EPA/542/B-94/013
NTIS PB95-104782
a > ¦ ¦ m a | ¦ October 1994
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix
and Reference Guide
Second Edition
s^DS7^
Federal Remediation
Technologies
Roundtable
Prepared by the
DOD Environmental Technology
Transfer Committee
-------
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
SCREENING MATRIX AND
REFERENCE GUIDE
SECOND EDITION
October 1994
Prepared by the
DOD Environmental Technology
Transfer Committee
-------
NOTICE
This document was prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
and other federal agencies participating in the Federal Remediation
Technology Roundtable (FRTR). Neither the DOD nor any other federal
agency thereof, nor any employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, produce, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise
does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views
and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or
reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. Information
contained in this document was obtained from DOD and other federal
agencies directly involved in research, development, and demonstration
of cleanup technologies to meet the environmental restoration and waste
management needs of federal facilities.
U.S. government agencies and their contractors may reproduce this
document in whole or in part (in hardcopy or electronic form) for official
business. All other reproduction is prohibited without prior approval of
USAEC, SHM-AEC-ETD, APG, MD 21010-5401. Additional copies
may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, (703)
487-4650, NTIS PB95-104782.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm
ii
10/27/94
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Technology Transfer Committee (ETTC) was
established in 1981 to facilitate the exchange of programmatic and
technical information involving remediation activities among DOD
services. The ETTC charter later expanded to include DOE and EPA
membership as well as environmental activities other than remediation.
The Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR) was established
in 1991 as an interagency committee to exchange information and provide
a forum for joint action regarding the development and demonstration of
innovative technologies for hazardous waste remediation.
One of the distinctive attributes of environmental technology is that the
state-of-the-art continually changes. Federal agencies have periodically
updated and published information on remediation technologies in an
effort to keep pace with these changes. However, government remedial
project managers (RPMs) must often sort through large volumes of
related and overlapping information to evaluate alternative technologies.
To assist the RPM in this process and to enhance technology transfer
among federal agencies, we developed this document to combine the
unique features of several agency publications into a single document.
It allows the RPM to pursue questions based on contamination problems
as well as specific technology issues depending on their need.
The selection and use of innovative technologies to clean up hazardous
waste sites is increasing rapidly, and new technologies are continuing to
emerge. Member agencies plan to issue periodic updates of this
document to help the RPM keep pace with the ever-changing range of
technology options available.
DANIEL jF. UYESL
Colonel, U.S. Army
'I juv w. ivw jk.., ru.u.
Chairman, DOD ETTC
Commander
U.S. Army Environmental
Chairman, FRTR
Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office
Center
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.£m
iii
10/17/94
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour pci response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing daa sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of (his collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Doectorate for
information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Ploject (0704-0188), Washmgton, DC 20503
1. AGENCY USE ONLY
2. REPORT DATE
October 1994
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Final
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Second
Edition
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
DACA31-91-D-0079
Task Order 0009
6. AUTHOR(S)
Peter J. Marks, Walter f. Wujcik, Amy F. Loncar
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380-1499
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
02281-012-009
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Attn: SFIM-AEC-ETD (Edward Engbert)
Building E4460, Beal Road
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-94065
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
U.S. government agencies and their contractors may reproduce this document in whole or in part (in hardcopy or electronic form) for official
business. All other reproduction is prohibited without prior approval of USAEC, SFIM-AEC-ETD, APG, MD 21010-5401.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.
Additional copies may be obtained from the National Technical Information
Service, (703 ) 487-4650, NTIS PB95-104782.
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT Under subcontract to the U.S. Army Environmental Center, Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON®) has prepared the Remediation
Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Second Edition. The purpose of this document is to provide enough information to allow
the reader to use the guide, in combination with other references, to efficiently proceed from identifying a contaminated site toward
communicating and recommending suitable site remediation technologies to environmental regulators. The approach used to prepare this
document was to review and compile the unique features of several U.S. Government documents into one compendium document. Information
on widely used and presumptive remedies is provided in order to minimize the amount of remediation resources used in obtaining site charac-
terization data and/or evaluating every possible remedial alternative. Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common categories of
sites established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), based on historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific and
engineering evaluation of performance data on technology implementation. Commercially available innovative technologies are also included.
14. SUBJECT TERMS
Remediation, treatment, technology, soil, sediment, sludge, groundwater,
surface water, leachate, volatile organic contaminants, semivolatile organic
contaminants, explosives, metals, radionuclides, fuels, screening, alternatives,
extraction, destruction, removal, containment, and immobilization.
IS. NUMBER OF PAGES
461 Text
102 Appendices
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
20. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
Same as report
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89
Prescribed by ANSI SUv Z39 -1 f
Z98-102
MK01\RPT.02281012 009\compgde fin
iv
10/27/94
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This reference is the product of a cooperative effort between the member agencies of the U.S.
Department of Defense Environmental Technology Transfer Committee (ETTC) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR).
Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON^) prepared the text under Army Contract DACA31-91-D-0079.
The Army contract project officer was Edward Engbert of the U.S. Army Environmental Center,
Environmental Technology Division. Dr. Walter Wujcik served as the WESTON Task Manager
and Amy Loncar as principal author.
The authors express special recognition and appreciation to the members of the ETTC subcommittee
responsible for providing guidance and coordinating review activities among their member agencies:
Col. James Owendoff of the Office of Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental
Security; Edward Engbert of the Army Environmental Center; Frank Freestone of the Environmental
Protection Agency Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory; Robert Furlong and Brent Johnson of
the Headquarters Air Force Environmental Restoration Division; Joe Paladino of the Department
of Energy Office of Technology Development; and Jai Jeffery of the Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center.
The following reviewers each contributed to the depth of this report through comments based on
their considerable expertise:
Mr. Marie Berscheid
California EPA
DTSC HQ-12
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Phone: 916/322-3294
FAX: 916/324-3107
Mr. Robert Elliot
OO-ALC/EMR
Hill AFB
7274 Wardleigh Road
Hill AFB, UT 84056-5137
Phone: 801/777-8790
FAX: 801/777-4306
Ms. Patricia Erickson
U.S. EPA
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental
Research Center
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati OH 45268
Phone: 513/569-7884
FAX: 513/569-7676
Mr. James E. Cook
Bureau of Mines
U.S. Dept. of the Interior
810 7th St. NW
Washington, DC 20241
Phone: 202/501-9293
FAX: 202/501-9957
Mr. Edward Engbert
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Bldg. E-4430
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Phone: 410/671-2054
FAX: 410/612-6836
Ms. Linda Fiedler
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office
401 M St., SW 5102W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703/308-8799
FAX: 703/308-8528
MK01\RPT 022810I2.009Scompgde.fm
V
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Mr. Uwe Frank
Superfund Technology Div.
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Phone: 908/321-6626
FAX: 908/906-6990
Mr. Robert Furlong
HQ USAF/CEVR
1260 Air Force
Pentagon Room 5D376
Washington, DC 20330-1260
Phone: 703/697-3445
FAX: 703/697-3592
Mr. Douglass Grosse
U.S. EPA
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental
Research Center
26 W. M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513/569-7844
FAX: 513/569-7676
Mr. Mark Hampton
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Bldg. E-4430
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Phone: 410/671-2054
FAX: 410/612-6836
Mr. Brent Johnson
HQ USAF/CERV
1260 Air Force
Pentagon Room 5D376
Washington, DC 20330-1260
Phone: 703/697-3445
FAX: 703/697-3592
Mr. John Kingscott
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office
401 M Street, SW 5102W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703/308-8749
FAX: 703/308-8528
Mr. Frank Freestone
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Bldg. 10, MS 104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Phone: 908/321-6632
FAX: 908/321-6640
Dr. John Griffith, Jr.
McNeese State University
Dept. of Chemical & Electrical Engineering
P.O. Box 91735
Lake Charles, LA 70609
Phone: 318/475-5865
FAX: 318/475-5286
Mr. Patrick Haas
AFCEE/EST
8001 Arnold Drive
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5357
Phone: 210/536-4314
FAX: 210/536-4339
Mr. Jai Jeffery
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
560 Center Drive
Bldg. 835, Code 414.JJ
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
Phone: 805/982-3020
FAX: 805/982-4304
Mr. William Judkins
U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Environmental Quality Division
200 Stovall St., Code 181A
Alexandria, VA 22332-2300
Phone: 703/325-2128
FAX: 703/325-0183
Lt. Col. Robert La Poe
AL/EQW-OL
139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Phone: 904/283-6244
FAX: 904/283-6286
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Yompgde.fm
vi
10/27/94
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Mr. Dennis Miller
Idaho National Environmental Laboratory
Office of Technology Development
ERCWM, U.S. DOE HQ
1000 Independence Ave
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202/586-3022
FAX: 202/586-6773
Ms. Laurel Muehlhausen
Naval Facilities Engineering Serv. Ctr.
560 Center Drive
Bldg. 835, Code 414-J
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
Phone: 805/982-3020
FAX: 805/982-4304
Col. James Owendoff
Office of Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense (Environmental Security)
Pentagon Room 3C767
Washington, DC 20301-3400
Phone: 703/697-9793
FAX: 703/695-4981
Mr. Paul dePercin
U.S. EPA
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental
Research Center
26 W. M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513/569-7797
FAX: 513/569-7676
Mr. John Quander
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office
401 MSt. SW5102W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703/308-8845
FAX: 703/308-8528
Dr. Steve Safferman
U.S. EPA
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513/569-7519
FAX: 513/569-7676
Lt. Col. Ross Miller
Brooks AFB
Attn: AFCEE/RST
8001 Arnold Drive
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5357
Phone: 210/536-4331
FAX: 210/536-4339
Mr. Craig Olson
U.S. Army Engineering District - Omaha
Attn: CEMRO-MD-HF
215 N 17th Street
Omaha, NE 68102-4978
Phone: 402/221-7711
FAX: 402/221-7838
Mr. Joe Paladino
Office of Technology Development
HQ DOE
TREVION II, EM-521
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 301/903-7449
FAX: 301/903-7238
Mr. Daniel Powell
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office
401 M St. SW 5102W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703/308-8827
FAX: 703/308-8528
Ms. Mary Ann Ray
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Bldg. E-4435
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Ms. Laurel Staley
U.S. EPA
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental
Research Center
26 M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513/569-7884
FAX: 513/569-7676
MK01\RPT-02281012 009\compgde.fm
vii
J0/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Mr. Richard Scalf
U.S. EPA
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Center
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Phone: 405/436-8580
FAX: 405/436-8582
Mr. Wayne Sisk
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Bldg. E-4430
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Phone: 410/671-2054
FAX: 410/612-6836
Mr. Ted Streckfuss
U.S. Army Engineering District-Omaha
Attn: CEMRO-ED-DK
215 N 17th St.
Omaha, NE 68102-4978
Phone: 402/221-3826
FAX: 402/221-3842
Mr. Daniel Sullivan
Superfund Technology Demo. Div.
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Phone: 908/321-6677
FAX: 908/906-6990
Mr. Dave Van Pelt
BDM Federal, Inc.
555 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 400
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Phone: 301/212-6268
FAX: 301/212-6250
Ms. Mary Stinson
Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Phone: 908/321-6683
FAX: 908/906-6990
Dr. James Stumbar
Foster Wheeler Environmental Services
Raritan Plaza I - 2nd Floor
Edison, NJ 08837-2259
Phone: 908/417-2269
FAX: 908/417-2259
Mr. Newell Trask
Branch of Nuclear Waste Hydrology
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
411 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
Phone: 703/648-5719
FAX: 703/648-5295
Mr. Michael Worsham
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Bldg. E-4430
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Phone: 410/671-2054
FAX: 410/612-6836
M K01NRPT. 02281012.009Vompgde fm
viii
10/27/94
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Report Documentation Page iv
Acknowledgment v
Table of Contents ix
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xvii
List of Acronyms xix
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Objectives 1-1
1.2 Background 1-2
1.3 How To Use This Document 1-3
1.4 Requirements To Consider Technology's Impact on Natural Resources ... 1-7
1.5 Cautionary Notes 1-8
1.6 Mail-In Survey 1-8
2 CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES 2-1
2.1 Presumptive Remedies 2-2
2.2 Data Requirements 2-3
2.2.1 Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge 2-3
2.2.2 Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and
Leachate 2-6
2.2.3 Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases 2-7
2.3 Volatile Organic Compounds 2-8
2.3.1 Properties and Behavior of VOCs 2-10
2.3.2 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge 2-11
2.3.3 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate 2-12
2.3.4 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Air Emissions/
Off-Gases 2-13
2.4 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 2-14
2.4.1 Properties and Behavior of SVOCs 2-16
2.4.2 Common Treatment Technologies for SVOCs in Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge 2-19
2.4.3 Common Treatment Technologies for SVOCs in Groundwater.
Surface Water, and Leachate 2-20
MK.01XRPT 02281012.009Vompgde fm ix 10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Section Title Page
2.5 Fuels 2-21
2.5.1 Properties and Behavior of Fuels 2-23
2.5.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge 2-24
2.5.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate 2-26
2.6 Inorganics 2-27
2.6.1 Properties and Behavior of Inorganics 2-29
2.6.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Soil,
Sediment, and Sludge 2-32
2.6.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate 2-33
2.7 Explosives 2-34
2.7.1 Properties and Behavior of Explosives 2-36
2.7.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Soil,
Sediment, and Sludge 2-37
2.7.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate 2-43
3 TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES 3-1
3.1 In Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge 3-11
3.2 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge .... 3-17
3.3 In Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge 3-25
3.4 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge 3-29
3.5 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge .... 3-36
3.6 Ex Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge 3-48
3.7 Other Treatment Technologies for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge 3-54
3.8 In Situ Biological Treatment for Groundwater, Surface Water,
and Leachate 3-58
3.9 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Groundwater, Surface
Water, and Leachate 3-64
3.10 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Groundwater, Surface Water,
and Leachate 3-66
3.11 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Groundwater, Surface
Water, and Leachate 3-71
3.12 Other Treatment Technologies for Groundwater, Surface Water,
and Leachate 3-76
3.13 Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment 3-79
4 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROFILES 4-1
Soil, Sediment, and Sludge Treatment Technologies
4.1 Biodegradation (In Situ) 4-1
4.2 Bioventing . 4-5
4.3 White Rot Fungus 4-11
4.4 Pneumatic Fracturing 4-15
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.fm X 10/27/94
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
4.5 Soil Flushing 4-19
4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ) 4-23
4.7 Solidification/Stabilization (In Situ) 4-27
4.8 Thermally Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction 4-31
4.9 In Situ Vitrification 4-35
4.10 Composting 4-39
4.11 Controlled Solid Phase Biological Treatment 4-43
4.12 Landfarming 4-47
4.13 Slurry Phase Biological Treatment 4-51
4.14 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation 4-55
4.15 Dehalogenation (Base-Catalyzed Decomposition) 4-59
4.16 Dehalogenation (Glycolate) 4-63
4.17 Soil Washing 4-67
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction (Ex Situ) 4-73
4.19 Solidification/Stabilization (Ex Situ) 4-77
4.20 Solvent Extraction 4-81
4.21 High Temperature Thermal Desorption 4-85
4.22 Hot Gas Decontamination 4-89
4.23 Incineration 4-93
4.24 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption 4-97
4.25 Open Burn/Open Detonation 4-101
4.26 Pyrolysis 4-105
4.27 Vitrification (Ex Situ) 4-109
4.28 Excavation, Retrieval, and Off-Site Disposal 4-113
4.29 Natural Attenuation 4-117
Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate Treatment Technologies
4.30 Co-Metabolic Processes 4-121
4.31 Nitrate Enhancement 4-125
4.32 Oxygen Enhancement with Air Sparging 4-129
4.33 Oxygen Enhancement with Hydrogen Peroxide 4-133
4.34 Air Sparging 4-137
4.35 Directional Wells 4-141
4.36 Dual Phase Extraction 4-145
4.37 Free Product Recovery 4-149
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Flushing/Stripping 4-153
4.39 Hydrofracturing 4-157
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls 4-161
4.41 Slurry Walls 4-165
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction 4-169
4.43 Bioreactors 4-173
4.44 Air Stripping 4-177
4.45 Filtration 4-181
4.46 Ion Exchange 4-185
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption 4-189
4.48 Precipitation 4-193
4.49 Ultraviolet Oxidation 4-197
MK01\RPT:022R1012 009\compgdefm Xi 10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Section Title Page
4.50 Natural Attenuation 4-201
Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment Technologies
4.51 Biofiltration 4-207
4.52 High Energy Corona 4-211
4.53 Membrane Separation 4-215
4.54 Oxidation 4-219
4.55 Vapor-Phase Carbon Adsorption 4-223
5 REFERENCES 5-1
5.1 Document Sources 5-1
5.2 Listing by Topic 5-5
5.2.1 International Surveys and Conferences 5-5
5.2.2 Technology Survey Reports 5-6
5.2.3 Treatability Studies (General) 5-11
5.2.4 Groundwater 5-12
5.2.5 Thermal Processes 5-13
5.2.6 Biological 5-15
5.2.7 Physical/Chemical 5-29
5.2.8 Community Relations 5-38
5.3 Listing by Author 5-41
6 INDEX 6-1
APPENDIX A — VENDOR INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR INNOVATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES (VISITT)
APPENDIX B — DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE
CONTAMINANT MATRIX AND COMPLETED SITE
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993
APPENDIX C — FEDERAL DATA BASES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
SOURCES
APPENDIX D — FACTORS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST AND PERFORMANCE
APPENDIX E — DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 — TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX
ATTACHMENT 2 — REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND COST
GUIDE
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.fm
xii
10/27/94
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page
1-1 Reduction of Data Needs by Screening and Presumptive Remedies 1-1
1-2 The Role of This Document in the RI/FS Process (or Equivalent) 1-4
2-1 Categories of Energetic Materials 2-36
3-1 Classification of Remedial Technologies by Function 3-2
4-1 Typical In Situ Biodegradation System 4-1
4-2 Typical Bioventing System 4-5
4-3 Typical White Rot Fungus Biodegradation Process 4-11
4-4 Typical Pneumatic Fracturing Process 4-15
4-5 Typical Soil Flushing System 4-19
4-6 Typical In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction System 4-23
4-7 Typical Auger/Caisson and Reagent/Injector Head In Situ
Solidification/Stabilization Systems 4-27
4-8 Typical Thermally Enhanced SVE System 4-31
4-9 Typical In Situ Vitrification System 4-35
4-10 Typical Windrow Composting Process 4-39
4-11 Typical Controlled Treatment Unit for Solid-Phase Bioremediation 4-43
4-12 Typical Landfarming Treatment Unit 4-47
4-13 Typical Bioreactor Process 4-51
4-14 Typical Chemical Reduction/Oxidation Process 4-55
4-15 Typical BCD Dehalogenation Process 4-59
4-16 Typical Dehalogenation (Glycolate) Process 4-63
4-17 Typical Soil Washing Process 4-67
MK0]\RPT 02281012 009\compgde.fm xiii 10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Figure No. Title Page
4-18 Typical Ex Situ SVE System 4-73
4-19 Typical Ex Situ Solidification/Stabilization Process Flow Diagram 4-77
4-20 Typical Solvent Extraction Process 4-81
4-21 Typical High Temperature Thermal Desorption Process 4-85
4-22 Process Row Diagram for Hot Gas Decontaminating of Explosives-
Contaminated Equipment 4-89
4-23 Typical Mobile/Transportable Incineration Process 4-93
4-24 Typical Schematic Diagram of Thermal Desorption Process 4-97
4-25 Typical Open Burning Pan and Cage 4-101
4-26 Typical Pyrolysis Process 4-105
4-27 Typical Ex Situ Vitrification Block Flow Process 4-109
4-28 Typical Contaminated Soil Excavation Diagram 4-113
4-29 Typical Monitoring Well Construction Diagram 4-117
4-30 Typical Co-Metabolic Bioremediation System (In Situ) for Contaminated
Groundwater 4-121
4-31 Typical Nitrate-Enhanced Bioremediation System 4-125
4-32 Typical Oxygen-Enhanced Bioremediation System for Contaminated
Groundwater with Air Sparging 4-129
4-33 Oxygen-Enhanced (H202) Bioremediation System 4-133
4-34 Typical Air Sparging System 4-137
4-35 Typical Diagram of In Situ Air Stripping with Horizontal Wells 4-141
4-36 Typical Dual Phase Extraction Schematic 4-145
4-37 Typical Free Product Recovery Dual Pump System 4-149
4-38 CROW™ Subsurface Development Process 4-153
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde.fm XiV 10/27/94
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page
4-39 Typical Sequence of Operations for Creating Hydraulic Fractures 4-157
4-40 Typical Passive Treatment Wall (Cross-Section) 4-161
4-41 Typical Keyed-In Slurry Wall (Cross-Section) 4-165
4-42 Typical UVB Vacuum Vapor Extraction Diagram 4-169
4-43 Typical Rotating Biological Contractor (RBC) 4-173
4-44 Typical Air Stripping System 4-177
4-45 Typical Schematic for Filtration of Contaminated Groundwater 4-181
4-46 Typical Ion Exchange and Adsorption Equipment Diagram 4-185
4-47 Typical Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorption System 4-189
4-48 Typical Metals Precipitation Process 4-193
4-49 Typical UV/Oxidation Groundwater Treatment System 4-197
4-50 Typical Monitoring Well Construction Diagram 4-201
4-51 Typical Methanotrophic Biofilm Reactor Diagram 4-207
4-52 Typical Low Temperature Plasma Reactor 4-211
4-53 Typical Membrane Separation Diagram 4-215
4-54 Typical Oxidation System 4-219
4-55 Typical Vapor-Phase Carbon Adsorption System 4-223
MK01\RPT 02281012.009Vompgdefm XV 10,^7/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde fm
xvi
10/27/94
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
1-1 U.S. Government Remediation Technology Reports Incorporated into
This Guide 1-3
2-1 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Volatile
Organic Compounds 2-9
2-2 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Semivolatile
Organic Compounds 2-15
2-3 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Fuels 2-22
2-4 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Inorganics 2-28
2-5 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix: Treatment of Explosives 2-35
3-1 Definition of Symbols Used in the Treatment Technologies Screening
Matrix 3-4
3-2 Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix 3-5
3-3 Definition of Matrix Treatment Technologies 3-6
3-4 Completed Projects: In Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge 3-14
3-5 Completed Projects: In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge 3-18
3-6 Completed Projects: In Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge 3-26
3-7 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge 3-32
3-8 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil,
Sediment, and Sludge 3-37
3-9 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge 3-49
3-10 Completed Projects: Other Treatments for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge 3-55
MK01\RPT.02281012 009\compgde.fm XVii 10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Table No. Title Page
3-11 Completed Projects: In Situ Biological Treatment for Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate 3-61
3-12 Completed Projects: In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate 3-65
3-13 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate 3-69
3-14 Completed Projects: Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate 3-72
3-15 Completed Projects: Other Treatments for Groundwater, Surface Water,
and Leachate 3-77
3-16 Completed Projects: Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment 3-80
MK01XRPT:02281012 009\compgde fm XVUi 10OT94
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFB U.S. Air Force Base
AIChE American Institute of Chemical Engineers
ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable
APA Air Pathway Analysis
APEG Alkaline Polyethylene Glycolate
APG Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
AWMA Air and Waste Management Association
AWWA American Water Works Association
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
CAA Clean Air Act
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (also
known as Superfund)
CERL U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CROW Contained Recovery of Oily Waste
CRREL U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
CWA Clean Water Act
DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DRE Destruction and Removal Efficiency
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERD Environmental Restoration Division
ERL Environmental Research Laboratory
ETTC DOD Environmental Technology Transfer Committee
FRTR Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
FS Feasibility Study
GAC Granular-Activated Carbon
HEC High Energy Corona
HLRW High Level Radioactive Waste
HMCRI Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute
HTTD High Temperature Thermal Desorption
HWAC Hazardous Waste Action Council
IR Installation Restoration
IRHWCT Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies
ISEE In Situ Steam-Enhanced Extraction
MK01XRPT 02281012 OOTYompgde fm
xix
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
ISV
In Situ Vitrification
KPEG
Potassium Polyethylene Glycolate
LDR
Land Disposal Restriction
LLRW
Low Level Radioactive Waste
LNAPL
Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
LTTD
Low Temperature Thermal Description
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MRD
U.S. Army Missouri River Division
NAPL
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NAS
Naval Air Station
NCA
Noise Control Act
NCEL
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, now NFESC
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NEESA
Navy Energy and Environmental Support Activity, now NFESC
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NFESC
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priority List
NRC
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NWS
Naval Weapons Station
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
OB/OD
Open Burn/Open Detonation
ODW
EPA Office of Drinking Water
OERR
EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
ORD
EPA Office of Research and Development
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSW
EPA Office of Solid Waste
OSWER
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PACT
Powdered-Activated Carbon Technology
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCP
Pentachlorophenol
PEP
Propellants, Explosives, and Pyrotechnics
POC
Point of Contact
POL
Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants
R&D
Research and Development
RBC
Rotating Biological Contactor
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
RREL
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
RSKERL
EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
MK01\RPT:022S1012 009Vompgde fm
XX
10/27/94
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
scfm
Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
SERP
Steam-Enhanced Recovery Process
SITE
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SIVE
Steam Injection and Vacuum Extraction
SNF
Spent Nuclear Fuel
SVE
Soil Vapor Extraction
SVOC
Semivolatile Organic Compound
TCE
Trichlorethylene
TCLP
EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TI
Technical Impracticability
TOC
Total Organic Carbon
TPH
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TRU
Transuranic Waste
TSCA
Toxic Substance Control Act
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAEC
U.S. Army Environmental Center
USAE-WES
U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
USAF
U.S. Air Force
USACERL
See CERL
USACRREL
See CRREL
USAMC
U.S. Army Materiel Command
USN
U.S. Navy
USATHAMA
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Material Agency, now USAEC
UST
Underground Storage Tank
uv
Ultraviolet
uxo
Unexploded Ordnance
voc
Volatile Organic Compound
WESTON
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
yd3
Cubic Yards
MK01NRPT 02281012.009\compgde fm
xxi
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT.02281012.009\compgde fm
xxii
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies SSCtlOFl 1
Screening Matrix and ¦ ,
Reference Guide INTR^)DUCTI^)N
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
¦ 1.1 OBJECTIVES
The goal of remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FS) and hazardous waste
cleanup projects is to obtain enough information on the site to consider and select
practicable remedial alternatives. Gathering this information can require
considerable time, effort, and finances. In some cases, it is possible to focus on
specific remedies that have been proven under similar conditions.
100%
T3
CD
CD
CO
C
o
O
w
CD
>
ro
c
i—
O)
Jy jp-
,/y
/
<
o
i—
CD
-Q
E
3
Z
/r
0
I
1-1 94P-2406 8/16/94
Degree of Site Characterization
100%
FIGURE 1-1 REDUCTION OF DATA NEEDS BY SCREENING AND PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES
This guide is intended to be used to screen and evaluate candidate cleanup
technologies for contaminated installations and waste sites in order to assist
remedial project managers (RPMs) in selecting a remedial alternative. To reduce
data collection efforts and to focus the remedial evaluation steps, information on
widely used and presumptive remedies is provided. Figure 1-1 illustrates the trend
toward reduction in the degree of site characterization through screening and the
use of presumptive remedies.
MK01\RPT 02281012 009\compgde si
1-1
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Presumptive remedies, as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), are preferred technologies for common categories of sites, based on
historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific and engineering
evaluation of performance data on technology implementation. Use of presumptive
remedies will allow a RPM to focus on one or two alternatives: decreasing the site
characterization data needs and focusing the remedial evaluation steps, resulting in
less time and effort. Conversely, sites with extensive data needs will require a
more thorough characterization and evaluation of many remedial alternatives.
The unique approach used to prepare this guide was to review and compile the
collective efforts of several U.S. Government agencies into one compendium
document. For each of several high-frequency of occurrence types of sites, the
guide enables the reader to:
• Screen for possible treatment technologies.
• Distinguish between emerging and mature technologies.
• Assign a relative probability of success based on available performance data,
field use, and engineering judgment.
This guide allows the reader to gather essential descriptive information on the
respective treatment technologies. It incoiporates cost and performance data to the
maximum extent available and focuses primarily on demonstrated technologies;
however, emerging technologies may be more appropriate in some cases, based
upon site conditions and requirements. The final selection of a technology usually
requires site-specific treatability studies. As more is learned about developing
technologies, this guide will be updated accordingly. These technologies are
applicable at all types of site cleanups: Superfund, DOD, DOE, RCRA, state,
private, etc.
A primary audience for this document is RPMs and their supporting contractors and
consultants. This audience also includes the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
installation commanders, environmental coordinators, trainers at DOD and federal
installations, agencies, researchers, Congressional staffers, public interest groups,
and private sector consultants.
¦ 1.2 BACKGROUND
One of the distinctive attributes of environmental technology is that the state-of-the-
art continually changes. To ensure that services and agencies within DOD, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and EPA
have the latest information regarding the status of environmentally applicable
technologies, technology transfer documents are periodically updated and published.
These publications provide a reference to site characterization, installation
restoration (IR), hazardous waste control, and pollution prevention technologies.
They increase technology awareness, enhance coordination, and aid in preventing
duplication of environmental technology development efforts. Information
contained in these documents is obtained from federal research facilities as well as
MK0l\RPT-022810I2 009Vompgde si
1-2
10/26/94
-------
INTRODUCTION
from private-sector vendors involved in research and development and
implementation of methods to characterize and clean up contaminated sites and
materials.
A list of U.S. Government reports documenting innovative and conventional site
remediation technologies that are incorporated into this guide is presented in Table
1-1. These documents are described in greater detail in Appendix E.
TABLE 1-1
U.S. GOVERNMENT REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY REPORTS INCORPORATED
INTO THIS GUIDE
Government Sponsoring Agency
Title
U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC)
Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control
Technologies, Third Edition, November 1992
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR)
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative
Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition, August
1993
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site
Clean-Up Technologies, Third Edition, September
1993
Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative
Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and
Site Remediation, Third Edition, September 1993
EPA
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program: Technology Profiles, Sixth Edition,
November 1993
DOE
Technology Catalogue, First Edition, February 1994
U.S. Air Force (USAF), EPA
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide, Version I, July 1993
USAF
Remedial Technology Design, Performance, and Cost
Study, July 1992
California Base Closure Environmental
Committee
Treatment Technologies Applications Matrix for Base
Closure Activities, November 1993
EPA/U.S. Navy
EPA/Navy CERCLA Remedial Action Technology
Guide, November 1993
¦ 1.3 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
This guide contains six sections:
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Contaminant Perspectives
• 3. Treatment Perspectives
• 4. Treatment Technology Profiles
• 5. References
• 6. Index
MK01NRPT 02281012 009Vompgile si
1-3
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Section I, the Introduction, presents objectives, background information, guidance
on how to use this document, and limitations on its use.
Sections 2 through 5 are intended to aid an RPM in performing the RI/FS or
equivalent process (see Figure 1-2).
. Remedial Investigation/ _
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
Identification
of Alternatives
Record of
->• Decision
(ROD)
Remedy
Selection
Remedial Design/
- Remedial Action—>•
(RD/RA)
Scoping
•<- the —~
RI/FS
Site
^ Characterization ^
and Technology
Screening
<
SECTION 2: CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
Evaluation of
Alternatives "
T
T
SECTION 3: TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
Design
of Remedy"
SECTION 5: REFERENCES
SECTION 4: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROFILES
1-2 94P-3110 9/2/94
FIGURE 1-2 THE ROLE OF THIS DOCUMENT IN THE RI/FS PROCESS (OR EQUIVALENT)
Section 2, Contaminant Perspectives, addresses contaminant properties and
behavior and preliminarily identifies potential treatment technologies based on their
applicability to specific contaminants and media. This section describes five
contaminant groups, as determined by the DOD Environmental Technology
Transfer Committee (ETTC):
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
Fuels.
Inorganics.
Explosives.
Treatment technologies capable of treating a contaminant group are presented in a
technology screening matrix for each of the five contaminant groups. The most
commonly used technologies are discussed in the text for that contaminant in soil,
sediment, and sludge, and in groundwater, surface water, and leachate. (The
discussion of VOCs also addresses air emissions and off-gases.) If presumptive
MK0l\RPT 02281012 009\compgde.sl
1-4
10/26/94
-------
INTRODUCTION
treatments are available for the contaminants, they are identified in this section.
Section 2 will also aid in scoping the RI/FS by identifying data needs in order to
characterize contamination in media and by identifying potential contaminants
based on historical usage of the site.
Section 3, Treatment Perspectives, provides an overview of each treatment
process group and how it will impact technology implementation [e.g., ex situ soil
treatment (as compared to in situ soil treatment) leads to additional cost, handling,
permitting, and safety concerns as a result of excavation]. The treatment process
groups discussed include the following 13 treatment areas:
• In situ biological treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
• In situ physical/chemical treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
• In situ thermal treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
• Ex situ biological treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
• Ex situ physical/chemical treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
• Ex situ thermal treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge.
• Other treatments for soil, sediment, and sludge.
• In situ biological treatment for groundwater, surface water, and leachate.
• In situ physical/chemical treatment for groundwater, surface water, and
leachate.
• Ex situ biological treatment for groundwater, surface water, and leachate.
• Ex situ physical/chemical treatment for groundwater, surface water, and
leachate.
• Other treatments for groundwater, surface water, and leachate.
• Air emissions/off-gas treatment.
Section 3 will aid the RPM in screening potential treatment technologies based on
site requirements and in combining potential treatment technologies into remedial
action alternatives for the overall site. A comprehensive screening matrix listing
each of the treatment technologies contained in this document is presented in this
section. Information on completed projects in these treatment process areas has
been presented in tables extracted from the Innovative Treatment Technologies:
Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993), and the Synopses of Federal Demonstrations
of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MKU1XRPT 02281012 O09Vompgde si
1-5
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Section 4, Treatment Technology Profiles, enables the RPM to perform a more
detailed analysis of the remedial action alternatives. The treatment technology
descriptions include the following information:
• Description.
• Applicability.
• Limitations.
• Data needs.
• Performance data.
• Cost.
• Site information (typically, three representative sites with the most complete
information were chosen).
• Points of contact (typically, three contacts representing different government
agencies were extracted from the source documents).
• References (typically, five published public sector reports were extracted
from the source documents).
Information contained in these profiles was extracted from the source documents,
followed by an extensive review by the DOD ETTC. The cost data are provided
solely as a general indicator of the treatment cost and should be verified with
specific technology vendors, independent cost estimates, and past experience.
Specific technology vendors may be identified by accessing the Vendor Information
System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) data base. Although the
VISITT data base does not include information on vendors for solidification/
stabilization, information on these technologies was added. Information on this
data base and a current (1994) vendor list printout are in Appendix A.
Section 5, References, presents a list of documents that contain additional
information on treatment technologies. Information on where to obtain federal
documents is provided in Subsection 5.1. Subsection 5.2 presents references on
innovative treatment technologies sorted by technology type. Subsection 5.3
presents a comprehensive list of sources of additional information (including the
references presented in Section 4 for each treatment technology), which is a
compilation of all published references that were presented in each of the source
documents.
Section 6, Index, provides a 100-keyword index to this document.
The five appendices to this document contain the following information:
MK.01VRPT 02281012 009Vompgde si
1-6
10/26/94
-------
INTRODUCTION
• Appendix A, Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT). This appendix provides a brief description of the
VISITT data base and a current printout of the vendors of technologies
included in this guide, including the company name and telephone number.
• Appendix B, DOE Site Remediation Technologies by Waste Contaminant
Matrix and Completed Site Demonstration Program Projects as of
October 1993. Table B-l provides a complete listing of the treatment
technologies provided in the DOE Technology Catalogue organized by the
contaminant applicability. Table B-2 provides a listing of completed SITE
Demonstration Programs reproduced from Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program, Technology Profiles, Sixth Edition.
• Appendix C, Federal Data Bases and Additional Information Sources.
This appendix provides a listing of sources of follow-up information,
including data bases, document printing offices, and information centers.
• Appendix D, Parameters Affecting Treatment Cost or Performance.
This appendix documents the results of an FRTR meeting on 26 October and
9 November 1993 to review related activities, identify information needs, and
develop a strategy for documentation of cost and performance information.
• Appendix E, Description of Source Documents. This appendix provides
a description of each of the government documents that were the origin of
this compendium document. Many other sources not listed here were also
used to a lesser extent. These additional sources are presented in Section 5,
References.
The two attachments to this document contain the following information.
• Attachment 1, Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix. This
attachment provides an overall summary of treatment technologies with their
development status, availability, residuals produced, treatment train,
contaminants treated, system reliability/maintainability, cleanup time, overall
cost, and O&M/capital intensive status. Rating codes (better, average, or
worse) have been provided for applicable parameters.
• Attachment 2, Remediation Technology Application and Cost Guide.
This attachment consists of a summary table presented on three foldout
pages. The table provides a concise summary of remedial technology
applications and costs for remedial strategies. The information in the table
includes remedial strategy, media, remedial technology, conditions favorable
to use, unit cost range, major cost drivers, and additional comments.
¦ 1.4 REQUIREMENTS TO CONSIDER TECHNOLOGY'S IMPACTS ON
NATURAL RESOURCES
Because the use of various treatment technologies can have a significant impact on
a site's natural resources, careful consideration of these effects should be made
MKU]\RPT 0228I012 009\compgde si J 10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
when selecting technologies for cleanup. Following a site cleanup, both the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Oil Pollutant Act (OPA) require that residual natural resource
injuries be assessed by federal, state, and/or tribal natural resource trustees, and
restoration of those injured resources are to be accomplished. Restoration is
generally defined as returning natural resources to their pre-incident conditions.
Through coordination among agencies responsible for cleanup and restoration
(natural resource trustees, such as U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife,
and State Department of Natural Resources personnel), cleanup technologies can
be selected that minimize the residual injury that will need to be dealt with in the
Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration process. To ensure that
such concerns are properly considered in the selection of cleanup technologies, the
DOI advises that the RPM contact the local representative of a site's resource
trustee as early as possible in the selection process (e.g., the Fish and Wildlife
Service). Such cooperative efforts should improve efficiency and reduce overall
costs of the combined cleanup/restoration processes.
¦ 1.5 CAUTIONARY NOTES
This document is not designed to be used as the sole basis for remedy selection.
This guide and supporting information should be used only as a guidance
document, and the exclusion or omission of a specific treatment technology
does not necessarily mean that a technology is not applicable to a site.
It is important to recognize that the amount of information about technologies is
rapidly growing. Information currently contained in this document was primarily
excerpted from 1992, 1993, and 1994 source documents. This information was
subsequently updated to the maximum extent possible through the interagency
review process used in preparing this handbook. After identifying potentially
applicable technologies, however, it is essential that prior to remedy selection
RPMs consult the individual treatment technology vendor and/or government point
of contact to evaluate technology, cost, and performance data in light of the most
up-to-date information and site-specific conditions. Additional information to
support identification and analysis of potentially applicable technologies can be
obtained by consulting published references and contacting technology experts.
The final selection of technology usually requires additional site-specific treatability
studies. The reader is encouraged to keep information current by adding new
information as it becomes available.
¦ 1.6 MAIL-IN SURVEY
This mail-in-survey form serves as the primary opportunity for providing feedback
on this document. By sending their feedback, readers will get the opportunity to
be involved in future update and review efforts. Readers may send their comments
by mail or transmit electronically. The Internet address is provided on the form for
electronic responses.
MK.01\RPT'02281012.009Vompgde si
1-8
10/26/94
-------
MAIL-IN SURVEY*
If you would like to be involved in future update and review efforts, fill in your address and/or
telephone number below:
Is the information in this publication:
Poor Excellent
Easy to find? 1 2 3 4 5
Presented in a user-friendly manner? 1 2 3 4 5
Appropriate to your needs? 1 2 3 4 5
Up to date? 1 2 3 4 5
If you know of additional sources of information or specific data bases that should be included
in this publication, or if you are often in need of this type of information and don't know how
to find it, please make a note on this page.
Suggested Improvements (Additions of Points of Contact or other suggested changes):
* Internet address: egengber@aec.apgea.army.mil
FAX (410) 612-6836
-------
COMMANDER
U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ETD (EDWARD ENGBERT)
APG, MD 21010-5401
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
Section 2
CONTAMINANT
PERSPECTIVES
-------
Section 2
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
Information on classes and concentrations of chemical contaminants, how they are
distributed through the site, and in what media they appear is essential to begin the
preselection of treatment technologies. In this document, contaminants have been
separated into five contaminant groups as follows:
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
• Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
• Fuels.
• Inorganics (including radioactive elements).
• Explosives.
This section presents a discussion of the properties and behaviors of the
contaminant groups, followed by a discussion of the most commonly used treatment
technologies available for that contaminant group. (Less commonly used treatment
technologies are identified in the treatment technology screening matrix and may
be found in Section 4.) Each discussion of the contaminant groups is divided into
two media classifications: (1) soil, sediment, and sludge and (2) groundwater,
surface water, and leachate. (The VOC contamination section additionally
addresses air emissions and off-gases.)
A matrix summarizing treatment technology information is presented for each
contaminant group. It should be noted that these technologies are not necessarily
effective at treating all contaminants in the contaminant group. Information
summarized includes the development status (full-scale or pilot-testing), the use
rating (widely/commonly used or limited use), the applicability rating (better,
average, or below average), and the treatment function (destruction, extraction, or
immobilization). The "use" rating was determined from information presented in
the Treatment Technologies Applications Matrix for Base Closure Activities
(California Base Closure Environmental Committee, 1993). The applicability rating
was determined from information presented in the first edition of this document
(EPA, USAF, 1993). Please note, a treatment technology may be applicable to
treat a specific contaminant group, but may not be widely used because of factors
such as cost, public acceptance, or implementability. All information presented in
these matrices has been subjected to rigorous ETTC member review and amended
where appropriate for the purposes of this document.
Subsection 2.1 presents a discussion of the presumptive remedy process.
Subsection 2.2, Data Requirements, addresses the specific data elements required
to characterize each medium and the impact on technology selection. Discussion
of each of the five contaminant groups appears in Subsections 2.3 to 2.7.
Pilot scale describes all techniques not yet developed to full-scale, including those
still in the bench-scale phase of development.
MKOIXRPT 02281012 009Ncompgde.s2
2-1
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ 2.1 PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES
A presumptive remedy is a technology that EPA believes, based upon its past
experience, generally will be the most appropriate remedy for a specified type of
site. EPA is establishing presumptive remedies to accelerate site-specific analysis
of remedies by focusing the feasibility study efforts. EPA expects that a
presumptive remedy, when available, will be used for all CERCLA sites except
under unusual circumstances.
Accordingly, EPA has determined that, when using presumptive remedies, the site
characterization data collection effort can be limited, and the detailed analysis can
be limited to the presumptive remedies (in addition to the no-action alternative),
thereby streamlining that portion of the FS. Supporting documentation should be
included in the Administrative Record for all sites that use the presumptive remedy
process to document the basis for eliminating the site-specific identification. This
supporting documentation is provided in the presumptive remedy document itself.
Circumstances where a presumption remedy may not be used include unusual site
soil characteristics or mixtures of contaminants not treated by the remedy,
demonstration of significant advantages of alternate (or innovative) technologies
over the presumptive remedies, or extraordinary community and state concerns.
The use of nonpresumptive-remedy technologies, or the absence of a presumptive
remedy entirely, does not render the selected treatment technology less effective.
The presumptive remedy is simply an expedited approval process, not the only
technically feasible alternative. If such circumstances are encountered, additional
analyses may be necessary or a more conventional detailed RI/FS may be
performed.
There are currently three published presumptive remedy documents:
• Presumptive Remedies: Policies and Procedures (EPA, 1993). EPA
Document No. 540-F-93-047.
• Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection for
CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils (EPA, 1993). EPA
Document No. 540-F-93-048.
• Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites (EPA, 1993).
EPA Document No. 540-F-93-035.
Additional presumptive remedies are currently being determined for wood treating,
contaminated groundwater, PCB, coal gas, and grain storage sites.
In addition, there is a desire among various governmental agencies to expand this
process, or develop a parallel process for their remediation projects. For example,
the U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence/Technology Transfer
Division (AFCEE/ERT) advocates the use of the following remedies:
• Bioventing for fuel-contaminated soils.
MKOIXRPT 02281012 009\compgde s2
2-2
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
• A combination of vacuum-enhanced free product recovery and
bioremediation for light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) floating product.
• Natural attenuation for petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated groundwater.
¦ 2.2 DATA REQUIREMENTS
For all remedial investigation and cleanup sites, the vertical and horizontal
contaminant profiles should be defined as much as possible. Information on the
overall range and diversity of contamination across the site is critical to treatment
technology selection. Obtaining this information generally requires taking samples
and determining their physical and chemical characteristics. If certain types of
technologies are candidates for use, the specific data needs for these technologies
can be met during the initial stages of the investigation. The data requirements are
technology-specific and not risk-based. The following subsections present a partial
list of the characteristics and rationale for collection of treatment technology
preselection data for each of the three media. A matrix of characteristics affecting
treatment cost or performance versus technologies is provided in Appendix D,
which is also an effort by ETTC.
¦ 2.2.1 Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
Site soil conditions frequently limit the selection of a treatment process. Process-
limiting characteristics such as pH or moisture content may sometimes be adjusted.
In other cases, a treatment technology may be eliminated based upon the soil
classification (e.g., particle-size distribution) or other soil characteristics.
Soils are inherently variable in their physical and chemical characteristics. Usually
the variability is much greater vertically than horizontally, resulting from the
variability in the processes that originally formed the soils. The soil variability, in
turn, will result in variability in the distribution of water and contaminants and in
the ease with which they can be transported within, and removed from, the soil at
a particular site.
Many data elements are relatively easy to obtain, and in some cases more than one
test method exists. Field procedures are performed for recording data or for
collecting samples to determine the classification, moisture content, and
permeability of soils across a site. Field reports describing soil variability may
lessen the need for large numbers of samples and measurements to describe site
characteristics. Common field information-gathering often includes descriptions of
natural soil exposures, weathering that may have taken place, cross-sections,
subsurface cores, and soil sampling. Such an effort can sometimes identify
probable areas of past disposal through observation of soil type differences,
subsidence, and backfill.
Soil particle-size distribution is an important factor in many soil treatment
technologies. In general, coarse, unconsolidated materials, such as sands and fine
gravels, are easiest to treat. Soil washing may not be effective where the soil is
composed of large percentages of silt and clay because of the difficulty of
separating the adsorbed contaminants from fine particles and from wash fluids.
MK01XRPT.02281012 009Yompgde s2
2-3
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Fine particles also can result in high particulate loading in flue gases from rotary
kilns as a result of turbulence. Heterogeneities in soil and waste composition may
produce nonuniform feedstreams for many treatment processes that result in
inconsistent removal rates. Fine particles may delay setting and curing times and
can surround larger particles, causing weakened bonds in solidification/stabilization
processes. Clays may cause poor performance of the thermal desorption technology
as a result of caking. High silt and clay content can cause soil malleability and low
permeability during steam extraction, thus lowering the efficiency of the process.
Soil homogeneity and isotropy may impede in situ technologies that are dependent
on the subsurface flow of fluids, such as soil flushing, steam extraction, vacuum
extraction, and in situ biodegradation. Undesirable channeling may be created in
alternating layers of clay and sand, resulting in inconsistent treatment. Larger
particles, such as coarse gravel or cobbles, are undesirable for vitrification and
chemical extraction processes and also may not be suitable for the stabilization/
solidification technology.
The bulk density of soil is the weight of the soil per unit volume, including water
and voids. It is used in converting weight to volume in materials handling
calculations, and can aid in determining if proper mixing and heat transfer will
occur.
Particle density is the specific gravity of a soil particle. Differences in particle
density are important in heavy mineral/metal separation processes (heavy media
separation). Particle density is also important in soil washing and in determining
the settling velocity of suspended soil particles in flocculation and sedimentation
processes.
Soil permeability is one of the controlling factors in the effectiveness of in situ
treatment technologies. The ability of soil-flushing fluids (e.g., water, steam,
solvents, etc.) to contact and remove contaminants can be reduced by low soil
permeability or by variations in the permeability of different soil layers. Low
permeability also hinders the movement of air and vapors through the soil matrix.
This can lessen the volatilization of VOCs in SVE processes. Similarly, nutrient
solutions, used to accelerate in situ bioremediation, may not be able to penetrate
low-permeability soils in a reasonable time. Low permeability may also limit the
effectiveness of in situ vitrification by slowing vapor releases.
High soil moisture may hinder the movement of air through the soil in vacuum
extraction systems and may cause excavation and material transport problems.
High soil moisture also affects the application of vitrification and other thermal
treatments by increasing energy requirements, thereby increasing costs. On the
other hand, increased soil moisture favors in situ biological treatment.
The pH of the waste being treated may affect many treatment technologies. The
solubility of inorganic contaminants is affected by pH; high pH in soil normally
lowers the mobility of inorganics in soil. The effectiveness of ion exchange and
flocculation processes may be negatively influenced by extreme pH ranges.
\1KU1\RPY 02281012.009\conjpgde s2
2-4
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
Microbial diversity and activity in bioremediation processes also can be affected by
extreme pH ranges.
Eh is the oxidation-reduction (redox) potential of the material being considered
when oxidation-reduction types of chemical reactions are involved. Examples of
these types of reactions include alkaline chlorination of cyanides, reduction of
hexavalent chromium with sulfite under acidic conditions, aerobic oxidation of
organic compounds into C02 and H20, or anaerobic decomposition of organic
compounds into C02 and CH4. Maintaining a low Et] in the liquid phase enhances
anaerobic biologic decomposition of certain halogenated organic compounds.
Kow (the octanol/water partition coefficient) is defined as the ratio of a chemical's
concentration in the octanol phase to its concentration in the aqueous phase of a
two-phase octanol/water system. is a key parameter in describing the fate of
an organic chemicals in environmental systems. It has been found to be related to
the water solubility, soil/sediment adsorption coefficient, and the bioconcentration
factors for aquatic species. The physical meaning of is the tendency of a
chemical to partition itself between an organic phase [e.g., polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) in a solvent] and an aqueous phase. Chemicals that have a
low Kow value (<10) may be considered relatively hydrophilic; they tend to have
a high water solubility, small soil/sediment adsorption coefficients, and small
bioconcentration factors for aquatic life. Conversely, a chemical with a large Kow
(>104) is considered hydrophobic and tends to accumulate at organic surfaces, such
as on humic soil and aquatic species.
Humic content (organic fraction) is the decomposing part of the naturally
occurring organic content of the soil. High humic content will act to bind the soil,
decreasing the mobility of organics and decreasing the threat to groundwater;
however, high humic content can inhibit soil vapor extraction (SVE), steam
extraction, soil washing, and soil flushing as a result of strong adsorption of the
contaminant by the organic material. Reaction times for chemical dehalogenation
processes can be increased by the presence of large amounts of humic materials.
High organic content may also exert an excessive oxygen demand, adversely
affecting bioremediation and chemical oxidation.
Total organic carbon (TOC) provides an indication of the total organic material
present. It is often used as an indicator (but not a measure) of the amount of waste
available for biodegradation. TOC includes the carbon both from naturally-
occurring organic material and organic chemical contaminants; however, all of it
competes in reduction/oxidation reactions leading to the need for larger amounts
of chemical reagents than would be required by the contaminants alone.
Measurement of volatile hydrocarbons, oxygen (02), and carbon dioxide (C02) at
sites containing biodegradable contaminants like petroleum hydrocarbons or sites
with high TOC is useful in further delineating and confirming areas contaminated
as well as identifying the strong potential for bioremediation by bioventing. In
addition, if the use of thermal combustion or certain oxidation systems is planned
for off-gas treatment of extracted vapors, then adequate supply of air or oxygen will
have to be provided to efficiently operate these systems.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-5
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) provides an estimate of the aerobic biological
decomposition of the soil organics by measuring the oxygen consumption of the
organic material that can be readily or eventually biodegraded. Chemical oxygen
demand (COD) is a measure of the oxygen equivalent of the organic content in a
sample that can be oxidized by a strong chemical oxidant such as dichromate or
permanganate. Sometimes COD and BOD can be correlated, and the COD/BOD
ratio can give another indication of biological treatability or treatability by chemical
oxidation. COD is also useful in assessing the applicability of wet air oxidation.
One of the major determining factors in the fate of biodegradable contaminants is
the availability of sufficient electron acceptors (i.e., oxygen, nitrate, iron,
manganese, sulfate, etc.) to support biodegradation. Internal tracers, such as
trimethyl and tetram ethyl benzenes, are normal constituents of fuels that are
significantly less biodegradable than benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
(BTEX), yet have very similar transport characteristics. Thus, these "internal
tracers" can be detected downgradient of the remediation area, thereby
demonstrating that monitoring wells are properly placed and the absence of BTEX
is a result of biodegradation. The concentrations of these tracers can also provide
a basis to correct for the contribution of dilution to contaminant attenuation.
Oil and grease, when present in a soil, will coat the soil particles. The coating
tends to weaken the bond between soil and cement in cement-based solidification.
Similarly, oil and grease can also interfere with reactant-to-waste contact in
chemical reduction/oxidation reactions, thus reducing the efficiency of those
reactions.
