United States Solid Waste and EPA 542-B-93-005
Environmental Protection Emergency Response July 1993
Agency (OS-110W)
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix
Reference Guide
A Joint Project
of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the
U.S. Air Force
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
~j
:>
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
SCREENING MATRIX
and
REFERENCE GUIDE
Version I
A Joint Project
of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC 20460
and
U.S. Air Force
Environics Directorate
Armstrong Laboratory
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403
July 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library vp|_-l?-J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
NOTICE
Preparation of the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide has been funded
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under contract number 68-W2-0004. The
document is the result of a joint project by EPA and the U.S. Air Force. Both the Matrix and Reference
Guide were developed with extensive input from professionals in the field and have been subjected to
administrative review by the sponsoring agencies. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
FOREWORD
The development of the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and accompanying Reference
Guide was jointly sponsored by the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Both the Air Force and EPA are committed to encouraging further development and use of innovative
technologies that offer efficient and cost-effective alternatives for site remediation.
The Matrix and Reference Guide support this effort by summarizing the strengths and limitations
of innovative, as well as conventional, technologies for the remediation of soils, sediments, sludges;
groundwater, and air emissions/off-gases. They provide information that will assist Air Force and EPA
site project managers responsible for screening technologies for potential use at their sites.
The Matrix and Reference Guide were developed with extensive input from professionals in the field.
More than 30 technical experts—site remediation technology researchers, technology developers, and
technology users from Federal agencies, State governments, universities, and the private
sector—participated in the process. This included attending a two-day workshop at Tyndall Air Force
Base, Florida, in March 1993, to identify appropriate technologies and processes to be included in the
Matrix and to evaluate them based on the participants' collective experience and expertise.
The Air Force and EPA gratefully acknowledge the significant contribution these professionals, who
are listed at the end of Chapter 1, have made to this important project.
The selection and use of innovative technologies to clean up hazardous waste sites is increasing
rapidly and new technologies continue to emerge. The Air Force and EPA plan to issue periodic updates
of the Matrix and Reference Guide to help site project managers keep pace with the ever changing range
of technology options available.
CoL Neil J. Lamb
Director, Environics Directorate
Armstrong Laboratory
Tyndall Air Force Base
/
'
Margaret M. Kelly
Acting Director
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Participation of Technical Experts 2
Contents 2
CHAPTER 2: RATING SYSTEM 15
CHAPTER 3: TECHNOLOGY RATINGS 19
Conventions 19
Soils, Sediments, Sludges 21
In Situ Biodegradation 21
Bioventing 23
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) 25
Soil Flushing 27
In Situ Solidification/Stabilization 29
Pneumatic Fracturing 31
In Situ Vitrification 33
Thermally Enhanced SVE 35
Slurry Phase Biological Treatment 37
Controlled Solid Phase Biological Treatment 39
Landfarming 41
Soil Washing 43
Solidification/Stabilization 45
Dehalogenation (Glycolate) 47
Dehalogenation (Base-Catalyzed Decomposition) 49
Solvent Extraction 51
Chemical Reduction/Oxidation 53
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) 55
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption 57
High Temperature Thermal Desorption 59
Vitrification 61
Incineration 63
Pyrolysis 65
Natural Attenuation 67
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal 71
Groundwater 73
Oxygen Enhancement with Hydrogen Peroxide 73
Co-Metabolic Processes 75
Nitrate Enhancement 77
Oxygen Enhancement with Air Sparging 79
Slurry Walls (containment only) 81
Passive Treatment Walls 83
Hot Water or Steam Flushing/Stripping 85
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Hydrofracturing (enhancement) 87
Air Sparging 89
Directional Wells (enhancement) 91
Dual Phase Extraction 93
Vacuum Vapor Extraction 95
Free Product Recovery 97
Bioreactors 99
Air Stripping 101
Carbon Adsorption (Liquid Phase) 103
UV Oxidation 105
Natural Attenuation 107
Air Emissions/Off-Gases Ill
Carbon Adsorption (Vapor Phase) Ill
Catalytic Oxidation (Non-Halogenated) 113
Catalytic Oxidation (Halogenated) 115
Biofiltration 117
Thermal Oxidation 119
APPENDIX A: INFORMATION RESOURCES 121
APPENDIX B: CONTAMINANT GROUPS 139
VI
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This Reference Guide portion of this document provides additional information to increase the
usability of the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix included at the back. Together, they can
help site remediation project managers narrow the field of remediation alternatives and identify potentially
applicable technologies for more detailed assessment and evaluation prior to remedy selection. In
addition, the documents can be used to guide the selection of technology field demonstrations and specific
technologies to highlight in subsequent technical data sheets, design manuals, and cost studies.
The Reference Guide and Matrix are intended as general references only. Additional information
to support identification of potentially applicable technologies can be obtained by consulting published
references, contacting technology experts, and conducting treatability studies. The Matrix and Reference
Guide are not designed to be used as the sole basis for remedy selection.
Most of the technologies and processes included are innovative. Most have been developed to full-
scale—commercial units are available or are expected shortly. However, many have had limited full-scale
application, and comprehensive cost and performance data may not be available. In addition, site-specific
factors—such as geology, depth to contamination, particle size, organic content, pH, moisture content,
and soil-solvent reactions—may be critical in determining the potential effectiveness of a technology.
In addition, Federal, State, and local laws may affect the applicability of technologies at some sites.
Depending on site-specific requirements, more than one technology or process may be needed to
achieve remediation goals at a site. Many of the remedial technologies in the Matrix and Reference
Guide may be used in combination with others in "treatment trains" to accomplish site cleanup. For
example, "treatment trains" may be used to reduce the volume of contaminated material, to prevent the
release of volatile contaminants during excavation and mixing, or to address multiple contaminants within
the same matrix. Following are examples of "treatment trains" that have been selected for use at
Superfund sites:
• Soil washing, followed by bioremediation, incineration, or solidification/stabilization of soil fines;
• Thermal desorption, followed by incineration, solidification/stabilization, or dehalogenation to
treat PCBs;
• Soil vapor extraction, followed by various processes to remove semivolatile organics;
• Solvent extraction, followed by solidification/stabilization, soil washing, or incineration of
extracted contaminants and solvents; and
• Bioremediation, followed by solidification/stabilization of inorganics.
Forty-eight technologies—including in situ and ex situ biological, thermal, and physical/chemical
processes—have been chosen for inclusion in the Matrix and Reference Guide (see Table 1). In addition
to treatment technologies, processes designed to be used primarily for containment, waste separation,
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
and enhanced recovery have been included to provide a broad range of remedial options. The Matrix
and Reference Guide do not include every technology option available. Many other innovative
technologies have been developed. Depending on site-specific conditions, some of these may provide
additional options for site project managers. As a general rule, technologies included in the Matrix are
commercially available or are likely to be within a year.
The technologies in the Matrix are evaluated against 13 factors that address specific cost,
performance, technical, developmental, and institutional issues (see Table 2). These screening factors
were chosen to assist site project managers identify applicable technologies for media and contaminants
of concern at their sites.
It is important to recognize that information about innovative technologies is rapidly evolving. After
using the Matrix and Reference Guide to identify potentially applicable technologies, it is essential that
site project managers consult qualified professionals, who can evaluate each in light of the most up-to-
date information and site-specific conditions prior to remedy selection.
Participation of Technical Experts
The Matrix and Reference Guide were developed with extensive input from technical experts. They
included professionals representing all segments of the remediation community—site remediation
technology researchers, technology developers, and technology users from Federal agencies, State
governments, universities, and the private sector (see Table 3).
More than 30 experts participated in an intensive workshop, March 2-3, 1993, at Tyndall Air Force
Base, Florida. Based on their collective experience and expertise, they selected appropriate technologies
and processes to be included in the Matrix, identified the contaminant groups addressed by each
technology, and developed the list of factors against which the technologies are evaluated.
Workshop participants then separated into three small groups and focused on the technologies in their
individual areas of specialization—biological processes, themal processes, physical/chemical processes—to
develop the ratings for each of the technologies shown on the Matrix. Each technical expert had the
opportunity to review draft documents independently and provide written comments as well.
In light of the rapidly growing range of innovative technologies, workshop participants identified
a number of full- and pilot-scale technologies, in addition to those in the Matrix, that may provide
additional options for project managers to consider, depending on site-specific conditions. Among the
full-scale technologies are air-phase resin adsorption, reverse osmosis/ultra membrane filtration, kerfing,
cavitation/oxidation, melting/smelting, and high-temperature halogenated reduction. At the pilot and
bench scale are molten salt, molten metal, electrokinetics, fungal remediation, solar soil detoxification,
biocurtains, and electron beam technology. As these technologies are applied in the field and more
information about them becomes available, they may be included in future editions of the Remediation
Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide.
Contents
This chapter describes the development and limitations of the Matrix and Reference Guide. It also
contains definitions for each of the technologies and processes rated in the Matrix (see Table 1). The
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
13 factors applied to technologies in the Matrix are defined in Table 2. The participation of technical
experts in developing the Matrix and Reference Guide also is described in this chapter, and all participants
are listed in Table 3.
Chapter 2 describes the system used to evaluate technologies, including an explanation of each
possible rating (see Table 4).
Chapter 3 provides information about each of the technologies and processes evaluated in the Matrix.
Included is a discussion of the contaminant groups treated by the technology and other issues that should
be considered in determining its potential applicability and effectiveness. The ratings for each technology
are presented and supplemental information is provided, as needed. For example, factors that could limit
the suitability and effectiveness of each technology are discussed.
Two Appendices provide additional information. Appendix A contains a list of reference materials,
including field demonstration reports and case studies, that site project managers may wish to consult
for more detailed information about various technologies. Appendix B lists examples of contaminants
included in each contaminant group used in the Matrix.
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
TABLE 1: DEFINITION OF MATRIX TECHNOLOGIES/PROCESSES
Soils, Sediments, Sludges
Technology
Status
Description
In Situ Biological Processes
Biodegradation
Bioventing
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
The activity of naturally occurring microbes is stimulated by
circulating water-based solutions through contaminated soils to
enhance in situ biological degradation of organic contaminants.
Nutrients, oxygen, or other amendments may be used to enhance
biodegradation and contaminant desorption from subsurface
materials.
Oxygen is delivered to contaminated unsaturated soils by forced
air movement (either extraction or injection of air) to increase
oxygen concentrations and stimulate biodegradation. The system
also may include the injection of contaminated gases, using the
soil system for remediation.
In Situ Physical/Chemical Processes
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Flushing
Solidification/Stabilization
Pneumatic Fracturing
Full-scale/
Innovative
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Conventional
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Vacuum is applied through extraction wells to create a pressure
gradient that induces gas-phase volatiles to diffuse through soil to
extraction wells. The process includes a system for handling off-
gases. This technology also is known as in situ soil venting, in
situ volatilization, enhanced volatilization, or soil vacuum
extraction.
Water, or water containing an additive to enhance contaminant
solubility, is applied to the soil or injected into the groundwater to
raise the water table into the contaminated soil zone.
Contaminants are leached into the groundwater, which is then
extracted and captured/treated/removed.
Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized
mass (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between
the stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce their mobility
(stabilization).
Pressurized air is injected beneath the surface to develop cracks in
low permeability and over-consolidated sediments, opening new
passageways that increase the effectiveness of many in situ
processes and enhance extraction efficiencies.
In Situ Thermal Processes
In Situ Vitrification
Thermally Enhanced Soil
Vapor Extraction
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
Electrodes for applying electricity, or joule heating, are used to
melt contaminated soils and sludges, producing a glass and
crystalline structure with very low leaching characteristics.
Steam/hot air injection or electric/radio frequency heating is used
to increase the mobility of volatiles and facilitate extraction. The
process includes a system for handling off-gases.
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Technology
Status
Description
Ex Situ Biological Processes (assuming excavation)
Slurry Phase Biological
Treatment
Controlled Solid Phase
Biological Treatment
Landf arming
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Conventional
An aqueous slurry is created by combining soil or sludge with
water and other additives. The slurry is mixed to keep solids
suspended and microorganisms in contact with the soil
contaminants. Nutrients, oxygen, and pH in the bioreactor may be
controlled to enhance biodegradation. Upon completion of the
process, the slurry is dewatered and the treated soil is disposed.
Excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed in
above-ground enclosures that have leachate collection systems and
some form of aeration. Processes include prepared treatment beds,
biotreatment cells, soil piles, and composting. Moisture, heat,
nutrients, oxygen, and pH may be controlled to enhance
biodegradation.
Contaminated soils are applied onto the soil surface and
periodically turned over or tilled into the soil to aerate the waste.
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Processes (assuming excavation)
Soil Washing
Solidification/Stabilization
Dehalogenation
(Glycolate)
Dehalogenation (BCD)
Solvent Extraction
(Chemical Extraction)
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Conventional
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
Contaminants sorbed onto soil particles are separated from soil in
an aqueous-based system. The wash water may be augmented
with a basic leaching agent, surfactant, pH adjustment, or chelating
agent to help remove organics and heavy metals.
Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized
mass (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between
the stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce their mobility
(stabilization).
An alkaline polyethylene glycolate (APEG) reagent is used to
dehalogenate halogenated aromatic compounds in a batch reactor.
Potassium polyethylene glycolate (KPEG) is the most common
APEG reagent. Contaminated soils and the reagent are mixed and
heated in a treatment vessel. In the APEG process, the reaction
causes the polyethylene glycol to replace halogen molecules and
render the compound non-hazardous. For example, the reaction
between chlorinated organics and KPEG causes replacement of a
chlorine molecule and results in a reduction in toxicity.
Contaminated soil is screened, processed with a crusher and pug
mill, and mixed with sodium bicarbonate. The mixture is heated
in a rotary reactor to decompose and partially volatilize the
contaminants.
Waste and solvent are mixed in an extractor, dissolving the
organic contaminant into the solvent. The extracted organics and
solvent are then placed in a separator, where the contaminants and
solvent are separated for treatment and further use.
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Technology
Chemical Reduction/
Oxidation
Soil Vapor Extraction
Status
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
Description
Reduction/oxidation chemically converts hazardous contaminants
to non-hazardous or less toxic compounds that are more stable,
less mobile, and/or inert. The reducing/oxidizing agents most
commonly used are ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites,
chlorine, and chlorine dioxide.
A vacuum is applied to a network of above-ground piping to
encourage volatilization of organics from the excavated media.
The process includes a system for handling off -gases.
Ex Situ Thermal Processes (assuming excavation)
Low -Temperature Thermal
Desorption
High-Temperature
Thermal Desorption
Vitrification
Incineration
Pyrolysis
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Conventional
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Wastes are heated to 200°-600°F (93°-315°C) to volatilize water
and organic contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system
transports volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment
system.
Wastes are heated to 600°-1,000°F (315°-538°C) to volatilize
water and organic contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system
transports volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment
system.
Contaminated soils and sludges are melted at high temperature to
form a glass and crystalline structure with very low leaching
characteristics.
High temperatures, 1,600°- 2,200°F (871°-1,204°C), are used to
volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic
constituents in hazardous wastes.
Chemical decomposition is induced in organic materials by heat in
the absence of oxygen. Organic materials are transformed into
gaseous components and a solid residue (coke) containing fixed
carbon and ash.
Other Processes
Natural Attenuation
Excavation and Off-Site
Disposal
Conventional
Conventional
Natural subsurface processes — such as dilution, volatilization,
biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical reactions with subsurface
materials — are allowed to reduce contaminant concentrations to
acceptable levels. Sampling and sample analysis throughout the
process are required.
Contaminated material is removed and transported to permitted
off-site treatment and disposal facilities. Pre-treatment may be
required.
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Groundwater
Technology
Status
Description
In Situ Biological Processes
Oxygen Enhancement
with Hydrogen Peroxide
Co-Metabolic Processes
Nitrate Enhancement
Oxygen Enhancement
with Air Sparging
Full-scale/
Innovative
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
A dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide is circulated throughout a
contaminated groundwater zone to increase the oxygen content of
groundwater and enhance the rate of aerobic degradation of organic
contaminants by naturally occurring microbes.
Water containing dissolved methane and oxygen is injected into
groundwater to enhance methanotrophic biological degradation.
Solubilized nitrate is circulated throughout groundwater
contamination zones to provide electron acceptors for biological
activity and enhance the rate of degradation of organic contaminants
by naturally occurring microbes.
Air is injected under pressure below the water table to increase
groundwater oxygen concentrations and enhance the rate of
biological degradation of organic contaminants by naturally
occurring microbes.
In Situ Physical/Chemical Processes
Slurry Walls
Passive Treatment Walls
Hot Water or Steam
Flushing/Stripping
Hydrofracturing
(enhancement)
Air Sparging
Directional Wells
(enhancement)
Full-scale/
Conventional
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Innovative
These subsurface barriers consist of a vertically excavated trench
filled with a slurry. The slurry, usually a mixture of bentonite and
water, hydraulically shores the trench to prevent collapse and forms
a filter cake to reduce groundwater flow.
A permeable reaction wall is installed across the flow path of a
contaminant plume, allowing the plume to passively move through
the wall. The halogenated compounds are degraded by reactions
with a mixture of porous media and a metal catalyst.
Steam is forced into an aquifer through injection wells to vaporize
volatile and semivolatile contaminants. Vaporized components rise
to the unsaturated zone where they are removed by vacuum
extraction and then treated. This variety of processes includes
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW), Steam Injection and
Vacuum Extraction (SIVE), In Situ Steam Enhanced Extraction
(ISEE), and Steam Enhanced Recovery Process (SERF).
Injection of pressurized water through wells cracks low permeability
and over-consolidated sediments. Cracks are filled with porous
media that serve as avenues for bioremediation or improve pumping
efficiency.
Air is injected into saturated matrices creating an underground air
stripper that removes contaminants through volatilization.
Drilling techniques are used to position wells horizontally, or at an
angle, in order to reach contaminants not accessible via direct
vertical drilling.
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Technology
Dual Phase Extraction
Vacuum Vapor
Extraction
Free Product Recovery
Status
Full-scale/
Innovative
Pilot-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Conventional
Description
A high vacuum system is applied to simultaneously remove liquid
and gas from low permeability or heterogeneous formations.
Air is injected into a well, lifting contaminated groundwater in the
well and allowing additional groundwater flow into the well. Once
inside the well, some of the volatile organic compounds in the
contaminated groundwater are transferred from the water to air
bubbles which rise and are collected at the top of the well by vapor
extraction. The partially treated groundwater is never brought to the
surface; it is forced into the unsaturated zone, and the process is
repeated. Contaminant concentrations gradually are reduced with
each repetition of the process.
Undissolved liquid-phase organics are removed from subsurface
formations, either by active methods (e.g., pumping) or a passive
collection system.
Ex Situ Biological Processes (assuming pumping)
Bioreactors
Full-scale/
Innovative
Contaminants in extracted groundwater are put into contact with
microorganisms through attached or suspended biological systems.
In suspended systems, such as activated sludge, contaminated
groundwater is circulated in an aeration basin where a microbial
population aerobically degrades organic matter and produces new
cells. In attached systems, such as rotating biological contactors
and trickling filters, microorganisms are established on an inert
support matrix to aerobically degrade groundwater contaminants.
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Processes (assuming pumping)
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
(Liquid Phase)
UV Oxidation
Full-scale/
Conventional
Full-scale/
Conventional
Full-scale/
Innovative
Volatile organics are partitioned from groundwater by increasing the
surface area of the contaminated water exposed to air. Aeration
methods include packed towers, diffused aeration, tray aeration, and
spray aeration.
Groundwater is pumped through a series of canisters containing
activated carbon to which dissolved organic contaminants adsorb.
Periodic replacement or regeneration of saturated carbon is required.
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, ozone, and/or hydrogen peroxide are
used to destroy organic contaminants as water flows into a treatment
tank. An ozone destruction unit is used to treat off-gases from the
treatment tank.
Other Processes
Natural Attenuation
Conventional
Natural subsurface processes — such as dilution, volatilization,
biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical reactions with subsurface
materials — are allowed to reduce contaminant concentrations to
acceptable levels. Sampling and sample analysis throughout the
process are required.
