited number of
compounds, such as 1,4-dioxane, are resistant to
biodegradation. In these cases, the material
may be washed from the soil using surfactants.
Arochlor 1254 and 1260, both polychlorinated
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
35
-------
biphenyls (PCB), may now also be
biodegradable in light of recent advancements
by General Electric.
Extremely dense clays may be difficult to treat
with this technology. Rock shelves or boulders
may render installation impossible. Until
equilibrium conditions are established, the only
residuals for management would be the quantity
of water withdrawn from the system to create
in-gradient conditions. After equilibrium
conditions are established the water would be
treated in situ to meet National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or pre-
treatment limits.
Technology Performance
The technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in August 1990. Two
patents on the system were awarded in July and
October of 1991. Site selection for the
demonstration is currently underway.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Randy Parker
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7271
Technology Developer Contact:
Lynn Sherman
International Environmental Technology
Box 797
Perrysburg, OH 43552
419/865-2001 or
419/255-5100
FAX: 419/389-9460
36
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Immobilized Cell Bioreactor (ICB) Biotreatment System
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), Phenols, Gasoline,
Chlorinated Solvents, Diesel Fuel, and Chlorobenzene in Ground Water
Technology Description
The immobilized cell bioreactor (ICB)
biotreatment system is an aerobic fixed-film
bioreactor system designed to remove organic
contaminants (including nitrogen-containing
compounds and chlorinated solvents) from
process wastewater, contaminated ground water,
and other aqueous streams. The system offers
improved treatment efficiency through the use
of (1) a unique, proprietary reactor medium that
maximizes the biological activity present in the
reactor and (2) a proprietary reactor design that
maximizes contact between the biofilm and the
contaminants. These features result in quick,
complete degradation of target contaminants to
carbon dioxide, water, and biomass. Additional
advantages include (1) high treatment capacity,
(2) compact system design, and (3) reduced
operations and maintenance costs resulting from
simplified operation and slow sludge production.
Basic system components include the bioreactor
and medium, nutrient mix tank and feed pump,
and a blower to provide air to the reactor.
Depending on the specifics of the influent
streams, some standard pretreatments, such as
pH adjustment or oil and water separation, may
be required. Effluent clarification is not
required for the system to operate, but may be
required to meet the specific discharge
requirements.
The ICB biotreatment system has been
successfully applied to industrial wastewater and
ground water containing a wide range of organic
contaminants, including polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH), phenols, gasoline,
chlorinated solvents, diesel fuel, and
chlorobenzene. Industrial streams amenable to
treatment include wastewaters generated from
chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining,
wood treating, tar and pitch manufacturing, food
processing, and textile fabricating. Allied-
Signal Corp. has obtained organic chemical
removal efficiencies of greater than 99 percent.
The ICB biotreatment system, because of its
proprietary medium, is also very effective in
remediating contaminated ground water streams
containing trace organic contaminants. The ICB
Biotreatment System can be provided as a
complete customized facility for specialized
treatment needs or as a packaged modular unit.
The technology can also be used to retrofit
existing bioreactors by adding the necessary
internal equipment and proprietary media. The
table below summarizes recent applications.
Table 1.
Applications
Pipeline Terminal
Wastewater
Specialty Chemical
Wastewater
Groundwater
Tar Plant
Wastewater
Wood Treating
Wastewater
Current Applications
Contaminants Scale
COD, Benzene, Bench
MTBE, Xylenes
Cresols, MTBE, Pilot
PAH, Phenolics
Chlorobenzene, Pilot
TCE
Phenol, Cyanide, Pilot
Ammonia
Phenolics,
Creosote
Commercial
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
37
-------
Technology Performance
The G&H Landfill in Utica, Michigan, was
selected for the demonstration of the ICB
system. Treatability studies have shown the
system's ability to biodegrade all the priority
pollutants present to low part per billion levels.
Currently, the demonstration plan is being
finalized. The actual SITE Demonstration is
tentatively planned for summer 1992. Allied-
Signal, Inc., is currently operating an anaerobic
system to reduce the concentrations of
trichloroethylene and other chlorinated
compounds in contaminated ground water.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager-
Ronald Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7856
Technology Developer Contacts:
Ralph Nussbaum
or Timothy Love
Allied-Signal, Inc.
P.O. Box 1087
Morristown, NJ 07962
201/455-3190
FAX: 201/455-6840
GROUNDWWER
OR
PROCESS WATER
TO
DISCHARGE
ft — I
lUNUTRIENT
rn ADDITION
BLOWER
Allied-Signal immobilized cell bioreactor
38
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
In Situ Biodegradation
Fuels, Fuel Oils and Non-halogenated Solvents in Soil and Ground Water
Technology Description
This in situ biodegradation process treats soil or
ground water contaminated with hydrocarbons
such as fuels, fuel oils, and non-halogenated
solvents. This technology can be applied to fuel
spills, leaky storage tanks, and fire training pits.
Nutrients (especially nitrogen and phosphorus),
soil-conditioning chemicals, and an electron
acceptor (oxygen source or nitrate) are
introduced to the aquifer through irrigation
wells, ditches, or soil surface irrigation.
Pumping wells remove excess fluids or
contaminated ground water. Contaminated
water can be treated on the surface or reinjected
for treatment in the soil. Monitoring wells must
be placed within and surrounding the site.
Technology Performance
Two field tests of this process have been
completed using hydrogen peroxide as the
electron acceptor. The first test was conducted
at Kelly Air Force Base in Texas, the second at
Eglin AFB in Florida. Neither site was ideal
for this method. At Kelly AFB, the injection
wells became clogged from precipitation of
calcium phosphate, which reduced their
injection capacity by 90 percent. At Eglin
AFB, problems with the aquifer plugging due to
iron precipitation were encountered in addition
to the rapid decomposition of hydrogen
peroxide. These field tests showed that the
design of hydraulic delivery systems and the
compatibility of injection chemicals with soil
minerals is as important to successful treatment
as the enhancement of bacteria.
Remediation Costs
Exclusive of site characterization, one estimate
of the cost range of this method is from $160 to
$230 per gallon of residual fuel removed from
the aquifer. Monitoring would be expensive,
depending upon the type of contaminant Site
characterization must be done to determine
soil/chemical compatibility.
General Site Information
Field tests conducted at Kelly AFB, Texas, and
Eglin AFB, Florida, were completed at JP-4 jet
fuel contamination sites. A third field
demonstration is planned to start in Summer
1992 in which nitrate would be added to the
aquifer to enhance the anoxic degradation of the
benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene
(BTEX) fraction of jet fuel. A Fuel
contamination site at Eglin AFB is currently
being investigated for this demonstration.
Contact
Captain Catherine M. Vogel
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
904/283-6036
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
39
-------
Bioremediation
In Situ Biodegradation
TCE in Ground Water
Technology Description
Picatinny Arsenal is the USGS Toxic Waste
Hydrology Program's national demonstration
site for chlorinated solvents in ground water.
Earlier work has looked at many of the
processes which can affect the fate and transport
of TCE in the system, including volatilization to
the unsaturated zone, aerobic biodegradation,
anaerobic biodegradation, and
sorption/desorption to/from aquifer sediments.
Solute transport modeling has also been done to
integrate these studies.
The distribution of TCE in the soil gas has been
determined by the installation and sampling of
50 vapor probes at the site. A strong
disequilibrium has been found to exist between
the soil and vapor TCE concentrations. That is,
there is much more TCE on the soil than
predicted based on the soil gas TCE
concentrations. Similarly, more TCE has been
found in soil water than predicted based on the
soil gas TCE concentrations.
Work on determining the feasibility of using
aerobic in situ biodegradation of TCE vapors as
a remediation strategy at Picatinny Arsenal has
begun. This work has been funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Laboratory
microcosm studies using soil from near the
source of the TCE contamination have been
conducted and results show that the indigenous
methanotrophic bacteria from this site can
cometabolically degrade vapor-phase TCE when
appropriate amounts of methane, oxygen, and
nutrients are amended to soil microcosms.
Technology Performance
Up to 82 percent removal of vapor-phase TCE
concentration has been observed after only eight
days in these laboratory tests. A pilot-scale
facility utilizing this technology is proposed for
the field site. It will include either venting the
soil in the unsaturated zone or sparging a
contaminated well near the source to produce a
vapor stream containing TCE. The vapor
stream will be amended with appropriate
amounts of a degradable hydrocarbon (methane,
propane, or natural gas) and oxygen, and then
either (1) reinjected into the unsaturated zone to
allow in situ remediation to take place, or (2)
channeled into an above-ground soil bioreactor
to allow remediation to take place.
Anaerobic TCE degradation has been
documented to occur in the saturated zone at
Picatinny Arsenal. The rates of reductive
dehalogenation of TCE to cis-1,2-
dichloroethylene to vinyl chloride were
measured in soil microcosm studies using
aquifer sediments from the plume. Anaerobic
TCE degradation is an active and viable in situ
remediation process at the site. Enhancement or
stimulation of this process is the subject of
proposed study.
Experiments looking at the sorption/desorption
of TCE from saturated zone sediments have
shown that desorption of TCE from long-term
contaminated sediments is kinetically slow. A
disequilibrium has been found to exist between
the soil and water TCE concentrations in the
aquifer. That is, there is much more TCE on
40
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
the sediments than would be predicted based on
the measured TCE concentrations in ground
water. These findings infer that pump-and-treat
remediation will not remove the major pool of
TCE in the system which is TCE on the
sediments.
The use of surfactants to increase removal of
TCE from an aquifer also is the subject of
proposed study. Laboratory tests will be
conducted to determine the effect of introducing
a surfactant on the hydraulic properties of the
aquifer and the apparent solubility of TCE in
the aquifer. A field-scale experiment is
proposed to determine the effectiveness of the
chosen surfactant on the contaminated aquifer
system at Picatinny Arsenal. If successful, this
approach will address the need to get the TCE
off of the sediment and into the aqueous phase
for remediation.
A solute-transport model has been modified to
facilitate transport of more than one solute at a
time and also include reactions between these
difference solutes. This state-of-the-art
modeling effort will be used to include the
appearance and disappearance of breakdown
products and to incorporate the determined
reaction rates between these products. Also, the
measured rates of desorption and volatilization
will be input so the model will be able to
integrate the effects of all the different
processes investigated to come up with a more
accurate simulation of the distribution and
transport of TCE at the site.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available at this time.
General Site Information
Contamination of ground water, primarily with
TCE, at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, has
been caused by improper disposal of wastewater
from a metal plating/degreasing operation.
Picatinny Arsenal is a federally owned property
operated by the U.S. Army. The New Jersey
District of the USGS has had a long history of
favorable cooperation with the Army at this site.
The TCE ground-water plume (1,000 feet wide
by 2,000 feet long by 60 feet thick) at Picatinny
Arsenal has been well characterized over the
past 10 years by the USGS. The plume is one
of the world's best instrumented with TCE
distribution being defined both areally and
vertically by the installation and sampling of 15
drive-point sites and 75 observation wells.
Samples have been analyzed for volatile organic
chemicals (VOCs), major cations and anions,
trace elements, nutrients, and dissolved organic
carbon. The hydrology of the plume area is
well known and is included in the area of an
existing three-dimensional ground-water flow
model. The geology of the plume area has been
defined by lithologic logs, geophysical logs, and
particle size analysis.
Contact
Thomas E. Imbrigiotta
U.S. Geological Survey
810 Bear Tavern Road
W. Trenton, NJ 08628
609/771-3900
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
41
-------
Bioremediation
In Situ Enhanced Bioremediation
Jet Fuel in Ground Water
Technology Description
The approach used in this process involves
enhanced bioremediation. Once initial tests
have been done to determine that naturally
occurring microbes, present in the aquifer, are
capable of degrading the contamination, the
rate-limiting nutrients are determined. Ground
Water is pumped from an uncontaminated
source with low concentrations of dissolved iron
and amended by adding the necessary
nutrient(s). The amended water is pumped into
a series of infiltration galleries (french drains)
laterally transecting the contamination plume.
Approximately 20 feet downgradient from the
infiltration galleries, a line of extraction wells
pumps contaminated ground water out of the
ground and discharges it to a permitted
treatment facility. Several observation wells in
the area are monitored to evaluate the
effectiveness of the system.
Technology Performance
Testing of this process of being done at the
Defense Fuel Supply Point, Hanahan, South
Carolina. Laboratory experiments have shown
that microbes capable of degrading the
contamination occur naturally in contaminated
ground water at the site. Examination of field
data showed that microbial degradation of
organic contaminants was occurring at the site.
The terminal electron accepting processes
occurring in most areas of the site were sulfate
reduction and methanogenesis. In part of the
contaminated ground water, respirative activity
was significantly reduced relative to
fermentative activity. Laboratory tests
demonstrated that replacement of the pore water
with sterile, uncontaminated water amended
with nitrate was sufficient to stimulate
respirative activity in the aquifer sediment
Field testing of the bioremediation system was
scheduled to begin in late summer 1992.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available at this time.
General Site Information
The test site is a fuel tank farm at Defense Fuel
Supply Point, Hanahan, South Carolina. The
contamination is dominantly JP-4 jet fuel, and
the target compounds are benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX). The ground-
water contamination extends off the facility
property and into a nearby neighborhood. The
bioremediation system is divided into three
major sections. The bioremediation approach at
each of the three sections will differ to allow
conclusions to be drawn regarding the reactive
effectiveness of the approaches.
Contact
Dr. Don A Vroblesky
U.S. Geological Survey
720 Gracern Road, Suite 129
Stephenson Center
Columbia, SC 29210-7651
803/750-6115
42
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Liquids and Solids Biological Treatment (LST)
Biodegradable Organics in Soils, Sediments, and Sludge
Technology Description
Liquid and solids biological treatment (LST) is
a process that can be used to remediate soils
and sludges contaminated with biodegradable
organics. The process is similar to activated
sludge treatment of municipal and industrial
wastewaters, but it occurs at substantially higher
suspended solids concentrations (such as greater
than 20 percent) than are encountered in
activated sludge applications. An aqueous
slurry of the waste material is prepared and
environmental conditions (for example, nutrient
concentrations, temperature, and pH) are
optimized for biodegradation. The slurry is then
mixed and aerated for a sufficient time to
degrade the target waste constituents. LST
systems can be designed for either batch or
continuous operations.
Several physical process configurations are
possible for LST of contaminated soil and
sludges, depending on site- and waste-specific
conditions. Batch or continuous treatment can
be conducted in impoundment-based reactors.
This is sometimes the only practical and
economically viable option for very large
(greater than 10,000 cubic yards) projects.
Alternatively, tank-based systems may be
constructed. Considerable differences can exist
between applications in which LST is a viable
remedial option. Consequently, selection of the
most appropriate operational sequence must be
determined on a case-specific basis.
Constituent losses due to volatilization are often
a concern during LST operations. The potential
for emissions is greatest in batch treatment
systems and lowest in continuously stirred tank
reactor (CSTR) systems, particularly those with
long residence times. Various technologies
(such as carbon adsorption and biofiltration) can
be used to manage emissions.
Bioremediation by LST may require a sequence
of steps involving pre- and post-treatment
operations. The only instance in which multiple
unit operations are not required is strictly in situ
applications where treated sludge residues are
destined to remain in place.
An alternative to landfilling of treated solids
from an LST process is to conduct overall
bioremediation in a hybrid system consisting of
both an LST and land treatment system.
Combining these two approaches may, for
example, be desired to rapidly degrade volatile
constituents in a contained system thereby
rendering the material suitable to soils in a land-
based system for long-term biostabilization.
Remediation Technologies, Inc., (ReTeC) has
constructed a mobile LST pilot system that is
available for field demonstrations. The system
consists of two reaction vessels, two holding
tanks, and associated process equipment. Tank
operating volumes are 2,000 gallons. The
reactors are aerated using coarse bubble
diffusers and mixed using axial flow turbine
mixers. The reactors can be operated separately
or in combination as batch or continuous
systems to allow a range of treatment conditions
oxygen, and pH are continuously monitored and
recorded. Additional features include
antifoaming and temperature control systems.
Pre- and post-treatment equipment is provided
separately depending on site-specific
circumstances and project requirements.
The technology is suitable for treating sludges,
sediments, and soils containing any
biodegradable organic materials. To date, the
process has been used mainly for treating
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
43
-------
sludges containing petroleum and wood
preservative organics such as creosote and
pentachlorophenol. Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and a broad
range of petroleum hydrocarbons (such as fuels
and oils) have been successfully treated with
LST in the laboratory and the field.
Technology Performance
ReTeC is currently seeking a private party to
co-fund a 3-to-4-month demonstration of LST
technology on an organic waste.
ReTeC has applied the technology in the field
over a dozen times to treat wood preservative
sludges in impoundment-type LST systems. In
addition, two field-based pilot demonstrations
and several laboratory treatability studies have
been conducted for the treatment of petroleum
refinery impoundment sludges.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Ronald Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7856
Technology Developer Contact:
Merv Cooper
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
1011 S.W. Klickitat Way, Suite 207
Seattle, WA 98134
206/624-9349
FAX: 206/624-2839
44
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
PACT* Treatment System
Hazardous Organics in Ground Water
Technology Description
Zimpro/Passavant Environmental Systems, Inc.,
has adapted the PACT* wastewater treatment
system to the treatment of contaminated ground
waters that are encountered at many Superfund
sites. The system combines biological treatment
and powdered activated carbon (PAC)
adsorption to achieve treatment standards that
are not readily attainable with conventional
technologies. A system can be mounted on a
trailer and function as a mobile unit, having a
treatment capacity range of 2,500 to 10,000
gallons of wastewater per day. Larger
stationary systems, treating up to 53 million
gallons per day, are already in operation. With
this technology, organic contaminants are
removed from the wastewater through
biodegradation and adsorption on the PAC.
Living microorganisms (biomass) and PAC
contact the wastewater in the aeration basin.
The biomass removes biodegradable organic
contaminants. PAC enhances the biological
treatment by the adsorption of toxic organic
compounds.
The degree of treatment achieved by the system
depends on the influent waste characteristics
and the system's operating parameters.
Important characteristics include
biodegradability, absorbability, and
concentrations of toxic inorganic compounds,
such as heavy metals.
The technology is adjusted to the specific waste
stream by controlling the flow rate of the
influent waste, recycle streams, and air, by
varying the concentration of PAC in the system,
and by adjusting the retention time of the mixed
liquid, and volume ratio of the waste to
biomass. If necessary, the temperature and Ph
of incoming waste can be adjusted and nutrients
can be added.
After completion of the aeration cycle, solids
(PAC with adsorbed organics, biomass, and
inert solids) are removed in the settling tank.
The removed solids are partially returned to the
aeration tank with the excess quantity diverted
to the thickener where die solids are
concentrated. The overflow from the thickener
is returned to the aeration tank and the
concentrated solids are removed. Dewatered
solids may be regenerated to recover PAC.
A two-stage system can be applied where
environmental regulations require the virtual
elimination of organic priority pollutants or
toxicity in the treated effluent. In the first stage
aeration basin, a high concentration of biomass
and PAC is used to achieve the removal of most
of the contaminants. The second-stage aeration
basin is used to polish the first-stage effluent.
The virgin PAC added just ahead of the second-
stage and the counter-flow of solids to the first-
stage increases process efficiency. The excess
solids from the first-stage are removed and
treated as described in the single-stage PACT*
system.
This technology can be applied to municipal and
industrial wastewaters, as well as ground water
and leachates containing hazardous organic
pollutants. It has successfully treated various
industrial wastewaters, including chemical plant
wastewaters, dye production wastewaters,
pharmaceutical wastewaters, refinery
wastewaters, and synthetic fuel wastewaters, in
addition to contaminated ground water and
mixed industrial and municipal wastewater. In
general, the system can treat liquid wastes with
a chemical oxygen demand (COD) of up to
60,000 parts per million (ppm) including toxic
volatile organic compounds up to 1,000 ppm.
The developer's treatability studies have shown
that the system can reduce the organics in
contaminated ground water from several
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
45
-------
hundred ppm to below detection limits (parts
per billion range).
Technology Performance
Contaminated ground water from several sites
has been tested and found suitable for treatment.
Site-specific conditions have prevented
demonstration testing. Additional sites are now
being evaluated for full demonstration of the
PACT* system.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
John Martin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7758
Technology Developer Contact:
William Copa
Zimpro/Passavant Environmental Systems, Inc.
301 West Military Road
Rothschild, WI 54474
715/359-7211
I IPOLYELECTROLYTE
STORAGE
FILTRATION
(OPTIONAL)
I • EFFLUENT
TO REGENERATION
OR DISPOSAL
PACT* Wastewater Treatment System General Process Diagram
46
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Bioremediation
Soil Slurry-Sequencing Batch Bioreactor
Explosives (TNT, RDX, HMX) in Soil
Technology Description
In this treatment process, explosives-
contaminated soils and water are biologically
treated in a tank or reactor. This treatment may
be applied to soils contaminated with TNT,
RDX, HMX, and other potential wastes
associated with explosives. Contaminated soils
are excavated and pre-screened to remove large
rocks and debris. During the Fill period, the
soils are mixed with water to produce a water-
based slurry (typically 10-40 percent solids by
weight) and pumped into the reactors. The
reactors are designed and instrumented with
various process controls. After the Fill, a
chemical feed system will deliver required
amounts of co-substrate, nutrients, nitrate, and
Ph adjusting chemicals.
During the React period which follows, the
mixers remain on and the microbial consortium
degrades contaminants. When oxygen is
serving as the exogenous electron acceptor, the
aeration and mixing system is used to suspend
the slurry. When nitrate is the electron
acceptor, only the mixing system is used. In
either case, the co-substrate serves as the
primary carbon source. The time provided for
the React cycle is dictated by the rate at which
the explosive are degraded.
The mixed, treated slurry is then removed from
the reactor in the Draw cycle and dewatered.
Process water is recycled to the extent possible.
Operation of the Soil Slurry-Sequencing Batch
Bioreactor depends on three factors:
• Enhancement of appropriate microbial
consortia;
• Operations under appropriate conditions
with a suitable electron acceptor, and
• Daily replacement of a volume of soil to
provide new soil for microbial processing.
This treatment technology is best suited for sites
contaminated with small volumes of
contaminated soil where incineration would be
cost prohibitive.
Technology Performance
Previous bench-scale studies using soils
contaminated with explosives from Joliet Army
Ammunition Plant (JAAP) demonstrated the
feasibility of this technology. Using microbial
consortia isolated from JAAP, bench-scale
studies showed that microbial degradation of
contaminated soils could be accomplished with
electron acceptors under aerobic and anoxic
conditions with malate as a co-substrate.
Aerobic reactors reduced TNT concentrations
from about 1,300 mg/kg to less than 10 mg/kg
in 15 days. Anoxic reactors achieved the same
kind of reduction but at a slower rate. The
same study indicated that this technology was
the most suitable reactor system for full-scale
implementation. A pilot-scale field
demonstration using the technology is scheduled
to begin during FY 1992.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
General Site Information
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant is located in
Joliet, Illinois. JAAP is a government-owned,
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
47
-------
contractor-operated installation currently
maintained in a non-producing, standby
condition. JAAP is divided into two major
functional areas: a load-assemble-pack (LAP)
area and a manufacturing area. The LAP area
contains munitions filling and assembly lines,
storage magazines, and a demilitarization area.
The. LAP was placed on the National Priorities
List in 1989. Soils from Group 61 in the LAP
area will be used in the demonstration project.
Group 61 was constructed in 1941 to support
World War II efforts and has been the site of
demilitarization operations for various
munitions. During these operations, steam was
used to remove the explosives from munitions.
The solids in the contaminated process water
were settled out in a sump and the overflow
water was discharged into a 10-acre ridge and
furrow system (evaporating pond). The primary
explosive contaminant is 2,4,6-TNT with
concentrations ranging from 20-14,400 mg/kg.
Contact
Capt. Kevin Keehan
USATHAMA
ATTN: CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410/671-2054
Technology Developer Contacts:
John Manning, Project Manager
Carlo Montemagno, Program Manager
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Ave
Argonne, IL 60439-4815
48
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
-------
Chemical Treatment
Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process
PCBs and PCPs in Soils and Sediments
Technology Description
The Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process
(BCDP) is a dehalogenation/dechlorination pro-
cess that strips off chlorine in the PCB molecule
and forms sodium chloride and biphenyls. The
BCDP uses a rotary reactor in which most of
the decomposition takes place. The contaminat-
ed soil is screened, processed with a crusher and
pug mill, and stockpiled.
Next, in the main treatment step, this stockpile
is mixed with sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3).
The sodium bicarbonate is used in an amount
equal to about 10 percent of the weight of the
stockpile. The mixture is then heated for about
one hour at 630°F in the rotary reactor. PCBs
are decomposed and partially volatilized in this
step.
The clean soil removed from the reactor can be
returned to the site. Off-gases from this reactor,
which contain dust and trace amounts of PCBs,
are filtered, scrubbed, and vented to the atmo-
sphere. PCBs in the vapor condensate, residual
dust, spent carbon, and filter cake are decom-
posed in a stirred-tank slurry reactor. The
resulting sludge can be disposed of in the same
manner as municipal sewage sludge.
Technology Performance
Under the EPA SITE Demonstration Program,
this process is scheduled to be used to treat
PCB-contaminated soil at a U.S. Navy site in
Stockton, California, in June 1992. Another
field demonstration using this technology began
in September 1991 at the U.S. Public Works
Center, Guam, and will be followed by full-
scale remediation at that site. The goal of the
Guam project is to produce treated soil contain-
ing 2 ppm or less for each congener and that
will meet TSCA requirements for return to its
original site or disposal in an unrestricted land-
fill.
Remediation Costs
Cost of this process is estimated at $245 per
ton. Total cost of the Guam project, exclusive
of site investigation, will be $7 million. The
system requires approximately two house of
maintenance for every 20 hours of operation.
General Site Information
The field demonstration and full-scale remedia-
tion are underway at the U.S. Public Works
Center, Guam. An estimated 5,500 tons of soil,
containing 25 ppm or more PCBs, is scheduled
for treatment.
Contact
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
51
-------
Technology Developer Contact:
Charles Rogers
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7626
Additional Information Available From:
Deh Bin Chan
Environmental Restoration Division
Code L71
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003
805/982-4191
CHEMICALS
EXCAVATION
C
SCREENING
AND
GRINDING
/
ONTAMINATED SOIL
•• TREATMENT
CLEAN SOIL
RETURNED TO SITE
Process Flow Chart
52
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Chemical Detoxification of
Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds
Dioxin and Herbicides in Soil
Technology Description
This chemical detoxification of chlorinated
aromatic compounds treats soils that have been
contaminated with dioxin, herbicides, or other
chlorinated aromatic contaminants.
The contaminated soil is excavated and a deter-
mination of the water content is made. If the
water content is too high, the soil is dehydrated.
Soil is placed in the reactor with the reagent and
heated to 100°C to 150°C. The reagent is a
1:1:1 mixture of potassium hydroxide, polyeth-
ylene glycol, and dimethyl sulfoxide. After
reaction, the reactor is drained and the soil is
rinsed with clean water to remove excess re-
agents. Treated soil might be replaced in its
original location depending upon the effective-
ness of the decontamination and local environ-
mental regulations.
Technology Performance
Demonstrations of this method achieved greater
than 99.9 percent decontamination. Several
advantages of this method were indicated:
• It is relatively inexpensive for contaminants
at low concentrations (in the ppm range);
• The reagents can be recycled;
• The products of the decontamination are not
toxic and are not biodegradable;
• Bioassay studies show that the reaction
products do not bioaccumulate or biocon-
centrate; they do not cause mutagenicity,
nor are they toxic to aquatic organisms or
mammals;
• The chlorine atoms are replaced by glycol
chains producing non-toxic aromatic com-
pounds and inorganic chloride compounds;
and
• The equipment components are commer-
cially available.
Despite the numerous advantages of this tech-
nology, it also has limitations:
• For high contaminant concentrations, in the
percent range, incineration could be less
expensive to use;
• Water might interfere with the reactions
between the reagents and the chlorinated
aromatic compounds; and
• Some chlorinated compounds, such as
hexachlorophene-24, are not degraded as
effectively as others.
Remediation Costs
The costs are in the range of $100 to $200 per
ton. The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
(NCEL) reports that the costs might be on the
order of $300 per cubic yard. The most expen-
sive item is the reagent.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
53
-------
General Site Information Contacts
Small-scale pilot testing was conducted on Deh Bin Chan
dioxin-contaminated soil in the laboratory. Environmental Restoration Division
Larger-scale pilots are planned for the near Code L71
future by the EPA laboratory at Edison, New Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Jersey. Port Hueneme, California 93043
805/982-4191
Additional information is available from:
Charles Rogers
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King
Cincinnati, Ohio 45286
513/569-7757
54 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Chemical Oxidation and Cyanide Destruction
Organics and Cyanide in Ground Water and Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology uses chlorine dioxide, generated
on site by a patented process, to oxidize organi-
cally contaminated aqueous waste streams and
simple and complex cyanide in water or solid
media. Chlorine dioxide is an ideal oxidizing
agent, because it chemically alters contaminants
to salts and non-toxic organic acids.
Chlorine dioxide gas is generated by reacting
sodium chlorite solution with chlorine gas, or by
reacting sodium chlorite solution with sodium
hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid. Both
processes produce at least 95 percent pure
chlorine dioxide. In aqueous treatment systems,
the chlorine dioxide gas is fed into the waste
stream through a venturi, which is the driving
force for the generation system. The amount of
chlorine dioxide required depends on the con-
taminant concentrations in the waste stream and
the concentration of oxidizable compounds, such
as sulfides.
In soil treatment applications, the chlorine
dioxide may be applied in situ through conven-
tional injection wells or surface flushing. The
concentration of chlorine dioxide would depend
on the level of contaminants in the soil.
Chlorine dioxide treatment systems have been
applied to (1) drinking water disinfection, (2)
food processing sanitation, and (3) waste
remediation. Chlorine dioxide has also been
used as a biocide in industrial process water.
Since chlorine dioxide reacts by direct oxidation
rather than substitution (as does chlorine), the
process does not form undesirable trihalo-
methanes.
This technology may be applied to aqueous
waste streams, liquid storage vessels, soils,
contaminated ground water, or any leachable
solid media contaminated by a wide range of
waste materials. Cyanides, sulfides, organo-
sulfur compounds, phenols, aniline, and second-
ary and tertiary amines are examples of contam-
inants that can be remediated with this process.
Technology Performance
The SITE Demonstration Program has accepted
two proposals from Exxon Chemical Company
and Rio Linda Chemical Company to perform
two separate demonstrations: one of cyanide
destruction and the other of organics treatment.
The cyanide destruction technology is scheduled
to be demonstrated at EPA's Test and Evalua-
tion facility in Cincinnati, Ohio. Site selection
for the organics treatment technology is under-
way.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
55
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Teri Shearer
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7949
Technology Developer Contact:
Denny Grandle
Exxon Chemical Company
P.O. Box 4321
Houston, TX 77210-4321
713/460-6816
Influent
Contaminated
Waste Stream or
Fresh Water
Effluent Treated Waste
Stream or Water Containing
ClO2to Point of Treatment
Booster Pump
Chlorine Dioxide Generator
Typical treatment layout
56
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Combined Chemical Binding, Precipitation,
and Physical Separation
Heavy Metals and Radionuclides
in Water, Sludges, and Soils
Technology Description
This chemical binding and physical separation
method involves rapid, turbulent mixing of the
proprietary material which consists of a fine
powder (RHM1000) containing complex oxides
and other reactive binding agents. RHM 1000
absorbs, adsorbs, and chemisorbs most radio-
nuclides and heavy metals in water, sludges, or
soils (preprocessed into slurry), yielding coagu-
lating, flocculating, and precipitating reactions.
The pH, mixing dynamics, and processing rates
are carefully chosen to optimize the binding of
contaminants. Tests have shown that as little as
0.05% RHM 1000 per test run is needed for
maximum binding. Water is separated from the
solids by using a reliable, economical, two-stage
process based on (1) particle size and density
separation, using clarifier technology and micro-
filtration of all particles and aggregates, and (2)
dewatering, using a sand filter to produce a
concentrate of radionuclides, heavy metals, and
other solids. The material that is collected is
stabilized and ready for disposal.
The process is designed for continuous through-
put for water (50 to 1500 gpm). This technolo-
gy can accommodate trace levels of naturally-
occurring radioactive materials (NORM), and
low-level radioactive wastes. The equipment is
trailer-mounted for use as a mobile field system.
Larger capacity systems could be skid-mounted.
The technology can be used for (1) cleanup and
remediation of water, sludges, and soils contam-
inated with radium, thorium, uranium and heavy
metals from uranium mining and milling opera-
tions, (2) cleanup of water containing NORM
and heavy metals from oil and gas drilling, and
(3) cleanup and remediation of man-made
radionuclides stored in underground tanks, pits,
ponds, or barrels. This technology has not yet
been tested for water containing tritium.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in July 1990.
EPA is seeking a suitable site to demonstrate
this technology.
Possible disposal methods of the stabilized end
product would be those required for low-level
radioactive contamination.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
57
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Annette Gatchett
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7697
Technology Developer Contacts:
Charles Miller, President
C. P. Yang, Environmental Engineer
TechTran, Inc.
7705 Wright Road
Houston, TX 77041
713/896-4343
FAX: 713/896-8205
RHM 1000
Chemical Inlet Lines
Effluent
Collecting
Trough
Pressure
Supply
Automatic
Flushbock
Sludge
Dewaterlng
\\KA_VSudge FflterV/
^T^\ ..-Zone; ••••• ff
Automatic |^J«Uyly '
Sludge
Blow Off'
Welr-
Plate
Drain
Discharge
Sondfllter
Schematic diagram of continuous operation for removing
radionuclides and heavy metals from contaminated wastewater.