¦ 2.2.2 Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate
It is common for groundwater to be contaminated with the water soluble substances
found in overlying soils. Many of the required data elements are similar, e.g., pH,
TOC, BOD, COD, oil and grease, contaminant identification and quantification, and
soil and aquifer characterization. Additional water quality monitoring data elements
include hardness, ammonia, total dissolved solids, and metals content (e.g., iron,
manganese). Knowledge of the site conditions and history may contribute to
selecting a list of contaminants and cost-effective analytical methods.
As with soils, the pH of groundwater is important in determining the applicability
of many treatment processes. Often, the pH must be adjusted before or during a
treatment process. Low pH can interfere with chemical reduction/oxidation
processes. Extreme pH levels can limit microbial diversity and hamper the
application of both in situ and aboveground applications of biological treatment.
Contaminant solubility and toxicity may be affected by changes in pH. The species
of metals and inorganics present are influenced by the pH of the water, as are the
type of phenolic and nitrogen-containing compounds present. Processes such as
carbon adsorption, ion exchange, and flocculation may be affected by pH.
Eh helps to define, with pH, the state of oxidation-reduction equilibria in aqueous
wastestreams. As noted earlier in the soils section, maintaining anaerobiosis (low
Eh) enhances decomposition of certain halogenated compounds.
V canNRP r-02281012 009\compgde s2
2-6
1(1/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
BOD, COD, and TOC measurements in contaminated water, as in soils, provide
indications of the biodegradable, chemically oxidizable, or combustible fractions
of the organic contamination, respectively. These measurements are not
interchangeable, although correlations may sometimes be made in order to convert
the more precise TOC and/or COD measurements to estimates of BOD.
Oil and grease, even in low concentrations, may require pretreatment to prevent
clogging of primary treatment systems (i.e., ion exchange resins, activated carbon
systems, or other treatment system components). Oil and grease may be present
in a separate phase in groundwater.
Suspended solids can cause clogging of primary treatment systems and may
require pretreatment of the wastestream through coagulation/sedimentation and/or
filtration. Major anions (chloride, sulfate, phosphate, and nitrate) and cations
(calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) are important for evaluating in situ
geochemical interactions, contaminant speciation, and water-bearing zone migration.
Iron concentrations should be measured to determine the potential for precipitation
upon aeration. Alkalinity should also be measured when analyzing for major
anions and cations.
In addition to chemical parameters, geologic and hydrologic information is usually
needed to plan and monitor a groundwater remediation. A detailed geologic
characterization is usually needed to assess the uniformity (homogeneity and
isotropy) of the subsurface hydrostratigraphy. The average rate of groundwater
flow can be estimated from the hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and
effective porosity. Hydraulic gradient is calculated from groundwater elevations
measured in monitor wells. Effective porosity is usually assumed based on ranges
of values cited in scientific literature or estimated from pumping tests. Hydraulic
conductivity is usually estimated from slug tests or pumping tests. If an active
groundwater extraction system is being planned, safe aquifer yields and boundary
conditions must be established. These parameters require that pumping tests be
conducted.
¦ 2.2.3 Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases
Predictive modeling may be useful in estimating emissions from a site or treatment
system. An appropriate theoretical model is selected to represent the system (e.g.,
SVE treatment, incinerator, etc.), and site and contaminant information is used to
estimate gross emissions. Because many variables affect emission rates, this
approach is limited by the representativeness of the model and by the input used.
This approach is usually used as a screening-level or pre-design evaluation. Site-
specific data to support planning or technology selection activities (e.g., health risk
assessments, pilot-scale studies) should be performed prior to actual
implementation.
Emissions of VOCs and particulate matter during site disturbances, such as
excavation, may be several orders of magnitude greater than the emission levels of
an undisturbed site. The potential air emissions from the undisturbed and disturbed
site must be understood before developing a site mitigation strategy. EPA has
M K.01NRPT*02281012,009\comp gde.s2
2-7
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
developed a systematic approach, called an Air Pathway Analysis (APA), for
determining what air contaminants are present and at what level these compounds
may be released into the atmosphere. The APA method is outlined in a four-
volume series (Air Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, EPA,
1989).
Emissions from treatment systems (e.g., SVE or incinerators, etc.) may be
approximated by using soil contaminant concentrations and flow or throughput rate.
If the use of thermal combustion or certain oxidation systems is planned for off-gas
treatment of extracted vapors, then an adequate supply of air/oxygen will have to
be provided for in order to operate these efficiently.
Information regarding the concentration and permeability/percent flow at discrete
vertical intervals is extremely useful in optimized recovery from the regions of
highest contaminant mass/removal potential. In other words, if 90% of the
contaminant mass is being extracted from only 5% of the vertical interval, then off-
gas treatment is biased by the large contribution of uncontaminated soil gas. Thus,
changes in screened intervals, flow rates, mass transfer rates, and residual
contaminant composition over time can dramatically affect off-gas treatment and
should be evaluated.
¦ 2.3 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)
Sites where VOCs may be found include burn pits, chemical manufacturing plants
or disposal areas, contaminated marine sediments, disposal wells and leach fields,
electroplating/metal finishing shops, firefighting training areas, hangars/aircraft
maintenance areas, landfills and burial pits, leaking collection and system sanitary
lines, leaking storage tanks, radioactive/mixed waste disposal areas, oxidation
pondsAagoons, paint stripping and spray booth areas, pesticide/herbicide mixing
areas, solvent degreasing areas, surface impoundments, and vehicle maintenance
areas. Potentially applicable remediation technologies are presented in Table 2-1.
Typical VOCs (excluding fuels, BTEX, and gas phase contaminants, which are
presented in Subsection 2.5) encountered at many sites include the following:
• Halogenated VOCs
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chioropropane
Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
Cis-1,3-dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
- 1,1-Dichloroethylene
- Dichloromethane
- 1,2-Dichloropropane
- Ethylene dibromide
- Fluorotrichloromethane (Freon 11)
- Hexachloroethane
- Methylene chloride
- Monochlorobenzene
- 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
- Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene) (PCE)
- 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde s2
2-8
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 2-1 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX: 1
TREATMENT OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NOTE: Specific sit© and contaminant characteristics may limit the applicability and effectiveness of any of the
technologies and treatments listed below. This matrix is optimistic in nature and should always be used in
conjunction with the referenced text sections, which contain additional information that can be useful in identifying
potentially applicable technologies.
Technology
Development
Use
Technology
(Text Section and Title)
Status
Rating
Applicability0
Function0
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
3.1
IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
4.1 Biodearadation
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.2 Bioventing
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
3.2
IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
4.5 Soil Flushing
Pilot
Limited
Better 1
Extract
4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction
Full
Wideb
Better
Extract
3.3
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT
4.8 Thermally Enhanced SVE
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
4.9 In Situ Vitrification
Pilot
Limited
Below Avg.
Extract/Destruct
3.4
EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.10 Composting
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.11 Cont. Solid Phase Bio.
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.12 Landfarming
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio. Treatment
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
3.5
EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.14 Chemical
Full
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.15 Dehalogenation (BCD)
Full
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.16 Dehalogenation
Full
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.17 Soil Washing
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.20 Solvent Extraction
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
3.6
EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.21 High Temp. Thermal
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
4.23 Incineration
Full
Wideb
Average
Destruct
4.24 Low Temp. Thermal
Full
Wideb
Better
Extract
4.26 Pyrolysis
Pilot
Limited
Below Avg.
Destruct
4.27 Vitrification
Full
Limited
Average
Ext./Destruct
3.7
OTHER TREATMENT
4.28 Excavation and Off-Site
NA
Limited
Average
Extra ct/lm mob.
4.29 Natural Attenuation
NA
Limited
Better
Destruct
GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
3.8
IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
4.30 Co-Metabolic Treatment
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4,31 Nitrate Enhancement
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.32 Oxygen Enhance. w/Air
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.33 Oxygen Enhance. w/H,0,
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
3.9
IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
4.34 Air Sparging
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.36 Dual Phase Extraction
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Flush/
Pilot
Limited
Average
Extract
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.41 Slurry Walls
Full
Limited
Average
Immob.
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
3. JO
EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING)
1 4.43 Bioreactors
Full
Limited
Better |
Destruct
3.11
EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING)
4.44 Air Stripping
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
4.49 UV Oxidation
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
3.12
OTHER TREATMENT
4.50 Natural Attenuation
NA
Limited
Better |
Destruct
3.13
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS
4.51 Biofiltration
Full
Limited
Better
Ext./Destruct
4.52 High Energy Corona
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.53 Membrane Separation
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
4.54 Oxidation
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
4.55 Vapor Phase Carbon
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
"The following rankings are discussed in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1. Presumptive remedy.
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde.s2 2-9 10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
1,1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
1,2,2-trifluoroethane
(Freon 113)
• Nonhalogenated VOCs
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon disulfide
Cyclohexanone
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl ether
Isobutanol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl isobutyl ketone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Styrene
Tetrahydrofuran
Vinyl acetate
¦ 2.3.1 Properties and Behavior of VOCs
An important consideration when evaluating a remedy is whether the compound is
halogenated or nonhalogenated. A halogenated compound is one onto which a
halogen (e.g., fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine) has been attached. Typical
halogenated and nonhalogenated VOCs have been listed at the beginning of
Subsection 2.3. The nature of the halogen bond and the halogen itself can
significantly affect performance of a technology or require more extensive treatment
than for nonhalogenated compounds.
As an example, consider bioremediation. Generally, halogenated compounds are
less amenable to this form of treatment than nonhalogenated compounds. In
addition, the more halogenated the compound (i.e., the more halogens attached to
it), the more refractive it is toward biodegradation. As another example,
incineration of halogenated compounds requires specific off-gas and scrubber water
treatment for the halogen in addition to the normal controls that are implemented
for nonhalogenated compounds.
Therefore, the vendor of the technology being evaluated must be informed whether
the compounds to be treated are halogenated or nonhalogenated. In most instances,
the vendor needs to know the specific compounds involved so that modifications
to technology designs can be made, where appropriate, to make the technology
successful in treating halogenated compounds.
Subsurface contamination by VOCs potentially exists in four phases:
• Gaseous phase: Contaminants present as vapors in unsaturated zone.
• Solid phase: Contaminants in liquid form adsorbed on soil particles in both
saturated and unsaturated zones.
MK01\RPT 02281012 009\compgde s2
2-10
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
• Aqueous phase: Contaminants dissolved into pore water according to their
solubility in both saturated and unsaturated zones.
• Immiscible phase: Contaminants present as non-aqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs) primarily in unsaturated zone.
One or more of the fluid phases (gaseous, liquid, aqueous, or immiscible) may
occupy the pore spaces in the unsaturated zone. Residual bulk liquid may be
retained by capillary attraction in the porous media (i.e., NAPLs are no longer a
continuous phase but are present as isolated residual globules).
Residual saturation of bulk liquid may occur through a number of mechanisms.
Volatilization from residual saturation or bulk liquid into the unsaturated pore
spaces produces a vapor plume. Lateral migration of this vapor plume is
independent of groundwater movement and may occur as a result of both advection
and diffusion. Advection is the process by which the vapor plume contaminants
are transported by the movement of air and may result from gas pressure or gas
density gradients. Diffusion is the movement of contaminants from areas of high
vapor concentrations to areas of lower vapor concentrations. Volatilization from
contaminated groundwater also may produce a vapor plume of compounds with
high vapor pressures and high aqueous solubilities.
Dissolution of contaminants from residual saturation or bulk liquid into water may
occur in either the unsaturated or saturated portions of the subsurface with the
contamination then moving with the water. Even low-solubility organics may be
present at low concentrations dissolved in water.
Insoluble organic contaminants may be present as NAPLs. Dense NAPLs
(DNAPLs) have a specific gravity greater than 1 and will tend to sink to the bottom
of surface waters and groundwater aquifers. Light NAPLs (LNAPLs) will float on
top of surface water and groundwater. In addition, DNAPLs and LNAPLs may
adhere to the soil through the capillary fringe and may be found on top of water
in temporary or perched aquifers in the vadose zone.
¦ 2.3.2 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Soil, Sediment, and
Sludge
Soil vapor extraction (SVE), thermal desoiption, and incineration are the
presumptive remedies for Superfund sites with VOC-contaminated soil. Because
a presumptive remedy is a technology that EPA believes, based upon its past
experience, generally will be the most appropriate remedy for a specified type of
site, the presumptive remedy approach will accelerate site-specific analysis of
remedies by focusing the feasibility study efforts. These presumptive remedies can
also be used at non-Superfund sites with VOC-contaminated soils.
SVE is the preferred presumptive remedy. SVE has been selected most frequently
to address VOC contamination at Superfund sites, and performance data indicate
that it effectively treats waste in place at a relatively low cost. In cases where SVE
will not work or where uncertainty exists regarding the ability to obtain required
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.s2
2-11
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
cleanup levels, thermal desorption may be the most appropriate response
technology. In a limited number of situations, incineration may be most
appropriate.
Another commonly used technology, bioventing, uses a similar approach to vapor
extraction in terms of equipment type and layout but uses air injection rather than
extraction and has a different objective: the intent is to use air movement to
provide oxygen for aerobic degradation using either indigenous or introduced
microorganisms. While some organic materials are usually brought to the surface
for treatment with the exhaust air, additional degradation is encouraged in situ.
This difference in approach renders less volatile materials (particularly fuel products
such as diesel fuel) amenable to the process because volatilization into the soil air
is not the primary removal process.
The AFCEE Bioventing Initiative currently encompasses 135 fuel sites at 50
military installations, including one Marine, one Army, and one Coast Guard
facility. Approximately 50% of the current systems are full scale. As of July
1994, approximately 117 are installed and operating. The remainder are to be
installed.
¦ 2.3.3 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Groundwater, Surface
Water, and Leachate
In addition to the general data requirements discussed in Subsection 2.2.2, it may
be necessary to know other subsurface information to provide remediation of VOCs
in the groundwater. Treatability studies to characterize the biodegradability may
be needed for any biodegradation technologies. Treatability studies are usually
necessary to ensure that the contaminated groundwater can be treated effectively
at the design flow. A subsurface geologic characterization would be needed for
any isolation or stabilization technologies. Groundwater models are also often
needed to predict flow characteristics, changes in contaminant mixes and
concentrations, and times to reach cleanup levels.
The most commonly used technologies to treat VOCs in groundwater, surface
water, and leachate are air stripping and carbon adsorption. These are both ex situ
technologies requiring groundwater extraction.
Air stripping involves the mass transfer of volatile contaminants from water to air.
This process is typically conducted in a packed tower or an aeration tank. The
generic packed tower air stripper includes a spray nozzle at the top of the tower to
distribute contaminated water over the packing in the column, a fan to force air
countercurrent to the water flow, and a sump at the bottom of the tower to collect
decontaminated water. Auxiliary equipment that can be added to the basic air
stripper includes a feed water heater (normally not incorporated within an
operational facility because of the high cost) and an air heater to improve removal
efficiencies, automated control systems with sump level switches and safety features
such as differential pressure monitors, high sump level switches and explosion
proof components, and discharge air treatment systems such as activated carbon
units, catalytic oxidizers, or thermal oxidizers. Packed tower air strippers are
MK01\RPT 02281012 009\compgde.s2
2-12
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
installed either as permanent installations on concrete pads, or as temporary
installations on skids, or on trailers.
Liquid phase carbon adsorption is a full-scale technology in which groundwater
is pumped through a series of vessels containing activated carbon to which
dissolved contaminants adsorb. 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 removed and disposed of.
Carbon used for explosives- or metals-contaminated groundwater must be removed
and properly disposed of. Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use
in treating municipal, industrial, and hazardous wastes.
¦ 2.3.4 Common Treatment Technologies for VOCs in Air Emissions/
Off-Gases
Three technologies that are most commonly used to treat VOCs in air emissions/
off-gases are carbon adsorption, catalytic oxidation, and thermal oxidation.
Carbon adsorption is a remediation technology in which pollutants are removed
from air by physical adsorption onto the carbon grain. Carbon is "activated" for
this purpose by processing the carbon to create porous particles with a large
internal surface area (300 to 2,500 square meters per gram of carbon) that attracts
and adsorbs organic molecules as well as certain metal and other inorganic
molecules.
Commercial grades of activated carbon are available for specific use in vapor-phase
applications. The granular form of activated carbon is typically used in packed
beds through which the contaminated air flows until the concentration of
contaminants in the effluent from the carbon bed exceeds an acceptable level.
Granular activated carbon systems typically consist of one or more vessels filled
with carbon connected in series and/or parallel operating under atmospheric,
negative, or positive pressure. The carbon can then be regenerated in place,
regenerated at an off-site regeneration facility, or disposed of, depending upon
economic considerations.
Catalytic oxidation is a relatively new alternative for the treatment of VOCs in air
streams resulting from remedial operations. VOCs are thermally destroyed at
temperatures typically ranging from 600 to 1,000 °F by using a solid catalyst.
First, the contaminated air is directly preheated (electrically or, more frequently,
using natural gas or propane) to reach a temperature necessary to initiate the
catalytic oxidation of the VOCs. Then the preheated VOC-laden air is passed
through a bed of solid catalysts where the VOCs are rapidly oxidized.
In most cases, the process can be enhanced to reduce auxiliary fuel costs by using
an air-to-air heat exchanger to transfer heat from the exhaust gases to the incoming
contaminated air. Typically, about 50% of the heat of the exhaust gases is
recovered. Depending on VOC concentrations, the recovered heat may be
sufficient to sustain oxidation without additional fuel. Catalyst systems used to
oxidize VOCs typically use metal oxides such as nickel oxide, copper oxide,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde,s2
2-13
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
manganese dioxide, or chromium oxide. Noble metals such as platinum and
palladium may also be used. However, in a majority of remedial applications,
nonprecious metals (e.g., nickel, copper, or chromium) are used. Most
commercially available catalysts are proprietary.
Thermal oxidation equipment is used for destroying contaminants in the exhaust
gas from air strippers and SVE systems. Probably fewer than 100 oxidizers have
been sold to treat air stripper effluents; most of these units are rated less than 600
scfm. Typically, the blower for the air stripper or the vacuum extraction system
provides sufficient positive pressure and flow for thermal oxidizer operation.
Thermal oxidation units are typically single chamber, refractory-lined oxidizers
equipped with a propane or natural gas burner and a stack. Lightweight ceramic
blanket refractory is used because many of these units are mounted on skids or
trailers. Thermal oxidizers are often equipped with heat exchangers where
combustion gas is used to preheat the incoming contaminated gas. If gasoline is
the contaminant, heat exchanger efficiencies are limited to 25 to 35% and preheat
temperatures are maintained below 530 °F to minimize the possibility of ignition
occurring in the heat exchanger. Flame arrestors are always installed between the
vapor source and the thermal oxidizer. Burner capacities in the combustion
chamber range from 0.5 to 2 million Btus per hour. Operating temperatures range
from 1,400 to 1,600 °F, and gas residence times are typically 1 second or less.
¦ 2.4 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCs)
Sites where SVOCs may be found include burn pits, chemical manufacturing plants
and disposal areas, contaminated marine sediments, disposal wells and leach fields,
electroplating/metal finishing shops, firefighting training areas, hangars/aircraft
maintenance areas, landfills and burial pits, leaking collection and system sanitary
lines, leaking storage tanks, radiologic/mixed waste disposal areas, oxidation ponds/
lagoons, pesticide/herbicide mixing areas, solvent degreasing areas, surface
impoundments, and vehicle maintenance areas and wood preserving sites.
Potentially applicable remediation technologies are presented in Table 2-2. Typical
SVOCs (excluding fuels and explosives, which are presented in Subsection 2.5)
encountered at many sites include the following:
• Halogenated SVOCs
- Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ether
- l,2-Bis(2-chloroethoxy)
ethane
- Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
- Bis(2-chloroethoxy) phthalate -
- Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
- Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
- 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
- 4-Chloroaniline
- p-Chloro-m-cresol
- 2-Chloronaphthalene
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
3.3-Dichlorobenzidine
2.4-Dichlorophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Tetrachlorophenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
MK01\RPT 02281012 009\compgde s2
2-14
10/26/9*1
-------
TABLE 2-2 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX:
TREATMENT OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NOTE: Specific site and contaminant characteristics may limit the applicability and effectiveness of any of the technologies
and treatments listed below. This matrix is optimistic in nature and should always be used in conjunction with the referenced
text sections, which contain additional information that can be useful in identifying potentially applicable technologies.
Technology
Development
Use
Technology
(Text Section and Title)
Status
Rating
Applicability*
Function*
SOIL. SEDIMENT. AND SLUDGE
3.1
IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
4.1 Biodegradation
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
4.2 Bioventing
Full
Limited
Average
Destruct
3.2
IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
4.5 Soil Flushing
Pilot
Limited
Average
Extract
4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction
Full
Limited
Below
Extract
4.7 Solidification/Stabilization
Full
Limited
Average
Immob.
3.3
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT
4.8 Thermally Enhanced SVE
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.9 In Situ Vitrification
Pilot
Limited
Average
Ext./Destruct
3.4
EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.10 Composting
Full
Wide
Average
Destruct
4.11 Control. Solid Phase Bio, Treat,
Full
Wide
Average
Destruct
4.12 Landfarming
Full
Wide
Average
Destruct
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio. Treatment
Full
Limited
Average
Destruct
3.5
EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.14 Chemical Reduction/ Oxidation
Full
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.15 Dehalogenation (BCD)
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.16 Dehalogenation (Glycolate)
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.17 Soil Washing
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
Below
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
4.19 Solidification/Stabilization
Full
Limited
Average
Dest./lmmob.
4.20 Solvent Extraction
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
3.6
EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.21 High Temp. Thermal Desorption
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.23 Incineration
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
4.24 Low Temp. Thermal Desorption
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
4.26 Pyrolysis
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.27 Vitrification
Full
Limited
Average
Ext./Destruct
3.7
OTHER TREATMENT
4.28 Excavation/Off-Site Disp.
NA
Wide
Average
Ext./Immob.
4.29 Natural Attenuation
NA
Limited
Better
Destruct
GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
3.8
IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
4 30 Co-Metabolic Treatment
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.31 Nitrate Enhancement
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.32 Oxygen Enhance. w/Air Sparg.
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.33 Oxygen Enhance, w/HnO,
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
3.9
IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
4.37 Free Product Recovery
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Flush/Strip
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
4.41 Slurry Walls
Full
Limited
Average
Immob.
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction
Pilot
Limited
Average
Extract
3.10 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING) I
4.43 Bioreactors
Full
Average
Better
Destruct
3.11
EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING)
4.44 Air Stripping
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorp.
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
4.49 UV Oxidation
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
3.12
OTHER TREATMENT
I 14.50 Natural Attenuation 1
NA 1
Limited 1
Better 1
Destruct
*The following rankings are discussed in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s2
2-15
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
- 2-Chlorophenol
- 4-Chlorophenyl phenylether
- 1,2-Dichiorobenzene
• Nonhalogenated SVOCs
- Benzidine
- Benzoic Acid
- Benzyl alcohol
- Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
- Butyl benzyl phthalate
- Dibenzofuran
- Di-n-butyl phthalate
- Di-n-octyl phthalate
- Diethyl phthalate
- Dimethyl phthalate
- 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
- 2,4-Dinitrophenol
- 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
- 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
- 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
- Isophorone
- 2-Nitroaniline
- 3-Nitroaniline
- 4-Nitroaniline
- 2-Nitrophenol
- 4-Nitrophenol
- n-Nitrosodimethylamine
- n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
- n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
- Phenyl naphthalene
• Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
- Acenaphthene
- Acenaphthylene
- Anthracene
- Benzo(a)anthracene
- Benzo(a)pyrene
- Benzo(b)fluoranthene
- Benzo(k)fluoranthene
- Chrysene
- Fluoranthene
- Fluorene
- Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
- 2-Methylnaphthalene
- Naphthalene
- Phenanthrene
- Pyrene
• 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
¦ 2.4.1 Properties and Behavior of SVOCs
As previously discussed for VOCs, an important consideration when evaluating a
remedy is whether the compound is halogenated or nonhalogenated. A halogenated
- Endosulfan sulfate
- Endrin
- Endrin aldehyde
- Ethion
- Ethyl parathion
- Heptachlor
- Heptachlor epoxide
- Malathion
- Methylparathion
- Parathion
- Toxaphene
MK01\RPT"02281012 009Vompgde.s2
2-16
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
compound is one onto which a halogen (e.g., fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine)
has been attached. Typical halogenated and nonhalogenated SVOCs are listed at
the beginning of Subsection 2.4. The nature of the halogen bond and the halogen
itself can significantly affect performance of a technology or require more extensive
treatment than for nonhalogenated compounds.
As an example, consider bioremediation. Generally, halogenated compounds are
less amenable to this form of treatment than nonhalogenated compounds. In
addition, the more halogenated the compound (i.e., the more halogens attached to
it), the more refractive it is toward biodegradation. As another example,
incineration of halogenated compounds requires specific off-gas and scrubber water
treatment for the halogen in addition to the normal controls that are implemented
for nonhalogenated compounds.
Therefore, the vendor of the technology being evaluated must be informed whether
the compounds to be treated are halogenated or nonhalogenated. In most instances,
the vendor needs to know the specific compounds involved so that modifications
to technology designs can be made, where appropriate, to make the technology
successful in treating halogenated compounds.
Subsurface contamination by SVOCs potentially exists in four phases:
• Gaseous phase: contaminants present as vapors in saturated zone.
• Solid phase: contaminants adsorbed or partitioned onto the soil or aquifer
material in both saturated and unsaturated zones.
• Aqueous phase: contaminants dissolved into pore water according to their
solubility in both saturated and unsaturated zones.
• Immiscible phase: contaminants present as NAPLs primarily in saturated
zone.
One or more of the three fluid phases (gaseous, aqueous, or immiscible) may
occupy the pore spaces in the unsaturated zone. Residual bulk liquid may be
retained by capillary attraction in the porous media (i.e., NAPLs are no longer a
continuous phase but are present as isolated residual globules).
Contaminant flow may occur through a number of mechanisms. Volatilization
from residual saturation or bulk liquid into the unsaturated pore spaces produces
a vapor plume. While the degree of volatilization from SVOCs is much less than
for VOCs, this process still occurs.
Dissolution of contaminants from residual saturation or bulk liquid into water may
occur in either the unsaturated or saturated portions of the subsurface with the
contamination then moving with the water. Even low-solubility organics may be
present at low concentrations dissolved in water.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-17
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Insoluble or low solubility organic contaminants may be present as NAPLs.
DNAPLs will tend to sink to the bottom of surface waters and groundwater
aquifers. LNAPLs will float on top of surface water and groundwater. In addition,
LNAPLs may adhere to the soil through the capillary fringe and may be found on
top of water in temporary or perched aquifers in the vadose zone.
Properties and behavior of specific SVOC contaminants and contaminant groups are
discussed below:
• PAHs: PAHs are generally biodegradable in soil systems. Lower molecular
weight PAHs are transformed much more quickly than higher molecular
weight PAHs. The less degradable, higher molecular weight compounds
have been classified as carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs). Therefore, the least
degradable fraction of PAH contaminants in soils is generally subject to the
most stringent cleanup standards. This presents some difficulty in achieving
cleanup goals with bioremediation systems.
Lower molecular weight PAH components are more water soluble than
higher molecular weight PAHs. Readily mobilized compounds, such as
naphthalene, phenanthrene, and anthracene, are slightly water-soluble.
Persistent PAHs, such as chrysene and benzo(a)pyrene, present even lower
water solubilities. Pyrene and fluoranthene are exceptions because these
compounds are more soluble than anthracene, but are not appreciably
metabolized by soil microorganisms. Other factors affect PAH persistence
such as insufficient bacterial membrane permeability, lack of enzyme
specificity, and insufficient aerobic conditions. PAHs may undergo
significant interactions with soil organic matter.
Intermediate PAH degradation products (metabolites) in soil treatment
systems may also display toxicity. Complete mineralization of PAHs is
slow; intermediates may remain for substantial periods of time.
• PCBs: PCBs encompass a class of chlorinated compounds that includes up
to 209 variations or congeners with different physical and chemical
characteristics. PCBs were commonly used as mixtures called aroclors. The
most common aroclors are Aroclor-1254, Aroclor-1260, and Aroclor-1242.
PCBs alone are not usually very mobile in subsurface soils or water;
however, they are typically found in oils associated with electrical
transformers or gas pipelines or sorbed to soil particles, which may transport
the PCBs by wind or water erosion.
• Pentachlorophenol (PCP): PCP is a contaminant found at many wood-
preserving sites. PCP does not decompose when heated to its boiling point
for extended periods of time. Pure PCP is chemically rather inert. The
chlorinated ring structure tends to increase stability, but the polar hydroxyl
group facilitates biological degradation. All monovalent alkali metal salts of
PCP are very soluble in water. The protonated (phenolic) form is less
soluble, but this degree of solubility is still significant from an environmental
standpoint. PCP can also volatilize from soils. It is denser than water, but
MK.01XRPT 02281012 009Vompgde s2
2-18
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
the commonly used solution contains PCP and petroleum solvents in a
mixture less dense than water. Therefore, technical grade PCP floats on the
top of groundwater as a LNAPL.
• Pesticides: The term pesticide is applied to literally thousands of different,
specific chemical-end products. Pesticides include insecticides, fungicides,
herbicides, acaricides, nematodicides, and rodenticides. There are several
commonly used classification criteria that can be used to group pesticides for
purposes of discussion. Conventional methods of classifying pesticides base
categorization on the applicability of a substance or product to the type of
pest control desired. (For example, DDT is used typically as an insecticide.)
The RCRA hazardous waste classification system is based on waste
characterization and sources. Neither of these classification formats is
suitable for use in this document because they have no bearing on applicable
pesticide treatment technologies.
¦ 2.4.2 Common Treatment Technologies for SVOCs in Soil, Sediment, and
Sludge
Common treatment technologies for SVOCs in soil, sediment, and sludge include
biodegradation, incineration, and excavation with off-site disposal.
All types of biodegradation, both in situ or ex situ, can be considered to remediate
soils: in situ bioremediation, bioventing, composting, controlled solid phase, or
landfarming. Slurry phase biological treatment is also applicable but is less widely
used. Treatability studies should be conducted to evaluate design parameters, such
as degradation rates, supplemental organism addition, cleanup levels achievable,
degradation intermediates, and nutrient/oxygen addition.
Biodegradation uses a process in which indigenous or inoculated microorganisms
(e.g., fungi, bacteria, and other microbes) degrade (i.e., metabolize) organic
contaminants found in soil and/or groundwater. In the presence of sufficient
oxygen (aerobic conditions), microorganisms will ultimately convert many organic
contaminants to carbon dioxide, water, and microbial cell mass. In the absence of
oxygen (anaerobic conditions), the contaminants will be ultimately metabolized to
methane and carbon dioxide. Sometimes contaminants may not be completely
degraded, but only transformed to intermediate products that may be less, equally,
or more hazardous than the original contaminant.
The in situ bioremediation of soil typically involves the percolation or injection of
groundwater or uncontaminated water mixed with nutrients. Ex situ bioremediation
typically uses tilling or continuously mixed slurries to apply oxygen and nutrients,
and is performed in a prepared bed (liners and aeration) or reactor.
Incineration uses high temperatures, 870 to 1,200 °C (1,400 to 2,200 °F), to
volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in
hazardous wastes. The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for properly
operated incinerators exceeds the 99.99% requirement for hazardous waste and can
be operated to meet the 99.9999% requirement for PCBs and dioxins.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-19
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Distinct incinerator designs available for solids are rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and
infrared units. All three types have been used successfully at full scale.
Excavation and removal of contaminated soil (with or without stabilization) to a
landfill have been performed extensively at many sites. Landfilling of hazardous
materials, especially hazardous wastes, is becoming increasingly difficult and
expensive as a result of growing regulatory control, and may be cost-prohibitive for
sites with large volumes, greater depths, or complex hydrogeologic environments.
Determining the feasibility of off-site disposal requires knowledge of land disposal
restrictions and other regulations developed by state governments.
¦ 2.4.3 Common Treatment Technologies for SVOCs in Groundwater, Surface
Water, and Leachate
In addition to the general data requirements discussed in Subsection 2.2.2, it may
be necessary to know other subsurface information to remediate semivolatile
organics in water. Treatability studies may be required to determine the
contaminant biodegradability for any biodegradation technologies. Treatability
studies are also necessary to ensure that the contaminated groundwater can be
treated effectively at the design flow. A subsurface geologic characterization
would be particularly useful to any isolation or stabilization technologies.
Groundwater models are also often needed to predict flow characteristics, changes
in contaminant mixes and concentrations, capture zones, and times to reach clean
up levels.
The most commonly used ex situ treatment technologies for SVOCs in groundwater
and surface water include carbon adsorption and UV oxidation. In situ treatment
technologies are not widely used. Groundwater and surface water concentrations
not sufficiently high to support biological processes, however, for leachate
biological process may be applicable.
Liquid phase carbon adsorption is a full-scale technology in which groundwater
is pumped through a series of vessels containing activated carbon to which
dissolved contaminants are adsorbed. 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 removed and disposed of.
Carbon used for explosives- or metals-contaminated groundwater must be removed
and properly disposed of. Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use
in treating municipal, industrial, and hazardous wastes.
UV oxidation is a destruction process that oxidizes organic and explosive
constituents in wastewaters by the addition of strong oxidizers and irradiation with
intense UV light. The oxidation reactions are catalyzed by UV light, while ozone
(03) and/or hydrogen peroxide (H202) are commonly used as oxidizing agents. The
final products of oxidation are carbon dioxide, water, and salts. The main
advantage of UV oxidation is that organic contaminants can be converted to
relatively harmless carbon dioxide and water by hydroxyl radicals generated during
the process. UV oxidation processes can be configured in batch or continuous flow
modes. Catalyst addition may enhance the performance of the system.
N.K.01\R;T 02281012 009\compgde s2
2-20
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
Sites where fuel contaminants may be found include aircraft areas, burn pits,
chemical disposal areas, contaminated marine sediments, disposal wells and leach
fields, firefighting training areas, hangars/aircraft maintenance areas, landfills and
burial pits, leaking storage tanks, solvent degreasing areas, surface impoundments,
and vehicle maintenance areas. Potentially applicable remediation technologies are
presented in Table 2-3. Typical fuel contaminants encountered at many sites
include the following:
• Acenaphthene
• Anthracene
• Benz(a)anthracene
• Benzene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Cis-2-butene
Creosols
• 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
• Ideno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
• Isobutane
• Isopentane
• 2-Methyl-l,3-butadiene
• 3 -Methyl-1,2-butadiene
• 2-Methyl-butene
• 2-Methyl-2-butene
• 3-Methyl-1 -butene
• Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
3-Methylhexane
Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
3-Methyl-1 -pentene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Methylpropylbenzene
m-Xylene
Naphthalene
n-Butane
n-Decane
n-Dodecane
n-Heptane
n-Hexane
n-Hexylbenzene
n-Nonane
n-Nonane
n-Octane
n-Pentane
n-Propylbenzene
n-Undecane
0-Xylene
1-Pentene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Propane
p-Xylene
Pyrene
Pyridine
1,2,3,4-Tetramethylbenzene
MK01\RPT:0228l012.009\compgde^2
2-21
10/26m
-------
TABLE 2-3 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX:
TREATMENT OF FUELS
NOTE: Specific site and contaminant characteristics may limit the applicability and effectiveness of any of the technologies
and treatments listed below. This matrix is optimistic in nature and should always be used in conjunction with the referenced
text sections, which contain additional information that can be useful in identifying potentially applicable technologies.
Technology
(Text Section and Title)
Development
Status
Use
Rating
Applicability*
Technology
Function*
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
3.1 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT I
4.1 Biodegradation
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
4.2 Bioventing
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
3.2 IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT I
!
4.5 Soil Flushing
Pilot
Limited
Average
Extract
4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
I 3.3 IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT I
4.8 Thermally Enhanced SVE
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4 9 In Situ Vitrification
Pilot
Limited
Below Average
Immob./Dest.
3.4 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION) I
4.10 Composting
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
4 11 Control. Solid Phase Bio. Treat.
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
4.12 Landfarming
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio, Treatment
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
| 3.5 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION) I
4.14 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation
Full
Limited
Below Average
Destruct
4.17 Soil Washing
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
4.20 Solvent Extraction
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
i 3.6 EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION) I
4.21 High Temp. Thermal Desorption
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
4.23 Incineration
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.24 Low Temp. Thermal Desorption
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
4.26 Pyrolysis
Pilot
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.27 Vitrification
Full
Limited
Average
Ext./Destruct
| 3.7 OTHER TREATMENT I
L
4.28 Excavation/Off-Site Disp.
NA
Wide
Average
Ext./lmmob.
4.29 Natural Attenuation
NA
Limited
Better
Destruct
| 3.8 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT I
4.30 Co-MetaPolic Treatment
Pilot
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.31 Nitrate Enhancement
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.32 Oxygen Enhance. w/Air Sparg.
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.33 Oxygen Enhance WH,0,
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
| 3.9 IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT I
4 34 Air Sparging
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.36 Dual Phase Extraction
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.37 Free Product Recovery
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Flush/Strip
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
4 40 Passive Treatment Walls
Pilot
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.41 Slurry Walls
Full
Limited
Average
Immob.
4 42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
1 3.10 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING) ]
| 14.43 Bioreactors | Full
Limited | Better
I Destruct |
| 3.11 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING) I
4.44 Air Stripping
Full
Wide
Average
Extra c1
4.47 Liquid Phase CarPon
Full
Wide
Average
Extract
4.49 UV Oxidation
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
3.12 OTHER TREATMENT
1 4 50 Natural Attenuation | NA | Limited I Better | Destruct
*The following rankings are discussed in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1
MK01\RPT 022KI012 009Vompgde s2
2-22
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
• 2,2,4-Trimethylheptane
• 2,3,4-Trimethylheptane
• 1,2,4,5 -T etramethylbenzene
• Toluene
• 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
• 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
• l,2,4-TrimethyI-5-ethylbenzene
• 3,3,5-Trimethylheptane
• 2,4,4-Trimethylhexane
• 2,3,4-Trimethylhexane
• 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
• 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
• Trans-2-butene
• Trans-2-pentene
¦ 2.5.1 Properties and Behavior of Fuels
Information presented for VOCs (Subsection 2.3.1) and SVOCs (Subsection 2.4.1)
may also be appropriate for many of the fuel contaminants presented in this
subsection. As previously discussed for VOCs and SVOCs, an important
consideration when evaluating a remedy is whether the compound is halogenated
or nonhalogenated. Fuel contaminants are nonhalogenated. A halogenated
compound is one onto which a halogen (e.g., fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine)
has been attached. The nature of the halogen bond and the halogen itself can
significantly affect performance of a technology or require more extensive treatment
than for nonhalogenated compounds.
As an example, consider bioremediation. Generally, halogenated compounds are
less amenable to this form of treatment than nonhalogenated compounds. In
addition, the more halogenated the compound (i.e., the more halogens attached to
it), the more refractive it is toward biodegradation. As another example,
incineration of halogenated compounds requires specific off-gas and scrubber water
treatment for the halogen in addition to the normal controls that are implemented
for nonhalogenated compounds.
Therefore, the vendor of the technology being evaluated must be informed whether
the compounds to be treated are halogenated or nonhalogenated. In most instances,
the vendor needs to know the specific compounds involved so that modifications
to technology designs can be made, where appropriate, to make the technology
successful in treating halogenated compounds.
Contamination by fuel contaminants in the unsaturated zone exists in four phases:
vapor in the pore spaces; sorbed to subsurface solids; dissolved in water; or as
NAPL. The nature and extent of transport are determined by the interactions
among contaminant transport properties (e.g., density, vapor pressure, viscosity, and
hydrophobicity) and the subsurface environment (e.g., geology, aquifer mineralogy,
and groundwater hydrology). Most fuel-derived contaminants are less dense than
water and can be detected as floating pools (LNAPLs) on the water table.
Typically, after a spill occurs, LNAPLs migrate vertically in the subsurface until
residual saturation depletes the liquid or until the capillary fringe above the water
table is reached. Some spreading of the bulk liquid occurs until pressure from the
infiltrating liquid develops sufficiently to penetrate to the water table. The pressure
of the infiltrating liquid pushes the spill below the surface of the water table. Bulk
liquids less dense than water spread laterally and float on the surface of the water
table, forming a mound that becomes compressed into a spreading lens.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s2
2-23
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
As the plume of dissolved constituents moves away from the floating bulk liquid,
interactions with the soil particles affect dissolved concentrations. Compounds
more attracted to the aquifer material move at a slower rate than the groundwater
and are found closer to the source; compounds less attracted to the soil particles
move most rapidly and are found in the leading edge of a contaminant plume.
More volatile LNAPL compounds readily partition into the air phase. A soil gas
sample collected from an area contaminated by vapor-phase transport typically
contains relatively greater concentrations of the more volatile compounds than one
contaminated by groundwater transport. Vapor-phase transport can be followed by
subsequent dissolution in groundwater. Alternatively, aqueous-phase contaminants
with high Henry's law constants can be expected to volatilize into the pore spaces.
For compounds with vapor densities greater than air, density-driven flow of the
vapor plume may occur as a result of gas density gradients. Toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylenes and naphthalene are less dense than water and unlikely to move by density-
driven flow. However, they may be capable of diffusive transport, causing vapor
plumes to move away from residual saturation in the unsaturated zone. Residual
saturation is the portion of the liquid contaminant that remains in the pore spaces
as a result of capillary attraction after the NAPL moves through the soil.
Volatilization from contaminated groundwater also may produce a vapor plume of
compounds with high vapor pressures and high aqueous solubilities. Dissolution
of contaminants from residual saturation or bulk liquid into water may occur in
either the unsaturated or saturated portions of the subsurface with the contamination
then moving with the water. Because the solubility of fuels is relatively low,
contaminant dissolution from NAPL under laminar flow conditions typical of
aquifers is mass-transfer limited, requiring decades for dissolution and producing
a dilute wastestream of massive volume.
¦ 2.5.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Soil, Sediment, and
Sludge
Common treatment technologies for fuels in soil, sediment, and sludge include
biodegradation, incineration, SVE, and low temperature thermal desorption.
Incineration is typically used when chlorinated SVOCs are also present with fuel,
and not specified for fuel-only contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge.
All types of biodegradation, both in situ or ex situ, can be used to remediate soils:
in situ biodegradation, bioventing, composting, controlled solid phase, or
landfarming. Slurry-phase biological tieatment is also applicable but is less widely
used. Biodegradation uses indigenous or inoculated microorganisms (e.g., fungi,
bacteria, and other microbes) to degrade (i.e., metabolize) organic contaminants
found in soil and/or groundwater. In the presence of sufficient oxygen (aerobic
conditions), microorganisms will ultimately convert many organic contaminants to
carbon dioxide, water, and microbial cell mass. In the absence of oxygen
(anaerobic conditions), the contaminants will be ultimately metabolized to methane.
Sometimes contaminants may not be completely degraded, but only transformed to
intermediate products that may be less, equally, or more hazardous than the original
contaminant.
MK01\RPT 02281012 009Vompgde s2
2-24
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
The in situ bioremediation of soil typically involves the percolation or injection of
groundwater or uncontaminated water mixed with nutrients and saturated with
dissolved oxygen. Ex situ bioremediation typically uses tilling or continuously
mixed slurries to apply oxygen and nutrients, and is performed in a prepared bed
(liners and aeration) or reactor. Bioventing is an in situ technique that uses air
injection to aerate the soil and enhance biodegradation. The AFCEE Bioventing
Initiative currently encompasses 135 sites at 50 military installations, including one
Marine, one Army, and one Coast Guard facility. Approximately 50% of the
current systems are full-scale. As of July 1994, approximately 117 are installed
and operating. The remainder are to be installed.
Incineration uses high temperatures, 870 to 1,200 °C (1,400 to 2,200 °F), to
volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in
hazardous wastes. The destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for properly
operated incinerators exceeds the 99.99% requirement for hazardous waste and can
be operated to meet the 99.9999% requirement for PCBs and dioxins. Distinct
incinerator designs are rotary kiln, liquid injection, fluidized bed, and infrared units.
All types have been used successfully at full scale.
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an in situ unsaturated (vadose) zone soil
remediation technology in which a vacuum is applied to the soil to induce the
controlled flow of air and remove volatile and some semivolatile contaminants from
the soil. The gas leaving the soil may be treated to recover or destroy the
contaminants, depending on local and state air discharge regulations. Explosion-
proof equipment should be used for fuels. Vertical extraction vents are typically
used at depths of 1.5 meters (5 feet) or greater and have been successfully applied
as deep as 91 meters (300 feet). Horizontal extraction vents (installed in trenches
or horizontal borings) can be used as warranted by contaminant zone geometry,
drill rig access, or other site-specific factors.
Groundwater extraction pumps may be used to reduce groundwater upwelling
induced by the vacuum or to increase the depth of the vadose zone. Air injection
may be effective for facilitating extraction of deep contamination, contamination
in low permeability soils, and contamination in the saturated zone (see Treatment
Technology Profile 4.34, Air Sparging).
Low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) systems are physical separation
processes and are not designed to destroy organics. Wastes are heated to between
90 and 315 °C (200 to 600 °F) to volatilize water and organic contaminants. A
carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and organics to the gas
treatment system. Groundwater treatment concentrates the collected contaminants
(e.g., carbon adsoiption or condensation). The bed temperatures and residence
times designed into these systems will volatilize selected contaminants but will
typically not oxidize them. LTTD is a full-scale technology that has been proven
successful for remediating petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in all types of soil.
Decontaminated soil retains its physical properties and ability to support biological
activity.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-25
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ 2.5.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Fuels in Groundwater, Surface
Water, and Leachate
In addition to the general data requirements discussed in Subsection 2.2.2, it may
be necessary to know other subsurface information to remediate fuels in
groundwater. Treatability testing to characterize contaminant biodegradability and
nutrient content may be needed for any biodegradation technologies. A
subsurface geologic characterization would be particularly important to characterize
the migration of NAPLs. Recovery tests are usually necessary to design a product/
groundwater pumping scheme that will ensure that the nonaqueous fuel layer can
be recovered and that contaminated groundwater can be treated effectively at the
design flow. Groundwater models are also often needed to predict flow
characteristics, changes in contaminant mixes and concentrations, capture zones,
and times to reach cleanup levels.
Technologies most commonly used to treat fuels in groundwater include air
stripping, carbon adsorption, and free product recovery. These are all ex situ
treatment technologies requiring groundwater extraction.
Air stripping involves the mass transfer of volatile contaminants from water to air.
For groundwater remediation, this process is typically conducted in a packed tower
or an aeration tank. The generic packed tower air stripper includes a spray nozzle
at the top of the tower to distribute contaminated water over the packing in the
column, a fan to force air countercurrent to the water flow, and a sump at the
bottom of the tower to collect decontaminated water. Auxiliary equipment that can
be added to the basic air stripper includes automated control systems with sump
level switches and safety features such as differential pressure monitors, high sump
level switches and explosion proof components, and discharge air treatment systems
such as activated carbon units, catalytic oxidizers, or thermal oxidizers. Packed
tower air strippers are installed either as permanent installations on concrete pads,
on a skid, or on a trailer.
Liquid phase carbon adsorption is a full-scale technology in which groundwater
is pumped through a series of vessels containing activated carbon to which
dissolved contaminants are adsorbed. 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 removed and disposed of.
Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use in treating municipal,
industrial, and hazardous wastes.
For 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 by a pumping system. Following recovery, it can be disposed of, re-used
directly in an operation not requiring high-purity materials, or purified prior to re-
use. Systems may be designed to recover only product, mixed product and water,
or separate streams of product and water (i.e., dual pump or dual well systems).
Free product recovery is a full-scale technology.
MK01XRPT 02281012 {j09Vompg,de.s2
2-26
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
¦ 2.6 INORGANICS
Sites where inorganic contaminants may be found include artillery and small arms
impact areas, battery disposal area, burn pits, chemical disposal areas, contaminated
marine sediments, disposal wells and leach fields, electroplating/metal finishing
shops, firefighting training areas, landfills and burial pits, leaking collection and
system sanitary lines, leaking storage tanks, radioactive and mixed waste disposal
areas, oxidation ponds/lagoons, paint stripping and spray booth areas, sand blasting
areas, surface impoundments, and vehicle maintenance areas. Potentially applicable
remediation technologies are presented in Table 2-4. Typical inorganic
contaminants encountered at many sites include the following:
• Metals
Aluminum
- Magnesium
Antimony
- Manganese
Arsenic*
- Mercury
Barium
- Metallic cyanides
Beryllium
- Nickel
Bismuth
- Potassium
Boron
- Selenium
Cadmium
- Silver
Calcium
- Sodium
Chromium
- Thallium
Cobalt
- Tin
Copper
- Titanium
Iron
- Vanadium
Lead
- Zinc
• Radionuclides
- Americium-241
- Cesium-134, -137
- Cobalt-60
- Europium-152, -154, -155
- Plutonium-238, -239
• Other inorganic contaminants
- Radium-224, -226
- Strontium-90
- Technetium-99
- Thorium-228, -230, -232
- Uranium-234, -235, -2382
- Asbestos
- Cyanide
- Fluorine
Although arsenic is not a true metal, it is included here because it is
classified as one of the eight RCRA metals.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s2
2-27
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 2-4 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX:
TREATMENT OF INORGANICS
NOTE: Specific site and contaminant characteristics may limit the applicability and effectiveness of any of the
technologies and treatments listed below. This matrix is optimistic in nature and should always be used in conjunction with
the referenced text sections, which contain additional information that can be useful in identifying potentially applicable
technologies.
Technology
(Text Section and Title)
Development
Scale
Use
Rating
Applicability*
Technology
Function*
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
3.2
IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
4.7 Solidification/Stabilization
Full
Limited
Better
Immob.
4,5 Soil Flushing
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
3.3
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT
4.9 Vitrification
Pilot
Limited
Better
Immob.
3.5
EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.14 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.17 Soil Washing
Full
Limited
Better
Extract
4.19 Solidification/Stabilization
Full
Wide
Better
Immob.
3.6
EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.27 Vitrification
Full
Limited
Better
Immob.
3.7
OTHER TREATMENT
4.28 Excavation/Off-Site Disp.
NA
Wide
Average
Extract/lmmob.
GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
3.9
IN SITU PHYSICAU/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
4.41 Slurry Walls
Full
Limited
Average
Immob.
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction
Pilot
Limited
Average
Extract
| 3.10 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING) I
4.45 Filtration
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
4.46 Ion Exchange
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
4.48 Precipitation
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
"The following rankings are discussed in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1.
MtCOlNRPT.02281012 009Vx>mpgde.s2
2-28
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
¦ 2.6.1 Properties and Behavior of Inorganics
Often, specific technologies may be ruled out, or the list of potential technologies
may be immediately narrowed, on the basis of the presence or absence of one or
more of the chemical groups. The relative amounts of each may tend to favor
certain technologies. Metals may be found sometimes in the elemental form, but
more often they are found as salts mixed in the soil. At the present time, treatment
options for radioactive materials are probably limited to volume reduction/
concentration and immobilization. Asbestos fibers require special care to prevent
their escape during handling and disposal; permanent containment must be
provided. Properties and behavior of specific inorganics and inorganic contaminant
groups are discussed below.
2.6.1.1 Metals
Unlike the hazardous organic constituents, metals cannot be degraded or readily
detoxified. The presence of metals among wastes can pose a long-term
environmental hazard. The fate of the metal depends on its physical and chemical
properties, the associated waste matrix, and the soil. Significant downward
transportation of metals from the soil surface occurs when the metal retention
capacity of the soil is overloaded, or when metals are solubilized (e.g., by low pH).
As the concentration of metals exceeds the ability of the soil to retain them, the
metals will travel downward with the leaching waters. Surface transport through
dust and erosion of soils are common transport mechanisms. The extent of vertical
contamination intimately relates to the soil solution and surface chemistry.
Properties and behavior of specific metals are discussed below:
• Arsenic: Arsenic (As) exists in the soil environment as arsenate, As(V), or as
arsenite, As(III). Both are toxic; however, arsenite is the more toxic form, and
arsenate is the most common form. (Note: Arsenic is not a true metal;
however, it is included here as it is one of the eight RCRA metals.)
The behavior of arsenate in soil seems analogous to that of phosphate because
of their chemical similarity. Like phosphate, arsenate is fixed to soil, and thus
is relatively immobile. Iron (Fe), aluminum (Al), and calcium (Ca) influence
this fixation by forming insoluble complexes with arsenate. The presence of
iron in soil is most effective in controlling arsenate's mobility. Arsenite
compounds are 4 to 10 times more soluble than arsenate compounds.
The adsorption of arsenite is also strongly pH-dependent. One study found
increased adsorption of As(III) by two clays over the pH range of 3 to 9 while
another study found the maximum adsorption of As(III) by iron oxide occurred
at pH 7.
Under anaerobic conditions, arsenate may be reduced to arsenite. Arsenite is
more subject to leaching because of its higher solubility.
• Chromium: Chromium (Cr) can exist in soil in three forms: the trivalent
Cr(III) form, Cr+\ and the hexavalent Cr(VI) forms, (Cr207) 2 and (Cr04)"2.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.s2
2-29
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Hexavalent chromium is the major chromium species used in industry; wood
preservatives commonly contain chromic acid, a Cr(VI) oxide. The two forms
of hexavalent chromium are pH dependent; hexavalent chromium as a chromate
ion (Cr04)2 predominates above a pH of 6; dichromate ion (Cr207)"2
predominates below a pH of 6. The dichromate ions present a greater health
hazard than chromate ions, and both Cr(VI) ions are more toxic than Cr(III)
ions.