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Air Emissions I Off-Gas Treatment Processes
Technology
Carbon Adsorption
(Vapor Phase)
Catalytic Oxidation
(non-halogenated)
Catalytic Oxidation
(halogenated)
Biofiltration
Thermal Oxidation
Status
Full-scale/
Conventional
Full-scale/
Conventional
Full-scale/
Conventional
Full-scale/
Innovative
Full-scale/
Conventional
Description
Carbon, processed into hard granules or pellets, is used to capture
molecules of gas-phase pollutants. The granulated activated carbon
(GAC) may be contained in a packed bed through which
contaminated emissions/off -gases flow. When the carbon has been
saturated with contaminants, it can be regenerated in place, removed
and regenerated at an off-site facility, or disposed.
Trace organics in contaminated air streams are destroyed at lower
temperatures, 842°F (450°C), than conventional combustion by
passing the air/VOC mixture through a catalyst designed for non-
halogenated compounds.
Trace organics in contaminated air streams are destroyed at lower
temperatures, 842°F (450°C), than conventional combustion by
passing the air/VOC mixture through a catalyst designed for
halogenated compounds.
Vapor-phase organic contaminants are pumped through a soil bed
and sorb to the soil surface where they are degraded by
microorganisms in the soil. Specific strains of bacteria may be
introduced into the filter and optimal conditions provided to
preferentially degrade specific compounds.
Organic contaminants are destroyed in a high temperature 1,832°F
(1,000°C) combustor.
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
TABLE 2: DEFINITION OF SCREENING FACTORS
Factor
Overall Cost
Capital or O&M Intensive?
Commercial Availability
Typically Part of a Treatment Train?
Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)?
Minimum Contaminant Concentration
Achievable
Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume?
Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence?
Time To Complete Cleanup
System Reliability/Maintainability
Awareness of Remediation Consulting
Community
Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability
Community Acceptability
Definition
Design, construction, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
of the core process that defines each technology, exclusive of
mobilization, demobilization, and pre- and post-treatment costs.
(For ex situ soil, sediment, and sludge technologies, it is assumed
that excavation costs average $50/ton ($55.00/metric ton). For ex
situ groundwater technologies, it is assumed that pumping costs
average $0.25/1,000 gallons ($0.07/1,000 liters).)
Is this technology capital (Cap) -intensive, with significant costs for
design and construction; O&M-intensive, with significant costs for
labor, operation, maintenance, and repair; both; or neither?
Number of vendors that can design, construct, and maintain the
technology.
Is additional treatment necessary, after the use of this technology, to
clean up the contaminated media? (Excludes treatment of off-
gases.)
If use of the technology produces residuals that require
management, are they solids, liquids, or vapors?
Minimum contaminant concentration achievable by the technology,
measured in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for soil technologies,
micrograms per liter (pg/L) for groundwater, and mg/kg and
micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) for air emissions/off-gases.
What parameter(s) of the contaminated media — toxicity, mobility,
or volume — is the technology primarily designed to address?
Does use of the technology maintain protection of human health and
the environment, over time, after cleanup objectives have been met?
Time required to clean up a "standard" site using the technology.
("Standard" site is 20,000 tons (18,200 metric tons) for soil and 1
million gallons (3,785,000 liters) for groundwater.)
Degree of system reliability and level of maintenance required when
using the technology.
Degree to which the technology is known to remediation
consultants.
Degree to which use of the technology is acceptable to regulating
and permitting agencies.
Degree to which use of the technology is acceptable to the public.
10
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
TABLE 3: DEVELOPMENT PROCESS PARTICIPANTS
Federal:
Maj. Richard A. Ashworth
OC-ALC/EMR
Tinker AFB, OK 73145
405/734-3058
Carl Enfield
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. EPA
P.O.Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
405/332-8800
Frank Freestone
U.S. EPA
Edison Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
M-104, Building 10
Edison, NJ 08837-3697
908/321-6635
Vance Fong
U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street, H-9-3
San Francisco, CA 94150
415/744-2311
Robert Furlong
HQ AF/CEVR
Boiling AFB, DC 20332
202/767-4616
Mark Hampton
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: ENAEC-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010
410/671-2054
Jack Hubbard
SITE Demonstration and Eval. Branch
U.S. EPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7507
Richard Karl
U.S. EPA Region V
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
312/353-5503
John Kingscott
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, OS-HOW
Washington, DC 20460
703/308-8749
Donna Kuroda
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMP-RT
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20314
202/504-4335
Maj. Robert LaPoe
AL/EQW
139 Barnes Dr.
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
904/283-6035
Mike Malone
U.S. DOE/ERWM
Trevion U, EM-551
Washington, DC 20585
301/903-7996
Capt. Edward G. Marchand
AL/EQW
139 Barnes Dr.
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
904/283-6023
John Martin
SITE Demonstration and Eval. Branch
U.S. EPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513/569-7696
11
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Federal:
Maj. Ross Miller
AFCEE/EST
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
210/536-4331
David W. Neleigh
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
214/655-6785
Wayne Ratliff
AFMC/CEVR
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
513/257-7053
Hank Sokolowski
U.S. EPA Region m
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 596-3163
Allen Tool
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
601 E. 12th Street
CEMRK-ED-G
Kansas City, MO 64106-2896
Christine Psyk
U.S. EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206/553-1748
John Quander
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW, OS-HOW
Washington, DC 20460
703/308-8845
Capt. Catherine Vogel
AL/EQW
139 Barnes Dr.
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
904/283-6036
Dennis J. Wynne
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: ENAEC-TS-D
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010
410/671-2054
12
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Non-Federal:
Richard Brown
Goundwater Technology, Inc.
301 Horizon Center Drive
Trenton, NJ 08691
609/587-0300
Robert Foster
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
233 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1621
Chicago, IL 60601
312/856-8724
Herb Gaskill
Boeing Aircraft
20015 72nd Ave., South
Kent, WA 98032
206/395-0322
Dick Jensen
Corporate Remediation Group
Dupont Central Research
Exp. Station 304
Wilmington, DE 19880-0304
302/695-4685
Linda KausHagen
BDM, Inc.
139 Barnes Dr.
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
904/283-6027
Val J. Kelmeckis
National Environmental Technology
Applications Corporation
615 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
412/826-5511
Eric J. Klingel
IEG Technologies Corporation
1833/D Crossbeam Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
704/357-6090
Richard Magee
Hazardous Subs. Management Research Center
New Jersey Institute of Technology
138 Warren Street
Newark, NJ 07102
201/596-3006
Jim Rawe
Science Application International Corp.
635 West 7th Street, Suite 403
Cincinnati, OH 45203
513/723-2600
Diane Saber
Fluor Daniel, Inc.
200 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606
312/368-3875
Michael P. Scott
Pollution Control Agency
State of Minnesota
520 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
612/296-7297
Michael L. Taylor
IT Corporation
11499 Chester Rd.
Cincinnati, OH 45246
513/782-4700
Paul B. Trost
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.
800 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
303/279-9712
John Wesnousky
Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
State of California
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
916/322-2543
13
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
(Page left blank intentionally.)
14
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
CHAPTER 2: RATING SYSTEM
The purpose of the Rating System is to provide the framework and factors for screening the
technologies included in the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix.
The system is comprised of 13 factors that address specific cost, performance, technical,
developmental, and institutional issues (see Table 2). The intention is to give site project managers an
overview of a range of factors for use in identifying potentially applicable technologies and processes.
It is important to remember that the Matrix provides basic, representative information only. The
impact of site-specific conditions cannot be reflected. For example, the cost of a technology may depend
on the size of the cleanup and physical and chemical characteristics of the waste.
Five of the factors in the system pose performance-related questions. Answers to these questions
are shown in the Matrix and are presented in Chapter 3 in the discussion of each technology or process.
The remaining eight factors—Overall Cost, Commercial Availability, Minimum Contaminant
Concentration Achievable, Time To Complete Cleanup, System Reliability/Maintainability, Awareness
of Remediation Consulting Community, Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability, and Community
Acceptability—involve a comparative rating. Technologies are assigned one of four possible ratings:
Better, Average, Worse, or Inadequate Information. Table 4, which begins on the next page, identifies
the rating levels for these eight factors. The levels were defined by the technical experts who participated
in the Matrix development workshop, based on their collective experience and expertise.
Three of the rating levels are differentiated in the Matrix by shape, as well as color, to facilitate
black-and-white reproduction:
Better = Square
Average = Circle
Worse = Triangle
The letter "I" indicates there is Inadequate Information with which to rate the technology or process;
"NA" is used if the factor is Not Applicable to the technology or process. Ratings for individual
technologies and processes are discussed in Chapter 3.
15
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
TABLE 4: DEFINITION OF RATING LEVELS
FACTORS
AND
DEFINITIONS
Overall Cost
Design, construction, and operations
and maintenance (O&M) costs of the
core process that defines each
technology, exclusive of mobilization,
demobilization, and pre- and post-
treatment.
(For ex situ soil, sediment, and sludge
technologies, it is assumed that
excavation costs average $50/ton
($55.00/metric ton). For ex situ
groundwater technologies, it is assumed
that pumping costs average $0.25/1,000
gallons ($0.07/1,000 liters).)
Commercial Availability
Number of vendors that can design,
construct, and maintain the technology.
Minimum Contaminant
Concentration Achievable
Minimum contaminant concentration
level achievable by the technology.
measured in milligrams per kilogram
for soil technologies, micrograms per
liter for groundwater, and milligrams
per kilogram and micrograms per
kilogram for air emissions and off-
gases.
INADEQUATE
INFORMATION
(I)
There is
insufficient
information with
which to rate the
technology in this
category.
There is
insufficient
information with
which to rate the
technology in this
category.
There is
insufficient
information with
which to rate the
technology in this
category.
WORSE
(Triangle)
More than $300/ton
($330/metric ton)
for soils;
More than $10/
1,000 gal. ($2.64/
1,000 liters) for
groundwater;
More than $25/lb.
($11. 337kg) for air
emissions and off-
gases
Less than 2
vendors
More than 50 mg/
kg;
More than 100 pg/
L;
More than 250 mg/
kg
AVERAGE
(Circle)
$100-$300/ton
($110-$330/metric
ton);
$3.00 -$10.00/1,000
gal. ($0.79-$2.64/
1,000 liters);
$7-$25/lb. ($3.17-
$11.33/kg)
2-4 vendors
5-50 mg/kg;
5-100 ug/L;
250 mg/kg-250
pg/kg, but
detectable
BETTER
(Square)
Less than
$100/ton
($ 110/metric
ton);
Less than
$3.00/1,000
gal. ($0.797
1,000 liters);
Less than $7/
Ib. ($3.17/kg)
More than 4
vendors
Less than 5
mg/kg;
Less than 5 pg/
L;
Not detectable
16
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
FACTORS INADEQUATE
AND INFORMATION
DEFINITIONS (I)
Time To Complete Cleanup
Time required to clean up a "standard"
site using the technology. (The
"standard" site is 20,000 tons (18,200
metric tons) for soils and 1 million
gallons (3,785,000 liters) for
groundwater. Chapter 3 contains a
more detailed definition.)
System Reliability/Maintainability
The degree of system reliability and
level of maintenance required when
using the technology.
Awareness of Remediation Consulting
Community
Degree to which the technology is
known to remediation consultants.
There is
insufficient
information with
which to rate the
technology in this
category.
There is
insufficient
information with
which to rate the
technology in this
category.
There is
insufficient
information with
which to rate the
technology in this
cateogry.
WORSE
(Triangle)
More than 3 years
for in situ soil
technologies;
More than 1 year
for ex situ soil
technologies;
More than 10 years
for groundwater
technologies
Low reliability and
high maintenance
Generally
unknown; little
information
available in
technical literature
AVERAGE
(Circle)
1-3 years;
0.5-1 year;
3-10 years
Average reliability
and average
maintenance
Moderately known;
some information
available in
technical literature
BETTER
(Square)
Less than 1
year
Less than 0.5
years
Less than 3
years
High reliability
and low
maintenance
Generally
known;
information
readily
available in
technical
literature
17
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
FACTORS
AND
DEFINITIONS
Regulatory/Permitting
Acceptability
Degree to which use of the
technology is acceptable to the
regulatory and permitting
community.
Community Acceptability
Degree to which use of the
technology is acceptable to the
public.
INADEQUATE
INFORMATION
(D
There is insufficient
information with which
to rate the technology in
this category.
There is insufficient
information with which
to rate the technology in
this category.
WORSE
(Triangle)
Below average
Serious public
involvement is likely
and the outcome is
uncertain.
AVERAGE
(Circle)
Average
Public
involvement
usually occurs,
but the
technology is
generally
accepted.
BETTER
(Square)
Above average
Minimal
opposition
from the
community is
likely.
18
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
CHAPTER 3: TECHNOLOGY RATINGS
This chapter provides information about each of the technologies and processes evaluated in the
Matrix. Included is a discussion of the contaminant groups treated by the technology and other issues
that should be considered in determining its potential applicability and effectiveness. The ratings on the
Matrix for each technology are presented in this chapter, and supplemental information is provided, as
needed. For example, factors that could limit the suitability and effectiveness of each technology are
discussed. >
Conventions
The following conventions were used in preparing the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix:
1. Contaminants identified in the Matrix are grouped as follows: (1) halogenated volatiles; (2)
halogenated semivolatiles; (3) non-halogenated volatiles; (4) non-halogenated semivolatiles; (5) fuel
hydrocarbons; (6) pesticides; and (7) inorganics. These groupings were developed based on a review
of EPA's Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of Soils and Sludges and SuperfundTreatability
Clearing House Abstracts and with guidance from the technical experts who participated in the
development of the Matrix. Appendix B contains a list of selected contaminants in each group.
2. While all contaminant groups to which the technology or process is applicable are indicated on the
Matrix, each technology is evaluated based on the contaminant group(s) that it is primarily designed
to treat. If appropriate, additional information on the technology's performance against other
contaminants is noted.
3. "Standard" site profiles were developed to provide a baseline for rating the soil and groundwater
technologies consistently against the "Time To Complete Cleanup" factor. A calculation of the time
required to clean up the "standard" site is shown in the text only when the technology's processing
rate was generally known. No "standard" was developed for air emissions/off-gas technologies,
because cleanup time is dependent on the primary technology or process they support. Air emissions/
off-gas treatment technologies are not rated against the "Time To Complete Cleanup" factor.
• The "standard" for soil is a normalized site of 1 acre, 10 feet deep (.41 hectare, 3.04 meters
deep). Site volume is 20,000 tons (18,200 metric tons).
• The "standard" for groundwater is a normalized site of 1 acre, 10 feet deep (.41 hectare, 3.04
meters deep) with an average porosity of 30% and a shallow aquifer. Site volume is 1,000,000
gallons (3,785,000 liters).
4. For ex situ soil, sediment, and sludge technologies, the ratings in the Overall Cost category include
an assumption that excavation costs average $50/ton ($55.00/metric ton). For ex situ groundwater
technologies, it is assumed that pumping costs average $0.25/1,000 gallons ($0.07/1,000 liters).
The discussion of each technology and process included in the Matrix begins on page 21.
19
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
(Page left blank intentionally.)
20
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Soils, Sediments, Sludges
IN SITU BIODEGRADATION:
The activity of naturally occurring microbes is stimulated by circulating water-based solutions through
contaminated soils to enhance in situ biological degradation of organic contaminants. Nutrients, oxygen,
or other amendments may be used to enhance biodegradation and contaminant desorption from subsurface
materials. Generally, the process includes above-ground treatment and conditioning of the infiltration
water with nutrients and an oxygen (or other electron acceptor) source. In situ biodegradation is a full-
scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Extensive treatability studies and site characterization may be necessary.
• The circulation of water-based solutions through the soil may increase contaminant mobility and
necessitate use of an above-ground system for treating water prior to re-injection or disposal.
• The injection of microorganisms into the subsurface is not recommended. Naturally occurring
organisms are generally adapted to the contaminants present.
• Preferential flow paths may severely decrease contact between injected fluids and contaminants
throughout the contaminated zones.
• The system should be used only where groundwater is near the surface and where the groundwater
underlying the contaminated soils is contaminated.
• The system should not be used for clay, highly layered, or heterogeneous subsurface environments
due to oxygen (or other electron acceptor) transfer limitations.
• Bioremediation may not be applicable at sites where there are high concentrations of heavy metals,
highly chlorinated organics, or inorganic salts.
Target contaminants for in situ biodegradation are non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organics
and fuel hydrocarbons (groups 3, 4, and 5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles and pesticides (1,
2, and 6) also can be treated, but the process may be less effective and may only be applicable to some
compounds within these contaminant groups.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? O&M
Various quantities of nutrients or other amendments must be obtained and circulated through
contaminated soils, and their concentrations and effects on contaminant degradation rates must be
monitored.
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
21
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Average
In situ soil biodegradation systems are capable of transforming contaminants into non-hazardous
substances. However, the extent of contaminant degradation depends on a variety of parameters,
such as the specific contaminants present and their concentrations, and adequate electron acceptors.
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
In situ biodegradation can permanently destroy selected organic contaminants.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Worse
Remediation times are often 4-6 years, depending mainly on the degradation rates of specific
contaminants. Less than one year may be required to cleanup some contaminants with relatively short
half-lives, but higher molecular weight compounds have much longer half-lives and thus take longer
to degrade.
10. System Reliability /Maintainability: Rating: Worse
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Average
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Worse
There is a risk of increasing contaminant mobility and leaching of contaminants into the groundwater.
Regulators often do not accept the addition of nutrients and other amendments to contaminated soils.
In situ biodegradation has been selected for remedial and emergency response actions at only a few
Superfund sites.
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Better
Communities generally prefer technologies that result in contaminant destruction and that do not
require excavation.
22
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
BIOVENTING:
Oxygen is delivered to contaminated unsaturated soils by forced air movement (either extraction or
injection of air) to increase oxygen concentrations and stimulate biodegradation. The system also may
include the injection of contaminated gases, using the soil system for remediation. Unlike soil vapor
extraction, bioventing employs much lower air flow rates that provide only the amount of oxygen
necessary for biodegradation while minimizing volatilization and release of contaminants to the
atmosphere. The advantages of gas-phase (as opposed to liquid phase) introduction of oxygen into soils
are that gases diffuse more rapidly than liquids into less permeable subsurface formations and much less
gas is required to deliver oxygen at levels needed to stimulate biological degradation of contaminants.
Bioventing is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Tests should be conducted to determine soil gas permeability.
• Bioventing is not recommended where there is a high water table (within several feet of the surface),
saturated soil lenses, or impermeable soils. Areas with a high water table can be successfully treated
by combinging bioventing with a dewatering process.
• Vapors can build up in building basements within the radius of influence of air injection wells. This
can be alleviated by extracting air near the structure of concern.
• Low soil moisture content may limit biodegradation and the effectiveness of bioventing, which tends
to dry out the soils.
« Monitoring of off-gases at the soil surface may be required.
• Aerobic biodegradation of chlorinated compounds is not very effective unless there is a co-metabolite
present.
Bioventing is primarily designed to treat non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organics and fuel
hydrocarbons (3,4, and 5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles and pesticides (1, 2, and 6) also can
be treated, but the process may be less effective and may only be applicable to some compounds within
these contaminant groups.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
Costs for operating a bioventing system typically are $15 per yard3 ($19.50 per meter3). This
technology does not require expensive equipment and can be left unattended for long periods of time.
Relatively few personnel are involved in the operation and maintenance of a bioventing system.
Typically, quarterly maintenance monitoring is conducted.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Better
Bioventing is becoming more commonplace, and most of the hardware components are readily
available.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
23
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Better
Bioventing is capable of completely transforming contaminants into non-hazardous substances. One
of the advantages of bioventing is its ability to biodegrade the non-volatile organics that other vapor
extraction technologies that rely on volatilization cannot address.
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Bioventing can permanently destroy selected organic contaminants.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Average
As with all biological technologies, the time required to remediate a site using bioventing is highly
dependent upon the specific soil and chemical properties of the contaminated media. The Air Force
considers three years as the typical time required for cleaning up most sites.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability: Rating: Better
Generally, downtime is minimal and repair parts are readily available.