58
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
DeChlor/KGME Process
Halogenated Aromatic Compounds and PCBs
in Soils and Waste Streams (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
Chemical Waste Management's (CWM)
DeChlor/KGME process involves the dechlori-
nation of liquid-phase halogenated compounds,
particularly polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).
KGME, a CWM proprietary reagent, is the
active species in a nucleophilic substitution
reaction, in which the chlorine atoms on the
halogenated compounds are replaced with
fragments of the reagent. The products of the
reaction are a substituted aromatic compound,
which is no longer a PCB aroclor, and an
inorganic chloride salt.
KGME is the potassium derivative of 2-
methoxyethanol (glyme) and is generated in situ
by adding stoichiometric quantities of potassium
hydroxide (KOH) and glyme. The KOH and
glyme are added to the a reactor vessel, along
with the contaminated waste. The KGME is
formed by slowly raising the temperature of the
reaction mixture to about 110°C (230°F), al-
though higher temperature can be beneficial.
The nucleophilic substitution reaction that takes
place in the reactor vessel is summarized by the
following generalized equation:
Ph^ + mCH3OCH2CH2OK
Ph2Cln.m(OCH2CH2OCH3)m + mKCl
where Ph^ is a PCB (n = 1 to 10),
CH3OCH2CH2OK is the KGME reagent, m is
the number of substitutions (from 1 to 10), and
Ph2Cln.m(OCH2CH2OCH3)m is the product of the
treatment process. A similar mechanism is
involved in the KPEG (or APEG) technology, in
which the nucleophile is the anion formed by
the removal of one terminal hydrogen molecule
from a molecule of PEG 440, that is,
H(OCH2CH2)Ba.
The DeChlor/KGME technology is preferable to
the older sodium (Na) dispersion treatment
method because it is less expensive and because
the KGME reagent is much more tolerant of
water in the reaction mixture; the water can
cause a fire or explosion in the presence of Na
metal. One advantage of the DeChlor/KGME
process over KPEG or APEG methods is that
only about one-quarter the weight of KGME is
required for dehalogenation as would be re-
quired if KPEG were used. Also, considerably
less waste is produced, and no polymeric treat-
ment residue, which is difficult to handle, is
formed.
The reaction product mixture is a fairly viscous
solution containing reaction products and the
unreacted excess reagent. After this mixture has
cooled to about 93°C (200°F), water is added to
help quench the reaction, improve the handling
of the mixture, extract the inorganic salts from
the organic phase for disposal purposes, and
help clean out the reaction vessel for the next
batch of material to be treated. The two result-
ing phases, aqueous and organic, are separated,
analyzed, and transferred to separate storage
tanks, where they are held until disposal.
The DeChlor/KGME process is applicable to
liquid-phase halogenated aromatic compounds,
including PCBs, chlorobenzenes, polychlorin-
ated dibenzodioxins (PCDD), and polychlorin-
ated dibenzofurans (PCDF). Waste streams
containing less than 1 ppm PCBs to 100 percent
aroclors can be treated. Laboratory tests have
shown destruction removal efficiencies greater
than 99.98 percent for materials containing
220,000 ppm PCBs.
Federal Remediation Technologies Rouhdtable
59
-------
This process is also applicable to the liquid-
phase treatment of halogenated aliphatic com-
pounds and has been successfully used for the
treatment of contaminated soils on the laborato-
ry scale. Pilot-scale equipment for the treatment
of solid materials using this process is in the
development stage.
Technology Performance
A SITE demonstration of this process at the
Resolve Superfund site in Massachusetts is
scheduled for 1992.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction and Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contacts:
John North and Arthur Freidman
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
1950 S. Batavia Avenue
Geneva, Illinois 60134-3310
708/513-4867
FAX: 708/513-6401
NITROGEN •
QUENCH
it WASH
WATER
•-TO ATMOSPHERE
FURTHER
TREATMENT
-OR-
OFF-SITE
DISPOSAL
DeChlor/KGME process diagram
60
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Particle Separation Process
PCB and Metals in Sediments
Technology Description
This process is used to separate PCB- and
metal-laden sediment particles from clean,
coarse-grained material. The sediment washing
system, developed by Bergmann USA, uses
hydroclones, agitation scrubbers, dense media
separators, and screens to separate sediments
into different solids streams. Bioremediation is
used as a secondary treatment for PCBs in the
fine-grained fraction. The process is used to
reduce the amount of contaminated material
requiring disposal. Preliminary tests under the
auspices of EPA and the U.S. Department of
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, indicated the
use of hydroclones could reduce the amount of
material that requires further treatment or dis-
posal by 80 percent. Forced cold-weather shut-
down is a limitation in the system.
Technology Performance
A pilot-scale, on-site demonstration began in
October 1991 at the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Saginaw Bay Confined Disposal Facility
(CDF) in Bay City, Michigan, and was comple-
ted in June 1992. The demonstration was part
of the Assessment and Remediation of Contami-
nated Sediments (ARCS) Program authorized by
the Water Quality Act of 1987.
Approximately 30 cubic yards of sediments
dredged from the Saginaw River was treated
each day during the demonstration. Contami-
nants and grain size was monitored at 23 points
in the process.
Remediation Costs
Remediation costs of using mineral processing
separations on contaminated sediment will vary
depending on the size of the project, its loca-
tion, the complexity of the flow sheet, and the
water content of the sediment. When the pro-
cessing techniques are applied in the mining
industry, the cost is usually no more than a few
dollars per cubic yard. Differences in scale,
complexity, and effluent treatment requirements
may drive remediation costs into the range of
$20 to $70 per cubic yard.
Contacts
Jim Galloway or Frank Snite
U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit
Box 1027
Detroit, MI 48231-1027
313/226-6760
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
61
-------
Technology Developer Contact: Other Contacts:
Rick Traver Steve Garbaciak
Bergmann USA U.S. EPA
Brookside Professional Centre Great Lakes National Program Office
72-11 West Stafford Road 77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Stafford Springs, CT 06076 Chicago, IL 60604
203/684-6844 312/353-0117
J.P. Allen
Principal Investigator
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Salt Lake City Research Center
729 Arapeen Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
801/524-6147
62 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
perox-pure
Fuel Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated Solvents, and PCBs in Ground Water
Technology Description
The perox-pure™ technology is designed to
destroy dissolved organic contaminants in
ground water or wastewater through an
advanced chemical oxidation process using
ultraviolet (UV) radiation and hydrogen perox-
ide. Hydrogen peroxide is added to the contam-
inated water, and the mixture is then fed into
the treatment system. The treatment system
contains four or more compartments in the
oxidation chamber. Each compartment contains
one high intensity UV lamp mounted in a quartz
sleeve. The contaminated water flows in the
space between the chamber wall and the quartz
tube in which each UV lamp is mounted.
U V light catalyzes the chemical oxidation of the
organic contaminants in water by its combined
effect upon the organics and its reaction with
hydrogen peroxide. First, many organic con-
taminants that absorb UV light may undergo a
change in their chemical structure or may
become more reactive with chemical oxidants.
Second, and more importantly, UV light catalyz-
es the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide to
produce hydroxyl radicals, which are powerful
chemical oxidants. Hydroxyl radicals react with
organic contaminants, destroying them and
producing harmless by-products, such as carbon
dioxide, halides, and water. The process pro-
duces no hazardous by-products or air emis-
sions.
This technology treats ground water and waste-
water contaminated with chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB),
phenolics, fuel hydrocarbons (FHC), and other
toxic compounds at concentrations ranging from
a few thousand milligrams per liter to one
microgram per liter. In cases where the con-
taminant concentration is greater than the tech-
nology alone can handle, the process can be
combined with other processes such as air
stripping, steam stripping, or biological treat-
ment for optimal treatment results.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in July 1991. The
demonstration at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) Superfund site is
scheduled for early 1992. This technology has
been successfully applied to over 40 different
waters throughout the United States, Canada,
and Europe, including National Priorities List,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), Department of Energy, and Depart-
ment of Defense sites. These units are treating
contaminated ground water, industrial waste-
water, landfill leachates, potable water, and
industrial reuse streams.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
63
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7665
Technology Developer Contact:
Chris Giggy
Peroxidation Systems, Inc.
5151 East Broadway, Suite 600
Tucson, AZ 85711
602/790-8383
Decontaminated
Water
Contaminated
Ground water or
Wastewater
TM
perox-pure
Oxidation Chamber
Hydrogen Peroxide
Addition
perox-pure™ chemical oxidation technology
64
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Photolytic Oxidation Process
Fuel Hydrocarbons in Ground water
Technology Description
This technology is designed to destroy organic
contaminants dissolved in water through an
advanced chemical oxidation process using
ultraviolet (UV) radiation, hydrogen peroxide,
and a proprietary catalyst. Contaminated water
is fed into the system, and hydrogen peroxide
and the proprietary catalyst are added. The
mixture is then pumped to the treatment system
consisting of six reactor tanks, where the actual
destruction of the organic contaminants takes
place. Each reactor tank houses a xenon UV
lamp mounted in a quartz sleeve. The water
flows in the space between the chamber wall
and the quartz tube in which each lamp is
mounted.
The UV lamps serve two purposes. First, the
combination of UV light and hydrogen peroxide
produces hydroxyl radicals, which are powerful
chemical oxidants. The hydroxyl radicals
oxidize organic contaminants, producing harm-
less by-products, such as carbon dioxide, salts,
and water. Second, the UV light can directly
break the molecular bonds of the contaminants,
further enhancing the oxidation process.
An advantage of the technology is its ability to
shift the UV spectral output to closely match
the absorption characteristics of the contami-
nants of concern. By controlling the output of
the xenon UV lamps, the technology maximiz-
es contaminant destruction efficiency. The Purus
process produces no hazardous by-products or
air emissions. The technology is also equipped
with safety alarms and an automatic shutdown
device in case an emergency should arise.
This technology treats ground water contaminat-
ed with fuel hydrocarbons at concentrations up
to a few thousand milligrams per liter. The
technology can be combined with other process-
es such as air stripping, steam stripping, or
biological treatment for optimal results.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in July 1991. The
demonstration at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) Superfund site was
scheduled for January 1992. The treatment
system was to be tested initially at several
operating conditions, followed by three repro-
ducibility runs performed at the best operating
conditions. When the best operating conditions
were determined, more extensive sampling were
to be performed.
A bench-scale treatability study of the technol-
ogy was recently performed at the LLNL Super-
fund site. Overall, the Purus Model 1000-4
performed as expected during the study. Ben-
zene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene destruc-
tion efficiencies averaged about 99 percent.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
65
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7665
Technology Developer Contact:
Paul Blystone
Purus, Inc.
2150 Paragon Dr.
San Jose, CA 95131
408/453-7804
UV OXIDATION REACTORS
TREATED WATER
POWER CABINET
CONTAMINATED WATER:
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE. ACID
AND CATALYST ADDED
CONTROL CABINET
Purus Ultraviolet Oxidation Technology
66
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Physical Separation/Chemical Extraction
Radionuclides and Metals in Sediments
Technology Description
In this process sediment is screened, classified
and ground, then put into a leaching unit using
nitric or hydrochloric acid. Contaminants —
cesium-137, cobalt-60, and chromium — are
removed from the leachate using a system of
ion exchange, precipitation, or evaporation.
The process produces sludge from the leaching
system, large-grained material from the screen-
ing plant, and ion exchange resin. Ultimate
disposal options include calcining leachate and
storage of residuals.
Technology Performance
A pilot-scale test of the process is underway at
the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (INEL), a Superfund
site. Bench-scale testing was completed at
INEL early in 1992, and full-scale remediation
using the process is scheduled to begin in
November 1992 under a Record of Decision
signed in December 1991.
Remediation Costs
The cost for using this process is about $30 per
cubic yard. Total cost of the INEL remediation
project is estimated at $7.5 million. Design re-
quired nine months at an estimated cost of
$500,000. Overall operation and maintenance
for the project will require one year.
General Site Information
The contaminated area is a warm waste pond at
the INEL test reactor area, formerly used for
testing of materials used in nuclear reactors.
INEL is located in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Contacts
Andy Baumer
EG&G Idaho
P.O. Box 1625-3910
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3910
208/526-6265
Alan Parker
MK-FIC
P.O. Box 1625-3920
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3920
208/526-8885
Nolan Jensen
Field Office, Idaho
U.S. DOE
P.O. Box 1625-1117
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-1117
208/526-0436
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
67
-------
Chemical Treatment
y
PO*WW*ER™ Evaporation and Catalytic Oxidation
VOCs and Non-volatile Organic Compounds in Ground water
Technology Description
PO*WW*ER™ is a technology developed to
treat wastewaters, such as leachates, ground
waters, and process waters, containing mixtures
of salts, metals, and organic compounds. The
proprietary technology is a combination of
evaporation and catalytic oxidation processes.
Wastewater is concentrated in an evaporator by
boiling off most of the water and the volatile
contaminants, both organic and inorganic. Air
or oxygen is added to the vapor, and the mix-
ture is forced through a catalyst bed, where the
organic and inorganic compounds are oxidized.
This stream, composed of mainly steam, passes
through a scrubber, if necessary, to remove any
acid gases formed during oxidation. The stream
is then condensed or vented to the atmosphere.
The resulting brine solution is either disposed of
or treated further, depending on the nature of
the waste.
The PO*WW*ER™ technology can be used to
treat complex wastewaters that contain volatile
and nonvolatile organic compounds, salts,
metals, and volatile inorganic compounds.
Suitable wastes include leachates, contaminated
ground waters, and process waters. The system
can be designed for any capacity, depending on
the application and the volume of the waste-
water. Typical commercial systems range from
10 to 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm).
system (50 gpm) is currently being built by
Waste Management International, Inc., at its
Hong Kong Chemical Waste Treatment Facility.
The SITE program is determining which site to
use for evaluating the technology.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Randy Parker
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7271
Technology Developer Contact:
Brick Neuman
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Geneva Research Center
1950 South Batavia Avenue
Geneva, IL 60134-3310
708/513-4500
Technology Performance
The PO*WW*ER™ technology is currently
being tested on landfill leachates, process waste-
waters, and other aqueous wastes at the de-
veloper's Lake Charles, Louisiana, facility. The
pilot plant (capacity, 0.25 gpm) has been in
operation since 1988; 20 pilot-scale demonstra-
tions have been completed. A commercial
68
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Schematic of PO*WW*ER® technology
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
69
-------
Chemical Treatment
Solar Detoxification
VOCs in Ground water
Technology Description
This technology exposes VOCs in ground water
to sunlight in the presence of a non-toxic cata-
lyst (TiO^ causing the VOCs to break down
into non-toxic compounds, such as carbon
dioxide, chloride ions, and water.
The process involves a system consisting of a
pumping station, a set of solar reflectors, and
the reactors, which are narrow Pyrex pipes that
hold the contaminated water and the catalyst.
During operation, contaminated water is drawn
into the pumping station where the flow rate
through the solar detoxification system is adjust-
ed, the pH is lowered, and the catalyst is added.
The solar reflectors concentrate the sun's light,
focus it directly on the Pyrex reactors, and
oxidize the VOCs. After moving through the
reactors, the water is cooled and its pH is
readjusted as necessary. At this point, based on
monitoring results, the ground water can be
recirculated through the system or the catalyst
can be filtered out and the water sent on for
secondary treatment for legal discharge to the
environment within permitted levels.
the chromium content, this would require further
treatment as a hazardous waste.
While there were few operational problems, the
test confirmed that salts in ground water (chlo-
rides, nitrates, bicarbonates) absorb UV photons
and hydroxyl radicals, which can reduce process
efficiency.
Remediation Costs
No cost information available.
General Site Information
The field demonstration was conducted at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL), Livermore, California. During World
War n, LLNL was the site of a naval air station
with responsibilities for training and aircraft
maintenance. At that time, TCE and other
VOCs were used to clean engine parts, and
large quantities of these compounds found their
way into the ground water beneath the site.
Technology Performance
This system was field tested at Lawrence Liver-
more National Laboratory in California in 1991.
The project clearly demonstrated the destruction
of TCE-contaminated ground water to non-
detectable levels. While the demonstration did
not require full capacity, the system used was
capable of treating more than 7,000 gallons per
day.
About 200 Ibs of used TiO2, containing 2 ppm
chromium, was produced during treatment of
some 50,000 gallons of ground water. Due to
Contact
Jesse L. Yow, Jr.
Environmental Technology Program
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, MS L-207
Livermore, CA 94550
510/422-3521
70
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chemical Treatment
Xanthate Treatment
Heavy Metals in Ground water and Wastewater
Technology Description
This is a process in which metals are removed
through precipitation. Metal contaminants in
the water exchange with Na+ ions contained by
the xanthated material to form an insoluble
complex. The heavy metals-laden material can
then be removed from solution by sedimentation
and filtration.
Currently, hydroxide precipitation is used exten-
sively in the treatment of heavy metal-contami-
nated ground waters and wastewater. Xanthate
treatment offers many advantages over hydrox-
ide precipitation, including the following:
• A higher degree of metal removal;
• Less sensitivity to pH fluctuation (metal
xanthates do not exhibit amphoteric solubili-
ties);
• Less sensitivity to the presence of com-
plexing agents;
• Improved sludge dewatering properties; and
The capability of the selective removal of
metals.
Technology Performance
The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station (WES) has performed bench- and
pilot-scale treatability studies on xanthate pre-
cipitation. Studies are currently being conduct-
ed to evaluate the use of xanthates for metal
segregation and recycling.
Remediation Costs
Costs will vary with application, but treatment
costs should be similar to currently used precipi-
tation methods.
Contact
Mark Bricka
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS 39180
601/634-3700
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
71
-------
Thermal Treatment
-------
Thermal Treatment
Anaerobic Thermal Processor
PCBs, Chlorinated Pesticides, and VOCs in Soil and Refinery Wastes
Technology Description
The SoilTech anaerobic thermal processor
(ATP) is a thermal desorption process. It heats
and mixes contaminated soils, sludges, and
liquids in a special rotary kiln that uses indirect
heat for processing. The unit desorbs, collects,
and recondenses hydrocarbons from solids. The
unit also can be used in conjunction with a
dehalogenation process to destroy halogenated
hydrocarbons through a thermal and chemical
process.
The kiln portion of the system contains four
separate internal thermal zones: preheat, retort,
combustion, and cooling. In the preheat zone,
water and volatile organic compounds vaporize.
The vaporized contaminants and water are
removed by vacuum to a preheat vapor cooling
system consisting of a cyclone to remove solids
and a heat exchanger and separator to condense
liquids and separate the aqueous oil and non-
condensable gas phases.
From the preheat zone, the hot granular solids
and un-vaporized hydrocarbons pass through a
sand seal to the retort zone. Heavy oils
vaporize in the retort zone, and thermal cracking
of hydrocarbons forms coke and low molecular
weight gases. The vaporized contaminants are
removed by vacuum to a retort gas handling
system. After cyclones remove dust from gases,
the gases are cooled, and condensed oil is
separated into its various fractions. The coked
soil passes through a second sand seal from the
retort zone to the combustion zone. Coke is
burned and the hot soil is either recycled back
to the retort zone or sent to the cooling zone.
Flue gases from the combustion zone are treated
prior to discharge. The flue gas treatment
system consists of the following units set up in
series: (1) cyclone and baghouse for particle
removal, (2) wet scrubber for removal of acid
gases, and (3) carbon adsorption bed for
removal of trace organic compounds.
The combusted soil that enters the cooling zone
is cooled in the annular space between the
outside of the preheat and retort zones and the
outer shell of the kiln. Here, the heat from the
soils is transferred to the soils in the retort and
preheat zones. The cooled treated soil and coke
exiting the cooling zone is quenched with water,
then transported by conveyor to a storage pile.
When the ATP is used to dechlorinate
contaminants, the contaminated soils are sprayed
with an oil mixture containing an alkaline
reagent and polyethylene glycol, or other
reagents. The oil acts as a carrier for the
dehalogenation reagents. In the unit, the
reagents dehalogenate or chemically break down
chlorinated compounds, including
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).
The technology can be used for (1) oil recovery
from tar sands and shales, (2) dechlorination of
PCBs and chlorinated pesticides in soils and
sludges, (3) separation of oils and water from
refinery wastes and spills, and (4) general
removal of hazardous organic compounds from
soils and sludges.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in March 1991.
Demonstrations, using a full-scale unit, were
conducted at the Wide Beach Development
Superfund site in Brant, New York, in 1991 and
at the Outboard Marine Corporation site in
Waukegan, Illinois, in 1992.
The preliminary test results from the 1991
demonstration indicated that:
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
75
-------
• The SoilTech ATP unit removed over 99
percent of the PCBs in the contaminated
soil, resulting in PCB levels below the
desired cleanup concentration of 2 parts per
million (ppm).
• The SoilTech ATP does not appear to create
dioxins or furans.
• No volatile or semivolatile organic
degradation products were detected in the
treated soil. There were also no teachable
volatile organic compounds (VOC) or
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC)
detected in the treated soil
• No operational problems affecting the
ATP's ability to treat the contaminated soil
were observed.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Martin Vorum
SoilTech, Inc.
% Canonie Environmental Services Corporation
94 Inverness Terrace East, Suite 100
Englewood, CO 80112
303/790-1747
CUAN
STACK GAS
OSOMMGE TO
ATMOSPHERE
FLUE GAS
TREATMENT
CLEAN SOL
TO BACKFILL
OFF-SITE LANDFILL
FEED*
FLUE
GAS
ATP
PROCESSOR
osniED
VAPORS
NONOONOENSABLE
GASES
FUEL
GAS
CONDENSATION,
SEPARATION
OL
CONOCNSATE
CAMOER OIL
_WTTH REAGENT
DECHLORINAT10N
REAGENT MIX
WATER
CONDENSATE
PRETREATMENT:
OIL/WATER
SEPARATION.
FLOTATION.
CARBON
(NON-
HAZARDOUS)
MAKEUP
ON.
OFF-STTE
TREATMENT
MAKEUP
NoOH+PEG
OPTIONAL DISPOSAL
OR DESTRUCTION
Schematic diagram of the ATP process
76
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
Cyclone Furnace
Organics and Metals in Soil
Technology Description
This furnace technology is designed to
decontaminate wastes containing both organic
and metal contaminants. The cyclone furnace
retains heavy metals in a non-leachable slag and
vaporizes and incinerates the organic materials
in the wastes.
The treated soils resemble natural obsidian
(volcanic glass), similar to the final product
from vitrification.
The furnace is a horizontal cylinder and is
designed for heat release rates greater than
450,000 Btu per cubic foot (coal) and gas
temperatures exceeding 3,000°F. Natural gas
and preheated primary combustion air (820°F)
enter the furnace tangentially. Secondary air
(820°F), natural gas, and the synthetic soil
matrix (SSM) enter tangentially along the
cyclone barrel (secondary air inlet location).
The resulting swirling action efficiently mixes
air and fuel and increases combustion gas
residence time. Dry SSM has been tested at
pilot-scale feed rates of both 50 and 200 Ib/hr.
The SSM is retained on the furnace wall by
centrifugal action; it melts and captures a
portion of the heavy metals. The organics are
destroyed in the molten slag layer. The slag
exits the cyclone furnace (slag temperature at
this location is 2,400°F) and is dropped into a
water-filled slag tank where it solidifies into a
non-leachable vitrified material. A small
quantity of the soil also exits as fly ash from the
furnace and is collected in a baghouse.
This technology may be applied to high-ash
solids (such as sludges and sediments) and soils
containing volatile and nonvolatile organics and
heavy metals. The less volatile metals are
captured in the slag more readily. The
technology would be well-suited to mixed waste
soils contaminated with organics and non-
volatile radionuclides (such as plutonium,
thorium, uranium). Because vitrification has
been listed as Best Demonstrated Achievable
Technology (BOAT) for arsenic and selenium
wastes, the cyclone furnace may be applicable
to these wastes.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in August 1991. The
demonstration will be conducted at the
developer's facility in winter 1991 using
synthetic soil matrices spiked with heavy
metals, semivolatile organics, and radionuclide
surrogates.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
77
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contact:
Lawrence King
Babcock & Wilcox Co.
1562 Beeson Street
Alliance, OH 44601
216/829-7576
SECONDARY AIR
INSIDE
FURNACE
PRIMARY AIR
NATURAL GAS
SOIL
TERTIARY AIR
NATURAL GAS
SCROLL
BURNER
SLAG TRAP
CYCLONE
BARREL
SLAG QUENCHING TANK
Cyclone furnace
78
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
Desorption and Vapor Extraction System
VOCs, Semi-VOCs, and Volatile Inorganics in Soil and Sediment
Technology Description
The mobile, high-capacity (10.5 to 73 tons per
hour capacity with 85 percent solids) desorption
and vapor extraction system (DAVES) uses a
low-temperature fluidized bed to remove organic
and volatile inorganic compounds from soils,
sediments, and sludges. Contaminated materials
are fed into a co-current, fluidized bed, where
they are mixed with hot air (about 1,000°F to
1,400°F) from a gas-fired heater. Direct contact
between the waste material and the hot air
forces water and contaminants from the waste
into the gas stream at a relatively low fluidized-
bed temperature (about 320°F). The heated air,
vaporized water and organics, and entrained
particles flow out of the dryer to a gas treatment
system. The gas treatment system removes
solid particles, vaporized water, and organic
vapors from the air stream. A cyclone separator
and baghouse remove most of the particulates in
the gas stream from the dryer. Vapors from the
cyclone separator are cooled in a venturi
scrubber, counter-current washer, and chiller
section, before they are treated in a vapor-phase
carbon adsorption system. The liquid residues
from the system are centrifuged, filtered, and
passed through two activated carbon beds
arranged in series.
By-products from the DAVES include (1)
approximately 96 to 98 percent of solid waste
feed as treated, dry solid, (2) a small quantity of
centrifuge sludge containing organics, (3) a
small quantity of spent adsorbent carbon,
(4) wastewater that may need further treatment,
and (5) small quantities of baghouse and
cyclone dust that are recycled back through the
process.
The centrifuge sludge containing organics can
be bioremediated, chemically degraded, or
treated in another manner. Recycling Sciences
International, Inc., is currently working with
Argonne National Laboratory on an adjunct
electrochemical oxidation process that will
enable complete contaminant destruction within
the DAVES process.
This technology can remove volatile and
semivolatile organics, including polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH), pentachlorophenol (PCP),
volatile inorganics (such as tetraethyl lead), and
some pesticides from soil, sludge, and sediment.
In general, the process treats waste containing
less than 10 percent total organic contaminants
and 30 to 95 percent solids. The presence of
non-volatile inorganic contaminants (such as
metals) in the waste feed does not inhibit the
process; however, these contaminants are not
treated.
Technology Performance
EPA is currently selecting a demonstration site
for this process. The wastes preferred for the
demonstration are harbor or river sediments
containing at least 50 percent solids and
contaminated with PCBs and other volatile or
semivolatile organics. Soils with these
characteristics may also be acceptable. About
300 tons of waste are needed for a 2-week test.
Major test objectives are to evaluate feed
handling, decontamination of solids, and
treatment of gases generated by the process.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
79
-------
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contact:
Mark Burchett
Recycling Sciences International, Inc.
30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1420
Chicago, EL 60606
312/559-0122
FAX: 312/559-1154
80
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
Dynamic Underground Stripping
Organics in Concentrated Underground Plumes (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology is used to treat underground
leaks of organic contaminants, such as those
from underground storage tanks, which can be
a source of ground-water contamination. The
technology uses large amounts of added energy
to speed the contaminant removal process.
Because it is a highly energetic process, real-
time monitoring is necessary both for process
control and to ensure that contaminants are not
inadvertently mobilized or moved to
unanticipated areas.
Injection wells are installed in permeable areas
surrounding the concentrated plume, and one or
more extraction wells are installed in the center.
The extraction wells are pumped to depress the
water table in the center of the pattern. Then,
steam is injected at 50 to 60 psi. Injection
pressure is controlled by depth, and would be
lower in shallow applications.
As the steam is forced into the formation, the
earth is heated to the boiling point of water.
The advancing pressure front displaces ground
water toward the extraction well. Near the
steam-condensate front, organics are distilled
into the vapor phase, transported to the front,
and condensed there. The advancing steam
zone displaces the condensed liquids toward the
recovery well where they are pumped to the
surface.
When the steam reaches the extraction well,
vacuum extraction becomes the most important
removal mechanism.
At this point in the process, electrode
assemblies placed in the impermeable layers are
turned on, passing 480 V current at several
hundred amperes per electrode. This heats clay
and fine-grained sediments, causing any water
and contaminants trapped within to vaporize and
be forced into the steam zones and toward the
extraction well. This heating may be followed
by one or more additional steam injection
phases, for contaminant removal and to keep
permeable zones hot as ground water returns.
Technology Performance
A demonstration of this technology at a gasoline
spill site at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) in California is being
conducted during the current fiscal year. Plans
call for six injection wells around the perimeter
of the spill zone. Up to three extraction wells
are to be used to maintain the high ground
water removal rates required.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
81
-------
General Site Information Contact
The demonstration of this technology is being Roger Aines or
conducted at a spill site at LLNL in Livermore, William McConachie
California. Approximately 17,000 gallons of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
gasoline were spilled at the site. Some 5,000 P.O. Box 808
gallons of the spill are now trapped beneath the University of California
water table because of a 30-ft rise in the water Livermore, CA 94550
table. The remainder of the spill is in the vadose 415/423-3501
zone.
82 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
High-Temperature Thermal Processor
Organics in Solids and Sludges
Technology Description
Remediation Technologies, Inc.'s (ReTeC), high
temperature thermal processor is a thermal
desorption system that can treat solids and
sludges contaminated with organic constituents.
The system consists of material feed equipment,
a thermal processor, a paniculate removal
system, an indirect condensing system, and
activated carbon beds.
Waste from the feed hopper is fed to the
thermal processor, which consists of a jacketed
trough that houses two intermeshing, counter-
rotational screw conveyors. The rotation of the
screws moves material through the processor.
A molten salt eutectic, consisting primarily of
potassium nitrate, serves as the heat transfer
media. This salt melt has heat transfer
characteristics similar to those of oils and
allows maximum processing temperatures of up
to 850°F. The salt melt is noncombustible, it
poses no risk of explosion, and its potential
vapors are nontoxic. The heated transfer media
continuously circulates through the hollow
flights and shafts of each screw and also
circulates through the jacketed trough. An
electric or fuel oiVgas-fired heater is used to
maintain the temperature of the transfer media.
Treated product is cooled to less than 150°F for
safe handling.
A paniculate removal system (such as a cyclone
or quench tower), an indirect condensing
system, and activated carbon beds are used to
control off-gases. The processor operates under
slight negative pressure to exhaust the
volatilized constituents (moisture and organics)
to the off-gas control system. An inert
atmosphere is maintained in the headspace of
the processor through the use of air lock devices
at the feed inlet and solids exit, and through the
introduction of an inert carrier gas (such as
nitrogen) to maintain an oxygen concentration
of less than 3 percent. The oxygen and organic
content of the off-gas are continuously
monitored as it exits the processor.
Entrained paniculate matter is collected and
combined with the treated solids on a batch
basis. The volatilized moisture and organics are
subsequently condensed and decanted. A mist
eliminator minimizes carry-over of entrained
moisture and contaminants after the condenser.
Any remaining non-condensable gases are
passed through activated carbon beds to control
volatile organic compound emissions.
This system can treat soils, sediments, and
sludges contaminated with volatile and
semivolatile organics, including polychlorinated
biphenyls. Preliminary testing indicates the
system has the potential to treat cyanide. With
the exception of mercury, the process is not
suitable for treating heavy metals. Wastes must
be prescreened to a particle size of less than 1
inch before treatment.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in June 1991. The
SITE demonstration is scheduled for the
Niagara-Mohawk Power Company, a
manufacturing gas plant site, in Harbour Point,
New York, in 1992.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
83
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Ronald Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction and Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7856
Technology Developer Contact:
David Nakles
Remediation Technologies, Inc.
3040 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
412/826-3340
RECYCLED PURGE GAS
FEED
FROM HOPPER
HEAT
SOURCE
MAKE-UP
• PURGE
GAS
TO STACK/ATMOSPHERE
RECYCLE TO
PURGE GAS
STREAM
QUENCH
WATER
OFF
GASES
THERMAL
DESORPTION
UNIT
COOLING
WATER
COOLING UNIT
TREATED
PRODUCT
WATER
Process flow diagram
84
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Thermal Treatment
Low-Temperature Thermal Stripping
Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil
Technology Description
Low-temperature thermal stripping of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from soils removes
volatile components such as chlorinated solvents
and fuels. It can be applied to contaminated
soils associated with fire training pits, burn pits,
spills, and lagoons. Contaminants having
boiling points as high as 500°C have been
removed from soils.
In 1985, the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency sponsored the development of
a Low-Temperature Thermal Stripping process
which used a Holo-Flite screw thermal
processor. Contaminated soil is fed through an
opening at the top of the system, called the soil
feed hopper. The soil falls into the main part of
the system, or thermal processor. The thermal
processor consists of two separate but identical
units, each containing four large, hollow screws.
The screws are 18 inches in diameter and 20
feet long. As the screws turn, they chum the
soil, breaking it up and pushing it from the feed
end of the processor to the discharge end.
In the meantime, hot oil is pumped through the
inside of the screws. The constant churning of
the soil and movement of hot oil up and down
the length of the screws heat the soil and
volatilize the VOCs. Additional heat is
provided by the walls of the processor, called
the trough jacket, which also contains flowing
hot oil. The thermal processor heats up to a
maximum of about 650°F.
This method does, however, have a number of
limitations: this is a media transfer technique
rather than a destructive technique; treatment of
the gaseous effluent prior to discharge might be
required, depending upon local regulations;
bench-scale evaluation should be conducted
before pilot testing or implementation; the
equipment for the bench-scale test is available
and will fit in a standard laboratory hood; lower
explosive limits must be considered when
treating soils contaminated with flammable
solvents; an inert gas such as nitrogen might be
considered as an alternative to air to reduce the
risk of combustion or explosion; and since this
is a low-temperature method, metal
contaminants will not be removed.