Because of its anionic nature, Cr(VI) associates only with soil surfaces at
positively charged exchange sites, the number of which decrease with increasing
soil pH. Iron and aluminum oxide surfaces adsorb the chromate ion at an acidic
or neutral pH.
Chromium (III) is the stable form of chromium in soil. Cr(IIl) hydroxy
compounds precipitate at pH 4.5 and complete precipitation of the hydroxy
species occurs at pH 5.5. In contrast to Cr(VI), Cr(III) is relatively immobile
in soil. Chromium (III) does, however, form complexes with soluble organic
ligands, which may increase its mobility.
Regardless of pH and redox potential, most Cr(VI) in soil is reduced to Cr(III).
Soil organic matter and Fe(II) minerals donate the electrons in this reaction.
The reduction reaction in the presence of organic matter proceeds at a slow rate
under normal environmental pH and temperatures, but the rate of reaction
increases with decreasing soil pH.
• Copper: Soil retains copper (Cu) through exchange and specific adsorption.
Copper adsorbs to most soil constituents more strongly than any other toxic
metal, except lead (Pb). Copper, however, has a high affinity to soluble organic
ligands; the formation of these complexes may greatly increase its mobility in
soil.
• Lead: Lead is a heavy metal that exists in three oxidation states: O, +2(11),
and +4(IV). Lead is generally the most widespread and concentrated
contaminant present at a lead battery recycling site (i.e., battery breaker or
secondary lead smelter).
Lead tends to accumulate in the soil surface, usually within 3 to 5 centimeters
of the surface. Concentrations decrease with depth. Insoluble lead sulfide is
typically immobile in soil as long as reducing conditions are maintained. Lead
can also be biomethylated, forming tetramethyl and tetraethyl lead. These
compounds may enter the atmosphere by volatilization.
The capacity of soil to adsorb lead increases with pH, cation exchange capacity,
organic carbon content, soil/water Eh (redox potential), and phosphate levels.
Lead exhibits a high degree of adsorption on clay-rich soil. Only a small
percent of the total lead is leachable; the major portion is usually solid or
adsorbed onto soil particles. Surface runoff, which can transport soil particles
containing adsorbed lead, facilitates migration and subsequent desorption from
contaminated soils. On the other hand, groundwater (typically low in suspended
MK.01\RPT 02281012 009Vompgde s2
2-30
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
soils and leachable lead salts) does not normally create a major pathway for lead
migration. Lead compounds are soluble at low pH and at high pH, such as
those induced by solidification/stabilization treatment. Several other metals are
also amphoteric, which strongly affects leaching. If battery breaking activities
have occurred on-site, and the battery acid was disposed of on-site, elevated
concentrations of lead and other metals may have migrated to groundwater.
• Mercury: In soils and surface waters, volatile forms (e.g., metallic mercury and
dimethylmercury) evaporate to the atmosphere, whereas solid forms partition to
particulates. Mercury exists primarily in the mercuric and mercurous forms as
a number of complexes with varying water solubilities. In soils and sediments,
sorption is one of the most important controlling pathways for removal of
mercury from solution; soiption usually increases with increasing pH. Other
removal mechanisms include flocculation, co-precipitation with sulfides, and
organic complexation. Mercury is strongly sorbed to humic materials.
Inorganic mercury sorbed to soils is not readily desorbed; therefore, freshwater
and marine sediments are important repositories for inorganic mercury.
• Zinc: Clay carbonates, or hydrous oxides, readily adsorb zinc (Zn). The
greatest percentage of total zinc in polluted soil and sediment is associated with
iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) oxides. Rainfall removes zinc from soil because
the zinc compounds are highly soluble. As with all cationic metals, zinc
adsorption increases with pH. Zinc hydrolyzes at a pH >7.7. These hydrolyzed
species strongly adsorb to soil surfaces. Zinc forms complexes with inorganic
and organic ligands, which will affect its adsorption reactions with the soil
surface.
2.6.1.2 Radionuclides
For the purposes of this document, radionuclides should be considered to have
properties similar to those of other heavy metals. (See the beginning of Subsection
2.6 for a list of typical radionuclides.) This does not imply that all radionuclides
are heavy metals, but that the majority of sites requiring remediation of
radioactively contaminated materials are contaminated with radionuclides that have
similar properties. Like metals, the contaminants of concern are typically
nonvolatile and less soluble in water than some other contaminants. However, the
solubility and volatility of individual radionuclides will vary and should be
evaluated for each wastestream being remediated. For example, cesium-137 is
more volatile than uranium-238 and some cesium may volatilize, requiring off-gas
treatment, when treated with processes at elevated temperatures (e.g., vitrification).
Similarly, the mobility of radium-226, which is generally soluble in water under
environmental conditions, will be greater than that of thorium-230, which is much
less soluble.
Unlike organic contaminants (and similar to metals), radionuclides cannot be
destroyed or degraded; therefore, remediation technologies applicable to
radionuclides involve separation, concentration/volume reduction, and/or
immobilization. Some special considerations when remediating sites contaminated
with radionuclides include the following:
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-31
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
• Implementation of remediation technologies should consider the potential for
radiological exposure (internal and external). The degree of hazard is based on
the radionuclide(s) present and the type and energy of radiation emitted (i.e.,
alpha particles, beta particles, gamma radiation, and neutron radiation). The
design should take into account exposure considerations and the principles of
keeping exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
• Because radionuclides are not destroyed, ex situ techniques will require eventual
disposal of residual radioactive wastes. These waste forms must meet disposal
site waste acceptance criteria.
• There are different disposal requirements associated with different types of
radioactive waste. Remediation technologies addressed in this document are
generally applicable for low-level radioactive waste (LLW), transuranic waste
(TRU), and/or uranium mill tailings. The technologies are not applicable to
spent nuclear fuel and, for the most part, are not applicable for high-level
radioactive waste.
• Some remediation technologies result in the concentration of radionuclides. By
concentrating radionuclides, it is possible to change the classification of the
waste, which impacts requirements for disposal. For example, concentrating
radionuclides could result in LLW becoming TRU waste (if TRU radionuclides
were concentrated to greater than 100 nanocuries/gm). Also, LLW
classifications (e.g., Class A, B, or C for commercial LLW) could change due
to the concentration of radionuclides. Waste classification requirements, for
disposal of residual waste (if applicable), should be considered when evaluating
remediation technologies.
• Disposal capacity for radioactive and mixed waste is limited. For example,
commercial LLW disposal capacity will no longer be available for many out-of-
compact (regions without a licensed LLW disposal facility) generators because
the disposal facility in Barnwell, SC, closed (to out-of-compact generators) on
30 June 1994. Currently there is only one disposal facility (Envirocare of Utah,
Inc.) licensed to accept mixed waste (i.e., low-activity mixed LLW and
hazardous waste) for disposal. Mixed waste can be treated to address the
hazardous characteristics of the soil, thereby allowing the waste to be addressed
as solely a radioactive waste.
¦ 2.6.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge
The most commonly used treatment technologies for inorganics in soil, sediment,
and sludge include solidification/stabilization (S/S), and excavation and off-site
disposal. These treatment technologies are described briefly below.
Solidification processes produce monolithic blocks of waste with high structural
integrity. The contaminants do not necessarily interact chemically with the
solidification reagents (typically cement/ash) but are mechanically locked within the
solidified matrix. Stabilization methods usually involve the addition of materials
MK01\RPT 02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-32
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
such as fly ash, which limit the solubility or mobility of waste constituents—even
though the physical handling characteristics of the waste may not be changed or
improved. Methods involving S/S techniques are often proposed in RODs and
RI/FSs for lead battery recycling sites. Solidification/stabilization of contaminated
soil can be conducted either in situ or ex situ. In situ S/S techniques are now
considered innovative and are discussed in Section 4.
Excavation and removal of contaminated soil (with or without stabilization) to a
landfill have been performed extensively at many sites. Landfilling of hazardous
materials, especially hazardous wastes, is becoming increasingly difficult and
expensive as a result of growing regulatory control, and may be cost-prohibitive for
sites with large volumes, greater depths, or complex hydrogeologic environments.
In addition, disposal capacity for radioactive and mixed waste is extremely limited.
Determining the feasibility of off-site disposal requires knowledge of land disposal
restrictions and other regulations developed by state governments.
¦ 2.6.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Inorganics in Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate
In addition to the general data requirements discussed in Subsection 2.2.2, it may
be necessary to know other subsurface information to remediate inorganics in
groundwater, surface water, and leachate. Treatability studies are usually
necessary to ensure that the contaminated groundwater can be treated effectively
at the design flow. A subsurface geologic characterization would be particularly
important to characterize the effects of adsorption and other processes of
attenuation. Groundwater models are also often needed to predict flow
characteristics, changes in contaminant mixes and concentrations, and times to
reach action levels.
Precipitation, filtration, and ion exchange are widely used ex situ treatment
technologies for inorganics in groundwater and are discussed in the following
paragraphs. In situ treatment technologies are used less frequently.
The combination of precipitation/flocculation and sedimentation is a well-
established technology for metals and radionuclides removal from groundwater.
This technology pumps groundwater through extraction wells and then treats it to
precipitate lead and other heavy metals. Typical removal of metals employs
precipitation with hydroxides, carbonates, or sulfides. Hydroxide precipitation with
lime or sodium hydroxide is the most common choice. Generally, the precipitating
agent is added to water in a rapid-mixing tank along with flocculating agents such
as alum, lime, and/or various ir6n salts. This mixture then flows to a flocculation
chamber that agglomerates particles, which are then separated from the liquid phase
in a sedimentation chamber. Other physical processes, such as filtration, may
follow.
Metal sulfides exhibit significantly lower solubility than their hydroxide
counterparts, achieve more complete precipitation, and provide stability over a
broad pH range. At a pH of 4.5, sulfide precipitation can achieve the EPA-
recommended standard for potable water. Sulfide precipitation, however, can be
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-33
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
considerably more expensive than hydroxide precipitation, as a result of higher
chemical costs and increased process complexity; also, there are safety concerns
associated with the possibility of H2S emissions. The precipitated metals would be
handled in a manner similar to contaminated soils. The supernatant would be
discharged to a nearby stream, a POTW, or recharged to upstream of site aquifer.
Selection of the most suitable precipitant or flocculent, optimum pH, rapid mix
requirements, and most efficient dosages is determined through laboratory jar test
studies.
Filtration isolates solid particles by running a fluid stream through a porous
medium. The driving force is either gravity or a pressure differential across the
filtration medium. Pressure differentiated filtration techniques include separation
by centrifugal force, vacuum, or positive pressure. The chemicals are not
destroyed; they are merely concentrated, making reclamation possible. Parallel
installation of double filters is recommended so groundwater extraction or injection
pumps do not have to stop operating when filters backwashed.
Ion exchange is a process whereby the toxic ions are removed from the aqueous
phase in an exchange with relatively innocuous ions (e.g., NaCl) held by the ion
exchange material. Modem ion exchange resins consist of synthetic organic
materials containing ionic functional groups to which exchangeable ions are
attached. These synthetic resins are structurally stable and exhibit a high exchange
capacity. They can be tailored to show selectivity towards specific ions. The
exchange reaction is reversible and concentration-dependent; the exchange resins
are regenerable for reuse. The regeneration step leads to a 2 to 10% wastestream
that must be treated separately.
All metallic elements present as soluble species, either anionic or cationic, can be
removed by ion exchange. A practical influent upper concentration limit for ion
exchange is about 2,000 mg/L. A higher concentration results in rapid exhaustion
of the resin and inordinately high regeneration costs.
¦ 2.7 EXPLOSIVES
Sites where explosive contaminants may be found include artillery/impact areas,
contaminated marine sediments, disposal wells, leach fields, landfills, burial pits,
and TNT washout lagoons. Potentially applicable remediation technologies are
presented in Table 2-5. Typical explosive contaminants encountered at many sites
include the following:
• TNT
• RDX
• Tetryl
• 2,4-DNT
• 2,6-DNT
• HMX
• Nitroaromatics
•
Picrates
•
TNB
•
DNB
•
Nitroglycerine
•
Nitrocellulose
•
AP
•
Nitroglycerine
MK01\RPT 02281012 009Vompgtle s2
2-34
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 2-5 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX:
TREATMENT OF EXPLOSIVES
NOTE: Specific site and contaminant characteristics may limit the applicability and effectiveness of any of the technologies
and treatments listed below. This matrix is optimistic in nature and should always be used in conjunction with the referenced
text sections, which contain additional information that can be useful in identifying potentially applicable technologies.
Technology
(Text Section and Title)
Development
Status
Use
Rating Applicability*
Technology
Function*
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
| 3.1 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
4.1 Biodegradation
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.3 White Rot Fungus
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
| 3.4 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION) |
4.10 Composting
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.11 Cont. Solid Phase Bio. Treat.
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4,12 Landfarming
Pilot
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio, Treatment
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
| 3.5 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (assuming excavation) |
4.17 Soil Washing
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
4,20 Solvent Extraction
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
3.6 EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING EXCAVATION)
4.22 Hot Gas Decontamination
Pilot
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.23 Incineration
Full
Wide
Better
Destruct
4.24 Low Temp. Thermal Desorption
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
4.25 Open Burn/Detonation
Pilot
Wide
Average
Destruct
3.7 OTHER TREATMENT
4.28 Excavation/Off-Site Disp. NA Limited
Average Extract/lmmob.
GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
| 3.8 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
4.30 Co-Metabolic Treatment
Pilot
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.31 Nutrient Enhancement
Pilot
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.32 Oxygen Enhance. Air
Pilot
Limited
Average
Destruct
4.33 Oxygen Enhance. w/H202
Pilot
Limited
Average
Destruct
[ 3.9 IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
I
4,40 Passive Treatment Walls
Pilot
Limited
Better
Extract
4.41 Slurry Walls
Full
Limited
Better
Immobilize
3.10 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
4.43 Bioreactors | Pilot
Limited
Average | Destruct
| 3.11 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT (ASSUMING PUMPING) |
4.45 Filtration
Full
Limited
Average
Extract
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption
Full
Wide
Better
Extract
4.49 UV Oxidation
Full
Limited
Better
Destruct
*The following rankings are discussed in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1.
MK01\RPT:02281012.0Wcompgde.s2
2-35
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ 2.7.1 Properties and Behavior of Explosives
Information presented for SVOCs (Subsection 2.4.1) may also be appropriate for
many of the contaminants presented in this subsection.
The term "explosive waste" commonly is used to refer to propellants, explosives,
and pyrotechnics (PEP), which technically fall into the more general category of
energetic materials. These materials are susceptible to initiation, or self-sustained
energy release, when present in sufficient quantities and exposed to stimuli such as
heat, shock, friction, chemical incompatibility, or electrostatic discharge. Each of
these materials reacts differently to the aforementioned stimuli; all will burn, but
explosives and propellants can detonate under certain conditions (e.g., confinement).
Figure 2-1 outlines the various categories of energetic materials. The emphasis of
this document is on soil and groundwater contaminated with explosives rather than
propellants, pyrotechnics, or munitions.
Explosives are classified as primary or secondary based on their susceptibility to
initiation. Primary explosives, which include lead azide and lead styphnate, are
highly susceptible to initiation. Primary explosives often are referred to as
initiating explosives because they can be used to ignite secondary explosives.
Secondary explosives, which include TNT, cyclo-l,3,5-trimethylene-2,4,6-
trinitramine (RDX or cyclonite), high melting explosives (HMX), and tetryl, are
much more prevalent at military sites than are primary explosives. Because they
are formulated to detonate only under specific circumstances, secondary explosives
often are used as main charge or bolstering explosives. Secondary explosives can
be loosely categorized into melt-pour explosives, which are based on TNT, and
plastic-bonded explosives (PBX), which are based on a binder and crystalline
explosive such as RDX. Secondary explosives also can be classified according to
their chemical structure as nitroaromatics, which include TNT, and nitramines,
which include RDX. In the TNT molecule, N02 groups are bonded to the aromatic
ring; in the RDX molecule, N02 groups are bonded to nitrogen.
Explosives
Pyrotechnics
Propellants
Energetic Material (PEP)
TNT
Based
Hazard
Class 1 1
Nitrate Ester
Hazard
Class 1 3
Composite
Plastic
Bonded
(PBX)
Rocket
Gun
(Single Base,
Double Base,
T riple Base)
Primary
Illuminating
Flare
Other
Secondary
Signal
Flare
2-1 94P-2402 9/8/94
FIGURE 2-1 CATEGORIES OF ENERGETIC MATERIALS
MK01\RPT:022810l2.009\compgde s2
2-36
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
Propellants include both rocket and gun propellants. Most rocket propellants are
either Hazard Class 1.3 composites, which are based on a rubber binder, and
ammonium perchlorate (AP) oxidizer, and a powdered aluminum (Al) fuel; or
Hazard Class 1.1 composites, which are based on a nitrate ester, usually
nitroglycerine (NG), nitrocellulose (NC), HMX, AP, or polymer-bound low NC.
If a binder is used, it usually is an isocyanate-cured polyester or polyether. Some
propellants contain combustion modifiers, such as lead oxide.
Gun propellants usually are single base (NC), double base (NC and NG), or triple
base [NC, NG, and nitroguanidine (NQ)]. Some of the newer, lower vulnerability
gun propellants contain binders and crystalline explosives and thus are similar to
PBX.
Pyrotechnics include illuminating flares, signaling flares, colored and white smoke
generators, tracers, incendiary delays, fuses, and photo-flash compounds.
Pyrotechnics usually are composed of an inorganic oxidizer and metal powder in
a binder. Illuminating flares contain sodium nitrate, magnesium, and a binder.
Signaling flares contain barium, strontium, or other metal nitrates.
Safety precautions must be taken at sites contaminated with explosive wastes to
avoid initiation. USAEC, which has been involved in sampling and treating
explosives waste sites since the early 1980s, has developed protocols for identifying
sites that require explosives safety precautions and for handling explosives wastes
at these sites.
Under its current protocol, USAEC can determine quickly and inexpensively
whether materials are susceptible to initiation and propagation by analyzing the
composition of samples from the site. According to the deflagration-to-detonation
test, soils containing more than 12% secondary explosives by weight are susceptible
to initiation by flame; according to the shock gap test, soils containing more than
15% secondary explosives by weight are susceptible to initiation by shock. As a
conservative limit, USAEC considers all soils containing more than 10% secondary
explosives by weight to be susceptible to initiation and propagation and exercises
a number of safety precautions when sampling and treating these soils. Sampling
and treatment precautions are exercised when handling soils that contain even
minute quantities of primary explosives.
Work, sampling, and health and safety plans for explosives waste sites should
incorporate safety provisions that normally would not be included in work and
sampling plans for other sites. The most important safety precaution is to minimize
exposure, which involves minimizing the number of workers exposed to hazardous
situations, the duration of exposure, and the degree of hazard.
¦ 2.7.2 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge
The U.S. Army operates explosives manufacturing plants to produce various forms
of explosives used in military ordnance. Manufacturing activities at such plants
result in the production of organic wastewaters that contain both explosive residues
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-37
i 0/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
and other organic chemicals. Past waste handling practices at such plants
commonly included the use of unlined lagoons or pits for containing process
waters. As a result of these past practices, some explosive residues may leach
through the soil and contaminate groundwater.
The U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) and
the Missouri River Division (MRD) have been involved with numerous explosives-
contaminated sites. They have compiled data on the frequency of nitroaromatics
and nitramines detected in explosives-contaminated soils from Army sites. TNT
is the most common contaminant, occurring in approximately 80% of the soil
samples found to be contaminated with explosives. Trinitrobenzene (TNB), which
is a photochemical decomposition product of TNT, was found in between 40 and
50% of these soils. Dinitrobenzene (DNB), 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT), and 2,6-
DNT, which are impurities in production-grade TNT, were found in less than 40%
of the soils.
As mentioned earlier, safety concerns are an important consideration when
discussing remediation of explosives-contaminated soils, sediments, and sludges.
Spark and static electricity hazards must be eliminated. Nonsparking tools,
conductive and grounded plastic, and no-screw tops, which were developed for
manufacturing explosives, are standard equipment at explosive waste sites. For
example, nonsparking beryllium tools are used instead of ferrous tools.
If contamination is above the 10% limit in some areas of a site, the contaminated
material could be blended and screened to dilute the contamination and produce a
homogenous mixture below the 10% limit. This blending is not by itself a
remedial action but a safety precaution; soils containing less than 10% secondary
explosives by weight occasionally experience localized detonations, but generally
resist widespread propagation. Foreign objects and unexploded ordnance within the
contaminated soil often impede the blending process and require specialized
unexploded ordnance management procedures.
Once blending is completed, soil treatments such as incineration and bioremediation
can proceed. Equipment used in treatment must have sealed bearings and shielded
electrical junction boxes. Equipment also must be decontaminated frequently to
prevent the buildup of explosive dust.
Biological, thermal, and other (such as reuse/recycle) treatment technologies are
available to treat explosives-contaminated soils. These technologies are briefly
discussed below.
2.7.2.1 Biological Treatment Technologies
Biological treatment, or bioremediation, is a developing technology that uses
microorganisms to degrade organic contaminants into less hazardous compounds.
Bioremediation is most effective for dilute solutions of explosives and propellants.
TNT in the crystalline form is difficult to treat biologically.
M<01\RPT:02281012.009Yompgde.s2
2-38
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
TNT degrades under aerobic conditions into monoamine-, diamino-, hydroxylamine-
DNT, and tetranitro-azoxynitrotoluenes. RDX and HMX degrade into carbon
dioxide and water under anaerobic conditions. Researchers have not identified any
specific organisms that are particularly effective for degrading explosives waste; an
indigenous consortium of organisms usually affects the degradation.
DOD currently is developing or implementing five biological treatments for
explosives-contaminated soils: aqueous-phase bioreactor treatment; composting,
land farming, and white rot fungus treatment, which are solid-phase treatments; and
in situ biological treatment.
Aqueous Phase Bioreactor Treatment: DOD is considering two types of
aqueous-phase bioreactors for the treatment of explosive contaminants. The first
is the lagoon slurry reactor, which allows contaminants to remain in a lagoon, be
mixed with nutrients and water, and degrade under anaerobic conditions. The
lagoon slurry reactor is still in the development stage. The second is the
aboveground slurry reactor, which is either constructed on-site or purchased as a
package plant.
Aqueous-phase bioreactors provide good process control, can be configured in
several treatment trains to treat a variety of wastes, and potentially can achieve very
low contaminant concentrations. A drawback of bioreactor treatment is that, unlike
composting systems which bind contaminants to humic material, bioreactors
accumulate the products of biotransformation. In addition, bioreactors have been
shown to remediate explosives only at laboratory scale, so the cost of full-scale
bioreactors will have to incorporate a variety of safety features that will add to their
total cost.
Composting: DOD has been evaluating composting systems to treat explosives
waste since 1982. To date, composting has been shown to degrade TNT, RDX,
HMX, DNT, tetryl, and nitrocellulose in soils and sludges. The main advantage of
this technology is that, unlike incineration, composting generates an enriched
product that can sustain vegetation. After cleanup levels are achieved, the compost
material can be returned to the site. Another advantage is that composting is
effective for a range of wastes. The cost of composting can be limited, however,
by the level of indigenous organisms in contaminated soil and the local availability
of amendment mixtures. In addition, composting requires long treatment periods
for some wastestreams, and composting of unfamiliar contaminants potentially can
generate toxic byproducts.
Composting methods fall into three categories: static-pile composting;
mechanically agitated, in-vessel composting; and windrow composting. In static-
pile composting, contaminated material is excavated, placed in a pile under
protective shelter, and mixed with readily degradable carbon sources. The pile
undergoes forced aeration to maintain aerobic and thermophilic (55 to 60 °C or 131
to 140 °F) conditions, which foster the growth of microorganisms. Bulking agents,
such as cow manure and vegetable waste and/or wood chips, can be added to
enhance biodegradation. In mechanically agitated, in-vessel composting,
contaminated material is aerated and blended with carbon-source materials in a
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-39
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
mechanical composter. These devices have been used at municipal sewage
treatment facilities and applied to explosives waste. Windrow composting is similar
to static-pile composting except that compost is aerated by a mechanical mixing
vehicle, rather than a forced air system.
Land Farming: Land farming has been used extensively to treat soils
contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol (PCP), and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and potentially could be used to treat
low to medium concentrations of explosives as well. In land farming, soils are
excavated to treatment plots and periodically tilled to mix in nutrients, moisture,
and bacteria. In one pilot study at an explosives waste site in Hercules, California,
land farming failed to achieve the target cleanup levels of 30-ppm TNT, 5-ppm
DNT, and 5-ppm DNB. The study achieved a 30 to 40% contaminant degradation.
White Rot Fungus Treatment: White rot fungus, Phanerochaete chrysosporium,
has been evaluated more extensively than any other fungal species for remediating
explosives-contaminated soil. Although white rot has been reported in laboratory-
scale settings using pure cultures (Berry and Boyd, 1985; Fernando et al., 1990),
a number of factor increase the difficulty of using this technology for full-scale
remediation. These factors include competition from native bacterial populations,
toxicity inhibition, chemical sorption, and the inability to meet risk-based cleanup
levels.
In bench-scale studies of mixed fungal and bacterial systems, most of the reported
degradation of TNT is attributable to native bacterial populations (Lohr, 1993;
McFarland et al., 1990). High TNT concentrations in soil also can inhibit growth
of white rot fungus. One study suggested that Phanerochaete chrysosporium was
incapable of growing in soils contaminated with 20 ppm or more of TNT. In
addition, some reports indicate that TNT losses reported in white rot fungus studies
can be attributed to adsorption of TNT onto the fungus and soil amendments, such
as corn cobs and straw.
In Situ Biological Treatment: In situ treatments can be less expensive than other
technologies and produce low contaminant concentrations. The available data
suggest, however, that in situ treatment of explosives might create more mobile
intermediates during biodegradation. In addition, biodegradation of explosive
contaminants typically involves metabolism with an added nutrient source, which
is difficult to deliver in an in situ environment. Mixing often affects the rate and
performance of explosives degradation. Finally, effectiveness of in situ treatment
is difficult to verify both during and after treatment.
2.7.2.2 Thermal Treatment Technologies
Incineration: Incineration processes can be used to treat the following
wastestreams: explosive-contaminated soil and debris, explosives with other
organic or metals, initiating explosives, some bulk explosives, unexploded
ordnance, bulk explosive waste, and pyrophoric waste. In addition, incineration can
be applied to sites with a mixture of media, such as sand, clay, water, and sludge,
provided the media can be fed to the incinerator and heated for a sufficient period
MK0i\RPT 02281012.009Vompgde s2
2-40
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
of time. With the approval of the DOD Explosives Safety Board, the Army
considers incineration of materials containing less than 10% explosives by weight
to be a nonexplosive operation. Soil with less than 10% explosives by weight has
been shown by USAEC to be nonreactive; that is, not to propagate a detonation
throughout the mass of soil. (The military explosives to which this limit applies
are secondary explosives such as TNT and RDX and their manufacturing
byproducts).
The Army primarily uses three types of incineration devices: the rotary kiln
incinerator, deactivation furnace, and contaminated waste processor.
The rotary kiln incinerator is used primarily to treat explosives-contaminated
soils. In rotary kiln incineration, soils are fed into a primary combustion chamber,
or rotary kiln, where organic constituents are destroyed. The temperature of gases
in the primary chamber ranges from 427 to 649 °C (800 to 1,200 °F), and the
temperature of soils ranges from 316 to 427 °C (600 to 800 °F). Retention time
in the primary chamber, which is varied by changing the rotation speed of the kiln,
is approximately 30 minutes. Off gases from the primary chamber pass into a
secondary combustion chamber, which destroys any residual organics. Gases from
the secondary combustion chamber pass into a quench tank where they are cooled
from approximately 2,000 to 200 °C (3,600 to 400 °F). From the quench tank,
gases pass through a Venturi scrubber and a series of baghouse filters, which
remove particulates prior to release from the stack. The treated product of rotary
kiln incineration is ash (or treated soil), which drops from the primary combustion
chamber after organic contaminants have been destroyed. This product is routed
into a wet quench or a water spray to remoisturize it, then transported to an interim
storage area pending receipt of chemical analytical results.
The deactivation furnace is also referred to as Army Peculiar Equipment (APE)
1236 because it is used almost exclusively by the Army to deactivate large
quantities of small arms cartridges, and 50-caliber machine gun ammunition, mines,
and grenades. The deactivation furnace is similar to the rotary kiln incinerator
except it is equipped with a thick-walled primary combustion chamber capable of
withstanding small detonations. Deactivation furnaces do not have secondary
combustion chambers because they are intended not to completely destroy the
vaporized explosives but to render the munitions unreactive. Most deactivation
furnaces are equipped with air pollution control equipment to limit lead emissions.
The operating temperature of deactivation furnaces is approximately 650 to 820 °C
(1,200 to 1,500 °F).
The contaminated waste processor handles materials, such as surface-
contaminated debris, that are lighter and less reactive than those processed in the
deactivation furnace. Contaminated waste processors are thin-walled, stationary
ovens that heat contaminated materials to about 600 °C (1,100 °F) for 3 to 4 hours.
The purpose of this process is not to destroy contaminated debris but to sufficiently
lower contaminant levels through volatilization to meet Army safety standards.
USAEC currently is helping to develop standardized time and temperature
processing requirements to meet these safety standards.
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s2
2-41
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Open Burn/Open Detonation: Open burn (OB) and open detonation (OD)
operations are conducted to destroy unserviceable, unstable, or unusable munitions
and explosive materials. In OB operations, explosives or munitions are destroyed
by self-sustained combustion, which is ignited by an external source, such as flame,
heat, or a detonation wave. In OD operations, detonable explosives and munitions
are destroyed by a detonation initiated by a disposal charge. OB/OD operations
require regulatory permits. These permits must be obtained from the appropriate
regulatory agency on a case-by-case basis.
OB/OD operations can destroy many types of explosives, pyrotechnics, and
propellants. OB areas must be able to withstand accidental detonation of any or
all explosives being destroyed, unless the characteristic of the materials involved
is such that orderly burning without detonation can be ensured. Personnel with this
type of knowledge must be consulted before any attempt is made at OB disposal,
especially if primary explosives are present in any quantity.
OB and OD can be initiated either by electric or burning ignition systems. In
general, electric systems are preferable because they provide better control over the
timing of the initiation. In an electric system, electric current heats a bridge wire,
which ignites a primary explosive or pyrotechnic to, in turn, ignite or detonate the
material slated to be burned or detonated. If necessary, safety fuses, which consist
of propellants wrapped in plastic weather stripping, are used to initiate the burn or
detonation.
2.7.2.3 Other Treatment Technologies
Reuse/Recycle: Recovery and reuse technologies for energetic materials, including
both explosives and propellants, should be considered at explosives waste sites for
several reasons. First, new recovery methods and potential uses for reclaimed
explosive materials are rapidly developing. Second, recovery/reuse options reduce
overall remediation costs by eliminating destruction costs and allowing the value
of reclaimed materials to be recovered. Finally, EPA's treatment hierarchy, which
is based on environmental considerations, favors recovery/reuse options over
destruction technologies.
Soils and sludges contaminated with energetic materials present handling problems
during recovery and reuse operations. USAEC has established a guideline that soils
containing greater than 10% energetic materials by weight should be considered
explosive during handling and transportation. As a general rule, soils and sludges
containing less than 10% energetic materials by weight pass USAEC's nonreactivity
tests. Reuse/recycle options are more feasible for contaminated soils and sludges
meeting the nonreactivity criteria because they can be removed, transported, and
handled using conventional equipment, which could provide a substantial cost
savings.
Solvent Extraction: Solvent extraction is a technology that the Army originally
determined to be infeasible for treating explosives-contaminated soils. The
technology, however, might have potential for treating these soils if a few lingering
technical issues can be resolved. In 1982, the Army conducted laboratory-scale
MK01XRPT 02281012 009\compgde.s2
2-42
10/26/94
-------
CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
solvent extraction on explosives-contaminated lagoon samples from a number of
sites. Each sample was washed with a solution of 90% acetone and 10% water.
This process achieved greater than 99% contaminant removals.
In 1985, the Army conducted a pilot-scale engineering analysis to determine the
feasibility of full-scale solvent extraction. This analysis indicated that, for solvent
extraction to be economically feasible, the number of required washes would have
to be reduced, and acetone would have to be recovered and reused. Currently, the
only available technology for recovering acetone is distillation, which exposes
acetone to heat and pressure. Exposing a solvent that has been used to extract
explosive contaminants to heat and pressure raises serious safety considerations.
In fact, the distillation column used to recover acetone often is referred to as an
"acetone rocket." Nevertheless, the Army believes that full-scale solvent extraction
would be feasible if a safe, efficient, alternative recovery method were developed.
Soil Washing: A soil washing procedure, termed the Lurgi Process, currently is
being developed in Stadtalendorf, Germany. Although no data have been published
on the effectiveness of this process, initial reports suggest that the process can
reduce levels of explosive contamination in soils to low ppm levels. As with all
soil washing technologies, the Lurgi Process produces secondary wastes, such as
washwater and concentrated explosives.
In the Lurgi Process, contaminated soils are excavated and processed in an attrition
reactor, which detaches the explosive material from the soil particles. The
remaining material undergoes a second process, which separates clean from
contaminated particles. Clean particles are dewatered, separated into heavy and
light materials, and returned to the site. Contaminated particles undergo a final
series of washing, separation, and chemical extraction processes to remove any
remaining clean particles. Finally, the contaminated material is clarified and
concentrated before being disposed of or treated.
¦ 2.7.3 Common Treatment Technologies for Explosives in Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Leachate
Explosives-contaminated process waste waters can be subdivided into two
categories: red water, which comes strictly from the manufacture of TNT, and pink
water, which includes any washwater associated with load, assemble, and pack
(LAP) operations or with the demilitarization of munitions involving contact with
finished explosive. Despite their names, red and pink water cannot be identified
by color. Both are clear when they emerge from their respective processes and
subsequently turn pink, light red, dark red, or black when exposed to light. The
chemical composition of pink water varies depending on the process and explosive
operation from which it is derived; red water has a more defined chemical
composition. For this reason, it is not possible to simulate either red or pink water
in the laboratory.
The United States stopped production of TNT in the mid-1980s, so no red water
has been generated in this country since that date (Hercules Aerospace Company,
1991). Most process waters found in the field are pink waters that were generated
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vx>mpgde.s2
2-43
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
by LAP and demilitarization operations conducted in the 1970s. In these
operations, munitions were placed on racks with their fuses and tops removed. Jets
of hot water then were used to mine the explosives out of the munitions. The
residual waters were placed in settling basins so that solid explosive particles could
be removed, and the remaining water was transferred into lagoons. Contaminants
often present in these lagoon waters and the surrounding soils include TNT, RDX,
HMX, 2,4-DNT, 2,6-DNT, 1,3-DNB, 1,3,5-TNB, and nitrobenzene.
These past waste-handling practices at explosives manufacturing and LAP plants
often used unlined lagoons or pits to contain process wastewaters. As a result of
this practice, some explosive residues have leached through the soil and
contaminated groundwater. Therefore, groundwater treatment may be required.
Based upon process wastewater treatment experience, potentially applicable
treatment technologies are available. However, the similarities and differences
between process wastewaters and explosives-contaminated groundwater should be
considered before transferring technologies from one application to another.
Granular-activated carbon (GAC) adsorption is commonly used for explosives-
contaminated groundwater treatment. GAC does not work for red water treatment.
In the 1980s, the Army discontinued the practice of disposing of untreated process
waters from the production and maintenance of munitions in open lagoons. Every
Army ammunition plant currently employs some type of GAC system to treat
process waters as they are generated. GAC is very effective at removing a wide
range of explosive contaminants from water.
GAC can be used to treat explosives-contaminated water, including process waters
from the manufacture and demilitarization of munitions (pink water) and
groundwater contaminated from disposal of these waters.
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation has not been used extensively for remediating water
contaminated with explosives because of the widespread use of GAC treatment.
Nevertheless, UV oxidation can be an effective treatment for explosives-
contaminated water and, unlike carbon treatment, actually destroys target
compounds rather than just transferring them to a more easily disposable medium.
UV oxidation can be used to treat many types of organic explosives-contaminated
water, including process waters from the demilitarization of munitions (pink water)
and groundwater contaminated from disposal of these process waters.
USAE-WES is currently evaluating a perozone system for explosives-contaminated
groundwater treatment. This system uses hydrogen peroxide and ozone to oxidize
explosive constituents without UV light. The perozone system may offer economic
advantages in UV oxidation systems.
MK01\RPT02281012.009Vompgde.s2
2-44
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
Section 3
TREATMENT
PERSPECTIVES
-------
Section 3
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
Three primary strategies used separately or in conjunction to remediate most sites
are:
• Destruction or alteration of contaminants.
• Extraction or separation of contaminants from environmental media.
• Immobilization of contaminants.
Treatment technologies capable of contaminant destruction by altering their
chemical structure are thermal, biological, and chemical treatment methods. These
destruction technologies can be applied in situ or ex situ to contaminated media.
Treatment technologies commonly used for extraction and separation of
contaminants from environmental media include soil treatment by thermal
desorption, soil washing, solvent extraction, and soil vapor extraction (SVE) and
groundwater treatment by either phase separation, carbon adsorption, air stripping,
ion exchange, or some combination of these technologies. Selection and integration
of technologies should use the most effective contaminant transport mechanisms to
arrive at the most effective treatment scheme. For example, more air than water
can be moved through soil. Therefore, for a volatile contaminant in soil that is
relatively insoluble in water, SVE would be a more efficient separation technology
than soil flushing or washing.
Immobilization technologies include stabilization, solidification, and containment
technologies, such as placement in a secure landfill or construction of slurry walls.
No immobilization technology is permanently effective, so some type of
maintenance is desired. Stabilization technologies are often proposed for
remediating sites contaminated by metals or other inorganic species.
These concepts about site remediation strategies and representative technologies
associated with them are summarized in Figure 3-1. One feature obvious from the
figure is that the choice of applied technologies is not extensive once a strategy is
selected.
Generally, no single technology can remediate an entire site. Several treatment
technologies are usually combined at a single site to form what is known as a
treatment train. SVE can be integrated with groundwater pumping and air
stripping to simultaneously remove contaminants from both groundwater and soil.
The emissions from the SVE system and the air stripper can be treated in a single
air treatment unit. An added benefit is that the air flow through the soil stimulates
or enhances natural biological activity, and some biodegradation of contaminants
occurs. In some cases, air is injected into either the saturated or the unsaturated
zones to facilitate contaminant transport and to promote biological activity.
For the purpose of this document, the technologies are separated into 13 treatment
groups as follows:
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a 1
3-1
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Recycle
and Reuse
Biotreatment
(Ex Situ or In Situ)
Physical/Chemical/
Thermal Treatment
(Ex Situ or In Situ)
(Gas)
^(Water)
Air
Stripping
Activated
Carbon
Activated
Carbon
Phase
Separation
(If Applicable)
m
Vacuum
Extraction
Excavation
Soil
Ground
Surface
Solidification
and
Stabilization
.'Free Product
Groundwater
Table
_Q
Groundwater
Pumping
.Groundwater
3-1 94P-3365 10/26/94
FIGURE 3-1 CLASSIFICATION OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES BY FUNCTION
• Soil, sediment, and sludge:
In situ biological treatment.
In situ physical/chemical treatment.
In situ thermal treatment.
Ex situ biological treatment (assuming excavation).
Ex situ physical/chemical treatment (assuming excavation).
Ex situ thermal treatment (assuming excavation).
Other treatment processes.
• Groundwater, surface water, and leachate:
In situ biological treatment.
In situ physical/chemical treatment.
Ex situ biological treatment (assuming pumping).
Ex situ physical/chemical treatment (assuming pumping).
Other treatment processes.
• Air emissions/off-gas treatment.
MX01XRPT 02281012 009\compgde.3al
3-2
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
These 13 treatment groups correspond to the following 13 subsections (3.1 through
3.13). The discussion of the broad application of each treatment group (e.g., in situ
biological treatment for soil, sediment, and sludge) in this section is followed by
a more detailed discussion of each treatment technology (e.g., bioventing) in that
treatment group, in Section 4. Information on completed projects in these treatment
process areas has been presented in tables extracted from the Innovative Treatment
Technologies Annual Status Report, EPA, 1993, and the Synopses of Federal
Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, FRTR, 1993.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize pertinent information for each of the treatment
technologies presented in Section 4. Information summarized includes the
following:
• Technology Profile number (refers to Section 4).
• Scale status (full scale vs. pilot scale).
• Availability.
• Residuals produced.
• Typically treatment train.
• Contaminants treated.
• System reliability/maintainability.
• Cleanup time.
• Overall cost.
• Capital or O&M-intensive.
Additionally, a brief description of each treatment technology is presented in Table
3-3.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.3al
3-3
10/26/94
-------
Remediatbn Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
TABLE 3-1
DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS USED IN THE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX
Factors and Definitions
Worse
A
Average
idtt
'W
Better
¦
Availability
Number of vendors that can design,
construct, and maintain the technology.
Fewer than 2
vendors
2-4 vendors
More than 4
vendors
Contaminants Treated
No expected
effectiveness
Either limited
effectiveness or
nontarget (e.g.,
VOC treatment
by thermally
enhanced SVE)
This contaminant
is a treatment
target of this
technology
System Reliability/Maintainability
The degree of system reliability and level of
maintenance required when using the
technology.
Low reliability and
high maintenance
Average reliability
and average
maintenance
High reliability
and low
maintenance
Cleanup Time
Time required to clean up a "standard" site
using the technology. The "standard" site is
assumed to be 20,000 tons (18,200 metric
tons) for soils and 1 million gallons
(3,785,000 liters) for groundwater.
More than 3 years for
in situ soil
More than 1 year for
ex situ soil
More than 10 years
for water
1 -3 years
0.5-1 year
3-10 years
Less than 1 year
Less than 0.5
year
Less than 3
years
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
$55.00/metric ton ($50Aon). For ex situ
groundwater technologies, it is assumed
that pumping costs average $0.07/1,000
liters ($0.25/1,000 gallons).
More than $330/
metric ton ($300/ton)
for soils
More than $2.64/
1,000 liters ($10/
1,000 gal.) for
groundwater
More than $11,33/kg
($25/lb) for air
emissions and off-
gases
$110-$330/metric
ton ($100-$300/
ton)
$0.79-$2.64/
1,000 liters
($3.00 -$10.00/
1,000 gallons)
$3.17-$11,33/kg
($7-$25/lb)
Less than
$110/metric ton
($100/ton)
Less than $0.79/
1,000 liters
($3.00/1,000
gallons)
Less than
$3.17/kg ($7/lb)
Source: Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version I (EPA, USAF, 1993).
M1C01\RPT. 02281012 009\compgde 3al
3-4
10/26/94
-------
table 3-2 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX
NOTE: Specific site and contaminant characteristics
may limit the applicability and effectiveness of
any of the technologies and treatments
listed below. This matrix is optimistic in
nature and should always be used in
conjunction with the referenced text sections,
which contain additional information
that can be useful in identifying potentially
applicable technologies.
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
Contaminants
Treated
[3.1 in Situ Biological Treatment I
4.1 Biodegradation
Full
¦
None
No
1 1
¦
¦
A
¦
A
A
%
O&M
4.2 Bioventing
Full
¦
None
No
1 1
1 1
¦
A
'
¦
•
Neither
4.3 White Rot Fungus
Pilot
A
None
No
HI
A
A
A
¦ ¦
A
A
n
O&M
13.2 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment j
4.4 Pneumatic Fracturing (enhancement)
Pilot
A
None
Yes
•
©
®
•
¦
NA
¦
Neither
4.5 Soil Flushing
Pilot
¦
Liquid
No
¦
•
#
m
A
©
A
1
O&M
4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ)
Full
¦
Liquid
No
¦
•
¦
A
A
¦
©
¦
O&M
4.7 Solidification/Stabilization
Full
¦
Solid
No
A
#
A
¦
A
¦
¦
¦
CAP
13*3 In Situ Thermal Treatment I
1 4.8 Thermally Enhanced SVE
Full
e
Liquid
No
•
¦
9
A
A
•
¦
9
Both
1 4.9 Vitrification
Pilot
A
Liquid
No
•
#
¦
A
A
¦
Both
[3.4 Ex Situ Biological Treatment (assuming excavation) j
4.10 Composting
Full
¦
None
No
1
•
¦
A
¦
¦
•
¦
Neither
4.11 Controlled Solid Phase Bio. Treatment
Full
¦
None
No
I
•
¦
A
¦
¦
•
¦
Neither
4.12 Landfarming
Full
¦
None
No
J
•
¦
A
•
¦
A
¦
Neither
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio. Treatment
Full
None
No
#
¦
A
¦
•
®
#
Both
13.5 £x Situ Phvsicai/ChemicaJ Treatment (assuming excavation) 1
4.14 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation
Full
¦
Solid
Yes
©
•
¦
A
¦
¦
#
Neither
4.15 Dehalogenation (BCD)
Full
A
Vapor
No
¦
A
A
A
i
|
i 1
1
4.16 Dehalogenation (Glycolate)
Full
©
Liquid
No
•
¦
A
A
A
A
A
A
Both
4.17 Soil Washing
Full
•
Solid, Liquid
Yes
@
¦
¦
¦
¦
#
¦
•
Both
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction (Ex Situ)
Full
¦
Liquid
No
¦
#
#
A
A
¦
©
Neither
4.19 Solidification/Stabilization
Full
¦
Solid
No
A
•
A
¦
A
¦
¦
¦
CAP
4.20 Solvent Extraction (chemical extraction)
Full
#
Liquid
Yes
•
M
#
A
¦
@
A
A _
Both
13.6 Ex Sim Thermal Treatment (assuming excavation) I
4.21 High Temperature Thermal Desorption
Full
¦
Liquid
Yes
9
m
•
A
A
¦
•
Both
4.22 Hot Gas Decontamination
Pilot
•
None
No
A
A
A
A
¦
¦
¦
¦
Both
4.23 Incineration
Full
¦
Liquid,Solid
No
•
¦
¦
A
¦
9
¦
A
Both
4.24 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Full
¦
Liquid
Yes
¦
#
¦
A
¦
®
¦
Both
4.25 Ooen Burn/Ooen Detonation
Full
¦
Solid
No
A
A
A
A
¦
¦
¦
¦
Both
4.26 Pyrolvsis
Full
A
Liquid,Sol id
No
W
¦
•
A
i
i
A
Both
4.27 Vitrification
Full
Liquid
No
WP
•
•
A
ffi
A
A
Both
13.7 Otfier Treatment I
I 4.28 Excavation, Retrieval, and Off-Site Disposal I NA |
NA I No
H
LI
H I # I #1 # I B I 1 I A I Neither 1
GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
None | No
13.8 In Silu Biological Treatment I
4.30 Co-metabolic Treatment
Pilot
A
None
No
¦
¦
®
A
#
A
O&M
4.31 Nitrate Enhancement
Pilot
A
None
No
¦
I
1
"ft"
•
ffi
A
¦
Neither
4.32 Oxygen Enhancement with Air Sparging
Full
I 1
None
No
B
1
9
¦
Neither
4.33 Oxygen Enhancement with H2O2
Full
¦
None
No
¦
¦
¦
A
#
A
d
O&M
13.9 in Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment 1
4.34 Air Sparging
Full
¦
Vapor
Yes
¦
A
¦
A
A
¦
¦
¦
Neither
4.35 Directional Wells (enhancement)
Full
A
NA
Yes
•
•
•
•
i i
Neither
4.36 Dual Phase Extraction
Full
¦
Liquid,Vapor
Yes
A
¦
A
A
@
O&M
4.37 Free Product Recovery
Full
Liquid
No
¦
¦
A
A
A
¦
¦
Neither
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Flushing/Stripping
Pilot
Liquid,VapOf
Yes
w
¦
¦
A
A
A
¦
©
CAP
4.39 Hydrofracturing (enhancement)
Pilot
1
None
Yes
0
#
•
•
®
¦
¦
Neither
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls
Pilot
A
Solid
No
¦
¦
•
¦
¦
i
A
i
CAP
4.41 Slurry Walls (containment only)
Full
¦
NA
NA
#
•
#
¦
¦
¦
CAP
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction
Pilot
A
Liquid,Vapor
No
¦
#
¦
1
A
¦
®
•
CAP
3.tt> Ex Situ Biological Treatment (assuming pumping)
4.43 Bioreactors | Full | ¦ | Solid |No|^||iHllllAl®| © |NA | ¦ | CAP
3.11 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (assuming pumping)
4,44 Air Stripping
Full
¦
Liouid,Vapor
No
1 1
#
A
A
¦
NA
J
O&M
4.45 Filtration
Full
¦
Solid
Yes
A
[m
•
¦
¦
Neither
4.46 Ion Exchange
Full
¦
Solid
Yes
A
A
A
¦
A
¦
•
¦
Neither
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption
Full
¦
Solid
No
¦
¦
¦
¦
NA
A
O&M
4.48 Precipitation
Full
¦
Solid
Yes
7T
~7T
A
¦
i
•
¦ ,
Neither
4.49 UV Oxidation
Full
¦
None 1
No
¦
¦
¦
A
¦
A
NA
lhJ
Both
13.12 Other Treatment 1
!.1:{ AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT
Full
I ¦
None
NA
1 1
H
1 II I
I1U
*
¦
#
NA
Neither
4.52 High Energy Corona
Pilot
: A
None
1 1
1 1
•
A
A
NA
#
I
4.53 Membrane Separation
Pilot
! A
None
¦
@nr •
A
A
NA
•
1
4.54 Oxidation
Full
None
¦
MM
A
#
¦
NA
¦
Neither
4.55 Vapor Phase Carbon Adsorption
Full
M
Solid
¦
¦ I
1 ¦
HI
¦
¦
NA
¦
Neither
Rating Codes (See Table 3-1)
¦ Better
0 Average
A Worse
I Inadequate Information
NA Not Applicable
94P-5330 10/11/94
3-5
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
TABLE 3-3
DEFINITION OF MATRIX TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Description
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
in situ Bioiogfcat :
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.
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.
White Rot Fungus
White rot fungus has been reported to degrade a wide variety of
organopollutants by using their lignin-degrading or wood-rotting enzyme system.
Two different treatment configurations have been tested for white rot fungus, in
situ and bioreactor.
In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment
Pneumatic Fracturing
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.
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,
which is then extracted and treated.
Soil Vapor Extraction
Vacuum is applied through extraction wells to create a pressure/concentration
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.
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 Thermal Treatment
Thermally Enhanced
Soil Vapor Extraction
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.
Vitrification
Electrodes for applying electricity are used to melt contaminated soils and
sludges, producing a glass and crystalline structure with very low leaching
characteristics.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3al
3-6
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
TABLE 3-3
DEFINITION OF TREATMENT MATRIX TECHNOLOGIES (CONTINUED)
Technology
Description
£x Situ Biological Treatment (assuming excavation}
Composting
Contaminated soil is excavated and mixed with bulking agents and organic
amendments such as wood chips, animal and vegetative wastes, which are
added to enhance the porosity and organic content of the mixture to be
decomposed.
Controlled Solid Phase
Biological Treatment
Excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed in aboveground
enclosures. Processes include prepared treatment beds, biotreatment cells, soil
piles, and composting.
Landfarming
Contaminated soils are applied onto the soil surface and periodically turned over
or tilled into the soil to aerate the waste.
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. Upon completion of the process, the slurry is
dewatered and the treated soil is disposed of.
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment (assuming excavation)
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 oxidizing agents most commonly used are ozone, hydrogen peroxide,
hypochlorites, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide.
Base Catalyzed
Decomposition
Dehalogenation
Contaminated soil is screened, processed with a crusher and pug mill, and
mixed with NaOH and catalysts. The mixture is heated in a rotary reactor to
dehalogenate and partially volatilize the contaminants.
Glycolate
Dehalogenation
An alkaline polyethylene glycol (APEG) reagent is used to dehalogenate
halogenated aromatic compounds in a batch reactor. Potassium polyethylene
glycol (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.
Soil Washing
Contaminants sorbed onto fine soil particles are separated from bulk soil in an
aqueous-based system on the basis of particle size. The wash water may be
augmented with a basic leaching agent, surfactant, pH adjustment, or chelating
agent to help remove organics and heavy metals.
Soil Vapor Extraction
A vacuum is applied to a network of aboveground piping to encourage
volatilization of organics from the excavated media. The process includes a
system for handling off-gases.
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).
Solvent Extraction
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.
MK01\RPT:022810l2.009\compgde.3al
3-7
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
TABLE 3-3
DEFINITION OF MATRIX TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (CONTINUED)
Technology
Description
Ex Thermal Treatment (assuming excavatfon)
High-Temperature
Thermal Desorption
Wastes are heated to 315-538 °C (600-1,000 °F) to volatilize water and organic
contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and
organics to the gas treatment system.
Hot Gas
Decontamination
The process involves raising the temperature of the contaminated equipment or
material for a specified period of time. The gas effluent from the material is
treated in an afterburner system to destroy all volatilized contaminants.
Incineration
High temperatures, 871-1,204 °C (1,600- 2,200 °F), are used to combust (in the
presence of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous wastes.