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Average
Although relatively new, bioventing is receiving increased exposure to the remediation consulting
community, particularly its use in conjunction with soil vapor extraction. The Air Force is sponsoring
bioventing demonstrations at more than 100 sites.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Better
The public generally prefers destruction technologies that do not require excavation. In addition,
bioventing can eliminate the risks of volatilization of contaminants into the atmosphere.
24
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE):
Vacuum is applied through extraction wells to create a pressure gradient that induces volatiles to diffuse
through the soil to extraction wells. The process includes a system for handling off-gases. This process
also is known as in situ soil venting, in situ volatilization, enhanced volatilization, or soil vacuum
extraction. In situ SVE is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• High humic content of soil inhibits contaminant volatilization.
• Heterogeneous soil conditions may result in inconsistent removal rates.
• Low soil permeability limits subsurface air flow rates and reduces process efficiency.
The target contaminant groups for in situ SVE are halogenated and non-halogenated volatile organic
compounds, and fuel hydrocarbons (1,3, and 5). The technology is applicable only to volatile compounds
with a Henry's law constant greater than 0.01 or a vapor pressure greater than 0.5 units. In situ SVE
generally applies only to the vadose zone. Treatment of the saturated zone is only possible by artificially
lowering the water table. Since SVE is an in situ remedy and all contaminants are under vacuum until
treatment, the possibility of release is greatly reduced.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
Data indicates the overall cost for in situ SVE is typically under $50/ton, excluding treatment of off-
gases and collected groundwater.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? O&M
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
While SVE is considered a stand-alone technology, it also can be used as part of treatment trains
to address semivolatiles.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Rating: Liquid
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Average
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Rating: Volume
25
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Assuming the characteristics of the treated soil allow for the effective use of in situ SVE, the
remediation of the targeted contaminants is permanent.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Average
The time required to remediate a site using in situ SVE is highly dependent upon the specific soil
and chemical properties of the contaminated media. The "standard" site of 20,000 tons (18,200
metric tons) of contaminated media generally would require 12-36 months.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
Generally, most of the hardware components are readily available. Typical in situ SVE systems can
be left unattended for long periods of time. The technology has been successfully operated during
severe weather conditions.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Better
In situ SVE has been used at many Superfund and other hazardous waste sites.
14. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
26
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
SOIL FLUSHING:
Water, or water containing an additive to enhance contaminant solubility, is applied to the soil or injected
into the groundwater to raise the water table into the contaminated soil zone. Contaminants are leached
into the groundwater. The process includes extraction of the groundwater and capture/treatment/removal
of the leached contaminants before the groundwater is re-circulated. Soil flushing is a pilot-scale
technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The technology is applicable only to sites with favorable hydrology, where flushed contaminants
and soil flushing fluid can be contained and recaptured.
• Low permeable soils are difficult to treat.
• Surfactants can adhere to soil and reduce effective soil porosity.
• Solvent reactions with soil can reduce contaminant mobility.
The target contaminant groups for soil flushing are halogenated and non-halogenated volatile organic
compounds, and inorganics (1, 3, and 7). The technology can be used to treat halogenated and non-
halogenated semivolatile organic compounds, fuels, and pesticides (2, 4, 5, and 6), but it may be less
effective and may only be applicable to some compounds in these contaminant groups. The addition
of compatible surfactants may be used to increase the solubility of some compounds effectively. The
technology offers the potential for recovery of metals and can clean a wide range of organic and inorganic
contaminants from coarse-grained soils. Soil flushing does introduce potential toxins (e.g., the flushing
solution) into the soil, which also may alter the physical/chemical properties of the soil system.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Inadequate Information
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? O&M
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
Soil flushing can be used as a stand-alone technology for some applications and is capable of
reducing contaminant concentrations in the soil to acceptable levels. However, it also can be used
in combination with other technologies, such as in situ bioremediation.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Rating: Liquid
It is important to ensure that the site has favorable hydrology so that flushed contaminants and soil
flushing fluid can be contained and recaptured.
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Worse
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Rating: Volume
27
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Worse
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Worse
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
28
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
IN SITU SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION:
Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical
reactions are induced between the stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce their mobility
(stabilization). In situ solidification/stabilization is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Depth of contaminants.
• Environmental conditions may affect ability to maintain immobilization of contaminants.
• Some processes result in a significant increase in volume (up to double the original volume).
• Certain wastes are incompatible with variations of this process. Treatability studies may be
required.
The target contaminant group for in situ solidification/stabilization is inorganics (7). The technology
has limited effectiveness against halogenated and non-halogenated semivolatile organic compounds, and
pesticides (2,4, and 6). However, systems designed to be more effective in treating organics are being
developed and tested. In situ solidification/stabilization is relatively simple, uses readily available
equipment, and has high throughput rates compared to other technologies.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Capital
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
In situ solidification/stabilization is generally considered a stand-alone technology.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? Solid
Depending on the original contaminants and the chemical reactions that take place in the in situ
solidification/stabilization process, the resultant stabilized mass may still have to be treated as a
hazardous waste.
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Mobility
In situ solidification/stabilization processes have demonstrated the capability to reduce the mobility
of contaminated waste by greater than 95%.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Inadequate Information
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
29
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
30
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
PNEUMATIC FRACTURING:
Pressurized air is injected beneath the surface to develop cracks in low permeability and over-consolidated
sediments. These new passageways increase the effectiveness of many in situ processes and enhance
extraction efficiencies. Pneumatic fracturing is a pilot-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The technology should not be used in areas of high seismic activity.
• Investigation of possible underground utilities, structures, or trapped free product is required.
• The potential exists to open new pathways for the unwanted spread of contaminants (e.g., dense
non-aqueous phase liquids).
Pneumatic fracturing is applicable to the complete range of contaminant groups (1-7) with no particular
target group. The technology is used primarily to fracture clays and bedrock, but has applications in
aerating sand. Normal operation employs a two-person crew, making 25 - 40 fractures per day with a
fracture radius of 15-20 feet (4.6-6.1 meters) to a depth of 50-100 feet (15.2-30.5 meters).
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
The normal cost range for pneumatic fracturing is $5-$10/ton ($5.50-$11.00/metric ton).
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Worse
The technology is currently available from only one vendor. Pneumatic fracturing was tested with
hot gas injection and extraction in EPA's SITE Demonstration Program in 1992. Results are expected
to be published in mid-1993. A phase n demonstration is planned for 1993.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
Pneumatic fracturing is an enhancement technology, designed to increase the efficiency of other in
situ technologies in difficult soil conditions. The technology is most commonly integrated with vapor
extraction, bioremediation, thermal treatment, or soil flushing.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Mobility
Pneumatic fracturing is designed to increase the mobility through difficult soil conditions. The
passageways enhance extraction efficiencies and increase contact between contaminants and soil
amendments.
31
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
For longer remediation programs, refracturing efforts may be required at 6-12 month intervals.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
Pneumatic fracturing is designed to enhance the efficiency of other technologies.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Worse
The technology has been demonstrated in the field, including the one under EPA's SITE program.
In addition, numerous bench-scale and theoretical studies have been published.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Inadequate Information
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Inadequate Information
32
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
IN SITU VITRIFICATION:
Electrodes for applying electricity, or joule heating, are used to melt contaminated soils and sludges,
producing a glass and crystalline structure with very low leaching characteristics. In situ vitrification
is currently in pilot-scale development. Most of the current work is being sponsored by the Department
of Energy (DOE).
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The process requires homogeneity of the media.
• In situ vitrification is only effective to a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet (9 meters).
• Organic and inorganic off-gases must be controlled.
• In situ vitrification is limited to operations in the vadose zone.
While in situ vitrification is used primarily to encapsulate non-volatile inorganic elements (7),
temperatures of approximately 3000°F (1600°C) achieved in the process destroy organic contaminants
(1-6) by pyrolysis. The vitrified mass resists leaching for geologic time periods. A vacuum hood placed
over the treated area collects off-gases, which are treated before release. The entire process is conducted
under a vacuum, greatly reducing the possibility of contaminant release. The high voltage used in the
in situ vitrification process, as well as control of the off-gases, present some health and safety risks.
Recent operational problems involving a sudden gas release at a large-scale test pose some additional
technical concerns.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Worse
The cost of in situ vitrification has been estimated to be approximately $790/ton ($870/metric ton).
In situ vitrification is a relatively complex, high-energy technology requiring a high degree of skill
and training.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Worse
Only one vendor, Battelle Memorial Institute, is licensed at this time by the DOE to perform in situ
vitrification. Geosafe Corporation, primarily owned by Battelle, holds the exclusive sublicense to
perform in situ vitrification commercially.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
In situ vitrification is normally considered a stand-alone technology.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid
33
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
In situ vitrification is designed to encapsulate target contaminants rather than reduce contaminant
concentration levels. However, destruction of the organic contaminants present in the treated media
does occur because of temperatures achieved in the process.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Mobility
In situ vitrification is designed to reduce the mobility of the contaminated wastes within the media.
The vitrified mass has high resistance to leaching and has strength properties better than those of
concrete. The monolith formed has hydration properties similar to those of obsidian, which hydrates
at rates of less than 1 millimeter/10,000 years.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Studies indicate that the glass and crystalline product of in situ vitrification permanently immobilizes
hazardous inorganics and will retain its physical and chemical integrity for geologic time periods.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
The time to complete cleanup of a 20,000-ton (18,200-metric ton) site using in situ vitrification would
be approximately 7 months.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Worse
During a recent large-scale test, a sudden gas release pressurized the containment hood and splattered
molten soil on the stainless steel hood.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
In situ vitrification has been used in 22 pilot-scale and 10 large-scale tests on media contaminated
with inorganics, organics, and/or radioactive wastes. However, dissemination of technical information
outside of DOE, Battelle, and Geosafe has been limited to date.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Worse
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Worse
34
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
THERMALLY ENHANCED SVE:
This process uses steam/hot-air injection or electric/radio frequency heating to increase the mobility of
volatiles and facilitate extraction. The process includes a system for handling off-gases. Thermally
enhanced SVE is a full-scale technology. It is designed to treat halogenated and non-halogenated
semivolatile organic compounds (2 and 4). Some thermally enhanced SVE technologies also are effective
in treating some pesticides (6), depending on the temperatures achieved by the system. The technology
can also be used to treat some halogenated and non-halogenated volatile organic compounds and fuels
(1, 3, and 5), but effectiveness may be limited.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Debris or other large objects buried in the media can cause operating difficulties.
• Use of the technology is limited to a 5° slope or less.
• Performance against certain contaminants varies depending upon the process selected because
of the maximum temperature achieved.
• The soil structure at the site may be modified depending upon the process selected.
The thermally enhanced SVE processes used by each vendor are notably different and should be
investigated individually for more detailed information. Since thermally enhanced SVE is an in situ
remedy and all contaminants are under a vacuum during operation, the possibility of contaminant release
is greatly reduced.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
Available data indicates the overall cost for thermally enhanced SVE systems is approximately $50-
$75/ton ($55-$82/metric ton), excluding treatment of off-gases and collected groundwater.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Average
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
Thermally enhanced SVE is most commonly used as a stand-alone technology.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Average
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
35
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Assuming the soil characteristics allow for the effective use of thermally enhanced SVE, the
remediation of the target contaminants is permanent.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
As with SVE, remediation projects using thermally enhanced SVE systems are highly dependent upon
the specific soil and chemical properties of the contaminated media. The "standard" site consisting
of 20,000 tons (18,200 metric tons) of contaminated media would require approximately 9 months.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
Although thermally enhanced SVE systems have only seen limited use to date, the concept of soil
vapor extraction, which is its basis, is well recognized.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
36
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
SLURRY PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
An aqueous slurry is created by combining soil or sludge with water and other additives. The slurry is
mixed to keep solids suspended and microorganisms in contact with the soil contaminants. Nutrients,
oxygen, and pH in the bioreactor are controlled to enhance biodegradation. Upon completion of the
process, the slurry is dewatered and the treated soil is disposed. Slurry phase biological treatment is
a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• A slurry phase process is much more complex than a controlled solid phase system.
• Excavation of contaminated soils is required.
• Sizing of materials prior to putting them in the hopper can be difficult and expensive. Non-
homogeneous soils can create serious materials handling problems.
« Contaminant loading rates can be slow, depending on the compounds to be treated.
• Dewatering soil fines after treatment and prior to ultimate disposal is part of the process and is very
expensive.
• An acceptable method for disposing of wastewaters is required.
• Slurry phase biological treatment systems are still under design to include a broader spectrum of
contaminants.
Slurry-phase biological treatment is primarily designed to treat non-halogenated volatile organics and
fuel hydrocarbons (3 and 5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles, non-halogenated semivolatiles,
and pesticides (1, 2, 4, and 6) also can be treated, but the process may be less effective and may only
be applicable to some compounds within these contaminant groups. Many chlorinated organics and
pesticides are not very biodegradable and this technology would not be very applicable. Aerobic co-
metabolism using methanotrophic bacteria and phenol-degrading bacteria can degrade TCE and the lower
chlorinated aliphatics, but do not work well for PCE and higher chlorinated compounds. Anaerobic
reductive dechlorination is being investigated to treat the higher chlorinated compounds. Higher ringed
polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compounds (greater than 5 rings) are very difficult to degrade.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
Costs are highly dependant on the extent of preparation required for contaminated material prior to
slurrying, the need for post-treatment (such as dewatering), and the need for addition of air emission
control equipment.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Average
Commercial-scale units that are complete cleanup systems are in operation. Most of the advances
in this technology are related to the development of materials handling equipment and nutrient
formulations.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
37
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Average
This is highly dependent upon the biodegradability of the contaminants, which is affected by the mix
of contaminants in the matrix, initial concentrations, and matrix desorption characteristics.
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Slurry phase biodegradation can permanently destroy selected organic contaminants.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Average
Slurry phase biological treatment is relatively rapid compared to other biological treatment processes,
particularly for contaminated clays. However, as with other biological technologies, this is highly
dependent upon the specific soil and chemical properties of the contaminated media. This technology
is particularly applicable where the quantity of material containing recalcitrant compounds is small,
and time to complete remediation is a high priority.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability: Rating: Average
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Average
A substantial amount of information is available on slurry phase bioremediation in the published
literature and from vendors.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Better
The technology has been selected to treat soils and sludges at one Superfund site and has been
selected to treat the fines from soil washing at four Superfund sites.
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Average
Communities generally prefer technologies that do not require excavation, although this technology
usually meets with little opposition because it destroys contaminants.
38
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
CONTROLLED SOLID PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
Excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed in above-ground enclosures that include
leachate collection systems and some form of aeration. Controlled solid phase processes include prepared
treatment beds, biotreatment cells, soil piles, and composting. Moisture, heat, nutrients, oxygen, and pH
can be controlled to enhance biodegradation. Controlled solid phase biological treatment is a full-scale
technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• A large amount of space is required.
• Excavation of contaminated soils is required.
• Treatability testing should be conducted to determine the biodegradability of contaminants and
appropriate oxygenation and nutrient loading rates.
• Solid phase processes have questionable effectiveness for halogenated compounds and may not be
very effective in degrading transformation products of explosives.
• These processes require more time to complete cleanup than slurry phase processes.
Solid-phase biological treatment is most effective in treating non-halogenated volatile organics and fuel
hydrocarbons (3 and 5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles, non-halogenated semivolatiles, and
pesticides (1, 2, 4, and 6) also can be treated, but the process may be less effective and may only be
applicable to some compounds within these contaminant groups.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
Costs are dependent on the contaminant, procedure to be used, need for additional pre- and post-
treatment, and need for air emission control equipment. Controlled solid phase processes are
relatively simple and require few personnel for operation and maintenance.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Average
As with other biological treatments, under proper conditions controlled solid phase processes can
transform contaminants into non-hazardous substances. However, the extent of biodegradation is
highly dependent on the initial concentrations of the the contaminants and their biodegradability, the
properties of the contaminated matrix, and the particular treatment system selected.
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
39
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Controlled solid phase biodegradation can permanently destroy selected organic contaminants.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Average
Time to complete cleanup for these systems is primarily a function of the degradation rates of the
contaminants being treated. A prepared bed system is mainly limited by available space and the size
and cost of the treatment beds.
10. System Reliability /Maintainability: Rating: Better
Solid phase systems are relatively simple systems that are easy to operate and maintain.
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Better
Tanks or containers must meet RCRA standards, including requirements for secondary containment
NPDES permits are required for wastewater disposal.
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Average
Communities generally prefer technologies that do not require excavation; however, this technology
usually meets with little opposition due to its low cost and destruction of contaminants.
40
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
LANDFARMING:
Contaminated soils are applied onto the soil surface and periodically turned over or tilled into the soil
to aerate the waste. Although landfarming usually requires excavation of contaminated soils, surface-
contaminated soils may sometimes be treated in place without excavation. Landfarming systems are
increasingly incorporating liners and other methods to control leaching of contaminants. Landfarming
is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• A large amount of space is required.
• Excavation of contaminated soils usually is required.
• Conditions advantageous for biological degradation of contaminants are largely uncontrolled, which
increases the length of time to complete remediation, particularly for recalcitrant compounds.
• Reduction of contaminant concentrations may be caused more by volatilization than biodegradation.
Landfarming is most effective in treating non-halogenated volatile organics and fuel hydrocarbons (3 and
5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles, non-halogenated semivolatiles, and pesticides (1, 2, 4, and
6) also can be treated, but the process may only be applicable to some compounds in these groups.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
Landfarming is a very simple process and does not require control of moisture, oxygen, pH, or other
parameters. Most of the system operations, such as tilling, can be done by relatively unskilled
personnel.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Better
Numerous full-scale operations have been used, particularly by the petroleum industry.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Average
As with other biological treatments, under proper conditions, landfarming can transform contaminants
into non-hazardous substances. However, removal efficiencies are a function of contaminant type
and concentrations, soil type, tern ,ture, moisture, waste loading rates, application frequency,
aeration, volatilization, and other la .ors.
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
41
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Landfarming can permanently destroy selected organic contaminants.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Worse
This is primarily a function of the degradation rates of the contaminants being treated.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability: Rating: Better
These systems require regular tilling to aerate the soil and periodic chemical analyses of waste
constituents in the soil. Potential for failure is minimal unless there is excessive rainfall or
degradation rates are not achieved.
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Better
Numerous full-scale landfarming applications have been operated over the last ten years.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Average
The acceptability of this technology varies by State. Permitting of landfarm operations is becoming
more difficult.
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Average
Communities generally prefer technologies that do not require excavation; however, this technology
usually meets with little opposition due to its low cost and destruction of contaminants.
42
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
SOIL WASHING:
Contaminants sorbed onto soil particles are separated from soil in an aqueous-based system. The wash
water may be augmented with a basic leaching agent, surfactant, pH adjustment, or chelating agent to
help remove organics or heavy metals. Soil washing is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Fine soil particles (silts, clays) are difficult to remove from washing fluid.
• Complex waste mixtures (e.g., metals with organics) make formulating washing fluid difficult.
• High humic content in soil inhibits desorption.
The target contaminant groups for soil flushing are halogenated and non-halogenated semivolatile organic
compounds, fuel hydrocarbons, and inorganics (2, 4, 5, and 7). The technology can be used but may
be less effective against halogenated and non-halogenated volatile organic compounds and pesticides (1,
3, and 6). The technology offers the potential for recovery of metals and can clean a wide range of
organic and inorganic contaminants from coarse-grained soils. As an ex situ remedy, the excavation
associated with soil washing poses a potential health and safety risk to site workers through skin contact
and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level commensurate with the contaminants
involved, is normally required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
Average cost for use of this technology, including excavation, is approximately $120-$200 per ton
($132-$220/metric ton), depending on the target waste quantity and concentration.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Average
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
Soil washing is most commonly used in combination with the following technologies: bioremediation,
incineration, and solidification/stabilization.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Rating: Solid, Liquid
Depending on the process used, the washing agent and soil fines are residuals that require further
treatment.
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Average
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
43
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
When contaminated fines have been separated, coarse-grain soil can usually be returned clean to the
site. It should stay clean unless re-contaminated.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
The time to complete cleanup of the "standard" 20,000-ton (18,200-metric ton) site using soil washing
would be less than 3 months.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
44
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
SOLIDIFICATION/STABII ATIOX:
Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical
reactions are induced between the stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce their mobility
(stabilization). Ex situ solidification/stabilization is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicabilitv md effectiveness of the process:
• Environmental conditions may affect thi ng-term immobilization of contaminants.