Technology Performance
The results from a pilot-scale field
demonstration of this technology were extremely
positive. Eighteen days of formal testing were
completed in 22 consecutive calendar days.
During this period, more than 10,000 pounds of
contaminated soils were processed. Upon
completion of the formal testing, 10 additional
days of testing were conducted to optimize
system performance. During this period, more
than 5,000 pounds of contaminated soils were
processed. A comparison of the VOCs
measured in the processed soil and stack gas
indicated that a greater than 99.9 percent
destruction and removal efficiency was
achieved. A summary of the soil concentrations
and maximum VOC removal efficiencies is
provided in Table 1. Stack emissions were in
compliance with all Federal and state
regulations (including VOCs, HCL, CO, and
paniculate). After processing, regulatory
approval was granted to dispose of the treated
soils on site as backfill.
Remediation Costs
To treat a site containing 15,000 to 80,000 tons
of contaminated soil, the optimally-sized process
costs would range from $74 per ton to $160 per
ton, respectively, without flue gas treatment. If
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
85
-------
afterburner exhaust gases are treated prior to Contact
discharge, the respective costs range from $87
per ton to $184 per ton. Capt. Kevin Keehan
USATHAMA
ATTN: CETHA-TS-D
General Site Information Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
410/671-2054
A large-scale pilot test was conducted at
Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Technology Developer Contact:
Pennsylvania. The demonstration was Mike Cosmos
conducted between August 5 and September 16, Weston Services, Inc.
1985. The feed soils were excavated from 1 Weston Way
lagoons in the K-l Area which received organic West Chester, PA 19380
liquids from industrial operations at the Depot. 215/430-7423
The contaminants were trichloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and
xylene.
86 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Table 1. Summary of Soil VOC Concentrations and Maximum VOC Removal Efficiencies
voc
Dichloroethylene
. Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylene*
Other VOCs
Total VOCs
Feed Soil Average
(ppm)
83
1,673
429
64
14
2,263
Concentrations
Maximum (ppm)
470
19,000
2,500
380
88
22,438
Maximum Removal
Efficiency
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
* Xylene is not classified as a VOC since its boiling point is approximately 140°C. However, it
was included in this study to evaluate the effectiveness of this technology on higher boiling point
semivolatile compounds.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
87
-------
Thermal Treatment
Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3®)
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics in Soil
Technology Description
The basis of the LT3* technology is the thermal
processor, an indirect heat exchanger used to
dry and heat contaminated soils. The process
includes three main steps: soil treatment,
emissions control, and water treatment.
Equipment used in the process is mounted on
three tractor trailer beds for transport and
operation. Excavated soil is processed through
a shredder to increase the surface area of the
soil. (This step may not be needed for sludges
or similar matrices.) The conveyor and surge
hopper, which are enclosed to reduce emissions,
then feed the soil into the thermal processor.
The thermal processor consists of two covered
troughs that house four intermeshed screw
conveyors. The covered troughs and screws are
hollow to allow circulation of hot oil, providing
indirect heating of the soils. Each screw moves
the soil through the processor and thoroughly
mixes the material.
The heating of the soil to 400°F to 500°F
evaporates contaminants from the soil.
(Temperatures may vary depending on the
specific contaminants of concern.) The vapor
stream is then processed through a baghouse
dust collector, two condensers in series, and is
subsequentially treated by carbon adsorption to
remove about 99 percent of the organic
contaminants and any paniculate emissions.
Remaining exhaust gas is continuously
monitored to ensure that it contains total organic
concentrations not greater than 3 ppm by
volume.
The condensate from the LT3* system is
separated into light and heavy organic
compounds and water. The water is treated by
carbon adsorption until it is free of
contaminants, at which time it can be recycled
to the fresh water system to be sprayed on the
treated soil for dust control. The spraying
occurs in the system before the soil is released.
No water is discharged from the LT3* process.
This technology can be applied to soils
contaminated with volatile and semivolatile
organic compounds.
Technology Performance
A full-scale demonstration was conducted at
Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, in 1989. The demonstration was
designed to remove jet propulsion fuel (JP-4)
and chlorinated organic compounds, such as
TCE, from contaminated soils. The only
modification to the basic LT3 was the addition
of a scrubber system to control acid gas
emissions.
The demonstration showed conclusively that the
LT3 technology was effective in reducing the
concentration of not only JP-4 but also all
compounds originally specified in the Test Plan.
All goal clean-up levels could be met by heating
the processed soil above 215°F. This was a
considerably lower temperature than anticipated.
As a result, all goal clean-up levels were met
while processing soil at rates 25 percent in
excess of the design capacity. The treatment
capacity was 18,000 to 20,000 Ibs per hour.
The demonstration was discontinued when
PCBs were discovered in the feed and processed
soils, because the system had not been designed
to process PCBs.
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in September 1991.
The Anderson Development Company (ADC)
Superfund site, Adrian, Michigan, was selected
as the demonstration site. ADC manufactures
88
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
specialty organic chemicals. The demonstration
was completed early in 1992, and a report of
findings is expected late in the year.
Remediation Costs
Based on the demonstration at Tinker Air Force
Base, the unit cost for processing and
decontaminating soil with similar contaminants
is $86.00 per ton soil at an average processing
rate of 8 tons per hour. Total estimated costs,
including mobilization and demobilization, to
process 5,000 tons would be $116.00 per ton.
Fixed costs for mobilization, start up, and
demobilization would be approximately
$150,000.00.
No cost information is available at this time
from the SITE Program demonstration in
Michigan.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Rick Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
USATHAMA:
Capt. Kevin Keehan
CETHA-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Grounds,
MD 21010-5401
410/671-2054
Technology Developer Contact:
Mike Cosmos
Weston Services, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
215/430-7423
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
89
-------
Sweep gas
To atmosphere
i Hot oil burner ofl-gases
Contaminated
soH storage
i
Ctey $hr?4o>r ^ f»t
-------
Thermal Treatment
Molten Salt Oxidation Process
Radionuclides, Organics, Oils, Graphite,
Chemical Warfare Agents, Explosives in Liquids and Solids
Technology Description
The Molten Salt Oxidation (MSO) Process is
carried out in a highly reactive oxidizing and
catalytic medium. It uses a sparged bed of
turbulent molten salt such as sodium carbonate
at 800°C to 1,000°C with waste and air
introduced beneath the surface of the molten
salt. Generally, the heat of oxidation of the
waste keeps the salt molten. The off-gas,
containing carbon dioxide, steam, nitrogen, and
unreacted oxygen is cleaned of particulates by
passing the gas through standard filters before
discharging to the atmosphere.
MSO has a high treatment potential for
radioactive and hazardous forms of high-heating
liquids (organic solvents, waste oils), low-
heating value liquids (high-halogen content
organic liquids), other wastes (pesticides,
herbicides, PCBs, chemical warfare agents,
explosives, propellants, infectious wastes), and
extraction gases (volatile organic compounds
and radionuclides, acids). By virtue of the
latter, MSO could replace conventional wet-
scrubbers as a superior dry-scrubber system for
use with incinerators. The typical residence
time is two seconds for the treatment of wastes
by the MSO Process.
Aqueous sludges containing heavy metals are
converted to oxides and retained in the melt.
Organics in addition to combustible solids are
destroyed but MSO is not suitable for treatment
of inert solids, such as soils. The Process also
successfully destroys carbon in coal gasification
demonstrations.
Ash and soot reaction products are retained in
the molten salt. The MSO Process has been
tested at 900°C for the destruction of solid
combustible waste bearing plutonium at TRU
levels. Measurable amounts of plutonium
downstream of the oxidizer have shown that
99.9 percent of the plutonium remains in the
melt.
The final waste form is a product of the spent
salt disposal or recycle subsystem. In the
destruction of chlorinated waste compounds, the
melt becomes unreactive as the salt converts to
approximately 90 percent NaCl. The sodium
chloride can be discarded unless it is
contaminated with radionuclides. These can be
extracted from the disposable salt by ion
exchange chemistry coupled with biosorption
techniques. Otherwise, when the salt is reusable
but contains ash, soot, and possibly metal
products, conventional dissolution and fractional
filtration techniques with radionuclide extraction
apply.
Technology Performance
Fundamental theoretical studies, experimental
investigations, and demonstrations were
supported by DOE and Rockwell International
for about 20 years until 1982 when it was
determined that MSO offered no cost advantage
over incineration at that time. Prior to 1982,
Rockwell had conducted bench-scale unite (10
Ib/hr feed rate) tests on chlordane for EPA.
Using the Rockwell bench-scale MSO unit,
Edgewood Arsenal personnel in 1976
demonstrated the high-efficiency destruction of
the chemical warfare agents VX, GB, and
mustard. Rockwell conducted tests on a pilot-
scale unit (270 Ib/hr feed rate) to demonstrate
the destruction of hazardous chemicals such as
PCB for the Canadian Electric Association and,
again, EPA. The largest Rockwell MSO unit
(2,000 Ib/hr feed rate) to date was built and
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
91
-------
operated for DOE in 1973 to demonstrate MSO
as a coal gasification technology.
Remediation Costs
The destruction of VX, GB, and mustard by the
MSO Process at the bench-scale level costs
$2.03 per pound today. No firm cost
information is available for other applications of
MSO as a primary treatment system or as an
incinerator off-gas dry-scrubber system. The
DOE is currently engaged in a five-year MSO
implementation plan which is expected to begin
yielding that information.
General Site Information
The DOE five-year MSO implementation plan
leads to commercial-scale demonstrations of the
MSO technology by 1997. Rockwell
International is the principal industry partner.
Bench-scale demonstrations of mixed
(radioactive and hazardous) waste treatment will
be conducted at several DOE installations:
Energy Technology Engineering Center; Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, and Los Alamos
National Laboratory. At EPA's Incinerator
Research Facility, a bench-scale-size MSO unit
designed to treat a slipstream of the rotary kiln
incinerator flue gas (containing radionuclide
surrogates and acids) will be operated to
evaluate the effectiveness of MSO as a dry-
scrubber for controlling gas emissions from
incinerators.
Contact
Lawnie H. Taylor
U.S. Department of Energy
EM-43
Washington, DC 20585
301/903-8119
92
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Feed System
(acid gases, combustible solids,
organic liquids, aqueous
solutions, and slurries)
Stack
CO,, H20. N2, Oz
Waste
(mixed wastes, PCBs,
CFC, propellents, munitions,
chemical warfare agents,
graphite, and other low-
ash organlcs)
Sodium
Carbonate
Air-
Molten Na2CO3
900-1000*0
Removed Particulates
(NaCI, Na2CO3)
. Salt Melt Retains
x^Metals/Radlonuclldes
Sodium Salt
co;, cr. so;, poj.
Salt
Recycle
Option
t
Spent Salt
Disposal
Without Recycle
Chemical
(Partial Listing)
Destroyed (%)
PCB
Para-arsanilic acid
Chloroform
Trichloroethane
Diphenylamine HC1
Nitroethane
HCB
Chlordane
VX
GB
Mustard
HMX (35 wt%)
6-9's
>5 - 9's
>5-9's
>5-9's
>5-9's
>4 - 9's
9-9's
7-9's
>7-9's
>8-9's
>6-9's
4-9's
The Molten Salt Oxidation (MSO) Process
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
93
-------
Thermal Treatment
Plasma Arc Vitrification
Organics and Metals in Soils and Sludge
Technology Description
Plasma Arc Vitrification occurs in a plasma
centrifugal furnace by a thermal treatment
process where heat from a transferred arc
plasma creates a molten bath that detoxifies the
feed material Organic contaminants are
vaporized and react at temperatures of 2,000°F
to 2,500°F to form innocuous products. Solids
melt and are vitrified in the molten bath at
2,800°F to 3,000°F. Metals are retained in this
phase. When cooled, this phase is a non-
leachable, glassy residue which meets the
toxicity characteristic leachate procedure
(TCLP) criteria.
Contaminated soils enter the sealed furnace
through the bulk feeder. The reactor well
rotates during waste processing. Centrifugal
force created by this rotation prevents material
from falling out of the bottom and helps to
evenly transfer heat and electrical energy
throughout the molten phase. Periodically, a
fraction of the molten slag is tapped, falling into
the slag chamber to solidify.
Off-gas travels through a secondary combustion
chamber where it remains at 2,000°F to 2,500°F
for more than 2 seconds. This allows the
complete destruction of any organics in the gas.
After passing through the secondary combustion
chamber, the gases pass through a series of air
pollution control devices designed to remove
particulates and acid gases. In the event of a
process upset, a surge tank allows retention for
reprocessing.
Residuals from the cleanup system can
sometimes be fed back to the furnace. Salts
resulting from neutralizing chlorides must
eventually be discarded. In some
circumstances, metals can be recovered from the
scrubber sludge.
Liquid and solid organic compounds and metals
can be treated by this technology. It is most
appropriate for chemical plant residues and by-
products, low-level mixed radioactive wastes,
and contaminated soils. It may also be useful
for medical wastes, sewage, sludge, and
incinerator ash.
Technology Performance
The SITE demonstration was conducted in July
1991 at a Department of Energy research
facility in Butte, Montana. During the
demonstration, the furnace processed
approximately 4,000 pounds of waste. All feed
and effluent streams were sampled to assess the
performance of this technology. A report on the
demonstration project will be available in 1992.
A production size furnace has been permitted
and commissioned in Muttenz, Switzerland. At
this installation, the furnace is designed to feed
55-gallon (200-liter) drums. Each drum and its
contents are fed and destroyed, one drum at a
time.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
94
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contact:
R. C. Eschenbach
Retech, Inc.
P.O. Box 997
100 Henry Station
Ukiah, CA 95482
707/462-6522
PLASMA TORCH
FEEDER
EXHAUST
STACK
SURGE
GAS TREATMENT TANK
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
Plasma centrifugal furnace
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
95
-------
Thermal Treatment
Radio Frequency (RF) Thermal Soil Decontamination
Solvents and Volatile and Semivolatile Petroleum in Soils (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The radio frequency (RF) thermal soil
decontamination process removes volatile
hazardous waste materials through in situ radio
Frequency heating of the soil and volatilization
of the hazardous substances. This technology
can be applied to fire training pits, spills, and
sludge pits containing solvents and volatile and
semivolatile petroleum.
Radio frequency heating is performed by the
application of electromagnetic energy in the
radio frequency band. The energy is delivered
by electrodes placed in holes drilled through the
soil. The mechanism of heat generation is
similar to that of a microwave oven and does
not rely on the thermal properties of the soil
matrix. The power source for the process is a
modified radio transmitter. The exact frequency
of operation is selected after evaluation of the
dielectric properties of the soil matrix and the
size of the area requiring treatment. The gases
and vapors formed in the soil matrix can be
recovered at the surface or through the
electrodes used for the heating process.
Condensation and collection of the concentrated
vapor stream is used to capture the contaminant
above ground. The system is made up of four
components: (1) RF energy deposition electrode
array; (2) RF power generation, transmission,
monitoring, and control system; (3) vapor
barrier and containment system; and (4) gas and
liquid condensate handling and treatment
system.
This technology has a number of advantages:
• Demonstrations have shown higher than 90
percent reduction of jet fuel components
from soils;
• Contaminants are recovered in a relatively
concentrated form without dilution from
large volumes of air or combustion gases;
• This is an in situ method;
• All equipment is portable; and
• The soil does not have to be excavated.
Limitations of this technology include:
• High moisture or presence of ground water
in the treatment zone will result in
excessive power requirements to heat the
soil; and
• The method cannot be used if large buried
metal objects are in the treatment zone.
Technology Performance
The full-scale field demonstration at Volk Field
Air National Guard Base, Camp Douglas,
Wisconsin, produced positive results:
• 94 to 99 percent decontamination of a 500
cubic feet block of soil was achieved during
a 12-day period. Ninety-seven percent of
semivolatile hydrocarbons and 99 percent of
volatile aromatics and aliphatics were
removed;
• Contaminant removal at the 2-meter depth,
the fringe of the heated zone, exceeded 95
percent;
• The 70 to 76 percent contaminant reduction
in the immediate area outside the heated
zone indicates that there was no net
migration of contaminant from the heated
area to the surrounding soil; and
96
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
• Results show that substantial removal of
high boiling contaminants can be achieved
at temperatures significantly lower than
their boiling point. This occurs due to the
long residence time provided at lower
temperatures and steam distillation provided
by the native moisture.
Remediation Costs
It is estimated that the treatment cost will vary
between $28 to $60 per ton of soil. Based on
bench-scale tests, it is estimated that the
treatment of a 3-acre site to a depth of 8 feet
containing 12 percent moisture raised to a
temperature of 170°C would cost $42 per ton.
The treatment of such a site would require about
one year. The initial capital equipment
investment for full-scale projects is estimated to
be about $1.5 million. Power requirements are
approximately 500 kilowatt-hours per cubic yard
to reach a temperature of 150°C.
General Site Information
A bench-scale pilot test (volume <20 drums)
has been conducted at ITT Research Institute
facilities. A full-scale demonstration was
completed in seven feet of sandy soil at Volk
Field (ANGB), Wisconsin, during October 1989.
Another pilot-scale demonstration began during
the Fall of 1991 at Kelly AFB, San Antonio,
Texas, in clay coil from 10 to 30 feet deep.
Contact
Paul F. Carpenter
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
TyndallAFB, FL 32403
904/523-6022
IF Power
Souret
Exciter Electrodes
Vtpor Btrrier
Treatment Syiten
RF Thermal Soil Decontamination Process
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
97
-------
Thermal Treatment
XTRAX™ Thermal Desorption
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics and PCBs in Soil
Technology Description
The X*TRAX™ technology is a thermal
desorption process designed to remove organic
contaminants from soils, sludges, and other
solid media. It is not an incinerator or a
pyrolysis system. Chemical oxidation and
reactions are not encouraged, and no
combustion by-products are formed. The
organic contaminants are removed as a
condensed liquid, characterized by a high Btu
rating, which may then be either destroyed in a
permitted incinerator or used as a supplemental
fuel. Because of low operating temperatures
(200°F to 900°F) and gas flow rates, this
process is less expensive than incineration.
An externally fired rotary dryer is used to
volatilize the water and organic contaminants
into an inert carrier gas stream. The processed
solids are then cooled with treated condensed
water to eliminate dusting. The solids are ready
to be placed and compacted in their original
location.
The organic contaminants and water vapor
driven from the solids are transported out of the
dryer by an inert nitrogen carrier gas. The
carrier gas flows through a duct to the gas
treatment system, where organic vapors, water
vapors, and dust particles are removed and
recovered from the gas. The gas first passes
through a high-energy scrubber. Dust particles
and 10 to 30 percent of the organic
contaminant* are removed by the scrubber. The
gas then passes through two heat condensers in
series, where it is cooled to less than 40°F.
Most of the carrier gas passing through the gas
treatment system is reheated and recycled to the
dryer. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of the gas
is cleaned by passing it through a paniculate
filter and a carbon adsorption system before it
is discharged to the atmosphere. The volume of
gas released from this process vent is
approximately 100 to 200 times less than an
equivalent capacity incinerator. This discharge
helps maintain a small negative pressure within
the system and prevents potentially
contaminated gases from leaking. The
discharge also allows makeup nitrogen to be
added to the system, preventing oxygen
concentrations from exceeding combustibility
limits.
The process can remove and collect volatiles,
semivolatiles, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), and has been demonstrated on a variety
of soils ranging from sand to very cohesive
clays. In most cases, volatile organics are
reduced to below 1 ppm and frequently to
below the laboratory detection level.
Semivolatile organics are typically reduced to
less than 10 ppm and frequently below 1 ppm.
Soils containing 120 ppm to 6,000 ppm PCBs
have been reduced to 2 ppm to 25 ppm.
Removal efficiencies from 96 to 99+ percent
have been demonstrated for soils contaminated
with various organic pesticides.
Minimal feed pretreatment is required. The
feed material must be screened to a particle size
of less than 2 inches. For economic reasons, a
single location should have a minimum of 5,000
cubic yards of material. For most materials, the
system can process 120 to 150 tons per day at
a cost of $150 to $250 per ton.
Technology Performance
Chemical Waste Management (CWM) currently
has three X*TRAX™ systems available:
laboratory-, pilot-, and full-scale. Two
laboratory-scale systems are being used for
treatability studies. One system is operated by
98
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Chem Nuclear systems, Inc., in Barnwell, South
Carolina, for mixed (Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act [RCRA]/Radioactive) wastes; the
other is operated by CWM Research and
Development at its facility in Geneva, Illinois,
for RCRA and Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA) wastes. More than 60 tests have been
completed since January 1988. Both laboratory
systems are available for performing treatability
studies. A draft report is furnished within 12
weeks of sample receipt.
A pilot-scale system is in operation at the CWM
Kettleman Hills facility in California. During
1989 and 1990,10 different PCB-contaminated
soils were processed under a TSCA Research
and Development (R&D) permit, which expired
in January 1990. The system is currently
operating under both an EPA Research
Development and Demonstration and a
California Department of Health and Safety
R&D permit for RCRA materials. Pilot testing
is planned through November 1992.
The first Model 200 full-scale X*TRAX™
system was completed in early 1990. The
system is being used to remediate 35,000 tons
of PCB-contaminated soil at the Resolve
Superfund site in Massachusetts. EPA plans to
conduct a SITE demonstration during this
remediation.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Carl Swanstrom
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
1950 S. Batavia
Geneva, IL 60134
708/513-4578
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
99
-------
Vapor Extraction
-------
Vapor Extraction
Ground Water Vapor Recovery System
Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
In this treatment, injection and extraction wells
are placed outside and inside of an area of
contamination. Positive pressure, from either
water or air, is placed on the injection wells.
Water is pumped from the extraction wells to a
thermal aeration system to drive off the
contaminants. Resulting vapors go to an
internal combustion engine. If enough free
product is available in the ground water during
the cleanup process, waste hydrocarbons could
be used to power the engine without the need
for additional fuel.
Technology Performance
Full-scale implementation of this system began
in 1991 at the Seal Beach Navy Weapons
Station. This method is applicable for volatile
fuels or other volatile organic compounds. This
treatment requires that the contaminant be
combustible. Air permits are required in some
areas.
Remediation Costs
The capitol cost for purchasing and installing
the engine and wells is between $70,000 and
$100,000.
Contacts
Vern Novstrup
Naval Energy and Environmental Support
Activity, Code 112E
Port Hueneme, California 93043
805/982-2636
Rebecca Coleman-Roush
Remediation Service, International
P.O. Box 1601
Oxnard, California 93032
805/644-5892
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
103
-------
In Situ Air Stripping
with Horizontal Wells
TCE and PCE in Soil and Ground Water
Vapor Extraction
Technology Description
In situ air stripping using horizontal wells is
designed to concurrently remediate unsaturated-
zone soils and ground water containing volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). The in situ air
stripping concept utilizes two parallel horizontal
wells: one below the water table and one in the
unsaturated (vadose) zone. A diagram of the
technology has been provided. The deeper well
is used as a delivery system for the air injection.
VOCs are stripped from the ground water into
the injected vapor phase and are removed from
the subsurface by drawing a vacuum on the
shallower well in the vadose zone. The
technology is based on Henry's Law, and the
affinity of VOCs for the vapor phase. The
technology is probably most effective in soils
with high permeability and likely works best in
sandier units with no significant aquitards
between the injection and extraction wells.
Horizontal wells are used because they provide
more surface area for injection of reactants and
extraction of contaminants and they have great
utility for subsurface access under existing
facilities.
First, a vacuum was drawn on the shallow well
for a period of two weeks. Concentration and
temperature of the extracted vapors were
measured at least three times a day. Air
injection was then added at three different rates
and at two different temperatures. Each of the
operating regimes was operated for a minimum
of two weeks. Helium tracer tests were also
conducted to learn more about vapor flow paths
and the heterogeneity of the system between the
two wells. To assist with analysis and
monitoring of the demonstration, tubes of
varying lengths were installed in both horizontal
wells to monitor pressure and concentrations
along their entire length.
Technology Performance
Almost 16,000 pounds of solvents were
removed during the test at the U.S. Department
of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS).
Extraction rates during the vapor extraction
phase averaged 110 pounds of VOCs per day.
The extraction flow rate was constant at
approximately 580 scfm during the entire length
of the test. During the air injection periods with
medium (170 scfm) and high (270 scfm) rates,
approximately 130 pounds of VOCs were
removed daily.
Concentrations of chlorinated solvents removed
during vapor extraction only decreased rapidly
during the first two days of operation. Initial
concentrations were as high as 5,000 ppm but
stabilized at 200-300 ppm. Concentrations of
VOCs in the ground water were significantly
reduced in several of the monitoring wells. For
example, ground water from two monitoring
wells showed changes from 1600 and 1800
ug/L TCE at the beginning of the test to 10-30
pg/L at the end of the 20-weeks. However,
ground water in several of the wells showed no
significant change and ground water in three
wells actually had trichlorethylene (TCE)
concentrations increase. One possible
explanation for this was that more contaminated
water at depth (below the monitoring point) was
being forced upward due to air injection.
The activity of indigenous microorganisms was
found to increase at least an order of magnitude
during the air injection periods. This activity
then decreased when the air injection was
terminated. It is possible that simple injection
104
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
of air stimulated microorganisms that have the
potential to degrade TCE. Injection of heated
air appeared to have no effect on the amount of
contaminant extracted from the shallow well.
Remediation Costs
The cost of the remediation project, not
including site characterization was
approximately $300,000, or $20 per pound of
contaminant removed. Site preparation costs,
including well installation were $300,000 to
$450,000. Equipment for this demonstration
test was rented; however, purchase of the
vacuum blower and compressor would be in the
range of $200,000.
General Site Information
This 20-week field demonstration project was
conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy's
(DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken,
South Carolina, between July and December,
1990. Trichloroethylene (TCE) and
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) were used at SRS as
metal degreasing solvents for a number of years.
The in situ test was conducted at the SRS
Integrated Demonstration Site in the M-Area,
along an abandoned process sewer line that
carried wastes to a seepage basin which was
operated between 1958 and 1985. A ground
water plume containing elevated levels of these
compounds exists over an area greater than one
square mile. The sewer line acted as a source
of VOCs as it is known to have leaked at
numerous locations along its length. Because
the source of contamination was linear at this
particular location within the overall plume,
horizontal wells were selected as the
injection/extraction system.
The Savannah River Site is located on the upper
Atlantic Coastal Plain. The site is underlain by
a thick wedge of unconsolidated Tertiary and
Cretaceous sediments that overlay the basement,
which consists of preCambrian and Paleozoic
metamorphic rocks and consolidated Triassic
sediments. Ground-water flow at the site is
controlled by hydrologic boundaries: flow at
and immediately below the water table is to
local tributaries; and flow in the lower aquifer
is to the Savannah River or one of its major
tributaries. The water table is located at
approximately 135 feet. Ground water in the
vicinity of the process sewer line contains
elevated concentrations of TCE and PCE to
depths of greater than 180 feet.
Contacts
Facility Contact:
Mike O'Rear
DOE Savannah River
Aiken, South Carolina
803/725-5541
Contractor Contacts:
Dawn S. Kaback
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Aiken, South Carolina
803/725-5190
Brian B. Looney
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Aiken, South Carolina
803/725-5181
Federal Remediation Technologies Rdundtable
105
-------
Injection Point for Air
Extraction of Air Containing Volatile Compounds
Ground Surface
Vadose Zone
Slotted Casing
Water
Table
Contaminated Zone
Diagram of In Situ Air Stripping with Horizontal Wells
106
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction
Industrial Sludge, Waste Solvents, Fuel and Oil
in Soils
Technology Description
This technology is used to treat soils
contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including TCE, DCE, vinyl chloride,
toluene, chlorobenzenes, and xylenes. The
process is used in vadose zone soils. The
technology does not work in ground water or
saturated zone soils and is ineffective for
removal of semivolatiles and metals.
Vadose zone extraction wells are installed at
various targeted depths. A vacuum is applied
and contaminants are pulled to the surface
where they are treated with a catalytic oxidation
unit prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
Technology Performance
A large scale pilot test involving 17 wells is
scheduled to begin in Fall 1992 at McClellan
Air Force Base in California. Target
contaminants are VOCs in the 100-1,000 ppm
range. In addition, the Air Force will evaluate
the effectiveness of enhancements such as hot
air injection into the waste pit materials. The
test is scheduled to be completed in Spring
1993.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
General Site Information
The test is being conducted at a former fuel and
solvent disposal site in the northwest part of
McClellan Air Force Base in California, a
Superfund site. The test area is one of IS such
sites located in Operable Unit D and contains
approximately 400,000 cubic feet of
contaminated soil.
Contacts
Facility Contact:
Fran Slavich
Jerry Styles
SM-ALC/EMR
McClellan AFB, CA 95652
916/643-0533
EPA Project Officer:
Ramon Mendoza
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/744-2410
Technology Developer Contact:
Joseph Danko
CH2M Hill
2300 NW Walnut Blvd.
Corvallis, OR 97330
503^752-4271
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
107
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Soil Venting
Fuels and Trichloroethylene in Unsaturated Soils
Technology Description
The in situ soil venting process removes volatile
contaminants such as fuels and trichloroethylene
from unsaturated soils. This technology can be
applied to fire training pits, spills and the
unsaturated zone beneath leach pits. The
method is most applicable for contamination in
fairly permeable soils.
Venting wells are placed in the unsaturated zone
and connected to a manifold and blower. A
vacuum is applied to the manifold, and gases
axe extracted from the soil and fed to the
treatment system. The air flow sweeps out the
soil gas, disrupting the equilibrium existing
between the contaminant adsorbed on the soil
and its vapor phase. This results in further
volatilization of the contaminant on the soil and
subsequent removal in the air stream.
Depending upon the individual site and the
depth of the contaminated zone, it might be
necessary to seal the surface to the throughput
of air.
This technology has a number of advantages.
Specifically, it is inexpensive, especially if the
emissions require no treatment. The equipment
is easily emplaced. It is less expensive than
excavation at depths greater than 40 feet
Operation is simple, excavation of contaminated
soil is not required, and the site is not
destroyed.
Despite the advantages of this technology,
limitations do exist. This process is a transfer-
of-media method; the waste is not destroyed.
At depths of less than 10 feet, excavation could
be less expensive, depending upon the type of
waste treatment required. The contamination
must be located in the unsaturated zone above
the nearest aquifer. Prior bench-scale testing is
important in determining the effectiveness of the
method to a specific site. To date, few field
data exist on the level of cleanup. If the
contamination includes toxic volatile organic
carbons, then treatment of the vented gases may
be required. The level of treatment is based
upon local requirements.
Technology Performance
Analysis of the technology demonstration at Hill
Air Force Base (AFB) in Utah have shown the
following results:
• Soil gas venting may provide oxygen for
biodegradation;
• Based on data from extracted gases, 80
percent of a 100,000-liter fuel spill was
removed in 9 months of operation;
• Soil analysis following a full-scale in situ
field test indicated an average fuel
residual of less than 100 ppm in the soils;
• At initial air flow rates of 250 cubic feet
per minute, the full-scale system was
removing 50 gallons per day of JP-4 from
the soil. The venting rates were then
increased to over 1,000 cubic feet per
minute. After 10 months of venting, over
100,000 pounds of JP-4 had been
removed. Hill AFB continues to operate
the system at a reduced flow rate to
enhance the in situ biodegradation of
remaining hydrocarbons; and
• Approximately 20-25 percent of the
reduction in fuel hydrocarbons was
caused by biodegradation.
108
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Remediation Costs
The costs range from $15 per ton of
contaminated soil, excluding emission treatment,
up to approximately $85 per ton using activated
carbon emission treatment. Estimated costs of
this technology for sandy soils is $10 per cubic
yard. Catalytic incineration of VOCs can
double this cost. However, at Hill AFB,
catalytic incineration only cost $10 per cubic
yard.
General Site Information
Operation of a full-scale in situ soil-venting
system at a 27,000-gallon JP-4 spill at Hill
AFB, Utah, began in December 1988. A full-
scale in situ field test was completed in October
1989 at Hill AFB. ESL TR 90-21 Vol I,
Literature Review, Vol n, Soil Venting
Guidance Manual, and Vol ffl, Full Scale Test
Results, available from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), are a result of this
effort. A cost spreadsheet is part of the design
manual (Vol n) for soil venting systems and is
available on request from the contact below.
Contact
Hill Air Force Base Demonstration:
Capt. Edward G. Marchand
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403-5001
904/283-6023
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
109
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Soil Venting
Volatile Contaminants in Unsaturated Soil
Technology Description
This in situ soil venting process removes
volatile contaminants from unsaturated soils.
This technology can be applied to fire training
pits, spills, and the unsaturated zone beneath
leach pits. The method is most applicable for
contamination at depths greater than 40 feet in
fairly permeable soils.
Venting wells are placed in the unsaturated zone
and connected to a manifold and blower. A
vacuum is applied to the manifold, and gases
are extracted from the soil and fed to the
treatment system. Depending upon the
individual site and depth of the contaminated
zone, it might be necessary to seal the surface
to prevent channeling. Air injection wells can
be used to increase the throughput of air.
General Site Information
This method has been implemented by the
Army at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition
Plant (TCAAP) in Minnesota.
Contacts
Eric Hangeland
USATHAMA
CETHA-TS-O
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010
410/671-2054
Technology Performance
Pilot-scale testing at the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) has removed 70
tons of contaminants from the soil in one area,
but the absolute extent of cleanup has not yet
been determined. This method is considered
most applicable for contamination at depths
greater than 40 feet in fairly permeable soils.