Low-Temperature
Thermal Desorption
Wastes are heated to 93-315 °C (200-600 °F) to volatilize water and organic
contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and
organics to the gas treatment system.
Open Burn/Open
Detonation (OB/OD)
In OB operations, explosives or munitions are destroyed by self-sustained
combustion, which is ignited by an external source, such as flame, heat, or a
detonatable wave (that does not result in a detonation). In OD operations,
detonatable explosives and munitions are destroyed by a detonation, which is
initiated by the detonation of a disposal charge.
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.
Vitrification
Contaminated soils and sludges are melted at high temperature to form a glass
and crystalline structure with very low leaching characteristics.
Other Treatment
Excavation and Off-
Site Disposal
Contaminated material is removed and transported to permitted off-site treatment
and disposal facilities. Pretreatment may be required.
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.
GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
In Situ Biotogtcai Treatment
Co-Metabolic
Processes
An emerging application involves the injection of water containing dissolved
methane and oxygen into groundwater to enhance methanotrophic biological
degradation.
Nitrate Enhancement
Nitrate is circulated throughout groundwater contamination zones as an
alternative electron acceptor for biological oxidation of organic contaminants by
microbes.
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.
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 biodegradation of organic contaminants by microbes.
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde 3al
3-8
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
TABLE 3-3
DEFINITION OF MATRIX TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (CONTINUED)
Technology
Description
In SituPhysical/^en^calTVeatmenl
Air Sparging
Air is injected into saturated matrices to remove contaminants through
volatilization.
Directional Wells
(enhancement)
Drilling techniques are used to position wells horizontally, or at an angle, in order
to reach contaminants not accessible via direct vertical drilling.
Dual Phase Extraction
A high vacuum system is applied to simultaneously remove liquid and gas from
low permeability or heterogeneous formations.
Free Product Recovery
Undissolved liquid-phase organics are removed from subsurface formations,
either by active methods (e.g., pumping) or a passive collection system.
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.
Hydrofracturing
(enhancement)
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 to improve pumping efficiency.
Passive Treatment
Walls
These barriers allow the passage of water while prohibiting the movement of
contaminants by employing such agents as chelators (ligands selected for their
specificity for a given metal), sorbents, microbes, and others.
Slurry Walls
These subsurface barriers consist of vertically excavated trenches filled with
slurry. The slurry, usually a mixture of bentonite and water, hydraulically shores
the trench to prevent collapse and retards groundwater flow.
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 VOCs 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.
Ex Situ Biotogica* Treafettent (assuming pumping)
Bioreactors
Contaminants in extracted groundwater are put into contact with microorganisms
in attached or suspended growth biological reactors. In suspended systems,
such as activated sludge, contaminated groundwater is circulated in an aeration
basin. In attached systems, such as rotating biological contractors and trickling
filters, microorganisms are established on an inert support matrix.
Ex Situ Physteal/Cbem
leal Treatment {assuming pumping)
Air Stripping
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.
Filtration
Filtration isolates solid particles by running a fluid stream through a porous
medium. The driving force is either gravity or a pressure differential across the
filtration medium.
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange removes ions from the aqueous phase by exchange with
innocuous ions on the exchange medium.
Liquid Phase Carbon
Adsorption
Groundwater is pumped through a series of canisters or columns containing
activated carbon to which dissolved organic contaminants adsorb. Periodic
replacement or regeneration of saturated carbon is required.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.3al
3-9
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
TABLE 3-3
DEFINITION OF MATRIX TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (CONTINUED)
Technology
Description
Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment {assuming pumping) (continued)
Precipitation
This process transforms dissolved contaminants into an insoluble solid,
facilitating the contaminant's subsequent removal from the liquid phase by
sedimentation or filtration. The process usually uses pH adjustment, addition of
a chemical precipitant, and flocculation.
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-gases from the treatment tank.
Other Treatment
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.
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT
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.
High Energy Corona
The HEC process uses high-voltage electricity to destroy VOCs at room
temperature.
Membrane Separation
This organic vapor/air separation technology involves the preferential transport of
organic vapors through a nonporous gas separation membrane (a diffusion
process analogous to putting hot oil on a piece of waxed paper).
Oxidation
Organic contaminants are destroyed in a high temperature 1,000 °C (1,832 °F)
combustor. Trace organics in contaminated air streams are destroyed at lower
temperatures, 450 °C (842 °F), than conventional combustion by passing the
mixture through a catalyst.
Vapor Phase Carbon
Adsorption
Off-gases are pumped through a series of canisters or columns containing
activated carbon to which organic contaminants adsorb. Periodic replacement or
regeneration of saturated carbon is required.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3al
3-10
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
¦ 3.1 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND
SLUDGE
The main advantage of in situ treatment is that it allows soil to be treated without
being excavated and transported, resulting in potentially significant cost savings.
However, in situ treatment generally requires longer time periods, and there is less
certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in soil and
aquifer characteristics and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to
verify.
Bioremediation techniques are destruction techniques directed toward stimulating
the microorganisms to grow and use the contaminants as a food and energy source
by creating a favorable environment for the microorganisms. Generally, this means
providing some combination of oxygen, nutrients, and moisture, and controlling the
temperature and pH. Sometimes, microorganisms adapted for degradation of the
specific contaminants are applied to enhance the process.
Biological processes are typically easily implemented at low cost. Contaminants
can be destroyed, and often little to no residual treatment is required; however, the
process requires more time, and it is difficult to determine whether contaminants
have been destroyed. Biological treatment of PAHs leaves less degradable PAHs
(cPAHs) behind. These higher molecular weight cPAHs are classified as
carcinogens. Also, an increase in chlorine concentration leads to a decrease in
biodegradability. Some compounds, however, may be broken down into more toxic
by-products during the bioremediation process (e.g., TCE to vinyl chloride). In in
situ applications, these by-products may be mobilized to groundwater or contacted
directly if no control techniques are used. This type of treatment scheme requires
soil, aquifer, and contaminant characterization, and may require extracted
groundwater treatment. Groundwater with low level contamination may sometimes
be recirculated through the treatment area to supply water to the treatment area.
Although not all organic compounds are amenable to biodegradation,
bioremediation techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils, sludges,
and groundwater contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides,
wood preservatives, and other organic chemicals. Bioremediation is not applicable
for treatment of inorganic contaminants.
The rate at which microorganisms degrade contaminants is influenced by the
specific contaminants present, oxygen supply, moisture, temperature, pH, nutrient
supply, bioaugmentation, and cometabolism. Treatability studies are typically
conducted to determine the effectiveness of bioremediation in a given situation.
These parameters are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
Oxygen level in the soil is increased by avoiding saturation of the soil with water,
the presence of sandy and loamy soil as opposed to clay soil, avoiding compaction,
avoiding high redox potential, and low concentrations of degradable materials. To
ensure that oxygen is supplied at a rate sufficient to maintain aerobic conditions,
forced air or hydrogen peroxide injection can be used. The use of hydrogen
peroxide is limited because at high concentrations (above 100 ppm, 1,000 ppm with
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3al
3-11
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
proper acclimation), it is toxic to microorganisms. Also, hydrogen peroxide tends
to decompose into water and oxygen rapidly in the presence of some soil
constituents.
Anaerobic conditions may be used to degrade highly chlorinated contaminants,
although at a very slow rate. This can be followed by aerobic treatment to
complete biodegradation of the partially dechlorinated compounds as well as the
other contaminants.
Water serves as the transport medium through which nutrients and organic
constituents pass into the microbial cell and metabolic waste products pass out of
the cell. Too much water can be detrimental, however, because it may inhibit the
passage of oxygen through the soil (unless anaerobic conditions are desired).
Nutrients required for cell growth are nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur,
magnesium, calcium, manganese, iron, zinc, copper, and trace elements. If
nutrients are not available in sufficient amounts, microbial activity will become
limited. Nitrogen and phosphorous are the nutrients most likely to be deficient in
the contaminated environment. These are usually added to the bioremediation
system in a useable form (e.g., as ammonium for nitrogen and as phosphate for
phosphorous). Phosphates can cause soil plugging as a result of their reaction with
minerals, such as iron and calcium, to form stable precipitates that fill the pores in
the soil and aquifer.
pH affects the solubility, and consequently the availability, of many constituents
of soil, which can affect biological activity. Many metals that are potentially toxic
to microorganisms are insoluble at elevated pH; therefore, elevating the pH of the
treatment system can reduce the risk of poisoning the microorganisms.
Temperature affects microbial activity in the environment. The biodegradation
rate will slow with decreasing temperature; thus, in northern climates
bioremediation may be ineffective during part of the year unless it is carried out in
a climate-controlled facility. The microorganisms remain viable at temperatures
below freezing and will resume activity when the temperature rises.
Heating the bioremediation site, such as by use of warm air injection, may speed
up the remediation process. At Eielson AFB, Alaska, passive solar warming by
incubation tanks (ex situ) or the application of heated water below the ground
surface to the contaminated vadose zone is being investigated. Too high a
temperature can be detrimental to some microorganisms, essentially sterilizing the
soil.
Temperature also affects nonbiological losses of contaminants mainly through the
increased volatilization of contaminants at high temperatures. The solubility of
contaminants typically increases with increasing temperature; however, some
hydrocarbons are more soluble at low temperatures than at high temperatures.
Additionally, oxygen solubility decreases with increasing temperature.
MK01\RPT:02281012 009Yompgde.3al
3-12
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
Bioaugmentation involves the use of microbial cultures that have been specially
bred for degradation of specific contaminants or contaminant groups and sometimes
for survival under unusually severe environmental conditions. Sometimes
microorganisms from the remediation site are collected, separately cultured, and
returned to the site as a means of rapidly increasing the microorganism population
at the site. Usually an attempt is made to isolate and accelerate the growth of the
population of natural microorganisms that preferentially feed on the contaminants
at the site. In some situations different microorganisms may be added at different
stages of the remediation process because the contaminants in abundance change
as the degradation proceeds. USAF research, however, has found no evidence that
the use of non-native microorganisms is beneficial in the situations tested.
Cometabolism uses microorganisms growing on one compound to produce an
enzyme that chemically transforms another compound on which they cannot grow.
Treatability or feasibility studies are used to determine whether bioremediation
would be effective in a given situation. The extent of the study can vary depending
on the nature of the contaminants and the characteristics of the site. For sites
contaminated with common petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline and/or other
readily degradable compounds), it is usually sufficient to examine representative
samples for the presence and level of an indigenous population of microbes,
nutrient levels, presence of microbial toxicants, and soil characteristics such as pH,
porosity, and moisture.
Statistical characterization techniques should be used to represent "before" and
"after" situations to verify biological treatment effectiveness.
Available in situ biological treatment technologies include biodegradation,
bioventing, and white rot fungus. These technologies are discussed in Section 4
(Treatment Technology Profiles 4.1 through 4.3). Completed in situ biological
treatment projects for soil, sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-4.
In situ biological treatment technologies are sensitive to certain soil parameters.
For example, the presence of clay or humic materials in soil cause variations in
biological treatment process performance.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3al
3-13
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-4
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Remedial Action
Seymour Recycling, IN
Summer 1990
8/86 to 10/86
1/87 to 2/87
Jeff Gore
(312) 886-6552
In situ soil
bioremediation/
ABB
Environmental
Services
Soil (12 acres
to 10 ft deep,
approximately
43,500 yd3)
54 contaminants
present, including
TCE, TCA, and
carbon tetrachloride
No standards or
criteria for this OU in
ROD
Additives - nitrogen,
phosphorus,
potassium, sulfur as
fertilizer (200,000
gallons of nutrients
added)
Tilling
Capping in place
The soil became
saturated quickly
during this project,
creating surface
pools. The specially
designed tractor got
stuck.
EPA Removal Action
Roseville Drums, CA
2/12/88 to 11/9/88
Brad Shipley
(415) 744-2287
In situ
bioremediation/
EPA removal
contractor
Soil (14 yd3)
Input:
Dichlorobenzene -
4,000 ppm
Phenol - 12,000 ppm
Additives to soil:
manure, water
Tilling
Output:
Dichlorobenzene -
140 ppm
Phenol - 6 ppm
Midnight dump on dirt
road.
EPA Removal Action
Gila River Indian
Reservation, AZ
6/24/85 to 10/23/85
Richard Martin
(414) 744-2288
In situ anaerobic
biological
treatment
(preceded by
chemical
treatment)/
EPA removal
contractor
Soil (3,220
yd')
Toxaphene
Input: 470 ppm
Output: 180 ppm
pH: 8.3 to 9.8
Additives to soil:
sulfuric acid, manure,
sludge
Tilling
Capped in place
The biological
treatment would have
been more successful
if the neutralization
after the chemical
treatment had been
more complete.
Tearing of the plastic
sheets covering the
soils allowed air in
and prevented
anaerobic activity.
MK01\RPT 02281012.009V:ompgde.3al
3-14
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-4
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Removal Action
Gila River, Indian
Reservation, AZ
3/28/85 to 6/24/85
Richard Martin
(414) 744-2288
In situ chemical
treatment
(followed by
anaerobic
bioremediation)/
EPA removal
contractor
Soil (3,200
yd3)
Input:
Toxaphene - 1,470
ppm
Ethyl parathion - 86
ppm
Methyl parathion -
24 ppm
pH: 10.12 to 11.8
Moisture: wet
Additives to soil:
sodium hydroxide,
water
Bioremediation
Output:
Toxaphene - 470
ppm
Ethyl parathion - 56
ppm
Methyl parathion -
3 ppm
Drum storage/
disposal.
Navy Demo
Naval Communication
Station, Scotland
2/85 to 10/85
Deh Bin Chan
(805) 982-4191
Biodecontamina-
tion of fuel oil
spills
Soil
Fuel Oil
In situ;
microorganisms
function best at 20-
35 °C
In situ
In situ
Diesel fuel storage
tanks and piping.
DOE
Savannah River Site,
SC
Terry C. Hazen
(803) 725-5178
Biodegradation
Soil & ground-
water
TCE, PCE declined
to <2 ppb
In situ
Injection of 1-
4% methane/air
into aquifer via
horizontal wells
In situ
Inhibited by copper or
high clay content.
Army Demo
U.S. Army
Construction
Engineering Research
Laboratory, IL
Jean Donnelly
(217) 352-6511
Biodegradation of
lube oil-
contaminated
soils
Soil
Motor oil/lubrication
oil
In situ.
Disk inoculant &
nutrients into
contaminated
soil. Cover soil
w/ventilated
plastic sheeting.
In situ
Applicable to spills on
air strips, roads, and
parking lots.
Air Force Demo Kelly
AFB, TX & Eglin AFB,
FL
Joe Laird
(402) 221-7772
In situ
Biodegradation
Soil & ground-
water
Hydrocarbons -
fuels, fuel oils, &
non-halogenated
solvents
In situ - soil
conditioning and
electron acceptor
addition.
Nutrients
introduced into
aquifer through
irrigation wells
Pumping wells
remove excess
fluids
Site characterization
necessary to
determine soil/
chemical
compatibility.
MKO1NRPT :02281012.009\compgde.3a 1
3-15
10/26/94
-------
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
DOE Demo
Savannah River
Site, SC
Nate Ellis
(803) 952-4846
Brian Loony
(803) 752-5181
Vegetation-
enhanced
biodegradation
Soil
TCE, PCE & PAHs
at 10,000 ppb
In situ
Root-associated
micro-organisms
degrade
contaminants.
In situ
Pine trees are most
effective. Depth
limited to about 20 ft.
$50,000/acre.
Air Force Tech
Demo - Program was
launched in 5/92
Lt. Col Ross N Miller
(210) 536-4331
Bioventing
initiative
Soil
Diesel, jet fuel, fuel
oil, or petroleum
hydrocarbons
Aerobic degradation
by direct injection or
extraction of air
Temporary
shutdown of air
injection in vent
well to measure
in situ rate of
oxygen res-
piration in the
monitoring wells.
In situ technique for
non- and semi-
volatile
hydrocarbons
Degradation up to
5,000 ppm/year.
Apparatus is relatively
nonintrusive.
DOI Tech Demo
(USGS)
Galloway Township, NJ
1988
Herbert T Buxton
(609) 771-3900
Vapor extraction
and bioventing
design
Soil & ground-
water
Gasoline
AIRFLOW - an
adaptation of the
USGS groundwater
flow simulator
MOD FLOW to
perform airflow
simulations to
predict well
locations and
pumping rates
None
Success dependent
on ability to
characterize air
permeability.
Sources' Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopsis of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT :022B1012.009scompgde 3al
3-16
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
¦ 3.2 IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT,
AND SLUDGE
The main advantage of in situ treatment is that it allows soil to be treated without
being excavated and transported, resulting in potentially significant cost savings.
However, in situ treatment generally requires longer time periods, and there is less
certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in soil and
aquifer characteristics and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to
verify.
Physical/chemical treatment uses the physical properties of the contaminants or the
contaminated medium to destroy (i.e., chemically convert), separate, or contain the
contamination. Soil vapor extraction uses the contaminant's volatility to separate
it from the soil. Soil flushing uses the contaminant's solubility in liquid to
physically separate it from the soil. Surfactants may be added to the flushing
solution to chemically increase the solubility of a contaminant. Solidification/
stabilization also uses both physical and chemical means. Solidification
encapsulates the contaminant, while stabilization physically alters or binds with the
contaminant. Pneumatic fracturing is an enhanced technique that physically alters
the contaminated media's permeability by injecting pressurized air to develop
cracks in consolidated materials.
Physical/chemical treatment is typically cost effective and can be completed in
short time periods (in comparison with biological treatment). Equipment is readily
available and is not engineering or energy-intensive. Treatment residuals from
separation techniques will require treatment or disposal, which will add to the total
project costs and may require permits. Extraction fluids from soil flushing will
increase the mobility of the contaminants, so provisions must be made for
subsurface recovery.
Available in situ physical/chemical treatment technologies include soil vapor
extraction, soil flushing, solidification/stabilization, and pneumatic fracturing.
These treatment technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment Technology
Profiles 4.4 through 4.7). Completed in situ physical/chemical treatment projects
for soil, sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-5.
Certain in situ physical/chemical treatment technologies are sensitive to certain soil
parameters. For example, the presence of clay or humic materials in soil causes
variations in horizontal and vertical hydraulic parameters, which, in turn, cause
variations in physical/chemical process performance. Stabilization/solidification
technologies are less sensitive to soil parameters than other physical/chemical
treatment technologies.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3al
3-17
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-5
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Remedial Action
Sacramento AD
Tank 2 OU, CA
11/91 to 4/93
Marlin Mezquita
(415) 744-2393
George Siller
(916) 557-7418
Dan Oburn
(916) 388-4344
In situ SVE/
Terra Vac, Inc.,
Costa Mesa, CA
Soil (150 yd3)
Initial concentration:
MEK15 ppm
Ethylbenzene 2,100
ppm
PCE 39 ppm
Total xylene 11,000
ppm
Cleanup goal:
1.2 ppm MEK
6 ppm Ethylbenzene
23 ppm total xylene
0.2 ppm PCE
24 hours/day
None
Extracted vapor
treated with gas
phase carbon
adsorption.
Entrained
(suspended) water
treatment by the
existing on-site UV-
hydrogen peroxide
treatment plant
EPA Remedial Action
Fair Child
Semiconductor
San Jose, CA
1989 to 6/90
Helen McKinley
(510) 744-2236
Steve Hill
(510) 286-0433
SVE with air
flushing
Soil
(2,000,000
yd3)
Initial concentration:
TCA 670,000 ppb
1,1-DCE 6,400 ppb
Freon 113 7,200 ppb
Final concentrations
unknown
Target was 1 ppm
In situ
Excavation
dewatering of
soil where
leaking UST was
discovered
Carbon canister, air
stripping for pump
and treat
Will re-evaluate the
remediation in 1994.
EPA Remedial Action
Hollingsworth
Solderless, FL
1/91 to 7/91
John Zimmerman
(404) 347-2643
SVE/EBASCO
Soil (60 yd3,
down to 7 feet
deep)
TCE, vinyl chloride
Target: total VOCs 1
ppm
In situ
None required
Air emissions
vented to
atmosphere
Design specifications
critical.
MKOIXRPT 02281012.00QN=ompgde.3al
3-18
10/26/94
-------
uuMt-LtTED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Technology/
Media
Contaminants
Operating
Materials
Residuals
Site Name/Contact
Vendor
Treated
Treated
Parameters
Handling
Management
Comments
EPA Remedial Action
SVE (attempted
Soil (35,000
Initial soil
60 - 160 ff/min of air
No materials
Spent carbon was
Initial estimate of
Verona Wellfield
nitrogen
yd3, Vz acre to
concentration:
handling;
regenerated (and
7,000 lb of VOCs
(Thomas Solvent/
sparging)/
18 ft deep)
TCE 550,000 ppb
Started >4,400 lb/day
required
eventually
product too low.
Raymond Road), Ml
Terra Vac, Inc.
PCE 1.8 million ppb
removed
installing
incinerated)
Treatment equipment
Costa Mesa, CA
Toluene 730,000
extraction wells
undersized. Needed
3/88 to 5/92
ppb
Shut off 6 lb/day
better quantification
Xylene 500,000 ppb
removed
of VOCs in soils to
Margaret Guerriero
design appropriate
(312) 886-0399
Criteria in all post
Total removed:
size.
remedial soil
65,000 lb
samples:
Plan for enhancing
TCE 60 ppb
system to deal with
PCE 10 ppb
saturated soils and
Toluene 15,000 ppb
free product.
Total xylenes 6,000
ppb
EPA Remedial Action
SVE/Woodward
Soil (100 ft
TCE
250 to 300 ft3/ min.
Required
Vapor phase
Sampling indicated
Rocky Mountain
Clyde
radius down to
of air
installing
carbon adsorption
the presence of TCE
Arsenal
Denver, CO
60 ft;
Initial extracted gas
extraction wells
mainly in the soil gas
(OU 18) Interim
approximately
concentration 60
Total removed 64 lb
samples and not the
Response, CO
70,000 yd3)
ppm
soil samples.
6/91 to 12/91
Final extracted gas
concentration 2 to 3
Stacey Eriksen
ppm
(303) 294-1083
MK01\RPT:02281012.005Ni;ompgde.3al
3-19
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-5
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Removal Action
Hinson Chemical, SC
12/88 to 3/92
Fred Stroud
(404) 347-3136
SVE/OH
Materials
Atlanta, GA
Soil (60,000
yd3, up to 50 ft
deep)
Benzene, TCE,
PCE, DCA, MEK
At completion:
<10 ppm Total
VOCs (in all
samples); average
<1 ppm Total VOCs
In situ; continuous
operation (except for
occasional shut
downs to allow soil
gas to reach
equilibrium in the
pore spaces)
No cap needed
Air emissions
captured on vapor
phase carbon
EPA Removal Action
CSX McCormick
Derailment Site, SC
Steve Spurlin
(404) 347-3931
SVE with air
flushing/MWRI
Soil (200,000
yd3)
BTEX 130,000-
gallon spill
Used a system of
extraction and
injection wells. 1,000
separate PVC wells.
Injection wells 7 to 8
feet deep. Extraction
wells 2 to 3 feet
deep.
Brought in clay
to cover the
area, to prevent
air from
infiltrating
Wastewater sent
off-site for
treatment. Vapors
captured and put
through a knock out
pot and incinerated.
System was
successful in
decreasing concen-
tration to cleanup
goals. Had difficul-
ties because
fluctuation of shallow
groundwater
decreased the effi-
ciency, less vapors
and more water.
^-20
10/26/94
-------
uu.flfLt itu riiuJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Luke AFB, AZ
11/91 to 5/92
Jerome Stolinsky
(402) 221-7170
Dan McCafferty
(406) 523-1150
SVE with air
flushing and
thermal oxidation
of off-gases/
Jacobs
Engineering
Soil (35,000
yd3)
VOCs (2-hexanone,
2-butanone, 4-
methyl 2 pentanone,
BTEX)
In situ down to 100 ft
Removed
approximately
11,000 lb of
vapors and
4,000 lb of
condensate
Off gas vapors
were thermally
oxidized
TPH were present but
were too heavy to
volatilize. Would
recommend
combining SVE with
in situ bioremediation
to treat contaminants
that could not be
extracted with the
SVE.
EPA Demo
Douglassville, PA
10/87
Paul R dePercin
(513) 569-7797
Ray Funderburk
(903) 545-2002
Chemical
treatment &
immobilization
Soil & sludge
Organic compounds,
heavy metals, oil, &
grease
In/ex situ. Sediments
- underwater. Batch
process at 120
tons/hour
Blending with
cement or fly
ash, water, and
"Chloranan"
Treated material
hardens to a
concrete-like mass
Reagent formulation
can be adjusted to
specific contaminant.
DOE Demo
Savannah River Site,
SC
7/90 to 12/90
Brian Loony
(803) 725-5181
in situ air
stripping with
horizontal wells
Soil & ground-
water
TCE & PCE initial
concentrations: 5000
ppm; stabilized to
200-300 ppm
In situ (horizontal
wells)
One well below
water table
injects air while
shallower well
draws vacuum.
Extraction averaged
110 lb of VOCs/day
Works best in sandy
soils.
MKO 1\RPT:02281012.009scompgde.3a 1
3-21
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-5
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Air Force & EPA
Demo
McClellan AFB, CA
2/93
Joseph Danko
(503) 752-4271
In situ SVE
Vadose zone
soils only
VOCs: TCE, DCE,
vinyl chloride,
toluene, xylene, &
chlorobenzenes in
the 100-1,000 ppm
range
Vacuum required to
pull contaminants to
the surface
In situ
Contaminants are
treated with a
catalytic oxidation
unit prior to
atmospheric
release
Ineffective for
removal of
semivolatiles and
metals. Does not
work in saturated
zone.
Air Force Demo
Hill AFB, UT
12/88 to 10/89
Capt. E.G. Marchand
(904) 283-6023
In situ soil venting
Unsaturated
soils
Fuels and TCE.
Fuel residual was
<100 ppm
Venting rates varied
from 250 to 1,000
ftVmin
May be
necessary to
seal surface to
air
Transfer-of-media
method, so the
waste is not
destroyed
Soil venting may
provide oxygen for
biodegradation.
Army Demo
Twin Cities AAP, MN
1986 to 1993
Eric Hangeland
(410) 671-2054
In situ soil venting
Unsaturated
soil
VOCs. Removed
400 lb of VOCs/day
initially, down to 15
lb/day at end
System had 40 vents
and 4 20-hp blowers.
Vents averaged 30 ft
in depth
May be
necessary to
seal surface to
air
Off gas stream
Noise complaints
required evening and
weekend shutdown.
EPA Demo
Superfund Sites
Puerto Rico &
Massachusetts
1987 to 1988
Mary Stinson
(908) 321-6683
James Malot
(809) 723-9171
In situ vacuum
extraction
Vadose or
unsaturated
zone soils
VOCs - gas, fuel,
1,300 lb VOC
removed in 56 days,
average reduction
90% (clay) to 92%
(sand)
4 extraction wells,
ideal permeability 10"
4 to 10'® cm/s,
Henry's law >0.0001
Typically 20-
2,500 lb/day of
contaminant
Emission control
required
Dual extraction of
groundwater and
vapor possible.
uvni\DDTmifi1fin fiftQW»TnnoHA
3-22
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Army Demo
Luke AFB, AZ
1992
Jerome Stolinsky
(402) 221-7170
SVE
Soil
BTEX (16, 183, 84,
336 ppm) and TRPH
(1,300 ppm)
In situ - 2 60-ft
extraction wells at
100 scfm
In situ
Carbon air
treatment, residual
condensate
generated at 8 gpd
and incinerated
Also can be used to
enhance
biodegradation.
EPA Demo
Buchanan, Ml
1992 to 1993
Kim Lisa Kreiton
(513) 569-7328
Gale Billings
(505) 345-1116
Subsurface
volatilization &
ventilation system
(SVVS)
Soil
Organics, fuels
02, CO2, & microbes
monitored
In situ
VOC emissions
treated in biofilter if
required
Network of injection
and extraction wells
to enhanced
biodegradation.
DOE Demo
LLNL, CA
Mike Gill
(415) 744-2383
Vacuum-induced
soil venting
Unsaturated
Soil
Gasoline - 99.8%
destruction, 100 gal.
free product
removed
In situ - each well
has 5 vents above
water table, including
2 above 20-25
inches Hg, 60
ftVminute
Includes
manually
adjusted
skimming pipe
Thermal oxidation
of vapors - 99.8%
destruction
Simultaneous vapor/
groundwater
extraction.
Army Demo
Sacramento Army
Depot, CA
1992 to 1993
Ron Oburn
(916) 388-4344
Bob Cox (Terra Vac)
Vapor extraction
system
Soil - 200 yd3
Ethylbenzene,
butanone, xylene,
PCE
In situ
To depth of 18 ft
Vapor treated by
thermal burner or
catalytic oxidation.
Entrained water
treated off-site
Also can be used to
enhance
biodegradation.
MK01\RPT:02281012.005'\compgde.3al
3-23
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-5
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
NJDEPE-ECRA Site,
NJ
1992
Uwe Frank
(908) 321-6626
John Liskowitz
(908) 739-6444
Pneumatic
Fracturing
Extraction** & Hot
Gas Injection
(HGI)
Soil & rock
VOCs, SVOCs
In situ - hot gas @
200 °F
Injection of
compressed gas
to fracture soil,
HGI to strip
contaminants
Off-gas flow rate
increased,
concentration
remained constant
HGI results
inconclusive, PCE
increased air flow
rate 600%.
EPA SITE Demo
Hialeah, FL
1988-90
Mary Stinson
(908) 321-6683
In situ solidifica-
tion and stabiliza-
tion
Wet or dry
soil, sludge,
sediment
PCBs, inorganic and
organic cpds
Slurry injection with
auger rotating at 15
rpm
Mixing, binding
agent is modified
for each waste
PCB immobilization
is likely but not
confirmed
Estimated costs
$111/ton using a
commercial 4 auger
unit.
EPA Demo
Oak Brook, IL &
Dayton, OH
1991
Naomi Barkley
(513) 569-7854
Larry Murdock
(513) 569-7897
Hydraulic
fracturing
Soil
Rate of
bioremediation
increased 75% for
BTEX, 77% for TPH
in situ
Water infiltration
into vapor
extraction area
should be
prevented
Fracture growth is
measured through
the deformation of
the ground surface
Sand-laden slurry
pumped into soil to
increase permeability.
Sources Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT'02281012.009Vompgde.3al
3-24
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
¦ 3.3 IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
The main advantage of in situ treatment is that it allows soil to be treated without
being excavated and transported, resulting in significant cost savings. However, in
situ treatment generally requires longer time periods, and there is less certainty
about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in soil and aquifer
characteristics and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to verify.
Thermal treatment offers quick cleanup times, but it is generally the most costly
treatment group. Cost is driven by energy and equipment costs and is both capital
and O&M-intensive.
Thermally enhanced SVE is an extraction technique that uses temperature to
increase the volatility of the contaminants in the soils. Thermally enhanced SVE
may require off-gas and/or residual liquid treatment. In situ vitrification uses heat
to melt soil, destroying some organic compounds and encapsulating inorganics.
Available in situ thermal treatment technologies include thermally enhanced SVE
and vitrification. These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment
Technology Profiles 4.8 and 4.9). Completed in situ thermal treatment projects for
soil, sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-6.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009V»mpgde.3al
3-25
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-6
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
DOE Demo
LLNL, CA
1993
Roger D. Aines, Robin
L. Newmark
(415) 423-7184 or 3644
Dynamic
underground
stripping
Concentrated
underground
plumes
Organics
In situ injection
pressure controlled
to increase with
depth
Combination of
steam injection
and 3-phase soil
heating
Organics volatilized
and extracted in a
vapor stream
Real time monitoring
is used for process
control.
EPA Demo Geosafe
Test Site, WA; Hanford
Nuclear Reservation,
WA, ORNL, TN; INEL,
ID
1993
Teri Richardson
(513) 569-7949
James Hanson
(206) 822-4000
In situ vitrification
Soil & sludge
Organics &
inorganics
1,600-2,000°C
Transmission
voltages-12.5 or
13.8 kV
In situ
Off-gas treatment
system removes
pollutants (by
quenching,
scrubbing, heating,
filtration)
Organics destroyed;
inorganics
incorporated in
resultant mass.
DOE Demo Hanford
Reservation, WA;
ORNL, TN
1993
Leo E Thompson
(509) 376-5150
James E Hansen
(509) 375-0710
In situ vitrification
Soils
Organics,
inorganics, &
radionuclides
Joule heating
through electrodes
In situ
Organics
destroyed;
inorganics
incorporated in
resultant mass
Lower potential risk -
contaminants are not
brought to the
surface.
$300-$450/ton
Mv:m\RPT n*n«ioi? 009\cw»°de.3al
3-26
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Air Force Demo
Volk Field ANGB, Wl
1985, 1989, 1993
Paul F. Carpenter
(904) 523-6022
Radio frequency
(RF) thermal soil
decontamination
Soils
Solvents & volatile
& semivolatile
petroleum hydro-
carbons
94-99%
decontamination in
12 days
Power source is
45 kW electric-
magnetic generator
Heating,
volatilization
Off gas captured at
surface or through
electrodes
Advantages:
1. No excavation
required.
2. Equipment is
portable.
Limitations:
1. High moisture
requires excessive
power.
2. Large buried
metal objects void
method.
DOE Demo Hanford
Reservation, WA
10/93
W.O. Heath,
T.M. Bergsman
(509) 376-0554 or 3638
Six-phase soil
heating
Soils
VOCs
In situ
Resistive heating
6 electrodes
placed around
central extraction
vent
Off-gases must be
treated before
release
Sufficient soil
moisture needed near
electrodes to avoid
excessive drying.
DOE Demo
Sandia National
Laboratory, NM
Fall 1993
Darrel Bandy
(505) 845-6100
James M. Phelan
(505) 845-98S2
Thermally
enhanced vapor
extraction
Soils
VOCs
In situ
Voltages: 200-1,600V
Temp: 100 °C
Resistive heating
& radio
frequency
heating
Off gas must be
treated
$15 to $20/ton
depending on soil
moisture and
treatment
temperature.
EPA Demo
Annex Terminal, San
Pedro, CA
1989
Paul DePercin
(513) 569-7797
In situ steam &
air stripping
Soil
VOCs and SVOCs.
Up to 55% SVOC
removal; >85% VOC
removal
Treatment rate of 3
yd3/hr. Steam
450 °F 450 psig.
Transportable
treatment unit
includes off-gas
shroud & auger
injection/extraction
vve/te.
Can also be
used to treat soil
w/injection of
reactive
chemicals
Water and air
treated with carbon.
Treated water
recycled in process.
No downward
migration of
contaminants during
soil treatment.
MK01-
-------
TABLE 3-6
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
LeMoore NAS, CA
1988
Paul DePercin
(513) 569-7797
In situ steam-
enhanced
extraction (SEE)
Soils above
and below the
water table
VOCs and SVOCs;
recovery 10x greater
than w/ vacuum
extraction alone
Steam injected into
soil
Gasoline
recovery reduces
treatment
required at
surface
Recovered
contaminants are
either condensed or
treated with
extracted air or
liquid
Can be adapted to
prevent downward
movement of
DNAPLs.
EPA Demo
San Fernando Valley
Groundwater Basin
Superfund Site, CA
1990
Norma Lewis
(513) 569-7665
Integrated Vapor
Extraction &
Steam Vacuum
Stripping
Soil & Ground-
water
Organics -
up to 2.2 ppm TCE
up to 11 ppm PCE
Up to 99.99%
removal
In situ
Groundwater 1,200
gpm
Soil gas 300 ft/min
Groundwater
steam stripping
tower and SVE
of soil
Carbon should be
regenerated every
8 hours
Has been in
operation over 3
years.
EPA Demo Huntington
Beach, CA
1993
Paul DePercin
(513) 569-7797
Steam Enhanced
Recovery
Process (SERP)
Soils
Diesel fuel spill
In situ
Steam injection
NAPLs separated
by gravity water
treatment
Only low
concentrations of
DNAPLs can be
treated.
EPA Demo
Pennsylvania Power
and Light, PA
1993
Eugene Harris
(513) 569-7862
Contained
Recovery of Oily
Wastes (CROW™)
Soil
Oily wastes -
NAPLs,
coal tar, PCP
creosote, petroleum
hydrocarbons
In situ
Steam/hot water
displacement
Oily waste brought
to surface
Biodegradation may
follow this process.
Air Force & EPA
Demo
Kelly AFB, TX
Reinaldo Matias
(513) 569-7149
HRUBOUT®
Process
Soils
VOCs & SVOCs
In situ. Operates
24 hours/day.
Hydrocarbons
destroyed at
1,500 °F
Heated air
injected below
contamination.
Vapors to thermal
oxider
Ex situ application
also possible.
Sources Innovative Treatment Technologies- Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993)
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01VRPT.02281012 00SNcom"°de.3al
3-28
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
¦ 3.4 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND
SLUDGE
The main advantage of ex situ treatment is that it generally requires shorter time
periods than in situ treatment, and there is more certainty about the uniformity of
treatment because of the ability to homogenize, screen, and continuously mix the
soil. However, ex situ treatment requires excavation of soils, leading to increased
costs and engineering for equipment, possible permitting, and material handling/
worker exposure considerations.
Bioremediation techniques are destruction or transformation techniques directed
toward stimulating the microorganisms to grow and use the contaminants as a food
and energy source by creating a favorable environmental for the microorganisms.
Generally, this means providing some combination of oxygen, nutrients, and
moisture, and controlling the temperature and pH. Sometimes, microorganisms
adapted for degradation of the specific contaminants are applied to enhance the
process.
Biological processes are typically easily implemented at low cost. Contaminants
can be destroyed or transformed, and little to no residual treatment is required;
however, the process requires more time and difficult to determine whether
contaminants have been destroyed. Biological treatment of PAHs leaves less
degradable PAHs (cPAHs) behind. These higher molecular cPAHs are classified
as carcinogens. Also, an increase in chlorine concentration leads to a decrease in
biodegradability. Some compounds, however, may be broken down into more toxic
by-products during the bioremediation process (e.g., TCE to vinyl chloride). An
advantage over the in situ applications is that in ex situ applications, these by-
products are contained in the treatment unit until nonhazardous end-products are
produced.
Although not all organic compounds are amenable to biodegradation,
bioremediation techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils, sludges,
and groundwater contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides,
wood preservatives, and other organic chemicals. Bioremediation is not generally
applicable for treatment of inorganic contaminants.
The rate at which microorganisms degrade contaminants is influenced by the
specific contaminants present; oxygen supply; moisture; nutrient supply; pH;
temperature; the availability of the contaminant to the microorganism (clay soils
can adsorb contaminants making them unavailable to the microorganisms); the
concentration of the contaminants (high concentrations may be toxic to the
microorganism); the presence of substances toxic to the microorganism, e.g.,
mercury; or inhibitors to the metabolism of the contaminant. These parameters are
discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
Oxygen level in ex situ applications is easier to control than in in situ applications
and is typically maintained by mechanical tilling, venting, or sparging.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.3al
3-29
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Anaerobic conditions may be used to degrade highly chlorinated contaminants.
This can be followed by aerobic treatment to complete biodegradation of the
partially dechlorinated compounds as well as the other contaminants.
Water serves as the transport medium through which nutrients and organic
constituents pass into the microbial cell and metabolic waste products pass out of
the cell. Moisture levels in the range of 20% to 80% generally allow suitable
biodegradation in soils.
Nutrients required for cell growth are nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur,
magnesium, calcium, manganese, iron, zinc, and copper. If nutrients are not
available in sufficient amounts, microbial activity will stop. Nitrogen and
phosphorous are the nutrients most likely to be deficient in the contaminated
environment and thus are usually added to the bioremediation system in a useable
form (e.g., as ammonium for nitrogen and as phosphate for phosphorous).
pH affects the solubility, and consequently the availability, of many constituents
of soil, which can affect biological activity. Many metals that are potentially toxic
to microorganisms are insoluble at elevated pH; therefore, elevating the pH of the
treatment system can reduce the risk of poisoning the microorganisms.
Temperature affects microbial activity in the treatment unit. The biodegradation
rate will slow with decreasing temperature; thus, in northern climates
bioremediation may be ineffective during part of the year unless it is carried out in
a climate-controlled facility. The microorganisms remain viable at temperatures
below freezing and will resume activity when the temperature rises. Too high a
temperature can be detrimental to some microorganisms, essentially sterilizing the
soil. Compost piles require periodic tilling to release self-generated heat.
Temperature also affects nonbiological losses of contaminants mainly through the
volatilization of contaminants at high temperatures. The solubility of contaminants
typically increases with increasing temperature; however, some hydrocarbons are
more soluble at low temperatures than at high temperatures. Additionally, oxygen
solubility decreases with increasing temperature. Temperature is more easily
controlled ex situ than in situ.
Bioaugmentation involves the use of cultures that have been specially bred for
degradation of a variety of contaminants and sometimes for survival under
unusually severe environmental conditions. Sometimes microorganisms from the
remediation site are collected, separately cultured, and returned to the site as a
means of rapidly increasing the microorganism population at the site. Usually an
attempt is made to isolate and accelerate the growth of the population of natural
microorganisms that preferentially feed on the contaminants at the site. In some
situations different microorganisms may be added at different stages of the
remediation process because the contaminants in abundance change as the
degradation proceeds. USAF research, however, has found no evidence that the use
of non-native microorganisms is beneficial in the situations tested.
MK01XRPT 02281012 009\compgde.3al
3-30
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
Cometabolism, in which microorganisms growing on one compound produce an
enzyme that chemically transforms another compound on which they cannot grow,
has been observed to be useful. In particular, microorganisms that degrade methane
(methanotrophic bacteria) have been found to produce enzymes that can initiate the
oxidation of a variety of carbon compounds.
Treatability or feasibility studies are used to determine whether bioremediation
would be effective in a given situation. The extent of the study can vary depending
on the nature of the contaminants and the characteristics of the site. For sites
contaminated with common petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline and/or other
readily degradable compounds), it is usually sufficient to examine representative
samples for the presence and level of an indigenous population of microbes,
nutrient levels, presence of microbial toxicants, and soil characteristics such as pH,
porosity, and moisture.
Available ex situ biological treatment technologies include composting, controlled
solid phase biological treatment, landfarming, and slurry phase biological treatment.
These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment Technology Profiles 4.10
through 4.13). Completed ex situ biological treatment projects for soil, sediment,
and sludge are shown in Table 3-7.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.3al
3-31
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-7
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
Technology/
Media
Contaminants
Operating
Materials
Residuals
Site Name/Contact
Vendor
Treated
Treated
Parameters
Handling
Management
Comments
EPA Remedial Action
Land treatment/
Soil/pond
Criteria:
Retention time - 3 to
Excavation
Treated material
Further information
Brown Wood
Remediation
sediment
100 ppm total
6 months
Screening
vegetated with
on this project is
Preserving, FL
Technologies,
(7,500 yd3)
carcinogenic PAHs
Tilling
grass (no cap)
available from the
Seattle, WA
as sampled on 8
Additives - water and
Remedial Action
10/88 to 12/91
subplots on each lift
nutrients
Close Out Report.
The vendor, RETEC,
Martha Berry
Input:
is expected to
(404) 347-2643
800 to 2,000 ppm
prepare a paper.
total creosote
contaminants
Output:
10 to 80 ppm total
carcinogenic
indicators
EPA Removal Action
Land treatment
Soil (1,500
Input:
Additives: water
Excavation
Leachate collection
This treatment used
Poly-Carb, Inc., NV
and soil
yd3)
and treatment with
both bioremediation
washing/EPA
Phenol - 1,020 ppm
Placement in
granular activated
and soil flushing in
7/22/87 to 8/16/88
removal
double-lined pit
carbon
one step.
contractor
o-creosol - 100 ppm
Bob Mandel
Irrigation
(415) 744-2290
m- and p-creosol -
409 ppm
Tilling
Output'
Phenol - 1 ppm
o-creosol - 1 ppm
m- and p-creosol -
0.92 ppm
EPA Removal Action
Land treatment/
Soil (16,000
Criteria:
Additives:
Tilling
Output:
Wood preserving site.
Scott Lumber, MO
RETEC
yd3)
Chapel Hill, NC
500 ppm - Total
Water
160 ppm Total PAH
8/87 to Fall 1991
PAH
Phosphates
12 ppm
Bruce Morrison
14 ppm -
Benzo(a)pyrene
(913) 551-5014
Benzo(a)pyrene
Mwm\i?PT rmainn nngw»mr de.3al
3-32
10/26/94
-------
uulV-'LtiED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Matagorda Island Af
Range, TX
10/92 to 2/28/93
Vic Heister
(918) 669-7222
Ex situ
bioremediation;
solid phase. All
constructed on
abandoned
runway. Bacteria
added and
mechanically
mixed.
Soil (500 yd3)
PAHs
TPH - 3,400 ppm
BTEX - 41 3 ppm
Criteria:
Texas Water
Commission
standards
100 ppm for TPH
30 ppm for BTEX
Batch process
retention time: 3
months
9-inch layers treated
Ambient temperature
bacteria added to
waste
Excavated
approximately 40
by 60 ft area.
Constructed on
poly barrier and
clean sand base.
Did some mixing.
Backfilled the soil
into the excavation.
Island is now a
wildlife refuge: has an
endangered species.
Navy
Marine Corps
Mountain Warfare
Center
Bridgeport, CA
8/89 to 11/89
Diane Soderland
(907) 753-3425
Bill Major (DOD)
(805) 982-1808
Bioremediation
(ex situ); heap
pile bioreactor
Soil (7,000
yd3)
PAHs (petroleum
hydrocarbons,
diesel), metals (lead)
Temperature,
pressure, and
moisture content are
monitored.
Excavation
After 20 months of
operation, the TPH
levels were 120
ppm
Army
Ft. Ord Marina,
Fritzche
AAF Fire Drill Area, CA
Winter 1991
Gail Youngblood
(408) 242-8017
Land treatment
Soil (4,000
yd3)
TCE, MEK, TPH,
BTEX
Initial concentration
>1,000 ppm
End concentration
<200 ppm
Ex situ
None
USACE/DOD-
financed Installation
Restoration Program.
Army Demo
Louisiana Army
Ammunition Plant, LA
12/87 to 4/88
Peter Marks
(610) 701-3039
Capt. Kevin Keehan
(410) 671-2054
Aerated static pile
composting
Lagoon
sediments
TNT, HMX, RDX
Initial
concentrations:
17000 mg/kg
Thermophilic (55 °C)
and mesophilic
(35 °C). Add bulking
agents: horse
manure, alfalfa,
straw, fertilizer, horse
feed
Mixing
Final
concentrations:
meso=376 mg/kg,
therm =74 mg/kg. %
reductions:
TNT=99.6/99.9
RDX=94.8/99.1
HMX=86.9/95.6
MK01\RPT:Q2281012.009^ompgde.3al
3-33
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-7
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Army Demo
Badger Army
Ammunition Plant, Wl
4/88 to 1/89
Peter Marks
(610) 701-3039
Capt. Kevin Keehan
(410) 671-2054
Aerated static pile
composting
Soil &
sediments
Nitrocellulose
reduction > 99.5%
Thermophilic (55°C)
and mesophilic
(35°C)
Mixing
Runoff collection
from composting
pads
Army Demo
Umatilla Depot Activity,
OR
Harry Craig
(503) 326-3689
Aerobic
composting
optimization
Soil &
sediment
(4,800 yd3)
TNT, HMX, RDX
Maintain pH,
temperature,
moisture content,
oxygen content
Mix with bulking
agents & organic
amendments
Runoff collection
from composting
pads
Costs 50% less than
incineration
Navy Demo
Naval Weapons Station
Seal Beach, CA
Steve McDonald
(310) 594-7273
Carmen Lebron
(805) 982-1615
Bioremediation of
aromatic
hydrocarbons -
unleaded
gasoline spill
Soil &
groundwater
1 ppb to 4 ppm of
BTEX
3 80-litre bioreactors
at 72 LVday
Site soil placed
in reactor -
groundwater
pumped through
Effluent cleaned to
drinking water
standards for BTEX
EPA SITE Demo
Ronald Lewis
(513) 569-7856
Merv Cooper
(206) 624-9349
Liquids & solids
biological
treatment (LST)
Soils,
sediments, &
sludge
Biodegradable
organics
Suspended solids up
to 20%
Mixing &
aeration
Managed by carbon
adsorption &
biofiltration
Mobile LST pilot
system.
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA SITE Demo
EPA Test & Evaluation
Facility, OH
5/91 to 9/91
Ronald Lewis
(513) 569-7856
Bioslurry reactor
Soils,
sediments, &
sludge
97% reduction in
PAHs
Degradation
enhanced by control
of pH, temperature,
oxygen, nutrients,
and enriched
indigenous
microorganisms
Excavation,
mixing, additives,
sparging
Can be used for
creosote and
petroleum wastes.
Navy Demo
Camp Pendleton, CA
1991
William Sancet
(619) 725-3868
Enzyme
catalyzed,
accelerated
biodegradation
Soil
TPH reduced from
29,000 ppm to 88
ppm (well below 100
ppm goal)
50 yd3/month
capacity
Soil tilled with a
garden tractor
after each
product
application and
once each week
No residual waste
produced. No
future maintenance
required
$351/cubic yard.
Army Demo
Joiiet Army Ammunition
Plant, IL
1992
Kevin Keehan
(410) 671-2054
Soil slurry-
sequencing batch
bioreactor
Soil
TNT, RDX, HMX
TNT reduced from
1,300 to 10 ppm
In tank or reactor
Excavation and
pre-screening (to
remove large
debris)
Slurry removed &
dewatered; process
water recycled
Best suited for small
sites where
incineration is cost-
prohibitive.
EPA Demo
Santa Maria, CA
5/92
Annette Gatchett
(513) 569-7697
Biogenesis*"
soil washing
process
Soil
Organics - oils,
fuels, PCBs, PAHs
85-99% removal of
hydrocarbons with
initial concentration
up to 15,000 ppm
30-65 tons/hour
Agitation in unit
with surfactant
Wash water - oil/
water separation,
filter and bioreactor
Self-contained mobile
soil washing unit.
Sources: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.00SN:ompgde.3al
3-35
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
U 3.5 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT,
AND SLUDGE
The main advantage of ex situ treatment is that it generally requires shorter time
periods than in situ treatment, and there is more certainty about the uniformity of
treatment because of the ability to homogenize, screen, and continuously mix the
soil. Ex situ treatment, however, requires excavation of soils, leading to increased
costs and engineering for equipment, possible permitting, and material handling.
Physical/chemical treatment uses the physical properties of the contaminants or the
contaminated medium to destroy (i.e, chemically convert), separate, or contain the
contamination. Chemical reduction/oxidation and dehalogenation (BCD or
glycolate) are destruction technologies. Soil washing, SVE, and solvent extraction
are separation techniques, and S/S is an immobilization technique.
Physical/chemical treatment is typically cost effective and can be completed in
short time periods (in comparison with biological treatment). Equipment is readily
available and is not engineering or energy-intensive. Treatment residuals from
separation techniques will require treatment or disposal, which will add to the total
project costs and may require permits.
Available ex situ physical/chemical treatment technologies include chemical
reduction/oxidation, dehalogenation (BCD or glycolate), soil washing, SVE, S/S,
and solvent extraction. These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment
Technology Profiles 4.14 through 4.20). Completed ex situ physical/chemical
treatment projects for soil, sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-8.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3al
3-36
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
Technology/
Media
Contaminants
Operating
Materials
Residuals
Site Name/Contact
Vendor
Treated
Treated
Parameters
Handling
Management
Comments
EPA Remedial Action
SVE/Terra Vac,
Soil
Criteria:
Ambient conditions
Ex situ
Discharge of soil
For further
Upjohn Manufacturing
Inc., Costa Mesa,
vapors through 30-
information on this
Company, PR
CA
Initial concentrations
ft stack
application, see the
Applications Analysis
1/83 to 3/88
- 70 ppm (carbon
Report for the Terra
tetrachloride to air)
Vac In Situ Vacuum
Alison Hess
Extraction System
(212) 264-6040
Final concentrations
(E PA/540/A5-89/003).
- nondetect (<0.002
ppm)
EPA Remedial Action
Chemical
Soil (13,000
Input:
Soil - Batch process
(1) Used sodium
Soil - solidified and
This treatment
Palmetto Wood
treatment and soil
yd3)
metaphosphate
replaced on-site
system is unique in
Preserving, SC
washing;
Arsenic - 2 to 6,200
Treatment for
to lower pH to
the method of
reduction of
ppm
aqueous waste from
2.0 and wash the
Wastewater -
generating ferrous ion
9/28/88 to 2/8/89
hexavalent
soil washing - 25
chromium from
permitted discharge
for the reducing step.
chromium to
Chromium - 4 to
gpm
the soil, (2)
to the sewer line
The wastestream
McKenzie Mallary
trivalent
6,200 ppm
separated the
passed through an
(404) 347-7791
chromium/En-site
pH - 2 to 9
soil and solution,
Sludge - off-site
electrolytic cell
(ERCS
Output:
(3) solidified the
disposal
containing
contractor)
soils, and (4)
consumable steel
Atlanta, GA
Arsenic - less than 1
used the ferrous
electrodes where the
ppm
ion method of
ferrous ions were
reduction to
electrically introduced
Chromium - 627
precipitate the
into the wastestream.
ppm
chromium from
solution in
trivalent form
MK01\RPT-02281012.00SNx>mpgde.3al
3-37
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-8
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Remedial Action
Wide Beach
Development, NY
9/90 to 9/91
Herb King
(212) 264-1129
APEG
dechlorination/
Soil Tech
Denver, CO
Soil (40,000
yd3)
Criteria'
PCB - <10 ppm (1
composite sample/
day)
Input:
10 to 100 ppm PCB
Output:
2 ppm PCB
Continuous process
8 tons/hour
200 to 580 °C (450
to 1,100 °F)
Ambient pH and
moisture
Additives - Alkaline
polyethylene glycol
(APEG)
Excavation
Screening
Staging
Treated soil -
disposed of on-site
If on-site disposal is
planned, perform
tests of the treated
material appropriate
to intended use.