• Some processes result in a significant increase in volume (up to double the original volume).
• Certain wastes are incompatible with different processes. Treatability studies may be required.
The target contaminant group for ex situ solidification/stabilization is inorganics (7). The technology
has limited effectiveness against halogenated and non-halogenated semivolatile organic compounds and
pesticides (2,4, and 6). However, systems designed to be more effective against organic contaminants
are being developed and tested. Ex situ solidification/stabilization is relatively simple, uses readily
available equipment, and has high throughput rates compared to other technologies. As an ex situ
remedy, the excavation associated with solidification/stabilization poses a potential health and safety risk
to site workers through skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level
commensurate with the contaminants involved, is normally required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
Ex situ solidification/stabilization processes are among the most mature remediation technologies.
Representative overall costs from more than a dozen vendors indicate an approximate cost of under
$100/ton ($110/metric ton), including excavation.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Capital
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
Ex situ solidification/stabilization is generally considered a stand-alone technology. However, it is
often used in combination with other technologies, such as solvent extraction, bioremediation, soil
washing, and soil vapor extraction.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Solid
Depending upon the original contaminants and the chemical reactions that take place in the ex situ
solidification/stabilization process, the resultant stabilized mass may have to be handled as a
hazardous waste.
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
45
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Mobility
Ex situ solidification/stabilization processes have demonstrated capability to reduce the mobility of
contaminated waste by greater than 95%.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Inadequate Information
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
Remediation of the "standard" site consisting of 20,000 tons (18,200 metric tons) would require less
than 1 month.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
While CERCLA includes preference for treatment of contaminants, solidification/stabilization
technologies generally face minimal difficulty in obtaining the necessary regulatory/permitting
approvals and have been selected for use at many Superfund sites.
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
Public resistance to most solidification/stabilization technologies has been minimal and the technology
is normally accepted.
46
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
DEHALOGENATION (GLYCOLATE):
An alkaline polyethylene glycolate (APEG) reagent is used to dehalogenate halogenated aromatic
compounds in a batch reactor. Potassium Polyethylene Glycolate (KPHG) is the most common APEG
reagent. Contaminated soils and the reagent are mi \cd and heated in a treatment vessel. In the APEG
process, the reaction causes the polyethylene glycol to replace halogen molecules and render the
compound non-hazardous. For exa* le, the reaction between chlorinated organics and KPEG causes
replacement of a chlorine molecule ...J results in a reduction in toxicity. Dehalogenation (glycolate)
is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The technology is generally not cost effective for large waste volumes.
• Media water content above 20% requires excessive reagent volume.
« Concentrations of chlorinated organics greater than 5% require large volumes of reagent.
• The resultant soil has poor physical characteristics.
The target contaminant groups for glycolate dehalogenation are halogenated semivolatile organic
compounds and pesticides (2 and 6). The technology can be used but may be less effective against
selected halogenated volatile organic compounds (1). APEG dehalogenation is one of the few processes
available other than incineration that has been successfully field tested in treating PCBs. The technology
is amenable to small-scale applications. As an ex situ remedy, the excavation associated with
dehalogenation (APEG/KPEG) poses a potential health and safety risk to site workers through skin contact
and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level commensurate with the contaminants
involved, is normally required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Worse
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Average
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
Dehalogenation (APEG/KPEG) is generally considered a stand-alone technology. However, it can
be used in combination with other technologies.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid
Treatment of the wastewater generated by the process may include chemical oxidation,
biodegradation, carbon adsorption, or precipitation.
47
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable
Rating: Better
Dehalogenation (glycolate) has been used to successfully treat contaminant concentrations of PCBs
from less than 2 mg/kg to reportedly as high as 45,000 mg/kg.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)?
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence?
9. Time To Complete Cleanup
10. System Reliability/Maintainability
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability
13. Community Acceptability
The technology has greater public acceptance than incineration.
Rating: Toxicity
Yes
Rating: Worse
Rating: Worse
Rating: Average
Rating: Average
Rating: Average
48
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
DEHALOGENATION (BASE-CATALYZED DECOMPOSITION):
Contaminated soil is screened, processed with a crusher and pug mill, and mixed with sodium
bicarbonate. The mixture is heated at 630°F (333°C) in a rotary reactor to decompose and partially
volatilize the contaminants. Dehalogenation (BCD) is a full-scale technology. However, it has had
very limited use.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• If the influent matrix includes heavy metals and certain non-halogenated volatiles, they will not
be destroyed by the process.
• High clay and moisture content will increase treatment costs.
The target contaminant groups for dehalogenation (BCD) are halogenated semivolatile organic compounds
and pesticides (2 and 6). The technology can be used to treat halogenated volatile organic compounds
(1), but may be less effective and applicable to only some compounds within this group. The
dehalogenation (BCD) process was developed by EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL),
in cooperation with the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL), as a clean, inexpensive way to
remediate soils and sediments contaminated with chlorinated organic compounds, especially PCBs. As
an ex situ remedy, the excavation associated with dehalogenation (BCD) poses a potential health and
safety risk to site workers, through skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at
a level commensurate with the contaminants involved, is normally required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Inadequate Information
Use of this technology has been so limited that no reliable data on cost are available.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Rating: Inadequate Information
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Worse
As of November 1992, no U.S. vendors were licensed to use the technology.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
Dehalogenation (BCD) is generally considered a stand-alone technology. However, it can be used
in combination with other technologies.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Vapor
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Inadequate Information
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
49
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Inadequate Information
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Inadequate Information
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Worse
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Inadequate Information
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Inadequate Information
50
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
SOLVENT EXTRACTION:
Waste and solvent are mixed in an extractor, dissolving into the solvent. The extracted organics and
solvent are then placed in a separator, where the contaminants and solvent are separated for treatment
and further use. Solvent extraction is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
« Organically bound metals can be extracted along with the target organic pollutants, which restricts
handling of the residuals.
• The presence of detergents and emulsifiers can unfavorably influence the extraction performance.
• Traces of solvent may remain in the treated solids; the toxicity of the solvent is an important
consideration.
• Solvent extraction is generally least effective on very high molecular weight organic and very
hydrophilic substances.
• Some soil types and moisture content levels will adversely impact process performance.
The target contaminant groups for solvent extraction are halogenated and non-halogenated semivolatile
organic compounds and pesticides (2, 4, and 6). The technology can be used to treat halogenated and
non-halogenated volatile organic compounds, and fuels (1, 3, and 5), but it may be less effective and
may be applicable to only some compounds in these groups. As an ex situ remedy, the excavation
associated with solvent extraction poses a potential health and safety risk to site workers through skin
contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level commensurate with the contaminants
involved, is normally required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Worse
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Average
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
Solvent extraction is commonly used in combination with other technologies, such as
solidification/stabilization, incineration, or soil washing, depending upon site-specific conditions.
It also can be used as a stand-alone technology, in some instances.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid
Organically bound metals can be extracted along with the target organic contaminants, thereby
creating residuals with special handling requirements. Traces of solvent may remain within the
treated soil matrix, so the toxicity of the solvent is an important consideration.
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Average
51
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
Solvent extraction does not destroy wastes, but is a means of separating the contaminants, thereby
reducing the volume of hazardous waste to be treated.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
The treated media is usually returned to the site after having met Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) and other standards.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Worse
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
With enclosed systems and dust control measures during soil (feed) preparation, solvent extraction
appears to pose little threat to the community.
52
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
CHEMICAL REDUCTION/OXIDATION:
Reduction/oxidation chemically converts hazardous contaminants to non-hazardous or less toxic
compounds that are more stable, less mobile, and/or inert. The reducing/oxidizing agents most commonly
used for treatment of hazardous contaminants are ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine, and
chlorine dioxide. A combination of these reagents, or combining them with ultraviolet (UV) oxidation,
makes the process more effective. Chemical reduction/oxidation is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Incomplete oxidation or formation of intermediate contaminants may occur depending upon the
contaminants and oxidizing agents used.
• The process is not cost effective for high contaminant concentrations due to the large amounts
of oxidizing agent required.
• Oil and grease in the media should be minimized to optimize process efficiency.
The target contaminant group for chemical reduction/oxidation is inorganics (7). The technology can
be used but may be less effective against non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organic compounds,
fuel hydrocarbons, and pesticides (3, 4, 5, and 6). As an ex. situ remedy, the excavation associated with
chemical reduction/oxidation poses a p ?ntial health and safety risk to site workers through skin contact
and air emissions. Personal protecti,. equipment, at a level commensurate with the contaminants
involved, is normally required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Solid
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity, Mobility
Oxidation chemically converts inorganics to non-hazardous or less toxic compounds that are more
stable, less mobile, or inert.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Inadequate Information
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
53
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
Chemical reduction/oxidation is a well established technology used for disinfection of drinking water
and wastewater, and is a common treatment for cyanide wastes. Enhanced systems are now being
used more frequently to treat hazardous wastes in soils.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
54
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE):
A vacuum is applied to a network of above-ground piping to encourage volatilization of organics from
the excavated media. The process includes a system for handling off-gases. The process is very similar
to in situ SVE. Ex situ SVE is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• High humic content of soil inhibits volatilization.
• The technology is incompatible with certain soil types.
The target contaminant groups for ex situ SVE are halogenated and non-halogenated volatile organic
compounds (1 and 3). An advantage of the technology over its in situ counterpart is the increased number
of passageways formed via the excavation process. However, as an ex situ remedy, the excavation
associated with SVE poses a potential health and safety risk to site workers through skin contact and
air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level commensurate with the contaminants involved,
is normally required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
The overall cost for ex situ SVE is under $100/ton ($110/metric ton), including the cost of excavation,
but excluding treatment of off-gases and collected groundwater.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Average
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Assuming the characteristics of the treated soil allow for the effective use of ex situ SVE, the
remediation of the targeted contaminants is permanent.
55
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Average
The time required to remediate a site using ex situ SVE is highly dependent upon the specific soil
and chemical properties of the contaminated media. Cleanup of the "standard" site consisting of
20,000 tons (18,200 metric tons) of contaminated media would require 12-36 months.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
Generally, most of the hardware components are relatively well developed with repair parts readily
available to minimize downtime. Typical ex situ SVE systems can be left unattended for long periods
of time.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
56
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION:
Wastes are heated from 200°-600°F (93°-315°C) to volatilize water and organic contaminants. A carrier
gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment system. Low
temperature thermal desorption systems are physical separation processes and are not designed to destroy
organics. The bed temperatures and residence times designed into these systems will volatilize selected
contaminants, but typically not oxidize them. Low temperature thermal desorption is a full-scale
technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• There are specific feed size and materials handling requirements that can impact applicability
or cost at specific sites.
• Dewatering may be necessary to achieve acceptable soil moisture content levels.
• Highly abrasive feed potentially can damage the processor unit.
The target contaminant groups for low temperature thermal desorption systems are halogenated and non-
halogenated volatile organic compounds and fuels (1, 3, and 5). The technology can be used to treat
halogenated and non-halogenated semivolatile organic compounds and pesticides (2, 4, and 6) but may
be less effective. As an ex situ remedy, the excavation associated with low temperature thermal
desorption poses a potential health and safety risk to site workers through skin contact and air emissions.
Personal protective equipment, at a level commensurate with the contaminants involved, is normally
required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
Approximate overall cost is less than $100/ton ($110/metric ton). Low temperature thermal
desorption is relatively labor intensive. The skill and training level required for most of the operating
personnel is minimal.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
There are at least five vendors actively promoting the technology and most of the hardware
components for low temperature thermal desorption systems are readily available off the shelf. The
engineering and configuration of the systems are similarly refined, such that once a full-scale system
is designed, little or no prototyping is required.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
Low temperature thermal desorption is frequently used in combination with incineration,
solidification/stabilization, or dechlorination, depending upon site-specific conditions.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid
57
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
The technology has proven it can produce a final contaminant concentration level below 5 mg/kg
for the target contaminants identified.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Treatment using low temperature thermal desorption is considered to be permanent.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
Cleanup of the "standard" site consisting of 20,000 tons (18,200 metric tons) would require less than
2 months.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
Daily maintenance checks are required for all thermal desorption technologies. Generally, most of
the hardware components are relatively well developed with repair parts readily available to minimize
downtime. Normal maintenance concerns include temperature control, waste feed system, dust and
paniculate collection, and fouling of the heat transfer surfaces with polymers.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
Low temperature thermal desorption systems have been demonstrated in the EPA SITE Demonstration
Program.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
58
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
HIGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION:
Wastes are heated to 600°-1,000°F (315°-538°C) to volatilize water and organic contaminants. A carrier
gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment system. High
temperature thermal desorption systems are physical separation processes and are not designed to destroy
organics. Bed temperatures and typical residence times will cause selected contaminants to volatilize,
but not oxidize. High temperature thermal desorption is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• There are specific feed size and materials handling requirements that can impact applicability
or cost at specific sites.
• Dewatering may be necessary to achieve acceptable soil moisture content levels.
• Highly abrasive feed can potentially damage the processor unit.
High temperature thermal desorption systems have varying degrees of effectiveness against the full
spectrum of organic contaminants. The target contaminants are halogenated and non-halogenated
semivolatile organic compounds, and pesticides (2,4, and 6). Halogenated and non-halogenated volatiles
and fuels (1, 3, and 5) also may be treated, but treatment may be less effective. As an ex situ remedy,
the excavation associated with high temperature thermal desorption poses a potential health and safety
risk to site workers through skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level
commensurate with the contaminants involved, is normally required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
Approximate overall cost is between $100 and $300/ton ($110 and $330/metric ton).
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
There are at least five vendors actively promoting the technology and most of the hardware
components for high temperature thermal desorption systems are readily available off the shelf. The
engineering and configuration of the systems are similarly refined, such that once a full-scale system
is designed, little or no prototyping is required.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
High temperature thermal desorption is frequently used in combination with incineration,
solidification/stabilization, or dechlorination, depending upon site-specific conditions.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid
59
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
The technology has proven it can produce a final contaminant concentration level below 5 mg/kg
for the target contaminants identified.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Treatment using high temperature thermal desorption is considered to be permanent.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
The time to complete cleanup of the "standard" 20,000-ton (18,200-metric ton) site using high
temperature thermal desorption is just over 4 months.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
Daily maintenance checks are required for all thermal desorption technologies. Generally, most of
the hardware components are relatively well developed with repair parts readily available to minimize
downtime. Normal maintenance concerns include temperature control, waste feed system, dust and
paniculate collection, and fouling of the heat transfer surfaces with polymers.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
High temperature thermal desorption has been demonstrated in the EPA SITE Demonstration
Program.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
60
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
VITRIFICATION:
Contaminated soils and sludges are melted at high temperature to form a glass and crystalline structure
with very low leaching characteristics. Non-volatile inorganic elements are encapsulated in a vitreous
slag while organic contaminants are destroyed by pyrolysis. Ex situ vitrification is a full-scale
technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Organic and inorganic off-gases need to be controlled.
• Use or disposal of the resultant vitrified slag is required.
• Accessibility to a sufficient power supply is needed.
Ex situ vitrification is applicable to the full range of contaminant groups, but inorganics (7) is the target
contaminant group. Metals are encapsulated in the vitrified mass, resisting leaching for geologic time
periods. The excavation associated with ex situ vitrification poses a potential health and safety risk to
site workers through skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level
commensurate with the contaminants involved, is normally required during excavation operations. The
high energy required for the ex situ vitrification process also is a health and safety concern when using
the technology.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Worse
Approximate overall cost is $700/ton ($770/metric ton). Ex situ vitrification is a relatively complex,
high-energy technology requiring a high degree of specialized skill and training.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Average
Five vendors are known to be actively promoting their own proprietary ex situ vitrification technology
processes.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
Ex situ vitrification is normally considered a stand-alone technology. However, its potential for use
in treating the solid residuals from other technologies, such as incinerator ash, is receiving increasing
attention.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
Vitrification is designed to encapsulate target contaminants, rather than reduce contaminant
concentrations. However, destruction of the organic contaminants present in the treated media does
occur because of temperatures achieved in the process.
61
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Mobility
Ex situ vitrification is most effective in reducing the mobility of the contaminated wastes within the
media. The vitrified mass has high resistance to leaching and possess strength properties better than
those of concrete. The monolith formed has hydration properties similar to those of obsidian, which
hydrates at rates of less than 1 mm/10,000 years.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Studies indicate that the glass and crystalline product of ex situ vitrification permanently immobilizes
hazardous inorganics and will retain its physical and chemical integrity for geologic time periods.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Average
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Worse
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Worse
62
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
INCINERATION:
High temperatures, 1,600°-2,200°F (871°-1,204°C), are used to volatilize and combust (in the presence
of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous wastes. Four common incinerator designs are rotary kiln,
liquid injection, fluidized bed, and infrared incinerators. The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE)
for properly operated incinerators often exceeds the 99.99% requirement for hazardous waste and can
be operated to meet the 99.9999% requirement for PCBs and dioxins. All four incinerator types have
been used successfully at full scale.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• There are specific feed size and materials handling requirements that can impact applicability
or cost at specific sites.
• The presence of volatile metals and salts may affect performance or incinerator life.
• Volatile metals, including lead and arsenic, leave the combustion unit with the flue gases or in
bottom ash and may have to be removed prior to incineration.
• Metals can react with other elements in the feed stream, such as chlorine or sulfur, forming more
volatile and toxic compounds than the original species.
• Sodium and potassium can attack the brick lining and form a sticky particulate that fouls heat
transfer surfaces.
The target contaminant groups for incineration are all halogenated and non-halogenated semivolatile
organic compounds and pesticides (2, 4, and 6). The technology also may be used to treat halogenated
and non-halogenated volatile organics and fuels (1,3, and 5) but may be less effective. As an ex situ
remedy, the excavation associated with incineration poses a potential health and safety risk to site workers
through skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level commensurate with
the contaminants involved, is normally required during excavation operations. If an off-site incinerator
is used, the potential risk of transporting the hazardous waste through the community must be considered.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Worse
Incineration costs are highly dependent upon the size of the contaminated site and the type of
incinerator technology used. The cost to incinerate approximately 20,000 tons (18,200 metric tons)
of contaminated media would be greater than $300/ton ($330/metric ton).
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
The capital expenditures associated with incinerators is relatively high. Materials handling, control
of bed temperatures and residence times, and system maintenance make the technology O&M-
intensive as well.
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
Incineration is one of the most mature remediation technologies and its use at Superfund sites is
increasing. There are well over a dozen mobile, transportable, or off-site incinerator vendors, and
as many or more incinerator manufacturers.
63
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
Incineration is normally considered a stand-alone technology. However, incineration can be used
in combination with other technologies, such as soil washing, thermal desorption, and solvent
extraction, depending upon site-specific conditions.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid, Solid
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
The technology has proven it can produce a final contaminant concentration level below 5 mg/kg
for the target contaminants identified.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
Incinerators primarily reduce toxicity by destroying the contaminants, but the process also
accomplishes volume reduction.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
The result of incineration is the destruction of organic wastes, permanently reducing the risk to human
health and the environment.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
The time to complete cleanup of the "standard" 20,000-ton (18,200-metric ton) site using incineration
would be less than 3 months.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
Daily maintenance checks are required for all incinerator designs. Generally, most of the hardware
components are relatively well developed and repair parts are readily available to minimize downtime.
Normal maintenance concerns include temperature control, waste feed system, dust and particulate
collection, and fouling of the heat transfer surfaces.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
Incineration, primarily off-site, has been selected or used as the remedial action at more than 150
Superfund sites. Incineration is subject to a series of technology-specific regulations, including the
following federal requirements: CAA (Air Emissions), TSCA (PCB Treatment and Disposal), NEPA
(HW Generation, Treatment, Storage and Disposal), NPDES (Discharge to Surface Waters), NCA
(Noise), and RCRA (Emissions).
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Worse
64
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
PYROLYSIS:
Chemical decomposition is induced in organic materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. Organic
materials are transformed into gaseous components and a solid residue (coke) containing fixed carbon
and ash. Pyrolysis is currently pilot scale.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• There are specific feed size and materials handling requirements that impact applicability or cost
at specific sites.