Remediation Costs
The costs for in situ soil venting can be as low
as $15 per ton of contaminated soil, excluding
emission treatment. If carbon adsorption
treatment is used, the costs could be around $85
per ton. Based upon the pilot study at TCAAP,
the cost to treat a site contaminated to a depth
of 20 feet was between $15 and $20 per cubic
yard, including carbon adsorption treatment of
the contaminated air and soil sampling.
110
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Steam and Air Stripping
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics and Hydrocarbons in Soil
Technology Description
In this technology, a transportable treatment unit
Detoxifier" is used for in situ steam and air
stripping of volatile organics from contaminated
soil.
The two main components of the on-site
treatment equipment are the process tower and
process train. The process tower contains two
counter-rotating hollow-stem drills, each with a
modified cutting bit 5 feet in diameter, capable
of operating to a 27-foot depth. Each drill
contains two concentric pipes. The inner pipe
is used to convey steam to the rotating cutting
blades. The steam is supplied by an oil-fired
boiler at 450°F and 450 psig. The outer pipe
conveys air at approximately 300°F and 250
psig to the rotating blades. Steam is piped to
the top of the drills and injected through the
cutting blades. The steam heats the ground
being remediated, increasing the vapor pressure
of the volatile contaminants, and thereby
increasing the rate at which they can be
stripped. Both the air and steam serve as
carriers to convey these contaminants to the
surface. A metal box, called a shroud, seals the
process area above the rotating cutter blades
from the outside environment, collects the
volatile contaminants, and ducts them to the
process train.
In the process train, the volatile contaminants
and the water vapor are removed from the
off-gas stream by condensation. The condensed
water is separated from the contaminants by
distillation, then filtered through activated
carbon beds and subsequently used as make-up
water for a wet cooling tower. Steam is also
used (1) to regenerate the activated carbon beds
and (2) as the heat source for distilling the
volatile contaminants from the condensed liquid
stream. The recovered concentrated organic
liquid can be recycled or used as a fuel in an
incinerator.
This technology is applicable to volatile organic
compounds (VOC), such as hydrocarbons and
solvents, with sufficient vapor pressure in the
soil. The technology is not limited by soil
particle size, initial porosity, chemical
concentration, or viscosity. The process is also
capable of significantly reducing the
concentration of semivolatile organic
compounds in soil.
Technology Performance
A SITE demonstration was performed during
the week of September 18, 1989, at the Annex
Terminal, San Pedro, California. Twelve soil
blocks were treated for VOCs and semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOC). Various liquid
samples were collected from the process during
operation, and the process operating procedures
were closely monitored and recorded. Post-
treatment soil samples were collected and
analyzed by EPA methods 8240 and 8270. In
January 1990, six blocks that had been
previously treated in the saturated zone were
analyzed by EPA methods 8240 and 8270. The
Applications Analysis Report (EPA/540/A5-
90/008) was published in June 1991.
The following results were obtained during the
SITE demonstration of the technology:
• More than 85 percent of the VOCs in the
soil was removed.
• Up to 55 percent of SVOCs in the soil
was removed.
• Fugitive air emissions from the process
were very low.
• No downward migration of contaminants
resulted from the soil treatment.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
111
-------
The process was timely with a treatment
rate of 3 cubic yards per hour.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Phillip LaMori
NOVATERRA, Inc.
373 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 210
Torrance, CA 90501
310/328-9433
Kelly
Shnx
Blades
d-\
•'' 4
\ 1
c
^
i...-*""^^
I "\ =J!
tFFH-FF^ j£
|l
Steam
Generator
JJ
flelum
Water to Air
Cooling Tower
_L
A
? k
^
Prtx.
Tr
'
&SS
am
t
Condensed
Organics
Collection
Tank
B,ts
Augers
Process schematic
112
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
In Situ Steam-Enhanced Extraction (ISEE)
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics in Soil
Technology Description
The in situ steam-enhanced extraction (ISEE)
process, developed by Udell Technologies Inc.,
removes volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC) from
contaminated soils both above and below the
water table. Steam is forced through the soil by
injection wells to thermally enhance the vapor
and liquid extraction processes. The extraction
wells have two purposes: to pump and treat
ground water and to transport steam and
vaporized contaminants under vacuum to the
surface. Recovered contaminants are either
condensed and processed with the contaminated
ground water or trapped by gas-phase activated
carbon filters. The technology uses readily
available components, such as injection and
extraction and monitoring wells, manifold
piping, vapor and liquid separators, vacuum
pumps, and gas emission control equipment.
The process is used to extract VOCs and
SVOCs from contaminated soils and ground
water. The primary applicable compounds are
hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel, and jet
fuel, solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE),
trichloroethane (TCA), and dichlorobenzene
(DCB), or a mixture of these compounds. The
process may be applied to contaminants below
the water table. After application of this
process, the subsurface conditions are excellent
for biodegradation of residual contaminants, if
necessary. The process cannot be applied to
contaminated soil very near the surface unless a
cap exists.
Denser-than-water compounds may be treated
only in low concentrations unless a geologic
barrier exists to prevent downward percolation
of a separate phase.
Technology Performance
In August 1988, a successful pilot-scale
demonstration of the process was completed at
a site contaminated by a mixture of solvents;
764 pounds of contaminants were removed from
the 10-foot-diameter, 12-foot-deep test region.
The technology is scheduled to be demonstrated
under the SITE Demonstration Program at a
bum pit with soil contaminated by waste oil
mixed with VOCs, SVOCs, and metals at
McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento,
California. The treatability studies on the
McClellan contaminated wastes and soils were
performed in fall 1991.
Also, a case study will be performed to
remediate a gasoline spill both above and below
the water table to depths of 137 feet at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
Livermore, California.
An interagency agreement between the Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) in Port
Hueneme, California and the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL) in Cincinnati,
Ohio has been reached. NCEL and RREL are
considering a demonstration of this process at
the LeMoore Naval Air Station.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
113
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Lloyd Stewart
Udell Technologies, Inc.
4701 Doyle Street, Suite 5
Emeryville, CA 94608
510/653-9477
Water
Supply
Make-up Water
Contaminant
Water
In situ Steam Enhanced Extraction process schematic
114
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
Integrated Vapor Extraction and Steam Vacuum Stripping
VOCs in Soil and Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The integrated AquaDetox/SVE system
simultaneously treats ground water and soil
contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The integrated system consists of two
basic processes: an AquaDetox moderate
vacuum stripping tower that uses low-pressure
steam to treat contaminated ground water; and
a soil gas vapor extraction/reinjection (SVE)
process to treat contaminated soil. The two
processes form a closed-loop system that
provides simultaneous in situ remediation of
contaminated ground water and soil with no air
emissions.
AquaDetox is a high-efficiency, counter-current
stripping technology developed by Dow
Chemical Company. A single-stage unit will
typically reduce up to 99.99 percent of VOCs
from water. The SVE system uses a vacuum to
treat a VOC-contaminated soil mass, inducing a
flow of air through the soil and removing vapor
phase VOCs with the extracted soil gas. The
soil gas is then treated by carbon beds to
remove additional VOCs and reinjected into the
ground. The AquaDetox and SVE systems
share a granulated activated carbon (GAC) unit.
Noncondensable vapor from the AquaDetox
system is combined with the vapor from the
SVE compressor and is decontaminated by the
GAC unit. By-products of the system are a
free-phase recyclable product and treated water.
Mineral regenerable carbon will require disposal
after approximately three years.
A key component of the closed-loop system is
a vent header unit designed to collect the
noncondensable gases extracted from the ground
water or air that may leak into the portion of the
process operating below atmospheric pressure.
Further, the steam used to regenerate the carbon
beds is condensed and treated in the AquaDetox
system. This technology removes VOCs,
including chlorinated hydrocarbons, in ground
water and soil. Sites with contaminated ground
water and soils containing trichloroethylene
(TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), and other
VOCs are suitable for this on-site treatment
process. AquaDetox is capable of effectively
removing over 90 of the 110 volatile
compounds listed in 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix VIII.
Technology Performance
The AWD AquaDetox/SVE system is currently
being used at the Lockheed Aeronautical
Systems Company in Burbank, California. At
this site, the system is treating ground water
contaminated with as much as 2,200 ppb of
TCE and 11,000 ppb PCE; and soil gas with a
total VOC concentration of 6,000 ppm.
Contaminated ground water is being treated at
a rate of up to 1,200 gpm while soil gas is
removed and treated at a rate of 300 cubic feet
per minute (cfm). The system occupies
approximately 4,000 square feet. A SITE
demonstration project was evaluated as part of
the ongoing remediation effort at the San
Fernando Valley Ground water Basin Superfund
site in Burbank, California. Demonstration
testing was conducted in September 1990. The
Applications Analysis Report (EPA/540/A5-
91/002) was published in October 1991.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
115
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Managers:
Norma Lewis and Gordon Evans
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7665 and 513/569-7684
Technology Developer Contact:
David Bluestein
AWD Technologies, Inc.
49 Stevenson Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/227-0822
NONCONDESABLES
ORGANIC
PHASE
Zero air emissions integrated AquaDetox/SVE system
116
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
JP-4 Jet Fuel (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology consists of a system of air
extraction wells installed throughout the
contaminated soils. The wells are connected to
a blower system capable of extracting air
through the soil matrix. Volatile compounds
present in the soil gas and adsorbed on the soils
are volatilized and withdrawn from the soil.
Soil vapor extraction also can be used to
enhance biological processes in the soil to treat
semivolatiles or non-volatiles by increasing the
oxygen content of the soil gas.
The SVE system may consist of one or more 4-
inch PVC inlet and/or air extraction wells. The
anticipated depth of the wells will be about 60
feet. The system can be skid-mounted and
located away from the impacted area. It
includes a blower with muffler, air/water
separator, vacuum relief valve, and gauges.
Sample ports and direct reading instrumentation
also can be included. Air emissions can be
treated by a thermal treatment unit or granular
activated carbon (GAC). Volatile compounds in
the blower discharge will be treated before
discharging to the atmosphere. If GAC is
selected, the spent carbon and liquid wastes
resulting from condensation of soil moisture in
the SVE system are then disposed of at a
permitted treatment facility.
Technology Performance
Full-scale remediation of the North Fire
Training Area at Luke Air Force Base in
Glendale, Arizona, is scheduled to be completed
by the end of 1992. The SVE system to be
used consists of two 60-foot extraction wells
operating at 100 scfm. Target contaminants are
benzene at 16 ppm, ethylbenzene at 84 ppm,
toluene at 183 ppm, xylene at 336 ppm, and
TRPH at 1,380 ppm. Soil borings and soil gas
samples will be used to evaluate effectiveness
of the treatment. Residual condensate will be
collected from extraction well piping at a rate of
eight gallons per day and incinerated.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
General Site Information
The remediation involves 35,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil at the North Fire Training
Area at Luke Air Force Base in Glendale,
Arizona. Currently not in use, the area had
been the scene of fire training exercises using
JP-4 jet fuel since 1973.
Contacts
Jerome Stolinsky
CEMRO-ED-ED
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Brandeis Bldg., 6th Floor
210 S. 16 Street
Omaha, NE 68102
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
117
-------
Vapor Extraction
Steam Injection and Vacuum Extraction (SIYE)
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics in Soil and Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The steam injection and vacuum extraction
(SIVE) process, developed by Hughes
Environmental Systems, removes most volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOC) from contaminated
soils in situ, both above and below the water
table. The technology is applicable to in situ
remediation of contaminated soils well below
ground surface, and can be used to treat below
or around permanent structures, accelerates
contaminant removal rates, and can be effective
in all soil types. Steam is forced through the
soil by injection wells to thermally enhance the
vacuum process. The extraction wells have two
purposes: to pump and treat ground water, and
to transport steam and vaporized contaminants
under vacuum to the extraction well and then to
the surface. Recovered contaminants are either
condensed and processed with the contaminated
ground water or trapped by gas-phase activated
carbon filters. The technology uses readily
available components, such as extraction and
monitoring wells, manifold piping, vapor and
liquid separators, vacuum pumps, and gas
emission control equipment.
The process is used to extract volatile and
semivolatile organic compounds from
contaminated soils and perched ground water.
The primary applicable compounds are
hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel and jet
fuel; solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE),
trichloroethane (TCA), and dichlorobenzene
(DCB); or a mixture of these compounds. After
application of this process, the subsurface
conditions are excellent for biodegradation of
residual contaminants. The process cannot be
applied to contaminated soil very near the
surface unless a cap exists. Denser-than-water
compounds may be treated only in low
concentrations unless a geologic barrier exists to
prevent downward percolation of a separate
phase.
Technology Performance
The SITE demonstration for this technology has
been conducted at a site in Huntington Beach,
California. The soil at the site was
contaminated by a 135,000 gallon diesel fuel
spill.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7791
Technology Developer Contact:
John Dablow
Hughes Environmental Services, Inc.
Bldg. A20, MS 2N206
P.O. Box 10011
1240 Rosecrans Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
213/536-6548
118
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
HYDROCARBON
LIQUID
LIQUIDS
(HYDROCARBONS/
WATER)
HOLDING STORAGE TANK RECYCLE
CLEAN WATER
WATER TREATMENT
HYDROCARBON
VAPORS
VAPOR TREATMENT
WATER SUPPLY
NATURAL GAS
HYDROCARBON VAPOR
SOIL CONTAMIN
HYDROCARBONS
HYDROCARBON
LIQUID/VAPOR
RECOVERY
WELL
STEAM
INJECTION
WELL
IQUID §TEAM
AIR COMPRESSOR
AIR LIFT
PUMP
Steam Injection and Vapor Extraction process
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
119
-------
Vapor Extraction
Vacuum-Induced Soil Venting
Gasoline in Unsaturated Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The vacuum-induced venting process provides
in situ cleanup of gasoline contamination above
and below the water table. It reduces
contamination to levels low enough to eliminate
further leaching or desorption of gasoline into
the ground water. This technology can be
applied to hydrocarbon fuels in unsaturated soil.
A vapor/ground-water extraction well, and a
well for monitoring the vacuum induced venting
were installed in the gas spill area. The vapor
extraction/monitor wells each have five
individually screened intervals in the unsaturated
zone and two screened intervals below the water
table. A vacuum-extraction system with thermal
oxidizer is installed using one well to remediate
the spill area. The vacuum-extraction system
operates with a vacuum of between 20-25
inches of mercury and with a flow rate of
approximately 60 cfm. The present system uses
an open pipe at the top of an air-driven pump,
which is manually adjusted to follow the
gasoline water interface. Both wells are used
for skimming gasoline.
Over the 12-month period, total fuel
hydrocarbon concentrations (measured at
the inlet of the thermal oxidizer),
decreased from 16,000 ppm to about
3,000-4,000 ppm; and
The thermal oxidizer that destroys the
gaseous hydrocarbons as they are
removed operated with a 99.8 percent
destruction efficiency.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
General Site Information
Prior to 1979, approximately 17,000 gallons of
regular gasoline leaked into the soil and ground
water from an underground fuel storage tank at
the DOE's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. Vacuum-induced venting was
demonstrated at this site as a method to clean
the gasoline contamination in situ.
Technology Performance
Results from testing the vacuum-induced soil
venting technology at the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) were positive:
• Approximately 100 gallons of free
product were removed with this system;
• Approximately 5,000 gallons of gasoline
were removed via vacuum-induced
venting over a 12-month period;
Contacts
DOE, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
University of California
P.O. Box 808
Livermore, California 94550
120
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Vapor Extraction
Vapor Extraction and Bioventing Design
Gasoline in Soil and Ground Water (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
To date, the practice of vapor extraction has not
included the application of air flow and vapor
transport models to guide data collection
techniques for site characterization and to define
optimal extraction and injection well locations.
Quantification of the flow patterns associated
with a vapor extraction design will lead to
rational estimates of clean-up criteria and
system performance.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ground
water flow simulator MODFLOW has been
adapted to perform airflow simulations. This
airflow simulator, referred to as AIRFLOW, has
been couopled with an optimization algorithm to
formally predict the location and pumping rates
for wells for the best venting system design
given the site geology. A vapor transport code
is under development that will allow for the
calculation of enhanced microbial degradation
(bioventing) associated with the vapor extraction
system.
Technology Performance
The success of model application fundamentally
depends on the ability to characterize the air
permeability in the unsaturated zone.
Heterogeneity with respect to air permeability
due to stratification of sediments and variable
moisture content distribution must be considered
for site specific application of the models. At
the USGS gasoline spill research site at
Galloway Township, New Jersey, field methods
have been developed to determine the
distribution of air permeability in the
unsaturated zone. AIRFLOW has been
successfully applied to quantify the flow paths
for a benting design. A vapor concentration
data base is being constructed for future
application of the vapor transport code for
bioventing application.
General Site Information
Field research at the Galloway Township
gasoline site began in 1988. The site is one of
sandy sediments in the New Jersey Coastal
Plain. Gasoline leaked from a small
underground stroage tank and contaminated
shallow ground water. In addition to the
venting and bioventing remediation study, an
extensive investigation of natural attenuation
mechanisms, including vapor transport and the
natural rate of aerobic and anaerobic microbial
degradation of hydrocarbons, is being
conducted. The research team seeks to combine
laboratory, field, and modeling techniques to
develop practical methods for estimating the
rates of contaminant movement and attenuation.
Contact
Herbert T. Buxton
U.S. Geological Survey
810 Bear Tavern Road
W. Trenton, NJ 08628
609/771-3900
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
121
-------
Vapor Extraction
Vapor Extraction System
Solvents in Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
This technology uses a vacuum pump/blower to
treat vadose zone soils contaminated with
VOCs. The increased airflow in the vadose
zone resulting from use of the vapor extraction
system also assists in the biodegradation of
other organics.
Vapor extracted using the process is treated
using a thermal burner or catalytic oxidation
prior to being discharged to the atmosphere.
Entrained contaminated water, if any, is
transported off site to a permitted facility for
treatment.
Technology Performance
Full-scale remediation of a site at the
Sacramento Army Depot in California is
scheduled to begin late in 1992. The process is
expected to last six months. Target
contaminants are ethylbenzene, butanone, xylene
and PCE.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
General Site Information
The remediation involves about 200 cubic yards
of soil in the Tank 2 area of the Sacramento
Army Depot in California. The tank has been
removed. Contamination in the area was found
to a depth of 18 feet, with the majority between
9 and 18 feet. The contaminated area currently
is covered with a slab.
Contacts
Facility Contact:
Ron Oburn
Environmental Management Division
Sacramento Army Depot
8350 Fruitridge Road, M552
Sacramento, CA 95825
916/388-4344
Technology Developer Contact:
Bob Cox
Terra Vac
14204 Doolittle Drive
San Leandro, CA 945777
122
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
-------
Soil Washing
BioGenesis" Soil Cleaning Process
Volatile and Non-Volatile Hydrocarbons and PCBs in Soil
Technology Description
The BioGenesis0 process uses a specialized
truck, water, and a complex surfactant to clean
contaminated soil. Ancillary equipment
includes gravity oil and water separators,
coalescing filters, and a bioreactor. The
cleaning rate for oil contamination of 5,000 ppm
is about 25 tons/hour; lesser rates apply for
more contaminated soil. One single wash
removes 95 to 99 percent of hydrocarbon
contamination of up to 15,000 ppm. One or
two additional washes are used for
concentrations of up to 50,000 ppm.
BioGenesis0 washing uses a complex surfactant
and water. The BioVersaf cleaner is a light
alkaline mixture of natural and organic materials
containing no hazardous or petrochemical
ingredients. Twenty-five tons of contaminated
earth are loaded into a washer unit containing
water and BioVersaf cleaner.
For 15 to 30 minutes, aeration equipment
agitates the mixture, thus washing the soil, and
encapsulating oil molecules with BioVersal0
cleaner. After washing, the extracted oil is
reclaimed, wash water is recycled or treated,
and the soil is dumped from the soil washer.
Hazardous organics, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), are extracted in the same
manner and then processed by using treatment
methods specific to that hazard. All equipment
is mobile, and treatment is normally on site.
The advantages of BioGenesis13 include (1)
treatment of soils containing both volatile and
non-volatile oils, (2) treatment of soil containing
clay, (3) high processing rates, (4) on-site
treatment, (5) transformation of contamination
to reusable oil, treatable water, and active soil
suitable for on-site treatment, (6) backfill, (7)
the absence of air pollution, except during
excavation, (8) and accelerated biodegradation
of oil residuals in the soil.
This technology is capable of extracting volatile
and nonvolatile oils, chlorinated hydrocarbons,
pesticides, and other organics from most types
of soils, including clays. These contaminants
include asphalteens, heating oils, diesel fuel,
gasoline, PCBs, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons.
Technology Performance
BioGenesis0 technology was commercialized in
Germany during 1990. It was accepted into the
SITE Demonstration Program in June 1990.
Beale Air Force Base in California was the
location for the SITE demonstration. Full
commercial operations are scheduled for
Wisconsin and California in 1992, with
subsequent expansion to other regions.
Applied research continues to extend application
of the technology to acid extractables, base and
neutral extractables, pesticides, and acutely
hazardous materials.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
125
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Annette Gatchett
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7697
Technology Developer Contacts:
Charles Wilde
BioVersal USA, Inc.
10626 Beechnut Court
Fairfax Station, VA 22039-1296
703/250-3442
FAX: 703/250-3559
Mohsen Amiran
BioVersal USA, Inc.
330 South Mt. Prospect Rd.
Des Plaines, IL 60016
708/827-0024
FAX: 708/827-0025
Contaminated
Soil
1
Clean
Soil
~* tAf__U__
•* - washer
25 tons/hour
A
Air
Oil for Oil for
Reclamation Redamatio
A A
—1 Oily -" Oil)
, , .A water ^ Oil/Water w«
Unit Separator
A
~ i Recycle to Next Load >
t t
BioVersal Water
Cleaner
i
er Coalescing Filte
K ..-.jl
w and
Bioreactor
t. 1 1
BioVersal Air
Degrader
Clean
rs Water
>-
Soil washing procedure
126
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Contained Recovery of Oily Wastes (CROW) Process
Coal Tar Derivatives and Petroleum Byproducts in Soil (In Situ Treatment)
Technology Description
The contained recovery of oily wastes (CROW)
process recovers oily wastes from the ground by
adapting a technology presently used for
secondary petroleum recovery and for primary
production of heavy oil and tar sand bitumen.
Steam and hot-water displacement are used to
move accumulated oily wastes and water to
production wells for above ground treatment.
Injection and production wells are first installed
in soil contaminated with oily wastes. Low-
quality steam is then injected below the deepest
penetration of organic liquids. The steam
condenses, causing rising hot water to dislodge
and sweep buoyant organic liquids upward into
the more permeable soil regions. Hot water is
injected above the impermeable soil egions to
heat and mobilize the oil waste accumulations,
which are recovered by hot-water displacement
When the oily wastes are displaced, the organic
liquid saturations in the subsurface pore space
increase, forming an oil bank. The hot water
injection displaces the oil bank to the production
well. Behind the oil bank, the oil saturation is
reduced to an immobile residual saturation in
the subsurface pore space. The oil and water
produced are treated for reuse or discharge.
In situ biological treatment may follow the
displacement and is continued until ground-
water contaminants are no longer detected in
any water samples from the site. During
treatment, all mobilized organic liquids and
water-soluble contaminants are contained within
the original boundaries of oily waste
accumulations. Hazardous materials are
contained laterally by ground-water isolation,
and vertically by organic liquid flotation.
Excess water is treated in compliance with
discharge regulations.
The process (1) removes large portions of oily
waste accumulations, (2) stops the downward
migration of organic contaminants, (3)
immobilizes any residual saturation of oily
wastes, and (4) reduces the volume, mobility,
and toxicity of oily wastes. It can be used for
shallow and deep contaminated areas, and uses
the same mobile equipment required by
conventional petroleum production technology.
This technology can be applied to manufactured
gas plant sites, wood-treating sites, and other
sites with soils containing organic liquids, such
as coal tars, pentachlorophenol solutions,
creosote, and petroleum by-products.
Technology Performance
Based on results of this project in the Emerging
Technology Program, this technology was
invited to participate in the SITE Demonstration
Program.
This technology was tested both at the
laboratory and pilot-scale under the SITE
Emerging Technology Program. The program
showed the effectiveness of the hot-water
displacement and displayed the benefits from
the inclusion of chemicals with the hot water.
The technology will be demonstrated at the
Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L)
Brodhead Creek site at Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania. The site contains an area of high
concentrations of by-products from a former
operation. The project is now in the planning
and negotiation stage. Remediation
Technologies, Inc., is participating in the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
127
-------
project. Other sponsors , in addition to EPA
and PP&L, are the Gas Research Institute, the
Electric Power Research Institute, and the U.S.
Department of Energy.
In addition to the SITE Program, this
technology is now being demonstrated at a
wood-treatment site in Minnesota. Other areas
of activity include screening studies for other
potential sites and an in-house project to
advance the use of chemicals with the hot-water
displacement.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Eugene Harris
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7862
Technology Developer Contact:
James Speight
Western Research Institute
P.O. Box 3395
University Station
Laramie, WY 82071
307/721-2011
Injection Well
Steam-Stripped
Water •
Low-Quality
Steam'
n
Residual Oil ' • I
' Saturation .''..'•
Production Well
Hot-Water
Reinjection
Absorption Layer
Oil and Water
Production
*iPOil^4A«un,ul =
Hot-Water
Flotation •
Steam
injection
CROW™ subsurface development
128
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
.flfcO ST^x,..
jp "\
Soil Washing
Debris Washing System
Organics, PCBs, Pesticides, and Inorganics in Debris
Technology Description
This technology was developed by EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) staff
and IT Corporation to decontaminate debris
currently found at Superfund sites throughout
the country. The pilot-scale debris washing
system (DWS) was demonstrated under the
SITE Program.
The DWS consists of 300-gallon spray and
wash tanks, surfactant and rinse water holding
tanks, and an oil-water separator. The
decontamination solution treatment system
includes a diatomaceous earth filter, an activated
carbon column, and an ion exchange column.
Other required equipment includes pumps, a
stirrer motor, a tank heater, a metal debris
basket, and paniculate filters. The DWS unit is
transported on a 48-foot semitrailer. At the
treatment site, the DWS unit is assembled on a
25-by-24-foot concrete pad and enclosed in a
temporary shelter.
A basket of debris is placed in the spray tank
with a forklift, where it is sprayed with an
aqueous detergent solution. High-pressure water
jets blast contaminants and dirt from the debris.
Detergent solution is continually recycled
through a filter system that cleans the liquid.
The wash and rinse tanks are supplied with
water at 140°F, at a pressure of 60 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig). The contaminated
wash solution is collected and treated prior to
discharge. An integral part of the technology
involves treating the detergent solution and rinse
water to reduce the contaminant concentration to
allowable discharge levels. Process water
treatment consists of paniculate filtration,
activated carbon adsorption, and ion exchange.
Approximately 1,000 gallons of liquid are used
during the decontamination process.
The DWS can be applied on site to various
types of debris (metallic, masonry, or other solid
debris) contaminated with hazardous chemicals,
such as pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), lead, and other metals.
Technology Performance
The first pilot-scale test was performed at
EPA's Region 5 Carter Industrial Superfund site
in Detroit, Michigan. PCB reductions averaged
58 percent in batch 1 and 81 percent in batch 2.
Design changes were made and tested on the
unit before additional field testing.
Field testing was conducted using an upgraded
pilot-scale DWS at a PCB-contaminated
Superfund site in Hopkinsville, Kentucky (EPA
Region 4), during December 1989. PCB levels
on the surfaces of metallic transformer casings
were reduced to less than or equal to 10
micrograms PCB per 100 square centimeters.
All 75 contaminated transformer casings on site
were decontaminated to EPA cleanup criteria
and sold to a scrap metal dealer.
The DWS was also field tested at another
Superfund site in Region 4, the Shaver's Farm
site in Walker County, Georgia. The
contaminants of concern were benzonitrile and
dicamba. After being cut into sections, 55-
gallon drums were placed in the DWS and
carried through the decontamination process.
Benzonitrile and dicamba levels on the surfaces
of drums were reduced from the average
pretreatment concentrations of 4,556 and 23
micrograms (ug) per 100 square centimeters to
average concentrations of 10 and 1 ug/100
square centimeters, respectively.
Results have been published in a Technology
Evaluation Report (EPA/540/5-9 l/006a) entitled
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
129
-------
"Design and Development of a Pilot-Scale
Debris Decontamination System."
Further development of this technology by
RREL and IT Corporation includes design,
development, and demonstration of a full-scale
mobile version of the DWS.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Naomi Barkley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7854
Technology Developer Contact:
Michael L. Taylor and Majid Dosani
IT Corporation
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246
513/782-4700
9upl.Spr.yCyd!
SMp 1 • Rim. CycM
DEFtlur
— Wane Tramwnl Sop
AdMMCVMI
Schematic of the pilot-scale debris washing system.
130
Federal Remediation Technologies Rouhdtable
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Restoration Unit
PCBs, PCPs, Creosote, Chlorinated Solvents, Naphthaline,
Diesel Oil, Used Motor Oil, Jet Fuel, Grease, and Organic Pesticides in Soil
Technology Description
The soil restoration unit is a mobile solvent
extraction remediation device for the on-site
removal of organic contaminants from soil.
Extraction of soil contaminants is performed
with a mixture of organic solvents in a closed
loop, counter-current process that recycles all
solvents. Terra-Kleen Corporation uses a
combination of up to 14 solvents, each of which
can dissolve specific contaminants in the soil
and can mix freely with water. None of the
solvents is a listed hazardous waste, and the
most commonly used solvents are approved by
the Food and Drug Administration as food
additives for human consumption. The solvents
are typically heated to efficiently strip the
contaminants from the soil. Contaminated soil
is fed into a hopper, and then transported into
the soil and solvent slurry modules. In the
modules, the soil is continually leached by clean
solvent. The return leachate from the modules
is monitored for contaminants so that the soil
may be retained within the system until any
residual contaminants within the soil are
reduced to targeted levels. Terra-Kleen
Corporation offers "hotspot protection" in which
real-time monitoring of the contaminant levels
alleviates the problems of treating localized
higher contaminant areas of soil.
solvent. The clean solvent is then reused in the
system, completing the closed solvent loop.
The soil and solvent slurry, which has had the
contamination reduced to its desired levels, is
then sent to a closed loop dryer system that
removes the solvent from the soil. The solvent
vapors in the dryer are monitored with an
organic vapor monitor that indicates when the
solvent has been removed so the soil can leave
the system.
Terra-Kleen Corporation's technology is
particularly effective in removing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCS),
pentachlorophenol (PCP), creosote, chlorinated
solvents, naphthalene, diesel oil, used motor oil,
jet fuel, grease, organic pesticides, and other
organic contaminants in soil. It has not been
tested using contaminated sediments and sludges
as feed stock.
Technology Performance
The soil restoration unit has been used for
remediation of the Treban Superfund site.
Results from that site are shown below:
The leachate from the soil and solvent modules
is stripped of contaminants by distillation in
combination with activated charcoal filtering.
High boiling point materials extracted from the
soil stay in the bottoms of the distillation
columns, and are periodically flushed from the
system into labeled 55-gallon drums for off-site
disposal. The distillate from the columns is sent
through an activated charcoal filter to remove
the lower boiling point contaminants from the
Initial PCB
Concentration
Test (ppm)
A
B
C
Final PCB
Concentration
(ppm)
740
810
2,500
77
3
93
Required
Number of Percent
Passes Reduction
90
99 +
96
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
131
-------
The unit has also been used under an EPA
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Research
& Development (R&D) permit as part of the
approval process for a nationwide transportable
treatment permit for PCB destruction. In the
test, PCB in soil was reduced from a maximum
of 200 ppm to a final composite of 2.8 ppm.
Spiked soil, with contamination levels of up to
2,200 ppm PCB, was remediated to PCB levels
of 12 ppm. Since this test, system
modifications have been added to improve
removal efficiencies.
Demonstration of the full-scale unit under the
SITE Demonstration Program is pending the
selection of a site.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Mark Meckes
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7348
Technology Developer Contact:
Alan Cash
Terra-Kleen Corporation
7321 North Hammond Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73132
405/728-0001
FAX: 405/728-0016
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
HOTSPOT PROTECTION •
REAL TIME CONTAMINANT MONTTOUNC
Soil restoration unit
132
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Treatment with Extraksol™
Semi-VOCs, PCBs, PCPs, and PAHs in Soil
Technology Description
Extraksol™ is a solvent extraction technology on
a modular transportable system. This batch
process extracts organic contaminants from the
soil using proprietary nonchlorinated, organic
solvents. The solvents are regenerated by
distillation, and the contaminants are
concentrated in the distillation residues.
The three treatment steps — soil washing, soil
drying, and solvent regeneration — occur on a
flatbed trailer for the smaller unit (1 ton/hour)
and on a skid-mounted rig for the larger unit (3
to 6 tons/hour). The extraction fluid (solvent) is
circulated through the contaminated matrix
within an extraction chamber to wash the soil.
Controlled temperature and pressure optimize
the washing procedure. Hot inert gas dries the
soil. The gas vaporizes the residual extract
fluid and carries it from the extraction chamber
to a condenser, where the solvent is separated
from the gas. The solvent-free gas is reheated
and reinjected into the soil, as required, for
complete drying. After the drying cycle, the
decontaminated soil may be returned to its
original location.
Distillation of the contaminated solvent achieves
two major objectives: (1) it minimizes the
amount of solvent required to perform the
extraction, by regenerating it in a closed loop,
and (2) it significantly reduces the volume of
contaminants requiring further treatment or off-
site disposal by concentrating them in the still
bottoms.
The process extracts organic contaminants from
solids. It is capable of extracting a range of
contaminants, including polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), pentachlorophenol (PCP),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (MAH),
pesticides, oils, and hydrocarbons. The process
has the following soil restrictions:
• A maximum clay fraction of 40 percent
• A maximum water content of 30 percent
• A maximum size, if porous material, of
approximately 2 inches (preferably 1/4 inch
or smaller)
• A maximum size, if nonporous material, of
1 to 2 feet, but the maximum size is not
recommended. Rather, particles with a
diameter of 4 inches or less are preferred.