For further
information on this
dechlorination project,
see the
Demonstration Test
Report produced by
EPA, Region II.
EPA Removal Action
Traband Warehouse
PCBs, OK
2/90 to 9/90
Pat Hammack
(214) 655-2270
Solvent
extraction/Terra-
Clean
Solids
PCBs
Initial: 7,500 ppm
Solvent addition
Excavation
Treated solid;
concentrated
contaminant
Storage management
complex.
EPA Removal Action
PBM Enterprises, Ml
3/25/85 to 10/28/85
Ross Powers
(312) 378-7661
Neutralization
with hypochlorite
process/Mid-
American
Environmental
Service
Riverdale, IL
Film chips
(464 tons or
1,280 yd3)
Cyanide
Input: 200 ppm
Output: 20 ppm
Time: 2 to 3 hours
Additives: sodium
hydroxide
Agitation
Rinse water, runoff,
and waste
hypochlorite -
treated off-site
Treated chips -
landfilled (Subtitle
D)
Silver recovery
facility.
EPA Removal Action
Stanford Pesticide Site
No. 1, AZ
3/20/87 to 11/4/87
Dan Shane
(415) 744-2286
Chemical
treatment -
alkaline
hydrolysis/EPA
removal
contractor
Soil (200 yd3)
Methyl parathion
Input: 24.2 ppm
Output: 0.05 ppm
pH: 9.0
Moisture: wet
Additives to soil:
soda ash, water,
activated carbon
Tilling
(in situ, 3 times
per week)
Treated soil
Pesticide
manufacturing use/
storage.
Farm equipment
storage.
MKOINRPT 02281012.009\compgde.3a 1
3-38
10/26/94
-------
uuMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Technology/
Media
Contaminants
Operating
Materials
Residuals
Site Name/Contact
Vendor
Treated
Treated
Parameters
Handling
Management
Comments
EPA Removal Action
Solvent
Sludge (3,448
Input:
Continuous operation
Excavation
Oil - used as fuel
The oil recovered
General Refining
extraction/
tons)
Screening
for kiln
from the extractions
Company, QA
Resource
PCB - 5.0 ppm
Time: 2 hours
Neutralization
process could not be
Conservation
pH: 10
Size Reduction
Water - treated,
sold because of an
8/86 to 10/86
Technology
Lead - 10,000 ppm
Temp: 20 °C
Mixing
discharged off-site
elevated metals
and 1/87 to 2/87
Company
Rate: 27 tons/day
content. The solvent
Bellevue, WA
Output:
Moisture content:
Solids - solidified
could not be
Shane Hitchcock
60%
and disposed of
recovered because of
(404) 347-3136
PCB - insignificant
Lead - concentrated
in solids
Additives:
Sodium hydroxide
Triethyl amine
on-site
leaks in system seals.
The unit required a
relatively uniform
material so materials
handling of the
sludges proved
difficult in the
beginning of the
project. The lead-
bearing solids
produced by the dryer
also required special
handling. Finally,
deterrents in the
sludge hindered oil/
water separation.
MK01\RPT:02281012.00?«ompgde.3al
3-39
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-8
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Technology/
Media
Contaminants
Operating
Materials
Residuals
Site Name/Contact
Vendor
Treated
Treated
Parameters
Handling
Management
Comments
EPA Removal Action
Vacuum
Soil (2,000
VOCs
Vacuum pressure
Surface
Residual soils and
$2M total costs.
Basket Creek Surface
extraction of soil
yd3)
TCE, PCE, MEK,
monitored. 1,300-
impoundment
rejects from
Permeability in situ
Impoundment, GA
pile with
MIBK, BTEX
CFM/manifold.
used for disposal
screening met
soil was not good at
horizontal wells
High 33% VOCs
3 manifolds
of waste
TCLP limits and
first. Excavation and
11/92 to 2/93
(ex situ)/OHM
Average 1 to 5%
6 to 7 wells/manifold
solvents. Built
were disposed of
ex situ treatment
an enclosure
as nonhazardous in
improved permea-
Don Rigger
Criteria:
over the site.
RCRA Subtitle D
bility. Shouldn't rule
(404) 347-3931
TCE - 0.5 mg/L
Excavated the
landfill. Incinerated
out if can't be done in
TCLP
soil and
70,000 lb of VOCs.
situ.
PCE - 0.7 mg/L
screened it with
TCLP
a power screen.
All VOCs met TCLP
Stacked on PVC
limits
extraction wells.
Recovered
VOCs with duct
work and fan.
Vapors
incinerated.
EPA Removal Action
Chemical
Solid (100 lb)
Mercury initial
Added salt to
Mercury
Residual salts
Precious metal
Zhiegner Refining
treatment/ENSCO
concentration >10%
precipitate the
pre treatment
containing less
recovery site.
Company
mercury
mercury
precipitated
than 260 ppm
mercury salts
mercury were
2/93 to 6/93
Final concentration
into mercury
incinerated off-site.
of mercury in
sulfide so that
Dilshad Perera
recyclable
the mercury can
(908) 321-4356
precipitate was
be recovered
>80%.
and recycled
Less than 260 ppm
if mercury in tank
nonrecycled salt.
- 1
3-40
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Removal Action
Vtneland Chemical
Company, NJ
12/92
Don Graham
(908) 321-4345
Chemical
treatment/ENSCO
Solid (100 lb)
Mercury initial
concentration >10%
mercury
Final concentration
of mercury in
recyclable
precipitate was
>80%.
Less than 260 ppm
of mercury in
nonrecycled salt.
Added salt to
precipitate the
mercury
Mercury
pretreatment
precipitated
mercury salts
into mercury
sulfide so that
the mercury can
be recovered
and recycled
Residual salts
containing less
than 260 ppm
mercury were
incinerated off-site
First known
Superfund site where
this process has been
applied.
EPA Removal Action
Signo Trading
International, Inc.,NY
10/20/87 to 10/21/87
Charles Fitzsimmons
(201) 321-6608
KPEG
dechlorination/
Galson
Remediation,
Syracuse, NY
Sludge (15
gallons)
Dioxin
Input: 135 ppm
Output: 1 ppb
Temperature: 150 °C
Time: Overnight
Excavation
Incineration of
residuals (without
dioxin contami-
nation) at
treatment, storage,
and disposal facility
Waste management
facility warehouse.
EPA Removal Action
Avtex Fibers, VA
4/90 to 8/91
Vincent Zenone
(215) 597-3038
Chemical
treatment
(oxidation using
NaCIO)/OH
Materials,
Findlay, OH
(ERCS
contractor)
Sludge/Water
from storage
unit (2 million
gallons)
Carbon disulfide
Criteria: <10 ppm -
carbon disulfide in
the effluent
Input: 50 to 200,000
ppm carbon disulfide
Output: <10 ppm -
carbon disulfide
Batch operation
average retention
time - 1 hour
pH - 10
Additives: sodium
hypochloride
The retention time
and reagent feed
rates increased with
increasing
concentration of
sludge in the
contaminated water.
Pumping
Salts from the
reaction were
removed with
flocculation and
clarification at
existing treatment
plant, pH
adjustment
Carbon disulfide is
unstable and will be
found with other
contaminants in
aqueous
wastestream.
For additional
information on this
project, see the
Removal Close Out
Report available from
EPA Region III or OH
Materials.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009«ompgde.3al
3-41
10/2(V94
-------
TABLE 3-8
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Army
Saginaw Bay Confined
Disposal Facility, Ml
10/91 to 6/4/92
Jim Galloway
(313) 226-6760
Soil washing;
water with
flocculent and
surfactant as an
additive/Bermann
USA, Stafford
Springs, CT
Sediment (150
yd3)
PCBS
30 yd3 of sediment
treated per day
Dredging
Screening
Size reduction
Residuals were left
at the facility
Wastewater
discharged to
confined disposal
facility
Forced cold-weather
shutdown is a
limitation.
EPA & Navy Demo
EPA Lab, NJ
Deh Bin Chan
(805) 982-4191
Chemical
detoxification of
chlorinated
aromatic
compounds
Soil
Dioxin, herbicides,
chlorinated aromatic
compounds. 99.9%
decontamination
achieved
Soil heated to 100-
150 °C if dehydrated
Excavation,
Water content
assessed.
Products are not
toxic nor
biodegradable
Incineration cheaper
in some cases.
EPA Demo
Douglassville, PA
10/87
Paul R DePercin
(513) 569-7797
Chemical
treatment &
immobilization
Soil,
sediments, &
sludge
Organic compounds,
heavy metals, oil, &
grease
In/ex situ.
Sediments -
underwater. Batch
process at 120
tons/hour
Blending
Hardened concrete-
like mass
Application Analysis
Report, EPA/540/A5-
89/001; Technology
Evaluation Report,
EPA/540/5-89/00/a
DOE Demo
INEL, ID
1992
Robert Montgomery
(208) 525-3937
Physical
separation/
chemical
extraction
Sediments
Radionuclides &
metals
Contaminants
removed from
leachate by ion
exchange, reverse
osmosis,
precipitation, or
evaporation
Screening,
segregation,
leaching with hot
nitric acid
Solidification,
calcining leachate,
or storage
Difficulty removing
Cesium-137.
Cost: $1,000/yd3
EPA Demo
Midwest, California,
Australia
1987
S Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
SAREX chemical
fixation process
Soil & sludge
Low level metals &
organics
Catalyzed by lime
and proprietary
reagents
Blending with
reagent, mixing,
heating, curing
Vapors are
scrubbed and
processed before
release
Water content is not
an obstacle although
it may cause
steaming.
MK01\RPT:02281012 OOSNcompgde 3a 1
3-42
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
Grand Calumet River
Site, IL
1992
Mark Meckes
(513) 569-7348
BEST™ solvent
extraction
process
Oily sludges &
soil
PCBs, PAHs,
pesticides
pH >10
Hydrophobic and
hydrophilic
cycles by
controlling
temperature
Separation into oil,
water, and clean
solids
Solvent flammable -
must be sealed from
air.
EPA Demo
Santa Maria, CA
5/92
Annette Gatchett
(513) 569-7697
Biogenesis8*
soil washing
process
Soil
Organics - oil, fuel,
PCBs, PAHs
99% hydrocarbon
removal with initial
concentration up to
15,000 ppm
30-65 tons/hour
Agitated in unit
with surfactant
Washwater - oil/
water separator,
filter, and
bioreactor
Self-contained mobile
soil washing unit.
DOE Demo
Clemson Technical
Center, SC
Doug Mackensie
(208) 526-6265
Enhanced Soil
Washing with
Soil*EXSM
Soil & debris
Heavy metals,
radionuclides, and
organics
Particles smaller than
2 inches
Screening,
dissolution,
surfactant
addition
Clean soil & debris,
recycle water, off-
gas from organics
& concentrated
contaminants
Selective extraction/
dissolution.
EPA Demo
1992
Michelle Simon
(513) 569-7469
RENEU™
extraction
technology
Soil
Organics up to
325,000 ppm
Operated under
vacuum - 5-45 tons/
hour
Sand, clay, and
soil up to 3 in.
diameter
Clean soil
backfilled
Proprietary,
azeotropic fluid to
extract contaminant
from soil
EPA & DOE Demo
Montclair, West Orange
& Glen Ridge Sites, NJ
Mike Eagle
(202) 233-9376
Soil washer for
radioactive soil
Soils
Radionuclides -
56% volume
reduction
40 pCu/g to 11
pCu/g
1 ton/hour
Attrition mills and
hydro-classifiers
Filter press and off-
site disposal
Plant is being
optimized for further
demonstration.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a 1
3-43
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-8
COMPLETED PROJECTS; EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Army Demo
Sacramento Army
Depot, CA
1992
Marlin Mezquita
(415) 744-2393
Soil washing
Oxidation
lagoon soils
(12,000 yd3)
Cd, Ni, Pb, Cu
Soil treated with
wash reagent to
extract contaminants
Wash liquid
neutralized with
caustic to
precipitate
metals
Precipitated metals
landfilled
Contaminated to
depth of 18 inches.
DOE Demo
Fernald Site, OH
Kimberly Nonfer
(513) 648-6556
Soil washing
Soil
Uranium
Soil and leachant
attrition scrubbed for
1 minute to solubilize
uranium
Attrition
scrubbing,
gravity
separation,
screening
Wastewater
treatment required
Commercially
available.
EPA Demo
Coleman-Evans Site,
FL
Norma Lewis
(513) 569-7665
Soil washing/
catalytic ozone
oxidation
Soil, sludge, &
groundwater
Organics ¦
up to 20,000 ppm
Soil washing
enhanced by
ultrasound
Soil particles
greater than 1
inch are crushed
Oxidation of
wastewater, carbon
for off-gas
Excalibur Technology.
EPA Demo
Alaska Battery
Enterprises Superfund
Site, AK
1992
Hugh Masters
(908) 321-6678
Soil washing
plant
Soil
Heavy metals,
radionuclides
Rate dependent on
percentage of soil
fines - up to 20 tons/
hour
Deagglomera-
tion, density
separation, and
material sizing
Concentrated
contaminant
containerized, liquid
recirculated clean
soil
Process modified to
accommodate
unexpectedly high
levels of lead and
battery casings.
EPA Demo
MacGillis & Gibbs
Superfund Site, MN
1989
Mary Stinson
(908) 321-6683
Soil washing
system
Soil
Removal:
89% PCP
88% PAHs
500 lb/hour
24 hour/day
Debris
prescreening,
soil mixed with
water, separation
(operations
similar to mineral
processing
operations)
Wastewater treated
in fixed film
bioreactor
Patented water based
volume reduction
process.
MimnDDT.nnciniO AAtt^mr ^al
3-44
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
New Bedford Harbor,
MA & O'Connor Site,
ME
Solvent extraction
Soil, sludge,
and
wastewater
PCB 300-2,500 ppm
90-98% removal
Tray tower for water;
extractor/decantors
for solids and semi-
solids
Phase-
separation with
solvent, solvent
recovery
Heavy metal
fixation, then
Class I landfill
Applicable to VOCs,
SVOCs, PAHs,
PCBs, PCP, and
dioxins.
3/91 to 3/92
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863
EPA Demo
Pensacola, FL
11/92
Volume reduction
unit
Soils
Organics - creosote
PCP, pesticides,
PAHs, VOCs,
SVOCs, metals
Up to 100 lb/hour
Particle
separation and
solubilization
Concentrated
contaminant
Pilot-scale mobile soil
washing unit.
Teri Richardson
(513) 569-7949
EPA Demo
Iron Mountain Mine
Site, CA
1990 to 1991
S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
Precipitation,
microfiltration &
sludge dewatering
Sludge &
teachable soil
Heavy metals, non-
volatile organics &
solvents, oil, grease,
pesticides, bacteria,
solids
Up to 5% solids, 30
lb/hour of solids, 10
gpm of wastewater
Heavy metal
precipitation,
filtration,
concentrated
stream
dewatering
Filter cakes
40-60% solids,
water recycled
EXXFLOW and
EXXPRESS fabric
microfilter and filter
press.
EPA SITE Demo
Portable Equip.
Salvage Co.
Clackamas, OR
9/89
Chemfix process -
solidification/
stabilization
Soil & Sludge
Solid waste
Uses soluble silicates
and silicate-settling
agents
Blend waste with
dry alumina,
calcium, and
silica-based
reagents
Produces friable
solids. Cu and Pb
TCLP extracts were
reduced 94-99%
Applicable to
electroplating wastes,
electric arc furnace
dust.
Edwin Barth
(513) 569-7669
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3al
3-45
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-8
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Navy Demo
Naval Const. Battalion
Ctr.
Port Hueneme, CA
2/91 to 2/92
Solidification of
Spent blasting
Blasting
wastes
containing
abrasives, grit,
sands
Lead, copper, and
heavy metals
About 2 months
required for design
Mixing of asphalt
and other
aggregates
<1% inert debris
(wood and metal
scrap) is produced
Estimated cost:
$85/ton of waste.
Jeff Heath
(805) 982-1657
EPA SITE Demo
Robins AFB Macon,
GA
Solidification/
stabilization
Soil, sludge,
liquid
Organics and
inorganics
Uses proprietary
bonding agents
Large debris
must be
prescreened
Non-leaching high-
strength monolith
Process can be
applied in situ.
8/91
Terry Lyons
(513) 569-7589
EPA SITE Demo
Selma Pressure
Treating
Selma, CA
11/90
Solidification/
stabilization with
silicate
compounds
Groundwater,
soil, sludge
Organics and
inorganics
Silicate compounds
Pretreatment
separation of
coarse and fine
materials
PCP leachate
concentrations
reduced up to 96%.
As, Cr, and Cu
immobilized.
Applied to a wide
variety of hazardous
soils, sludges, and
wastewaters.
Edward Bates
(513) 569-7774
Imperial Oil
Co./Champion
Chemical Co.
Superfund Site
Morganville, NJ
Soliditech
solidification/
stabilization
process
Soil, sludge
Inorganics and
organics, metals,
ore, grease
Add water, Urrichem
(proprietary
additives), and
pozzolanic material
(fly ash or kiln dust)
Screen waste
and introduce
into batch mixer
Heavy metals in
untreated waste
were immobilized.
VOCs not detected
in treated waste.
pH of untreated waste
was 3.4 to 7.9.
Treated waste had
pH 11.7 to 12.
12/88
S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Small Arms Range,
Naval Air Station
Maypoit, FL
1990
Barbara Nelson
(805) 982-1668
Stabilization of
small arms range
Soil
Lead and other
heavy metals
Soil is mixed with
sodium silicate,
Portland cement, and
water
Screen soil to
remove bullets
(to be recycled)
and other debris
(landfill)
TCLP reduced from
720 to 0.9 ppm Pb,
7 to 0.2 ppm Cu,
4.1 to 0.2 ppm Zn
Treated soil is
returned to its original
location. Estimated
cost $490/ton.
Sources: innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01NRPT :02281012.009scompgde.3al
3-47
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
m 3.6 EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND
SLUDGE
The main advantage of ex situ treatments is that they generally require shorter time
periods, and there is more certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of
the ability to screen, homogenize, and continuously mix the soils. Ex situ
processes, however, require excavation of soils leading to increased costs and
engineering for equipment, possible permitting, and materials handling worker
safety issues.
Thermal treatments offer quick cleanup times but are typically the most costly
treatment group. This difference, however, is less in ex situ applications than in
in situ applications. Cost is driven by energy and equipment costs and is both
capital and O&M-intensive.
Thermal processes use heat to increase the volatility (separation); burn, decompose,
or detonate (destruction); or melt (immobilization) the contaminants. Separation
technologies include thermal desorption and hot gas decontamination. Destruction
technologies include incineration, open bum/open detonation, and pyrolysis.
Vitrification immobilizes inorganics and destroys some organics.
Separation technologies will have an off-gas stream requiring treatment.
Destruction techniques typically have a solid residue (ash) and possibly a liquid
residue (from the air pollution control equipment) that will require treatment or
disposal. If the treatment is conducted on-site, the ash may be suitable for use as
clean fill, or may be placed in an on-site monofill. If the material is shipped off-
site for treatment, it will typically be disposed of in a landfill that may require
pretreatment prior to disposal. It should be noted that for separation and
destruction techniques, the residual that requires treatment or disposal is a much
smaller volume than the original. Vitrification processes usually produce a slag of
decreased volume compared to untreated soil because they drive off moisture and
eliminate air spaces. A possible exception can occur if large quantities of fluxing
agent are required to reduce the melting point of the contaminated soil.
Available ex situ thermal treatment technologies include high temperature thermal
desorption, hot gas decontamination, incineration, low temperature thermal
desorption, open burning/open detonation, pyrolysis, and vitrification. These
technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment Technology Profiles 4.21
through 4.27). Completed ex situ thermal treatment projects for soil, sediment, and
sludge are shown in Table 3-9.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.3a2
3-48
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Remedial Action
McKin, ME
7/86 to 2/87
Sheila Eckman
(617) 573-5784
Thermal
desorption/
Canonie Env,
Services Corp.,
Porter, IN
Soil (11,500
yd3 to a depth
of 10 ft)
VOCs Criteria:
0.1 ppm TCE
Input:
Up to 1,000 ppm
TCE
Output: 0.1 ppm
Continuous operation
6 to 8 minutes'
retention time
300 °F
Excavation
Soils - solidified
and disposed of
on-site
Vapors - air carbon
capture
Industrial landfill.
EPA Remedial Action
Otteti & Goss, NH
6/89 to 9/89
Stephen Calder
(617) 573-9626
Thermal
desorption/
Canonie
Engineering
Soil (6,000
yd3)
TCE, PCE, DCA,
benzene
Criteria:
1 ppm - Total VOCs
and
<100 ppm - Each
individual VOC
Output: <1 ppm -
Total VOCs
Batch process
Excavation
Screening
Carbon from air
pollution control
unit regenerated
off-site
For more information
on this project, see
the close out report
available from EPA
Region I.
EPA Remedial Action
Outboard Marina/
Waukegan Harbor (OU
3), IL
1/92 to 7/92
Cindy Nolan
(312) 886-0400
Thermal
desorption/
Canonie
Environmental
Services
Porter, IN
Soil/sediments
(16,000 yd3')
PCBs
Initial 20,000 -
100,000 ppm 99%
removal
Continuous with a
retention time of 15
minutes and
throughput of 8 to 10
tons/hour
Temperature
1,100 °F
Moisture content
20% or less soda
ash added to waste
to meet DRE of
99.9999%
Excavation
Mixing
Dewatering
Cleaned soil and
sediment stored in
on-site containment
cells. Wastewater
discharged to
POTW.
Reduced PCB levels
much more than
expected.
MKO1 \RPT:02281012.00!Acompgde.3a2
3-49
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-9
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Technology/
Media
Contaminants
Operating
Materials
Residuals
Site Name/Contact
Vendor
Treated
Treated
Parameters
Handling
Management
Comments
EPA Remedial Action
Thermal soil
Soil (11,300
Criteria:
Continuous operation
Excavation
Residuals from air
The waste feed size
Cannon Engineering/
aeration/Canonie
tons)
Screening
pollution control -
limitation for the
MA
Environmental
0.1 ppm - TCE,
40 tons/hour
Mixing
disposed of off-site
equipment, 1.875
Services Corp.,
DCE, PCE
Dewatering
inches, was an
5/90 to 10/90
Porter, IN
450 to 500 °F
Wastewater -
important
0.2 - Toluene,
treated on-site
consideration.
Richard Goehlert
Xylene
Moisture content
(617) 573-5742
before treatment - 5
More information is in
0.5 - Vinyl chloride
to 25% moisture
the RA report
available from EPA
SVOCs - 3 ppm
Additives - dry soil
Region I.
(total)
(to reduce moisture
content)
Input:
500 to 3,000 ppm
(total VOCs)
Output:
<0.25 ppm (total
VOCs)
EPA Removal Action
Low temperature
Soil 3,000
Petroleum
16 hours/day
Excavation
Treated soil was
Total cost
Drexler-RAMCOR, WA
thermal
tons
hydrocarbons,
12 to 15 tons/hour
Screening
backfilled into the
approximately
desorption
(approximately
polynuclear
Removed
excavated areas
$250,000.
7/92 to 8/92
treatment.
3,000 yd3)
aromatics, BTEX
Operating
material greater
on-site. Soil that
Thermally treat
(benzene, toluene,
temperature up to
than 2 inches.
did not meet the
Chris Field
3,000 tons of soil
ethylbenzene,
700 °F
Rockwashing
targets was
(206) 553-1674
on-site up to
xylene)
station for
retreated.
700 °F/Four
particles greater
Wastewater was
Seasons
200-ppm TPH was
than 2 inches.
treated on-site
target. Initial TPH
Steam-cleaned
through carbon
was 70,000 ppm
large rocks.
filters.
(high) to 15,000 -
20,000 ppm
(average)
MK01\RPT'02281012.009Na>mpgde.3a2
3-50
JO/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
Wide Beach
Development
Superfund Site, NY &
Outboard Marine Corp.,
IL
Anaerobic thermal
processor
Soil & refinery
wastes
PCBs (99%
reduction),
chlorinated
pesticides, & VOCs
Thermal zones:
preheat, retort,
combustion, &
cooling
Mixing occurs in
rotary kiln
Vaporized
contaminant stream
through cyclone,
baghouse,
scrubber, and
carbon.
No dioxins or furans
created.
1991 & 1992
Paul dePercin
(513) 569-7797
EPA Demo
Babcock & Wilcox, OH
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863
Cyclone Furnace
Soil
Organics & metals
820 °F
Swirling action
mixes air & fuel
Final product
resembles volcanic
glass (similar to
ISV's product)
$528/ton of soil.
EPA Demo
Niagara-Mohawk
Power Co., NY
6/91
High-Temperature
Thermal
Processor
Solids &
sludges
VOCs, SVOCs, &
PCBs
850 °F, 150 °F for
safe handling
Rotation of
screws moves
material
Controlled by an
indirect condensing
system & activated
carbon beds
Not suitable for heavy
metals. Prescreening
necessary to obtain
particles <1 inch.
Ronald Lewis
(513) 569-7856
EPA Demo
Pesticide Site, AZ
9/92
Paul dePercin
(513) 569-7797
Chetan Trivedi
(219) 926-7169
Low-Temperature
Thermal Aeration
(LTTA®)
Soils,
sediments &
sludges
Removal
efficiencies: >99%-
VOCs @ 5,400
mg/kg
>92%-pesticides
@ 1,500 mg/kg
67-96% SVOCs @
6.5 mg/kg
800 °F
Dry, pug mill,
cyclonic
separators,
baghouse,
venturi scrubber,
GAC.
Treated exhaust air
and liquid with
GAC.
Does not generate
dioxins or furans.
Efficient performance
with no down time.
Army Demo
Letterkenny Army
Depot, PA
8/85 to 9/85
Low-Temperature
Thermal Stripping
Soil
VOCs (chlorinated
solvents & fuels);
99.9% destruction
Up to 650 °F
Churning - Holo-
Flite screw
thermal
processor
Gaseous effluent
with concentrated
contaminants.
Nitrogen may be
used if contaminants
are explosive.
Capt. Kevin Keehan
(410) 671-2054
Mike Cosmos
(610) 701-7423
MK0mPT:02281012.00SN=ompgde.3a2
3-51
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-9
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA & Army Demo
Tinker AFB, OK
& Anderson
Development Co.
Superfund Site, Ml
1989
Low-Temperature
Thermal
Treatment (LT3®)
Soil
VOCs & SVOCs;
diesel fuel, gasoline
& PAHs
Area required: 5,000
ft2. Soil heated to
400-500 °F.
Treatment capacity
was 18,000-20,000
lb/hour.
Covered troughs
that house inter-
meshed screw
conveyors.
Organic phases are
disposed of off-site
All cleanup goals met
when soil above
215 °F.
Paul dePercin
(513) 569-7797
Capt Kevin Keehan
(410) 671-2054
Mike Cosmos
(610) 701-7423
DOE Demo
Energy Technology
Engineering Center,
ORNL, LANL
Lawnie H. Taylor
(301) 903-8119
Molten salt
oxidation process
Liquids &
solids
Radionuclides
organics, oils,
graphite, chemical
warfare agents, &
explosives
800-1,000 °C
Typical residence
time is 2 seconds
Waste passed
through a
sparged bed of
turbulent molten
salt.
Off-gas filtered
before release
$500/ton.
EPA & DOE Demo
Component
Development &
Integration Facility, MT
1991
Plasma ARC
vitrification
Soils & sludge
Organics & metals
2,800-3,000 °F in
plasma centrifugal
furnace
Fed into sealed
centrifuge &
heated to 1,800
°F. Organics are
evaporated.
Organic laden
vapor stream and
metals laden
vitrified mass.
$750-$1,900/ton.
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863
R C. Eschenback
(707) 462-6522
DOI Demo
Albany Metallurgy
Research Center, OR
Paul C Turner
(503) 967-5863
Vitrification
furnace
Solids
Residues from
Incineration of
municipal waste
Electric arc furnace
with water-cooled
roof & sidewalls
Dedicated feeder
and off-gas
treatment.
Glassy slag and
metallic phase
Slag is 3 times more
dense; metallic phase
is 10 times more
dense.
MKO I\RPT:02281012.00!Aconipgde.3a2
3-52
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU THERMAL TREATMENT FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
ReSolve, Inc.,
Superfund Site, MA
1992
Paul dePercin
(513) 569-7797
Carl Palmer
(803) 646-2413
X*TRAX™
thermal
desorption
Soil
VOCs, SVOCs, &
PCBs
Average PCB
removal efficiency:
99%
Heated rotary dryer,
750-950 °F
Separation
technique
Negligible organic
air emission. No
PCBs detected in
vent gases
Metal concentrations
and soil physical
properties not altered
by system.
EPA SITE Demo
Ogden Rsc Facility,
San Diego, CA
3/89
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
Circulating bed
combustor
Soil, sludge,
liquids, solids,
slurry
Halogenated and
non-halogenated
organic compounds,
PCBs, dioxins
Combustion through
hot cyclone (1,450 -
1,600 °F)
Mixing wastes
Limestone added
to neutralize acid
gases
Below permit levels
DRE value >99.99.
EPA SITE Demo
Monaca, PA
1991
Donald Oberacker
(513) 569-7510
HRD flame
reactor
Wastes, soil,
solids, fluid,
dust, slag,
sludge with
high metal
content
Metals (zinc, lead,
arsenic, silver, gold)
and organics
Combustion in 02
enriched chamber at
2,000 "C
Requires dry
wastes
Nonleachable slag,
disposal in landfill
Secondary lead
smelter soda slag
processed for $932/
ton. 1 to 3 tons/hour
cap.
EPA SITE Demos
(1) Tampa, FL, 8/87
(2) Rose Township/
Demode Road Super-
fund Site, Ml, 11/87
John F. Martin
(513) 569-7696
Infrared thermal
destruction
Soil, sediment,
liquid organic
wastes mixed
with sand or
soil
Organic®
Infrared radiant heat
of up to 1,850 °F
May need to
restrict chloride
levels in the feed
PCBs consistently
meet TSCA
guidance
2 ppm in ash
PCB DRE was
greater than 99.99%
based on detection
limits. RCRA
standards for
particulate emissions
questionable.
EPA SITE Demo
EPA Combustion
Research Facility,
Jefferson, AK
11/87 to 1/88
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863
PYRETRON®
thermal
destruction
Soil, sludge,
solid waste
Organics
02 enhanced
combustion
40%
contaminated
soil, 60%
decanter tank tar
sludge from
coking
operations
DRE for all POHCs
>99.99%
Not suitable for
aqueous, RCRA
heavy metal, or
inorganic wastes.
Sources. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT.02281012.009Vompgde 3a2
3-53
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
U 3.7 OTHER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND
SLUDGE
Other treatment technologies for soil, sediment, and sludge include excavation and
off-site disposal, containment technologies, and natural attenuation. These
treatments are discussed in more detail in Section 4 (Treatment Technology Profiles
4.28 and 4.29). Completed projects for other treatment technologies for soil,
sediment, and sludge are shown in Table 3-10.
MK01\RPT02281012.009Vompgde.3a2
3-54
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
Edison, NJ
1991
Laurel Staley
(513) 569-7863
Carver-Greenfield
Process
Soils,
sediments, &
sludges
Oil soluble organics
- 100% TPH and
95% oil removal
5-10 lb of "carrier oil"
added for 1 lb of soil
Extracted oil
mixture
separated in oil/
water separator
Dry final solids
product with less
than 1% carrier oil
Oil is distilled and
recirculated.
EPA Demo
Carter Industrial, Ml
Shaver's Farm, GA
Hopkinsville, KY
Naomi Berkley
(513) 569-7854
Debris washing
system
Debris
Reduction -
PCBto 10 jxg/100
cm2
Benzonitrile from
4,556 to 10 (j.g/100
cm2
Dicamba from 25 to
1 ng/100 cm2
Spray detergent and
water @ 140 °F,
60 Ib/psig
300-gallon spray
and waste tank
Wash solution
treated oil/water
separator, filter,
carbon, and ion
exchange
Transportable.
DOI, Army, EPA
Demo
Saginaw Bay Confined
Disposal Facility, Ml;
Toronto, Canada
10/91 to 6/92
S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
Particle
Separation
Process
Sediments
(30 ycP/day)
PCBs, heavy metals,
radionuclides
Contaminant and
grain size analysis
Screening, water
and chemicals
added, attrition
scrubbing,
particle
separation
Output soil, silts,
clays, and waste-
water
Demo was part of the
Assessment and
Remediation of
Contaminated
Sediments (ARCs)
Program.
EPA Demo
IN, Ml, OH, SD, VA, Wl
1992
S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507
MAECTITE™
Soils, sludges,
other waste
materials, &
debris
Lead
Up to 100 tons/hour;
curing for 4 hours
Blending with
proprietary
powder and
reagent solution
Soil-like residual of
reduced volume is
suitable for landfill
as a special waste
End product
confirmatory testing
required.
EPA Demo
Palmerton Zinc
Superfund Site, PA
1990
John Martin
(513) 569-7758
Membrane
microfiltration
Liquid wastes
Solid particles in li-
quid wastes-removal
averaged 99.95% for
Zn & TSS
Filter press 45 psi
Tyvek (T-980)
spun-bound
olefin filter
Filter cake
40-60% solids
Best for treating
waste less than 5,000
ppm.
MKOINRPT 02281012.009Scompgde.3a2
3-55
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-10
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
Toronto Port Industrial
District, Canada
1991
Teri Richardson
(513) 569-7949
Soil recycling
Soils
Organics and
Inorganics
Inorganics extracted;
organics extracted
and biodegraded.
Soil washing,
metal dissolution,
chemical
hydrolysis with
biodegradation
Metals recovered in
pure form.
Reusable fill
90% reduction in
PAHs.
EPA Demo
Hamilton Harbor,
Canada
1992
Gordon Evans
(513) 569-7684
Thermal gas
phase reduction
Soil, sludge,
liquids, &
gases
Hydrocarbons
850 °C on-line mass
spectrometer
Reduction of
hydrocarbons in
presence of
hydrogen
Offgas stream
Mobile reactor.
DOE Integrated Demo
(1,2) Chemical and
Mixed Waste Landfills,
Albuquerque, NM
(3) Mixed Waste
Landfill at Kirkland
AFB, NM
Jennifer Nelson
(505) 845-8348
Mixed waste
landfill
In situ landfills
in arid
environments
which contain
complex
mixtures
Mixed wastes
containing heavy
metals in complex
mixtures with
organic, inorganic,
and radioactive
wastes
Integration of existing
technologies,
including thermally
enhanced vapor
extraction system,
flexible membrane
lining system, and
directional drilling
Characterization
and remediation
technology
demos
Goal is to remove
the most rapidly
moving consti-
tuents, and to
isolate the remain-
ing constituents for
30 years (interim)
or permanently.
All of the
characterization
technologies cur-
rently funded by
MWLID (Mixed Waste
Landfill Integrated
Demonstration) have
been demonstrated.
DOE Integrated
Demo, DOE
Savannah River Site,
Aiken, GA
Terry Walton
(803) 725-5218
Organics in soil
and groundwater
at nonarid sites
Soils,
groundwater
@ nonarid
sites
emphasizing
in situ
remediation
Volatile organics,
such as TCE and
PCE
Integrated demo
includes many
technologies - no
specific parameters
given
Directional well
drilling precedes
the in situ air
stripping
Integrated demo
includes many
technologies - no
specific parameters
given
16,000 lb of
chlorinated solvents
removed at Savannah
River during a 20-
week test period.
K4fm\i?pT-n'nsini'> nnmnoHp -*a2
3-56
10/26/94
-------
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
DOE Integrated
Demo, 4 DOE sites; at
(1) Hanford
(2) Fernald, ID
(3) Oak Ridge
(4) Savannah River
2/91
Roger Gilchrist
(509) 376-5310
Underground
storage tanks
emphasizing the
single-shell
storage tanks
located at the
Hanford site.
Groundwater,
soil
Tank waste consti-
tuents ranging from
Na-nitrates to trans-
uranics, in 3 forms:
supernatant (liquid),
sludges, and salt-
cake (which can be
as hard as cement)
UST-ID is pursuing
technologies in two
general areas'
characterization/
retrieval technolo-
gies & separations/
low-level waste
technologies. No/few
specific parameters
available
Integrated demo
includes many
technologies - no
specific
parameters given
Integrated demo
includes many
technologies - no
specific parameters
given
The UST-ID program
will be used at
Hanford, Fernald,
Idaho, Oak Ridge,
and Savannah River.
Most UST waste was
generated by
processes used to
separate nuclear
fuels from other
components.
DOE Integrated
Demo, Fernala
Environmental Project
Cincinnati, OH
Kimberly Nonfer
(513) 648-6914
Uranium soil
Soil
Uranium
Selective extraction
of uranium. Char-
acterize uranium in-
volved (especially
dominant hexavalent
oxidation state)
Extraction
without physio-
chemical
damage to soil
Concentrated
uranium stream
This technology will
be developed further.
DOI Tech Demo
Tests conducted in St.
John's County, FL
George A. Savanick
U.S. Bureau of Mines
5629 Minnehaha Ave.,
South Minneapolis, NJ
55417
Borehole slurry
extraction
Soils,
especially
sand, stone,
or clays
Uranium, oil
Soil is reduced in situ
to a pumpable slurry.
Single 6 to 12-inch-
diameter borehole
Soil is reduced in
situ to a
pumpable slurry
After treatment
waste material is
pumped back into
cavity to prevent
surface subsidence
Application of 10
year-old borehole
mining tool for
extracting minerals to
environmental
problems.
DOI Tech Demo
(EPA & Bureau of
Mines) Bureau of
Mines Salt Lake City
Research Center
4/90
J.P. Allen
(801) 584-4147
Characterization
and treatment of
contaminated
Great Lakes
sediment
Sediment
Organics and
inorganics
Physical separation
(mineral processing)
technologies,
including magnetic
separation, gravity
separation, and froth
flotation, being
investigated
Volume
reduction
followed by more
expensive
treatment
Physical separation
is considered
pretreatment, as
some smaller
amount of
concentrated
material will require
further
decontamination
Bureau of Mines
bench-scale tests
have identified
potential for
considerable cost
savings. Most
promising are grain-
size separation and
froth flotation.
Sources: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993)
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.00SN=ompgde.3a2
3-57
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Techno fogies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ 3.8 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE
WATER, AND LEACHATE
The main advantage of in situ treatment is that it allows groundwater to be treated
without being brought to the surface, resulting in significant cost savings. In situ
treatment, however, generally requires longer time periods, and there is less
certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in aquifer
characteristics and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to verify.
Bioremediation techniques are destruction techniques directed toward stimulating
the microorganisms to grow and use the contaminants as a food and energy source
by creating a favorable environment for the microorganisms. Generally, this means
providing some combination of oxygen, nutrients, and moisture, and controlling the
temperature and pH. Sometimes, microorganisms adapted for degradation of the
specific contaminants are applied to enhance the process.
Biological processes are typically easily implemented at low cost. Contaminants
are destroyed and little to no residual treatment is required. Some compounds,
however, may be broken down into more toxic by-products during the
bioremediation process (e.g., TCE to vinyl chloride). In in situ applications, these
by-products may be mobilized in groundwater if no control techniques are used.
Typically, to address this issue, bioremediation will be performed above a low
permeability soil layer and with groundwater monitoring wells downgradient of the
remediation area. This type of treatment scheme requires aquifer and contaminant
characterization and may still require extracted groundwater treatment.
Although not all organic compounds are amenable to biodegradation,
bioremediation techniques have been successfully used to remediate groundwater
contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, wood preservatives,
and other organic chemicals. Bioremediation has no expected effect on inorganic
contaminants.
The rate at which microorganisms degrade contaminants is influenced by the
specific contaminants present; temperature; oxygen supply; nutrient supply; pH; the
availability of the contaminant to the microorganism (clay soils can adsorb
contaminants making them unavailable to the microorganisms); the concentration
of the contaminants (high concentrations may be toxic to the microorganism); the
presence of substances toxic to the microorganism, e.g., mercury; or inhibitors to
the metabolism of the contaminant. These parameters are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
To ensure that oxygen is supplied at a rate sufficient to maintain aerobic conditions,
forced air, liquid oxygen, or hydrogen peroxide injection can be used. The use of
hydrogen peroxide is limited because at high concentrations (above 100 ppm, 1,000
ppm with proper acclimation), it is toxic to microorganisms. Also, hydrogen
peroxide tends to decompose into water and oxygen rapidly in the presence of some
constituents, thus reducing its effectiveness.
MK01\RPT:02281012 009Vompgde.3a2
3-58
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
Anaerobic conditions may be used to degrade highly chlorinated contaminants.
This can be followed by aerobic treatment to complete biodegradation of the
partially dechlorinated compounds as well as the other contaminants.
Nutrients required for cell growth are nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur,
magnesium, calcium, manganese, iron, zinc, and copper. If nutrients are not
available in sufficient amounts, microbial activity will stop. Nitrogen and
phosphorous are the nutrients most likely to be deficient in the contaminated
environment and thus are usually added to the bioremediation system in a useable
form (e.g., as ammonium for nitrogen and as phosphate for phosphorous).
Phosphates are suspected to cause soil plugging as a result of their reaction with
minerals, such as iron and calcium, to form stable precipitates that fill the pores in
the soil and aquifer.
pH affects the solubility, and consequently the availability, of many constituents
of soil, which can affect biological activity. Many metals that are potentially toxic
to microorganisms are insoluble at elevated pH; therefore, elevating the pH of the
treatment system can reduce the risk of poisoning the microorganisms.
Temperature affects microbial activity in the environment. The biodegradation
rate will slow with decreasing temperature; thus, in northern climates
bioremediation may be ineffective during part of the year unless it is carried out in
a climate-controlled facility. The microorganisms remain viable at temperatures
below freezing and will resume activity when the temperature rises.
Provisions for heating the bioremediation site, such as use of warm air injection,
may speed up the remediation process. Too high a temperature, however, can be
detrimental to some microorganisms, essentially sterilizing the aquifer.
Temperature also affects nonbiological losses of contaminants mainly through the
evaporation of contaminants at high temperatures. The solubility of contaminants
typically increases with increasing temperature; however, some hydrocarbons are
more soluble at low temperatures than at high temperatures. Additionally, oxygen
solubility decreases with increasing temperature.
Bioaugmentation involves the use of cultures that have been specially bred for
degradation of a variety of contaminants and sometimes for survival under
unusually severe environmental conditions. Sometimes microorganisms from the
remediation site are collected, separately cultured, and returned to the site as a
means of rapidly increasing the microorganism population at the site. Usually an
attempt is made to isolate and accelerate the growth of the population of natural
microorganisms that preferentially feed on the contaminants at the site. In some
situations different microorganisms may be added at different stages of the
remediation process because the contaminants change in abundance as the
degradation proceeds. USAF research, however, has found no evidence that the use
of non-native microorganisms is beneficial in the situations tested.
Cometabolism, in which microorganisms growing on one compound produce an
enzyme that chemically transforms another compound on which they cannot grow,
has been observed to be useful. In particular, microorganisms that degrade methane
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.3a2
3-59
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
(methanotrophic bacteria) have been found to produce enzymes that can initiate the
oxidation of a variety of carbon compounds.
Treatability or feasibility studies may be performed to determine whether
bioremediation would be effective in a given situation. The extent of the study can
vary depending on the nature of the contaminants and the characteristics of the site.
For sites contaminated with common petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline and/or
other readily degradable compounds), it is usually sufficient to examine
representative samples for the presence and level of an indigenous population of
microbes, nutrient levels, presence of microbial toxicants, and aquifer
characteristics.
Available in situ biological treatment technologies include co-metabolic processes,
nitrate enhancement, and oxygen enhancement with either air sparging or hydrogen
peroxide (H202). These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment
Technology Profiles 4.30 through 4.33). Completed in situ biological treatment
projects for groundwater, surface water, and leachate are shown in Table 3-11.
Implementation of biological treatment in vadose zone soils differs from that of
soils below the water table largely in the mechanism of adding required
supplemental materials, such as oxygen and nutrients. For saturated soils, nutrients
may be added with and carried by reinjected groundwater. Oxygen can be provided
by spaiging or by adding chemical oxygen sources such as hydrogen peroxide.
Surface irrigation may be used for vadose zone soils. Bioventing oxygenates
vadose zone soils by drawing air through soils using a network of vertical wells.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\coropgde.3a2
3-60
10/26/94
-------
lAttLt 3-11
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Naval Communication
Station, Scotland
2/85 to 10/85
(U.S. Navy)
Deh Bin Chan
(805) 982-4191
Bioremediation
In situ soil, in situ
groundwater
Soil,
groundwater
Soil quantity
approximately
800 m2 in
area, depth
unknown
TPH (No. 2 diesel
fuel)
Microorganisms
function best
between 20 °C and
35 °C.
Runoff water
collected in a
trench
None
The contaminated
area had consider-
able slope, and the
contaminated soil
was a thin layer over
a relatively imperme-
able rock substrate.
DOE Demo
Savannah River Site,
SC
Nate Ellis
(803) 952-4846
Brian Loony
(803) 952-5181
Aerobic
Biodegradation
Groundwater
TCE, PCE @ 1,000
ppb; 90% removal
efficiency
Aquifers must be
homogenous
Methanotrophic
fluidized bed or
trickle filter
bioreactor
<1 lb/day produced
Water high in copper
may inhibit the
process - Cost about
$0.50/gallon.
EPA Demo
Williams AFB, AZ
Completed in 1992
Kim Lisa Kreiton
(513) 569-7328
David Mann
(219) 868-5823
Augmented
subsurface
bioremediation
Soil & water
Hydrocarbons
(halogenated and
nonhalogenated)
In situ
Insertion of
microaerophilic
bacteria and
nutrients. Hardy
bacteria can
treat
contaminants
over a wide
temperature
range.
Only degradation
products are C02 &
h2o
Failed to meet
cleanup standards for
BTEX.
DOE Savannah River
Site, SC
Terry C. Hazen
(803) 725-5178
Biodegradation
Soil &
groundwater
TCE, PCE declined
to <2 ppb
In situ
Injection of 1-4%
methane/air into
aquifer
None
High copper
concentration can
inhibit the process.
DOE Demo
Hanford Site, WA
Thomas M. Brouns
(509) 376-7855
Rodney S. Skeen
(509) 376-6371
Biological
treatment
Groundwater
Nitrate reduced by
99% from 400 ppm.
CCI4 reduced by
93% from 200 ppb
In situ
Provides ultimate
destruction of
contaminant
No spent activated
carbon need be
disposed
Requires half the time
for remediation, very
cost-effective.
MK01\RPT 02281012.00SNcompgde.3a2
3-61
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-11
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Air Force & DOE
Demo
Tinker AFB, OK
1989
Alison Thomas
(904) 283-6028
In situ & above-
ground biological
treatment of
trichloroethylene
Groundwater
80% destruction of
TCE
In situ or in a
bioreactor
Bioreactor
design uses
methane
degrading
bacteria to co-
metabolize TCE
TCE destroyed
Alternative system
using altered
microorganisms is
being tested at
Hauscomb AFB, MA.
Air Force Demo
Eglin, AFB, FL
1/94-10/94
Alison Thomas
(904) 283-6028
In situ anaerobic
biodegradation
Groundwater
Jet fuel (toluene,
ethylbenzene,
xylene)
In situ; nitrate is
added to serve as
electron acceptor
Benzene is
recalcitrant under
strict anaerobic
conditions
Cost $160-$230/
gallon fuel removed.
Air Force Demo
Kelly AFB, TX & Eglin
AFB, FL
Catherine M Vogel
(904) 283-6036
In situ
biodegradation
Soil &
groundwater
Hydrocarbons -
fuels, fuel oils, &
nonhalogenated
solvents
In situ
Nutnents
introduced into
aquifer through
irrigation wells -
some
precipitation
problems
occurred
Site characterization
necessary to
determine soil/
chemical
compatibility.
DOI Demo
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
Thomas E. Imbrigiotta
(609) 771-3900
In situ
biodegradation
Groundwater
82% removal of
vapor-phase TCE
after 8 days
In situ - Vapor
stream is amended
with oxygen and
methane, propane, or
natural gas
Venting
unsaturated soil
or sparging
contaminated
well near source
TCE is
anaerobically
broken down into
DCE then VC and
finally to ethylene,
which will
breakdown and
volatilize
Use of surfactants to
enhance desorption
from aquifer
sediments is being
studied.
DOI Demo
Defense Fuel Supply
Point, SC
Late summer 1993
Dr. Don A Vroblesky
(803) 750-6115
In situ enhanced
bioremediation
Groundwater
Jet fuel
In situ
Uncontaminated
groundwater is
amended with
nutrients and
pumped into a
series of
infiltration
galleries
Groundwater
extracted and
discharged to
treatment facility
Microbes that
degrade
contamination occur
naturally in contami-
nated groundwater.
MK01\RPT 02281012.00SNcompgde.3a2
3-62
10/26/94
-------
I ADLt 3-11
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
DOE Tech Demo
(USGS) Galloway
Township, NJ
1988
Herbert T. Buxton
(609) 771-3900
In situ vapor
extraction and
bioventing design
Soil &
groundwater
Gasoline
AIRFLOW - an
adaption of the
USGS groundwater
flow simulator
MODFLOW to
perform airflow
simulations
Sources: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009vcompgde.3a2
3-63
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ 3.9 IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER,
SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
The main advantage of in situ treatments is that they allow groundwater to be
treated without being brought to the surface, resulting in significant cost savings.
In situ processes, however, generally require longer time periods, and there is less
certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of the variability in aquifer
characteristics and because the efficacy of the process is more difficult to verify.
Physical/chemical treatment uses the physical properties of the contaminants or the
contaminated medium to destroy (i.e, chemically convert), separate, or contain the
contamination. Passive treatment walls separate and destroy the contaminant from
in situ groundwater. Air sparging, directional wells, dual phase extraction, free
product recovery, hot water or steam flushing/stripping, and vacuum vapor
extraction are separation techniques. Slurry walls can be used to contain
contaminated areas so that aquifer groundwater will flow around them without
becoming contaminated. Hydrofracturing is an enhancement technique.
Available in situ physical/chemical treatment technologies include air sparging,
directional wells, dual phase extraction, free product recovery, hot water or steam
flushing/stripping, hydrofracturing, passive treatment walls, slurry walls, and
vacuum vapor extraction. These treatment technologies are discussed in Section
4 (Treatment Technology Profiles 4.34 through 4.42). Completed in situ physical/
chemical treatment projects for groundwater, surface water, and leachate are shown
in Table 3-12.
Physical/chemical treatment is typically cost effective and can be completed in
short time periods (in comparison with biological treatment). Equipment is readily
available and is not engineering or energy-intensive. Treatment residuals from
separation techniques will require treatment or disposal, which will add to the total
project costs and may require permits.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-64
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-12
COMPLETED PROJECTS: IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Navy Demo
Seal Beach Navy
Weapons Station, CA
1991
Vern Novstrup
(805) 982-2636
Rebecca Coleman-
Roush
(805) 644-5892
Groundwater
vapor recovery
system
Groundwater
VOCs
In situ - air permitting
Injection &
extraction wells
are placed inside
and outside of
contamination
area
Waste
hydrocarbons to
internal combustion
engine
Treatment requires
combustible
contaminants. Air
permits may be
required.
Capital - $70K to
$100K.
DOE Demo
Savannah River Site,
SC
7/90-12/90
Mike O'Rear
(803) 725-5541
In situ air
stripping with
horizontal wells
Soil &
groundwater
TCE & PCE Initial
concentrations:
5,000 ppm;
stabilized to 200-300
ppm
In situ (horizontal
wells)
Extraction average
110 lb of VOCs/day
Air injection
below aquifer -
air extraction
above.
Off-gas stream
$20/lb contaminant
removed.
DOE Demo
Hanford Reservation,
WA
Steve Stein
(206) 528-3340
Air Sparging
Groundwater
VOCs
In situ - In well air
stripping
Surfactants or
catalysts added
if needed
Requires air-stream
treatment
Eliminates need for
disposal or storage of
partially treated
water.
EPA Demo
National Lead Industry,
NJ
10/93
Carolyn Esposito
(908) 906-6895
FORAGER®
sponge
Waters
Heavy metals
90% removal
Sponge can
scavenge metals at
ppm or ppb in
industrial discharges
1 bed volume/minute
control pH, temp,
total ionic content
Open-celled
cellulose sponge
Regeneration or
incineration of the
metals-saturated
sponge
In situ directly
inserted into well or
ex situ. Sponge can
scavenge metals in
concentrated levels of
ppm and ppb from
industrial discharges.