• The technology requires a low soil moisture content.
• Highly abrasive feed can potentially damage the processor unit.
The target contaminant groups for pyrolysis are all halogenated and non-halogenated semivolatile organic
compounds and pesticides (2,4, and 6). The technology also may be used to treat halogenated and non-
halogenated volatile organics and fuels (1, 3, and 5) but may be less effective. As an ex situ remedy,
the excavation associated with pyrolysis poses a potential health and safety risk to site workers through
skin contact and air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level commensurate with the
contaminants involved, normally would be required during excavation operations.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Worse
Overall cost for remediating approximately 20,000 tons (18,200 metric tons) of contaminated media
is expected to exceed $300/ton ($330/metric ton).
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Both
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Worse
Pyrolysis is in the early stages of development.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Solid, Liquid
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
Pyrolysis primarily reduces toxicity by destroying the contaminants.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
The result of pyrolysis is the destruction of the target contaminated wastes, which permanently
reduces the risk to human health and the environment.
65
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Inadequate Information
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Worse
Pyrolysis is still relatively unknown due to its early stage of development.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Worse
66
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
NATURAL ATTENUATION:
Natural subsurface processes—such as dilution, volatilization, biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical
reactions with subsurface materials—are allowed to reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable
levels.
Natural attenuation is not a "technology" per se, and there is significant debate among technical experts
about its use at hazardous waste sites. Consideration of this option requires modeling and evaluation
of contaminant degradation rates to determine feasibility, and special approvals may be needed. In
addition, sampling and sample analysis must be conducted throughout the process to confirm that
degradation is proceeding at rates consistent with meeting cleanup objectives. It has been included in
the Matrix and this Guide for completeness only.
Natural attenuation is not the same as "no action," although it often is perceived as such. The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires evaluation
of a "no action" alternative, but does not require evaluation of natural attenuation. Natural attenuation
is considered in the Superfund program on a case-by-case basis, and guidance on its use is still evolving.
It has been selected at Superfund sites where, for example, PCBs are strongly sorbed to deep subsurface
soils and are not migrating; where removal of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) has been
determined to be technically impracticable (Superfund is developing technical impracticability (TI)
guidance); and where it has been determined that active remedial measures would be unable to
significantly speed remediation time frames. Where contaminants are expected to remain in place over
long periods of time, as in the first two examples, TI waivers must be obtained. In all cases, extensive
site characterization is required.
The attitude toward natural attenuation varies among agencies. The Air Force carefully evaluates the
potential for use of natural attenuation at its sites. However, EPA accepts its use only in certain special
cases.
Natural attenuation involves no excavation or handling of contaminated materials. Therefore, site workers
require no protective equipment and there is no risk to the community from excavation and transportation
of contaminated materials. There are potential risks, however, from migration of contaminants to areas
where groundwater is being used.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Data must be collected to determine model input parameters.
• Although commercial services for evaluating natural attenuation are widely available, the quality of
these services varies widely among the many potential suppliers. Highly skilled modelers are
required.
• Intermediate degradation products may be more mobile and more toxic than the original contaminant.
• Natural attenuation should be used only where there are no impacts on potential receptors.
• Contaminants may migrate before they are degraded.
• The site may have to be fenced and may not be available for re-use until contaminant levels are
reduced.
• If free product exists, it may have to be removed.
• Some inorganics can be immobilized, such as mercury, but they will not be degraded.
67
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Target contaminants for natural attenuation are non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organics and
fuel hydrocarbons (groups 3,4, and 5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles and pesticides (1, 2, and
6) also can be allowed to naturally attenuate, but the process may be less effective and may only be
applicable to some compounds within these contaminant groups.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
There are no capital or O&M costs associated with natural attenuation. However, there are costs
for modeling contamination degradation rates to determine whether natural attenuation is a feasible
remedial alternative, and there are costs for subsurface sampling and sample analysis (potentially
extensive) to determine the extent of contamination and confirm contaminant degradation rates and
cleanup status. Skilled labor hours are required to conduct the modeling, sampling, and analysis.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Better
Many potential suppliers can perform the modeling, sampling, and sample analysis required for
justifying and monitoring natural attenuation. However, the quality of services provided varies
widely.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Inadequate Information
The extent of contaminant degradation depends on a variety of parameters, such as contaminant types
and concentrations, temperature, moisture, and availability of nutrients/electron acceptors (e.g.,
oxygen, nitrate).
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Worse
Natural attenuation does not involve active remedial measures. Subsurface environments are often
oxygen limited in regards to the needs of microorganisms that can degrade organic contaminants.
Without active measures to increase the oxygen supply (or supply of other electron acceptors),
biodegradation can be slow.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability: Rating: Better
Natural attenuation requires no equipment to maintain.
68
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Average
A large amount of information is available on subsurface processes that affect contaminant transport
and transformation. In addition, subsurface transport and fate models are available to estimate times
required for natural attenuation to attain cleanup goals. However, natural attenuation is considered
a viable alternative only for a limited number of contaminated sites.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Worse
Because it involves no active remedial measures, natural attenuation is not well accepted by the
regulatory community. However, regulatory/permitting acceptance may be possible where alternative
remedial options are technically or economically infeasible and where a very strong scientific case
can be made predicting its success and protectiveness.
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Worse
The public generally prefers active remedial alternatives.
69
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
(Page left blank intentionally.)
70
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL:
Contaminated material is removed and transported to permitted off-site treatment and/or disposal facilities.
Some pre-treatment of the contaminated media usually is required in order to meet land disposal
restrictions. Excavation and off-site disposal is applicable to the complete range of contaminant groups
(1-7) with no particular target group. Although excavation and off-site disposal alleviates the contaminant
problem at the site, it does not treat the contaminants.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Generation of fugitive emissions may be a problem during operations.
• The distance from the contaminated site to the nearest disposal facility will affect cost and may
affect community acceptability.
• Depth and composition of the media requiring excavation must be considered.
• Applicable Land Ban Restrictions must be considered.
The type of contaminant and its concentration level will impact off-site disposal requirements. Most
hazardous wastes must be treated to meet either RCRA or non-RCRA treatment standards prior to land
disposal. Excavation poses a potential health and safety risk to site workers through skin contact and
air emissions. Personal protective equipment, at a level commensurate with the contaminants involved,
is normally required during excavation operations. Additionally, transportation to the off-site facility
introduces a potential risk to the community via accidental releases.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Worse
Cost estimates for excavation and disposal range from $272 to $463/ton ($300 to $510/metric ton).
These estimates include excavation/removal, transportation, and disposal at a RCRA permitted facility.
Excavation and off-site disposal is a relatively simple process, with proven procedures. It is a labor-
intensive practice with little potential for further automation.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
No capital investment is required and once disposal is completed, no O&M costs are incurred.
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
Several manufacturers produce heavy equipment and hazardous waste transport containers.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
Excavation and off-site disposal is considered a stand-alone remediation option. Excavation also is
an integral first step in the use of many treatment technologies.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Not Applicable
71
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
This process does not treat the contaminants. However, some pre-treatment of the contaminated
media usually is required before approval is granted for off-site disposal.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Mobility
The mobility of the contaminated media is reduced. This is accomplished by moving the media from
the unsecured site to a disposal facility that will physically contain it.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? No
Since excavation and off-site disposal does not treat the contaminants, no long-term effectiveness
or permanence is achieved without some other additional treatment.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
The excavation of 20,000 tons (18,200 metric tons) of contaminated soil would require about 2
months. Disposal of the contaminated media is dependant upon the availability of adequate containers
to transport the hazardous waste to a RCRA permitted facility.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
Adequately maintained heavy earth moving equipment has a minimal probability of failure.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
Prior to 1984, excavation and off-site disposal was the most common method for cleaning up
hazardous waste sites. Excavation is the initial component in ex situ treatments. As a consequence,
the remediation consulting community is very familiar with this remediation option.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Worse
CERCLA includes a statutory preference for treatment of contaminants, and excavation and off-site
disposal is now less acceptable than in the past. The disposal of hazardous wastes is governed by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR Parts 261-265), and the U.S.
Department of Transportation regulates the transport of hazardous materials (49 CFR Parts 172-179,
49 CFR Part 1387, and DOT-E 8876).
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
72
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Groundwater
OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE:
A dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide is circulated throughout a contaminated groundwater zone to
increase the oxygen content of groundwater and enhance the rate of aerobic degradation of organic
contaminants by naturally occurring microbes. For best results, factors that must be considered include
redox conditions, saturation rates, presence of nutrient trace elements, pH, temperature, and permeability
of the subsurface materials. Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• A groundwater circulation system must be created so that contaminants do not escape from zones
of active biodegradation.
• Where the subsurface is heterogeneous, it is very difficult to circulate the hydrogen peroxide solution
throughout every portion of the contaminated zone. Higher permeability zones are cleaned up much
faster because groundwater flow rates are greater.
• High iron content of subsurface materials can rapidly reduce concentrations of hydrogen peroxide.
• Amended hydrogen peroxide can be consumed very rapidly near the injection well, which creates
two significant problems: biological growth can be limited to the region near the injection well,
limiting adequate contamination/microorganism contact throughout the contaminated zone; and
biofouling of wells can retard the input of nutrients.
• A surface treatment system, such as air stripping or carbon adsorption, may be required to treat
extracted groundwater prior to re-injection or disposal.
Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide is primarily designed to treat non-halogenated volatile and
semivolatile organics and fuel hydrocarbons (3, 4, and 5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles and
pesticides (1,2, and 6) also can be treated, but the process may be less effective and only applicable to
some compounds within these groups.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? O&M
O&M costs can be significant because a continuous source of hydrogen peroxide must be delivered
to the contaminated groundwater.
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
73
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Better
As with other biological treatments, under proper conditions, oxygen enhancement with hydrogen
peroxide can completely transform contaminants into non-hazardous substances.
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Enhancement of biological degradation with hydrogen peroxide can permanently destroy selected
organic contaminants.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Average
As with all biodegradation processes, remediation projects are highly dependent upon the specific
soil and chemical properties of the contaminated media.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability: Rating: Worse
Maintenance of sufficient hydrogen peroxide concentrations to promote biological activity throughout
contaminated zones has proven to be very difficult.
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Better
Communities generally prefer in situ remedies because the possibility of contaminant releases is
greatly reduced. In addition, this technology can permanently destroy groundwater contaminants.
74
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
CO-METABOLIC PROCESSES:
Water containing dissolved methane and oxygen is injected into groundwater to enhance methanotrophic
biological degradation. This class of microorganisms can degrade chlorinated solvents, such as vinyl
chloride and TCE, by co-metabolism. Co-metabolism is one form of secondary substrate transformation
in which enzymes produced for primary substrate oxidation are capable of degrading the secondary
substrate fortuitously, even though the secondary substrates do not afford sufficient energy to sustain the
microbial population. Development of co-metabolic processes is at the pilot scale.
While development of ex situ bioreactors for methanotrophic TCE biodegradation is progressing well,
in situ application has not yet been demonstrated at a practical scale. A field demonstration project has
been conducted at DOD's Moffett Naval Air Station and another is being conducted at DOE's Savannah
River Site.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• This technology is still under development.
« Where the subsurface is heterogeneous, it is very difficult to circulate the methane solution throughout
every portion of the contaminated zone. Higher permeability zones are cleaned up much faster
because groundwater flow rates are greater.
Target contaminants for co-metabolic processes are halogenated volatile and semivolatile organics (1 and
2). Non-halogenated organics, fuel hydrocarbons, and pesticides (3, 4, 5, and 6) also can be treated, but
the process may be less effective and only applicable to some compounds within these groups.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? O&M
O&M costs can be significant because a continuous source of methane solution must be delivered
to the contaminated groundwater.
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Worse
The development of this technology is still at the pilot-scale level.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Better
As with other biological treatments, this is highly dependent upon the biodegradability of the
contaminants. Under proper conditions, co-metabolic processes can remove virtually all of selected
contaminants.
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
75
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Co-metabolic biodegradation can permanently destroy selected contaminants.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Average
10. System Reliability/Maintainability: Rating: Worse
This technology has not yet been demonstrated to be effective at full commercial scale.
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Worse
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Inadequate Information
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Inadequate Information
76
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
NITRATE ENHANCEMENT:
Solubilized nitrate is circulated throughout groundwater contamination zones to provide electron acceptors
for biological activity and enhance the rate of degradation of organic contaminants by naturally occurring
microbes. Development of nitrate enhancement is still at the pilot scale.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• This technology has been found to be effective on only a narrow spectrum of contaminants to date.
• Where the subsurface is heterogeneous, it is very difficult to circulate the nitrate solution throughout
every portion of the contaminated zone. Higher permeability zones will be cleaned up much faster
because groundwater flow rates are greater.
Target contaminants for the process are non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organics and fuel
hydrocarbons (3, 4, and 5). Nitrate enhancement has primarily been used to remediate groundwater
contaminated by BTEX. Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles and pesticides (1, 2, and 6) also should
be treatable, but the process has had only limited use and the potential effectiveness and applicability
to specific compounds in these groups is not known.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
The costs of supplying solubilized nitrate is less expensive than similar costs for hydrogen peroxide
or methane solutions.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Worse
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Better
As with other biological treatments, this is highly dependent upon the biodegradability of the
contaminants. Under proper conditions, nitrate enhancement can remove virtually all of selected
contaminants.
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Nitrate enhancement can permanently destroy selected contaminants.
77
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
10. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Average
As with other in situ biodegradation processes, the success of this technology is highly dependent
upon soil and chemical properties.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability: Rating: Average
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Worse
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Worse
Many states prohibit nitrate injection into groundwater because nitrate is regulated through Drinking
Water Standards.
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Average
Communities generally prefer in situ remedies because the possibility of contaminant release is
minimal, and they prefer technologies that permanently destroy contaminants.
78
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH AIR SPARGING:
Air is injected under pressure below the water table to increase groundwater oxygen concentrations and
enhance the rate of biological degradation of organic contaminants by naturally occurring microbes. Air
sparging increases mixing in the saturated zone, which increases the contact between groundwater and
soil. The ease and low cost of installing small-diameter air injection points allows considerable flexibility
in the design and construction of a remediation system. Oxygen enhancement with air sparging is
a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• A permeability differential, such as a clay layer, above the air injection zone can reduce the
effectiveness of air sparging.
• Where vertical air flow is restricted due to the presence of less permeable strata, sparging can push
contaminated groundwater away from the injection point. In these cases, a groundwater recovery
system may be needed.
• Vapors may rise through the vadose zone and be released into the atmosphere.
• Since air sparging increases pressure in the vadose zone, vapors can build up in building basements,
which are generally low pressure areas.
Oxygen enhancement with air sparging is primarily designed to treat non-halogenated volatile and
semivolatile organics and fuel hydrocarbons (3, 4, and 5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles and
pesticides (1,2, and 6) also can be treated, but the process may be less effective and only applicable to
some compounds within these groups.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
The technology employs the same concepts as bioventing, except that air is injected below the water
table to promote the remediation of groundwater.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
Equipment is readily available and the process is simple to operate. It does not require maintaining
concentrations of chemical solutions in the subsurface to provide adequate electron acceptors for
biological activity.
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
79
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Better
As with other biological treatments, this is highly dependent upon the biodegradability of the
contaminants. Under proper conditions, air sparging can remove virtually all of selected
contaminants.
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Air sparging can permanently destroy selected contaminants.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Average
10. System Reliability/Maintainability: Rating: Better
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Average
Although oxygen enhancement with air sparging is relatively new, the related technology, bioventing,
is rapidly receiving increased attention from remediation consultants.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Better
Communities generally prefer in situ remedies because the possibility of contaminant release is
minimal, and they prefer technologies that permanently destroy contaminants.
80
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
SLURRY WALLS (containment only):
These subsurface barriers consist of a vertically excavated trench that is filled with a slurry. The slurry,
usually a mixture of bentonite and water, hydraulically shores the trench to prevent collapse and forms
a filter cake to reduce groundwater flow. Slurry walls often are used where the waste mass is too large
for practical treatment and where soluble and mobile constituents pose an imminent threat to a source
of drinking water. Slurry walls are a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The technology only contains the contaminants to a specific area.
• Soil-bentonite backfills are not able to withstand attack by strong acids, bases, salt solutions, and
some organic chemicals.
• There is the potential for the slurry walls to degrade or deteriorate over time.
Slurry walls are applicable to the full range of contaminant groups (1-7), with no particular target group.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Capital
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
Slurry walls have been used for decades, so the equipment and methodology are readily available
and well known. The process of designing the proper mix of wall materials to contain specific
contaminants is relatively new, however.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Not Applicable
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Not Applicable
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
The technology does not treat the contaminants. It is a containment system only.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Mobility
Slurry walls are most effective in reducing the overall mobility of the contaminated media. The
technology has demonstrated its effectiveness in containing greater than 95% of the contaminated
groundwater.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Inadequate Information
Slurry walls have been used for decades as long-term solutions for controlling seepage of
uncontaminated water. In contaminated environments, however, their long-term effectiveness is very
dependent on contaminant types and concentrations, and has not been proven.
81
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
The only time involved in employing this technology is the excavation and backfilling of the trench,
and some monitoring activities.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
Slurry walls have been used for decades, so the methodology is well known.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Worse
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
82
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
PASSIVE TREATMENT WALLS:
A permeable reaction wall is installed across the flow path of a contaminant plume, allowing the plume
to passively move through the wall. The halogenated compounds are degraded by reactions with a
mixture of porous media and a metal catalyst. Development of passive treatment walls is at the pilot
scale.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The technology is applicable only in relatively shallow aquifers because the trench must be
constructed down to the level of the bedrock or an impermeable clay.
• Passive treatment walls are often only effective for a short time because they lose their reactive
capacity, requiring replacement of the reactive medium.
The target contaminant groups for passive treatment walls are halogenated volatile and semivolatile
organic compounds, and inorganics (1, 2, and 7). The technology can be used, but may be less effective,
in treating some non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organics and fuel hydrocarbons (3,4, and 5).
1. Overall Cost Rating: Inadequate Information
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Capital
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Worse
This technology currently is available from only one vendor, Envirometal Technologies (Canada).
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Solid
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Inadequate Information
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
Passive treatment walls are most effective in reducing the overall toxicity of the contaminated media.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Inadequate Information
Theoretically, passive treatment walls are a destructive technology capable of meeting or exceeding
maximum concentration limits (MCLs) for drinking water. This would permanently reduce the risk
to human health and the environment from the treated groundwater. However, there has been
insufficient field data available to confirm its long-term effectiveness and permanence.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Worse
83
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
11. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Inadequate Information
The system requires consistent control of pH levels. When the pH level within the passive treatment
wall rises, it reduces the reaction rate and can inhibit effectiveness of the wall.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Worse
Data has been developed by the U.S. Air Force, University of Waterloo, and Envirometal
Technologies but has received limited dissemination in the technical literature to date.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Inadequate Information
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Inadequate Information
84
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
HOT WATER OR STEAM FLUSHING/STRIPPING:
Steam is forced into an aquifer through injection wells to vaporize volatile and semivolatile contaminants.
Vaporized components rise to the unsaturated zone where they are removed by vacuum extraction and
then treated. This variety of processes includes Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW), Steam
Injection and Vacuum Extraction (SIVE), In Situ Steam Enhanced Extraction (ISEE), and Steam Enhanced
Recovery Process (SERF). Hot water or steam flushing/stripping is a pilot-scale technology.
The following factor may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Soil type will significantly impact process effectiveness.
The target contaminant groups for hot water or steam flushing/stripping are halogenated and non-
halogenated semivolatile organic compounds and fuels (2,4, and 5). The technology can be used to treat
halogenated and non-halogenated volatile organic compounds (1 and 3), but may be less effective.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Capital
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Average
Four vendors are promoting hot water or steam flushing/stripping processes. The CROW system
appears to be the most developed of the four.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid, Vapor
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Average
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Worse
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Worse
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
85
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
(Page left blank intentionally.)
86
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
HYDROFRACTURING (enhancement):
Pressurized water is injected through injection wells to crack low permeability and over-consolidated
sediments. Cracks are filled with porous media that serve as avenues for bioremediation or improved
pumping efficiency. Hydrofracturing is a pilot-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The technology should not be used in areas of high seismic activity.