The process can also extract volatile
contaminants, such as gasoline and solvents,
through stripping and condensation.
Technology Performance
The process has been tested in several pilot
projects on a range of contaminants. This
technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in June 1990. The unit
will be used to decontaminate 3,500 tons of
PCB-contaminated soil in Washburn, Maine, in
1992.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
133
-------
Contacts Technology Developer Contact:
Jean Paquin
EPA Project Manager: CET Environmental Services /
Mark Meckes Sanivan Group
U.S. EPA 1705, 3rd Avenue
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory P.A.T. Montreal, Quebec
26 West Martin Luther King Drive fflB 5M9
Cincinnati, OH 45268 Canada
513/569-7348 514/353-9170
134 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Washer for Radioactive Soil
Radionuclides in Soils
Technology Description
This technology is designed to reduce the
volume of soils contaminated with low
concentrations of radionuclides. The process is
used with soils in which radioactivity is
concentrated in the fine soil particles and in
friable coatings around the larger particles.
The soil washer uses attrition mills to liberate
the contaminated coatings and then uses
hydroclassifiers to separate the contaminated
fines and coatings. Next, a filter press dewaters
the contaminated portion in preparation for
offsite disposal. The clean portion remains on
site, reducing the high costs of transporting and
burying large volumes of low-level radioactive
soil.
Technology Performance
This technology completed the first round of
testing with soil from the Montclair Superfund
site in New Jersey. The result was a 30 percent
volume reduction of nine picoCuries per gram
soil, with the clean portion at six picoCuries per
gram soil. The pilot soil washing plant also
achieved a steady-state operation for three hours
at the rate of approximately 1.5 tons per hour.
The plant is now being optimized in preparation
for the second round of testing.
This process was developed as part of EPA's
Volume Reduction/Chemical Extraction
(VORCE) Program which also involves
laboratory screening and bench-scale testing of
soils for active Department of Energy sites.
These include the Nevada Test Site, Hanford
Reservation, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Rocky Flats, the Femald Plant, and
two other New Jersey sites that are part of
DOE's Formerly Utilized Site Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP).
Remediation Costs
Disposal and transportation cost for radioactive
soils is about $900 per cubic yard. Based on
the first round of testing of the pilot soil
washing plant, volume reduction at a rate of
about 1.5 cubic yards per hour has an
operational cost of about $300 per hour.
General Site Information
This technology is being tested for the
Montclair and the West Orange and Glen Ridge
Superfund sites, both in New Jersey.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Mike Eagle (ANR-461)
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/260-9630
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
135
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Washing
Metals in Oxidation Lagoons
Technology Description
In this process, soil is treated with a wash
reagent that facilitates the transfer of
contaminants, primarily heavy metals and
arsenic, from the soil to the wash liquid. The
wash liquid then will be neutralized with a
caustic to precipitate the metals from the
solution. The precipitated metals will be
disposed of in a landfill.
General Site Information
This remediation project involves a group of
four contaminated oxidation lagoons at the
Sacramento Army Depot in California. The
lagoons currently are not in use and are covered
partially with vegetation. Three drainage
ditches and a dry section of a nearby creek also
have been contaminated from spillover from the
lagoons following rainstorms.
Technology Performance
Full-scale remediation of 12,000 cubic yards of
soil at the Sacramento (California) Army Depot
are scheduled to begin in mid-1992 and last
approximately three months. The soil has been
found to be contaminated to a depth of 18
inches. Primary contaminants are cadmium,
nickel, lead, and copper.
Contact
Dan Obum
Environmental Management Division
Sacramento Army Depot
8350 Fruitridge Road, M552
Sacramento, CA 95325
916/388-4344
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
136
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Washing/Catalytic Ozone Oxidation
SVOCs, PCBs, PCP, Pesticides, Dioxin, and Cyanide
in Soil, Sludge, and Ground Water
Technology Description
The Excalibur technology is designed to treat
soils with organic and inorganic contaminants.
The technology is a two-stage process: the first
stage extracts the contaminants from the soil,
and the second stage oxidizes contaminants
present in the extract. The extraction is carried
out using ultrapure water and ultrasound.
Oxidation involves the use of ozone, and
ultraviolet light. The treatment products of this
technology are decontaminated soil and inert
salts.
After excavation, contaminated soil is passed
through a 1-inch screen. Soil particles retained
on the screen are crushed using a hammermill
and sent back to the screen. Soil particles
passing through the screen are sent to a soil
washer, where ultrapure water extracts the
contaminants from the screened soil.
Ultrasound acts as a catalyst to enhance soil
washing. Typically, 10 volumes of water are
added per volume of soil, generating a slurry of
about 10 to 20 percent solids by weight. This
slurry is conveyed to a solid/liquid separator,
such as a centrifuge or cyclone, to separate the
decontaminated soil from the contaminated
water. The decontaminated soil can be returned
to its original location or disposed of
appropriately.
After the solid/liquid separation, any oil present
in the contaminated water is recovered using an
oil/water separator. The contaminated water is
ozonated prior to oil/water separation to aid in
oil recovery. The water then flows through a
filter to remove any fine particles. After the
particles are filtered, the water flows through a
carbon filter and a deionizer to reduce the
contaminant load on the multichamber reactor.
In the multichamber reactor, ozone gas,
ultraviolet light, and ultrasound are applied to
the contaminated water. Ultraviolet light and
ultrasound catalyze the oxidation of
contaminants by ozone. The treated water
(ultrapure water) flows out of the reactor to a
storage tank and is reused to wash another batch
of soil. If makeup water is required, additional
ultrapure water is generated on site by treating
tap water with ozone and ultrasound.
The treatment system is also equipped with a
carbon filter to treat the off-gas from the
reactor. The carbon filters are biologically
activated to regenerate the spent carbon in situ.
System capacities range from one cubic foot of
solids per hour, (water flow rate of one gallon
per minute), to 27 cubic yards of solids per
hour, (with a water flow rate of 50 gallons per
minute). The treatment units available for the
SITE demonstration can treat 1 to 5 cubic yards
of solids per hour.
This technology can be applied to soils, solids,
sludges, leachates, and ground water containing
organics such as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), pentachlorophenol (PCP), pesticides
and herbicides, dioxins, and inorganics,
including cyanides. The technology could
effectively treat total contaminant concentrations
ranging from 1 part per million (ppm) to 20,000
ppm. Soils and solids greater than 1 inch in
diameter need to be crushed prior to treatment.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
137
-------
Technology Performance
The Excalibur technology was accepted into the
SITE Demonstration Program in July 1989.
The Coleman-Evans site in Jacksonville,
Florida, has been tentatively scheduled for a
SITE demonstration. This project is currently
on hold.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7665
Technology Developer Contacts:
Lucas Boeve
Excalibur Enterprises, Inc.
Calle Pedro Clisante, #12
Sosua, Dominican Republic
809/571-3451
FAX: 809/571-3453
Gordon Downey
Excalibur Enterprises, Inc.
13661 E. Marina Drive, #112
Aurora, CO 80014
303/752-4363
FAX: 303/745-7962
Contaminated
Sol
Ultrasound
Decant a
S
M
Contomlnc
Water-
Ozone
minuted
Oil
&k
Solid-Liquid
Separator
ited
~.
i
Prt-
Trtolmml
So*
Nturier
UV Light
Ultrasound ••
Ozone "«-
^ Ultrapure
Water
iExhaust
Carbon
m«r
t Off-Gas
^ Uulti-
^V Chamber
\ fteoctar
/
Treated Water
(Recycled)
Excalibur treatment system flow diagram
138
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Soil Washing System
PAHs, PCBs, PCP, Pesticides, and Metals in Soil
Technology Description
The BioTrol Soil Washing System is a patented,
water-based, volume reduction process for
treating excavated soil. Soil washing may be
applied to contaminants concentrated in the fine-
size fraction of soil (silt, clay, and soil organic
matter) and the mainly surficial contamination
associated with the coarse (sand and gravel) soil
fraction. The goal is for the soil product to
meet appropriate cleanup standards.
After debris is removed, soil is mixed with
water and subjected to various unit operations
common to the mineral processing industry.
Process steps can include mixing trommels, pug
mills, vibrating screens, froth flotation cells,
attrition scrubbing machines, hydrocyclones,
screw classifiers, and various dewatering
operations.
The core of the process is a multi-stage,
counter-current, intensive scrubbing circuit with
interstage classification. The scrubbing action
disintegrates soil aggregates, freeing
contaminated fine particles from the coarser
sand and gravel. In addition, surficial
contamination is removed from the coarse
fraction by the abrasive scouring action of the
particles themselves. Contaminants may also be
solubilized, as dictated by solubility
characteristics or partition coefficients.
The contaminated residual products can be
treated by other methods. Process water is
normally recycled after biological or physical
treatment. Options for the contaminated fines
include off-site disposal, incineration,
stabilization, and biological treatment.
This technology was initially developed to clean
soils contaminated with wood preserving wastes
such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) and pentachlorophenol (PCP). The
technology may also be applied to soils
contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons,
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB),
various industrial chemicals, and metals.
Technology Performance
The SITE demonstration of the soil washing
technology took place from September 25 to
October 30, 1989, at the MacGillis and Gibbs
Superfund site in New Brighton, Minnesota. A
pilot-scale unit with a treatment capacity of 500
pounds per hour was operated 24 hours per day
during the demonstration. Feed for the first
phase of the demonstration (2 days) consisted of
soil contaminated with 130 parts per million
(ppm) PCP and 247 ppm total PAHs. During
the second phase (7 days), soil containing 680
ppm PCP and 404 ppm total PAHs was fed to
the system.
Contaminated process water from soil washing
was treated biologically in a fixed-film reactor
and was recycled. A portion of the
contaminated fines generated during soil
washing was treated biologically in a
three-stage, pilot-scale EIMCO Biolift® reactor
system supplied by the EIMCO Process
Equipment Company.
The Technology Evaluation Report (TER) and
the Applications Analysis Report (AAR) are
expected to be available in 1992.
Following is a summary of the results of the
demonstration of this technology:
• Feed soil (dry weight basis) was
successfully separated into 83 percent
washed soil, 10 percent woody residues, and
7 percent fines. The washed soil retained
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
139
-------
about 10 percent of the feed soil
contamination; while 90 percent of the feed
soil contamination was contained within the
woody residues, fines and process wastes.
The soil washer achieved up to 89 percent
removal of PCPs and 88 percent of total
PAHs, based on the difference between
parts per million (ppm) levels in the
contaminated (wet) feed soil and the washed
soil.
The system degraded up to 94 percent of
PCP in the process water from soil washing.
PAH removal could not be determined due
to low influent concentrations.
Remediation Costs
Cost of a commercial-scale soil washing system,
assuming use of all three technologies, was
estimated to be $168 per ton. Incineration of
woody material accounts for 76 percent of the
cost.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Mary Stinson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908/321-6683
Technology Developer Contacts:
Dennis Chilcote
BioTrol, Inc.
11 Peavey Road
Chaska, MN 55318
612/448-2515
FAX: 612/448-6050
Pamela Sheehan
BioTrol, Inc.
210 Carnegie Center, Suite 101
Princeton, NJ 08540
609/951-0314
FAX: 609/951-0316
Recyde I—
BioTrol Soil washing System process diagram
140
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Soil Washing
Solvent Extraction
PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, and Petroleum Wastes
in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
CF Systems Corporation technology uses
liquified gases as solvent to extract organics
from sludges, contaminated soils, and
wastewater. Propane is the solvent typically
used for sludges and contaminated soils, while
carbon dioxide is used for wastewater streams.
The system is available as either a continuous
flow unit for pumpable wastes or a batch system
for dry soils.
Contaminated solids, slurries, or wastewaters are
fed into the extractor along with solvent.
Typically, more than 99 percent of the organics
are extracted from the feed. Following phase
separation of the solvent and organics, treated
water is removed from the extractor while the
mixture of solvent and organics passes to the
solvent recovery system. In the solvent
recovery system, the solvent is vaporized and
recycled as fresh solvent. The organics are
drawn off and either reused or disposed of.
The extractor design is different for
contaminated wastewaters and semisolids. For
wastewaters, a tray tower contactor is used and
for solids and semisolids, a series of
extractor/decanters are used.
This technology can be applied to soils and
sludges containing volatile and semivolatile
organic compounds and other higher boiling
complex organics, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), dioxins, and
pentachlorophenols (PCP). Also, this process
can treat refinery wastes and organically
contaminated wastewater.
Technology Performance
The pilot-scale system was tested on PCB-laden
sediments from the New Bedford
(Massachusetts) Harbor Superfund site during
September 1988. PCB concentrations in the
harbor ranged from 300 parts per million (ppm)
to 2,500 ppm. The Technology Evaluation
Report (EPA/540/5-90/002) and the Applications
Analysis Report (EPA/540/A5-90/002) were
published in August 1990.
Following is a summary of the applications
analysis:
• Extraction efficiencies of 90 to 98 percent
were achieved on sediments containing
between 360 and 2,575 ppm PCBs. PCB
concentrations were as low as 8 ppm in the
treated sediment.
• In the laboratory, extraction efficiencies of
99.9 percent have been obtained for volatile
and semivolatile organics in aqueous and
semi-solid wastes.
• Operating problems included solids being
retained in the system hardware and
foaming in receiving tanks. The vendor
identified corrective measures to be
implemented in the full-scale commercial
unit.
• Projected costs for PCB cleanups are
estimated at approximately $150 to $450 per
ton, including material handling and pre-
and post-treatment costs. These costs are
highly sensitive to the utilization factor and
job size, which may result in lower costs for
large cleanups.
This technology was demonstrated concurrently
with dredging studies managed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Contaminated
sediments were treated by the CF Systems Pit
Clean-up Unit, using a liquified propane and
butane mixture as the extraction solvent.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
141
-------
Extraction efficiencies were high, despite some
operating difficulties during the tests.
Development of full-scale commercial systems
has eliminated problems associated with cross-
contamination in the pilot plant design.
A full-scale commercial system is currently
operating under contract at a major Gulf Coast
refinery treating refinery K-wastes to meet best
demonstrated available technology (BDAT)
standards for solids disposal. The unit has
operated at better than 85 percent since
acceptance in early March 1991. Treatment
costs are competitive with all other on-site
treatment processes.
Commercial systems have been sold to Clean
Harbors, Braintree, Massachusetts, for
wastewater cleanup; and ENSCO of Little Rock,
Arkansas, for incinerator pretreatment. The
startup of the Clean Harbors wastewater unit
began late in 1991. The technology has been
selected by EPA and Texas Water Commission
on a "sole source" basis for clean up of the
80,000 cubic yard United Creosoting site at
Conroe, Texas.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contact:
Chris Shallice and William McGovern
CF Systems Corporation
3D Gill Street
Woburn, MA 01801
617/937-0800
Recovered
Organics
Treated Cake
To Disposal
CF systems solvent extraction remediation process
142
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Advanced Oxidation Process
VOCs in Ground Water
Technology Description
This technology uses the oxidative power of the
advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) to destroy
ordnance contaminants in ground water. The
AOPs involve using ultraviolet (UV) radiation,
hydrogen peroxide, and ozone in various combi-
nations to produce hydroxyl radicals to destroy
the target organics. Although UV, hydrogen
peroxide, and ozone have oxidative power indi-
vidually, the primary oxidative power in the
AOP reactions are from the hydroxyl radicals.
Laboratory studies both in formal laboratory
setting and in commercial vendor shops were
conducted to determine the capabilities of the
AOP reactions available currently to destroy
low-level ordnance contaminants in ground
water. The treatment goals were to reach
treatment criteria for ordnance compounds
specified in Washington State regulations.
Laboratory findings indicated that the best AOP
option is UV/ozone which can treat the ground
water to meet specified treatment criteria: 2.9
ug/L for TNT and 0.8 ug/L for RDX. Because
the oxidation of ordnance compounds can result
in production of more toxic by-products, studies
are being conducted to avoid undesirable results.
The organics targeted in this effort are TNT and
RDX, the most frequently found and persistent
components of ordnance contamination. Con-
tamination is the result of past ordnance-related
disposal practices. As these organics are not
readily soluble, their concentrations in contami-
nated ground water are typically low. However,
their presence in the drinking water supply aqui-
fer presents a health threat and is closely regu-
lated.
Technology Performance
A field technology demonstration is scheduled
for the Fall of 1992 at Bangor SUBASE in
Washington. At the conclusion of the field
tests, a full-scale system will be designed for
treating the ground water as part of the effort to
contain the migrating plume. The pump and
treat effort is a part of the Interim Remedial
Action for the Bangor site.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available at this time.
Contact
Carmen LeBron
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
560 Laboratory Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
805/982-1616
Andy Law (IPA)
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
560 Laboratory Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
805/982-1650
805/982-1409 (FAX)
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
145
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Advanced Oxidation Process
VOCs in Ground Water
Technology Description
This technology employs the oxidative power of
the different advanced oxidation processes
(AOPs) to destroy organic contaminants in
ground water. The AOPs involve using ultravi-
olet (UV) radiation, hydrogen peroxide, and
ozone in various combinations to generate
hydroxyl radicals to destroy the target organics.
Although UV, hydrogen peroxide, and ozone
have oxidative power individually, the hydroxyl
radical reactions are the most important.
Based on laboratory study findings, a two-
staged approach was developed for an on-site
demonstration of the AOP technology. This
approach exploited the varied reaction condi-
tions of different AOPs to optimize the organics
destruction efficiency. The two stages involved
first applying ozone/peroxide at high pH and
secondly ozone/UV at low pH. A third stage
using peroxide/UV was also tested as a polish-
ing stage and to provide added assurance for a
clean discharge.
This technology demonstration was targeted at
treating ground water contaminated with organic
pollutants from past fire fighting exercises. The
pollutants came from aqueous film form foam
(AFFF, a fire fighting agent), various fuels, and
other combustible materials used in the exercis-
es. The pollutants detected included chlorinated
hydrocarbons and fuel components. The con-
taminant concentrations in the ground water
ranged from 50 to 100 ppm measured as Total
Organic Carbon (TOC).
contaminants as well as TOC, and that a one-
stage AOP system may be adequate for trace
contaminant removal.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available at this time.
Contact
Andy Law (IPA)
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
560 Laboratory Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
805/982-1650
Technology Developer Contact:
Gary Peyton
Illinois State Water Survey
2204 Griffith Drive
Champaign, IL 61820-7495
217/333-5905
Technology Performance
The on-site technology demonstration was
completed in 1991 at a U.S. Navy site in Lake-
hurst, NJ. It was demonstrated that the AOP
was effective in the destruction of individual
146
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Carver-Greenfield* Process
PCBs, Dioxin, and Oily Wastes in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
The Carver-Greenfield Process* is designed to
separate materials into their constituent solid, oil
(including oil-soluble substances), and water
phases. It is intended mainly for soils and
sludges contaminated with oil-soluble hazardous
compounds. The technology uses a food-grade
carrier oil to extract the oil-soluble contami-
nants. Pretreatment is necessary to achieve
particle sizes of less than V4 inch.
The carrier oil, with a boiling point of 400
degrees Fahrenheit, is typically mixed with
waste sludge or soil, and the mixture is placed
in an evaporation system to remove any water.
The oil serves to fluidize the mix and maintain
a low slurry viscosity to ensure efficient heat
transfer, allowing virtually all of the water to
evaporate.
Oil-soluble contaminants are extracted from the
waste by the carrier oil. Volatile compounds
present in the waste are also stripped in this
step and condensed with the carrier oil or water.
After the water is evaporated from the mixture,
the resulting dried slurry is sent to a centrifug-
ing section that removes most of the carrier oil
and contaminants from the solids.
After centrifuging, residual carrier oil is re-
moved from the solids by a process known as
"hydroextraction." The carrier oil is recovered
by evaporation and steam stripping. The haz-
ardous constituents are removed from the carrier
oil by distillation. This stream can be incinerat-
ed or reclaimed. In some cases, heavy metals
in the solids will be complexed with hydrocar-
bons and will also be extracted by the carrier
oil.
The Carver-Greenfield Process* can be used to
treat sludges, soils, and other water-bearing
wastes containing oil-soluble hazardous com-
pounds, including polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCS), poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), and dioxins. The process has been
commercially applied to municipal wastewater
sludge, paper mill sludge, rendering waste,
pharmaceutical plant sludge, and other wastes.
Technology Performance
The demonstration of this technology was
completed in August 1991, at EPA's Edison,
New Jersey, research facility. Petroleum wastes
(drilling muds) from the PAB oil site in
Abbeville, Louisiana, were used for the demon-
stration.
Preliminary results indicate a successful separa-
tion of oily drilling muds into their constituent
oil, water, and solid phases. Laboratory analy-
sis on process residuals was conducted during
the late summer and fall 1991.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
147
-------
Technology Developer Contact:
Thomas Holcombe
Dehydro-Tech Corporation
6 Great Meadow Lane
East Hanover, NJ 07936
201/887-2182
Vent to
Treatment
Feed
Sludge/Son/
Waste
Carrier OH Vopor ond Steom
Light
O OH Soluble
Components
Carrier Oil
Makeup
Extracted
O Oil Soluble
Components
Carver-Greenfield* process schematic
148
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Catalytic Decontamination
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Ground Water
Technology Description
This catalytic decontamination process is a
closed system that treats volatile organic com-
pounds in ground water producing innocuous
end products. This technology can be useful
when cross-media transfer of the contamination,
which may occur with other processes, such as
air stripping, is unacceptable. This technology
is primarily a ground-water restoration tech-
nique, although surface water can be treated as
well. It is especially applicable for highly
contaminated waters such as leachates.
The ULTROX system used in the pilot study
consists of two "loops." The first loop consists
of air drying, ozone generation, and injection of
the ozone into the vapor-liquid contact tank.
Air effluent passes through a catalytic destruc-
tion unit and returns to the air drier. The sec-
ond loop is open and consists of a water inlet
from the ground-water source, pretreatment,
introduction into the vapor-liquid contact tank,
and discharge. The water pretreatment might
consist of filtering, water softening, iron remov-
al, or defoaming.
This technology has a number of advantages:
• The process is closed circuit, i.e., there is
no air effluent;
• It operates at negative air pressure, dius,
reducing the risk of accidental contamina-
tion due to leaks; and
• It is a destructive, rather than a cross-media
transfer technique.
Despite these advantages, this technology also
has limitations:
The method might not be cost effective with
respect to methods that have air effluents;
When treating high concentrations, a po-
tentially large consumption of ozone will
result;
When treating anoxic leachates, reduced
metal compounds are likely to be present;
These reduced metal compounds will react
with the ozone and can form insoluble
precipitates as well as result in large ozone
consumption;
The metal precipitates could require exten-
sive system cleaning;
The method requires considerable energy for
the generation of UV light, dry air, ozone,
pumps, and blowers; and
Biofouling can occur on the UV light tubes.
Technology Performance
The results from a small-scale pilot test con-
ducted at Fort Dix, New Jersey were both
positive and negative:
• Although total organic carbon concentration
was not reduced, the concentration of vola-
tile halogenated organics (VHO) was re-
duced up to 90 percent; and
• Without the inclusion of UV light in the
treatment, the VHO concentration was
reduced, but methylene chloride was not
affected and dichloroethanes were not re-
duced below detection limits.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
149
-------
Remediation Costs
General Site Information
Based on limited experience to date, the oper-
ating and maintenance costs of this method have A small-scale pilot testing (1 to 10 drums) has
not been developed in detail, but are expected to been conducted at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
be in the range of $1 to $8 per 1,000 gallons,
depending upon the concentration of the con-
taminants and the amount of pretreatment Contact
required. Uninstalled equipment for treating
50,000 gpd of ground water, with an organic Steve Maloney
halide concentration in the range of 75 to 100 g/ USACERL
L, would cost in the range of $150,000 to P.O. Box 4005
$200,000. Champaign, EL 61820
217/373-6740
150 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatments
Entrained-Bed Gasification
Organics in Soils, Sludges, and Sediments
Technology Description
The Texaco entrained-bed gasification process
is a non-catalytic partial oxidation process in
which carbonaceous substances react at elevated
temperatures to produce a gas containing mainly
carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This product,
called synthesis gas, can be used (1) to produce
other chemicals or (2) to be burned as fuel.
Ash in the feed melts and is removed as a
glass-like slag. The treatment of hazardous
waste materials in a gasifier is an extension of
Texaco's conventional gasification technology,
which has been operated commercially for over
30 years, using widely varying feedstocks, such
as natural gas, heavy oil, coal, and petroleum
coke.
The process treats waste material at pressures
above 20 atmospheres and temperatures between
2,200 and 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
Wastes are pumped in a slurry form to a spe-
cially designed burner mounted at the top of a
refractory-lined pressure vessel. The waste
feed, along with oxygen and an auxiliary fuel
such as coal, flow downward through the
gasifier to a quench chamber that collects the
slag for removal through a lock hopper. The
synthesis gas is then further cooled and cleaned
by a waste scrubbing system; a sulfur recovery
system may be added. Fine particulate matter
removed by the scrubber may be recycled back
to the gasifier.
The cooled, water-scrubbed product gas is
mainly composed of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide, but no hydrocarbons heavier than
methane. Metals and other ash constituents
become part of the inert slag.
The capacity of a system suitable for on-site
waste destruction is based on a wet synthesis
gas production rate of 3 million standard cubic
feet per day. Depending on the heat content
and proximate analysis, approximately 12 to 24
tons per day of hazardous waste can potentially
be treated.
This process can treat contaminated soils,
sludges, and sediments containing both organic
and inorganic constituents, such as used motor
oils and lubricants, chemical wastes, and petro-
leum residues. Solids in the feed must be
ground and pumped in a slurry form containing
40 to 70 percent solids by weight and 60 to 30
percent liquid, usually water.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration program in July 1991. A dem-
onstration with Superfund hazardous waste is
planned for 1992 at Texaco's Montebello Re-
search Laboratory. In December 1988, under a
grant from the California Department of Health
Services, Texaco demonstrated the gasification
of low heating-value petroleum tank bottoms to
produce synthesis gas and nonhazardous efflu-
ents. During a 40-hour pilot run, this hazardous
material was used as a supplemental feed to a
coal-fired gasifier. Carbon conversion in the
waste stream was over 99 percent, and solid
residues from the process were determined to be
nonhazardous, based on California Assessment
Manual limits for total and leachable materials.
Both wastewater and solid residue were deter-
mined to be free of trace organics and EPA
priority pollutants.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
151
-------
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Marta K. Richards
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7783
Technology Developer Contact:
Richard Zang
Texaco Syngas, Inc.
2000 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10650
914/253-4047
Recycle
Solids - Free
Schematic diagram of the entrained-bed gasification process
152
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatments
Filtration
Heavy Metals and Radionuclides in Ground water
Technology Description
A colloid filter method, filtration process re-
moves inorganic heavy metals and non-tritium
radionuclides from industrial wastewater and
ground water. The filter unit has an inorganic,
insoluble filter bed material (Filter Flow-1000)
contained in a dynamic, flow-through configu-
ration resembling a filter plate. The pollutants
are removed from the water via sorption, chemi-
cal complexing, and physical filtration. By
employing site-specific optimization of the
water chemistry prior to filtration, the methodol-
ogy removes the pollutants as ions, colloids, and
colloidal aggregates. A three-step process is
used to achieve heavy metal and radionuclide
removal. First, water is treated chemically to
optimize formation of colloids and colloidal
aggregates. Second, a prefilter removes the
larger particles and solids. Third, the filter bed
removes the contaminants to the compliance
standard desired. By controlling the water
chemistry, water flux rate, and bed volume, the
methodology can be used to remove heavy
metals and radionuclides in low to high volume
waste streams.
The process is designed for either batch or
continuous flow applications at fixed installa-
tions or field mobile operations. The field unit
can be retrofitted to existing primary solids
water treatment systems or used as a polishing
filter for new installations or on-site remediation
applications. Trailer and skid-mounted equip-
ment has been used successfully.
The methodology removes heavy metals and
radionuclides from pond water, tank water,
ground water, or in-line industrial wastewater
treatment systems. The technology also has
application for remediation of natural occurring
radioactive materials (NORM), man-made low
level radioactive wastes (LLRW) and trans-
uranic (TRU) pollutants.
Technology Performance
The methodology was accepted into the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program in July 1990.
EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) are
co-sponsoring the technology evaluation. Bench
tests have been conducted at the DOE Rocky
Flats Facility, Golden, Colorado, using ground-
water samples contaminated with heavy metals
and radioactive materials.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Annette Gatchett
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7697
Technology Developer Contact:
Tod Johnson
Filter Flow Technology, Inc.
3027 Marina Bay Drive, Suite 110
League City, TX 77573
713/334-2522
FAX: 713/334-7501
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
153
-------
Other Physical Treatments
Hydraulic Fracturing
Organics and Inorganics in Soil
Technology Description
Hydraulic fracturing is a physical process that
creates fractures in soils to enhance fluid or
vapor flow in the subsurface. The technology
places fractures at discreet depths through
hydraulic pressurization at the base of a bore-
hole. These fractures are placed at specific
locations and depths to increase the effective-
ness of treatment technologies, such as soil
vapor extraction, in situ bioremediation, and
pump-and-treat systems. The technology is
designed to enhance remediation in low perme-
ability geologic formations. This technology
has been developed for EPA's Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory by the University of
Cincinnati (UC) at the Center Hill facility under
the SITE Program.
The fracturing process begins with the injection
of a fluid (water) into a sealed borehole until
the pressure of the fluid exceeds a critical value
and a fracture is nucleated, forming a starter
notch. A proppant composed of a granular
material (sand) and a viscous fluid (guar gum
and water mixture) is then pumped into the
fracture as the fracture grows away from the
well. After pumping, the proppant grains hold
the fracture open while an enzyme additive
breaks down the viscous fluid. The resulting
fluid is pumped from the fracture, forming a
permeable subsurface channel suitable for
delivery or recovery of a vapor or liquid.
These fractures function as pathways for vapor
extraction or fluid introduction, potentially
increasing the effective area available for re-
mediation.
The hydraulic fracturing process is used in
conjunction with soil vapor extraction technolo-
gy to enhance the recovery of contaminated soil
vapors. Hydraulically-induced fractures are
used to place fluids and nutrients during in situ
bioremediation. The technology has the poten-
tial for delivery of solids to the subsurface.
Solid compounds useful in bioremediation, such
as nutrients or oxygen-releasing compounds, can
be injected as granules into the fractures.
Techniques for measuring deformation of the
ground surface have been developed for this
technology by UC to monitor the position of the
fractures in the subsurface.
Hydraulic fracturing is appropriate for enhanc-
ing remediation of contaminated soil vapors,
soil, and ground water. The technology can be
applied to those contaminants or wastes associ-
ated with remediation by soil vapor extraction,
bioremediation, and pump-and-treat systems.
Technology Performance
The RREL hydraulic fracturing technology
entered the SITE Demonstration Program in
July 1991. Pilot-scale feasibility studies have
been conducted in Oak Brook, Illinois, and
Dayton, Ohio, during July and August 1991,
respectively. The hydraulic fracturing process
has been integrated with remediation by soil
vapor extraction at the Illinois site and with in
situ bioremediation at the Ohio site. Additional
feasibility study sites are planned. A final full-
scale demonstration site will be selected in the
near future.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
154
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Contacts Technology Developer Contact:
Larry Murdock
EPA Project Manager: University of Cincinnati
Naomi Barkley Center Hill Facility
U.S. EPA 5995 Center Hill Road
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory Cincinnati, OH 45224
26 West Martin Luther King Drive 513/569-7897
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7854
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 155
-------
Other Physical Treatments
Hydraulic Soil Mixing
PCBs, PCP, and Hydrocarbons in Soil and Sludges
Technology Description
Hydraulic Soil Mixing (HSM) is a refinement of
a 25-year-old technology used to treat a wide
variety of soil problems because of its proven
economies. Two to four hydraulic soil mixing
injectors are mounted in a line on various
carrier vehicles, including forklifts, crawler
tractors, and heavy trucks. Each soil mixer is
capable of treating a column of waste from 1 to
3 feet in diameter to depths of 40 feet. With
current equipment, the system, which is partially
patented, can mix and inject solutions of panic-
ulate slurry/grouts up to specific gravities of 1.5
to 1.6. Approximately 30 tons of dry solids or
20,000 gallons of slurry can be mixed in situ
per injector, per working day. Bottom seals or
targeted waste strata can be treated with little
disturbance of non-contaminated strata. Various
solidification and stabilization materials such as
Portland cement, fine grind cement, lime, fly
ash, and sodium silicates are combined with
patented materials such as Trifirmex, MC-500,
and MC-100, depending on the number and
types of contaminants present. HSM also can
be a delivery system for other in situ treatment
techniques.
Soils and sludges contaminated with poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCB), pentachlorophenol,
refinery waste, and hydrocarbons can be treated.
Specific concentration ranges that can be treated
will depend on the contaminant and its soil and
sludge matrix, and will be predetermined by
treatability and site characterization studies.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration program in June 1991. Several
pilot-scale and field-scale tests have been con-
ducted on injection of lime and fly ash for
various environmental applications. One appli-
cation occurred at a large petrochemical plant
where lime slurry was injected to neutralize
sulfuric acid up to 20 feet deep. Another pilot-
scale test was performed at a burial pit where in
situ grouting was used as a means for remedial
action for uranium mill tailing piles. Field tests
of the system have been performed under con-
trolled, nonhazardous conditions. The location
for the SITE demonstration is undetermined.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Daniel Sullivan, P.E.
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Releases Control Branch
Bldg. #10 (MS 104)
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 00837-3679
908/321-6677
Technology Developer Contact:
Joseph Welsh
Hayward Baker, Inc.