Sources: Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT-02281012.009\compgde 3a2
3-65
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
m 3.10 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE
WATER, AND LEACHATE
The main advantage of ex situ treatment is that it generally requires shorter time
periods, and there is more certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of
the ability to monitor and continuously mix the groundwater. However, ex situ
treatment requires pumping of groundwater, leading to increased costs and
engineering for equipment, possible permitting, and material handling.
Bioremediation techniques are destruction techniques directed toward stimulating
the microorganisms to grow and use the contaminants as a food and energy source
by creating a favorable environment for the microorganisms. Generally, this means
providing some combination of oxygen, nutrients, and moisture, and controlling the
temperature and pH. Sometimes, microorganisms adapted for degradation of the
specific contaminants are applied to enhance the process.
Biological processes are typically easily implemented at low cost. Contaminants
are destroyed and little to no residual treatment is required; however, some
compounds may be broken down into more toxic by-products during the
bioremediation process (e.g., TCE to vinyl chloride). An advantage over the in situ
applications is that in ex situ applications, these by-products are contained in the
treatment unit until nonhazardous end-products are produced.
Although not all organic compounds are amenable to bioremediation, techniques
have been successfully used to remediate soils, sludges, and groundwater
contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, wood preservatives,
and other organic chemicals. Bioremediation is not applicable for treatment of
inorganic contaminants.
The rate at which microorganisms degrade contaminants is influenced by the
specific contaminants present; temperature; oxygen supply; nutrient supply; pH; the
availability of the contaminant to the microorganism (clay soils can adsorb
contaminants making them unavailable to the microorganisms); the concentration
of the contaminants (high concentrations may be toxic to the microorganism); the
presence of substances toxic to the microorganism, e.g., mercury; or inhibitors to
the metabolism of the contaminant. These parameters are discussed briefly in the
following paragraphs.
Oxygen level in ex situ applications is easier to control than in in situ applications
and is typically maintained by mechanical mixing or air sparging.
Anaerobic conditions may be used to degrade highly chlorinated contaminants.
This can be followed by aerobic treatment to complete biodegradation of the
partially dechlorinated compounds as well as the other contaminants.
Nutrients required for cell growth are nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur,
magnesium, calcium, manganese, iron, zinc, and copper. If nutrients are not
available in sufficient amounts, microbial activity will stop. Nitrogen and
phosphorous are the nutrients most likely to be deficient in the contaminated
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.3a2
3-66
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
environment and thus are usually added to the bioremediation system in a useable
form (e.g., as ammonium for nitrogen and as phosphate for phosphorous).
PH affects the solubility, and consequently the availability, of many constituents
of soil, which can affect biological activity. Many metals that are potentially toxic
to microorganisms are insoluble at elevated pH; therefore, elevating the pH of the
treatment system can reduce the risk of poisoning the microorganisms.
Temperature affects microbial activity in the treatment unit. The biodegradation
rate will slow with decreasing temperature; thus, in northern climates
bioremediation may be ineffective during part of the year unless it is carried out in
a climate-controlled facility. The microorganisms remain viable at temperatures
below freezing and will resume activity when the temperature rises. Too high a
temperature can be detrimental to some microorganisms, essentially sterilizing the
soil.
Temperature also affects nonbiological losses of contaminants mainly through the
volatilization of contaminants at high temperatures. The solubility of contaminants
typically increases with increasing temperature; however, some hydrocarbons are
more soluble at low temperatures than at high temperatures. Additionally, oxygen
solubility decreases with increasing temperature. Temperature is more easily
controlled ex situ than in situ.
Bioaugmentation involves the use of cultures that have been specially bred for
degradation of a variety of contaminants and sometimes for survival under
unusually severe environmental conditions. Sometimes microorganisms from the
remediation site are collected, separately cultured, and returned to the site as a
means of rapidly increasing the microorganism population at the site. Usually an
attempt is made to isolate and accelerate the growth of the population of natural
microorganisms that preferentially feed on the contaminants at the site. In some
situations different microorganisms may be added at different stages of the
remediation process because the contaminants in abundance change as the
degradation proceeds. USAF research, however, has found no evidence that the use
of non-native microorganisms is beneficial in the situations tested.
Cometabolisin, in which microorganisms growing on one compound produce an
enzyme that chemically transforms another compound on which they cannot grow,
has been observed to be useful. In particular, microorganisms that degrade methane
(methanotrophic bacteria) have been found to produce enzymes that can initiate the
oxidation of a variety of carbon compounds.
Treatability or feasibility studies are used to determine whether bioremediation
would be effective in a given situation. The extent of the study can vary depending
on the nature of the contaminants and the characteristics of the site. For sites
contaminated with common petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline and/or other
readily degradable compounds), it is usually sufficient to examine representative
samples for the presence and level of an indigenous population of microbes,
nutrient levels, presence of microbial toxicants, and soil characteristics such as pH,
porosity, and moisture.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.3a2
3-67
10/26/94
-------
ON
OO
rT Q
to O
s- 3
S "a
b a
E5 8.
^ rrs
o £
cs
3*
O
3
3 O
ws
a
o*
o"
f? CS.
S f5"
EL
<3
S5
CD
U>
g" £
a »
o £
era p.
v; 2
—.
vi O
X
Ci. Vi
8 B
£ 2!
on o
Ct> JL-
C- O
*2
5'
£
C/D jj-
o «
2- g.
1' ®
3 n>
3
_ o
- g*
n> k
Crq
3
c
3
Q.
P5
<—f
n>
>r»
C/5
c
a,
8
o
3
S»
o
3 o
g <*«
CO «<;
3 -
^ S5
r$ ^
§"1
0 °>
1 °
2? 2!
o
1 8
2 j?
o °
L>^
60*
53
3
®
Q.
05'
o'
5?
3
©
3
-------
IMuLi. O- I O
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
DOI Demo
Bureau of Mines
Tom Jeffers
(801) 524-6164
BIO-FIX beads
Water
Metals - lead,
cadmium, arsenic
Porous polymeric
biomass beads with
affinity for metals
Excellent
handling - low
maintenance
Adsorbed metals
removed using
dilute mineral acids
Able to achieve
drinking water
standards.
EPA Demo MacGillis &
Gibbs Superfund Site,
MN
7/8S to 9/89
Mary Stinson
(908) 321-6683
Dennis Chilcote
(612) 942-8032
Biological
aqueous
treatment system
Groundwater
PCP reduced to <1
ppm. Lowest flow
removed 99% of
contaminants
In mix tank, pH is
adjusted & inorganic
nutrients added
Mixing
Discharged to
POTW or reused
on-site
Runs as anaerobic or
aerobic. Does not
treat metals.
DOI Demo
Late Summer 1993
Paulette Altringer
Darren Belin
(801) 584-4152 or 4155
Biological arsenic
remediation
Wastewaters
Arsenic reduced
from 13 to <0.5
mg/L
Addition of anaerobic
sulfate-reducing
bacteria
Two stage
reactor, arsenic
precipitation and
column system
Minimum volume
arsenic precipitate
sludge
Advantage: reduction
in generation of
sludge volumes
compared to typical
ferris arsenic
precipitation circuits.
DOI Demo
Bureau of Mines, NV
6/92 to 10/92
Paulette Altringer
Richard H. Lien
(801) 584-4152 or 4106
Biological cyanide
detoxification
Wastewaters
Cyanide reduced
from 20 ppm to 2
ppm
Flow rate up to 300
gpm
Greater than 40-ppm
phosphate
Bio-activated
water use to
rinsed metal
waste heap
Chemical treatment
as a polishing step
Alternative rinsing
technology oxidized
cyanide by activating
natural or introduced
populations of
cyanide-oxidizing
bacteria.
DOI Demo
Bureau of Mines, UT
Summer 1993
Paulette Altringer
D. Jack Adams
(801) 584-4152 or 4148
Biological
reduction of
selenium
Process &
wastewaters
Selenium reduced
from 30 to 1.2 ppm
in 144 hours, 4.2 to
1 6 ppm in 48 hours.
Selenium in uranium
wastewater reduced
from 0.58 to 0 03
ppm in 48 hours
Uses on-site
equipment (carbon
tanks, sand filters) to
reduce cost.
Activated carbon or
sand serves as
growth surface for
bacteria
Wastewater and
nutrient pumped
through bed.
Commercial
fertilizers and/or
sugar containing
agricultural
wastes provide
bacterial nutrient
supplements
Selenium is
precipitated and
removed by
flushing or cross-
flow filtration
Uranium wastewaters
may be treatable.
Technology involves
biostimulation of
indigenous or
introduced selenium-
reducing bacteria.
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde.3a2
3-69
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-13
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE (CONTINUED;
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Navy Demo, Naval
Weapons Station
Seal Beach, CA
Steve MacDonald
(310) 594-7273
Carmen Lebron (805)
982-1615
Bioremediation of
aromatic
hydrocarbons
Soil &
groundwater
1 ppb to 4 ppm of
BTEX
Three 80-liter
bioreactors at
combined capacity of
72 liters/day
Native
microorganisms.
Site soil is
placed in
bioreactors and
contaminated
groundwater is
pumped through
bioreactors
Effluent cleaned to
drinking water
standards for BTEX
EPA Demo
St. Joseph, Ml
Ronald Lewis
(513) 569-7856
Steve Lupton
(708) 391-3224
Immobilized cell
bioreactor (ICB)
biotreatment
system
Groundwater
and industrial
wastewater
>99% removal
efficiencies of
organics
Pretreatment - pH
adjustment and
oil/water separation.
Proprietary reactor
medium and design
maximized biological
degradation
Aerobic/
Anaerobic fixed
film bioreactor
Contaminants to
C02, water, and
biomass. The
effluent produced is
reinjected
Advantages: high
treatment capacity,
compact system
design, reduced
operations costs.
Air Force & DOE
Demo
Tinker AFB, OK
1989
Alison Thomas
(904) 283-6028
In situ &
aboveground
biological
treatment of
trichloroethylene
Groundwater
80% destruction of
TCE
In situ or in a
bioreactor
Uses methane-
degrading
bacteria to co-
metabolize TCE
TCE degraded
System using altered
microorganisms is
being tested at
Hauscomb AFB, MA.
Sources Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT:02 281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-70
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
¦ 3.11 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER,
SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
The main advantage of ex situ treatment is that it generally requires shorter time
periods, and there is more certainty about the uniformity of treatment because of
the ability to monitor and continuously mix the groundwater. Ex situ treatment,
however, requires pumping of groundwater, leading to increased costs and
engineering for equipment, possible permitting, and material handling.
Physical/chemical treatment uses the physical properties of the contaminants or the
contaminated medium to destroy (i.e, chemically convert), separate, or contain the
contamination. U V oxidation is a destruction technology, and all other technologies
included in this subsection are separation technologies.
Physical/chemical treatment is typically cost effective and can be completed in
short time periods (in comparison with biological treatment). Equipment is readily
available and is not engineering or energy-intensive. Treatment residuals from
separation techniques will require treatment or disposal, which will add to the total
project costs and may require permits.
Available ex situ physical/chemical treatment technologies include air sparging,
filtration, ion exchange, liquid phase carbon adsorption, precipitation, and UV
oxidation. These technologies are discussed in Section 4 (Technology Profiles 4.44
through 4.49). Completed ex situ physical/chemical treatment projects for
groundwater, surface water, and leachate are shown in Table 3-14.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde 3a2
3-71
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-14
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Removal Action
Crown Plating, MO
10/1/89 to 12/31/89
(Removal)
Mark Roberts
(913) 236-3881
Dechlorination
using the KPEG
process/EPA
removal
contractor
Liquid (5
gallons)
Criteria:
Dioxin: <1 ppb
Input:
Silvex - 10,000 ppm
Dioxin equivalents -
24.18 ppb
Output:
Silvex - 32 ppb
Dioxin equivalents -
0.068 ppb
Batch operation
Retention time - 36
hours (including time
of equipment
breakdown)
Temperature - 72 °C
pH - 13
Moisture content -
100%
Groundwater
extraction
Built an on-site
vacuum for
emissions control
Contaminated
residual oil
incinerated off-site
Three mobile units
currently available.
Electroplating site.
EPA Demo
Lake Charles
Treatment Center, LA
Randy Parker
(513) 569-7271
PO*WW*ER™
evaporation &
catalytic oxidation
Groundwater
& wastewaters
Volatile & non-
volatile organic
compounds, salts,
metals, volatile
inorganics
0.25 gpm pilot-plant
Evaporation &
oxidation
Concentrated
contaminant
solution disposed of
or treated further
$110/1,000 gallons
treated.
DOE Demo
Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory,
CA
1991
Jesse L. Yow, Jr.
(510) 422-3521
Solar
Detoxification
Groundwater
VOCs
Exposed to sunlight
& nontoxic catalyst
(Ti02)
Pumping, solar
detox, pH
adjustment,
catalyst addition
Catalyst filtered out
and water sent for
secondary
treatment
Salts in groundwater
reduce efficiency.
Army Demo
USACE-WES, MS
Mark Bricka
(601) 634-3700
Xanthate
treatment
Groundwater
& wastewater
Heavy metals
Ion exchange with
xanthated material
Precipitation,
sedimentation,
and filtration
Concentrated metal
sludge
Offers many
advantages over
hydroxide
precipitation
MK01NRPT :02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-72
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-14
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
(CONTINUED) ¦
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
San Fernando Valley
Groundwater Basin
Superfund Site, CA
1990
Norma Lewis
(513) 569-7665
Integrated vapor
extraction &
steam vacuum
stripping
Soil &
groundwater
Initial concentration:
up to 2.2 ppm TCE
up to 11 ppm PCE
Removal'
up to 99.9% VOCs
Groundwater:
1,200 gpm
Soil gas:
300 ft/min
Groundwater:
Steam stripping
in tower
Soil: SVE
Carbon should be
regenerated every
8 hours
Operating for more
than 3 years.
EPA Demo
Coleman-Evans Site,
FL
Norma Lewis
(513) 569-7665
Soil washing/
catalytic ozone
oxidation
Soil, sludge, &
groundwater
Organics -
1-20,000 ppm
Soil washing
enhanced by
ultrasound followed
by oxidation
Soil particles
larger than 1
inch are crushed
Carbon filter for off-
gas
Excalibur technology.
Navy Demo
Bangor SUBASE, WA
Spring 1993
Carmen LeBron
(805) 982-1616
Advanced
Oxidation
Process
Groundwater
Ordnance - treated
to 2 9 ppb TNT and
0.8 ppb RDX
Maintain pH
UV oxidation,
H202, and Oa to
generate
hydroxyl radicals
Possible toxic
byproducts
Full scale system
being designed.
Navy Demo
U.S Navy Site, NJ
1991
Andy Law
(805) 982-1650
Advanced
Oxidation
Process
Groundwater
Organics - TOC 50-
100 ppm
Maintain pH
UV oxidation,
H202, and 03 to
generate
hydroxyl radicals
Contaminant
destruction
Army Demo
Fort Dix, NJ
Steve Maloney
(217) 373-6740
Catalytic
Decontamination
Groundwater
Reduction:
0% TOC
up to 90% VOC
Ex situ
Ozone injection
and stripping
Air stream - treated
in catalytic unit and
recycled
Metal precipitate
clogging and
biofouling can occur.
MK01\RPT :022810l2.0Q9\compgde.3a2
3-73
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-14
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
(CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
Air Force & EPA
Demo
Edwards AFB, CA
3/93
Richard Eilers
(513) 569-7809
CAV-OX®
Process
Groundwater
& wastewater
Organics - 96-100%
reduction
H202 and metal
catalysts added if
needed
Hydrodynamic
cavitation and
UV oxidation
Contaminant
destruction
Cannot handle free
product or highly
turbid streams.
EPA & DOE Demo
Rocky Flats Facility, •
CO
7/90
Annette Gatchett
(513) 569-7697
Filtration
Waters
"Polishing" filtration
process for heavy
metals and non-
tritium radio-nuclides
(NORM, LLRW,
TRU)
Specific control -
water chemistry,
water flux, and bed
volume
Sorption,
chemical
complexing, and
hydroxide
precipitation
Concentrated waste
sludge
Capital - $150K
Operation - $1.50-
$2.00/1,000 gallons
treated.
EPA Demo
American Creosote
Works, FL
1991
Kim Lisa Kreiton
(513) 569-7328
Membrane
Separation
Groundwater
Removal:
90% PAH
80% creosote
25-30% smaller
phenolics
Hyperfiltration
unit
Clean H20 to
POTW, concen-
trated contaminants
to holding tanks
$228-$1,739/1,000
gallons treated.
EPA Demo
Palangana Uranium
Mine Site, TX
7/93
Annette Gatchett
(513) 569-7697
Precipitation/
Filtration
Groundwater
Low-moderate levels
of NORM (uranium,
radium-226, thorium-
230)
Complexing,
adsorption, and
absorption
URAL
complexing
agent
Treated water to
holding pond
EPA Demo
San Jose, CA
3/89
Norma Lewis
(513) 569-7665
Ultraviolet
radiation &
oxidation
Groundwater
Halogenated
hydrocarbons,
VOCs, pesticides,
PCBs - 99% TCE,
58% 1,1-DCA, 85%
1,1,1 -TCA removal
UV, HA, and 03
destruction
Tank with air
compressor, Os
generator, and
H202 feed
Off gas to ozone
destruction
20 commercial
systems installed.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-74
10/26/94
-------
lAbLt 3-14
COMPLETED PROJECTS: EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
(CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
DOE Demo
Kansas City
Plant, MO
Sidney B. Garland II
(615) 579-8581
Ultraviolet
radiation,
hydrogen
peroxide, and
ozone
Groundwater
TCE
30% downtime for
maintenance and
repair
Flow rate has
averaged 15% of
design rate
Results mostly
inconclusive.
DOI Demo
Birmingham, AL
Manassas, VA
19 92
Ronald H. Church
(205) 759-9446
Solid/liquid
separation
Wastewater
Solids and fine
particulate matter in
mining wastes
Feed flow rate in
field test unit was 50-
175 gpm. Freed
material is usually a
degradable
polyacrylamide
Pipe delivery
system used as
mixing system to
minimize quantity
of feed used.
Waste should be
in slurry form
The "clean" water
can be discharged.
Flocculated
material becomes
solid waste for a
landfill
Polymer costs are
$0.50-0.60 per ton of
dry solids produced
when polymer is
bought in bulk.
DOI Demo
Bureau of Mines and
USAEC (Cooperative
effort)
Buffalo, NY
Ronald H. Church
(205) 759-9446
Solid/liquid
separation
Wastewater
Suspended
particulates from
dredging wastes
Waste pumped
through a 4-inch line
to 1,000-gallon
fiberglass mixing
tank. 6-inch-by-2-
inch static mixer.
Polymer used for
flocculation is
pumped through
a 1-inch line to
the mixing tank
NTU values of the
discharge water
ranged from 12 to
17, with the
underflow
discharge
containing about
31% solids
Polymer costs:
$0.50/lb when bought
in bulk. Focus of
DOI/USACE test is
removal of
suspended
particulates from
dredging of
sediments.
DOI Demo
Salt Lake City
Research Center
K.S. Gritton
(801) 584-4170
Treatment of
copper industry
waste
Slags, dusts,
sludges,
liquids
Copper byproducts -
arsenic, heavy
metals
Acid in refinery waste
is used to solubilize
metals in flue dust,
with subsequent
metal recovery
Ex situ
Vitrification of
arsenic sulfide
leaves a dense,
non-reactive, glass-
like material
Emphasis is on
recovery of metals,
which are presently
discarded.
EPA SITE Demo
Selma Pressure
Treating
Selma, CA
11/90
Edward Bates
(513) 569-7774
Solidification/
Stabilization with
silicate
compounds
Groundwater,
soil, sludge
Organics and
inorganics
Silicate compounds
Pretreatment
separation of
coarse and fine
materials
PCP leachate con-
centrations reduced
up to 97% As, Cr,
Cu immobilized
Applied to a wide
variety of hazardous
soils, sludges, and
wastewaters.
Sources Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993)
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde 3a2
3-75
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
m 3.12 OTHER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR GROUNDWATER,
SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
Natural attenuation for groundwater is discussed in Section 4 (Treatment
Technology Profile 4.50). Completed projects for other treatment technologies for
groundwater, surface water, and leachate are shown in Table 3-15.
MK.01NRPT :02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-76
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-15
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
Kerr-McGee
Chemical Corp., Wl
1993
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
Electrochemical
reduction &
immobilization
Groundwater
Hexavalent
chromium and other
heavy metals
In situ requires
excess ferrous ions -
maintain pH
Electrochemical
reactions
generate ions for
removal of
hexavalent
chromium
Clean water is
reinjected into
ground
Ex situ can be used
to maximize rate and
removal.
EPA Demo
Palmerton Zinc
Superfund Site, PA
1990
John Martin
(513) 569-7758
Membrane
microfiltration
Liquids &
wastes
Solid particles in
liquid - removal
averages 99 95% Zn
and TSS
Filter press
45 psi
Tyvek (T-980)
spun-bound
olefin filter
Filter cake 40-60%
solids
Best for treating
waste <5,000 ppm.
EPA Demo
Casmalia, CA
1992
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
Rochem disc tube
module system
Aqueous
solutions
Organics
1 -2 gpm over 2-3
weeks
Membrane
separation
(reverse
osmosis),
ultrafiltration
Concentrated
contaminant sludge
Self-contained
process units
EPA Demo
Hamilton Harbor,
Canada
1992
Gordon Evans
(513) 569-7684
Thermal gas
phase reduction
Soil, sludge,
liquids, &
gases
PCBs, PAHs,
chlorophenols,
pesticides
850 °C or higher - 25
tons/day
Heated hydrogen
reduction
Mobile unit.
EPA Demo
Burleigh Tunnel, CO
1991
Edward Bates
(513) 569-7774
Wetlands-based
treatment
Influent waters
Metals
Principal components
- soils, microbial
fauna, algae, and
vascular plants
Natural
processes -
filtration, ion
exchange,
adsorption,
absorption, and
precipitation
Manual developed -
Wetland Designs for
Mining Operations -
available from NTIS.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde 3a2
3-77
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-15
COMPLETED PROJECTS: OTHER TREATMENTS FOR GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE (CONTINUED)
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
Ggden's Research
Facility
San Diego, CA
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
Circulating bed
combustor (CBC)
Soil, sludge, &
liquids
Halogenated and
nonhalogenated
organic compounds,
PCBs
16-inch diameter
CBC, 1,450-1,600 °F,
waste feed <1 inch
Highly turbulent
combustion zone
DRE value of
99.99% for principal
organics. Treated
ash disposal
Controlled sulfur
oxide emissions by
adding limestone.
EPA SITE Demo
Ogden Research
Facility, San Diego, CA
3/89
Douglas Grosse
(513) 569-7844
Circulating bed
combustor
Soil, sludge,
liquids, solids,
& slurry
Halogenated and
nonhalogenated
organic compounds,
PCBs, dioxin
Combustion through
hot cyclone (1,450-
1,600 °F)
Mixing wastes
Limestone added
to neutralize acid
gases
Treated ash
disposal
DRE > 99.99%.
DOE Integrated
Demo, DOE
Savannah River Site,
Aiken, GA
Terry Walton
(803) 725-5218
Organics in soil
and groundwater
at nonarid sites
Soils,
groundwater
at nonarid
sites,
emphasizing
in situ
remediation
Volatile organics
such as TCE and
PCE
Integrated demo
includes many
technologies - no
specific parameters
given
Directional well
drilling precedes
the in situ air
stripping
Offgas treatments
also being
demonstrated
16,000 lb of
chlorinated solvents
removed at Savannah
River site during a
20-week test period.
DOE Integrated
Demo, 4 DOE sites:
(1) Hanford
(2) Fernald, ID
(3) Oak Ridge
(4) Savannah River
2/91
Roger Gilchrist
(509) 376-5310
USTs,
emphasizing the
single-shell
storage tanks
located at the
Hanford site
Groundwater,
soil
Tank waste
constituents ranging
from Na-nitrates to
transuranics, in 3
forms: supernatant
(liquid), sludges, and
saltcake (which can
be as hard as
cement)
UST-ID is pursuing
technologies in two
general areas
characterization/
retrieval and
separations/low-Level
waste
Parameters vary
among
technologies
Parameters vary
among
technologies
The UST-ID program
will be used at
Hanford, Fernald,
Idaho, Oak Ridge,
and Savannah River.
Most UST waste was
generated by
processes used to
separate nuclear
fuels from other
components.
DOI Demo
Bureau of Mines
Tuscaloosa Research
Center, AL
C W. Smith
(205) 759-9460
Well Point
Containment
Groundwater
Lead, iron
The Bureau of Mines
demonstration
included a 235-well
point system and a
monitoring well
network
Well point
system in
conjunction with
a french drain to
contain
impoundment
leakage
Monitoring of
groundwater
required after well
point pumping
begins
Well points are used
to alter water tables,
remove leachate for
treatment, or control
ground-water
movement
Sources Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK.01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-78
10/26/94
-------
TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
¦ 3.13 AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT
A number of technologies have been widely applied for removal of VOCs from off-
gas streams; however, the application of these technologies to off-gases from site
remediation may be quite limited. Biofiltration has been widely applied for VOC
destruction in Europe and Japan, but it has only recently been used in the United
States. Catalytic and thermal oxidation are widely used for the destruction of gas-
phase VOCs in U.S. industry, yet have only limited applications to site remediation
of off-gases. Vapor phase carbon adsorption has been the VOC removal
technology most commonly used for site remediation off-gases. Carbon adsorption,
however, does not destroy the VOCs so that additional destruction or disposal is
required. The following factors may affect the effectiveness and cost of the various
technologies: VOC concentration, VOC species, presence of halogenated VOCs,
presence of catalyst poisons, particulate loading, moisture content, gas flow rate,
and ambient temperature.
Available air emissions/off-gas treatment technologies include biofiltration, high
energy corona, membrane separation, oxidation, and vapor phase carbon adsorption.
These processes are discussed in Section 4 (Treatment Technology Profiles 4.51
through 4.55). Completed air emissions/off-gas treatment projects are shown in
Table 3-16.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.3a2
3-79
10/26/94
-------
TABLE 3-16
COMPLETED PROJECTS: AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT
Site Name/Contact
Technology/
Vendor
Media
Treated
Contaminants
Treated
Operating
Parameters
Materials
Handling
Residuals
Management
Comments
EPA Demo
1989
Ronald Lewis
(513) 569-7856
Chemtact™
gaseous waste
treatment
Gaseous
wastestreams
Organic and
inorganics
85-100% removal of
hydrocarbons
94% removal of
phenol and
formaldehyde
Once through system
with droplet size less
than 10 microns and
a longer retention
time
Gas scrubber
Low volumes of
liquid condensate
Three mobile units
currently available.
EPA Demo
Hamilton Harbor,
Canada
1992
Gordon Evans
(513) 569-7684
Thermal gas
phase reduction
Soil, sludge,
liquids, &
gases
Organics and
chlorinated organics
850 °C or higher
Hydrogen
reduces organics
to smaller lighter
hydrocarbons.
Gas stream
scrubber
No dioxin or furan
production.
DOE Integrated Demo
DOE Hanford
Reservation
Steve Stein
(206) 528-3340
VOC compounds
at arid sites
Arid zones or
environments
with large
vadose zones
VOCs (TCE, PCE)
Integrated demo
includes many
technologies - no
specific parameters
given
Integrated demo
includes many
technologies - no
specific
parameters given
Integrated demo
includes many
technologies - no
specific parameters
given
Technologies include
steam reforming, sup-
ported liquid
membrane separa-
tion, in situ heating,
and corona
destruction.
Sources Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report (EPA, 1993).
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies (FRTR, 1993).
MK01\RPT 02281012.009\compgde 3a2
3-80
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
Section 4
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
PROFILES
-------
Soil, Sediment,
and Sludge
Treatment
Technologies
-------
4.1 BIODEGRADATION (IN SITU)
Description: Biodegradation is a process in which indigenous or inoculated micro-
organisms (i.e., fungi, bacteria, and other microbes) degrade (metabolize)
organic contaminants found in soil and/or groundwater. In the presence of
sufficient oxygen (aerobic conditions), microorganisms will ultimately
convert many organic contaminants to carbon dioxide, water, and microbial
cell mass. In the absence of oxygen (anaerobic conditions), the contaminants
will be ultimately metabolized to methane, limited amount of carbon dioxide,
and trace amounts of hydrogen gas. Sometimes contaminants may be
degraded to intermediate products that may be less, equally, or more
hazardous than the original contaminant. For example, TCE anaerobically
biodegrades to the persistent and more toxic vinyl chloride. To avoid such
problems, most biodegradation projects are conducted in situ.
Groundwater
Rejection Wells
Spray
Irrigation
UST
WjjjJ
Fill SoilV
Groundwater
Pumping Well
Monitoring
Local Aquifer
\'Low Permeability Layer
Regional Aquifer
4-1 94P-3304 8/26/94
4-1 TYPICAL IN SITU BIODEGRADATION SYSTEM
The in situ bioremediation of soil typically involves the percolation or
injection of groundwater or uncontaminated water mixed with nutrients and
saturated with dissolved oxygen. Sometimes acclimated microorganisms
(bioaugmentation) and/or another oxygen source such as hydrogen peroxide
are also added. An infiltration gallery or spray irrigation is typically used
for shallow contaminated soils, and injection wells are used for deeper
contaminated soils.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.41
4-1
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Applicability: Bioremediation techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils,
sludges, and groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons,
solvents, pesticides, wood preservatives, and other organic chemicals. Pilot
studies indicate the effectiveness of microbial degradation of nitrotoluenes
in soils contaminated with explosives. Biodegradation is especially effective
for remediating low level residual contamination in conjunction with source
removal.
While bioremediation cannot degrade inorganic contaminants, bioremediation
can be used to change the valence state of inorganics and cause adsorption,
uptake, accumulation, and concentration of inorganics in micro or
macroorganisms. These techniques, while still largely experimental, show
considerable promise of stabilizing or removing inorganics from soil.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Cleanup goals may not be attained if the soil matrix prohibits
contaminant-microorganism contact.
• The circulation of water-based solutions through the soil may increase
contaminant mobility and necessitate treatment of underlying
groundwater.
• Preferential colonization by microbes may occur causing clogging of
nutrient and water injection wells.
• Preferential flow paths may severely decrease contact between injected
fluids and contaminants throughout the contaminated zones. The
system should not be used for clay, highly layered, or heterogeneous
subsurface environments because of oxygen (or other electron
acceptor) transfer limitations.
• High concentrations of heavy metals, highly chlorinated organics, long
chain hydrocarbons, or inorganic salts are likely to be toxic to
microorganisms.
• Bioremediation slows at low temperatures.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Important contaminant
characteristics that need to be identified in a bioremediation feasibility
investigation are their potential to leach (e.g., water solubility and soil
sorption coefficient); their chemical reactivity (e.g., tendency toward
nonbiological reactions, such as hydrolysis, oxidation, and polymerization);
and, most importantly, their biodegradability.
Soil characteristics that need to be determined include the depth and areal
extent of contamination; the concentration of the contaminants; soil type and
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde 41
4-2
10/27/94
-------
4.1 BIODEGRADATION
properties (e.g., organic content, texture, pH, permeability, water-holding
capacity, moisture content, and nutrient level); the competition for oxygen
(i.e., redox potential); the presence or absence of substances that are toxic to
microorganisms; and the ability of microorganisms in the soil to degrade
contaminants.
Treatability or feasibility tests are performed to determine whether
bioremediation is feasible in a given situation, and the remediation time
frame and parameters. Field testing can be performed to determine the
radius of influence and well spacing.
Performance
Data: The main advantage of the in situ process is that it allows soil to be treated
without being excavated and transported, resulting in less disturbance of site
activities and significant cost savings over methods involving excavation and
transportation. Also, both contaminated groundwater and soil can be treated
simultaneously, providing additional cost advantages. In situ processes
generally require longer time periods, however, and there is less certainty
about the uniformity of treatment because of the inherent variability in soil
and aquifer characteristics and difficulty in monitoring progress.
Remediation times are often years, depending mainly on the degradation
rates of specific contaminants, site characteristics, and climate. Less than 1
year may be required to clean up some contaminants, but higher molecular
weight compounds take longer to degrade.
There is a risk of increasing contaminant mobility and leaching of contami-
nants into the groundwater. Regulators often do not accept the addition of
nitrates or non-native microorganisms to contaminated soils. In situ
biodegradation has been selected for remedial and emergency response
actions at only a few Superfund sites. Generally, petroleum hydrocarbons
can be readily bioremediated, at relatively low cost, by stimulating
indigenous microorganisms with or without nutrients.
Cost: Typical costs for in situ bioremediation range from $30 to $100 per cubic
meter ($20 to $80 per cubic yard) of soil. Variables affecting the cost are
the nature and depth of the contaminants, use of bioaugmentation and/or
hydrogen peroxide addition, and groundwater pumping rates.
References: Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, R.E. Hinchee, G.L. Headington, and A.R.
Gavaskar, July 1990. Methods To Select Chemicals for In-Situ
Biodegradation of Fuel Hydrocarbons, Air Force Engineering & Services
Center, Tyndall AFB, FL.
Arthur, M.F., T.C. Zwick, G.K. O'Brien, and R.E. Hoeppel, 1988.
"Laboratory Studies To Support Microbially Mediated In-Situ Soil
Remediation," in 1988 DOE Model Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3, NTIS
Document No. PC A14/MF A01, as cited in Energy Research Abstracts,
EDB-89:134046, TIC Accession No. DE89014702.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.41
4-3
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
EPA, 1993. Augmented In-Situ Subsurface Bioremediation Process, Bio-
Rem, Inc., EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/527.
EPA, 1994. Ex-Situ Anaerobic Bioremediation System, Dinoseb, J.R. Simplot
Company, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin; EPA/540/MR-94/508.
Wetzel, R.S., C.M. Durst, D.H. Davidson, and D.J. Sarno, July 1987. In-Situ
Biological Treatment Test at Kelly Air Force Base, Volume II: Field Test
Results and Cost Model, AD-A187 486, Air Force Engineering & Services
Center, Tyndall AFB, FL.
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Naval Communi-
cation Station,
Thurso, Scotland
Deh Bin Chan, Ph.D.
NFESC
Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
(805) 982-4191,
DSN 551-4191
Oil degrading bacteria
applied by injection
wells and surface
sprayers to hard to
reach areas where
indigenous bacteria had
been destroyed.
1,000 ppm
COD in
leaching water
from beach
before
entering
bioreactor
80% removal
(60% in situ,
20% bio-
reactor)
$30/ton of
soil
DOE, Savannah
River, SC
Terry Hazen
Westinghouse Savannah River
Company
P.O. Box 616
Building 773-42A
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 725-6413
Plants (lobolly pine) are
cultivated to encourage
root-associated
(rhizosphere)
microorganisms to
degrade contaminants.
TCE and PCE targeted.
Not currently
funded
NA
<$50,000/
acre
FAA Technical
Center-Area D
Atlantic County,
NJ
Caria Struble
(212) 264-4595
Pilot scale completed
August 1992. Nutrient
addition and
groundwater reinjection
in saturated soil (sand)
33,000 yd3
Jet fuel
NAPLs
New Jersey
soil action
levels
Expected
full scale
$286K CAP
and $200K
O&M
Eglin AFB, FL
Alison Thomas
(904) 283-6303
Using nitrate as an
alternative electron
acceptor to enhance
anaerobic
biodegradation of a
fuel-contaminated
aquifer.
4,000 ppb
BTEX
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Ron Hoeppel
NFESC
(805) 982-1655
DSN 551-1655
Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
John Matthews
EPA-RSKERL
(405) 436-8600
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74821
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax:
(410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.41
4-4
10/27/94
-------
4.2 BIOVENTING
Description: Bioventing is a promising new technology that stimulates the natural in situ
biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil by providing oxygen to
existing soil microorganisms. In contrast to soil vapor vacuum extraction,
bioventing uses low air flow rates to provide only enough oxygen to sustain
microbial activity. Oxygen is most commonly supplied through direct air
injection into residual contamination in soil, as illustrated below. In addition
to degradation of adsorbed fuel residuals, volatile compounds are
biodegraded as vapors move slowly through biologically active soil.
Analytical Trailer
Blower
¦OO
LJP- 4 (JP- 4
Lateral Vent Array
Vertical Vent Array
4-2 94P-2108 9/12/94
4-2 TYPICAL BIOVENTING SYSTEM
The AFCEE bioventing initiative is demonstrating that this technology is
effective under widely varying site conditions. Initial testing has been
completed at 117 sites, with more than 90 pilot systems now operating at 41
USAF installations. On smaller sites, many of these single-well pilot
systems are providing full-scale remediation.
Regulatory acceptance of this technology has been obtained in 30 states and
in all 10 EPA regions, and the use of this technology in the private sector is
growing rapidly following USAF leadership.
Applicability: Bioventing techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils
contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons, nonchlorinated solvents, some
pesticides, wood preservatives, and other organic chemicals.
MK01\RPT.02281012.009\compg
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
While bioremediation cannot degrade inorganic contaminants, bioremediation
can be used to change the valence state of inorganics and cause adsorption,
uptake, accumulation, and concentration of inorganics in micro or
macroorganisms. These techniques, while still largely experimental, show
considerable promise of stabilizing or removing inorganics from soil.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Pilot-scale, in situ tests should be conducted to determine soil gas
permeability.
• The water table within several feet of the surface, saturated soil lenses,
or low permeability soils reduce bioventing performance.
• Vapors can build up in basements within the radius of influence of air
injection wells. This problem 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 many chlorinated compounds may not be
effective unless there is a co-metabolite present, or an anaerobic cycle.
• Low temperatures slow remediation.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Two basic criteria must
be satisfied for successful bioventing. First, air must be able to pass through
the soil in sufficient quantities to maintain aerobic conditions; second, natural
hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms must be present in concentrations
large enough to obtain reasonable biodegradation rates. Initial testing is
designed to determine both air permeability of soil and in situ respiration
rates.
Soil grain size and soil moisture significantly influence soil gas permeability.
Perhaps the greatest limitation to air permeability is excessive soil moisture.
A combination of high water tables, high moisture, and fine-grained soils has
made bioventing infeasible at some AFCEE test locations.
Several soil characteristics that are known to impact microbial activity are
pH, moisture, and basic nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, and temperature.
Soil pH measurements show the optional pH range to be 6 to 8 for microbial
activity; however, microbial respiration has been observed at all sites, even
in soils that fall outside this optimal range. Optimum soil moisture is very
soil-specific because too much moisture can reduce the air permeability of
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.42
4-6
10/27/94
-------
4.2 BIOVENTING
the soil and decrease its oxygen transfer capability. Too little moisture will
inhibit microbial activity. Several AFCEE bioventing test sites have
sustained biodegradation rates with moisture levels as low as 2 to 5% by
weight.
Biological activity has been measured at Eielson AFB, Alaska, in soil
temperatures as low as 0 °C. Bioventing will more rapidly degrade
contaminants during summer months, but some remediation occurs in soil
temperatures down to 0 °C.
Performance
Data: Bioventing is becoming more common, and most of the hardware
components are readily available. Bioventing is receiving increased exposure
to the remediation consulting community, particularly its use in conjunction
with soil vapor extraction (SVE). AFCEE is sponsoring bioventing
demonstrations at 135 sites. 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.
Using an approach similar to the AFCEE Bioventing Initiative (138 sites at
48 military bases), AFCEE/ERT, in coordination with the regulatory
community, plans to conduct a multiple site application of the bioslurping
technology.
Bioslurping is an approach adapted from the vacuum dewatering industry.
A bioslurper system consists of a "slurp" tube that extends into the LNAPL
free product layer in the well. Product is drawn into the tube as air flows
up the tube toward the vacuum extraction pump. Product is drawn up the
tube in the form of a column, slugs, droplets, vapor, and/or a film. Product
can be drawn up the tube as a solid column, provided that the product flows
into the well fast enough and the depth below the ground surface does not
exceed roughly 25 feet below the ground surface. Otherwise, the product is
"slurped" up the well through entrainment. Recovery of product is enhanced
over conventional methods because, as opposed to gravity alone, the vacuum
provides a driving force. Product flow proceeds along a horizontal flow
path, which reduces product entrapment or "smearing" typical of dual pump
systems. In addition, as vapor is extracted from the subsurface, oxygen, in
the form of air, promotes aerobic biodegradation (a.k.a. bioventing)
throughout the affected vadose zone and capillary fringe.
Cost: Based on AFCEE and commercial applications of this technology, costs for
operating a bioventing system typically are $10 to $70 per cubic meter ($10
to $50 per cubic yard). Factors that affect the cost of bioventing include
contaminant type and concentration, soil permeability, well spacing and
number, pumping rate, and off-gas treatment. 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, periodic maintenance
monitoring is conducted.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.42
4-7
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
References: AFCEE, 1994. Bioventing Performance and Cost Summary, Draft. Brooks
AFB, TX.
Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, R.E. Hinchee, G.L. Headington, and A.R.
Gavaskar, July 1990. Methods To Select Chemicals for In-Situ
Biodegradation of Fuel Hydrocarbons, Air Force Engineering & Services
Center, Tyndall AFB, FL.
DOE, 1993. Methanotrophic In Situ Bioremediation Using Methane/Air and
Gaseous Nutrient Injection Via Horizontal Wells, Technology Information
Profile, Rev. 2, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: SR-1211-06.
Hinchee, R.E., S.K. Ong, and R. Hoeppel, 1991. "A Treatability Test for
Bioventing," in Proceedings of the 84th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Air
and Waste Management Association, Vancouver, BC, 91-19.4.
Hinchee, R.E., S.K. Ong, R.N. Miller, and D.C. Downey, 1992. Report to
AFCEE, Brooks AFB, TX.
Hinchee, R.E., 1993. "Bioventing of Petroleum Hydrocarbons," Handbook
of Bioremediation, Lewis Publication, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 39-59.
Hoeppel, R.E., R.E. Hinchee, and M.F. Arthur, 1991. "Bioventing Soils
Contaminated withPetroleum Hydrocarbons," J. bid. Microbiol, 8:141-146.
MK01\RPr:022»10n.009\compgde.42
4-8
10/27/94
-------
4.2 BIOVENTING
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Savannah River
DOE Program Manager
Kurt Gendes
EM-551, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
(301) 903-7289
Disposal of solvents
used to degrease
nuclear fuel target
elements. Contamina-
tion is mostly TCE and
PCE.
Soil: 10 ppm
GW: 1 ppm
<2 ppb
Capital:
$150K +
200 man-
hours per
week
Tyndall AFB, FL
Armstrong Laboratory/EQW
139 Barnes Drive
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
(904) 283-6208
DSN: 523-6208
Pilot-scale field test for
volatile hydrocarbons in
vadose zone.
>1,000 mg
TPH/kg soil
<30 mg
TPH/kg soil
$15-
$20/m3
($12-
$15/yd3)
Eielson AFB, AK
Armstrong Laboratory/EQW
Kathy Vogel
139 Bames Drive
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
(904) 283-6208
Pilot-scale field test
comparison of
enhanced solar, active,
and buried heat tape
warming methods.
Volatile
Hydro-
carbons
Expected
11/94
Average
bio venting
cost $10-
$15/yd3
Hill AFB, UT
AFCEE
DSN: 240-4331
25,000 gallons of JP-4
spill to a depth of 60 ft
20,000 ppm
TPH
98% reduction
Average
bioventing
cost $10-
$15/yd3
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Greg Sayles
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7328
26 West. M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Lt. Col. Ross N. Miller
or Patrick E. Haas
AFCEE/ERT
(210) 536-4331
Fax: (210) 536-
4330
8001 Arnold Drive
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
Mark Zappi or Douglas
Gunnison
USAE-WES
(601) 636-2856
Fax: (610)634-3833
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax:
(410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Ronald Hoeppel
NFESC
(805) 982-1655
Code ESC 411
5600 Center Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
MK01\RPT:022810I2.009\compgde.42
4-9
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.42
4-10
10/27/94
-------
4.3 WHITE ROT FUNGUS
Description: Because of its lignin-degrading or wood-rotting enzymes, white rot fungus
has been reported to degrade a wide variety of organopollutants. Two
different treatment configurations have been tested for white rot fungus, in
situ and bioreactor. An aerobic system using moisturized air on wood chips
is used in a reactor for biodegradation. A reactor was used in the bench-
scale trial of the process. In the pilot-scale project, an adjustable shredder
was used for making chips for the open system. The open system is similar
to composting, with wood chips on a liner or hard contained surface that is
covered. Temperature is not controlled in this type of system. The optimum
temperature for biodegradation with lignin-degrading fungus ranges from 30
to 38 °C (86 to 100 °F). The heat of the biodegradation reaction will help
to maintain the temperature of the process near the optimum.
White Rot Fungal
Inoculated
Amendment
Moisture,
Bulking Agent
Explosives
Contaminated
Soil
HMX, RDX, TNT
1
Inoculation
h
windrow
Innocuous
By-Products
Excavation
4-3 04P-455O 8/22/94
4-3 TYPICAL WHITE ROT FUNGUS BIODEGRADATION PROCESS
Although white rot fungus degradation of TNT has been reported in
laboratory-scale settings using pure cultures, a number of factors increase the
difficulty of using this technology for full-scale remediation. These factors
include competition from native bacterial populations, toxicity inhibition,
chemical sorption, and the inability to meet risk-based cleanup levels. White
rot works best in nitrogen-limited environments.
In bench-scale studies of mixed fungal and bacterial systems, most of the
reported degradation of TNT is attributable to native bacterial populations.
High TNT or PCP concentrations in soil also can inhibit growth of white rot
fungus. A study suggested that one particular species of white rot was
incapable of growing in soils contaminated with 20 ppm or more of TNT.
In addition, some reports indicate that TNT losses reported in white rot
fungus studies can be attributed to adsorption onto the fungus and soil
amendments, such as corn cobs and straw, rather than actual destruction of
TNT. Alleman (1991) tested a variety of white rot fungus for PCP
sensitivity. Eighteen species tested for PCP sensitivity were inhibited by 10
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\eompgde.43
4-11
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
mg of PCP per liter when grown on agar plates. Within 2 weeks, 17 of the
18 species grew in the inhibition zones. In liquid-phase toxicity experiments,
all 18 species were killed by 5 mg of PCP per liter.
Applicability: White rot fungus has the ability to degrade and mineralize a number of
organopollutants including the predominant conventional explosives TNT,
RDX, and HMX. In addition, white rot fungus has the potential to degrade
and mineralize other recalcitrant materials, such as DDT, PAH, PCB, and
PCP2-4.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• High TNT concentrations in the soil, sediment, or sludge.
• The degradation of contaminants not being sufficient to meet cleanup
levels.
• Competition from native bacterial populations, toxicity inhibition, and
chemical sorption.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Subsection 2.7.1
provides a general overview of explosives in soils, sediments, and sludges.
Specific data required to evaluate the white rot process include:
• Explosives concentration of the contaminated soil, sludge, or sediment.
• Final explosive levels required after treatment.
• Other contaminants present.
• Characterization of soil properties.
Performance
Data: This technology has been known for approximately 20 years with very few,
if any, commercial applications. A pilot-scale treatability study was
conducted using white rot fungus at a former ordnance open burn/open
detonation area at Site D, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, Washington.
Initial TNT concentrations of 1,844 ppm were degraded to 1,267 ppm in 30
days and 1,087 ppm in 120 days. The overall degradation was 41%, and
final TNT soil levels were well above the proposed cleanup level of 30 ppm.
Additional studies to evaluate the effectiveness of white rot fungus on
explosives-contaminated soil are being sponsored by USAEC.
White rot fungus is not native to soil, and some forms of bacteria may
become predominant over the growth of fungi. In addition, little is known
of the ability of the white rot to compete with other forms of fungi. Many
of the preliminary laboratory studies cited use sterile conditions, which allow
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.43
4-12
10/27/94
-------
4.3 WHITE ROT FUNGUS
the white rot fungus to grow without the same limitations encountered in
field sites.
Experiments indicate that white rot fungus is viable under specific
environmental conditions. Duplicating these conditions in actual site testing
may optimize the ability of white rot fungus to remediate hazardous
compounds. The timeframe and cost effectiveness of duplicating these
conditions have never been taken into account. Several factors are widely
believed to optimize the viability and potential of white rot fungus. First,
secretion of enzymes is included in nutrient-deficient conditions. The
optimum concentration of nitrogen is around 2 to 4 mM. Second,
atmospheric concentrations of oxygen results in ligninolytic action but not
to the same degree as 100% oxygen. The rate of mineralization is two- to
three-fold greater under 100% oxygen. A concentration of oxygen below 5%
results in no enzymatic action. Third, pH has been determined to be optimal
around 4.5. Fourth, the optimal moisture content is between 40 and 45%.
Cost: The costs are estimated at $98 per cubic meter ($75 per cubic yard).
References: Alleman, B. 1991. Degradation of Pentachlorophenol by Selected Species
of White Rot Fungi, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arizona.
Bumpus, J.A., and S.D. Aust, 1985. "Studies on the Biodegradation of
Organopollutants by a White Rot Fungus," in Proceedings of the
International Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste
Management, 15-18 September 1985, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 404-410,
EPA/600/9-85/025.
EPA, 1993. Fungal Treatment Technology, EPA RREL, Demonstration
Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/514.
Janshekar, H. and Fiechter A., 1988. "Cultivation of P. Chrysosporium and
Production of Lignin Peroxidases in Submerged Stirred Tank Reactors,"
Journal of Biotechnology, 8:97-112.
Lamar, Richard T. and Dietrich D.M., 1990. "In Situ Depletion of
Pentachlorophenol from Contaminated Soil by Phanerochaete Species,"
Applied Environmental Microbiology, 56, 3093.
Lamar, Richard T. and Richard J. Scholze, 4-6 February 1992. White-Rot
Fungi Biodegradation of PCP-Treated Ammunition Boxes, Presented at the
National Research and Development Conference on the Control of Hazardous
Materials, San Francisco, CA.
Lebron, C.A., June 1990. Ordnance Bioremediation - Initial Feasibility
Report, NCEL.
M K01 \RPT:02281012,009\compgdc,43
4-13
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Lebron, C.A., L.A. Karr, T. Fernando, and S.D. Aust, 1992. Biodegradation
of 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene by White Rot Fungus, U.S. Patent Number
5,085,998.
Scholze, R.J., R.T. Lamar, J. Bolduc, and D. Dietrich, 1994. Feasibility of
White Rot Fungi for Biodegradation of PCP-Treated Ammunition Boxes,
USACERL Technical Report.
Venkatadri, R., S. Tsai, N. Vukanic, and L.B. Hein, 1992. "Use of Biofllm
Membrane Reactor for the Production of Lignin Peroxidase and Treatment
of Pentachlorophenol by Phanerochaete Chrysosporium, Hazardous Waste
and Hazardous Materials, Vol. 9, pp. 231-243.
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Letterkenny AD
Chambersburg,
PA
Richard Scholze
USACERL
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(217) 373-3488
Pilot-scale
demonstration using
PCP-treated
ammunition boxes in
less than ideal
conditions.
425 ppm of
PCB
30% removal
but 80%
removal in
lab
NA
Brookhaven Wood
Preserving, MA
Richard Lamar
Forest Products Lab., USDA
(608) 231-9469
John Glasser
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7568
White rot fungi to treat
chlorinated VOCs and
PAHs. Treatability
Study in 1991.
Full demo in 1993.
PCP 700 ppm
89% PCP
removal
70% PAH
removal
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Explosives:
Carmen A. Lebron
NFESC
(805) 982-1616
Autovon 551-1616
ESC 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Other Contaminants:
Richard Scholze
USACE-CERL
(217) 373-3488
(217) 352-6511
(800) USA-CERL
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
John Glasser
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7568
Fax:
(513) 569-7676
26 West M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax:
(410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MKOlXRfT: 02281012.009\compgde.43
4-14
10/27/94
-------
4.4 PNEUMATIC FRACTURING
Description: Pneumatic fracturing (PF) is an enhancement technology designed to increase
the efficiency of other in situ technologies in difficult soil conditions. PF
injects pressurized air 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 by increasing contact between contaminants adsorbed onto soil
particles and the extraction medium.
>- Pneumatic Pressure Source
i
i
i
Fracture
Interval
94P-3321 8/22/94
4-4 TYPICAL PNEUMATIC FRACTURING PROCESS
In the PF process, fracture wells are drilled in the contaminated vadose zone
and left open (uncased) for most of their depth. A packer system is used to
isolate small (0.6-meter or 2-foot) intervals so that short bursts (-20 seconds)
of compressed air (less than 10,300 mmHg or 200 pounds per square inch)
can be injected into the interval to fracture the formation. The process is
repeated for each interval. The fracturing extends and enlarges existing
fissures and introduces new fractures, primarily in the horizontal direction.
When fracturing has been completed, the formation is then subjected to
vapor extraction, either by applying a vacuum to all wells or by extracting
from selected wells, while other wells are capped or used for passive air inlet
or forced air injection.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.44
4-15
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Applicability: PF is applicable to the complete range of contaminant groups with no
particular target group. The technology is used primarily to fracture silts,
clays, shale, and bedrock.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
The technology should not be used in areas of high seismic activity.
Fractures will close in non-clayey soils.
• 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 nonaqueous phase liquids).
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Soil characteristics that
need to be determined include the depth and areal extent of contamination,
the concentration of the contaminants, and soil type and properties (e.g.,
structure, organic content, texture, permeability, water-holding capacity, and
moisture content).