• Investigation of possible underground utilities, structures, or trapped free product is required.
• The potential exists to open new pathways for the unwanted spread of contaminants (e.g.,
DNAPLs).
Hydrofracturing is applicable to the complete range of contaminant groups (1-7) with no particular target
group. The technology has seen widespread use in the water-well construction industry, but is relatively
new at remediating hazardous waste sites.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Inadequate Information
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
Hydrofracturing is an enhancement technology, designed to increase the efficiency of other in situ
technologies in difficult subsurface conditions.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Mobility
Hydrofracturing is designed to increase the mobility through difficult soil conditions. The
passageways create enhanced extraction efficiencies and allow for a more thorough distribution of
in situ remediation technologies.
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
87
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
12. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Worse
The technology has been used in three EPA SITE Program demonstrations.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Better
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
88
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
AIR SPARGING:
Air is injected into a saturated matrices creating an underground stripper that removes contaminants
through volatilization. The technology is designed to operate at high air flow rates in order to effect
volatilization (as opposed to the lower air flow rates used to increase groundwater oxygen concentrations
to stimulate biodegradation). Air sparging must operate in tandem with SVE systems that capture volatile
contaminants stripped from the saturated zone. Air sparging is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Depth of contaminants and specific site geology must be considered.
• Pressure levels must be designed for site-specific conditions.
• Channeling of the air flow can occur.
• Using air sparging without SVE could create a net positive subsurface pressure that could induce
contaminant migration beyond the contaminated zone.
The target contaminant groups for air sparging are halogenated and non-halogenated volatile organic
compounds and fuels (1,3, and 5). Only limited information is available on the process.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
Air sparging must operate in tandem with SVE systems that capture volatile contaminants stripped
from the saturated zone.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Vapor
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Average
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
89
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Better
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
90
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
DIRECTIONAL WELLS (enhancement):
Drilling techniques are used to position wells horizontally, or at an angle, to reach contaminants not
accessible via direct vertical drilling. Directional well technology is at full-scale development.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this technology:
Well failures are possible during system installation.
Potential exists for the wells to collapse.
Directional well technology is applicable to the complete range of contaminant groups (1-7) with no
particular target group.
1. Overall Cost
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive?
3. Commercial Availability
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train?
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)?
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence?
9. Time To Complete Cleanup
10. System Reliability/Maintainability
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability
13. Community Acceptability
Rating: Inadequate Information
Neither
Rating: Worse
Yes
Solid, Liquid
Rating: Not Applicable
Rating: Not Applicable
Yes
Rating: Better
Rating: Average
Rating: Average
Rating: Better
Rating: Better
91
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
(Page left blank intentionally.)
92
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION:
A high vacuum system is applied to simultaneously remove liquid and gas from low permeability or
heterogeneous formations. The vacuum extraction well includes a screened section in the zone of
contaminated soils and groundwater. As the vacuum is applied to the well, soil vapor is extracted, and
groundwater is entrained by the extracted vapors. Once above grade, the extracted vapors and
groundwater are separated and treated. Dual phase extraction is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Depending upon the specific site geology, the technology may have limited effectiveness.
• Dual phase extraction is not applicable to in situ recovery of metals.
• Unless it is combined with other technologies, such as bioremediation, air sparging, or bioventing,
the technology is not applicable to certain long-chained hydrocarbons.
• Combination with complementary technologies (e.g. pump-and-treat) may be required to recover
groundwater from high yielding aquifers.
The target contaminant groups for dual phase extraction are halogenated and non-halogenated volatile
organic compounds and fuel hydrocarbons (1, 3, and 5).
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? O&M
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Yes
Dual phase extraction is generally combined with bioremediation, air sparging, or bioventing when
the target contaminants include long-chained hydrocarbons. It also can be used with pump-and-treat
technologies to recover groundwater from high yielding aquifers.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid, Vapor
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Average
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Average
Use of dual phase extraction with bioremediation, air sparging, or bioventing can shorten the cleanup
time at a site.
93
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
94
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
VACUUM VAPOR EXTRACTION:
Air is injected into a well, lifting contaminated groundwater in the well and allowing additional
groundwater flow into the well. Once inside the well, some of the volatile organic compounds in the
contaminated groundwater are transferred from the water to air bubbles which rise and are collected at
the top of the well by vapor extraction. The partially treated groundwater is never brought to the surface;
it is forced into the unsaturated zone, and the process is repeated. As groundwater circulates through
the treatment system in situ, contaminant concentrations are gradually reduced. Vacuum vapor
extraction is a pilot-scale technology.
A variation of this process, called UVB, has been used at numerous sites in Germany and has been
introduced recently into the United States.
Stanford University has developed another variation of this process, an in-well sparging system, which
is currently being evaluated as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Integrated Technology
Demonstration Program. The Stanford system combines air-lift pumping with a vapor stripping technique.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Shallow aquifers may limit process effectiveness.
• Depth of the saturated and unsaturated zones and soil permeability must be considered.
The target contaminant groups for vacuum vapor extraction are halogenated volatile and semivolatile
organic compounds, and fuels (1,2, and 5). Variations of the technology may allow for its effectiveness
against some non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides, and inorganics
(3, 4, 6, and 7).
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Capital
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Worse
This process has been used extensively in Germany, but technologies based on the process have only
recently been introduced in the United States.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid, Vapor
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
95
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Average
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Worse
Awareness of this process is limited in the United States but can be expected to increase as
development and demonstration of technologies based on the process continue.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
96
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY:
Undissolved liquid-phase organics are removed from subsurface formations, either by active methods
(e.g., pumping) or a passive collection system. This process is used primarily in cases where a fuel
hydrocarbon lens is floating on the water table. The free product is generally drawn up to the surface
via a pumping system. Following recovery, it can be disposed, re-used directly in an operation not
requiring high-purity materials, or purified prior to re-use. Free product recovery is a full-scale
technology.
The following factor may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Depending upon the specific site geology, the technology may have limited effectiveness.
The target contaminant groups for free product recovery are non-halogenated semivolatiles and fuel
hydrocarbons (4 and 5).
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid
Free product recovered in this process can be disposed, re-used directly in an operation not requiring
high-purity materials, or purified prior to re-use.
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Not Applicable
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Better
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Better
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
97
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
(Page left blank intentionally.)
98
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
BIOREACTORS:
Contaminants in extracted groundwater are put into contact with microorganisms through attached or
suspended biological systems. In suspended growth systems, such as activated sludge, contaminated
groundwater is circulated in an aeration basin where a microbial population aerobically degrades organic
matter and produces new cells. The new cells form a sludge, which is settled out in a clarifier, and the
sludge biomass is recycled to the aeration basin. In attached growth systems, such as rotating biological
contactors and trickling filters, microorganisms are established on an inert support matrix to aerobically
degrade groundwater contaminants. The microbial population may either be derived from the contaminant
source or from an inoculum of organisms specific to a contaminant. Attached and suspended systems
often are used together. Bioreactors are full-scale technologies.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Solid residuals from sludge processes may require treatment or disposal.
• Skilled, competent microbiologists are required to start and maintain the biological systems.
• Metals may need to be removed prior to treatment in the bioreactors.
• The precipitation of iron may clog treatment systems.
• Treatability studies should be conducted to determine if contaminants are biodegradable and to
estimate the rate of biodegradation.
• Air pollution controls may need to be applied if there is volatilization from activated sludge
processes.
• Low temperatures significantly decrease biodegradation rates, resulting in longer cleanup times
or increased costs for heating.
Bioreactors are used primarily to treat non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organics and fuel
hydrocarbons (3, 4, and 5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles and pesticides (1, 2, and 6) also can
be treated, but the process may be less effective and may be applicable only to some compounds within
these groups. Successful pilot-scale field studies have been conducted on some halogenated compounds,
such as chlorobenzene and dichlorobenzene isomers.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
Costs are highly dependent on the contaminants and their concentrations in the influent stream.
Biological treatment has often been found to be more economical than carbon adsorption.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Capital
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
This is a well developed technology that has been used for many years in the treatment of municipal
waste water. Equipment and materials are readily available.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Solids
99
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Average
As with other biological treatments, this is highly dependent upon the biodegradability of the
contaminants.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Biological reactors can permanently destroy selected contaminants.
10. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
As with other pump-and-treat technologies, time to clean up is dependent upon subsurface conditions
and the rate of desorption of contaminants from subsurface materials. A bioreactor system can be
established to treat extracted groundwater at virtually any rate.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
Suspended systems are more difficult to maintain than attached systems because bacteria must be
kept in a form that settles easily. Start-up time can be slow if organisms need to be acclimated to
the wastes, however, the existence of cultures that have been previously adapted to specific hazardous
wastes can decrease start-up and detention time.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
Bioreactors have been used for the treatment of municipal wastewaters for many years, but their
application to Superfund wastes is relatively new.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Better
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
100
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
AIR STRIPPING:
Volatile organics are partitioned from groundwater by greatly increasing the surface area of the
contaminated water exposed to air. Types of aeration methods include packed towers, diffused aeration,
tray aeration, and spray aeration. Air stripping is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Potential exists for inorganic or biological fouling of the equipment.
• Consideration should be given to the Henry's Law constant of the VOCs in the water stream,
and the type and amount of packing used in the tower.
• Compounds with low volatiles at ambient temperature may require pre-heating of the
groundwater.
• Clogging of the stripping column packing material due to inorganics in the groundwater
(especially dissolved ferrous iron, which precipitates out as insoluble ferrous hydroxide species
upon aeration) and biofouling are common problems. Air strippers must be taken out of service
and packing materials acid-washed.
The target contaminant groups for air stripping systems are halogenated and non-halogenated volatile
organic compounds (1 and 3). The technology can be used but may be less effective against halogenated
and non-halogenated semivolatile organic compounds and fuels (2, 4, and 5).
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? O&M
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
More than 1,000 air stripping units are in operation in the United States.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Liquid, Vapor
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
101
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
The approach to packed tower design has become standardized. Numerous published and unpublished
articles and technical papers are available on the design of air strippers.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Worse
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
102
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
CARBON ADSORPTION (LIQUID PHASE):
Groundwater is pumped through a series of canisters containing activated carbon to which dissolved
organic contaminants adsorb. The technology requires periodic replacement or regeneration of saturated
carbon. Carbon adsorption (liquid phase) is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The solubility and concentration of the contaminants can impact process performance.
• Metals can foul the system.
• Costs are high if used as the primary treatment on waste streams with high contaminant
concentration levels.
• Type and pore size of the carbon, as well as the operating temperature, will impact process
performance.
The target contaminant groups for carbon adsorption (liquid phase) are halogenated and non-halogenated
semivolatile organic compounds (2 and 4). The technology can be used, but may be less effective in
treating halogenated volatile organic compounds, fuel hydrocarbons, pesticides, and inorganics (1, 5, 6,
and 7).
1. Overall Cost Rating: Worse
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? O&M
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use in treating municipal, industrial, and
hazardous wastes.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Solid
When the concentration of contaminants in the effluent from the bed exceeds a certain level, the
carbon can be regenerated in place, removed and regenerated at an off-site facility, or disposed.
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
103
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Better
Regulatory agencies actively support this technology, which has been used at many Superfund sites.
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
104
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
UV OXIDATION:
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, ozone, and/or hydrogen peroxide are used to destroy organic contaminants
as water flows into a treatment tank. An ozone destruction unit is used to treat off-gas from the treatment
tank. UV oxidation is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The technology cannot be applied on all contaminants.
• The presence of inorganics and naturally occurring soil organics (e.g., humic substances) can
adversely affect system performance.
The target contaminant groups for UV oxidation are halogenated volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds and pesticides (1, 2, and 6). The technology also can be used, but may be less effective,
in treating non-halogenated volatile organics and fuels (3 and 5). The potential for exposure is minimal
as the system does not produce air emissions.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Average
The cost of this process is highly dependent upon the amount of influent pre-treatment required and
the type of processing units needed.
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Capital
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
The technology is readily available.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Worse
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Average
105
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
Units have been permitted without unusual difficulty.
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
106
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
NATURAL ATTENUATION:
Natural subsurface processe—such as dilution, volatilization, biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical
reactions with subsurface materials—are allowed to reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable
levels.
Natural attenuation is not a "technology" per se, and there is significant debate among technical experts
about its use at hazardous waste sites. Consideration of this option requires modeling and evaluation
of contaminant degradation rates to determine feasibility, and special approvals may be needed. In
addition, sampling and sample analysis must be conducted throughout the process to confirm that
degradation is proceeding at rates consistent with meeting cleanup objectives. It has been included in
the Matrix and this Guide for completeness only.
Natural attenuation is not the same as "no action," although it often is perceived as such. The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires evaluation
of a "no action" alternative, but does not require evaluation of natural attenuation. Natural attenuation
is considered in the Superfund program on a case-by-case basis, and guidance on its use is still evolving.
It has been selected at Superfund sites where, for example, PCBs are strongly sorbed to deep subsurface
soils and are not migrating; where removal of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) has been
determined to be technically impracticable (Superfund is developing technical impracticability (TT)
guidance); and where it has been determined that active remedial measures would be unable to
significantly speed remediation time frames. Where contaminants are expected to remain in place over
long periods of time, as in the first two examples, TI waivers must be obtained. In all cases, extensive
site characterization is required.
The attitude toward natural attenuation varies among agencies. The Air Force carefully evaluates the
potential for use of natural attenuation at its sites. However, EPA accepts its use only in certain special
cases.
No handling of contaminated materials is required. Therefore, site workers require no protective
equipment. There are potential risks to the commuity from migration of contaminants to areas where
groundwater is being used.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Data must be collected to determine model input parameters.
• Although commercial services for evaluating natural attenuation are widely available, the quality
of these services varies widely among the many potential suppliers. Highly skilled modelers are
required.
• Intermediate degradation products may be more mobile and more toxic than the original
contaminant.
• Natural attenuation should be used only in low-risk situations.
• Contaminants may migrate before they are degraded.
• The site may have to be fenced and may not be available for reuse until contaminant levels are
reduced.
• If free product exists, it may have to be removed.
• Some inorganics can be immobilized, such as mercury, but they will not be degraded.
107
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Target contaminants for natural attenuation are non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organics and
fuel hydrocarbons (groups 3,4, and 5). Halogenated volatiles and semivolatiles and pesticides (1, 2, and
6) also can be allowed to naturally attenuate, but the process may be less effective and may only be
applicable to some compounds within these contaminant groups.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
There are no capital or O&M costs associated with natural attenuation. However, there are costs
for modeling contamination degradation rates to determine whether natural attenuation is a feasible
remedial alternative, and there are costs for subsurface sampling and sample analysis (potentially
extensive) to determine the extent of contamination and confirm contaminant degradation rates and
cleanup status. Skilled labor hours are required to conduct the modeling, sampling, and analysis.
3. Commercial Availability: Rating: Better
Many potential suppliers can perform the modeling, sampling, and sample analysis required for
justifying and monitoring natural attenuation. However, the quality of services provided varies
widely.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? No
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor)? None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable: Rating: Inadequate Information
The extent of contaminant degradation depends on a variety of parameters, such as contaminant types
and concentrations, temperature, moisture, and availability of nutrients/electron acceptors (e.g.,
oxygen, nitrate).
7. Addresses Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup: Rating: Worse
Natural attenuation does not involve active remedial measures. Subsurface environments are often
oxygen limited in regards to the needs of microorganisms that can degrade organic contaminants.
Without active measures to increase the oxygen supply (or supply of other electron acceptors),
biodegradation can be slow.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability: Rating: Better
Natural attenuation requires no equipment to maintain.
108
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
11. Awareness of the Remediation Consulting Community: Rating: Average
A large amount of information is available on subsurface processes that affect contaminant transport
and transformation. In addition, subsurface transport and fate models are available to estimate times
required for natural attenuation to attain cleanup goals. EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory sponsored the development of Bioplume II, which models the natural attenuation
of BTEX in groundwater, and is working with the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
to improve it. However, natural attenuation is considered a viable alternative only for a limited
number of contaminated sites.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability: Rating: Worse
Because it involves no active remedial measures, natural attenuation is not well accepted by the
regulatory community. However, regulatory/permitting acceptance may be possible where alternative
remedial options are technically or economically infeasible and where a very strong scientific case
can be made predicting its success and protectiveness.
13. Community Acceptability: Rating: Worse
The public generally prefers active remedial alternatives.
109
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
(Page left blank intentionally.)
110
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Air Emissions/Off-Gases
CARBON ADSORPTION (VAPOR PHASE):
Carbon, processed into hard granules or pellets, is used to capture molecules of gas-phase pollutants.
Typically, the granulated activated carbon (GAC) is contained in a packed bed through which
contaminated emissions/off-gases flow. When the carbon has been saturated with contaminants, it is
regenerated in place, removed and regenerated at an off-site facility, or disposed. Carbon adsorption
(vapor phase) is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• High contaminant concentration levels limit effectiveness.
• Temperature and moisture/humidity must be controlled.
The target contaminant groups for carbon adsorption (vapor phase) are volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds, fuel hydrocarbons, and pesticides (1-6). Carbon adsorption (vapor phase) systems are most
effective for contaminants with molecular weights between 50 and 200 and boiling points between 75°
and 300°F (24° and 149°C).
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
Carbon adsorption (vapor phase) has a long history of use and is readily available. Activated carbon
producers are able to manufacture carbon adsorption (vapor phase) systems to meet specific
applications.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Not Applicable
The definition of this factor is not applicable to this technology. The technology, by design, is the
finishing step in treatment processes.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) Solid
When the concentration of contaminants in the effluent from the bed exceeds a certain level, the
carbon can be regenerated in place, removed and regenerated at an off-site facility, or disposed.
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Volume
111
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
The target contaminants are permanently separated from the vapor stream.
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
Since carbon adsorption (vapor phase) is a support technology used to treat off-gases produced by
another remediation technology, the site cleanup time is wholly dependent upon the cleanup time
associated with the primary technology.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
Regular maintenance checks are required during operation. Carbon adsorption (vapor phase) is a
well developed technology with high reliability.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
The concepts, theory, and engineering aspects of the technology are well developed and disseminated
throughout the remediation consulting community.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
Carbon adsorption (vapor phase) is a mature technology and has been used without unusual regulatory
or permitting difficulty.
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
112
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
CATALYTIC OXIDATION (NON-HALOGENATED):
Trace organics in contaminated air streams are destroyed at lower temperatures, 842°F (450°C), than
conventional combustion by passing the air/VOC mixture through a catalyst designed for non-halogenated
compounds. Catalytic oxidation (non-halogenated) is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• If sulfur or halogenated compounds are in the emissions stream, the catalyst can be
poisoned/deactivated and require replacement.
« The technology requires operation in the optimum containment range.
The target contaminant groups for catalytic oxidation (non-halogenated) are non-halogenated volatile and
semivolatile organic compounds and fuel hydrocarbons (3,4 and 5). Because the maximum permissible
total hydrocarbon concentration is usually limited to control the temperature in the oxidizer and reduce
the risk of an explosion, contaminant concentrations over certain levels, typically 3,000 ppm volatile
organic compounds, are usually diluted with ambient air. Catalytic oxidation has long been used for
emissions control of air/VOC mixtures. An advantage of catalytic oxidation is that it occurs at lower
temperatures than thermal oxidation.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
Commercial equipment is in operation, and there are at least five vendors promoting the technology.
Some processes are proprietary in nature.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Not Applicable
The definition of this factor is not applicable to this technology. The technology, by design, is the
finishing step in treatment processes.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
The process normally begins with very low concentration levels and the technology cleans the
emissions to regulatory standards.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
113
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
Since catalytic oxidation (non-halogenated) is a support technology used to treat off-gases produced
by another remediation technology, the site cleanup time is wholly dependent upon the cleanup time
associated with the primary technology.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
Although there appears to be a low probability of failure, careful monitoring to prevent overheating
of the catalyst and daily maintenance are required.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Better
There are no federal regulations on catalytic oxidation. However California, New Jersey, and Texas
regulate this technology, and its use is increasing nationwide. With the trend in regulations to limit
emissions from vacuum extraction and air strippers, catalytic oxidation is likely to receive more
attention.