1875 Mayfield Road
Odenton, MD 21113
301/551-8200
FAX: 301/551-1900
156
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
pftc««
Other Physical Treatments
Hydrolytic Terrestrial Dissipation
Low-Level Toxaphene and Other Pesticides in Soil
Technology Description
Dames & Moore developed its Hydrolytic
Terrestrial Dissipation (HTD) process for use at
the Chemairspray site in Palm Beach County,
Florida. An estimated 11,500 cubic yards of
surface soils at the site are contaminated with
toxaphene — a chlorinated pesticide — and
metal fungicides, primarily copper.
HTD involves excavating contaminated soils
and comminuting (mixing and cutting) soils so
that metal complexes and organic chemicals in
the soil are uniformly distributed. During the
mixing process, caustic addition raises the soil
pH to 8.0 or greater, although slower reactions
should still occur at lower pHs. Soil moisture
levels are maintained during mixing to prevent
adsorption and fugitive dust. Iron, copper, or
aluminum can be introduced to catalyze the
hydrolysis.
The prepared mixture is then distributed in a
thin veneer (4 to 7 centimeters) over a soil bed
and exposed to heat and ultraviolet light from
the sun to facilitate dissipation. Since lighter
weight toxaphene compounds are reported to be
volatile, volatility will enhance dissipation.
Toxaphene's volatility will increase as heavier
compounds are dehalogenating to lower molecu-
lar weights. Ultraviolet light is also known to
cause toxaphene dechlorination, so toxaphene
gases in the atmosphere will slowly degrade to
still lower molecular weights while liberating
chlorine. Since lighter compounds have fewer
chlorines in their molecular structure, only
minor amounts of chlorine gas are emitted to
the atmosphere. In fact, throughout the entire
study, chlorine gas emission is estimated to be
less than 0.25 grams per day over the study
area.
Soils in the distribution bed are periodically
sampled to evaluate any residual contamination.
Also, monitoring of underlying ground water
assures maintenance of environmental quality
during HTD system operation. After treated
soils meet established criteria, the land may be
returned to agricultural production or other
beneficial use. Since toxaphene is chlorinated
camphene, dehalogenation reduces the insecti-
cide to a naturally occurring compound. The
treatment capacity of one staging unit is approx-
imately 5,000 to 6,000 tons per year.
HTD takes advantage of the metal-catalyzed
alkaline hydrolysis reactions to liberate chlorine
ions that form various metal salts, depending on
the characteristics of the contaminated media.
Camphene (C10H16) will ultimately be left to
degrade to water and carbon oxides (COJ.
HTD has applications at sites where large
quantities of soil are contaminated by small
amounts of toxaphene or other pesticides.
Depending on the pesticide, metal catalysts
other than copper and iron could be effective.
The process involves a hydrolysis reaction;
however, flash points, vapor pressures, and
other elements of physical chemistry can be
used to enhance dissipation and should be
considered when designing the remedial mea-
sure. Although it may have such application,
this method was not developed for highly
concentrated soil contaminants.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in the Spring 1991.
The SITE demonstration will be carried out at
the Chemairspray facility after the completion of
treatability studies. A simulation tank has been
constructed to evaluate rates of hydrolysis under
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
157
-------
laboratory conditions. A quality control pro-
gram has been instituted to validate laboratory
results. A Quality Assurance Project Plan was
prepared and is being reviewed by EPA.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Ronald Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7856
Technology Developer Contact:
Stoddard Pickrell, Jr.
Dames & Moore
1211 Governor's Square Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32301
904/942-5615
FAX: 904/942-5619
ADDITIVES
SOIL EXCAVATION
STAGING
o
f=
00
13
2
V)
_1
<
P:
O
LJ
{£.
to
0
COMMINUTION AND MIXING
HEAT AND
(ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT
DISTRIBUTION BED
MAINTENANCE HEAT AND
| ADDITIVE REPLACEMENT | |ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT
BED STERILIZATION
SYSTEM OPERATION
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
•NO-
CLEAN
YES
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Hydrolytic terrestrial dissipation schematic
158
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatments
In Situ Vitrification
Organics and Inorganics in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
In situ vitrification (ISV) uses an electric cur-
rent to melt soil or sludge at extremely high
temperatures of 1,600°C to 2,000°C, thus de-
stroying organic pollutants by pyrolysis. Inor-
ganic pollutants are incorporated within the
vitrified mass, which has glass properties.
Water vapor and organic pyrolysis byproducts
are captured in a hood, which draws the con-
taminants into an off-gas treatment system that
removes particulates and other pollutants.
The vitrification process begins by inserting
large electrodes into contaminated zones con-
taining sufficient soil to support the formation
of a melt. An array (usually square) of four
electrodes is placed to the desired treatment
depth in the volume to be treated. Because soil
typically has low electrical conductivity, flaked
graphite and glass frit are placed on the soil
surface between the electrodes to provide a
starter path for electric current. The electric
current passes through the electrodes and begins
to melt soil at the surface. As power is applied,
the melt continues to grow downward, at a rate
of 1 to 2 inches per hour. Individual settings
(each single placement of electrodes) may grow
to encompass a total melt mass of 1,000 tons
and a maximum width of 35 feet.
Single-setting depths as great as 25 feet are
considered possible. Depths exceeding 19 feet
have been achieved with the existing large-scale
ISV equipment. Adjacent settings can be
positioned to fuse to each other and to com-
pletely process the desired volume at a site.
Stacked settings to reach deep contamination are
also possible. The large-scale ISV system melts
soil at a rate of 4 to 6 tons per hour. Because
the void volume present in paniculate materials
(20 to 40 percent for typical soils) is removed
during processing, a corresponding volume
reduction occurs. After cooling, a vitrified
monolith results, with a silicate glass and micro-
crystalline structure. This monolith possesses
excellent structural and environmental proper-
ties.
The mobile ISV system is mounted on three
semitrailers . Electric power is usually taken
from a utility distribution system at transmission
voltages of 12.5 or 13.8 kilovolts; power may
also be generated on-site by a diesel generator.
The electrical supply system has an isolated
ground circuit to provide appropriate operational
safety.
Air flow through the hood is controlled to
maintain a negative pressure. An ample supply
of air provides excess oxygen for combustion of
any pyrolysis products and organic vapors from
the treatment volume. Off-gases are treated by
(1) quenching, (2) pH controlled scrubbing, (3)
dewatering (mist elimination), (4) heating (for
dewpoint control), (5) paniculate filtration, and
(6) activated carbon adsorption.
The ISV process can be used to destroy or
remove organics and to immobilize inorganics
in contaminated soils or sludges. In saturated
soils or sludges, water is driven off at the 100°C
isotherm moving in advance of the melt. Water
removal increases energy consumption and
associated costs. Also, sludges must contain a
sufficient amount of glass-forming material
(non-volatile, non-destructible solids) to produce
a molten mass that will destroy or remove
organic pollutants and immobilize inorganic
pollutants. The ISV process is limited by (1)
individual void volumes in excess of 150 cubic
feet, (2) rubble exceeding 20 percent by weight,
and (3) combustible organics in the soil or
sludge exceeding 5 to 10 weight percent, de-
pending on the heat value.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
159
-------
Technology Performance
The ISV process has been operated at a large
scale ten times.including two demonstrations on
transuranic-contaminated (radioactive) sites:
(1) at Geosafe's test site, and (2) at the Depart-
ment of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Nuclear
Reservation. It has also been used at EPA
Superfund, private, and other DOE sites. More
than 130 tests at various scales have been
performed on a broad range of waste types in
soils and sludges. The technology has been
selected as a preferred remedy at 10 private,
EPA Superfund, and DOE sites. The
Parsons/ETM site in Grand Ledge, Michigan
has been selected for the SITE demonstration.
Geosafe is currently doing further technology
testing before any field remediation work.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Teri Shearer
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7949
Technology Developer Contact:
James Hansen
Geosafe Corporation
303 Park Place, Suite 126
Kirkland, WA 98033
206/822-4000
FAX: 206/827-6608
160
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatments
In Situ Vitrification
Organics, Inorganics, and Radionuclides in Soils
Technology Description
The in situ vitrification (ISV) process fixes
fission products and immobilizes or destroys
hazardous chemicals in soils at mixed hazardous
waste sites. This technology can be applied to
radionuclides, heavy metals, and hazardous
organic-contaminated soil.
ISV is the conversion of contaminated soil into
a durable glass and crystalline waste form
through melting the soil by joule heating.
Contaminants are destroyed by or immobilized
in molten glass (melted soil). Soil is melted by
electrical energy from electrodes that arc placed
in the ground. Off-gas from this process is
treated by conventional off-gas treatment
methods.
This technology has a number of benefits.
Specifically, ISV may safely immobilize or
destroy both radioactive and hazardous chem-
icals before they impact the ground water or
other ecosystems. It is applicable to soils
contaminated with fission products, transuranics,
hazardous metals, and hazardous organics. It
reduces the risk to the public by immobilizing
or destroying radioactive and hazardous mater-
ials in the soil. Finally, in situ treatment poses
a lower potential risk to workers than traditional
treatments because contaminants are not brought
to the surface. This technology, however, has
not yet been demonstrated at depths beyond
twenty feet.
The ISV technology can be applied to a wide
range of soil types and contaminants. Melt
depths of approximately 5 meters are considered
the practical limit for most sites at this time.
However, additional research is being conducted
to ultimately achieve melt depths of up to 10
meters. There are no practical limits for inor-
ganic contaminants; current processing systems
are designed to process up to 8 wt. percent
organics based on heat loading considerations.
High moisture soils can generally be processed,
but saturated soils with free flowing ground
water would require the use of methods to
minimize ground-water recharge. With use of
electrode feeding technology (vertically move-
able electrodes), inclusions such as scrap metals
and buried piping can be processed without
concern of electrical short circuits.
Technology Performance
Recent field-scale demonstrations have been
conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy's
(DOE) Hanford Site and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. During a large-scale demonstration
at the Hanford Site, a liquid waste disposal crib
constructed of wooden timber was vitrified
producing a monolith of over 800 tons in size.
Contamination in soils in and below the crib
contained heavy metals, such as lead and
chromium, and radionuclides, including an
estimated 900 mCi of strontium-90 and 150 mCi
of cesium-137. The demonstration was con-
ducted under CERCLA guidelines in 1990.
Coring of the block was completed in 1991,
data analysis is being finalized, and a compre-
hensive report will be completed during FY
1992. Key results indicated the following:
• The ISV process maintained an 87 percent
on-line operating efficiency during the test;
• The off-gas treatment system easily accom-
modated the additional off-gas and heat
loads from the thermal decomposition of the
crib's wooden timbers;
• Analyses of cores taken from the monolith
revealed a homogeneous composition due to
the convective mixing currents that occur in
the melt;
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
161
-------
• The resulting glass and crystalline product
easily passed TCLP criteria;
• Melt depth was limited to 4.3 meters (the
bottom of the crib) and was hindered by a
cobble layer beneath the crib.
A second ISV field demonstration was con-
ducted in May 1991 on a one-quarter-scale
liquid waste disposal trench containing 10 mCi
of cesium-137. The trench was designed to
simulate the liquid waste disposal trenches at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, many of which
contain thousands of curies of cesium-137 and
strontium-90. The test was conducted over a
five-day period and achieved a melt depth of
about 2.75 meters, exceeding expectations for
the pilot-scale system. Post-test analyses are
underway, and comprehensive results are to be
reported late in 1992. Key results included the
following:
• Approximately 97.3 wt. percent of cesium
was retained in the melt. A paniculate filter
system installed on the off-gas line was
used to effectively prevent the balance of
cesium that was volatilized during the vitri-
fication process (2.7 wt. percent) from
reaching the off-gas treatment trailer;
• Surrounding soils were determined to be
free of contamination by the cesium indica-
ting that no outward migration occurred;
• Post-test evaluations of the vitrified product
revealed that the cesium partitioned in the
glass phases of the block rather than in the
crystalline phases or at phase boundaries.
Remediation Costs
Approximately $300 to $450 per ton of soil
exclusive of costs for mobilization and demo-
bilization of the process equipment.
Contact
Leo E. Thompson
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
MS P7-34
P.O. Box 999
Richland, Washington 99352
509/376-5150
James L. Buelt
Pacific Northwest Laboratory
MS P7-41
P.O. Box 999
Richland, Washington 99252
509/376-3926
162
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Catalytic Oxidation
VOCs and Semi-VOCs in Soil and Rock
Technology Description
An integrated treatment system incorporating
Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction (PFE) and
Catalytic Oxidation has been jointly developed
by Accutech Remedial Systems Inc., and the
Hazardous Substance Management Research
Center located at the New Jersey Institute of
Technology in Newark, New Jersey. The
system provides a cost-effective accelerated
remedial approach to sites with Dense Non-
Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) contaminated
aquifers. The patented PFE process has been
demonstrated both in the laboratory and in the
field to establish a uniform subsurface airflow
within low permeability formations such as clay
and fractured rock. The PFE process coupled
with an in situ thermal injection process is
designed to recover residual contamination
entrapped in the vadose zone. A ground-water
recovery system is first implemented to suppress
the water table below the zone of highest con-
tamination. Recovered ground water is treated
by an aeration process. DNAPL contaminants
removed from the ground water are combined
with the PFE recovery process stream. The
combined DNAPL vapor stream is fed into a
catalytic oxidation unit for destruction. The
oxidation unit contains a catalyst which has
been shown to resist process deactivation. Heat
from the catalytic/oxidation unit is utilized in
the in situ thermal injection component of the
treatment system. The treatment system also
has the ability to utilize activated carbon
treatment technology when contaminant concen-
trations decrease to levels where catalytic tech-
nology is no longer cost-effective.
The integrated treatment system is cost-effective
for treating soils and rock where conventional in
situ technologies are limited in their effective-
ness because of the presence of low permeabili-
ty geologic formations. Halogenated and non-
halogenated volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds can be remediated by this system.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in December 1990.
The demonstration was conducted late in 1991
at a New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy Environmental Cleanup
Responsibility Act (ECRA) site in South Plain-
field, New Jersey, where trichloroethene (TCE)
was removed from a fractured shale aquifer.
The demonstration also included the develop-
ment of engineering cost data for catalytic
oxidation and carbon adsorption technologies by
alternating between the two treatment methods.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
163
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Uwe Frank
U.S. EPA, Building 10, MS-104
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908/321-6626
Technology Developer Contact:
Harry Moscatello
Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc.
Cass Street and Highway 35
Keyport, NJ 07735
908/739-6444
FAX: 908/739-0451
Pneumatic
Fracture Well •
Thermal
Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction
and Catalytic Oxidation
164
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
^e!!%
Other Physical Treatment
Precipitation, Microfiltration, and Sludge Dewatering
Pesticides, Oil, and Grease in Sludge and Leachable Soil
Technology Description
In the first step of this process, heavy metals are
chemically precipitated. The precipitates along
with all particles down to 0.2 to 0.1 micron, are
filtered through a unique fabric crossflow micro-
filter (EXXFLOW). The concentrate stream is
then dewatered in an automatic tubular filter
press of the same fabric material (EXXPRESS).
EXXFLOW microfilter modules are fabricated
from a proprietary woven polyester array of
tubes. Wastes are pumped into the tubes from
a dynamic membrane, which produces a high
quality filtrate removing all particle sizes greater
than 0.2 - 0.1 micron. The membrane is con-
tinually cleaned by the flow velocity, thereby
minimizing production declines and cleaning
frequencies.
Metals are removed via precipitation by adjust-
ing the pH in the EXXFLOW feed tank. The
metal hydroxides or oxides form the dynamic
membrane with any other suspended sob'ds.
The concentrate stream will contain up to 5
percent solids for discharge to the EXXPRESS
system. The EXXFLOW concentrate stream
enters the EXXPRESS modules with the dis-
charge valve closed. A semi-dry cake, up to 1/4
inch thick, is formed on the inside of the tubular
cloth. When the discharge valve is opened,
rollers on the outside of the tube move to form
a venturi within the tube. The venturi creates
an area of high velocity within the tubes, which
aggressively cleans the cloth and discharges the
cake in chip form onto a wedge wire screen.
The discharge water is recycled back to the feed
tank. The EXXPRESS filter cakes are typically
40 to 60 percent solids by weight.
Other constituent removals are possible using
seeded slurry methods in EXXFLOW. Hard-
ness can be removed by using lime. Oil and
grease can be removed by adding adsorbents.
Non-volatile organics and solvents can be re-
moved using seeded, powdered activated carbon
or powdered ion exchange adsorbents.
In cases where the solids in the raw feed are
extremely high, EXXPRESS can be used first,
with EXXFLOW acting as a final polish for the
product water.
The EXXFLOW/EXPRESS demonstration unit
is transportable and is skid-mounted. The unit
is designed to process approximately 30 pounds
of solids per hour and 10 gallons per minute of
wastewater.
This technology is applicable to water contain-
ing heavy metals, pesticides, oil and grease,
bacteria, suspended solids, and constituents that
can be precipitated into particle sizes greater
than 0.1 micron. The system can handle waste
streams containing up to 5 percent solids and
produce a semi-dry cake of 40 to 60 percent
weight per weight. Non-volatile organics and
solvents can also be removed from the water by
adding powdered adsorbents.
Soils and sludge can be decontaminated through
acid leaching of the metals, followed by precipi-
tation and microfiltration. Lime sludges from
municipal, industrial, and power plant clarifiers
can also be treated by using this process.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in 1989. Bench-scale
tests were conducted in 1990. The first EPA
application was acid mine drainage at the Iron
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
165
-------
Mountain Mine Superfund site in Redding,
California, in late 1991.
Since 1988, this technology has been applied to
over 35 sites worldwide. System capacities
range from 1 gallon per minute to over 2 mil-
lion gallons per day. Applications include (1)
industrial laundries, (2) circuit board shops, (3)
ceramics, (4) agricultural chemicals, (5) oil
produced water, (6) oil field waste, (7) scrubber
waste, (8) municipal waste, (9) water purifica-
tion, (10) water softening, (11) clarifier sludge
dewatering, and (12) wine and juice filtration.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
Technology Developer Contact:
Ray Groves
EPOC Water, Inc.
3065 Sunnyside, #101
Fresno, CA 93727
209/291-8144
166
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Rotary Air Stripping
Volatile Contaminants in Ground water
Technology Description
A rotary air stripper is a vapor and liquid con-
tactor which uses centrifugal force to push
contaminated water through packing material
while air is pushed counter current to the flow
of water. The centrifugal force results in a high
mass transfer rate of the contaminant from the
water to the air. The main advantage of this
rotary air stripper is the reduction of the height
of the stripping equipment. Large, tall towers
are inherent in conventional packed column air
stripping.
Technology Performance
In the first tests with a rotary air stripper con-
ducted at the Traverse City Coast Guard Station,
a 100 gpm rotary air stripper showed removal of
the contaminant as a function of the liquid to
gas ratio and the speed (rpm) of the spinning
rotor. The data showed that the removal ef-
ficiency increased with an increase in the gas-
to-liquid ratio up to a value of about 30 (vol/
vol). Above this value, minimal increases in
removal efficiencies were realized with in-
creased gas-to-liquid ratios, A similar pheno-
menon was observed when assessing the effect
of the rotor speed on the removal efficiency.
Increasing the rotation above approximately 600
rpm produced minimal changes in the removal
efficiency. In all the tests, high removal effi-
ciencies (greater than 99 percent) were achieved
with the highly volatile contaminants, while
relatively low removal efficiencies were ob-
served for the less volatile contaminants. In
these tests, only one size and type of packed
rotor was used, and only influent and effluent
data could be taken.
In the second tests, conducted at Eglin AFB,
three different sizes of rotors and two different
types of packing materials were used, along
with an internal sampling mechanism. Using
the different packed rotors, data was obtained to
develop and compare equations for predicting
the mass transfer pressure drops, and power
consumption of the 50 gpm rotary air stripper.
The equations can be used to design the size,
rotating speed, air-to-water ratios, and energy
necessary for a rotary air stripper to meet site-
specific performance requirements.
A final report on the Eglin studies is in publica-
tion. The document outlines the work done to
remove BETX compounds from ground water.
A cost spreadsheet was developed and is avail-
able through the contact below.
The only limitation noted was that plugging
occurred due to mineral deposits in the rotors at
one site where the water has a very high iron
content (approximately 9 ppm).
General Site Information
Field tests have been conducted at Eglin AFB
and at the U.S. Coast Guard Station at Traverse
City, Michigan.
Contact
Capt. Edward G. Marchand
AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, Florida 32403-6001
904/283-6023
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
167
-------
FLUENT AIR
EFFLUENT AIR
t
ROTATING PACKING
^EFFLUENT WATER
1
EXHAUST STACK
-*—>•
CATALYTIC
INCINERATOR
HEAT
EXCHANGER
-*-
WATER
OUTLET
WATER
INLET
RAS
AIR
OUTLET
A|o
,ANLET
*MAIN >TO CARBON
/^
H:
INFLUENT WATER
X-VALVE
-»- DIRECTION OF CLOW
Rotary Air Stripping Process
168
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Thermal Gas Phase Reduction Process
PCBs, PAHs, Chlorophenols, and Pesticides
in Soil, Sludge, Liquids, and Gases
Technology Description
This patented process is based on the gas-phase,
thermo-chemical reaction of hydrogen with
organic and chlorinated organic compounds at
elevated temperatures. At 850°C or higher,
hydrogen reacts with organic compounds in a
process known as reduction to produce smaller,
lighter hydrocarbons. This reaction is enhanced
by the presence of water, which can also act as
a reducing agent. Because hydrogen is used to
produce a reducing atmosphere devoid of free
oxygen, the possibility of dioxin or furan forma-
tion is eliminated.
The thermo-chemical reaction takes place within
a specially designed reactor. In the process, a
mixture of preheated waste and hydrogen is
injected through nozzles mounted tangentially
near the top of the reactor. The mixture swirls
around a central ceramic tube past glo-bar
heaters. By the time the mixture passes through
the ports at the bottom of the ceramic tube, it
has been heated to 850°C. Particulate matter up
to 5 millimeters in diameter not entrained in the
gas stream will impact the hot refractory walls
of the reactor. Organic matter associated with
the paniculate is volatilized, and the paniculate
exits out of the reactor bottom to a quench tank,
while finer paniculate entrained in the gas
stream flows up the ceramic tube into an exit
elbow and through a retention zone. The reduc-
tion reaction takes place from the bottom of the
ceramic tube onwards, and takes less than one
second to complete. Gases enter a scrubber
where hydrogen chloride fine particulates are
removed. The gases that exit the scrubber
consist only of excess hydrogen, methane, and
a small amount of water vapor. Approximately
95 percent of this gas is recirculated back into
the reactor. The remaining 5 percent is fed to
a boiler where it is used as supplementary fuel
to preheat the waste.
Because this process is not incineration, the
reactor does not require a large volume for the
addition of combustion air. The small reactor
size and the capability to recirculate gases from
the reaction make the process equipment small
enough to be mobile.
In addition, the process includes a sophisticated
on-line mass spectrometer unit as a part of the
control system. As the unit is capable of mea-
suring many organic chemicals on a continuous
basis, increases in chlorobenzene or benzene
concentrations (signalling a decrease in destruc-
tion efficiency) halt the input of waste and alert
the operator.
The technology is suitable for many types of
waste including polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), chlorophenols, pesticides, landfill
leachates, and lagoon bottoms. The system can
handle most types of waste media, including
soils, sludges, liquids, and gases. Even those
wastes with a high water content are easily
handled by the technology. The maximum
concentration level is 30 percent sediments and
10 percent chlorine.
In the case of chlorinated organic compounds,
such as PCBs, the products of the reaction
include chloride, hydrogen, methane, and ethyl-
ene. Other non-chlorinated hazardous contami-
nants, such as PAHs, are also reduced to small-
er, lighter hydrocarbons, primarily methane and
ethylene.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
169
-------
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in July 1991. A dem-
onstration-scale reactor, two meters in diameter
and three meters tall, capable of handling 7 tons
per day, has been used for processing PAH- and
PCB-contaminated harbor sediments in Hamil-
ton, Ontario. Bench-scale testing with tri-
chlorobenzene has shown that the reduction
reaction can achieve 99.9999 percent destruction
efficiency or better. A possible location for
holding the SITE demonstration has been identi-
fied.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Gordon Evans
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7684
Technology Developer Contact:
Jim Nash
ELI Eco Logic International, Inc.
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, Ontario
Canada NO B2 KO
519/856-9591
170
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
x°>*.
Other Physical Treatment
Ultrafiltration
Toxic Metals in Ground water
Technology Description
This combination chemical-ultrafiltration treat-
ment process is intended for use on toxic metals
in ground water. Ultrafiltration has thus far
been applied exclusively to the removal of
colloidal solids and fairly large molecules. This
technology may potentially be used to separate
toxic heavy metals such as cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, selenium, silver and barium (as
an in situ formed precipitate) from ground water
generated at Superfund sites. Other inorganic
and organic materials present as suspended and
colloidal solids may also be removed.
Ultrafiltration can be applied in combination
with chemical treatment to selectively remove
dissolved metal ions from dilute aqueous solu-
tions. A high molecular weight chelating agent
is added to the incoming waste solutions to
form macromolecular complexes. The metal
ions can then be easily removed.
Usually, each chelating polymer is marked for
one metal or for a group of similar cations.
Once the polymer is added, the solution is
processed through an Ultrafiltration membrane
system that collects the macromolecular
complexes (retentate) on the membrane, but
allows uncomplexed ions such as sodium,
potassium, calcium, chloride, sulfate, and
nitrate, to pass through as filtered water (pe-
rmeate). The filtered water can be recycled or
discharged depending upon the metal removal
requirements. A removal efficiency
approaching 100 percent can be achieved for
metal ions in ground water.
The retentate, which constitutes about 5 to 20
percent of the feed volume, contains the separ-
ated heavy metal ions and must be treated
further. The retentate is either solidified to
prevent the release of toxic metals back to the
environment or recycled through the treatment
process for further volume reduction.
Because many simple and non-toxic ions are
allowed to pass through the membrane as per-
meate, they are not concentrated together with
the metal ions. The retentate will have a sma-
ller volume and the solidified product will be
more resistant to leaching, due to its smaller salt
content and the presence of chemicals that
retard the migration of toxic metals.
Technology Performance
Results of bench-scale tests showed the fol-
lowing removal rates: cadmium and mercury,
up to 99 percent; lead, 90 percent; and arsenic,
10 to 35 percent. Arsenic is an anionic species,
and is not as effectively removed as the other
metals. Separation of non-arsenic metals was
found to be more efficient in alkaline condi-
tions. This research also indicated that ultra-
filtration, unlike conventional precipitation
technologies, does not require the production of
large particles and, thus, may be more applica-
ble to feed streams with high variability in
metals concentration.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
171
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
John F. Martin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7758
Technology Developer Contact:
Leo P. Buckley
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
Waste Management Technology Division
Chalk River Nuclear Labs
Chalk River, Ontario KOJ UO
Canada
613/584-3311
172
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Ultraviolet Radiation and Oxidation
Halogenated Hydrocarbons, VOCs, Pesticides, and PCBS in Ground water
Technology Description
This ultraviolet (UV) radiation and oxidation
process uses UV radiation, ozone (O3), and
hydrogen peroxide (HjOj) to destroy toxic
organic compounds, particularly chlorinated
hydrocarbons, in water. The process oxidizes
compounds that are toxic or refractory (resistant
to biological oxidation) in concentrations of
parts per million or parts per billion.
The system consists of a treatment tank module,
an air compressor and ozone generator module,
and a hydrogen peroxide feed system. It is
skid-mounted and portable, and permits on-site
treatment of a wide variety of liquid wastes,
such as industrial wastewaters, ground waters,
and leachate. The treatment tank size is deter-
mined from the expected wastewater flow rate
and the necessary hydraulic retention time to
treat the contaminated water. The approximate
UV intensity, and ozone and hydrogen peroxide
doses, are determined from pilot-scale studies.
Influent to the treatment tank is simultaneously
exposed to UV radiation, ozone, and hydrogen
peroxide to oxidize the organic compounds.
Off-gas from the treatment tank passes through
an ozone destruction (Decompozon) unit, which
reduces ozone levels before air venting. The
Decompozon unit also destroys volatile organic
compounds (VOC) stripped off in the treatment
tank. Effluent from the treatment tank is tested
and analyzed before disposal.
Contaminated ground water, industrial waste-
waters, and leachates containing halogenated
solvents, phenol, pentachlorophenol, pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and other
organic compounds are suitable for this treat-
ment process.
Technology Performance
A field-scale demonstration was completed in
March 1989 at a hazardous waste site in San
Jose, California. The test program was de-
signed to evaluate the performance of the Ultrox
system at several combinations of five operating
parameters: (1) influent pH, (2) retention time,
(3) ozone dose, (4) hydrogen peroxide dose, and
(5) UV radiation intensity. The Technology
Evaluation Report was published in January
1990 (EPA/540/5-89/012). The Applications
Analysis Report was published in September
1990 (EPA/540/A5-89/012).
Contaminated ground water treated by the
Ultrox system met regulatory standards at the
appropriate parameter levels. Out of 44 VOCs
in the wastewater, three were chosen to be used
as indicator parameters. They are trichloroeth-
ylene (TCE), 1,1 dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), and
1,1,1 trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), all relatively
refractory to conventional oxidation.
Removal efficiencies for TCE were about 99
percent. Removal efficiencies for 1,1-DCA and
1,1,1-TCA were about 58 percent and 85 per-
cent, respectively. Removal efficiencies for
total VOCs were about 90 percent.
For some compounds, removal from the water
phase resulted from both chemical oxidation and
stripping. Stripping accounted for 12 to 75
percent of the total removal for 1,1,1-TCA, and
5 to 44 percent for 1,1-DCA. Stripping was
less than 10 percent for TCE and vinyl chlo-
ride, and was negligible for other VOCs present.
The Decompozon unit reduced ozone to less
than 0.1 ppm Occupational Safety and Health
Act (OSHA) standards, with efficiencies greater
then 99.99 percent. VOCs present in the air
within the treatment system were not detected
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
173
-------
after passing through the Decompozon unit.
There were no harmful air emissions to the
atmosphere from the Ultrox system.
Very low total organic carbon (TOC) removal
was found, implying partial oxidation of or-
ganics without complete conversion to carbon
dioxide and water.
The technology is fully commercial, with over
20 commercial systems installed. Flow rates
ranging from 5.0 gallons per minute to 1,050
gallons per minute are presently being used in
various industries and site clean-up activities,
including aerospace, Department of Energy
(DOE), petroleum, pharmaceutical, automotive,
woodtreating and municipal.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7665
Technology Developer Contact:
Jerome Barich
Ultrox International
2435 South Anne Street
Santa Ana, CA 92704
714/545-5557
TREATED OFF CAS
CATALYTIC OZONE
DECOMPOSER
REACTOR OFF CAS
OZONE GENERATOR
TREATED EFFLUENT
U V/OXlDA TlON TREA TMEN T TANK
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
FROM FEED TANK
Isometric view of the Ultrox system
174
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Ultraviolet Radiation, Hydrogen Peroxide, and Ozone
Trichloroethylene in Ground Water
Technology Description
This oxidation process uses ozone, ultraviolet
radiation, and hydrogen peroxide for the treat-
ment of ground water contaminated with tri-
chloroethylene (TCE).
Technology Performance
Results from the full-scale, advanced oxidation
process tested at the DOE Kansas City plant
were mostly inconclusive:
• The plant is effective in the destruction of
individual volatile organic compounds but
seems to reach a plateau for gross parame-
ters such as total organic carbon and total
chlorinated hydrocarbons;
• The plant has been out of service for main-
tenance and repair approximately 30 percent
of the time;
• The flow rate has averaged approximately
15 percent of the design flow rate, so the
determination of costs has been inconclu-
sive; and
An evaluation of the true plant capacity
indicates that it can accommodate twice the
rated flow rate.
Remediation Costs
Actual costs are not available; however, the
costs are competitive with other processes.
General Site Information
A full-scale, advanced oxidation process was
tested at the DOE Kansas City Plant.
Contact
Sidney B. Garland II
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6317
615/574-8581
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
175
-------
Other Physical Treatment
Wetlands-Based Treatment
Metals in Influent Waters
Technology Description
The constructed wetlands-based treatment
technology uses natural geochemical and biolog-
ical processes inherent in a man-made wetland
ecosystem to accumulate and remove metals
from influent waters. The treatment system
incorporates principal ecosystem components
found in wetlands, including organic soils,
microbial fauna, algae, and vascular plants.
Influent waters, which contain high metal con-
centrations and have a low pH, flow through the
aerobic and anaerobic zones of the wetland
ecosystem. Metals are removed by filtration,
ion exchange, adsorption, absorption, and pre-
cipitation through geochemical and microbial
oxidation and reduction. In filtration, metal
flocculates and metals that are adsorbed onto
fine sediment particles settle in quiescent ponds,
or are filtered out as the water percolates
through the soil or the plant canopy. Ion ex-
change occurs as metals in the water come into
contact with humic or other organic substances
in the soil medium. Oxidation and reduction
reactions that occur in the aerobic and anaerobic
zones, respectively, play a major role in remov-
ing metals as hydroxides and sulfides.
The wetlands-based treatment process is suitable
for acid mine drainage from metal or coal
mining activities. These wastes typically con-
tain high metals concentrations and are acidic in
nature. Wetlands treatment has been applied
with some success to wastewater in the eastern
regions of the United States. The process may
have to be adjusted to account for differences in
geology, terrain, trace metal composition, and
climate in the metal mining regions of the
western United States.
Technology Performance
As a result of the success of this technology in
the Emerging Technology Program, it has been
selected for the Demonstration Program.