Performance
Data: The technology is currently available from only one vendor. PF was tested
with hot gas injection and extraction in EPA's SITE demonstration program
in 1992. Results indicate that PF increased the effective vacuum radius of
influence nearly threefold and increased the rate of mass removal up to 25
times over the rates measured using conventional extraction technologies.
A Phase II demonstration is planned for 1994. 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.
During summer 1993, a pilot demonstration of pneumatic fracturing was
sponsored by DOE at Tinker AFB to enhance remediation of the fine-grained
silts, clays, and sedimentary rock that underlie the site. At one test area,
where No. 2 fuel oil was being pumped from existing recovery wells,
pneumatic fracturing increased the average monthly removal rate by 15
times. Tests conducted in the unsaturated zone also showed enhanced air
permeability as a result of fracturing, ranging from 5 to 30 times greater than
prefracture values.
Normal operation employs a two-person crew, making 15 to 25 fractures per
day with a fracture radius of 4 to 6 meters (15 to 20 feet) to a depth of 15
to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet). For longer remediation programs, refracturing
efforts may be required at 6- to 12-month intervals.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.44
4-16
10/27/94
-------
4.4 PNEUMATIC FRACTURING
Cost: The approximate cost range for pneumatic fracturing is $9 to $13 per metric
ton ($8 to $12 per ton).
References: EPA, 1993. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas
Injection, Phase I, EPA RREL; series includes Technology Evaluation,
EPA/540/R-93/509; Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/
SR-93/509; Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/509; and
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-93/509.
EPA, 1993. "Pneumatic Fracturing Increases VOC Extractor Rate,"
Tech Trends, EPA Report EPA/542/N-93/010.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.44
4-17
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Hillsborough, NJ
John liskowitz
Accutech Remedial
Systems, Inc.
(908) 739-6444
Fax: (908)739-0451
PF and hot gas injection
increased SVE flow rate by
more than 600%.
NA
NA
$308/kg
($140/lb)
TCE
removed
Marcus Hook, PA
John Schuring or Peter
Lederman
Hazardous Substance
Management Research
Center at New Jersey
Institute of Technology
138 Warren Street
Newark, NJ 07102
(201) 596-5849/2457
Pilot-scale testing of PF
and bioremediation.
Completion due in July
1994.
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA - Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Uwe Frank
EPA
(908) 321-6626
EPA, Building 10, MS-104
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Clyde Frank
DOE
(202) 586-6382
DOE
Environmental Restoration/Waste
Management, EM-50
1000 Independence Ave.
Washington, DC 20585
Dan Hunt
USAF
(405) 734-3058
Environmental Management
Directorate
OC-ALC/EM
Tinker AFB, OK 73145
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
M KO1 \RPT:02281012.009\compgde.44
4-18
10/27/94
-------
4.5 SOIL FLUSHING
Description: In situ soil flushing is the extraction of contaminants from the soil with
water or other suitable aqueous solutions. Soil flushing is accomplished by
passing the extraction fluid through in-place soils using an injection or
infiltration process. Extraction fluids must be recovered from the underlying
aquifer and, when possible, they are recycled.
Spray Application
Pump
Groundwater
Treatment
Pump
Flushing
Additives
|g|
Groundwater
Extraction Well
Water Table
Contaminated Area
Leachate
Collection
Low Permeability
Zone
4-5 94P-3305 8/22/94
4-5 TYPICAL SOIL FLUSHING SYSTEM
Recovered groundwater and flushing fluids with the desorbed contaminants
may need treatment to meet appropriate discharge standards prior to recycle
or release to local, publicly owned wastewater treatment works or receiving
streams. To the maximum extent practical, recovered fluids should be reused
in the flushing process. The separation of surfactants from recovered
flushing fluid, for reuse in the process, is a major factor in the cost of soil
flushing. Treatment of the recovered fluids results in process sludges and
residual solids, such as spent carbon and spent ion exchange resin, which
must be appropriately treated before disposal. Air emissions of volatile
contaminants from recovered flushing fluids should be collected and treated,
as appropriate, to meet applicable regulatory standards. Residual flushing
additives in the soil may be a concern and should be evaluated on a site-
specific basis.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-19
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Applicability: The target contaminant group for soil flushing is inorganics including
radioactive contaminants. The technology can be used to treat VOCs,
SVOCs, fuels, and pesticides, but it may be less cost-effective than
alternative technologies for these contaminant groups. The addition of
compatible surfactants may be used to increase the effective solubility of
some organic compounds; however, the flushing solution may alter the
physical/chemical properties of the soil system. The technology offers the
potential for recovery of metals and can mobilize a wide range of organic
and inorganic contaminants from coarse-grained soils.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Low permeability soils are difficult to treat.
• Surfactants can adhere to soil and reduce effective soil porosity.
• Reactions of flushing fluids with soil can reduce contaminant mobility.
• The potential of washing the contaminant beyond the capture zone and
the introduction of surfactants to the subsurface concern regulators.
The technology should be used only where flushed contaminants and
soil flushing fluid can be contained and recaptured.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Treatability tests are
required to determine the feasibility of the specific soil-flushing process
being considered. Physical and chemical soil characterization parameters that
should be established include soil permeability, soil structure, soil texture,
soil porosity, moisture content, total organic carbon (TOC), cation exchange
capacity (CEC), pH, and buffering capacity.
Contaminant characteristics that should be established include concentration,
solubility, partition coefficient, solubility products, reduction potential, and
complex stability constants. Soil and contaminant characteristics will
determine the flushing fluids required, flushing fluid compatibility, and
changes in flushing fluids with changes in contaminants.
Soil flushing is a developing technology that has had limited use in the
United States. Typically, laboratory and field treatability studies must be
performed under site-specific conditions before soil flushing is selected as
the remedy of choice. To date, the technology has been selected as part of
the source control remedy at 12 Superfund sites. This technology is
currently operational at only one Superfund site; a second was scheduled to
begin operation in 1991. EPA completed construction of a mobile soil-
flushing system, the In Situ Contaminant/Treatment Unit, in 1988. This
mobile soil-flushing system is designed for use at spills and uncontrolled
Performance
Data:
MK01\RPT 02281012.009\compgde.45
4-20
10/27/94
-------
4.5 SOIL FLUSHING
hazardous waste sites. There has been very little commercial success with
this technology.
Cost: Not available.
References: EPA, 1991. In Situ Soil Flushing, Engineering Bulletin, EPA/540/2-91/021.
Nash J., R.P. Traver, and D.C. Downey, 1986. Surfactant-Enhanced In Situ
Soils Washing, USAF Engineering and Services Laboratory, Florida. ESL-
TR-97-18, Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA188066.
Sturges, S.G., Jr., P. McBeth, Jr., R.C. Pratt, 1992. "Performance of Soil
Flushing and Groundwater Extraction at the United Chrome Superfund Site,"
Journal of Hazardous Materials, El Savior Science Pub., B.V., Amsterdam,
Vol. 29, pp. 59-78.
MK01\RPK02281012.009\compgde.45
4-21
iomm
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Laramie Tie
Plant, WY
NA
Primary oil recovery to
remove creosote
contamination.
Total extractable
organics =
93,000 mg/kg
4,000 ppm
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Michael Gruenfeld
EPA, Releases
Control Branch, RREL
FTS 340-6625 or
(908)321-6625
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Building 10
Edison, NJ 08837
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.45
4-22
10/27/94
-------
4.6 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (IN SITU)
Description: Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an in situ unsaturated (vadose) zone soil
remediation technology in which a vacuum is applied to the soil to induce
the controlled flow of air and remove volatile and some semivolatile
contaminants from the soil. The gas leaving the soil may be treated to
recover or destroy the contaminants, depending on local and state air
discharge regulations. Vertical extraction vents are typically used at depths
of 1.5 meters (5 feet) or greater and have been successfully applied as deep
as 91 meters (300 feet). Horizontal extraction vents (installed in trenches or
horizontal borings) can be used as warranted by contaminant zone geometry,
drill rig access, or other site-specific factors.
Vacuum Relief Valve ¦
Moisture Separator Inlet -
Moisture Separator -
Air Filter
-Manual Starter for Hazardous Locations
Contaminated Zone
Gas Discharge
Fume Incineration
High Level Inlet
Air Shut-Off Float
Carbon Treatment
Moisture Drain
Gas Treatmeny
Steel Skid
Vacuum Blower
Catalytic Oxidation
4-6 94P-3306 8/26/94
4-6 TYPICAL IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM
Groundwater depression pumps may be used to reduce groundwater
upwelling induced by the vacuum or to increase the depth of the vadose
zone. Air injection is effective for facilitating extraction of deep
contamination, contamination in low permeability soils, and contamination
in the saturated zone (see Treatment Technology Profile 4.34, Air Sparging).
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for SVE are VOCs and some fuels. The
technology is typically applicable only to volatile compounds with a Henry's
law constant greater than 0.01 or a vapor pressure greater than 0.5 mmHg
(0.02 inches Hg). Other factors, such as the moisture content, organic
M K01 \RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-23
10/27/94
-------
IN SHU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
content, and air permeability of the soil, will also affect SVE's effectiveness.
SVE will not remove heavy oils, metals, PCBs, or dioxins. Because the
process involves the continuous flow of air through the soil, however, it
often promotes the in situ biodegradation of low-volatility organic
compounds that may be present.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Soil that is tight or has high moisture content (>50%) has a reduced
permeability to air, requiring higher vacuums (increasing costs) and/or
hindering the operation of SVE.
• Large screened intervals are required in extraction wells for soil with
highly variable permeabilities or horizonation, which otherwise may
result in uneven delivery of gas flow from the contaminated regions.
• Soil that has high organic content or is extremely dry has a high
sorption capacity of VOCs, which results in reduced removal rates.
• Air emissions may require treatment to eliminate possible harm to the
public and the environment.
• As a result of off-gas treatment, residual liquids and spent activated
carbon may require treatment/disposal.
• SVE is not effective in the saturated zone; however, lowering the
water table can expose more media to SVE (this may address concerns
regarding LNAPLs).
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Data requirements
include the depth and areal extent of contamination, the concentration of the
contaminants, depth to water table, and soil type and properties (e.g.,
structure, texture, permeability, and moisture content).
Pilot studies should be performed to provide design information, including
extraction well, radius of influence, gas flow rates, optimal applied vacuum,
and contaminant mass removal rates.
Performance
Data: A field pilot study is necessary to establish the feasibility of the method as
well as to obtain information necessary to design and configure the system.
During full-scale operation, SVE can be run intermittently (pulsed operation)
once the extracted mass removal rate has reached an asymptotic level. This
pulsed operation can increase the cost-effectiveness of the system by
facilitating extraction of higher concentrations of contaminants. After the
contaminants are removed by SVE, other remedial measures, such as
M KOI \RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-24
10/27/94
-------
4.6 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (IN SITU)
biodegradation, can be investigated if remedial action objectives have not
been met. SVE projects are typically completed in 18 months.
Cost: The cost of SVE is site-specific, depending on the size of the site, the nature
and amount of contamination, and the hydrogeological setting (EPA, July
1989). These factors affect the number of wells, the blower capacity and
vacuum level required, and the length of time required to remediate the site.
A requirement for off-gas treatment adds significantly to the cost. Water is
also frequently extracted during the process and usually requires treatment
prior to disposal, further adding to the cost. Cost estimates for SVE range
between $10 and $50 per cubic meter ($10 and $40 per cubic yard) of soil.
Pilot testing typically costs $10,000 to $100,000.
References: EPA, 1989. Terra Vac, In Situ Vacuum Extraction System, EPA RREL,
Applications Analysis Report, Cincinnati, OH, EPA Report EPA/540/A5-
89/003.
EPA, 1989. Terra Vac — Vacuum Extraction, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Evaluation, Vol. I, EPA/540/5-89/003a, PB89-192025;
Technology Evaluation, Vol. II, EPA/540/A5-89/003b; Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/A5-89/003; Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5-
89/003; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-89/003.
EPA, 1990. State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction System
Technology, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH, EPA/600/2-89/024.
EPA, 1991. AWD Technologies, Inc. — Integrated Vapor Extraction and
Stream Vacuum Stripping, EPA RREL, series includes Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/A5-91/002, PB89-192033, and Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/M5-89/003.
EPA 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil
Vapor Extraction, OERP, Washington, DC, EPA Report EPA/540/2-
91/019A.
EPA, 1991. In-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/2-91/006.
EPA, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook, EPA,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH, T.A. Pederson and J.T. Curtis, Editors, EPA/540/2-
91/003.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-25
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
DOE, Savannah
River, Aiken, SC
Brian B. Looney
Westinghouse Savannah
River Co.
P.O. Box 616
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 725-3692
Horizontal wells are
concurrently used to
remediate soils and
groundwater.
1,800 ppb TCE
30 ppb TCE
Demo —
$44/kg
Prep —
$300,000-
$450,000
Grove land Wells
Superfund Site
Groveland, MA
Mary Stinson
EPA Technical Support
Branch, RREL
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Building 10
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
(908) 321-6683
Terra Vac
(714) 252-8900
Pilot system
3-350 ppm TCE
Non-detect
to 39 ppm
TCE
$30 to $75
per metric
ton ($30 to
$70 per ton)
of soil
Hill AFB, UT
Major Mark Smith
USAF
Full-scale system at JP-4
jet fuel spill site
NA
NA
NA
Letterkenny AD
Chambersburg,
PA
USAEC ETD
Bldg. 4435
APG, MD 21010
(410) 671-2054
Large-scale (>50 vents)
pilot system. 1,530 m3
(2,000 yd3) treated.
> 1,000 ppm total
VOCs
NA
$2M design,
install, and
operation.
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Mike O'Rear
DOE Savannah River
(803) 725-5541
Aiken, SC
Ramon Mendoza
EPA Region IX
(415) 744-2410
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Arthur L. Baehr
USGS
(609) 771-3978
810 Bear Tavern Rd„ Suite 206
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Michael Gruenfeld
EPA Releases Control
Branch, RREL
(908) 321-6625
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Stacy Erikson
EPA
(303) 294-1084
One Denver Place
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Major Mark Smith
USAF
(904) 283-6126
AL/EQW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Maty K. Stinson
EPA Technical
Support Branch,
RREL
(908) 321-6683
2890 Woodbridge Ave
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.46
4-26
10/27/94
-------
4.7 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (IN SITU)
Description: Solidification/stabilization (S/S) reduces the mobility of hazardous substances
and contaminants in the environment through both physical and chemical
means. Unlike other remedial technologies, S/S seeks to trap or immobilize
contaminants within their "host" medium (i.e., the soil, sand, and/or building
materials that contain them), instead of removing them through chemical or
physical treatment. Leachability testing is typically performed to measure
the immobilization of contaminants. In situ S/S techniques use auger/caisson
systems and injector head systems to apply S/S agents to in situ soils.
Emissions,
Dust
andVOC
Control
Reagent
and/or
Binder
IP®
\lnjector
Head
-Auger
Caisson
4-7 94P-2110 8/22/94
4-7 TYPICAL AUGER/CAISSON AND REAGENT/INJECTOR HEAD IN SITU
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION SYSTEMS
S/S techniques can be used alone or combined with other treatment and
disposal methods to yield a product or material suitable for land disposal or,
in other cases, that can be applied to beneficial use. These techniques have
been used as both final and interim remedial measures.
Applicability: The target contaminant group for in situ S/S is inorganics (including
radionuclides). The technology has limited effectiveness against SVOCs and
pesticides and no expected effectiveness against VOCs; however, systems
designed to be more effective in treating organics are being developed and
tested.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Depth of contaminants may limit some types of application processes.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.47
4-27
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
• Future usage of the site may "weather" the materials and 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 are generally required.
• Reagent delivery and effective mixing are more difficult than for ex
situ applications.
• Like all in situ treatments, confirmatory sampling can be more
difficult than for ex situ treatments.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Data needs include
particle size, Atterberg limits, moisture content, metal concentrations, sulfate
content, organic content, density, permeability, unconfined compressive
strength, leachability, pH, and microstructure analysis.
S/S technologies are well demonstrated, can be applied to the most common
site and waste types, require conventional materials handling equipment, and
are available competitively from a number of vendors. Most reagents and
additives are also widely available and relatively inexpensive industrial
commodities.
In situ S/S processes have demonstrated the capability to reduce the mobility
of contaminated waste by greater than 95%.The effects, over the long term,
of weathering (e.g., freeze-thaw cycles, acid precipitation, and wind erosion),
groundwater infiltration, and physical disturbance associated with
uncontrolled future land use can significantly affect the integrity of the
stabilized mass and contaminant mobility in ways that cannot be predicted
by laboratory tests.
Cost: Costs for cement-based stabilization techniques vary widely according to
materials or reagents used, their availability, project size, and chemical nature
of contaminants (e.g., types and concentration levels for shallow
applications). The in situ soil mixing/auger techniques average $50 to $80
per cubic meter ($40 to $60 per cubic yard) for the shallow applications and
$190 to $330 per cubic meter ($150 to $250 per cubic yard) for the deeper
applications.
The shallow soil mixing technique processes 36 to 72 metric tons (40 to 80
tons) per hour on average, and the deep soil mixing technique averages 18
to 45 metric tons (20 to 50 tons) per hour.
The major factor driving the selection process beyond basic waste
compatibility is the availability of suitable reagents. S/S processes require
that potentially large volumes of bulk reagents and additives be transported
to project sites. Transportation costs can dominate project economics and
Performance
Data:
M K01 \RPT:02281012. C09\compgde.47
4-28
10/27/94
-------
4.7 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (IN SITU)
can quickly become uneconomical in cases where local or regional material
sources are unavailable.
References: EPA, 1989. Chemfix Technologies, Inc. — Chemical Fixation/Stabilization,
EPA RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation, Vol. I, EPA/540/5-
89/01 la, PB91-127696, and Technology Evaluation, Vol. II, EPA/540/5-
89/01 lb, PB90-274127.
EPA, 1989. Hazcon — Solidification, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Evaluation, Vol. I, EPA/540/5-89/001a, PB89-158810;
Technology Evaluation, Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/001b, PB89-158828;
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-89/001; and Technology Demonstration
Summary, EPA/540/S5-89/001.
EPA, 1989. FWT/GeoCon In-Situ Stabilization, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Evaluation, Vol. I, EPA/540/5-89/004a; Technology Evaluation,
Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/004b, PB89-194179; Technology Evaluation, Vol. Ill,
EPA/540/5-89/004c, PB90-269069; Technology Evaluation, Vol. IV,
EPA/540/5-89/004d, PB90-269077; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-
89/004; Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5-89/004;
Technology Demonstration Summary — Update Report, EPA/540/S5-
89/004a; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-89/004.
EPA, 1989. SITE Program Demonstration Test International Waste
Technologies In Situ Stabilization/Solidification Hialeah, Florida,
Technology Evaluation Report, EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/5-
89/004a.
EPA, 1989. Soliditech, Inc. — Solidification, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Evaluation, Vol. I, EPA/540/5-89/005a; Technology Evaluation,
Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/005b, PB90-191768; Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/A5-89/005; Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5-
89/005; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-89/005.
EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes:
Physical Tests, Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening, and
Field Activities, EPA, CERL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/6-89/022.
EPA, 1990. International Waste Technologies/Geo-Con In Situ Stabilization/
Solidification, Applications Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EP A/540/A5-89/004.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste
Materials, Technical Resource Document, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/53Q/R-93/012.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics,
Engineering Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/S-92/015.
Wiles, C.C., 1991. Treatment of Hazardous Waste with Solidification/
Stabilization, EPA Report EPA/600/D-91/061.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.47
4-29
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Hialeah, FL
Jeff Newton
International Waste
Technologies
150 North Main Street,
Suite 910
Wichita, KS 67202
(316) 269-2660
Geo-Con
Dave Miller
(817) 383-1400
Deep soil mixing using
drive auger to inject
additive slurry and water
into in-place soil.
NA
NA
$ 111 -$ 194/
ton
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Mary K. Stinson
EPA RREL
(908) 321-6683
Fax: (908)321-6640
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Patricia M. Erikson
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7884
Fax: (513)569-7676
26 West M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Edward R. Bates
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7774
Fax: (513)569-7676
26 West M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
John Cullinane
USAE-WES
(601)636-3111
ATTN: LEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Brand)
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012 009\compgde.47
4-30
10/27/94
-------
4.8 THERMALLY ENHANCED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Description: Thermally enhanced SVE is a full-scale technology that uses steam/hot-air
injection or electric/radio frequency heating to increase the mobility of semi-
volatiles and facilitate extraction. The process is otherwise identical to
standard SVE (Treatment Technology Profile 4.6).
Burner/Blower
Vent Gas
Collection
Channels -
Vent Gas
(r
sr~n A A
7r
A A
*
1>
D
Off-Gas
Collection
7,
A A
A A
~S ZT
A A
A A
Contaminated Zone
\.
Hot Air/Steam
Injection Wells
4-8 94P-2112 8/22/94
4-8 TYPICAL THERMALLY ENHANCED SVE SYSTEM
Applicability:
The system is designed to treat SVOCs but will consequently treat VOCs.
Thermally enhanced SVE technologies also are effective in treating some
pesticides and fuels, depending on the temperatures achieved by the system.
After application of this process, subsurface conditions are excellent for
biodegradation of residual contaminants.
Limitations: 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.
• Performance in extracting certain contaminants varies depending upon
the maximum temperature achieved in the process selected.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.48
4-31
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
• The soil structure at the site may be modified depending upon the
process selected.
• Soil that is tight or has high moisture content has a reduced
permeability to air, hindering the operation of thermally enhanced
SVE and requiring more energy input to increase vacuum and
temperature.
• Soil with highly variable permeabilities may result in uneven delivery
of gas flow to the contaminated regions.
• Soil that has a high organic content has a high sorption capacity of
VOCs, which results in reduced removal rates.
• Air emissions may need to be regulated to eliminate possible harm to
the public and the environment. Air treatment and permitting will
increase project costs.
• Residual liquids and spent activated carbon may require further
treatment.
• Thermally enhanced SVE is not effective in the saturated zone;
however, lowering the aquifer can expose more media to SVE (this
may address concerns regarding LNAPLs).
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Data requirements
include the depth and areal extent of contamination, the concentration of the
contaminants, depth to water table, and soil type and properties (e.g.,
structure, texture, permeability, and moisture content).
Performance
Data: Hie thermally enhanced SVE processes are notably different and should be
investigated individually for more detailed information. Because 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.
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 typical site consisting of 18,200 metric tons
(20,000 tons) of contaminated media would require approximately 9 months.
DOE has developed and tested several thermally enhanced SVE processes.
Dynamic underground stripping integrates steam injection and direct electric
heating. Six phase soil heating is a pilot-scale technology that delivers six
separate electric phases through electrodes placed in a circle around a soil
vent. Thermally enhanced vapor extraction system combines conventional
SVE with both powerline frequency and radiofrequency soil heating.
MK01\RFT:022810n.009\compgde.48
4-32
10/27/94
-------
4.8 THERMALLY ENHANCED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Cost: Available data indicate the overall cost for thermally enhanced SVE systems
is approximately $30 to $130 per cubic meter ($25 to $100 per cubic yard).
References: Dev, H., G.C. Sresty, J. Enk, N. Mshaiel, and M. Love, 1989.
Radiofrequency Enhanced Decontamination of Soils Contaminated with
HalogenatedHydrocarbons, EPA RREL, ORD, Cincinnati, OH, EPA Report
EPA/600/2-89/008.
DOE, 2 October 1992. RCRA Research, Development and Demonstration
Permit Application for a Thermal Enhanced Vapor Extraction System, Sandia
National Laboratories, Environmental Restoration Technology Department,
Albuquerque, NM.
DOE, 26 February 1993. Technology Name: Thermal Enhanced Vapor
Extraction System, Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech,
DOE ProTech Database, TIP Reference No.: AL-221121.
EPA, 1990. Toxic Treatments (USA) — In-Situ Steam/Hot Air Stripping,
EPA RREL, series includes Application Analysis, EPA/540/A5-90/008, and
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-90/003.
Pedersen, T.A., and J.T. Curtis, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology
Reference Handbook, CDM, Inc. Cambridge, MA, for EPA RREL, ORD,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA Report EPA/540/2-91/003.
WESTON, IIT Research Institute, November 1992. Final Rocky Mountain
Arsenal In Situ Radio Frequency Heating/Vapor Extraction Pilot Test
Report, Vol. I, U.S. Army Report 5300-01-12-AAFP.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.48
4-33
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Annex Terminal
San Pedro, CA
Paul dePercin
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7797
In situ steam and air
stripping of soil via hollow-
stem, rotating-blade drills.
NA
85% VOC and
55% SVOC
removal
$330 to
$415/m3
($252 to
$317/yd3)
Lockheed
Aeronautical
Systems
Burbank, CA
Norma Lewis
EPA
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7665
(513) 569-7684
Integrated groundwater
stripping and soil system.
Groundwater
TCE 2.2 ppm
PCE 11 ppm
Soil gas:
Total VOC
6,000 ppm
98-99.9%
VOC removal
$4.3M and
$630,000
annual
O&M for
1,000 gpm
system
DOE Sandia
National Lab.
Albuquerque, NM
James M. Phelan
Sandia National
Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185
(505) 845-9892
Integrated resistive
(powertine) and radio
frequency (microwave)
heating to remedy organic,
fire training, and chemical
production waste landfill.
NA
NA
$16-$33/
metric ton
($15-30/
ton), varies
by soil
moisture
Volkfield, Wl
Paul Carpenter
AL/EQW
Tyndall AFB, FL
(904) 283-6187
In situ IITRI design.
NA
99% VOC, 83-
99% SVOC
removal
$45/ton in
shallow
sand
Kelly AFB, TX
Paul Carpenter
AL/EQW
Tyndall AFB, FL
(904) 283-6187
FAX: (904) 283-6286
DSN: 523-6187
DSN FAX: (904) 523-
6286
Two pilot-scale demos of
RF heating: IITRI and KAI
designs.
NA
>90% VOC
and SVOC
removal
<$100/ton
in shallow
clay
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Skip Chamberlain
DOE Program
Manager
(301) 903-7248
EM-551, Trevion II
DOE
Washington, DC 20585
Gordon M. Evans
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7684
Fax: (513)569-7620
26 West M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Darrell Bandy
DOE Albuquerque
Operations
(505) 845-6100
P.O. Box 5400
Albuquerque, NM 87115-5400
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT-.02281012.009\compg(ie.48
4-34
10/27/94
-------
4.9 IN SITU VITRIFICATION
Description: In situ vitrification (ISV) uses an electric current to melt soil or other earthen
materials at extremely high temperatures (1,600 to 2,000 °C or 2,900 to
3,650 °F) and thereby immobilize most inorganics and destroy organic
pollutants by pyrolysis. Inorganic pollutants are incorporated within the
vitrified glass and crystalline mass. Water vapor and organic pyrolysis
combustion products are captured in a hood, which draws the contaminants
into an off-gas treatment system that removes particulates and other
pollutants from the gas.
Electrodes
Porous Cold Cap
(Rocks, Ceramics)
Floating Layer
(Rocks, Ceramics)
Surface
Combustion
(Some Cases]
->¦ Off-Gases
to Treatment
Off-Gas
, Collection
Hood
Nonvolatiles
(Distribution,
Incorporation)
Volatiles
(Disassociation
Destruction)
C>o
Pr
Subsidence
Due to
Densification
4-9 94P-2111 8/22/94
4-9 TYPICAL IN SITU VITRIFICATION SYSTEM
High temperatures are achieved using a square array of four graphite
electrodes. To initiate the process, a path of conducting material (graphite)
is placed on the surface of the soil so that current can flow in the soil
beyond the boiling temperature of water (dry soil is not conductive after the
conduction path in soil pore water is boiled off) to the melting point of the
soil. The joule heating of the starter path achieves temperatures high enough
to melt the soil (value is dependent on the soil's alkali metal oxide content),
at which point the soil becomes conductive. The molten soil zone grows
downward and outward. New designs incorporate a moving electrode
mechanism to achieve a greater process depth. A vacuum pressurized hood
is placed over the vitrification zone to contain and process any contaminants
emanating from the soil during vitrification. The vitrification product is a
chemically stable, leach-resistant, glass and crystalline material similar to
obsidian or basalt rock. The process destroys and/or removes organic
materials. Radionuclides and heavy metals are retained within the molten
soil.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.49
4-35
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The ISV process was invented by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for
DOE in 1980. The patent is assigned to DOE, is licensed to Battelle, and
is sublicensed to Geosafe Corporation for worldwide rights (Patent No.
4,376,598, issued 15 March 1983).
Applicability: The ISV process can destroy or remove organics and immobilize most
inorganics in contaminated soils, sludges, or other earthen materials. The
process has been tested on a broad range of VOCs and SVOCs, other
organics including dioxins and PCBs, and on most priority pollutant metals
and radionuclides.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Rubble exceeding 20% by weight.
• Heating the soil may cause subsurface migration of contaminants into
clean areas.
• Combustible organics in the soil or sludge exceeding 5 to 10 weight
percent (wt%), depending on the heating value.
• The solidified material may hinder future site use.
• Processing of contamination below the water table may require some
means to limit recharge.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). A minimum alkali
content in soil (sodium and potassium oxides) of 1.4 wt% is necessary to
form glass. The composition of most soils is well within the range of
processability.
There have been few, if any, commercial applications of ISV. The ISV
process has been operated for test and demonstration purposes at the pilot
scale and at full scale at the following sites: (1) Geosafe Corporation's test
site, (2) DOE's Hanford Nuclear Reservation, (3) DOE's Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and (4) DOE's Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. More
than 170 tests at various scales have been performed on a broad range of
waste types in soils and sludges. A demonstration will take place at the
Parsons/ETM site in Grand Ledge, Michigan, where the process is currently
operating.
Process depths up to 6 meters (19 ft) have been achieved in relatively
homogeneous soils. The achievable depth is limited under certain
heterogeneous conditions.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.49 4-36 10/27/94
Performance
Data:
-------
4.9 IN SITU VITRIFICATION
Cost: Average costs for treatability tests (all types) are $25 K plus analytical fees;
for PCBs and dioxins, the cost is $30K plus analytical. Remedial design
varies with the design firm. Equipment mobilization and demobilization
costs are $200K to $300K combined. Vitrification operation cost varies with
electricity costs, quantity of water, and depth of process.
References: DOE, 1992. In Situ Vitrification, Technology Transfer Bulletin, prepared by
Battelle's Pacific Northwest Laboratories for DOE, Richland, WA.
DOE, January 1992. "ISV Planning and Coordination," FY92 Technical
Task Plan and Technical Task Description, TTP Reference No. RL-8568-PT.
DOE, July 1992. "116-B-6A Crib ISV Demonstration Project," FY92
Technical Task Plan and Technical Task Description, TTP Reference No.
RL-8160-PT.
EPA, 1994. In-Situ Vitrification — Geosafe Corportion, EPA RREL,
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-94/520.
Kuhn, W.L., May 1992. Steady State Analysis of the Fate of Volatile
Contaminants During In Situ Vitrification, Battelle, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, WA, prepared for DOE; PNL-8059, US-602.
Luey, J.S., S. Koegler, W.L. Kuhn, P.S. Lowerey, and R.G. Winkelman,
September 1992. "In Situ Vitrification of Mixed-Waste Contaminated Soil
Site: The 116-B-6A Crib at Hanford," CERCLA Treatability Test Report,
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, prepared for DOE,
Report PNL-8281, UC-602.
Spalding, B.P., G.K. Jacobs, N.W. Dunbar, M.T. Naney, J.S. Tixier, and
T.D. Powell, November 1992. Tracer-Level Radioactive Pilot-Scale Test of
In Situ Vitrification for the Stabilization of Contaminated Soil Sites at ORNL,
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Publication No. 3962, prepared for DOE,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Report ORNL/TM-12201.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.49
4-37
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Parson's
Chemical Site
Grand Ledge, Ml
Leonard Zintak, Jr.
(517)627-1311
Fax: (517) 627-1594
Four graphite electrodes
and glass frit inserted into
soil. Hood and off-gas
treatment system placed
over soil.
Low levels of
pesticides and
Hg
Leachable Hg,
TCLP,
pesticide, non-
detect
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Jef Walker
DOE Program
Manager
(301) 903-7966
EM-541, Trevion II
DOE
Washington, DC 20585
Ten Richardson
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7949
Fax: (513)569-7620
26 West M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\eompgde.49
4-38
10/27/94
-------
4.10 COMPOSTING
Description: Composting is a controlled biological process by which biodegradable
hazardous materials are converted by microorganisms to innocuous, stabilized
byproducts, typically at elevated temperatures in the range of 50 to 55 °C
(120 to 130 °F). The increased temperatures result from heat produced by
microorganisms during the degradation of the organic material in the waste.
In most cases, this is achieved by the use of indigenous microorganisms.
Soils are excavated and mixed with bulking agents and organic amendments,
such as wood chips, animal, and vegetative wastes, to enhance the porosity
of the mixture to be decomposed. Maximum degradation efficiency is
achieved by maintaining moisture content, pH, oxygenation, temperature, and
the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio.
Windrow
Monitoring
Compost
Analysis
Windrow
Disassembly
and
Disposition
Excavate
and Screen
Soils
Periodic
Turning of
Windrow
Form
Windrows
w/Soil and
Amendments
4-10 94P-2346 8/22/94
4-10 TYPICAL WINDROW COMPOSTING PROCESS
There are three process designs used in composting: aerated static pile
composting (compost is formed into piles and aerated with blowers or
vacuum pumps), mechanically agitated in-vessel composting (compost is
placed in a reactor vessel where it is mixed and aerated), and windrow
composting (compost is placed in long piles known as windrows and
periodically mixed with mobile equipment). Windrow composting has the
potential to be the most cost-effective composting alternative. If VOC or
SVOC contaminants are present in soils, off-gas control is required.
Applicability: The composting process may be applied to soils and lagoon sediments
contaminated with biodegradable organic compounds. Research and
development and pilot efforts have demonstrated that aerobic, thermophilic
composting is able to reduce the concentration of explosives (TNT, RDX,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.410 4-39 10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
and HMX) and associated toxicity to acceptable levels. All materials and
equipment used for composting are commercially available.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• Substantial space is required for composting.
• Excavation of contaminated soils is required and may cause the
uncontrolled release of VOCs.
• Composting results in a volumetric increase in material because of the
addition of amendment material.
• Heavy metals are not treated by this method and can be toxic to the
microorganisms.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Specific data required
to evaluate the compost process include contaminant concentration,
excavation requirements, availability and cost of amendments required for
compost mixture, space available for treatment, soil type, nutrients,
biodegradation capacity, and moisture-holding capacity.
Windrow composting has been demonstrated as an effective technology for
treatment of explosives-contaminated soil. During a field demonstration
conducted by USAEC and the Umatilla Depot Activity (UMDA), TNT
reductions were as high as 99.7% in 40 days of operation, with the majority
of removal occurring in the first 20 days of operation. Maximum removal
efficiencies for RDX and HMX were 99.8% and 96.8%, respectively. The
relatively simple equipment requirements combined with these performance
results make windrow composting economically and technically attractive.
Cost: Costs will vary with the amount of soil to be treated, the soil fraction in the
compost, availability of amendments, the type of contaminant, and the type
of process design employed. Estimated costs for full-scale windrow
composting of explosives-contaminated soils are approximately $190 per
cubic yard for soil volumes of approximately 20,000 yd3. Estimated costs
for static pile composting and mechanically agitated in vessel composting are
higher. Composting may be an economic alternative to thermal treatment,
however, when cleanup criteria and regulatory requirements are suitable.
Performance
Data:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgdc.410
4-40
10/27/94
-------
4.10 COMPOSTING
References: Ayorinde, O. and M. Reynolds, December 1989. "Low Temperature Effects
on Systems for Composting of Explosives-Contaminated Soils," Part I,
Literature Reviews, USACRREL.
Unkefer, P.J., J.L. Hanners, C.J. Unkefer, and J.F. Kramer, April 1990.
"Microbial Culturing of Explosives Degradation," in Proceedings of the 14th
Annual Army Environmental Symposium, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-
TR-90055.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.), 1993. Windrow Composting
Demonstration for Explosives-Contaminated Soils at the Umatilla Depot
Activity, Hermiston, Oregon, Final Report, Prepared for USAEC, Contract
No. D AC A31-91 -D-0079, Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-93043.
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfiiss, and P.J. Marks, September 1988. Field
Demonstration - Composting of Explosives-Contaminated Sediments at the
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, USATHAMA Report AMXTH-IR-TE-
88242.
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks, March 1989. Field
Demonstration - Composting of Propellants-Contaminated Sediments at the
Badger Army Ammunition Plant (BAAP), USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-
CR-89061.
Williams, R.T. and PJ. Marks, November 1991. Optimization of
Composting for Explosives-Contaminated Soils, USATHAMA Report
CETHA-TS-CR-91053.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.410
4-41
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
UMDA
Hermiston, OR
USAEC ETD
APG, MD 21010
(410) 671-2054
Successful large-
scale pilot
demonstration of
windrow
composting
1,563 ppm TNT
953 ppm RDX
156 ppm HMX
4 ppm TNT
2 ppm RDX
5 ppm HMX
$210/metric
ton
($190/ton)
for large-
scale
(20,000
tons)
cleanup
LAAP
Shreveport, LA
USAEC ETD
APG, MD 21010
(410) 671-2054
Successful pilot-
scale
demonstration of
mechanical in-
vessel composting
5,200 ppm TNT
500 ppm RDX
20 ppm TNT
20 ppm RDX
NA
Cliff/Dow
Disposal Site
Marquette, Ml
EPA Region V
Ken Glatz
(312) 886-1434
Aerobic/indigenous
organism treatment
of 7,000 m3;
basically unsuc-
cessful study
PAHs, As, Cu,
Pb, Hg
Destroyed
only the
lower mole-
cular weight
PAHs; did
not reach
safety level
desired
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
John Cullinane or Judith
Pennington
USAE-WES
(601)636-3111
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Carl Potter
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7231
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.410
4-42
10/27/94
-------
4.11 CONTROLLED SOLID PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Description: Controlled solid phase biological treatment is a full-scale technology in
which excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed on a
treatment area that includes leachate collection systems and some form of
aeration. Controlled solid phase processes include prepared treatment beds,
biotreatment cells, and soil piles. Moisture, heat, nutrients, oxygen, and pH
can be controlled to enhance biodegradation.
Air-Operated
Jludge/Sediment
Transfer Pump
Sludge/Sediment
/o c> M L
= Contaminated^
2 Soil Stockpile;
o O
Conveying
& Screening
Equipment
& O — <
Front End
Preparation Steps
folding
Poncb!
Drainage
Recycle
Water
Nutrients
Sprinkler
Contaminated Soil_ ^ 0 _
=Impervious Layers
4-11 94P-5121 8/22/94
4-11 TYPICAL CONTROLLED TREATMENT UNIT FOR SOLID-PHASE BIOREMEDIATION
A variety of techniques are used to stimulate the bioremediation. If required,
the treatment area may be covered or contained with an impermeable liner
to minimize the risk of contaminants leaching into an uncontaminated soil.
Some prepared bed bioremediation techniques involve the continuous spray
application of a nutrient solution into the soil and collection and recycle of
the drainage from the soil pile. The drainage itself may be treated in a
bioreactor before recycling. Vendors have developed proprietary nutrient and
additive formulations and methods for incorporating the formulation into the
soil to stimulate biodegradation. The formulations are usually modified for
site-specific conditions.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\eompgde.411 4-43 10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Soil piles and biotreatment cells commonly have an air distribution system
buried under the soil to pass air through the soil either by vacuum or by
positive pressure. The soil piles in this case can be up to 20 feet high. Soil
piles may be covered with plastic to control runoff, evaporation, and
volatilization and to promote solar heating. If there are VOCs in the soil that
will volatilize into the air stream, the air leaving the soil may be treated to
remove or destroy the VOCs before they are discharged to the atmosphere.
Applicability: Controlled solid-phase biological treatment is most effective in treating
nonhalogenated VOCs and fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs, SVOCs,
and pesticides also can be treated, but the process may be less effective and
may be applicable only to some compounds within these contaminant groups.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• 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.
• Similar batch sizes require more time to complete cleanup than slurry
phase processes.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). The first steps in
preparing a sound design for biotreatment of contaminated soil include:
• Site characterization.
• Soil sampling and characterization.
• Contaminant characterization.
• Laboratory and/or field treatability studies.
• Pilot testing and/or field demonstrations.
Site, soil, and contaminant characterizations will be used to:
• Identify and quantify contaminants.
• Determine requirements for organic and inorganic amendments.
• Identify the presence of organic compounds that may be volatilized
during composting.
MKOURPT-.02281012.009\compgde 411
4-44
10/27/94
-------
4.11 CONTROLLED SOLID PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
• Identify potential safety issues.
• Determine requirements for excavation, staging, and movement of
contaminated soil.
• Determine availability and location of utilities (electricity and water).
Laboratory or field treatability studies are needed to identify:
• Amendment mixtures that best promote microbial activity.
• Potential toxic degradation byproducts.
• Percent reduction and lower concentration limit of contaminant
achievable.
• The potential degradation rate.
Performance
Data: Controlled solid phase biological treatment has been demonstrated for fuel-
contaminated sites. Specific site information is contained in the following
site information table.
Cost: 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. Typical costs with a
prepared bed and liner are $130 to $260 per cubic meter ($100 to $200 per
cubic yard).
References: Hartz, A.A. and R.B. Beach, 1992. "Cleanup of Creosote-Contaminated
Sludge Using a Bioslurry Lagoon," in Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund
'92, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Norris, et al., 1994. Handbook of Bioremediation, EPA-RSKERL, Lewis
Publishers, CRC Press, 2000 Corporate Boulevard, Boca Raton, FL 33431.
Pope, D.F. and J.E. Matthews, 1993. Bioremediation Using the Land
Treatment Concept, EPA Report EPA/600/R-93/164.
Sims, J.L., et al., 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils, EPA,
RSKERL, Ada, OK, EPA Report EPA/600/9-89/073.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.411 4-45 10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Marine Corps
Mountain
Warfare
Training Center
Bridgeport, CA
Bill Major
NFESC, Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
(805) 982-1808
Pilot study at fuel-leaking
UST site — aerated soil
pile on lined bed
TPH 1,200 ppm
120 ppm
after 2
months
$88/metric
ton ($80/ton)
Marine Corps
Air Ground
Combat Center
Twenty-Nine
Palms, CA
R.L. Biggers
NFESC, Code 414
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
(805) 982-2640
Fuel from UST and spills
— heap pile research
project
702 ppm average
TPH
234 ppm
average
$36/m3
($27/ycf)
Mobil Terminal
Buffalo, NY
Robert Leary or Sal
Calandra
(716) 851-7220
CERCLA LEAD - full-
scale aerated biocell
remediation since July
1991 of 11,500 m3; non-
native organisms added
gas, diesel, lead
NYSDEC
guidance
based on
TCLP
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Ten Richardson
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7949
Fax: (513)569-7620
26 West M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
John Cullinane
USAE-WES
(601) 636-3111
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferty Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.411
4-46
10/27/94
-------
4.12 LANDFARMING
Description: Landfarming is a full-scale bioremediation technology in which contaminated
soils, sediments, or sludges are applied onto the soil surface and periodically
turned over or tilled into the soil to aerate the waste. Although landfarming
is usually performed in place, landfarming systems are increasingly
incorporating liners and other methods to control leaching of contaminants,
which requires excavation and placement of contaminated soils.
r_
Poly Tunnel (Optional)
Existing
Ground
Surface —
Microbes/
Nutrients
Leachate
Col lection
Pipe
—Waste
!% Slope jilil
Compacted
Subgrade
Surface
Compacted Polyethylene
Sand Geomembrane
Concrete Retaining
Wall Footing
4-12 94P-2114 9/12/94
Source: TreaTek-CRA
4-12 TYPICAL LANDFARMING TREATMENT UNIT
Soil conditions are often controlled to optimize the rate of contaminant
degradation. Conditions normally controlled include:
• Moisture content (usually by irrigation or spraying).
• Oxygen level (by mixing the soil using tilling or aerating).
• Nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus (by fertilizing).
• pH (increased slightly by adding lime).
• Soil bulking (by adding soil amendments and by mixing using tilling,
etc.).
Applicability: Soil bioremediation has been proven most successful in treating petroleum
hydrocarbons. Because lighter, more volatile hydrocarbons such as gasoline
are treated very successfully by processes that use their volatility [i.e., soil
vapor (vacuum) extraction and bio venting], the use of aboveground
bioremediation is usually limited to heavier hydrocarbons. As a rule of
thumb, the higher the molecular weight (and the more rings with a PAH), the
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.412
4-47
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
slower the degradation rate. Also, the more chlorinated or nitrated the
compound, the more difficult it is to degrade. (Note: Many mixed products
and wastes include some volatile components that transfer to the atmosphere
before they can be degraded.)
Contaminants that have been successfully treated include diesel fuel, No. 2
and No. 6 fuel oils, JP-5, oily sludge, wood-preserving wastes (PCP and
creosote), coke wastes, and certain pesticides.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• A large amount of space is required.
• If excavation of contaminated soils is required, materials handling and
additional costs will be involved.
• 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 VOC contaminant concentrations may be caused more
by volatilization than biodegradation.
• Inorganic contaminants will not be biodegraded.
• Volatile contaminants, such as solvents, must be pretreated because
they would evaporate into the atmosphere, causing air pollution.
• Particulate matter is also a concern because it may cause a dust-
generation problem.
• Presence of metal ions may be toxic to the microbes and possibly
leach from the contaminated soil into the ground.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). The following
contaminant considerations should be addressed prior to implementation:
types and concentrations of contaminants, depth profile and distribution of
contaminants, presence of toxic contaminants, presence of VOCs, and
presence of inorganic contaminants (e.g., metals).
The following site and soil considerations should be addressed prior to
implementation: surface geological features (e.g., topography and vegetative
cover), subsurface geological and hydrogeological features, temperature,
precipitation, wind velocity and direction, water availability, soil type and
texture, soil moisture content, soil organic matter content, cation exchange
capacity, water-holding capacity, nutrient content, pH, atmospheric
temperature, permeability, and microorganisms (degradative populations
present at site).
MK01\RPT"02281012.009\compgde.412
4-48
10/27/94
-------
4.12 LANDFARMING
Performance
Data:
Cost:
References:
Numerous full-scale operations have been used, particularly for sludges
produced by the petroleum industry. As with other biological treatments,
under proper conditions, landfarming can transform contaminants into
nonhazardous substances. Removal efficiencies, however, are a function of
contaminant type and concentrations, soil type, temperature, moisture, waste
loading rates, application frequency, aeration, volatilization, and other factors.
Ranges of costs likely to be encountered are:
• Costs prior to treatment (assumed to be independent of volume to be
treated): $25,000 to $50,000 for laboratory studies; $100,000 to
$500,000 for pilot tests or field demonstrations.
• Cost of landfarming (in situ treatment requiring no excavation of soil):
$30 to $70 per cubic meter ($25 to $50 per cubic yard).
• Cost of prepared bed (ex situ treatment and placement of soil on a
prepared liner): $135 to $270 per cubic meter ($100 to $200 per
cubic yard).
EPA, 1990. Bioremediation in the Field, EPA/540/2-90-004.
Norris, et al., 1994. Handbook of Bioremediation, EPA, RSKERL, Lewis
Publishers, CRC Press, 200 Corporate Boulevard, Boca Raton, FL 33431.
Pope, D.F. and J.E. Matthews, 1993. Bioremediation Using the Land
Treatment Concept, EPA Report EPA/600/R-93/164.
Sims, J.L., et al., 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils, EPA,
RSKERL, EPA Report EPA/600/9-89/073.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.412
4-49
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Petroleum Products
Terminal
Al Leuscher
Remediation
Technologies, Inc.
Concord, MA
Soils segregated by
contamination type- treated
for 3 years (seasonal
operation)
TPH
1,000 ppm
ioo ppm
NA
Fuel Oil Spill
Joe Matthewson
Foster Wheeler
Santa Fe Springs, CA
Heavy clays required
addition of soil
amendments —120
treatment days
TPH
6,000 ppm
100 ppm
NA
Creosote
John Matthews
EPA RSKERL
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74821
(405) 436-8600
NPL — Ongoing seasonal
operation
Pyrene
135 ppm
PCP
132 ppm
Less than 7.3
ppm
87 ppm
NA
Pesticide Storage
Facility
NA
12-inch clay liner with
drainage employed — 5
months' treatment
Pesticide
86 ppm
5 ppm
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Richard Scholze
USACE-CERL
(217) 373-6743
(217) 352-6511
(800) USA-CERL
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
Ron Hoeppel
NFESC
(805) 982-1655
Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Mark Zappi
USAE-WES
(601)634-2856
Vicksburg, MS 39180
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.412
4-50
10/27/94
-------
4.13 SLURRY PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Description: Slurry phase biological treatment involves the controlled treatment of
excavated soil in a bioreactor. The excavated soil is first processed to
physically separate stones and rubble. The soil is then mixed with water to
a predetermined concentration dependent upon the concentration of the
contaminants, the rate of biodegradation, and the physical nature of the soils.
Some processes pre-wash the soil to concentrate the contaminants. Clean
sand may then be discharged, leaving only contaminated fines and washwater
to biotreat Typically, the slurry contains from 10 to 40% solids by weight.
Air
Discharge
Soil From
Mixing Process
Ambient
Nutrient
Solution
SPARGER
Stirred Batch Reactor
4-13 94P-3307 8/22/94
4-13 TYPICAL BIOREACTOR PROCESS
The soil is maintained in suspension in a reactor vessel and mixed with
nutrients and oxygen. If necessary, an acid or alkali may be added to control
pH. Microorganisms also may be added if a suitable population is not
present. When biodegradation is complete, the soil slurry is dewatered.
Dewatering devices that may be used include clarifiers, pressure filters,
vacuum filters, sand drying beds, or centrifuges.
Applicability: Bioremediation techniques have been successfully used to remediate soils,
sludges, and groundwater contaminated by explosives, petroleum
hydrocarbons, petrochemicals, solvents, pesticides, wood preservatives, and
other organic chemicals. Bioremediation is not applicable for removal of
inorganic contaminants. Bioreactors are favored over in situ biological
techniques for heterogenous soils, low permeability soils, areas where
underlying groundwater would be difficult to capture, or when faster
treatment times are required.
MK01\RPT.02281012.009\compgde.413
4-51
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Excavation of contaminated soils is required.
• Sizing of materials prior to putting them into the reactor can be
difficult and expensive. Nonhomogeneous soils can create serious
materials handling problems.
• Dewatering soil fines after treatment can be expensive.
• An acceptable method for disposing of nonrecycled wastewaters is
required.
Mobile treatment units that are quickly moved into and out of the site are
available. Residence time in the bioslurry reactors will vary depending on
the nature of the contaminants, their concentrations, and the desired level of
removal. Residence time is typically 5 days for PCP-contaminated soil, 13
days for a pesticide-contaminated soil, and 60 days for refinery sludge.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Although a specific
organic substance might have been shown to be amenable to biodegradation
in the laboratory or at other remediation sites, whether it degrades in any
specific soil/site condition is dependent on many factors. To determine
whether bioremediation is an appropriate and effective remedial treatment for
the contaminated soil at a particular site, it is necessary to characterize the
contamination, soil, and site, and to evaluate the biodegradation potential of
the contaminants.
Important contaminant characteristics that need to be identified in a
bioremediation feasibility investigation are their solubility and soil sorption
coefficient; their volatility (e.g., vapor pressure); their chemical reactivity
(e.g., tendency toward nonbiological reactions such as hydrolysis, oxidation,
and polymerization); and their biodegradability.
In a Navy bench-scale evaluation, the system has demonstrated 99.5% and
100% remediation of TNT and RDX, respectively.
Cost: Treatment costs using slurry reactors range from $130 to $200 per cubic
meter ($100 to $150 per cubic yard). Costs ranging from $160 to $210 per
cubic meter ($125 to $160 per cubic yard) are incurred when the slurry-
bioreactor off-gas has to be further treated because of the presence of volatile
compounds.
Performance
Data:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.413
4-52
10/27/94
-------
4.13 SLURRY PHASE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
References: EPA, 1990. Slurry Biodegradation, Engineering Bulletin, EPA/540/2-90/016.
EPA, 1991. Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Slurry-Phase Biological Reactor
for Creosote-Contaminated Wastewater, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5-91/009; Technology
Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5-91/009, PB93-205532; Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/A5 91/009; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-91/009.
EPA, 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies, Abstracts, EPA, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-92/004.
EPA, 1992. Biotrol Soil Washing System for Treatment of a Wood
Preserving Site, Applications Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EP A/540/A5-91/003.
EPA, Undated. International Technology Corporation—Slurry
Biodegradation, EPA RREL.
Montamagno, C.D., 1990. Feasibility of Biodegrading TNT-Contaminated
Soils in a Slurry Reactor - Final Technical Report, USATHAMA Report
CETHA-TE-CR-90062.
Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francigues, 1991.
Development of a Laboratory Method for Evaluation of Bioslurry Treatment
Systems, Presented at the 1991 Superfund Conference, Washington, DC.
M K01NRPT:022S1012,009\compgde.413
4-53
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
NWS Seal
Beach, CA
Steve MacDonald
NWS Seal Beach
Code 0923
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(310) 594-7273
Pilot scale - BTEX-
contaminated soil and
groundwater treated
simultaneously.