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Better
114
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
CATALYTIC OXIDATION (HALOGENATED):
Trace organics in contaminated air streams are destroyed at lower temperatures, 842°F (450°C), than
conventional combustion by passing the air/VOC mixture through a catalyst designed for halogenated
compounds. Catalytic oxidation (halogenated) is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The catalyst can be poisoned/deactivated and require replacement.
• The technology requires operation in the optimum containment range.
The target contaminant group for catalytic oxidation (halogenated) is halogenated volatile and semivolatile
organic compounds (1 and 2), but the technology has been evaluated below based only on its use in
cleaning media contaminated with TCE and, in some instances, PCE. An advantage of catalytic oxidation
is that it occurs at lower temperatures then thermal oxidation.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2, Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Average
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Not Applicable
The definition of this factor is not applicable to this technology. The technology, by design, is the
finishing step in treatment processes.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
The process normally begins with very low concentrations and the technology cleans the emissions
to regulatory standards.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
Since catalytic oxidation (halogenated) is a support technology used to treat off-gases produced by
another remediation technology, the site cleanup time is wholly dependent upon the cleanup time
associated with the primary technology.
115
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
When PCE is present, catalyst deactivation can occur.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Worse
The development of a catalytic oxidizer specifically designed to treat halogenated compounds is
relatively new and not well known.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Average
There are no federal regulations on catalytic oxidation. However, California, New Jersey, and Texas
regulate this technology. With the trend in regulations to limit emissions from vacuum extraction
and air strippers, catalytic oxidation is likely to receive more attention.
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
116
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
BIOFILTRATION:
Vapor-phase organic contaminants are pumped through a soil bed and sorb to the soil surface where they
are degraded by microorganisms in the soil. Specific strains of bacteria may be introduced into the filter
and optimal conditions provided to preferentially degrade specific compounds. Biofiltration is a full-
scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• The size of the biofilter is constrained by the rate of influent air flow.
• Fugitive fungi may be a problem.
Biofiltration is used primarily to treat non-halogenated volatile organics and fuel hydrocarbons (3 and
5). Halogenated volatiles (1) also can be treated, but the process may be less effective.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Average
Non-proprietary filters that require low air loading rates for organics (Si 00 ppm) have been used
successfully for more than 20 years. Proprietary designs that support higher air loadings also are
available. Biofilters have been used extensively in Europe and Japan, but only recently have they
received attention in the United States.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Not Applicable
The definition of this factor is not applicable to this technology. The technology, by design, is the
final step in treatment processes.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
As with other biological treatment processes, this is highly dependent upon the biodegradability of
the contaminants. Under proper conditions, biofilters can remove virtually all selected contaminants.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
Under proper conditions, biofilters can completely degrade selected contaminants to harmless
products.
117
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Average
The primary maintenance concern is moisture control in the filter bed. Moisture levels, pH, and other
filter conditions may have to be monitored to maintain high removal efficiencies. Filter flooding
and plugging due to excessive biomass accumulation may require periodic mechanical cleaning of
the filter.
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Worse
Little use has been made of this technology in the United States. However, the technology has been
used for about 20 years, mainly to remove odors from sewage, and more than 500 biofilters are being
used in Europe and Japan.
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Inadequate Information
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Inadequate Information
118
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
THERMAL OXIDATION:
Organic contaminants are destroyed in a high temperature 1,832°F (1,000°C) combustor. Thermal
oxidation is a full-scale technology.
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process:
• Potential problems exist when using the technology on waste streams containing chlorinated
materials.
The target contaminant groups for thermal oxidation are non-halogenated volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds and fuel hydrocarbons (3, 4, and 5). Only non-halogenated hydrocarbon systems were
evaluated. If halogens are present, the system is then RCRA regulated as a hazardous waste incinerator.
1. Overall Cost Rating: Better
2. Capital (Cap) or O&M Intensive? Neither
3. Commercial Availability Rating: Better
Commercial equipment is in operation, and there are at least five vendors promoting the technology.
4. Typically Part of a Treatment Train? Not Applicable
The definition of this factor is not applicable to this technology. The technology, by design, is the
final step in treatment processes.
5. Residuals Produced (Solid, Liquid, Vapor) None
6. Minimum Contaminant Concentration Achievable Rating: Better
The process normally begins with very low concentrations and the technology cleans the emissions
to regulatory standards.
7. Addresses Toxicity (T), Mobility (M), or Volume (V)? Toxicity
8. Long-Term Effectiveness/Permanence? Yes
9. Time To Complete Cleanup Rating: Not Applicable
Since thermal oxidation is a support technology used to treat off-gases produced by another
remediation technology, the site cleanup time is wholly dependent upon the cleanup time associated
with the primary technology.
10. System Reliability/Maintainability Rating: Better
119
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
11. Awareness of Remediation Consulting Community Rating: Better
12. Regulatory/Permitting Acceptability Rating: Better
13. Community Acceptability Rating: Average
There is occasional resistance if the community focuses on the thermal oxidizer as an incinerator.
120
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
APPENDIX A: INFORMATION RESOURCES
General:
1. Freeman, Harry M., Editor in Chief, 1989. Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
2. HMCRI, 1991. Hazardous Materials Control Buyer's Guide and Source Book 1992. Hazardous
Materials Control Research Institute, Greenbelt, MD.
3. NIOSH, OSHA, USCG, U.S. EPA, 1985. Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for
Hazardous Waste Site Activities. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Washington, DC. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 85-115.
4. Nyer, E.K., 1985. Groundwater Treatment Technology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
5. RCRIS, 1992. RCIUS National Oversight Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. July 1992.
6. U.S. Army, 1992. Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies: 1992
Edition. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.
Report Number CETHA-TS-CR-92053.
7. U.S. DOE, 1992. ReOpt: Electronic Encyclopedia of Remedial Action Options. U.S. Department
of Energy, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. PNL-7840/UC-602.603.
8. U.S. EPA, 1992. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies, Second
Edition. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/B-92/002.
9. U.S. EPA, 1987. A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA/625/8-87/014.
10. U.S. EPA, 1992. Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) (Electronic
Bulletinboard). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Edison, New Jersey.
11. U.S. EPA, 1990. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Groundwater Remediation Technology. Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/8-
90/003.
12. U.S. EPA, 1989. Biennial Reporting System. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, DC.
121
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
13. U.S. EPA, 1987. Handbook • Groundwater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Ken-
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK. EPA/625/6-87/016.
14. U.S. EPA, 1985. Handbook — Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, Washington, DC. EPA/625/6-85/006.
15. U.S. EPA, 1992. Innovative Treatment Technologies—Semi-Annual Status Report (Fourth Edition),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
DC. EPA/542/R-92/011.
16. U.S. EPA, 1991. Innovative Treatment Technologies—Overview and Guide to Information Sources.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
DC. EPA/540/9-91/002.
17. U.S. EPA, 1990. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program and The Inventory of
Treatability Study Vendors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-90/003b.
18. U.S. EPA, 1992. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles, Fifth
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/540/R-92/077.
19. U.S. EPA, 1991. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles,
Fourth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA/540/5-91/008, pp. 64-65.
20. U.S. EPA, 1992. Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies,
2nd Edition. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA/542/B-92/003.
21. U.S. EPA, 1992. Technologies and Options for UST Corrective Actions: Overview of Current
Practice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC. EPA/542/R-92/010.
22. U.S. EPA, 1993. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Vendor Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies (VISITT). Part 1 and 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
In Situ Biological Processes:
1. AWMAandHWAC, 1992. Bioventing and Vapor Extraction: Uses and Applications in Remediation
Operations. Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA) and Hazardous Waste Action Coalition
(HWAC) Satellite Seminar. Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA. April 1992.
122
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
2. Borden, R.C., M.D. Lee, J.M. Thomas, P.B. Bedient, and C.H. Ward, 1989. "In Situ Measurement
and Numerical Simulation of Oxygen Limited Biotransformation." Groundwater Monitoring Review.
Winter, 1989, pp. 83-91.
3. Portier, R.J., et al, 1990. "Bioremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Groundwater." Remediation.
4. Sims, J.L., R.C. Sims, and J.E. Matthews, 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
OK. EPA-600/9-89/073.
5. U.S. Air Force, 1989. Enhanced Bioreclamation of Jet Fuels— A Full-Scale Test at Eglin AFB FL.
Final Report. ESL-TR-88-78. Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, J.K. Slaughter, D.A. Selby, M.S.
Westray, and G.M. Long. U.S. Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall AFB, FL.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. Order No. ADA222348.
6. U.S. Coast Guard, 1991. "Innovative Groundwater and Soil Remediation at the USCG Air Station,
Traverse City, Michigan," Proceedings of the Third Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic andlnternational, September 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/015.
7. U.S. EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide To Bioventing, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA/542/F-92/008.
8. U.S. EPA, 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies: Abstracts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA/600/9-92/044.
9. U.S. EPA, 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK. EPA/600/9-89/073.
10. U.S. EPA, 1988. Groundwater Modeling: An Overview and Status Report. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/2-89/028.
11. U.S. EPA, 1990. International Evaluation of In Situ Biorestoration of Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-90/012.
12. U.S. EPA, 1991. Microbial Degradation of Alkylbenzenes under Sulfate Reducing and Methanogenic
Conditions, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, OK. EPA/600/S2-91/027.
13. Wilson, J.T., J.F. McNabb, J. Cochran, T.H. Wang, M.B. Tomson, and P.B. Bedient, 1985.
"Influence of Microbial Adaption on the Fate of Organic Pollutants in Groundwater." Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, 4:721-726.
123
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
14. Wilson J., 1991. "Nitrate Enhanced Bioremediation Restores Fuel Contaminated Groundwater to
Drinking Water Standard." Tech Trends. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/M-91/002.
In Situ Physical/Chemical Processes:
1. Bennedsen, M. B., 1987. "Vacuum VOCs from Soil," Pollution Engineering. February 1987. 19:(2).
2. Burris, D. R. and J.A. Cherry, 1992. "Emerging Plume Management Technologies: In Situ Treatment
Zones." Paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association.
Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA. June 1992. Manuscript 92-34.04.
3. Canter, Larry W., 1989. Groundwater and Soil Contamination Remediation: Toward Compatible
Science, Policy and Public Perception. Report on a Colloquium Sponsored by the Water Science
and Technology Board, National Academy Press. April 1989.
4. Connor, J. R., 1988. "Case Study of Soil Venting," Pollution Engineering, January 1988, 20:(1).
5. Danko, J. P., M.J. McCann, and W.D. Byers, 1990. "Soil Vapor Extraction and Treatment of VOCs
At a Superfund Site in Michigan," Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, May 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-90/010.
6. Fahy, L.J., L.A. Johnson, Jr., D.V. Sola, S.G. Horn, J.L. Christofferson, 1992. "Enhanced Recovery
of Oily NAPL at a Wood Treating Site Using the CROW Process." Proceedings of the HMCI
Superfund '92. Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Greenbelt, MD. December 1992.
7. Fitzgerald, C. and J. Schuring, 1992. "Integration of Pneumatic Fracturing To Enhance In Situ
Bioremediation." Proceedings of the Symposium on Gas, Oil, and Environmental Biotechnology.
Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, IL. September 1992.
8. Fountain, J.C., and D.S. Hodge, 1992. Project Summary: Extraction of Organic Pollutants Using
Enhanced Surfactant Flushing - Initial Field Test (Part 1). Prepared for the New York State Center
for Hazardous Waste Management by the Department of Geology, State University of New York,
Buffalo, NY. February 1992.
9. Gillham, R. W. and S.F. O'Hannesin, 1992. "Metal-Catalyzed Abiotic Degradation of Halogenated
Organic Compounds." Paper presented at the 1992 IAH Conference: Modern Trends in
Hydrogeology. Hamilton, Ontario. May 1992.
10. Gillham, R. W. and S. F. O'Hannesin, 1992. "A Permeable Reaction Wall for In Situ Degradation
of Halogenated Organic Compounds." Paper presented at the 45th Canadian Geotechnical Society
Conference. Toronto, Ontario. October 1992.
124
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
11. Grube, W. E., 1991. "Soil Barrier Alternatives." Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual RREL
Hazardous Waste Research Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/9-91/002.
12. Pisciotta, T., D. Pry, J. Schuring, P. Chan, and J. Chang, 1991. "Enhancement of Volatile Organic
Extraction in Soil at an Industrial Site." Proceedings of the FOCUS Conference on Eastern Regional
Ground Water Issues. National Water Well Association, Portland, ME. October 1991.
13. Plaines, A.L., RJ. Piniewski, and G.D. Yarbrough, (no date). Integrated Vacuum Extraction/
Pneumatic Soil Fracturing System for Remediation of Low Permeability Soils. Terra Vac, Tampa,
FL.
14, Schuring, J., J. Valdis, and P. Chan, 1991. "Pneumatic Fracturing of a Clay Formation To Enhance
Removal of VOCs." Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Madison Waste Conference. University
of Wisconsin, Madison, WL September 1991.
15. Schuring, J., J. Jurka, and P. Chan, 1991. "Pneumatic Fracturing To Remove VOCs." Remediation
Journal. 2:(1). Winter 1991/92.
16. Schuring, J. and P. Chan, 1992. Vadose Zone Contaminant Removal by Pneumatic Fracturing,
Summary of Project. July 1,1988-June 30,1992. New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.
17. Udell, K. S. and L.D. Stewart, Jr., 1989. Field Study of In Situ Steam Injection and Vacuum
Extraction for Recovery of Volatile Organic Compounds, University of California at Berkeley,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Berkeley, CA. June 1989. UCB-SEEHRL Report Number
89-2.
18. U.S. EPA, 1991. Applications Analysis Report—AWD Technologies: Integrated AquaDetox®/SVE
Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/A5-89/003.
19. U.S. EPA, 1991. Applications Analysis Report—Toxic Treatments: In Situ Steam/Hot-Air Stripping
Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/A5-90/008.
20. U.S. EPA, 1989. Applications Analysis Report—Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/A5-89/003.
21. U.S. EPA, 1991. Engineering Bulletin — In Situ Soil Flushing. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/021.
22. U.S. EPA, 1991. Engineering Bulletin — In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/006.
125
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
23. U.S. EPA, 1991. Engineering Bulletin — Slurry Walls. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC. EPA/540/2-92/008.
24. U.S. EPA, 1991. Engineering Bulletin — In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/005.
25. U.S. EPA, 1992. In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater: An Inventory of Research and
Field Demonstrations and A Role for EPA In Improving Groundwater Remediations, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC. May 1992.
26. U.S. EPA, 1990. International Waste TechnologieslGeo-Con In Situ Stabilization /Solidification:
Applications Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/A5-89/004.
27. U.S. EPA, 1991. Project Summary — Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA/540/S2-91/003.
28. U.S. EPA, 1984. Slurry Trench Construction for Migration Control. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-84/001.
29. U.S. EPA, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. Pedersen,T. A. and J.T.
Curtis. EPA/540/2-91/003, pp.88-91, 115.
30, U.S. EPA, 1982. Superfund Record of Decision: Sylvester Site, NH (IRM). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
EPA/ROD/R01 -82/005.
31. U.S. EPA, 1992. Technology Assessment of Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging (Project
Summary). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/SR-92/173.
32. U.S. EPA, 1989. Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration Test International
Waste Technologies In Situ Stabilization/Solidification Hialeah, Florida, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/540/5-89/004a.
126
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
33. West, C.C., J.H. Harwell, 1992. Application of Surfactants to Remediation of Subsurface
Contamination, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory and the University of Oklahoma, Institute for Applied Surfactant Research and School
of Chemical Engineering and Materials Research. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK.
In Situ Thermal Processes:
1. La Mori, P.N. and J. Guenther, 1989. "In Situ Steam/Air Stripping," Proceedings of the Forum on
Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, September 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/S-89/056.
2. La Mori, P.N., 1990. "In-Situ Hot Air/Steam Extraction of Volatile Organic Compounds,"
Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic
and International, May 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-
90/010.
3. Liikala, S.C, 1991. Applications of In Situ Vitrification to PCB-Contaminated Soils. Presented at
the Third International Conference for the Remediation of PCB Contamination, Houston, TX, March
25-26, 1991. Geosafe Corporation, Richland, WA.
4. Lord, A. E., L. J. Sansone, R.M. Koerner, and I.E. Brugger, 1991. "Vacuum-Assisted Steam Stripping
to Remove Pollutants from Contaminated Soil — A Laboratory Study," Proceedings of the 17th
Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, April 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/9-91/002.
5. Sittler, S.P. and G.L. Swinford, 1993. "Thermal-Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction Accelerated
Cleanup of Diesel-Affected Soils." The National Environmental Journal. 3:(l):40-43.
6. Sresty, G., H. Dev, and J. Houthoofd, 1992. "In Situ Decontamination by Radio Frequency Heating."
Presented at the International Symposium on In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Soil and Water.
Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA. February 1992.
7. U.S. Air Force, 1989. In Situ Decontamination by Radio Frequency Heating—Field Test. Final
Report, USAF/SD Contract No. F04701-86-C-0002. U.S. Air Force, USAF/SD, Los Angeles, CA.
8. USATHAMA, 1987. Draft Report, Bench-Scale Classification Test on BasinF Materials. Prepared
by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency,
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.
9. U.S. DOE, (Undated). In Situ Vitrification: Technology Status and a Survey of New Applications,
Prepared by Battelle Northwest Laboratories. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, WA.
10. U.S. DOE, 1989. Joule-Heated Glass Furnace Processing of a Highly Aqueous Hazardous Waste
Stream. Prepared by EE&G Mound Applied Technologies. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland.
WA.
127
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
11. U.S. DOE, 1992. Technology Transfer Bulletin — In Situ Vitrification. Prepared by Batelle
Northwest Laboratories. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, WA.
12. U.S. DOE, 1989. Vitrification Technologies for Weldon Spring Raffinate Sludges and Contaminated
Soils, Phase 2 Report: Screening of Alternatives. Prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, WA.
13. U.S. EPA, 1991. Innovative Technology —In Situ Vitrification, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Directive 9200.5-251FS.
14. U.S. EPA, 1988. Radio Frequency Enhanced Decontaminantion of Soils Contaminated with
HalogenatedHydrocarbons, Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. June 1988.
Ex Situ Biological Processes:
1. AWMA and HWAC, 1992. "Bioremediation: The State of Practice in Hazardous Waste Remediation
Operations." A Live Satellite Seminar Jointly Sponsored by Air and Waste Management Association
(AWMA) and the Hazardous Waste Action Council (HWAC). Air and Waste Management
Association, Pittsburgh, PA. January 9, 1992.
2. Hartz, A.A. and R.B. Beach, 1992. "Cleanup of Creosote-Contaminated Sludge Using a Bioslurry
Lagoon." Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund '92. Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute,
Greenbelt, MD.
3. HMCRI, 1992. Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund '92. Hazardous Materials Control Research
Institute, Greenbelt, MD.
4. Martin, J.P., R.C. Sims, and J. Matthews, 1986. "Review and Evaluation of Current Design and
Management Practices for Land Treatment Units Receiving Petroleum Wastes." Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Materials. 3(3):261-280.
5. Sims, R.C., J.L. Sims, D.L. Sorensen, W.J. Doucette, and L.L. Hastings, 1987. Waste-soil
Treatability Studies for Four Complex Industrial Wastes: Methodologies and Results, Volumes I and
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
OK. EPA/600/S6-86/003.
6. Taylor, D.S. and A.E. Peterson, 1991. "Land Application for Treatment of PCBs in Municipal
Sewage Sludge." Bioremediation. 3:464-466.
7. U.S. EPA, 1988. Assessment ofInternational Technologies for Superfund Applications: Technology
Review and Trip Report Results. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-88/003.
128
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
8. U.S. EPA, 1991. Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site Groundwater by Biotrol, Inc.:
Applications Analysis Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/A5-91/001.
9. U.S. EPA, 1992. Bioretnediation Case Studies, Abstracts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-92/004.
10. U.S. EPA, 1990. Engineering Bulletin: Slurry Biodegradation. EPA/540/2-90/016.
11. U.S. EPA, 1986. Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-
86/003(f).
12. Zitrides, T.G., 1990. "Bioremediation Comes of Age." Pollution Engineering. January, 1990. pp.
57-62.