The final year of the project under the Emerging
Technology Program was 1991. Results of a
study of drainage from the Big Five Tunnel near
Idaho Springs, Colorado, have shown that by
optimizing design parameters, removal efficien-
cy of heavy metals from the discharge can
approach the removal efficiency of chemical
precipitation treatment plants.
One of the final goals of this project was the
development of a manual that discusses design
and operating criteria for construction of a full-
scale wetland for treating acid mine discharges.
The Demonstration Program will evaluate the
effectiveness of a full-scale wetland. Construc-
tion of a full-scale wetland is the proposed
remedial action for the Burleigh Tunnel near
Silver Plume, Colorado. The Burleigh Tunnel is
part of the Clear Creek/Central City Superfund
Site in Colorado.
Remediation Costs
No cost information is available.
176
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Edward Bates
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7774
Technology Developer Contact:
Rick Brown
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue, Room 252
Denver, CO 80220
303/331-4404
Dim
Anaerobic
Zone
Typical wetland ecosystem
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
177
-------
Appendix A
-------
Incineration and Solidification
Demonstrations
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 181
-------
Incineration
Circulating Bed Com bus tor
Halogenated and Non-Halogenated Organic Compounds and PCBs
in Soil, Sludge, and Liquids
Technology Description
The Circulating Bed Combustor (CBC) uses
high velocity air to entrain circulating solids and
create a highly turbulent combustion zone for
the efficient destruction of toxic hydrocarbons.
The commercial-size combustion chamber (36
inches in diameter) can treat up to 150 tons of
contaminated soil daily, depending on the
heating value of the feed material.
The CBC operates at fairly low temperatures
1450 to 1600°F for this class of technology,
thus reducing operating costs and potential
emissions such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
carbon monoxide. Auxiliary fuel can be natural
gas, fuel oil, or diesel. No auxiliary fuel is
needed for waste streams having a net heating
value greater than 2,900 British thermal units
per pound. The CBC's high turbulence
produces a uniform temperature around the
combustion chamber and hot cyclone. It also
promotes the complete mixing of the waste
material during combustion. The effective
mixing and relatively low combustion
temperature also reduce emissions of carbon
monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Hot gases
produced during combustion pass through a
convective gas cooler and baghouse before
being released to the atmosphere.
Waste material and limestone are fed into the
combustion chamber along with the recirculating
bed material from the hot cyclone. The
limestone neutralizes acid gases. The treated
ash is transported out of the system by an ash
conveyor for proper disposal.
The CBC process may be applied to liquids,
slurries, solids, and sludges contaminated with
corrosives, cyanides, dioxins/furans, inorganics,
metals, organics, oxidizers, pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), phenols, and
volatiles.
Industrial wastes from refineries, chemical
plants, manufacturing site cleanups, and
contaminated military sites are amenable to
treatment by the CBC process. The CBC is
permitted by EPA, under the Toxic Substance
Control Act (TSCA), to burn PCBs in all ten
EPA regions, having demonstrated a 99.9999
percent destruction removal efficiency (DRE).
Waste feed for the CBC must be sized to less
than 1 inch. Metals in the waste do not inhibit
performance and become less leachable after
incineration. Treated residual ash can be
replaced on-site or stabilized for landfill
disposal if metals exceed regulatory limits.
Technology Performance
The technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in March 1989. Ogden
Environmental Services (OES) conducted a
treatability study and demonstration on wastes
obtained from a Superfund site in California
(McColl) under the guidance of the program,
EPA Region 9, and the California Department
of Health Services. The pilot-scale
demonstration was conducted by using the 16-
inch-diameter CBC at Ogden's Research
Facility in San Diego, California.
The EPA SITE program concluded that the test
successfully achieved the desired goals, as
follows:
• Obtained DRE values of 99.99 percent or
greater for principal organic hazardous
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
183
-------
constituents (POHC) and minimized the Technology Developer Contact:
formation of products of incomplete Sherin Sexton
combustion(PIC). Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.
Met the OES Research Facility permit 3550 General Atomics Court
conditions and the California South Coast San Diego, CA 92121-1194
Basin emission standards. 619/455-4622
Controlled sulfur oxide emissions by adding FAX: 619/455-4351
limestone, and determined that the residual
materials (fly ash and bed ash) were
nonhazardous. No significant levels of
hazardous organic compounds left the
system in the stack gas or remained in the
bed and fly ash material. The CBC was
able to minimize emissions of sulfur oxide,
nitrogen oxide, and particulates. Other
regulated pollutants were controlled to well
below permit levels.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Douglas Grosse
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7844
184 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Incineration
Infrared Thermal Destruction
Organics in Soil and Sediment
Technology Description
The infrared thermal destruction technology is
a mobile thermal processing system that uses
electrically powered silicon carbide rods to heat
organic wastes to combustion temperatures.
Any remaining combustibles are incinerated in
an afterburner. One configuration for this
mobile system consists of four components: (1)
an electric-powered infrared primary chamber,
(2) a gas-fired secondary combustion chamber,
(3) an emissions control system, and (4) a
control center.
Waste is fed into the primary chamber and
exposed to infrared radiant heat (up to 1,850
degrees Fahrenheit) provided by silicon carbide
rods above the belt. A blower delivers air to
selected locations along the belt to control the
oxidation rate of the waste feed. The ash
material in the primary chamber is quenched by
using scrubber water effluent. The ash is then
conveyed to the ash hopper, where it is removed
to a holding area and analyzed for organic
contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) content.
Volatile gases from the primary chamber flow
into the secondary chamber, which uses higher
temperatures, greater residence time, turbulence,
and supplemental energy (if required) to destroy
these gases. Gases from the secondary chamber
are ducted through the emissions control system.
In the emissions control system, the particulates
are removed in a venturi scrubber. Acid vapor
is neutralized in a packed tower scrubber. An
induced draft blower draws the cleaned gases
from the scrubber into the free-standing exhaust
stack. The scrubber liquid effluent flows into a
clarifier, where scrubber sludge settles out for
disposal. The liquid then flows through an
activated carbon filter for reuse or to a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) for disposal.
This technology is suitable for soils or
sediments with organic contaminants. Liquid
organic wastes can be treated after mixing with
sand or soil. Optimal waste characteristics are
as follows:
• Particle size, 5 microns to 2 inches
• Moisture content, up to 50 percent by
weight
• Density, 30 to 130 pounds per cubic foot
• Heating value, up to 10,000 British thermal
units per pound
• Chlorine content, up to 5 percent by weight
• Sulfur content, up to 5 percent by weight
• Phosphorus, 0 to 300 parts per million
(ppm)
• pH, 5 to 9
• Alkali metals, up to 1 percent by weight
Technology Performance
EPA conducted two evaluations of the infrared
system. An evaluation of a full-scale unit was
conducted during August 1987, at the Peak Oil
site in Tampa, Florida. The system treated
nearly 7,000 cubic yards of waste oil sludge
containing PCBs and lead. A second pilot-scale
demonstration took place at the Rose Township/
Demode Road Superfund site in Michigan,
during November 1987. Organics, PCBs, and
metals in soil were the target waste compounds
to be immobilized. In addition, the technology
has been used to remediate PCB contamination
at the Florida Steel Corporation and the LaSalle
Electric Superfund sites.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
185
-------
The results from the two SITE demonstrations
are summarized below.
• PCBs were reduced to less than 1 ppm in
the ash, with a destruction removal
efficiency (DRE) for air emissions greater
than 99.99 percent (based on detection
limits).
• In the pilot-scale demonstration, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) standard for paniculate emissions
(180 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter) was achieved. In the full-scale
demonstration, however, this standard was
not met in all runs because of scrubber
inefficiencies.
• Lead was not immobilized; however, it
remained in the ash, and significant amounts
were not transferred to the scrubber water or
emitted to the atmosphere.
• The pilot testing demonstrated satisfactory
performance with high feed rate and
reduced power consumption when fuel oil
was added to the waste feed and the
primary chamber temperature was reduced.
Results from the two demonstrations, plus eight
other case studies, indicate the process is
capable of meeting both RCRA and TSCA DRE
requirements for air emissions and paniculate
emissions. Restrictions in chloride levels in the
feed waste may be necessary. PCB remediation
has consistently met the TSCA guidance level
of 2 ppm in ash.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Howard Wall
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7691
Technology Developer Contact:
John Cioffi
Ecova Corporation
18640 N.E. 67th Court
Redmond, WA 98052
206/883-1900
Technology Vendor Contacts:
George Hay
OH Materials Corporation
419/423-3526
Richard McAllister
Westinghouse Haztech, Inc.
404/593-3803
Remediation Costs
Economic analysis suggests an overall waste
remediation cost up to $800 per ton.
186
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Incineration
PYRETRON® Thermal Destruction
Organics in Soil, Sludge, and Solid Waste
Technology Description
The PYRETRON* thermal destruction
technology provides an integrated combustion
system responsible for controlling the heat input
into an incineration process by using the
PYRETRON* oxygen-air-fuel burners and the
dynamic control of the level of excess oxygen
available for oxidation of hazardous waste. The
PYRETRON* combustor uses an advanced
combustion concept that relies on a new
technique for mixing auxiliary fuel, oxygen, and
air in order to (1) provide the flame envelope
with enhanced stability, luminosity, and flame
core temperature and (2) provide a reduction in
the combustion volume per million British
thermal units (Btu) of heat released.
The combustion system operation is computer
controlled to automatically adjust the
temperatures of the primary and secondary
combustion chambers and the amount of excess
oxygen being supplied to the combustion
process. The system has been designed to
dynamically adjust the amount of excess oxygen
in response to sudden changes in the rate of
volatilization of contaminants from the waste.
The burner system can be fitted onto any
conventional incineration unit and used for the
burning of liquids, solids, and sludges. Solids
and sludges can also be coincinerated when the
burner is used in conjunction with a rotary kiln
or similar equipment.
High and low Btu solid wastes contaminated
with rapidly volatilized hazardous organics are
suitable for the PYRETRON* technology. In
general, the technology is applicable to any
waste that can be incinerated. The technology
is not suitable for processing aqueous wastes,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) heavy metal wastes, or inorganic
wastes.
Technology Performance
A demonstration project was conducted at
EPA's Combustion Research Facility in
Jefferson, Arkansas, using a mixture of 40
percent contaminated soil from the Stringfellow
Acid Pit Superfund site in California and 60
percent decanter tank tar sludge from coking
operations (RCRA listed waste K087). The
demonstration began in November 1987 and
was completed at the end of January 1988.
Both the Technology Evaluation Report
(EPA/540/5-89/008) and Applications Analysis
Report (EPA/540/A5-89/008) have been
published.
Six polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were
selected as the principal organic hazardous
constituents (POHC) for the test program —
naphthalene, acenaphthylene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, anthracene, and fluoranthene.
The PYRETRON* technology achieved greater
than 99.99 percent destruction and removal
efficiencies (DRE) of all POHCs measured in
all test runs performed. Other advantages are
listed below:
• The PYRETRON® technology with oxygen
enhancement achieved double the waste
throughput possible with conventional
incineration.
• All paniculate emission levels in the
scrubber system discharge were significantly
below the hazardous waste incinerator
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
187
-------
performance standard of 180 milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter at 7 percent
oxygen.
• Solid residues were contaminant-free.
• There were no significant differences in
transient carbon monoxide level emissions
between air-only incineration and
PYRETRON* oxygen-enhanced operation
with doubled throughput rate.
• Costs savings can be achieved in many
situations.
The field evaluations conducted under the SITE
Demonstration Program yielded the following
conclusions:
• The PYRETRON* burner system is a viable
technology for treating Superfund wastes.
• The system is capable of doubling the
capacity of a conventional rotary kiln
incinerator. This increase is more
significant for wastes with low heating
values.
• In situations where paniculate carryover
causes operational problems, the
PYRETRON* system may increase
reliability.
• The technology can be an economical
addition to an incinerator when operating
and fuel costs are high and oxygen costs are
relatively low.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7863
Technology Developer Contact:
Gregory Gitman
American Combustion, Inc.
4476 Park Drive
Norcross, GA 30093
404/564-4180
FAX: 404/564-4192
188
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Chemfix Solidification/Stabilization Process
Solid Waste in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
This solidification and stabilization process is an
inorganic system in which soluble silicates and
silicate setting agents react with polyvalent
metal ions and other waste components, to
produce a chemically and physically stable solid
material. The treated waste matrix displays
good stability, a high melting point, and a
friable texture. The treated matrix may be
similar to soil, depending upon the water
content of the feed waste.
The feed waste is first blended in the reaction
vessel with dry alumina, calcium, and silica
based reagents that are dispersed and dissolved
throughout the aqueous phase. The reagents
react with polyvalent ions in the waste and form
inorganic polymer chains (insoluble metal
silicates) throughout the aqueous phase. These
polymer chains physically entrap the organic
colloids within the microstructure of the product
matrix. The water-soluble silicates then react
with complex ions in the presence of a silicate
setting agent, producing amorphous, colloidal
silicates (gels) and silicon dioxide, which acts as
a precipitating agent.
Most of the heavy metals in the waste become
part of the silicate gel. Some of the heavy
metals precipitate with the structure of the
silicate gel. A very small percentage (estimated
to be less than one percent) of the heavy metals
precipitates between the silicates and is
mechanically immobilized.
Since some organics may be contained in
particles larger than the silicate gel, all of the
waste is pumped through processing equipment,
creating sufficient shear in combination with
surface active chemicals to emulsify the organic
constituents. Emulsified organics are then
microencapsulated and solidified and discharged
to a prepared area, where the gel continues to
set and stabilize. The resulting solids, though
friable, microencapsulate any organic substances
that may have escaped emulsification. The
system can be operated at 5 to 100 percent
solids in the waste feed; water is added for drier
wastes. Portions of the water contained in the
wastes are involved in three reactions after
treatment: (1) hydration, similar to that, of
cement reactions; (2) hydrolysis reactions; and
(3) equilibration through evaporation. There are
no side streams or discharges from this process.
This technology is suitable for contaminated
soils, sludges, and other solid wastes. The
process is applicable to electroplating wastes,
electric arc furnace dust, and municipal sewage
sludge containing heavy metals such as
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and
zinc.
Technology Performance
The technology was demonstrated in March
1989 at the Portable Equipment Salvage Co.,
site in Clackamas, Oregon. Preliminary results
are available in a Demonstration Bulletin
(October 1989). The Technology Evaluation
Report (TER) was published in September 1990
(EPA/540/5-89/01 la). The Applications
Analysis Report (AAR) was completed in May
1991 (EPA/540/A5-89/011).
From fall 1989 through winter 1990, Chemfix
Technologies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Chemfix
Environmental Services, Inc. (CES), applied a
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
189
-------
high solids CHEMSET® reagent protocol
approach to the treatment of about 30,000 cubic
yards of heavy metal-contaminated waste. The
goal of reducing leachable hexavalent chromium
to below 0.5 parts per million (ppm) in the
toxicity characteristics leaching procedure
(TCLP) was met, as well as the goal of
producing a synthetic clay cover material with
low permeability (less than 1 x 10"6 centimeters
per second). The production goal of exceeding
400 tons per day was also met. This included
production during many subfreezing days in
December, January, and March. In Summer
1990, CES engaged in another high solids
project involving lead.
Following is a summary of the results of the
demonstration:
• The Chemfix Technology was effective in
reducing the concentrations of copper and
lead in the TCLP extracts. The
concentrations in the extracts from the
treated wastes were 94 to 99 percent less
than those from the untreated wastes. Total
lead concentrations of the untreated waste
approached 14 percent.
• The volume of the excavated waste material
increased from 20 to 50 percent.
• In the durability tests, the treated wastes
showed little or no weight loss after 12
cycles of wetting and drying or freezing and
thawing.
• The unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
of the wastes varied between 27 and 307
pounds per square inch after 28 days.
Permeability decreased by more than one
order of magnitude.
• The air monitoring data suggest there was
no significant volatilization of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) during the
treatment process.
The cost of the treatment process was $73
per ton of raw waste treated, exclusive of
excavation, pretreatment, and disposal.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Edwin Earth
U.S. EPA
Center for Environmental Research Information
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7669
Technology Developer Contact:
Philip N. Baldwin, Jr.
Chemfix Technologies, Inc.
Suite 620, Metairie Center
2424 Edenbom Avenue
Metairie, Louisiana 70001
504/831-3600
190
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
EmTech Solidification/Stabilization Process
Organic Compounds, Heavy Metals, Ore and Grease in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
This treatment system is capable of chemically
destroying certain chlorinated organics and
immobilizing heavy metals. The technology
mixes hazardous wastes, cement or fly ash,
water, and one of 18 patented reagents
commonly known as "Chloranan." In the case
of chlorinated organics, the process uses metal-
scavenging techniques to remove chlorine atoms
and replace them with hydrogen atoms. Metals
are fixed at their lowest solubility point.
Soils, sludges, and sediments can be treated in
situ or excavated and treated ex situ. Sediments
can also be treated underwater. Blending is
accomplished in batches, with volumetric
throughput rated at 120 tons per hour.
The treatment process begins by adding
Chloranan and water to the blending unit,
followed by the waste and mixing for 2
minutes. The cement is added and mixed for a
similar time. After 12 hours, the treated
material hardens into a concrete-like mass that
exhibits unconfined compressive strengths
(UCS) in the 1,000 to 3,000 pounds per square
inch (psi) range, with permeabilities in the
10"9 centimeters per second range. Results may
vary. It is capable of withstanding several
hundred cycles of freeze and thaw weathering.
This technology has been refined since the 1987
SITE demonstration and is now capable of
destroying certain chlorinated organics and also
immobilizing other wastes, including very high
levels of metals. The organics and inorganics
can be treated separately or together with no
impact on the chemistry of the process.
technology Performance
This technology was demonstrated in October
1987 at a former oil processing plant in
Douglassville, Pennsylvania. The site soil
contained high levels of oil and grease (250,000
ppm) and heavy metals (22,000 ppm lead), and
low levels of volatile organic compounds (100
ppm) and polychlorinated biphenyls (75 ppm).
An Applications Analysis Report (EPA/540/A5-
89/001) and a Technology Evaluation Report
(EPA/540/5-89/001a) are available. A report on
long-term monitoring may be obtained from
EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
Since the demonstration in 1987, the technology
has been greatly enhanced through the
development of 17 more reagent formulations
that expand dechlorination of many chlorinated
organics to include PCBs, ethylene dichloride
(EDC), trichlorethylene (TCE), and others.
Remediation of heavily contaminated oily soils
and sludges has been accomplished, as well as
remediation of a California Superfund site with
up to 220,000 ppm of zinc. The Canadian
Government selected this process as one to test
for underwater treatment of PCBs and VOCs
found in sediments.
Comparisons of the 7-day, 28-day, 9-month, and
22-month sample test results for the soil are
generally favorable. The physical test results
were very good, with UCS between 220 and
1,570 psi. Very low permeabilities were
recorded, and the porosity of the treated wastes
was moderate. Durability test results showed no
change in physical strength after the wet and
dry and freeze and thaw cycles. The waste
volume increased by about 120 percent.
However, refinements of the technology now
restrict volumetric increases to the 15 to 25
percent range. Using less additives reduces
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
191
-------
strength, but toxicity reduction is not affected.
There appears to be an inverse relationship
between physical strength and organic
contaminant concentration.
The results of the leaching tests were mixed.
The toxicity characteristics leaching procedure
(TCLP) results of the stabilized wastes were
very low; essentially, all concentrations of
metals, VOCs, and semivolatile organics were
below 1 ppm. Lead leachate concentrations
dropped by a factor of 200 to below 100 parts
per billion. Volatile and semivolatile organic
concentrations, however, did not change from
the untreated soil TCLP. Oil and grease
concentrations were greater in the treated waste
TCLPs (4 ppm) than in the untreated waste (less
than 2 ppm).
The process can treat contaminated material
with high concentrations (up to 25 percent) of
oil. However, during the SITE demonstration,
volatiles and base and neutral extractables were
not immobilized significantly.
Heavy metals were immobilized. In many
instances, leachate reductions were greater by a
factor of 100.
The physical properties of the treated waste
include high unconfined compressive strengths,
low permeabilities, and good weathering
properties.
Remediation Costs
The process, based on tests at Douglassville,
Pennsylvania, was economical, with costs
ranging from $40-60 per ton for processing
heavy metals waste, and between $75-100 per
ton for wastes with heavy organic content.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Paul R. dePercin
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7797
Technology Developer Contact:
Ray Funderburk
EmTech Environmental Services, Inc.
303 Arthur St.
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
1-800-227-6543
192
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization Process
Inorganic and Organic Compounds in Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
Technology Description
This in situ solidification and stabilization
technology immobilizes organic and inorganic
compounds in wet or dry soils, using reagents
(additives) to produce a cement-like mass. The
basic components of this technology are: (1)
Geo-Con's deep soil mixing system (DSM), a
system to deliver and mix the chemicals with
the soil in situ; and (2) a batch mixing plant to
supply the International Waste Technologies'
(IWT) proprietary treatment chemicals.
The proprietary additives generate a complex,
crystalline, connective network of inorganic
polymers. The structural bonding in the
polymers is mainly covalent. The process
involves a two-phased reaction in which the
contaminants are first complexed in a fast acting
reaction, and then in a slow acting reaction,
where the building of macromolecules continues
over a long period of time. For each type of
waste, the amount of additives used varies.
Treatability tests are recommended.
The DSM system involves mechanical mixing
and injection. The system consists of one set of
cutting blades and two sets of mixing blades
attached to a vertical drive auger, which rotates
at approximately 15 revolutions per minute
(rpm). Two conduits in the auger are used to
inject the additive slurry and supplemental
water. Additive injection occurs on the
downstroke; further mixing takes place upon
auger withdrawal. The treated soil columns are
36 inches in diameter, and are positioned in an
overlapping pattern of alternating primary and
secondary soil columns.
The IWT technology can be applied to soils,
sediments, and sludge-pond bottoms
contaminated with organic compounds and
metals. The technology has been laboratory
tested on soils containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCS), pentachlorophenol, refinery
wastes, and chlorinated and nitrated
hydrocarbons.
Technology Performance
A SITE demonstration was conducted at a PCB-
contaminated site in Hialeah, Florida, in April
1988. Two 10-by-20-foot test sectors of the site
were treated — one to a depth of 18 feet, and
the other to a depth of 14 feet. Ten months
after the demonstration, long-term monitoring
tests were performed on the treated sectors.
The Technology Evaluation Report and
Applications Analysis Report have been
published.
Key findings from the demonstration are
summarized below:
• Immobilization of PCBs appears likely, but
could not be confirmed because of low PCB
concentrations in the untreated soil.
Leachate tests on treated and untreated soil
samples showed mostly undetectable PCB
levels. Leachate tests performed one year
later on treated soil samples showed no
increase in PCB concentrations, indicating
immobilization.
• Sufficient data were not available to
evaluate the performance of the system with
regard to metals or other organic
compounds.
• Each of the test samples showed high
unconfined compressive strength, low
permeability, and low porosity. These
physical properties improved when retested
one year later, indicating the potential for
long-term durability.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
193
-------
• The bulk density of the soil increased 21
percent after treatment. This increased the
volume of treated soil by 8.5 percent and
caused a small ground rise of one inch per
treated foot of soil.
• The unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
of treated soil was satisfactory, with values
up to 1,500 pounds per square inch (psi).
• The permeability of the treated soil was
satisfactory, decreasing four orders of
magnitude compared to the untreated soil,
or 10'6 and 10'7 compared to 10'2
centimeters per second.
• The wet and dry weathering test on treated
soil was satisfactory. The freeze and dry
weathering test of treated soil was
unsatisfactory.
• The microstructural analysis, scanning
electron microscopy (SEM), optical
microscopy, and x-ray diffraction (XRD),
showed that the treated material was dense
and homogeneously mixed.
Following is a summary of the applications
analysis:
• Microstructural analyses of the treated soils
indicated a potential for long-term
durability. High unconfined compressive
strengths and low permeabilities were
recorded.
• Data provided by IWT indicate some
immobilization of volatile and semivolatile
organics. This may be due to organophilic
clays present in the IWT reagent. There are
insufficient data to confirm this
immobilization.
• Performance data are limited outside of
SITE demonstrations. The developer
modifies the binding agent for different
wastes. Treatability studies should be
performed for specific wastes.
Remediation Costs
Costs for this process are estimated at $194 per
ton for the 1-auger machine used in the
demonstration and $111 per ton for a
commercial 4-auger operation.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Mary Stinson
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
908/321-6683
Technology Developer Contacts:
Jeff Newton
International Waste Technologies
150 North Main Street, Suite 910
Wichita, KS 67202
316/269-2660
Brian Jasperse
Geo-Con, Inc.
P.O. Box 17380
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
412/856-7700
194
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
NOMIX® Technology
Metals in Waste Lagoons and Spills
Technology Description
The NOMIX* technology is a patented
solidification and stabilization process that can
be applied to contaminated media in situ,
without the need for mixing or equipment. The
technology combines specially formulated
cemetitious materials with waste media.
Because the material hardens faster than
conventional concrete, there is a savings in
remediation time.
The NOMIX* solidification compounds consist
of specially formulated cements, sands,
aggregates, and various combinations thereof.
The dry components and their reacting rates
with the wet waste are closely controlled,
allowing rapid and efficient solidification. The
contaminated media may be diluted with water,
if necessary, to facilitate the solidification
process. If the addition of water is necessary, it
may be introduced into the waste media before
the addition of the preblended solidification
compounds in various ways to create a
homogenous solution of waste and water. The
solidification compounds are then poured
through the waste and water solution in a
consistent manner, allowing the complete
absorption of the waste solution and the
formation of a solid mass. The process
produces a relatively homogenous treated mass
compared to that produced by solidification
processes using mixing equipment.
Applications of the technology require little
labor and, because mixing is accomplished
simply by pouring the solidification compounds
through the waste combination, greater
quantities of waste can be solidified by this
process than with normal concrete mixtures.
The treated waste is a hardened mass which,
according to bench-scale data, can be made
relatively impermeable with formulation
adjustments or coatings when compared with the
treated product from systems using formulations
of regular concrete mixes, such as ASTM C-109
standard mix.
The process can address contaminated waste
contained in drums (or other containers), a
minor spill, or even a lagoon. Each of these
situations will require its own particular
installation procedures. After solidification, the
units can be moved for storage, or left in place
for normal situations. For critical situations, the
solidified mass may be encased for extra
protection with a non-shrink, structural concrete,
and/or a high quality waterproof coating.
The NOMIX* technology is currently most
suitable for solidification and stabilization of
aqueous wastes in the following situations:
• Solidification of drum waste
• Solidification of minor spills in situ to
minimize soil, facility, or plant
contamination
• Solidification of waste lagoons for long-
term, in-place storage, or for solidification
in preparation for removal.
The technology has been applied to solutions of
mercuric chloride, nickel sulfate, phenylene
diamene, barium acetate, lead, and phenol.
These samples were analyzed using the proven
procedures of ASTM Standard C-109, and the
resulting strengths were similar to those
expected from a standard concrete mix.
As the technology is improved it will become
suitable for solidification of various wastes in
soils including inorganic wastes.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
195
-------
Technology Performance Technology Developer Contact:
David Babcock
Solidification and stabilization using the Hazardous Waste Control, a division of
NOMDC* Technology was accepted into the Construction Products Research, Inc.
SITE Demonstration Program in March 1991. 435 Stillson Road
The date and place of the demonstration are Fan-field, CT 06430
undetermined. 203/336-7955
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Ten Shearer
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7949
196 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
SAREX Chemical Fixation Process
Low-Level Metals and Organics in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
The SAREX chemical fixation process (CFP),
developed by Separation and Recovery Systems,
Inc. (SRS), is a thermal and chemical reactive
(fixation) process that removes volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOC), and the remaining
constituents of organic and inorganic sludge
materials in a stable matrix. SAREX CFP uses
specially prepared lime and proprietary,
nontoxic chemicals (a reagent blend) mixed
proportionally to catalyze and control the
reactions. The treated product displays
chemical properties which conform to toxic
EPA standards for resource recovery and site
restoration. The product also exhibits high
structural integrity, with a fine, granular, soil-
like consistency, of limited solubility. It is free
flowing until compacted (50 to 80 pounds per
square inch), isolating the remaining
constituents from environmental influences.
Depending on the characteristics of the waste
material, it may be covered with a liquid
neutralizing reagent that initiates the chemical
reactions and helps prevent vapor emissions. If
required, the waste material may be moved to
the neutralization (blending) tank where a
"make-up" reagent slurry is added, depending on
material characteristics. The waste is placed on
the feed hopper.
The reagent is measured and placed on the
transfer conveyor so that the reagent and waste
mixture would advance to the single-screw
homogenizer, where it is thoroughly blended to
a uniform consistency. The reagent blend reacts
exothermally with the hazardous constituents to
initiate the removal of the VOCs and SVOCs.
The process, now about 70 percent complete,
continues in the multi-screw, jacketed, non-
contacting processor for curing (a predetermined
curing time allows reactions to occur within a
controlled environment). In the processor, the
mixture can be thermally processed at a high
temperature to complete the process. The
processed material exits the processor onto a
discharge conveyor for movement into SRS-
designed sealed transport containers for delivery
to the end use.
Contaminants loss into the air (mobility) during
processing is eliminated by use of a specially
designed SAREX vapor recovery system and
processed prior to release into the air. Dust
particles are removed in a baghouse, and the
vapors are routed through a series of water
scrubbers, which cool the vapors (below 120°F)
and remove any condensates. The vapors then
pass through two demisters and a positive
displacement blower to remove additional
condensates. A freon chilling unit (37°F or
0°F) cools the remaining vapors, which are sent
to a storage tank. The final vapor stream is
polished in two charcoal vapor packs before
being emitted into the air.
The SAREX CFP may be applied to a wide
variety of organic and inorganic materials.
These include sludges that contain high
concentrations of hazardous constituents, with
no upper limit of oil or organic content. No
constituents interfere with the fixation reactions,
and water content is not an obstacle, although
there may be steaming caused by the exothermic
reactions. The following material types can be
processed by the SAREX CFP:
• Large crude oil spills
• Refinery sludges
• Hydrocarbon-contaminated soils
• Lube oil acid sludges
• Tars
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
197
-------
In addition, metals are captured within the
treated matrix and will pass the toxicity
characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP). This
proves to be advantageous, because most on-site
cleanup programs focus on sludge ponds or
impoundments that have received many different
types of compounds and debris over several
years.
Technology Performance
During the development of the SAREX CFP
technology, data has been gathered from
laboratory analysis, process demonstrations, and
on-site projects. Samples of sludges from two
ponds were analyzed for surface and bottom
characteristics. After treatment of the samples,
the products were analyzed in powder and
molded pellet form.
A field demonstration was conducted during
1987 at a midwest refinery by treating
approximately 400 cubic yards of lube oil acid
sludges. Two projects each were completed in
the midwest, California, and Australia.
SRS expects to conduct a SITE demonstration
during 1992. EPA is seeking a suitable site for
the demonstration.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
Technology Developer Contact:
Joseph DeFranco
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.
1762 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714
714/26108860
FAX: 714/261-6010
198
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification of Spent Blasting
Heavy Metals in Spent Blasting Abrasives, Grit, and Sands
Technology Description
In this process, abrasives are screened and
mixed with asphalt and other aggregates.
Target contaminants are lead and copper.
The goal of this technology is to recycle spent
abrasives into non-hazardous product mat can be
reused as valuable commercial product available
for unrestricted public use. The process
produces less than one percent inert debris
(wood and metal scrap). Treatment capacity
varies with the plant.
Technology Performance
A field demonstration of this technology was
conducted at the Naval Construction Battalion
Center at Port Hueneme, California, from
February 1991 through February 1192. The test
involved 1,200 tons of blasting paint from
vehicles.
Remediation Costs
Costs for used of this process are estimated at
$85 per ton of waste. Approximately two
months are required for design.
Contacts
Jeff Heath and Barbara Nelson
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805/982-1657
Stan Brackman
R&G Environmental Services
P.O. Box 5940
San Jose, CA 95150
408/288-4188
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
199
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidincation/Stabilization
Organics and Inorganics in Soil, Sludge, and Liquid
Technology Description
This solidification and stabilization technology
applies proprietary bonding agents to soils,
sludge, and liquid wastes with organic and
inorganic contaminants to treat the pollutants
within the wastes. The waste and reagent
mixture is then mixed with cementitious
materials, which form a stabilizing matrix. The
specific reagents used are selected based on the
particular waste to be treated. The resultant
material is a nonleaching, high-strength
monolith.
The process uses standard engineering and
construction equipment. Since the type and
dose of reagents depend on waste
characteristics, treatability studies and site
investigations must be conducted to determine
the proper treatment formula. The process
begins with excavation of the waste. Materials
containing large pieces of debris must be
prescreened. The waste is then placed into a
high shear mixer, along with premeasured
quantities of water and SuperSet*. WASTECH's
proprietary reagent.
Next, cementitious materials are added to the
waste-reagent mixture, stabilizing the waste and
completing the treatment process. WASTECH's
treatment technology does not generate waste
by-products. The process can also be applied in
situ.
WASTECH's technology can treat a wide
variety of waste streams consisting of soils,
sludges, and raw organic streams, such as
lubricating oil, aromatic solvents, evaporator
bottoms, chelating agents, and ion exchange
resins, with contaminant concentrations ranging
from part per million levels to 40 percent by
volume. The technology can also treat wastes
generated by the petroleum, chemical, pesticide,
and wood-preserving industries, as well as
wastes generated by many other manufacturing
and industrial processes. WASTECH's
technology can also be applied to mixed wastes
containing radioactive materials, along with
organic and inorganic contaminants.