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Processes:
1. Barich, J.T., 1990. "Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation of Organic Contaminants in Ground, Waste and
Drinking Waters," Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International, May 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-90/010.
2. Barth, E.F., 1991. "Summary Results of the SITE Demonstration for the CHEMFIX
Solidification/Stabilization Process," Proceedings of the 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste
Research Symposium, April 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/9-91/002.
3. Hall, D.W., J.A. Sandrin, and R.E. McBride, 1990. "An Overview of Solvent Extraction Treatment
Technologies." Environmental Progress. 9(2):98-105.
4. Hoffman, P., 1993. "Ground Water Remediation Using Smart Pump and Treat." Ground Water.
5. Holcombc, T.C., J. Cataldo, and J. Ahmad, 1990. "Use of the Carver-Greenfield Process® for the
Cleanup of Petroleum-contaminated Soils." Proceedings of the New York-New Jersey Environmental
Expo '90, Meadowlands Convention Center, Secaucus, New Jersey, October 16-18, 1990.
6. Johnson, P.C., D.D. Stanley, M.W. Kemblowski, D.L. Byers, and J.D. Colthart, 1990. "A Practical
Approach to the Design, Operation, and Monitoring of In Situ Soil Venting Systems." GWMR.
Spring 1990. pp. 159-178.
129
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
7. Little, J.C..B.J. Marinaras, and R.E. Selleck, 1991. "Crossflow vs. Counterflow Air Stripping Costs."
P.A. Krenkle (ed). Environmental Engineering: Proceedings of the 1991 Specialty Conference.
Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers. Reno, NV. July 1991.
American Society of Civil Engineers, NY. pp. 331-336.
8. Mayer, G., W. Bellamy, N. Ziemba, and L.A. Otis, 1990. "Conceptual Cost Evaluation of Volatile
Organic Compound Treatment by Advanced Ozone Oxidation." Second Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International. May 15-17, 1990.
Philadelphia, PA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/2-90/010.
9. Massey, MJ. and S. Darian, 1989. "ENSR Process for the Extractive Decontamination of Soils and
Sludges." Presented at the PCB Forum, International Conference for the Remediation of PCB
Contamination, Houston, TX. August 29-30, 1989.
10. McCoy and Associates, Inc., 1992. "Innovative In Situ Cleanup Processes", The Hazardous Waste
Consultant, September/October 1992.
11. Miller, S., 1980. "Adsorption on Carbon: Solvent Effects on Adsorption." Environmental Science
& Technology. 14(9): 1037-1049.
12. Mitchell, M.M., D.B. McMindes, and R. Young, 1991. "Time Critical Response Action for a JP-4
Free Product Plume—Kelly AFB." Presented at the Environmental Restoration Technology
Symposium. U.S. Air Force, San Antonio, TX. May 1991.
13. Nunno, T.J., J.A. Hyman, and T. Pheiffer, 1988. "Development of Site Remediation Technologies
in European Countries." Workshop on the Extractive Treatment of Excavated Soil. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, NJ. December 1988.
14. Reilly, T.R., S. Sundaresan, and J.H. Highland, 1986. "Cleanup of PCB Contaminated Soils and
Sludges by a Solvent Extraction Process: A Case Study." Studier Environmental Science. 29:125-
139.
15. Rowe, R., 1987. "Solvent Extraction." Evaluation of'Treatment Technologies for Listed Petroleum
Refinery Wastes. Final report of the American Petroleum Institute. American Petroleum Insitute,
Washington, DC. December 1987.
16. Smarkel, K.L., 1988. "Soil Washing of Low Volatility Petroleum Hydrocarbons." Staff Technology
Demonstration Report. California Department of Health Services. November 3, 1988. Abstract
available on ATTIC.
17. Staley, L.J., R. Valentinetti, and J. McPherson, 1990. "SITE Demonstration of the CF Systems
Organic Extraction Process." Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. 40(6):926-931.
Also, available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. Order No. PB91-145110.
18. Stenzel, M.H. and W.J. Merz, 1989. "Use of Carbon Adsorption Processes in Groundwater
Treatment." Environmental Progress. 8(4):257-264.
130
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
19. Trost, P.B. and R.S. Rickard, 1987. "On-site Soil Washing—A Low Cost Alternative." Paper
presented at ADPA, April 29, 1987, Los Angeles, CA. MTA Remedial Resources, Inc., Golden,
CO. Abstract available on ATTIC.
20. U.S. Air Force, 1987. An Evaluation of Rotary Air Stripping for Removal of Volatile Organics from
Groundwater. Final Report. Dietrich, C., D. Treichler, and J. Armstrong, Traverse Group, Inc. U.S.
Air Force Engineering and Services Laboratory, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL. ESL-TR-86-46.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. Order No. ADA178831.
21. U.S. Air Force, 1992. Remedial Technology Design, Performance and Cost Study, U.S. Air Force,
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Brooks AFB, TX. July 1992.
22. U.S. Air Force, 1986. Surfactant-Enhanced In Situ Soils Washing. U.S. Air Force Engineering and
Services Laboratory, FL. Nash J., R.P. Traver, and D.C. Downey. ESL-TR-97-18. Available from
NTIS, Springfield, VA. Order No. ADA188066.
23. U.S. Army, 1987. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) System Performance Capabilities and
Optimization. Final Report. Hinshaw, G.D., C.B. Fanska, D.E. Fiscus, and S.A. Sorensen, Midwest
Research Institute. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Grounds,
MD. MRI Project No. 8182-S. Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR87111. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA. Order No. ADA179828.
24. U.S. Army, 1991. Technical and Economic Evaluation of Air Stripping for Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Removal from Contaminated Groundwater at Selected Army Sites. Tennessee
Valley Authority and U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Grounds,
MD. CETHA-TE-CR-91023.
25. U.S. DOE, 1990. An Evaluation of the Use of an Advanced Oxidation Process To Remove
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons from Groundwater at the U.S. Department of Energy Kansas City Plant.
U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ORNL/TM-11337.
26. U.S. EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide To Glycolate Dehalogenation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA/542/F-92/005.
27. U.S. EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Soil Washing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA/542/F-92/003. March 1992.
28. U.S. EPA, 1992. BioTrol Soil Washing System for Treatment of a Wood Preserving Site, Applications
Analysis Report. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/A5-91/003.
29. U.S. EPA, 1990. CF Systems Organics Extraction Process New Bedford Harbor, MA, Applications
Analysis Report. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/A5-90/002. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. Order No.
PB91-1133845.
131
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
30. U.S. EPA, 1991. Engineering Bulletin: Air Stripping of Aqueous Solution. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/022.
31. U.S. EPA, 1990. Engineering Bulletin — Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-90/015.
32. U.S. EPA, 1991. Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/025.
33. U.S. EPA, 1991. Engineering Bulletin: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/
024.
34. U.S. EPA, 1990. Engineering Bulletin: Soil Washing Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-90/017.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. Order No. PB91-228056.
35. U.S. EPA, 1990. Engineering Bulletin: Solvent Extraction Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-90/013.
36. U.S. EPA, 1991. EPA's Mobile Volume Reduction Unit for Soil Washing. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Masters, H. and B. Rubin. EPA/500/D-91/201. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA. Order No. PB91-231209.
37. U.S. EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: BEST" Solvent Extraction Process. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. 1989.
Directive 9200.5-253FS.
38. U.S. EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology—Glycolate Dehalogenation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Directive 9200 5-254FS.
39. U.S. EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: Soil Washing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Directive 9200.5-250FS.
40. U.S. EPA, 1983. Mobile System for Extracting Spilled Hazardous Materials from Excavated Soils.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Scholz, R. and J. Milanowski. EPA-600/S2-83-100.
41. U.S. EPA, 1990. Project Summary — Treating Chlorinated Wastes with the KPEG Process, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA/600/S2-90/026.
42. U.S. EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes — Physical Tests,
Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening and Field Activities, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/625/6-89/022.
132
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
43. U.S. EPA, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. Pedersen, T.A. and
J.T.Curtis. EPA/540/2-91/003, pp.88-91, 115.
44. U.S. EPA, 1989. Superfund Treatability Study Protocol: Bench-Scale Level of Soils Washing for
Contaminated Soils (Interim Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
December 1989.
45. U.S. EPA, 1990. Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration of the Ultrox
International Ultraviolet Radiation!'Oxidation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/540/5-89/012.
46. U.S. EPA, 1988. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges-
Appendix B.I: Chemical Extraction. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA 540/2-88/004.
47. U.S. EPA, 1990. Ultrox International Ultraviolet Radiation!Oxidation Technology: Applications
Analysis Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/A5-89/012.
48. U.S. Navy, 1991. Tech Data Sheet — Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-Catalyzed
Decomposition Process (BCDP). U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA.
August 1991.
49. Weimer, L.D., 1989. "The BEST" Solvent Extraction Process Applications with Hazardous Sludges,
Soils, and Sediments." Paper presented at the Third International Conference, New Frontiers for
Hazardous Waste Management. Pittsburgh, PA. September 1989.
Ex Situ Thermal Processes:
1. Cudahy, J.J. and W.L. Troxier, 1990. 7990 Thermal Remediation Industry Contractor Survey.
Prepared by Focus Environmental, Inc. for the Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh,
PA. May 1990.
2. Freeman, H.M. (Editor), 1988. Incinerating Hazardous Wastes. Technomic Publishing Co., Lancaster,
PA.
3. Fimfschilling, M.R. and R.C. Eschenbach, 1992. "A Plasma Centrifugal Furnace for Treating
Hazardous Waste." Presented at Electrotech 92-International Congress on Electrotechnologies.
Canadian Committee on Electrotechnologies, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. June 1992.
4. Hoffelner, W. and R.C. Eschenbach, 1993. "Plasma Treatment for Radioactive Waste." Presented
at the EPRI Conference, Palo Alto, California, February 1993. Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, CA.
133
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
5. Montgomery, A.H., CJ. Rogers, and A. Kernel, 1992. "Thermal and Dechlorination Processes for
the Destruction of Chlorinated Pollutants in Liquid and Solid Matrices." Presented at the AIChE
1992 Summer Annual Meeting, August 9-12. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York,
NY.
6. Ritcey, R. and F. Schwartz, 1990. "Anaerobic Pyrolysis of Waste Solids and Sludges: The AOSTRA
Taciuk Process System." Presented at the Environmental Hazards Conference and Exposition.
Environmental Hazards Management Institute, Seattle, WA. May 1990.
7. Schlienger, E., W.R. Warf, and S.R. Johnson, 1993. "The Mobile PCF2." Presentated at Waste
Management '93. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. March 1993.
8. Schneider, D. and B.D. Beckstrom, 1990. "Cleanup of Contaminated Soils by Pyrolysis in an
Indirectly Heated Rotary Kiln." Environmental Progress. 9:(3):165-168.
9. U.S. Army, 1990. The Low Temperature Thermal Stripping Process. U.S. Army Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD. August 1990. USATHAMA Cir.
200-1-5.
10. U.S. DOE, 1991. Environmental Assessment for Retech Inc.'s Plasma Centrifugal Furnace
Evaluation. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. DOE/EA 0491.
11. U.S. EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Thermal Desorption, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA/542/F-92/006.
12. U.S. EPA, 1992. Applications Analysis Report—Babcock & Wilcox Cyclone Furnace Vitrification
Technology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/AR-92/017.
13. U.S. EPA, 1992. Applications Analysis Report—HorseheadResource Development Company, Inc.,
Flame Reactor Technology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/A5-91/005.
14. U.S. EPA, 1992. Applications Analysis Report—Retech, Inc., Plasma Centrifugal Furnace. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/A5-91/007.
15. U.S. EPA, 1989. Applications Analysis Report — Shirco Infrared Incineration System, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/A5-89/010.
16. U.S. EPA, 1992. Demonstration Bulletin—AOSTRA-SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Wide
Beach Development Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
. Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/MR-92/008.
17. U.S. EPA, 1992. Demonstration Bulletin — Circulating Bed Combustor, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH.
134
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
EPA/540/MR-92/001.
18. U.S. EPA, 1992. Demonstration Bulletin — SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Outboard
Marine Corporation Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/MR-92/078.
19. U.S. EPA, 1992. Demonstration Bulletin— Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3*1) System,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/MR-92/019.
20. U.S. EPA, 1990. Engineering Bulletin — Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-90/014.
21. U.S. EPA, 1992. Engineering Bulletin — Pyrolysis Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/S-92/010.
22. U.S. EPA, 1991. Engineering Bulletin — Thermal Desorption Treatment, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/008.
23. U.S. EPA, 1987. Fact Sheet: Incineration of Hazardous Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Washington, DC. S/AT/87-2.
24. U.S. EPA, 1988. Hazardous Waste Incineration: Questions and Answers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. EPA/530-SW-88-018.
25. U.S. EPA, 1990. Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International, May 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-90/010.
26. U.S. EPA, 1991. Proceedings of the 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium,
April 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/9-91/002.
27. U.S. EPA, 1992. Technology Evaluation Report— Ogden Circulating Bed Combustor at the McColl
Superfund Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-92/001
28. Vorum, M., 1991. "SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Process (ATP): Rigorous and Cost Effective
Remediation of Organic Contaminated Solid and Sludge Wastes." Presented at the AWMA
Conference, Kansas City, Kansas, June, 1991. Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh,
PA.
135
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Other Processes
1. Averett, D.E., B.D. Perry, and E.J. Torrey, 1989. Review of Removal, Containment, andTreatment
Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
2. Barker, J.F., G.C. Patrick, and D. Major, 1987. "Natural Attenuation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in
a Shallow Sand Aquifer." Groundwater Monitoring Review. Winter, 1987, pp. 64-71.
3. Church, H.K., 1981. Excavation Handbook. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
4. Environmental Law Institute, 1984. Compendium of Cost of Remedial Technologies at Hazardous
Waste Sites. A Report to the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Environmental Law Institute.
5. Klecka, G.M., J.W. Davis, D.R. Gray, and S.S. Madsen, 1990. "Natural Bioremediation of Organic
Contaminants in Groundwater: Cliffs-Dow Superfund Site." Groundwater. 28:(4):534-543.
6. Kulwiec, R.A., 1985. Materials Handling Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
7. R.S Means Company, Inc., 1988. Building Construction Cost Data 1989. R.S. Means Publishing,
Kingston, Massachusetts.
8. Scovazzo, P.E., D. Sood, and D.S. Jackson, 1992. "Soil Attenuation: In Situ Remediation of
Inorganics." Proceedings of the HMCISuperfund '92. Hazardous Materials Control Research
Institute, Greenbelt, MD.
9. U.S. EPA, 1992. Applications Analysis Report—Demonstration of 'a Trial Excavation at the McColl
Superfund Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/AR-921/015.
10. U.S. EPA, 1991. Survey of Materials-Handling Technologies Used at Hazardous Waste Sites. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/2-91/010.
Air Emissions/Off-Gas Technologies:
1. Adams, J.Q. and R. M. Clark, 1991. "Evaluating the Costs of Packed Tower Aeration and GAC for
Controlling Selected Organics." JAWWA. January 1991. pp. 49-57.
2. Bonn, H., 1992. "Consider Biofiltration for Decontaminating Gases." Chemical Engineering
Progress. April 1992. pp. 34-40.
3. Crittenden, J.C., R.D. Cortright, B. Rick, S-R Tang, and D. Perram, 1988. "Using GAC To Remove
VOCs from Air Stripper Off-Gas." JAWWA. May 1988. pp. 73-84.
136
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
4. Govind, R., V. Utgikar, Y. Shan, S.I. Safferman, and D.F. Bishop, no date. Studies on Aerobic
Degradation of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in an Activated Carbon Packed Bed Biofilter.
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RiskReduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, Unpublished report.
5. Greene, H.L., 1989. Vapor-Phase Catalytic Oxidation of Mixed Volatile Organic Compounds: Final.
U.S. Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Engineering and Services Laboratory, Tyndall Air
Force Base, FL. ESL-TR-89-12. Also available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. Order No.
ADA243426.
6. Hylton, T.D., 1992. "Evaluation of the TCE Catalytic Oxidation Unit at Wurtsmith Air Force Base."
Environmental Progress. ll(l):54-57.
7. Marchand, E., 1991. "Catalytic Oxidation Emissions Control for Remediation Efforts." Third Forum
on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International: Technical
Papers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/015.
8. Unger,M.T.,1993. "Catalytic Oxidation for VOCs." TheNationalEnvironmental Journal. 3:(2):46-
48.
9. U.S. Air Force, 1987. Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources Air Emissions and Controls.
U.S. Air Force, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL. Available from NTIS: PB88-106166.
10. U.S. Air Force, 1991. Control of Air Stripping Emissions Using Catalytic Oxidation. Tyndall Air
Force Base, FL.
11. U.S. EPA, 1992. Cost of Bio filtration Compared to Alternative VOC Control Technologies. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
12. U.S. EPA, 1991. Engineering Bulletin — Control of Air Emissions from Materials Handling during
Remediation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/2-91/024.
13. U.S.EPA, 1991. Overview of Air Biofilters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RiskReduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
14. U.S. EPA, 1990. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Chapter 3). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA/450/3-90/006.
137
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
(Page left blank intentionally.)
138
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
APPENDIX B: CONTAMINANT GROUPS
Major contaminant groups used in the Matrix are:
(1) Halogenated volatiles
(2) Halogenated semivolatiles
(3) Non-halogenated volatiles
(4) Non-halogenated semivolatiles
(5) Fuel Hydrocarbons
(6) Pesticides
(7) Inorganics
These major groups include the contaminants listed below. These are not comprehensive lists, but they
contain examples of contaminants encountered at many sites.
(1) Halogenated Volatiles
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloropropane
Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
Cis-1,3-dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
1,1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1 -Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1,2-Dichloropopane
Ethylene dibromide
Fluorotrichloromethane (Freon 11)
Hexachloroethane
Monochlorobenzene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon 113)
Vinyl chloride
(2) Halogenated Semivolatiles
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ether
1,2-Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethane
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)me thane
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)phthalate
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloroaniline
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloronapthalene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenylether
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3 -Dichlorobenzidine
139
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Halogentated Semivolatiles (Con'd.)
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorophenol
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Tetrachlorophenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
(3) Non-Halogentated Volatiles
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon disulfide
Cyclohexanone
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
2-Hexanone
Isobutanol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Styrene
Tetrahydrofuran
Vinyl acetate
(4) Non-Halogentated Semivolatiles
Benzidine
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinilrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluenc
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Isophorone
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nltrophenol
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Phenyl napthalene
(5) Fuel Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Cis-2-butene
Cresols
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
2,3-Dimethylbutane
3,3-Dimethyl-l-butene
Dimethylethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylheptane
2,2-Dimethylhexane
2,2-Dimethylpentane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
3-Ethylpentane
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
140
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Indeno(l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Isobutane
Isopentane
2-Methyl-1,3-butadiene
3-Methyl-l ,2-butadiene
2-Methyl-butene
2-Methyl-2-butene
3-Methyl-l-butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
3-Methylhexane
Methylnapthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
3 -Methyl-1 -pentene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Methylpropylbenzene
M-Xylene
Napthalene
N-Butane
N-Decane
N-Dodecane
N-Heptane
N-Hexane
N-Hexylbenzene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nonane
N-Octane
N-Pentane
N-Propylbenzene
N-Undecane
O-Xylene
1-Pentene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Propane
P-Xylene
Pyrene
Pyridine
1,2,3,4-Tetramethylbenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethyl-5-ethylbenzene
2,2,4-Trimethylheptane
2,3,4-Trimethy Iheptane
3,3,5-Trimethy Iheptane
2,4,4-Trimethylhexane
3,3,4-Trimethy Ihexane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethy Ipentane
Trans-2-butene
Trans-2-pentene
(6) Pesticides
Aldrin
Bhc-alpha
Bhc-beta
Bhc-delta
Bhc-gamma
Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Ethion
Ethyl parathion
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Malathion
Methylparathion
Parathion
Toxaphene
(7) Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Barium
Beryllium
141
-------
Reference Guide: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Fluorine
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Metallic cyanides
Nickel
Potassuim
Selenium
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
142
• U.S GOVERNMENT PWKTlNCOmCE 1993 -721-776/ 80299
------- |