Technology Performance
This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in Spring 1991. Bench-
scale evaluation of the process is complete. A
field demonstration at Robins Air Force Base in
Macon, Georgia, was completed in August
1991. The WASTECH technology was used to
treat high level organic and inorganic wastes at
an industrial sludge pit. The technology is now
being commercially applied to treat hazardous
wastes contaminated with various organics,
inorganics, and mixed wastes.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Terry Lyons
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7589
Technology Developer Contact:
E. Benjamin Peacock
WASTECH, Inc.
P.O. Box 4638
114TulsaRoad
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
615/483-6515
200
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization with Silicate Compounds
Organics and Inorganics in Ground Water, Soil, and Sludge
Technology Description
Silicate Technology Corporation's (STC)
technology for treating hazardous waste utilizes
silicate compounds to solidify and stabilize
organic and inorganic constituents in
contaminated soils, sludges, and wastewater.
STC's organic chemical fixation/solidification
technology involves the bonding of the organic
contaminants into the layers of the of an
alumino silicate compound. STC's inorganic
chemical fixation/solidification technology
involves the formation of insoluble chemical
compounds which reduces the overall reagent
addition compared to generic cementicious
processes.
Pretreatment of contaminated soil includes
separation of coarse and fine waste materials,
and the crushing of coarse material, reducing it
to the size required for the solidification and
stabilization technology. The screened waste is
weighed and a predetermined amount of silicate
reagent is added. The material is conveyed to
a pug mill mixer where water is added and the
mixture is blended. Sludges are placed directly
into the pug mill for addition of reagents and
mixing. The amount of reagent required for
solidification and stabilization can be adjusted
according to variations in organic and inorganic
contaminant concentrations determined during
treatability testing. Treated material is placed in
confining pits for on-site curing or cast into
molds for transport and disposal off site.
STC's technology has been successfully
implemented on inorganic and organic
contaminated hazardous remediation projects,
inorganic and organic industrial wastewater
treatment systems, industrial in-process
treatment, and RCRA landban treatment of F006
and K061 wastes. A typical remediation project
would include pretreatment of the waste which
consists of screening and crushing operations.
STC's technology can be applied to a wide
variety of hazardous soils, sludges, and
wastewaters. Applicable waste media include
the following:
• Inorganic contaminated soils and sludges.
Contaminants including most metals,
cyanides, flourides, arsenates, chromates,
and selenium.
• Organic contaminated soils and sludges.
Organic compounds including halogenated
aromatics, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and aliphatic compounds.
• Inorganic and organic contaminated
wastewaters. Heavy metals, emulsified and
dissolved organic compounds in ground
water and industrial wastewater, excluding
low-molecular-weight organic contaminants
such as alcohols, ketones, and glycols.
Technology Performance
Under the SITE Demonstration Program, the
technology was demonstrated in November 1990
at the Selma Pressure Treating (SPT) wood
preserving site in Selma, California. The SPT
site was contaminated with both organics,
mainly pentachlorophenol (PCP), and
inorganics, mainly arsenic, chromium and
copper. The Applications Analysis Report and
Technology Evaluation Report is expected to be
published in 1992.
Following is a summary of the results of the
demonstration:
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
201
-------
• STC's technology can treat PCP. Extract
and leachate concentrations of PCP were
reduced by up to 97 percent.
• The technology can immobilize arsenic.
Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) and TCLP-distilled water leachate
concentrations were reduced by up to 92
and 98 percent, respectively.
• The technology can immobilize chromium
and copper. Initially low TCLP and TCLP-
distilled water leachate concentrations of
chromium (0.07 to 0.27 ppm) were reduced
by up to 54 percent. Initial TCLP and
TCLP-distilled water leachate concentrations
of copper (0.4 ppm and 9.4 ppm) were
reduced by up to 99 and 90 percent,
respectively.
• Immobilization of semivolatile organic
compounds and volatile compounds other
than PCP could not be evaluated due to the
low concentrations of these analytes in the
wastes.
• Treatment of the wastes resulted in volume
increases ranging from 59 to 75 percent (68
percent average).
• After a 28-day curing period, the treated
wastes exhibited moderately high
unconfined compressive strengths of 260 to
350 pounds per square inch.
• Permeability of the treated waste was low
(less than 1.7 X 10"7 centimeters per
second). The relative cumulative weight
loss after 12 wet and dry and 12 freeze and
thaw cycles was negligible (less than 1
percent).
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Edward Bates
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7774
Technology Developer Contacts:
Stephen Pelger and Scott Larsen
Silicate Technology Corporation
7655 East Gelding Drive, Suite B—2
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
602/948-7100
FAX: 602/991-3173
Remediation Costs
STCs technology is expected to cost
approximately $200 per cubic yard when used
to treat large amounts (15,000 cubic yards) of
waste similar to that found at the SPT
demonstration site.
202
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Soliditech Solidification/Stabilization Process
Organic and Inorganic Compounds, Metals, Ore and
Grease in Soil and Sludge
Technology Description
This solidification and stabilization process
immobilizes contaminants in soils and sludges
by binding them in a concrete-like, leach-
resistant matrix.
Contaminated waste materials are collected,
screened to remove oversized material, and
introduced to the batch mixer. The waste
material is then mixed with (1) water, (2)
Urrichem — a proprietary chemical reagent, (3)
proprietary additives, and (4) pozzolanic
material (fly ash), kiln dust, or cement. After it
is thoroughly mixed, the treated waste is
discharged from the mixer. Treated waste is a
solidified mass with significant unconfined
compressive strength, high stability, and a rigid
texture similar to that of concrete.
This technology is intended for treating soils
and sludges contaminated with organic
compounds, metals, inorganic compounds, and
oil and grease. Batch mixers of various
capacities are available to treat different
volumes of waste.
Technology Performance
The process was demonstrated in December
1988 at the Imperial Oil Company/Champion
Chemical Company Superfund site in
Morganville, New Jersey. This location
formerly contained both chemical processing
and oil reclamation facilities. Wastes treated
during the demonstration were soils, filter cake,
and oily wastes from an old storage tank.
These wastes were contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
other organic chemicals, and heavy metals.
Key findings from the Soliditech demonstration
are summarized below:
• Chemical analyses of extracts and leachates
showed that heavy metals present in the
untreated waste were immobilized.
• The process solidified both solid and liquid
wastes with high organic content (up to 17
percent), as well as oil and grease.
• Volatile organic compounds in the original
waste were not detected in the treated
waste.
• Physical test results of the solidified waste
samples showed: (1) unconfined
compressive strengths ranging from 390 to
860 pounds per square inch (psi); (2) very
little weight loss after 12 cycles of wet and
dry and freeze and thaw durability tests; (3)
low permeability of the treated waste; and
(4) increased density after treatment.
• The solidified waste increased in volume by
an average of 22 percent. Because of
solidification, the bulk density of the waste
material increased by about 35 percent.
• Semivolatile organic compounds (phenols)
were detected in the treated waste and the
Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
(TCLP) extracts from the treated waste, but
not in the untreated waste or its TCLP
extracts. The presence of these compounds
is believed to result from chemical reactions
in the waste treatment mixture.
• Oil and grease content of the untreated
waste ranged from 2.8 to 17.3 percent
(28,000 to 173,000 ppm). Oil and grease
content of the TCLP extracts of the
solidified waste ranged from 2.4 to 12 ppm.
• The pH of the solidified waste ranged from
11.7 to 12.0. The pH of the untreated waste
ranged from 3.4 to 7.9.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
203
-------
• PCBs were not detected in any extracts or Technology Developer Contact:
leachates of the treated waste. Bill Stallworth
• Visual observation of solidified waste Soliditech, Inc.
contained dark inclusions about 1 millimeter 1325 S. Dairy Ashford, Suite 385
in diameter. Ongoing microstructural Houston, TX 77077
studies are expected to confirm that these 713/497-8558
inclusions are encapsulated wastes.
A Technology Evaluation Report was published
in February 1990 in two volumes. Volume I
(EPA/540/5-89/005A) is the report; Volume H
(EPA/540/5-89/005B) contains data to
supplement the report. An Applications
Analysis Report was published in September
1990 (EPA/4540/A5-89/005).
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
S. Jackson Hubbard
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
204 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Stabilization of Small Arms Range Soils
Lead in Soil
Technology Description
In this process, contaminated soil is treated ex
situ. The soil is removed and screened to
remove bullets and other debris. Bullets
screened out in this phase of the treatment are
recycled; other debris is disposed of in a
landfill.
Screened soil is then mixed with sodium
silicate, portland cement, and water. The
mixture is then cured and treated soil is returned
to its original location.
Target contaminants for this technology are
heavy metals, particularly lead. The goal of the
process is to reduce levels of lead to less than
EPA criteria.
Remediation Costs
Estimated cost for use of this technology was
$490 per ton of waste.
Contacts
Barbara Nelson and Jeff Heath
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory
Code L71
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
805/982-1668
Dr. Jeffrey Means
Battelle Memorial Institute
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
614/424-5442
Technology Performance
A field demonstration of this process was
conducted in 1990 at the Small Arms Range at
Naval Air Station Mayport in Florida.
Approximately 170 cubic yards of contaminated
soil was successfully treated in the
demonstration. TCLP levels of lead, copper,
and zinc were reduced — from 720 ppm to less
than 0.9 ppm for lead; from 7 ppm to less than
0.2 ppm for copper; and from 4.1 ppm to less
than 0.2 ppm for zinc.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
205
-------
Solidification/Stabilization
Stabilization with Lime
Hydrocarbons and Organics in Sludge
Technology Description
This technology uses lime to stabilize acidic
sludge containing at least five percent
hydrocarbons (typical of sludge produced by
recycling lubricating oils). The technology can
also stabilize waste containing up to 80 percent
organics. The process tolerates low levels of
mercury and moderate levels of lead and other
toxic metals. No hazardous materials are used
in the process. The lime and other chemicals
are specially prepared to significantly improve
their reactivity and other key characteristics.
Sludge is removed from a waste pit using
conventional earthmoving equipment and mixed
with lime in a separate blending pit. The
temperature of the material in the blending pit
rises for a brief time to about 100°C, creating
some steam. After 20 minutes, almost all of the
material is fixed, however, the chemicals mixed
in the sludge continue to react with the waste
for days. The volume of the waste is increased
by 30 percent by adding lime.
The fixed material is stored in a product pile
until the waste pit has been cleaned. The waste
is then returned to the pit and compacted to a
permeability of 10'10 cm/sec.
Technology Performance
EPA is seeking a suitable site to demonstrate
this technology. A SITE demonstration is
planned for the spring or summer of 1991.
Remediation Costs
Cost information is not available.
Contacts
EPA Project Manager:
Walter Grube
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513/569-7798
Technology Developer Contact:
Joseph DeFranco
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.
1762 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, California 92714
714/261-8860
206
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
Appendix B
-------
General Technology Development
Programs
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 209
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Mixed Waste Landfill
The mission of the Mixed-Waste Landfill
Integrated Demonstration (MWLID) is to
demonstrate in contaminated sites new
technologies for cleanup of chemical and mixed
waste landfills that are representative of many
sites occurring through the DOE complex and
the nation. When implemented, these new
technologies promise to characterize and remedy
past waste disposal practices that have led to
contaminated landfill sites across the country.
Characterization and remediation technologies
are aimed at making cleaning up less expensive,
safer, and more effective than current
techniques. This will be done by emphasizing
"in situ" technologies. Soils will not be moved
while the extent of the contamination is
assessed (characterized), and the threat from the
contaminant will be safely mitigated. Most
important, the MWLID's success will be shared
with other Federal, state, and local governments,
and private industry that face the important task
of remediation of waste sites.
General Site Information
MWLID will demonstrate technology at two
landfills at Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Chemical
Waste Landfill received hazardous (chemical)
waste from the laboratory from 1962 to 1985,
and the Mixed-Waste Landfill received
hazardous waste and radioactive wastes (mixed
wastes) over a 29-year period (1959-1988) from
various Sandia nuclear research programs.
Both landfills now are closed. Originally,
however, the sites were selected because of
Albuquerque's arid climate and the thick layer
of alluvial deposits that overlay ground water
approximately 480 feet below the landfills.
This thick layer of "dry" soils, gravel, and clays
promised to be a natural barrier between the
landfills and ground water.
Prior to May 1992, field demonstrations of the
characterization technologies were performed at
an un-contaminated site near the Chemical
Waste Landfill In May, DOE initiated
demonstration in the Chemical Waste Landfill
with non-intrusive characterization techniques.
Future characterization plans include technology
demonstrations in stages — first at the
Chemical Waste Landfill and then at the Mixed
Waste Landfill.
Bench-scale demonstrations of electrokinetic
remediation methods have been completed by
Sandia. A pilot field demonstration will occur
in 1993 at an un-contaminated site.
The first phase of the Thermally Enhanced
Vapor Extraction System (TEVES) project
occurred in 1992 when two holes were drilled
and vapor extraction wells were installed at the
Chemical Waste Landfill. Three types of
technology to remediate volatile organic
chemicals (VOCs) in soils are involved in this
demonstration. Obtaining the engineering
design and environmental permits necessary to
implement this field demonstration will take
until May 1993. Field demonstration of the
vapor extraction system will occur from May
through December 1993.
Contact
Lynn Tyler
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800
Division 6621
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5800
505/845-8348
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
211
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Organics in Soils and Ground Water at Non-Arid Sites
This integrated demonstration program is
developing, demonstrating, and comparing
technologies for remediation of volatile organics
(e.g., TCE, PCE) in soils and ground water at
non-arid DOE sites. The demonstration
provides for technical performance comparisons
of different available technologies at one
specific site, based on cost effectiveness, risk
reduction effectiveness, technology
effectiveness, and general acceptability.
Specifically, the demonstration involves
characterization, off-gas treatment techniques,
and other technologies associated with the
remediation of soils and ground water
contaminated with volatile organics. The
demonstration will also establish control and
performance prediction methods for the
individual technologies so they can be scaled up
for full-scale remediation programs.
Technology transfer to governments agencies
and the industrial sector is a critical facet of the
DOE demonstration program.
Directional drilling is being demonstrated as a
tool to improve access to the subsurface for
characterization, monitoring, and remediation.
Access under existing facilities can only be
acquired using directional drilling. Existing
technologies from other industries are being
modified and hybridized for environmental
applications.
Characterization technologies already
demonstrated include depth-discrete soil and
ground-water sampling, cone penetrometer with
real-time analytical capabilities, and nucleic acid
probes for microbial characterization.
Monitoring technologies demonstrated include
geophysical tomography, fluid flow sensors,
fiber optic chemical sensors, real-time field
analytical methods, and multi-level vadose zone
and ground-water samplers.
Remediation technologies include in situ air
stripping (air sparging), in situ bioremediation,
and radio frequency heating.
Off-gas treatment technologies such as
photocatalytic oxidation, catalytic oxidation,
biotreatment, ion beam oxidation, steam
reforming, membrane separation, and UV
oxidation also are involved in the
demonstration.
General Site Information
This demonstration program is being conducted
at DOE's Savannah River Site in Aiken, South
Carolina. The Savannah River Site is located
on the upper Atlantic Coastal Plain. The site is
underlain by a thick wedge of unconsolidated
Tertiary and Cretaceous sediments that overlay
the basement, which consists of preCambrian
and Paleozoic metamorphic rocks and
consolidated Triassic sediments. Ground-water
flow at the site is controlled by hydrologic
boundaries: flow at and immediately below the
water table is to local tributaries; and flow in
the lower aquifer is to the Savannah River or
one of its major tributaries. The water table is
located at approximately 135 feet. Ground
water in the vicinity of the process sewer line
contains elevated concentrations of TCE and
PCE to depths of greater than 180 feet.
Contact
Terry Hazen
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Savannah River Laboratory
Environmental Sciences Section
Aiken, SC 29802
803/725-6211
212
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Volatile Organic Compounds at Arid Sites
This integrated demonstration program will
develop and compare technologies for
removal/destruction of volatile organics (e.g.,
TCE, PCE) in arid sites. Control and
performance prediction methods must be
applicable to arid zones or environments with
large vadose zones. The program will cover all
phases involved in an actual cleanup, including
all regulatory and permitting requirements,
expediting future selection and implementation
of the best technologies to show immediate and
long-term effectiveness. The demonstration
provides for technical performance comparisons
of different available technologies at one
specific site based on cost effectiveness, risk
reduction effectiveness, technology
effectiveness, and applicability.
Technologies in this integrated demonstration
include steam reforming, supported liquid
membrane separation, membrane separation, in
situ bioremediation, in situ heating, and in situ
corona destruction.
The demonstration also involves development of
field screening and real-time measurement
capability and enhanced drilling, such as sonic
drilling.
General Site Information
The site for this demonstration program consists
of about 560 square miles of semi-arid terrain at
DOE's Hanford Reservation. The test location
contains primarily carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, and a variety of associated mixed
waste contaminants. About 1,000 metric tons of
carbon tetrachloride were discharged at waste
disposal cribs between 1955 and 1973.
Chemical processes to recover and purify
plutonium at Hanford's plutonium finishing
plant resulted in the production of actinide-
bearing waste liquid. Both aqueous and organic
liquid wastes were generated, and routinely
discharged to subsurface disposal facilities. The
primary radionuclide in the waste streams was
plutonium, and the primary organic was carbon
tetrachloride.
Contact
Steve Stein
Environmental Management Organization
Pacific Northwest Division
4000 N.E. 41st Street
Seattle, WA 98105
206/528-3340
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
213
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Underground Storage Tanks
The Underground Storage Tank Integrated
Demonstration (UST-ID) was created in
February 1991 to develop unique state-of-the-art
and advanced state-of-the-art technologies that
can be applied to ongoing and planned
environmental programs at sites across the DOE
complex. The UST-ID is necessary to enable a
final decision on disposal of underground
storage tank wastes and soils, ground water, and
ancillary equipment. Six technical focus areas
have been formed under the UST-ID program:
• Characterization
• Retrieval, transfer, and storage
• Waste separation
• High-level and low-level waste treatment
• In situ treatment and disposal
• Site closure.
Currently, the UST-ID program emphasizes
technologies that provide near-term benefits
toward remediation of USTs. This approach
will garner end-user program support and foster
synergy between the UST-ID program and the
end-user programs. Fiscal Year 1992 efforts
have been directed toward the first three areas.
which are shared by most of the participant
sites. (Smaller investments are dedicated to the
remaining focus areas, but these areas are
nonetheless critical.)
Characterization of tank wastes has traditionally
been limited by high analytical costs and the
inability to obtain data from many points in the
tanks. Hence, tasks have been selected to
develop sensors that will decrease laboratory
analytical time, and to develop a means for
deploying these sensors inside the tank. Laser
Raman spectroscopic sensors being developed
will first be used in the analytical laboratory
and, when proven, will be configured for in-tank
use.
Waste retrieval techniques will be tested using
a light-duty utility arm. Designed for in situ
deployment, this articulated, remotely operated
arm will deploy characterization devices and
test some features of waste retrieval technology
on actual tank waste. It is expected that this
arm will be able to deliver characterization
tools, such as optical sensors and physical
measurement devices, to obtain data of much
higher statistical certainty than is presently
possible.
Waste separation work represents heavy
investment in technologies with high probability
for success. Smaller efforts are expended for
development of advanced techniques that have
high potential payoff. A long-term strategy has
been developed to feed demonstrated separation
techniques to the user according to the user
schedule. (See demonstration description on
page 60.)
As one of DOE's largest integrated
demonstrations, the UST-ID reviewed
approximately 100 technologies during 1991.
Thirty-four technologies were selected for
further development and evaluation.
General Site Information
The technologies developed in the UST-ID
program will be used in remediation actions at
five participating DOE sites: Hanford, Fernald,
Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River. The
five sites began operations between 1943 and
the early 1950s. They originally supported
nuclear fuels production, operations, and
research programs as part of the development of
nuclear weapons subsequent to World War n.
Most of the site missions have evolved from
production to peaceful uses of nuclear power,
research and development, and environmental
cleanup.
214
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
A variety of processes were used to produce
nuclear fuels (enriched uranium, plutonium, and
tritium production and recovery process) at
these sites. Most UST waste was generated by
the processes used to separate nuclear fuels
from other components. In the tanks, separation
chemicals mixed with the fission and decay
products generated in the initial production step.
Early separation processes generated high
concentrations of waste
(64.5 m3 waste per ton of product [117,000
gal/ton]). Modern processes have been designed
to minimize waste; most generate relatively
small concentrations (1.14 m3 waste per ton of
product [300 gal/ton]).
The major emphasis of the UST-ID is the
single-shell storage tanks located at the Hanford
site, located in the southeastern section of
Washington State near the cities of Richland,
Kennewick, and Pasco. It has operated since
1943 with a primary mission of producing
plutonium isotopes. Plutonium was produced
by irradiation of enriched uranium in eight
nuclear reactors located along the Columbia
River. The plutonium was separated from the
remaining uranium and fission products by
chemical processes. It was then sent offsite for
further purification.
The waste generated by the different chemical
separation processes has been stored in 177
USTs for future retrieval and treatment for final
disposal. There are eight UST design types,
ranging in age from six to 49 years. Of the 177
USTs, 149 are of a single carbon steel shell
with a reinforced concrete shell. The remaining
28 have dual carbon steel liners, and range in
capacity from 208 to 3,785 m3 (55,000 to 1
million gal). Approximately 225,000 m3 (59.4
million gal) of high-level waste is stored in the
USTs. The waste has four general physical
forms: sludge, supernatant (liquid), salt cake,
and slurry. All of the waste is alkaline with a
large percentage of sodium nitrate and nitrate
salts and metal oxides. The principle
radionuclides include ^U, ^U, 239Pu, and the
uranium fission products '"Sr and 137Cs, as well
as their decay products.
Contact
Roger Gilchrist
Technology Demonstration Program
Westinghouse Hanford Company
2355 Stevens Drive
P.O. Box 1970, MS L5-63
Richland, WA 99352
509/376-5310
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
215
-------
DOE Integrated Demonstration
Uranium Soils
The objectives of this integrated demonstration
are to:
• Demonstrate advanced technologies to
decontaminate uranium-contaminated soils;
• Demonstrate advanced technologies for field
characterization and precision excavation;
• Demonstrate a system of advanced
technologies that will work effectively together
to characterize, excavate, decontaminate, and
dispose of remaining wastes for uranium-
contaminated soils; and
• Provide a transfer of these technologies into
DOE restoration programs and the private
sector.
The demonstration is expected to be conducted
throughout three years with the results feeding
directly into the Fernald Environmental
Management Project (FEMP) remediation
process. Community relations activities will be
conducted as part of the integrated
demonstration in conjunction with the
community relations activities currently ongoing
under the FEMP CERCLA Program.
The integrated demonstration focuses on more
than just the decontamination process. It has
been organized to focus in six key areas:
• Characterization
• Excavation technologies
• Decontamination processes
• Secondary waste treatment
• Performance assessment
• Regulations
Several research and development efforts will be
supported for longer terms results; however, the
integrated demonstration will concentrate
primarily on technologies already developed but
as yet undemonstrated in an field application.
The project will demonstration new soil
remediation technologies with the potential to
reduce clean-up costs and time through effective
waste management. The demonstration provides
for technical performance comparisons of
different available technologies at one specific
site based on cost effectiveness, risk reduction
effectiveness, technology effectiveness, and
general applicability. Enhanced site
characterization and precise excavation
technologies will be combined with advanced
uranium soil decontamination processes to
produce a technology system for use at the
FEMP and through the DOE complex for
similar contamination cleanups.
The characterization sub-project within the
integrated demonstration is focusing on
technologies which will be able to deliver real-
time results in the field. The sub-project already
demonstrated mapping of surface soil uranium
content using real-time gamma ray
spectroscopy. This technology, along with three
other processes — such as Mobile Laser
Ablated Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical
Emission Spectrometry (MLA-ICP-OES) — will
be demonstrated.
Two site locations were selected based on initial
characterization data for the collection of bulk
samples for treatability test. Sixteen drums of
soil were excavated, screened, and blended to
obtain sixteen homogenous drums from each
location. The bulk samples were broken into
aliquots which were shipped to multiple sites to
initiate treatability tests. Treatability tests have
been initiated on physical size fractionation,
density gradient separation, carbonate leaching,
citrate leaching, and biochealator extraction.
216
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
General Site Information
This integrated demonstration is being
conducted at DOE's Fernald Site, where
uranium is the principal soil contaminant. The
Fernald Site is located on 1,050 acres near the
Great Miami River, 18 miles northwest of
Cincinnati, OH. Established in the early 1950s,
the production complex was used for processing
uranium and its compounds from natural
uranium ore concentrates. The past mission of
the facility was key to national security as the
primary production site for uranium metal for
defense projects.
Following discontinuation of production at
Fernald in 1989, environmental restoration
became the mission of the site. During the 38
years of operations, the Fernald Site production
area soils received varying amounts of uranium
contamination resulting from accidental spills
and emissions.
The technical strategy adopted by the CERCLA
program is to divide the site into five distinct
operable units:
• OU1 — Waste pits 1-6, Clearwell and Burn
Pit
• OU2 — Other waste units (fly ash pile/solid
waste landfill)
• OU3 — Production area
• OU4 —Silos 1,2, 3, and 4
• OU5 — Environmental media
Contaminated soil exists to some degree in the
majority of the operable units. Site soils are
composed of clays, sands, and silts in widely
varying proportions. The chemical and physical
form of the uranium contamination varies with
location and soil type.
Contact
Kimberly Nuhfer
Westinghouse Environmental Management
Company of Ohio
P.O. Box 398704
Cincinnati, OH 45239-8704
513/738-6677
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
217
-------
DOI Technology Demonstrations
Treatment of Copper Industry Waste
The primary copper industry is one of the
largest generators of mining and mineral-
processing wastes. While most of the generated
waste materials pose no threat to the
environment, some may be subject to regulation
under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) because of their
toxic corrosive characteristics. These wastes
may include slags, sludges, dusts, and liquids.
They often contain toxic and heavy-metal
contaminants as well as metal values which are
presently discarded.
The Bureau of Mines, at the Salt Lake Research
Center, is developing technology to recover
valuable components from these materials and
stabilize the toxic constituents in
environmentally-safe forms. Recent
investigations have been directed toward the co-
processing of two waste streams: (1) an arsenic-
laden smelter flue dust; and (2) the acidic bleed
solution from an electrolytic copper refinery.
Acid in the refinery waste is used to solubilize
the metals in the flue dust, and valuable
components are subsequently recovered using
hydrometallurgical techniques.
The vitrification of arsenic sulfide, removed
from refinery effluents and acid-plant blowdown
solutions, in a dense, non-reactive, glass-like
material has also been studied in an effort to
provide an environmentally safe option for
disposing of arsenic.
Contact
K.S. Gritton
Supervisory Metallurgical Engineer
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Salt Lake City Research Center
729 Arapeen Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
801/524-6158
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
219
-------
DOI Technology Demonstrations
Characterization and Treatment of Contaminated Great Lakes Sediments
The Contaminated Great lakes Sediments Metals
Characterization and Treatment project is being
performed under an Interagency Agreement
between the Bureau of Mines and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Work
commenced in april 1990 by the Bureau's
Minerals Separations research group at the Salt
Lake City Research Center (SLRC).
The project has been conducted in cooperation
with the Engineering-Technology Work Group
in the Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program. It
is designed to investigate common mineral
processing technologies as removal or
remediation alternatives for contaminated
sediments.
The ARCS program is a five-year effort
authorized by the Water Quality Act of 1987.
Under this program, EPA's Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) is studying
the removal of toxic pollutants from sediments
in the Great Lakes system. The objectives of
the ARCS program are to assess the extent of
sediment pollution in designated areas of
concern and to identify and demonstrate options
for the removal and/or treatment of the
contaminated sediments. The ARCS program is
to be completed in 1992.
In the Characterization and Treatment project,
the SLRC has studied sediments received from
three sites in the Great Lakes identified as
priority areas of concern: Buffalo River, NY,
on Lake Erie; Indiana Harbor-Grand Calumet
River, IN, on Lake Michigan; and Saginaw
River, MI, on Lake Huron. The samples
contain both organic and inorganic
contamination.
The SLRC program was originally aimed at
inorganic heavy metals such as arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
mercury, nickel, and zinc. On request from
EPA, certain organic contaminants are followed
when encouraging results are obtained on heavy
metals.
Preliminary tests indicated a substantial
reduction in the material needing expensive
treatment could be achieved by separating
contaminants into a small, heavily contaminated
concentrate and a larger, clean fraction, based
on size classification technology. (See
demonstration description on page 55.)
Contact
J.P. Allen
Principal Investigator
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Salt Lake City Research Center
729 Arapeen Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
801/524-6147
220
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
-------
DOI Technology Demonstrations
Borehole Slurry Extraction
The borehole miner was developed about 10
years ago to remotely extract a finite ore body
with minimal environmental disturbance.
Although developed specifically as a mining
tool, the concept would be equally applicable to
extracting contaminated material, such as might
be present under a leaking fuel tank or
surrounding a contaminated well.
Successful prototype mining tests have been
conducted on uranium ore, oil sands, and
phosphate ore. Because system operation
depends on reducing the material to a pumpable
slurry in situ, it is applicable to sandstone, soil,
or clay-like sediments. In most cases, material
to be removed for contamination remediation
would be of the proper consistency.
The system operates through a single borehole,
which extends down through the material to be
extracted. Prototype tools have been
constructed to fit into hole diameters of 6 to 12
inches. One or more water jet nozzles direct
cutting streams radially from the tool to erode
an underground cavity, roughly cylindrical in
shape. The slurrified material settles toward the
bottom of the cavity where it is pumped to the
surface by means of an eductor (jet pump),
which is integral with the tool.
On the surface, the slurry is treated to remove
the values. This is usually preceded by a
dewatering step involving settling ponds and
thickeners. In a remedial operation, it would be
at this stage that the material would be
decontaminated.
After treatment, the waste material (or clean
decontaminated material) can be pumped back
into the cavity by conducting the borehole
mining operation in reverse. Backfilling the
cavity in this manner prevents surface
subsidence. In a series of phosphate mining
tests conducted in St. Johns County, Florida, a
total of 1,700 tons of phosphate ore was
extracted from a bed about 20 feet thick at a
depth of about 250 feet. The underground
cavity had a diameter of 30 to 40 feet, and
production rates in excess of 40 tons per hour
were achieved. Cavities were backfilled as part
of the tests, and subsequent topographical
surveys showed negligible subsidence.
Contact
Dr. George A. Savanick
U.S. Bureau of Mines
5629 Minnehaha Ave., South
Minneapolis, MN 55417
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
221
-------
INNOVATIVE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
INFORMATION REQUEST FORM
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING AN ABSTRACT
The following is the suggested format for submitting a remedial technology abstract for
inclusion in the Synopses of Federal Demonstration Projects for Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies. The format has been divided into five sections, each
designed to gather specific information for the abstract. These five sections are:
• Technology Description;
• Technology Performance;
• Remediation Costs;
• General Site Information; and
• Contacts.
Although a form has been provided for your convenience, you may submit abstract
information without use of this form, or you may attach additional information to this form,
as necessary. If possible, this information should be presented in the same order as it
appears in this example. It is understood that many abstracts will contain only partial
information, as the projects are still being tested; however, please submit as much
information as possible, as this will assist others in better understanding the innovative
treatment technology.
Abstract information, comments, and questions relating to this project should be directed
to:
Daniel M. Powell
Technology (novation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W..OS-110
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
INNOVATIVE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY
INFORMATION REQUEST FORM
1. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Type of Technology and Exact Technology Name (e.g., Bioremediation: Aerobic Biodegradation of
Trichloroethy lene):
Waste Description (e.g., PCB's in sludge):
Media Contaminated (e.g., groundwater, soil, surface water):
Targeted Contaminants and Concentrations (e.g., PCB's at 500 ppm):
Description of Treatment Process:
Description of Preliminary or Secondary Treatment, If Any:
Summary of Monitoring Results (e.g., air emissions, waste water discharge):
Limitations of Technology (e.g., weather, soil type, depth of water table):
* * Page 2 *
-------
2. TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
Overall Attainment of Clean-Up Goals (e.g., residual contamination):
Summary of Data Used to Evaluate Technology Effectiveness:
Treatment Capacity (e.g., gallons per day, tons per day):
Types and Amounts of Residual Wastes (e.g., ash, steam, wastewater):
Ultimate Disposal Options (e.g., landfilling of ash):
Malfunctions and Disruptions Encountered:
Interfering Compounds:
Description and Length of Future Maintenance and Monitoring Required:
Additional Comments:
* * Page 3 * *
-------
3. REMEDIATION COSTS
Total cost of Remediation Project, Not Including Site Investigations:
Cost of Remediaiton Project per Unit of Waste,
Not Including Site Investigations (e.g., dollars per ton):
Design Costs: Time Required for Design:
Site Preparation:
Equipment Costs:
Start-up and Fixed Costs (e.g., transportation, insurance, shakedown, training):
Labor Costs (e.g., salaries and living expenses):
Consumables and Supplies (e.g., chemicals, cement):
Utilities (e.g., fuel, electricity):
Effluent Treatment and Disposal:
Residuals/waste shipping and handling:
Analytical Services:
Maintenance and Modification:
Demobilization:
Projected Costs of Future Maintenance and Monitoring per Year.
Estimated Time Required for Operation and Maintenance:
* * Pag« 4 * *
-------
4. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
Site Name:
Site Location:
Time Period Covered by the Project:
Scale of Project (i.e., treatability study, bench scale, pilot test, field demonstration or full-scale
remediation):
Site Characterization Data (to the extent that it affects the treatment process):
Volume of Area Contaminated:
Facility's Current and Previous Uses:
5. CONTACTS
Facility Contact:
Contractor Contact:
Remedial Action Contractor:
Other Contacts:
* Page 5 * *
U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1992-648-003/60048
-------
Suggestions
If you know of additional projects that should be included in this compendium, or if you are often in need
of this type of information and don't know how to find it, please make a note on this page. This is a self-
addressed mailer - just add postage, and drop it in the mail.
------- |