NA
Treated to
drinking
water
standards
NA
EPA BDAT
Ronald Lewis
RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7856
Fax: (513)569-7620
Pilot scale - creosote and
PAH contamination.
NA
96% PAH
removal in 2
weeks
NA
Joliet AAP
Joliet, IL
John Manning or
Carlo Montemagno
Argonne National Lab
9700 South Cass Ave.
Argonne, IL 60439-4815
Pilot scale - explosive
contamination.
TNT 1,300 ppm
10 mg/kg in
15 days
$65 to
$262/m3
($50-
$200/yd3)
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Carmen Lebron
NFESC
(805) 982-1615
Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Mark E. Zappi
USA WES
(601) 634-2856
3903 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Mary K. Stinson
EPA RREL
(908) 321-6683
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
M KOI \RPT: 022810] 2.009\conipgde.413
4-54
10/27/94
-------
4.14 CHEMICAL REDUCTION/OXIDATION
Description: Reduction/oxidation (Redox) reactions chemically convert hazardous
contaminants to nonhazardous or less toxic compounds that are more stable,
less mobile, and/or inert. Redox reactions involve the transfer of electrons
from one compound to another. Specifically, one reactant is oxidized (loses
electrons) and one is reduced (gains electrons). The oxidizing agents most
commonly used for treatment of hazardous contaminants are ozone, hydrogen
peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide. Chemical redox is
a full-scale, well-established technology used for disinfection of drinking
water and wastewater, and it is a common treatment for cyanide wastes.
Enhanced systems are now being used more frequently to treat contaminants
in soils.
Air Emissions
Control
Excavated
Soil
Waste
Preparation
Soil
Screening
Reactor
Washer
Dewater
Separator
Reagent
Water
Water
Reagent Recycle
Treatment
Disposal
4-14 94P-5141 8/22/94
4-14 TYPICAL CHEMICAL REDUCTION/OXIDATION PROCESS
Applicability: The target contaminant group for chemical redox is inorganics. The
technology can be used but may be less effective against nonhalogenated
VOCs and SVOCs, fuel hydrocarbons, and pesticides.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
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
because of the large amounts of oxidizing agent required.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.414
4-55
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
• Oil and grease in the media should be minimized to optimize process
efficiency.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Treatability tests
should be conducted to identify parameters such as water, alkaline metals,
and humus content in the soils; the presence of multiple phases; and total
organic halides that could affect processing time and cost.
Performance
Data: Chemical redox is a full-scale, well-established technology used for
disinfection of drinking water and wastewater, and it is a common treatment
for cyanide and chromium wastes. Enhanced systems are now being used
more frequently to treat hazardous wastes in soils.
Cost: Estimated costs range from $190 to $660 per cubic meter ($150 to $500 per
cubic yard).
References: EPA, Undated. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Superfund Site,
Project Summary, EPA/540/SR-93/516.
EPA, 1991. Chemical Oxidation Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,
OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/530/2-91/025.
Mayer, G., W. Bellamy, N. Ziemba, and L.A. Otis, 15-17 May 1990.
"Conceptual Cost Evaluation of Volatile Organic Compound Treatment by
Advanced Ozone Oxidation," Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, Philadelphia,
PA, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA Report EPA/2-90/010.
MK01\RTT:02281012.009\compgde.414
4-56
10/27/94
-------
4.14 CHEMICAL REDUCTION/OXIDATION
Site Information:
Site Nam«
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Excalibur
Technology
Norma Lewis
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7665
Bench scale —
Soil washing and catalytic
ozone oxidation
Site demo scheduled for
Coleman Evans, Florida
20,000 ppm
NA
$92 to
$170/m3
($70-
$130/yd3)
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Naomi Barkley
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7854
Fax: (513)569-7620
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\eompgde.414
4-57
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.414
4-58
10/27/94
-------
4.15 DEHALOGENATION (BASE-CATALYZED
DECOMPOSITION)
Description: The dehalogenation [base-catalyzed decomposition (BCD)] process was
developed by EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), in
cooperation with the National Facilities Engineering Services Center
(NFESC) to remediate soils and sediments contaminated with chlorinated
organic compounds, especially PCBs, dioxins, and furans. Contaminated soil
is screened, processed with a crusher and pug mill, and mixed with sodium
bicarbonate. The mixture is heated to above 330 °C (630 °F) in a rotary
reactor to decompose and partially volatilize the contaminants.
Vent to Atmosphere
Screening,
Crushing.
Reactor Feed
Excavated Soil
Scrubber
i Cyclone r~
Rotary Reactor 1 EE
k 644°F-1 hr. J ~70% Y
i of PCB
Heat
Exchange
Settling
.Tank.
Dust
Spent
Carbon
Clean Soil
Stockpile
Mixing
.Tank,
to Off-Site Disposal
4-15 94P-2201 8/26/94
4-15 TYPICAL BCD
The contaminant is partially decomposed rather than being transferred to
another medium. Whereas alkaline polyethylene glycol (APEG) residuals
contain chlorine and hydroxyl groups, which make them water-soluble and
slightly toxic, the BCD process produces primarily biphenyl and low-boiling
point olefins, which are not water-soluble and are much less toxic, and
sodium chloride.
The target contaminant groups for dehalogenation (BCD) are halogenated
SVOCs and pesticides. The technology can be also used to treat halogenated
VOCs but will generally be more expensive than other alternative
technologies.
Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• High clay and moisture content will increase treatment costs.
Applicability:
Limitations:
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.415
4-59
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Treatability tests
should be conducted to identity parameters such as water, alkaline metals,
and humus content in the soils; the presence of multiple phases; and total
organic halides that could affect processing time and cost.
NFESC and EPA have been jointly developing the BCD process since 1990.
Data from the Koppers Superfund site in North Carolina are inconclusive
regarding technology performance because of analytical difficulties. There
have been no commercial applications of this technology to date. The BCD
process has received approval by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances under
the Toxic Substances Control Act for PCB treatment. Complete design
information is available from NFESC, formerly NCEL and NEESA.
Predeployment testing was completed at Naval Communications Station
Stockton in November 1991. The research, development, testing, and
evaluation stages were planned for Guam during the first two quarters of
FY93. A successful test run with 15 tons of PCB soil was conducted in
February 1994.
Cost: The cost for full-scale operation is estimated to be $270 per metric ton ($245
per ton) and does not include excavation, refilling, residue disposal, or
analytical costs. Factors such as high clay or moisture content may raise the
treatment cost slightly.
References: EPA, 1991. BCD: An EPA-Patented Process for Detoxifying Chlorinated
Wastes, EPA, ORD.
NCEL, 1990. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Removal and
Treatment of PCB-Contaminated Soils at Building 3000 Site PWC Guam.
NEESA and NCEL, August 1991. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment:
Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process, Technical Data Sheet.
NEESA and NCEL, July 1992. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-
Catalyzed Decomposition Process, Technical Data Sheet.
Performance
Data:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.415
4-60
10/27/94
-------
4.15 DEHALOGENATION (BCD)
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
topper's Superfund
Site, NC
NA
Data inconclusive
because of analytical
data.
NA
NA
NA
PWC Guam
Jess Lizama
PCB
2,500 ppm PCB
average
<10 ppm
NA
NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Deh Bin Chan, Ph.D.
NFESC
(805) 982-4191
Autovon 551-4191
Code 411
560 Center Drive
Port Hueneme, CA
93043
R.L Biggers
NFESC
(805) 982-2640
Code 414
Port Hueneme, CA
93043
Charles J. Rogers
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7757
26 West M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax:
(410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.415
4-61
1CV27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde415
4-62
10/27/94
-------
4.16 DEHALOGENATION (GLYCOLATE)
Description: Dehalogenation (glycolate) is a full-scale technology in which an alkaline
polyethylene glycol (APEG) reagent is used to dehalogenate halogenated
aromatic compounds in a batch reactor. Potassium polyethylene glycol
(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 nonhazardous or less toxic. For example, the reaction
between chlorinated organics and KPEG causes replacement of a chlorine
molecule and results in a reduction in toxicity. Dehalogenation
(APEG/KPEG) is generally considered a standalone technology; however, it
can be used in combination with other technologies. Treatment of the
wastewater generated by the process may include chemical oxidation,
biodegradation, carbon adsorption, or precipitation.
Emissions
Emissions Control
-Treated
Emissions
Condensor
Water Acid
Screened -i
Soil
.-Treated
Materials
WatBr
Vapor
-Soil
-Water
iSoil
iSoil
Waste
Preparation
Washer
Dewater
Excavate
Reactor
Separator
Reagent Recycle
4-16 94P-2200 8/25/94
4-16 TYPICAL DEHALOGENATION (GLYCOLATE) PROCESS
The metal hydroxide that has been most widely used for this reagent
preparation is potassium hydroxide (KOH) in conjunction with polyethylene
glycol (PEG) (typically, average molecular weight of 400) to form a
polymeric alkoxide referred to as KPEG. Sodium hydroxide has also been
used in the past, however, and most likely will find increasing use in the
future because of patent applications that have been filed for modification to
this technology. This new approach will expand the technology's
applicability and efficacy and should reduce chemical costs by facilitating the
use of less costly sodium hydroxide. A variation of this reagent is the use
of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide/tetraethylene glycol, referred
to as ATEG, that is more effective on halogenated aliphatic compounds. In
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.416
4-63
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
some KPEG reagent formulations, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is added to
enhance reaction rate kinetics, presumably by improving rates of extraction
of the haloaromatic contaminants.
Previously developed dehalogenation reagents involved dispersion of metallic
sodium in oil or the use of highly reactive organosodium compounds. The
reactivity of metallic sodium and these other reagents with water presented
a serious limitation to treating many waste matrices; therefore, these other
reagents are not discussed here and are not considered APEG processes.
The reagent (APEG) dehalogenates the pollutant to form a glycol ether
and/or a hydroxylated compound and an alkali metal salt, which are water-
soluble byproducts.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for glycolate dehalogenation are halogenated
SVOCs and pesticides. The technology can be used but may be less
effective against selected halogenated VOCs. 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.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• 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.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Treatability tests
should be conducted to identify parameters such as water, alkaline metals,
and humus content in the soils; the presence of multiple phases; and total
organic halides that could affect processing time and cost.
Performance
Data: Dehalogenation (glycolate) has been used to successfully treat contaminant
concentrations of PCBs from less than 2 ppm to reportedly as high as 45,000
ppm. This technology has received approval from the EPA's Office of Toxic
Substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act for PCB treatment.
The APEG process has been selected for cleanup of PCB-contaminated soils
at three Superfund sites: Wide Beach in Erie County, New York (September
1985); Re-Solve in Massachusetts (September 1987); and Sol Lynn in Texas
(March 1988).
This technology uses standard equipment. The reaction vessel must be
equipped to mix and heat the soil and reagents. A detailed engineering
MK01\RPT.02281012.009\compgde.416
4-64
10/27/94
-------
4.16 DEHALOGENATION (GLYCOLATE)
design for a continuous feed, full-scale PCB treatment system for use in
Guam is currently being completed. It is estimated that a full-scale system
can be fabricated and placed in operation in 6 to 12 months.
The concentrations of PCBs that have been treated are reported to be as high
as 45,000 ppm. Concentrations were reduced to less than 2 ppm per
individual PCB congener. PCDDs and PCDFs have been treated to
nondetectable levels at part per trillion sensitivity. The process has
successfully destroyed PCDDs and PCDFs contained in contaminated
pentachlorophenol oil. For a contaminated activated carbon matrix, direct
treatment was less effective, and the reduction of PCDDs/PCDFs to
concentrations less than 1 ppb was better achieved by first extracting the
carbon matrix with a solvent and then treating the extract.
Cost: Costs to use APEG treatment are expected to be in a range of $220 to $550
per metric ton ($200 to $500 per ton). Significant advances are currently
being made to the APEG technology. These advances employ water rather
than costly PEG to wet the soil and require shorter reaction times and less
energy. These advances should greatly enhance the economics of the
process.
References: EPA, 1987. Catalytic Dehydrohalogenation: A Chemical Destruction
Method for Halogenated Organics, Project Summary, EPA/600/52-86/113.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology — Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA,
OSWER, Washington, DC, Directive 9200 5-254FS.
EPA, 1990. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment,
Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-
90/015.
EPA, 1990. Treating Chlorinated Wastes with the KPEG Process, Project
Summary, EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/S2-90/026.
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA, OSWER,
Washington, DC, EPA/542/F-92/005.
Taylor, M.L., et al. (PEI Associates), 1989. Comprehensive Report on the
KPEG Process for Treating Chlorinated Wastes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-
3413, EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
MK01VRPT:02281012.009\compgde.416
4-65
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Montana Pole
Butte, MT
NA
Dioxin, Furans/Oil
<84 ppm
<1 ppb
NA
Wide Beach
Erie County, NY
NA
PCBs (Aroclor 1254)/soil
120 ppm
<2 ppm
NA
Economy
Products
Omaha, NE
NA
TCDD, 2, 4-D,
2, 4, 5-T (liquid)
1.3 ppm
17,800 ppm
2,800 ppm
Non-detect
334 ppm
55 ppm
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Carl Brunner
EPA RREL
FTS 684-7757
(513) 569-7757
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.416
4-66
10/27/94
-------
4.17 SOIL WASHING
Description: Soil washing is a water-based process for scrubbing soils ex situ to remove
contaminants. The process removes contaminants from soils in one of two
ways:
• By dissolving or suspending them in the wash solution (which is later
treated by conventional wastewater treatment methods).
• By concentrating them into a smaller volume of soil through particle
size separation, gravity separation, and attrition scrubbing (similar to
those techniques used in sand and gravel operations).
Soil washing systems incorporating most of the removal techniques offer the
greatest promise for application to soils contaminated with a wide variety of
heavy metal, radionuclides, and organic contaminants. Commercialization
of the process, however, is not yet extensive.
Treated Air
Emissions
Volatiles
Emission
Control
Contaminated
Soil
Makeup Water
Recycled Water
Chemicals
Extracting Agent(s)
(Surfactants, etc.) I
Treated
Water
Blowdown
Water _
Prepared Soil
Wastewater
Treatment
Contaminated
Sludges/Fines
Clean Soil
Oversized Rejects
Soil
Homogenizing/
Screening
Soil Washing
Process
- Washing
- Rinsing
- Size Separation
- Gravity Separation
- Attrition Scrubbing
4-17 94P-3308 8/26/94
4-17 TYPICAL SOIL WASHING PROCESS
The concept of reducing soil contamination through the use of particle size
separation is based on the finding that most organic and inorganic
contaminants tend to bind, either chemically or physically, to clay, silt, and
organic soil particles. The silt and clay, in turn, are attached to sand and
gravel particles by physical processes, primarily compaction and adhesion.
Washing processes that separate the fine (small) clay and silt particles from
the coarser sand and gravel soil particles effectively separate and concentrate
the contaminants into a smaller volume of soil that can be further treated or
disposed of. Gravity separation is effective for removing high or low
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.417
4-67
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
specific gravity particles such as heavy metal-containing compounds (lead,
radium oxide, etc.). Attrition scrubbing removes adherent contaminant films
from coarser particles. The clean, larger fraction can be returned to the site
for continued use.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for soil washing are SVOCs, fuels, and
inorganics. The technology can be used on selected VOCs and pesticides.
The technology offers the potential for recovery of metals and can clean a
wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants from coarse-grained soils.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Fine soil particles (e.g., silt, clays) may require the addition of a
polymer to remove them from the washing fluid.
• Complex waste mixtures (e.g., metals with organics) make formulating
washing fluid difficult.
• High humic content in soil may require pretreatment.
• The aqueous stream will require treatment.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Particle size
distribution (0.24 to 2 mm optimum range); soil type, physical form,
handling properties, and moisture content; contaminant type and
concentration; texture; organic content; cation exchange capacity; pH and
buffering capacity.
Performance
Data: At the present time, soil washing is used extensively in Europe but has had
limited use in the United States. During 1986-1989, the technology was one
of the selected source control remedies at eight Superfund sites.
Soil washing is most commonly used in combination with the following
technologies: bioremediation, incineration, and solidification/stabilization.
Depending on the process used, the washing agent and soil fines are
residuals that require further treatment. When contaminated fines have been
separated, coarse-grain soil can usually be returned clean to the site. The
time to complete cleanup of the "standard" 18,200-metric-ton (20,000-ton)
site using soil washing would be less than 3 months.
Cost: The average cost for use of this technology, including excavation, is
approximately $130 to $220 per metric ton ($120 to $200 per ton),
depending on the target waste quantity and concentration.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.417
4-68
10/27/94
-------
4.17 SOIL WASHING
References: EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: Soil Washing, OSWER Directive
9200.5-250FS.
EPA, 1989. Soils Washing Technologies for: Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, Site Remediation.
EPA, 1990. Soil Washing Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/017. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA,
Order No. PB91-228056.
EPA, 1991. Biotrol—Soil Washing System, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5-9l/003a, PB92-115310;
Technology Evaluation Vol. II, Part A, EPA/540/5-9l/003b, PB92-115328;
Technology Evaluation Vol. II, Part B, EPA/540/5-9l/003c, PB92-115336;
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-91/003; Technology Demonstration
Summary, EPA/540/S5-91/003; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-
91/003.
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Soil Washing, EPA, OSWER, Washington,
DC, EPA/542/F-92/003.
EPA, 1992. Bergmann USA—Soil/Sediment Washing System, EPA RREL,
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/54Q/MR-92/075.
EPA, 1993. Bescorp Soil Washing System Battery Enterprises Site—Brice
Environmental Services, Inc., EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MR-93/503.
EPA, 1993. Biogenesis Soil Washing Technology, EPA RREL, series
includes Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/510; Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report, EPA/540/R-93/510; and Site Technology
Capsule, EPA/540/SR-93/510.
Raghavan, R., D.H. Dietz, and E. Coles, 1988. Cleaning Excavated Soil
Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review, EPA Report EPA
600/2-89/034.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\eompgde.417
4-69
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Toronto Port
Industrial Dist.
Ontario, Canada
Dennis Lang
Toronto Harbor
Comm.
60 Harbour St.
Toronto, CA M5J 1B7
(416) 863-2047
Fax: (416)863-4830
Soil washing
(volume reduction),
metal dissolution,
and chemical
hydrolysis with
biodegradation
(organics)
52 ppm
Naphthalan
e; 10 ppm
benzo(a)-
pyrene
<5; 2.6
NA
Montclair
Superfund Site
Montclair, NJ
Mike Eagle
EPA, Office of
Radiation Programs
401 M St., SW,
ANR-461
Washington, DC
20460
(202) 233-9376
Attrition mills,
classifiers, and filter
press to reduce the
amount of low-level
radioactive waste to
be disposed of,
56% volume
reduction
NA
11 pCi/g
$300/hour
Excalibur
Technology
Norma Lewis
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7665
Bench scale —
Soil washing and
catalytic ozone
oxidation
Site demo
scheduled for
Coleman Evans,
Florida
20,000 ppm
total
capacity
NA
$92 to
$170/m3
($70-
$130/yd3)
Alaskan Battery
Enterprises
Superfund Site,
Fairbanks, AK
Hugh Masters
EPA RREL
2890 Woodbridge
Ave.
Building 10
Edison, NJ
Pilot scale,
featuring gravity
separation and
particle size
classification
2,280-
10,374 ppm
lead
15-2,541
ppm
Twin Cities AAP
New Brighton, MN
Michael D. Royer
EPA RREL
2890 Woodbridge
Ave.
Building 10
Edison, NJ
(908) 321-6633
Full scale, featuring
gravity separation,
particle size
classification, metal
leaching, and lead
recovery
Demonstra-
tion is in
progress.
Field work
completed
but
laboratory
work not
complete.
Targets for
back-
ground
remedia-
tion: Cr,
Cu, Hg,
and Ni.
Some
batches
reached
state
remedia-
tion goals.
NA
Escambia Wood
Treating Company
Superfund Site,
Pensacola, FL
Terri Richardson
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH
Pilot scale,
featuring particle
size classification
and surfactant
addition
550-1,700
ppm PAHs
48-210 ppm
PCP
45 ppm
PAHs
3 ppm
PCPs
$l5l/metric
ton
($137/ton)
(projected)
Macgill & Gibbs
New Brighton, MN
BioTrol
Dennis Chilcote
BioTrol, Inc.
10300 Valley View
Rd.
Eden Prairie, MN
55344-3456
(612) 942-8032
Soil washing
(volume reduction),
process water
treated in a bio-
reactor, fines
treated in a slurry
bioreactor.
130 ppm
PCP,
247 ppm
PAHs
98,88%
removal
$168/ton
Note: NA = Not Availa
ble.
MK01VRPT:02281012.009\compgde.417 4-70 10/27/94
-------
4.17 SOIL WASHING
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Michael Gruenfeld
EPA RREL Technical Support
(908) 321-6625
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
S. Jackson Hubbard
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7507
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Jim Galloway
Frank Snite
USAED
(313) 226-6760
Detroit, Ml 48231-1027
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax:
(410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Mary K. Stinson
EPA RREL Technical Support
(908) 321-6683
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
M KO1 \RPT.02281012.009\compgde 417
4-71
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.417
4-72
10/27/94
-------
4.18 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (EX SITU)
Description: Ex situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) is a full-scale technology in which soil
is excavated and placed over a network of aboveground piping to which a
vacuum is applied to encourage volatilization of organics. The process
includes a system for handling off-gases. Advantages over its in situ
counterpart (Technology Profile No. 4.6) include that the excavation process
forms an increased number of passageways, shallow groundwater no longer
limits the process, leachate collection is possible, and treatment is more
uniform and easily monitored.
Emissions Control
Blower
Excavated
Soil Pile
4-18 94P-3309 8/26/94
4-18 TYPICAL EX SITU SVE SYSTEM
Applicability: The target contaminant group for ex situ SVE is VOCs.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• Air emissions may occur during excavation and materials handling,
possibly requiring treatment.
• High humic content or compact soil inhibits volatilization.
• As a result of air emission treatment, SVE may require treating
residual liquid and spent activated carbon, increasing the project cost.
• A large amount of space is required.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Soil characteristics that
need to be determined include the concentration of the contaminants, soil
M K01\RPT: 02281012,009\compgde.418
4-73
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
type and properties (e.g., texture, moisture content, particle size,
permeability, porosity, and TOC), and the presence of oil and grease. Key
operating parameters include air flow rate and vacuum pressure required.
Performance
Data: An advantage of the technology over its in situ counterpart is the increased
number of passageways formed by 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.
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 a typical site, consisting of 18,200 metric tons (20,000 tons) of
contaminated media, would require 12 to 36 months. 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.
Cost: The overall cost for ex situ SVE is under $110 per metric ton ($100 per ton),
including the cost of excavation but excluding treatment of off-gases and
collected groundwater.
References: EPA, 1990. State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction System
Technology, EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/2-89/024.
EPA, 1991. AWD Technologies, Inc.—Integrated Vapor Extraction and
Steam Vacuum Striping, EPA RREL, series includes Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/A5-91/002, PB92-218379; and Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/M5-91/002.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\eompgde.418
4-74
10/27/94
-------
4.18 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT 02281012 009\compgde418
4-75
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.418
4-76
10/27/94
-------
4.19 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION (EX SITU)
Description: As for in situ solidification/stabilization (S/S) (see Technology Profile No.
4.7), ex situ S/S 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 S/S, however, typically requires disposal of the resultant materials.
Waste Material
Hopper with Even Feederl
Conveyor
Water Supply (if required) -
Liquid
Reagent
Storage
Weight Feeder 1
1
Homogenizer 1
r f~~
Pug
Mill |
Dry Reagent Silo
Auger
Dry Reagent Feeder
Chute to Truck Loading Area
4-19 94P-2199 10/7/94
4-19 TYPICAL EX SITU SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Applicability: The target contaminant group for ex situ S/S is inorganics, including
radionuclides. The technology has limited effectiveness against SVOCs and
pesticides; however, systems designed to be more effective against organic
contaminants are being developed and tested.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Environmental conditions may affect the long-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 are generally required.
VOCs are generally not immobilized.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.419
4-77
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
• Long-term effectiveness has not been demonstrated for many
contaminant/process combinations.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Soil parameters that
must be determined include particle size, Atterberg limits, moisture content,
metal concentrations, sulfate content, organic content, density, permeability,
unconfined compressive strength, leachability, microstructure analysis, and
physical and chemical durability.
Performance
Data: Depending upon the original contaminants and the chemical reactions that
take place in the ex situ S/S process, the resultant stabilized mass may have
to be handled as a hazardous waste. For certain types of radioactive waste,
the stabilized product must be capable of meeting stringent waste form
requirements for disposal (e.g., Class B or Class C low level materials).
Remediation of a site consisting of 18,200 metric tons (20,000 tons) could
require less than 1 month, depending on equipment size and type and soil
properties (e.g., percent solids and particle size).
DOE has demonstrated the Polyethylene Encapsulation of Radionuclides and
Heavy Metals (PERM) process at the bench scale. The process is a waste
treatment and stabilization technology for high-level mixed waste. Specific
targeted contaminants include radionuclides (e.g., cesium, strontium, and
cobalt), and toxic metals (e.g., chromium, lead, and cadmium). The process
should be ready for implementation in FY95.
Cost: 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 $110 per metric ton
($100 per ton), including excavation.
References: Bricka, R.M., et al., 1988. An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of
Fluidized Bed Incineration Ash (K048 and K051), USAE-WES Technical
Report EL-88-24.
EPA, 1989. Chemfix Technologies, Inc.—Chemical Fixation/Stabilization,
EPA RREL, Technology Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5-89/011a,
PB91-127696; and Technology Evaluation Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/01 lb,
PB90-274127.
EPA, 1989. Harcon—Solidification, EPA RREL, series includes Technology
Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5-89/00la, PB89-158810; Technology Evaluation
Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/001b, PB89-158828; Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/A5-89/001; and Technology Demonstration Summary,
EPA/540/S5-89/001.
EPA, 1989. Solidtech, Inc.—Solidification, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/5S-89/005a; Technology Evaluation
Vol. II, EPA/540/5S-89/005b, PB90-191768; Applications Analysis,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.419
4-78
10/27/94
-------
4.19 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
EPA/540/A5-89/005; Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5-
89/005; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-89/005.
EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes —
Physical Tests, Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening and
Field Activities, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/625/6-89/022.
EPA, 1992. Silicate Technology Corporation—Solidification/Stabilization of
Organic/Inorganic Contaminants, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MR-92/010; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-92/010, PB93-
172948.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste
Materials, Technical Resource Document, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/530/R-93/012.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics,
Engineering Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/S-92/015.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Polyethylene Encapsulation, Technology
Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TIP
Reference No. BH-321201.
M KO1 \RPT: 022 81012.009\compgde 419
4-79
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Portable
Equipment
Salvage
Clackamas, OK
Edwin Barth - EPA
CERI
Dry alumina, calcium, and
silica blended in reaction
vessel.
NA
93.2 to
>99.9%
reduction of
Cu, Pb, and
Zn TCLP
levels
$80/metric
ton
($73/ton)
Naval
Construction
Battalion Center
Port Hueneme,
CA
NFESC Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
(614) 424-5442
Spent blasting abrasives
screened and mixed with
Portland cement and
soluble silicates.
NA
<5 ppm
TCLP
$94/metric
ton
($85/ton)
Robins AFB
Macon, GA
Terry Lyons
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7589
Addition of pozzolonic
cementitious materials.
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Edwin Barth
EPA CERI
(513) 569-7669
Fax: (513)569-7585
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Mark Bricka
USAE-WES
(601) 634-3700
CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Patricia M. Erikson
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7884
Fax: (513)569-7676
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
T ransfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Sherry Gibson
DOE
(301) 903-7258
EM-552, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.419
4-80
10/27/94
-------
4.20 SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Description: Solvent extraction does not destroy wastes but is a means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges, and sediments, thereby reducing
the volume of the hazardous waste that must be treated. The technology
uses an organic chemical as a solvent and differs from soil washing, which
generally uses water or water with wash-improving additives. Commercial-
scale units are in operation; they vary in regard to the solvent employed,
type of equipment used, and mode of operation.
Excavate
Waste
Preparation
4-20 94P-2202 8/26/94
Emissions
Control
Treated
Emissions
Recycled Solvents
Extractor
Solvent
with
Organic
Separator
Contaminants
-Concentrated
Contaminants
->• Solids
->¦ Water
-~-Oversized Rejects
4-20 TYPICAL SOLVENT EXTRACTION PROCESS
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 standalone technology
in some instances. 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. The treated
media are usually returned to the site after having met Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BDAT) and other standards.
Applicability: Solvent extraction has been shown to be effective in treating sediments,
sludges, and soils containing primarily organic contaminants such as PCBs,
VOCs, halogenated solvents, and petroleum wastes. The technology is
generally not used for extracting inorganics (i.e., acids, bases, salts, or heavy
metals). Inorganics usually do not have a detrimental effect on the extraction
of the organic components, and sometimes metals that pass through the
process experience a beneficial effect by changing the chemical compound
to a less toxic or leachable form. The process has been shown to be
MK01\RPT:02281012.009lcompgde 420 4-81 10/27/94
-------
EX snu SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
applicable for the separation of the organic contaminants in paint wastes,
synthetic rubber process wastes, coal tar wastes, drilling muds, wood-treating
wastes, separation sludges, pesticide/insecticide wastes, and petroleum
refinery oily wastes.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• 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.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). It is important to
determine whether mass transfer or equilibrium will be controlling. The
controlling factor is critical to the design of the unit and to the determination
of whether the technology is appropriate for the waste.
Soil properties that should be determined include particle size; pH; partition
coefficient; cation exchange capacity; organic content; TCLP; moisture
content; and the presence of metals, volatiles, clays, and complex waste
mixtures.
Performance
Data: The performance data currently available are mostly from Resource
Conservation Company (RCC). The ability of RCC's full-scale B.E.S.T.™
process to separate oily feedstock into product fractions was evaluated by
EPA at the General Refining Superfund site near Savannah, Georgia, in
February 1987. The treated soils from this unit were backfilled to the site,
product oil was recycled as a fuel oil blend, and the recovered water was
pH-adjusted and transported to a local industrial wastewater treatment
facility.
Cost: Cost estimates for this technology range from $110 to $440 per metric ton
($100 to $400 per ton).
MK0HRPT:02281012.009\compgde.420
4-82
10/27m
-------
4.20 SOLVENT EXTRACTION
References: EPA, 1988. Evaluation of the B.E.S.T.™ Solvent Extraction Sludge
Treatment Technology Twenty-Four Hour Test, EPA/600/2-88/051.
EPA, 1988. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils
and Sludges —Appendix B.l: Chemical Extraction, EPA, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/2-88/004.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: B.E.S.T.™ Solvent Extraction Process,
OSWER Directive 9200.5-253FS.
EPA, 1990. CF Systems Or garlics Extraction Process New Bedford Harbor,
MA, Applications Analysis Report, Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-90/002. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-1133845.
EPA, 1990. CF Systems Corp.—Solvent Extraction, EPA RREL, series
includes Technology Evaluation Vol. 1,540/5-90/001; Technology Evaluation
Vol. II, EPA/540/5-90/002a, PB90-186503; Application Analysis, EPA/540/
A5-90/002; and Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5-90/002.
EPA, 1990. Solvent Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,
OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/013.
EPA, 1993. Terra Kleen Solvent Extraction Technology—Terra Kleen
Response Group, Inc., EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MR-94/521.
Raghavan, R., D.H. Dietz, and E. Coles, 1988. Cleaning Excavated Soil
Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review, EPA Releases Control
Branch, Edison, NJ, EPA Report EPA 600/2-89/034.
MK01\RPT:022gl012.009\compgdc.420
4-83
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Port Arthur, TX
NA
Full-scale 50-tpd refinery
sludge treatment unit
2,575 ppm PCB
90%
reduction
NA
Conroe, TX
NA
Oil and grease and
aromatic priority pollutants
2,879 ppm PAH
122 ppm
PAH
NA
General Refining
Savannah, GA
(Superfund)
NA
Transportable B.E.S.T. unit
to treat 4 acidic oily sludge
ponds
10,000 ppm Pb,
190 ppm Cu,
5 ppm PCBs
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Michael Gruenfeld
EPA RREL
FTS 340-6625
(201) 321-6625
GSA Raritan Depot
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Mark Bricka or Danny
Averette
USAE WES
(601) 636-3111
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Laurel Stanley or Mark
Meckes
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7863
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.420
4-84
10/27/94
-------
4.21 HIGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Description: High temperature thermal desorption (HTTD) is a full-scale technology in
which wastes are heated to 320 to 560 °C (600 to 1,000 °F) to volatilize
water and organic contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports
volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment system. HTTD 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 be oxidized.
Clean
Offgas
Spent
Carton
Concentrated
Contaminants
Material
Handling
Excavate
Water
Oversized
Rejects
Desorption
Treated
Medium
Gas
Treatment
System
4-21 94P-2221 8/26/94
4-21 TYPICAL HIGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION PROCESS
HTTD is frequently used in combination with incineration, solidification/
stabilization, or dechlorination, depending upon site-specific conditions.
The technology has proven it can produce a final contaminant concentration
level below 5 mg/kg for the target contaminants identified.
Applicability: The target contaminants are SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides; however,
HTTD systems have varying degrees of effectiveness against the full
spectrum of organic contaminants. VOCs and fuels also may be treated, but
treatment may be less cost-effective. Volatile metals may be removed by
HTTD systems. The presence of chlorine can affect the volatilization of
some metals, such as lead. The process is applicable for the separation of
organics from refinery wastes, coal tar wastes, wood-treating wastes,
creosote-contaminated soils, hydrocarbon-contaminated soils, mixed
(radioactive and hazardous) wastes, synthetic rubber processing wastes, and
paint wastes.
MK01\RPT:022S1012.009\compgde.421
4-85
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Feed particle size greater than 2 inches can impact applicability or
cost at specific sites.
• Dewatering may be necessary to reduce the amount of energy required
to heat the soil.
• Highly abrasive feed can potentially damage the processor unit.
• Clay and silty soils and high humic content soils increase reaction
time as a result of binding of contaminants.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). In addition to
identifying soil contaminants and their concentrations, information necessary
for engineering thermal systems to specific applications include soil moisture
content and classification (no sieve analysis is necessary), determination of
boiling points for various compounds to be removed, and treatability tests to
determine the efficiency of thermal desorption for removing various
contaminants at various temperatures and residence times.
Performance
Data: There are at least five vendors actively promoting the technology, and most
of the hardware components for HTTD systems are readily available off the
shelf. The time to complete cleanup of the "standard" 18,200-metric ton
(20,000-ton) site using HTTD is just over 4 months.
Cost: Approximate overall cost is between $110 and $330 per metric ton ($100
and $300 per ton).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.421
4-86
10/27/94
-------
4.21 HIGH TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
References: Anderson, W.C., 1993. Innovative Site Remediation Technology — Thermal
Desorption, American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
EPA, 1988. Shirco—Infrared Incineration, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Evaluation—Peake Oil, EPA/540/5-88/002a; Technology
Evaluation—Rose Township, EPA/540/5-89/007a; Technology Evaluation—
Rose Township Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/007b, PB89-167910; Applications
Analysis, EPA/540/S5-89/010; Technology Demonstration Summary,
EPA/540/S5-89/007; Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-88/002; and
Technology Evaluation Report—Peake Oil Vol. II, EPA/540/5-88/002B,
PB89-116024.
EPA, 1989. American Combustion—Oxygen Enhanced Incineration, EPA
RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5-89/008;
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-89/008; Technology Demonstration
Summary, EPA/540/S5-89/008; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/
540/M5-89/008.
EPA, 1992. Ogden Circulating Bed Combustor—McCall Superfund Site,
EPA RREL, Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/R-92/001; and Demonstration
Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/001.
EPA, 1993. X-TRAX Model 100 Thermal Desorption System Chemical
Waste Management, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/
502.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,
OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/5-94/501.
Johnson, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks, 1987. Bench-Scale
Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic
Compounds From Various Soil Types: Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-
87124, USATHAMA.
Marks, P.J. and J.W. Noland, 1986. Economic Evaluation of Low
Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil,
Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-86085, USATHAMA.
McDevitt, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks, 1986. Bench-Scale
Investigation of Air Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil:
Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-86092, USATHAMA.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.421
4-87
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Alaskan Battery
Enterprises
Superfund Site,
Fairbanks, AK
Hugh Masters
EPA RREL
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Building 10
Edison, NJ
Pilot scale, featuring
gravity separation and
particle size classification.
2,280-10,374
ppm lead
15-2,541
ppm lead
$182/metric
ton ($165/ton)
Escambia Wood
Treating
Company
Superfund Site,
Pensacola, FL
Terri Richardson
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH
Pilot scale, featuring
particle size classification
and surfactant addition.
550-1,700 ppm
PAHs
48-210 ppm PCP
45 ppm
PAHs,
3 ppm PCPs
$151/metric
ton ($137/ton)
(projected)
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Michael Gruenfeld
EPA RREL
Releases Control
Branch
FTS 340-6625
(908) 321-6625
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Building 10 (MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08831
Daniel E. Averett
USAE-WES
(601) 634-3959
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Paul dePercin
EPA RREL
Demonstration Section
(513) 569-7797
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45267
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:022S1012.009\compgde.421
4-88
10/27/94
-------
4.22 HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION
Description: The process involves raising the temperature of the contaminated equipment
or material to 260 °C (500 °F) for a specified period of time. The gas
effluent from the material is treated in an afterburner system to destroy all
volatilized contaminants. The method eliminates a waste that currently is
stockpiled and requires disposal as a hazardous material. This method will
permit reuse or disposal of scrap as nonhazardous material. Consideration
is being given to applying the hot gases to explosives-contaminated
underground piping in situ.
Hot gas decontamination can also be used for decontamination of explosives-
contaminated masonry or metallic structures. The method involves sealing
and insulating the structures, heating with hot gas stream to 260 °C (500 °F)
for a prescribed period of time, volatilizing the explosive contaminants, and
destroying them in an afterburner. Operating conditions are site-specific.
Contaminants are completely destroyed.
Explosives -
Contaminated
Equipment
Flash
Chamber
Ambient
Air
Preheater
[Discharge
Afterburner
IGases
Air
Combustion
Air Blower
Vent
Fan
Treated
Equipment
4-22 94P-5221 8/26/94
4-22 TYPICAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION OF
EXPLOSIVES-CONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT
Applicability: The method is applicable for process equipment requiring decontamination
for reuse. It is also applicable for explosive items, such as mines and shells,
being demilitarized (after removal of explosives) or scrap material
contaminated with explosives.
The method can also be used for buildings or structures associated with
ammunition plants, arsenals, and depots involved in the manufacture,
processing, loading, and storage of pyrotechnics, explosives, and propellants.
M K01 \RPT:02281012.009\compgde.422
4-89
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• The costs of this method are higher than open burning.
• Flash chamber design must take into consideration possible explosions
from improperly demilitarized mines or shells.
• The rate at which equipment or material can be decontaminated is
slower than that for open burning.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Specific data required
to evaluate the potential use of hot gas decontamination include:
• Types of explosives present.
• Weight of the explosives present.
Performance
Data:
Items decontaminated for 6 hours at a minimum temperature of 260 °C
(500 °F) were found to be safe for public release as scrap. TNT destruction
rates of 99.99% can be achieved.
Cost:
References:
The cost of the decontamination will vary with the application, depending
upon the size and geometry of the equipment or material to be
decontaminated and the temperature and holding time required for the
decontamination. No specific cost analysis has been completed.
Maumee Research and Engineering, April 1986. Design Support for a Hot
Gas Decontamination System for Explosives-Contaminated Buildings.
McNeill, W., et al., October 1987. Pilot Plant Testing of Hot Gas Building
Decontamination Process - Final Report, USATHAMA Report AMXTH-TE-
CR-87130.
USATHAMA, July 1990. Pilot Test of Hot Gas Decontamination of
Explosives-Contaminated Equipment at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant
(HWAAP), Hawthorne, NV, Final Technical Report, USATHAMA Report
CETHA-TE-CR-90036.
Woodland, L.R., et al., August 1987. Pilot Testing of Caustic Spray/Hot
Gas Building Decontamination Process, USATHAMA Report AMHTH-TE-
CR-87112.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgdc.422
4-90
10/27/94
-------
4.22 HOT GAS DECONTAMINATION
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
HWAAP
Hawthorne, NV
Erik B. Hangeland
USAEC ETD
APG, MD 21010
(410) 671-2054
Successful pilot-scale
demonstration
NA
99.99%
removal of
TNT
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.422
4-91
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.422
4-92
10/27/94
-------
4.23 INCINERATION
Description: High temperatures, 870 to 1,200 °C (1,400 to 2,200 °F), are used to
volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) halogenated and other
refractory organics in hazardous wastes. The destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) for properly operated incinerators exceeds the 99.99%
requirement for hazardous waste and can be operated to meet the 99.9999%
requirement for PCBs and dioxins.
Treated
Emissions
Stack
^ Emissions
incinerator
Water
Solids
Treated
Afterburner
Quench
Waste
Waste
Feed
Air Pollution
Control
Waste
Preparation
Residue
Handling
Residue
Handling
Vapor
Control
4-23 94P-3310 9/12/94
4-23 TYPICAL MOBILE/TRANSPORTABLE INCINERATION PROCESS
Commercial incinerator designs are rotary kilns, equipped with an
afterburner, a quench, and an air pollution control system. The rotary kiln is
a refractory-lined, slightly-inclined, rotating cylinder that serves as a
combustion chamber and operates at temperatures up to 980 °C (1,800 °F).
An experimental unit, the circulating fluidized bed (CFB), uses high-velocity
air to circulate and suspend the waste particles in a combustion loop and
operates at temperatures up to 870 °C (1,600 °F). Another experimental
unit, the infrared unit uses electrical resistance heating elements or indirect-
fired radiant U-tubes to heat material passing through the chamber on a
conveyor belt and operates at temperatures up to 870 °C (1,600 °F).
Incinerator off-gas requires treatment by an air pollution-control system to
remove particulates and neutralize and remove acid gases (HC1, NOx, and
SOx). Baghouses, venturi scrubbers, and wet electrostatic precipitators
remove particulates; packed-bed scrubbers and spray driers remove acid
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.423
4-93
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
gases. Limestone or caustic solution added to the combustor loop removes
acid gases in the CFB.
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),
RCRA (hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage, and disposal),
NPDES (discharge to surface waters), and NCA (noise).
Applicability: Incineration is used to remediate soils contaminated with explosives and
hazardous wastes, particularly chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCBs, and dioxins.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Only one off-site incinerator is permitted to burn PCBs and dioxins.
• There are specific feed size and materials handling requirements that
can impact applicability or cost at specific sites.
• Heavy metals can produce a bottom ash that requires stabilization.
• Volatile heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic,
leave the combustion unit with the flue gases and require the
installation of gas cleaning systems for removal.
• 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. Such compounds are likely to be short-lived
reaction intermediates that can be destroyed in a caustic quench.
• Sodium and potassium form low melting point ashes that can attack
the brick lining and form a sticky particulate that fouls gas ducts.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). In addition to
identifying soil contaminants and their concentrations, information necessary
for engineering thermal systems to specific applications includes soil
moisture content and classification (no sieve analysis is necessary), the soil
fusion temperature, and the soil heating value.
Performance
Data: If an off-site incinerator is used, the potential risk of transporting the
hazardous waste through the community must be considered. Approximately
20 commercial RCRA-permitted hazardous waste incinerators and
approximately 10 transportable high temperature units are operating. The
commercial units are large capacity rotary kilns with afterburners and
sophisticated air pollution control systems.
M KO1 \RPT: 02281012.009\compgde.423
4-94
10/27/94
-------
4.23 INCINERATION
Cost: Soil treatment costs at off-site incinerators range from $220 to $1,100 per
metric ton ($200 to $1,000 per ton) of soil, including all project costs.
Mobile units that can be operated on-site will reduce soil transportation costs.
Soils contaminated with PCBs or dioxins cost $1,650 to $6,600 per metric
ton ($1,500 to $6,000 per ton) to incinerate.
References: EPA, 1987. Incineration of Hazardous Waste, Fact Sheet, EPA, Office of
Solid Waste, Washington, DC, EPA/530-SW-88-018.
EPA, 1988. Experience in Incineration Applicable to Superfund Site
Remediation, EPA, RREL and Center for Environmental Research
Information, EPA/625/9-88/008.
EPA, 1988. Hazardous Waste Incineration: Questions and Answers, EPA,
Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, EPA/530/SW-88/018.
EPA, 1990. Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment, Engineering
Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/014.
EPA, 1988. Shirco—Infrared Incineration, EPA RREL, series includes
Technology Evaluation—Peake Oil, EPA/540/5-88/002a; Technology
Evaluation—Rose Township, EPA/540/5-89/007a; Technology
Evaluation—Rose Township Vol. II, EPA/540/5-89/007b, PB89-167910;
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/S5-89/010; Technology Demonstration
Summary, EPA/540/S5-89/007; Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/
M5-88/002; and Technology Evaluation Report—Peake Oil Vol. II,
EPA/540/5-88/002B, PB89-116024.
EPA, 1989. American Combustion—Oxygen Enhanced Incineration, EPA
RREL, series include Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5-89/008;
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-89/008; Technology Demonstration
Summary, EPA/540/S5-89/008; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/
540/M5-89/008.
EPA, 1992. Ogden Circulating Bed Combustor—McCall Superfund Site,
EPA RREL, Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/R-92/001; Demonstration
Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/001.
EPA, 1993. X-TRAX Model 100 Thermal Desorption System Chemical
Waste Management, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/
MR-93/502.
Noland, J.W., et al., 1984. Task 2: Incineration Test of Explosives
Contaminated Soils at Savanna Army Depot Activity, Final Report, Savanna
Illinois, USATHAMA Report DRXTH-TE-CR 84277.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.423
4-95
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Peak Oil Site
Tampa, FL
Howard 0. Wall
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7691
Full scale: electric infrared
mobile incineration unit
Oil sludge (PCBs
and lead)
NA
$180 to
$800/metric
ton
($164-$730/
ton)
Savanna AD
Savanna, IL
Michael G. Cosmos
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
One Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 701-7423
Full scale transportable
incineration system -
75,000 tons of soil
1,000 ppm TNT
<1 ppm
$180/metric
ton
($173/ton)
inclusive
Lauder Salvage
Yard
Beardstown, IL
Michael G. Cosmos
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
One Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 701-7423
Full scale transportable
incineration system
12,000 ppm
PCBs
<1 ppm
$200/metric
ton
($180/ton)
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Donald A. Oberacker
EPA RREL
FTS 684-7510
(513) 569-7510
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Joseph McSortey
EPA
Air & Energy ERL
(919) 541-2920
Alexander Dr.
Research Triangle Park, NC 17711
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.423
4-96
10/27/94
-------
4.24 LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Description: Low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) systems are physical separation
processes and are not designed to destroy organics. Wastes are heated to
between 90 and 320 °C (200 to 600 °F) to volatilize water and organic
contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water
and organics to the gas treatment system. The bed temperatures and
residence times designed into these systems will volatilize selected
contaminants but will typically not oxidize them. LTID is a full-scale
technology that has been proven successful for remediating petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination in all types of soil. Contaminant destruction
efficiencies in the afterburners of these units are greater than 95%. The
same equipment could probably meet stricter requirements with minor
modifications, if necessary. Decontaminated soil retains its physical
properties and ability to support biological activity.
Clean
Offgas
Desorber
Oversized
Rejects
T reated
Medium
Excavate
Material
Handling
Baghouse
Afterburner
4-24 94P-2220 9/12/94
4-24 TYPICAL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THERMAL DESORPTiON PROCESS
Two common thermal desorption designs are the rotary dryer and thermal
screw. Rotary dryers are horizontal cylinders that can be indirect- or direct-
fired. The dryer is normally inclined and rotated. For the thermal screw
units, screw conveyors or hollow augers are used to transport the medium
through an enclosed trough. Hot oil or steam circulates through the auger
to indirectly heat the medium. All thermal desorption systems require
treatment of the off-gas to remove particulates and contaminants.
Particulates are removed by conventional particulate removal equipment,
such as wet scrubbers or fabric filters. Contaminants are removed through
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.424
4-97
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
condensation followed by carbon adsorption, or they are destroyed in a
secondary combustion chamber or a catalytic oxidizer. Most of these units
are transportable.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for LTTD systems are nonhalogenated VOCs
and fuels. The technology can be used to treat SVOCs at reduced
effectiveness.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• 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.
• Heavy metals in the feed may produce a treated solid residue that
requires stabilization.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). In addition to
identifying soil contaminants and their concentrations, information necessary
for engineering thermal systems to specific applications include soil moisture
content and classification, texture, mercury content, pH, and presence of high
or low volatility compounds.
Performance
Data: Most of the hardware components for LTTD systems are readily available
off the shelf. Many vendors offer LTTD units mounted on a single trailer.
Soil throughput rates are typically 13 to 18 metric tons (15 to 20 tons) per
hour for sandy soils and less than 6 metric tons (7 tons) per hour for clay
soils when more than 10% of the material passes a 200-mesh screen. Units
with capacities ranging from 23 to 46 metric tons (25 to 50 tons) per hour
require four or five trailers for transport and 2 days for setup.
All ex situ soil thermal treatment systems employ similar feed systems
consisting of a screening device to separate and remove materials greater
than 5 centimeters (2 inches), a belt conveyor to move the screened soil from
the screen to the first thermal treatment chamber, and a weight belt to
measure soil mass. Occasionally, augers are used rather than belt conveyors,
but either type of system requires daily maintenance and is subject to failures
that shut the system down. Soil conveyors in large systems seem more
prone to failure than those in smaller systems. Size reduction equipment can
be incorporated into the feed system, but its installation is usually avoided
to minimize shutdown as a result of equipment failure.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.424
4-98
10/27/94
-------
4.24 LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
Soil storage piles and feed equipment are generally covered as protection
from rain to minimize soil moisture content and material handling problems.
Soils and sediments with water contents greater than 20 to 25% may require
the installation of a dryer in the feed system to reduce the energy cost to
heat the soil. Some volatilization of contaminants occurs in the dryer, and
the gases are routed to a thermal treatment chamber.
Cost: Rates charged to remediate petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil range
from $45 to $110 per metric ton ($40 to $100 per ton) of soil. Costs for
remediating clay soils may approach $220 per metric ton ($200 per ton)
because of the reduced throughout resulting from the small soil particle size.
Of this cost, approximately $20 to $35 per metric ton ($15 to $30 per ton)
is required for direct operating costs such as utility consumption and repair.
Vendors typically perform preventive maintenance, such as lubrication, on
a daily basis. Unit transportation and setup costs are typically $3.30 to $5.50
per metric ton ($3 to $5 per ton), seldom exceeding a mobilization cost of
$200,000. Excavation of contaminated soil and Ihe replacement of the
treated soil costs approximately $6 to $11 per metric ton ($5 to $10 per ton).
References: EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Thermal Desorption, EPA, OSWER,
Washington, DC, EPA/542/F-92/006.
EPA, 1992. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3®) System,
Demonstration Bulletin, Washington, DC, EPA/540/MR-92/019.
EPA, 1992. Roy F. Weston, Inc.—Low Temperature Thermal Treatment
(LT3) System, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/019;
and Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-92/019.
EPA, 1993. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration (LTTA) System, Canonie
Environmental Services, Inc., EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/
540/MR-93/504.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption System, Clean Berkshires, Inc., EPA
RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-94/507; and Capsule, EPA/
540/R-94/507a.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment, Engineering Bulletin,
EPA/540/5-94/501.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption Unit, Eco Logic International, Inc., EPA
RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-94/504.
Lighty, J., et al., 1987. The Cleanup of Contaminated Soil by Thermal
Desorption, Presented at Second International Conference on New Frontiers
for Hazardous Waste Management, EPA Report EPA/600/9-87/018.
U.S. Army, August 1990. The Low Temperature Thermal Stripping Process,
USATHAMA, APG, MD, USATHAMA Cir. 200-1-5.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.424
4-99
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Tinker AFB
Oklahoma City,
OK
Michael G. Cosmos
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
One Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 701-7423
Low temperature thermal
treatment (LT *) - 3,000
yd3 treated - VOCs,
SVOCs, TP-4
NA
99.9% BTEX
removal
$410 to
$798/metric
ton
($373-
$725/ton)
based on soil
moisture
Letterkenny AD
Chambersburg,
PA
Michael G. Cosmos
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
One Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 701-7423
USAEC's Holo-Flite screw
thermal processor
Various VOCs up
to 20,000 ppm
99.95% VOC
removal
$81 to
$176/metric
ton
($74-
$160/ton)
+ $410 to
$798/metric
ton ($87-
$184/ton) soil
for gas treat-
ment
Letterkenny AD
Chambersburg,
PA
Michael G. Cosmos
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
One Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
(610) 701-7423
LT* - TCE, DCE, PCE,
xylene
Various VOCs up
to 27,000 ppm
Up to 1.8
ppm
$410 to
$798/metric
ton
($373-
$725/ton)
based on soil
moisture
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Michael Gruenfeld
EPA RREL
Releases Control
Branch
(908) 321-6625
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Building 10 (MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08837
Paul dePercin
EPA
(513) 569-7797
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Daniel E. Averett
USAE-WES
(601) 634-3959
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.424
4-100
10/27/94
-------
4.25 OPEN BURN/OPEN DETONATION
Description: Open burn (OB) and open detonation (OD) operations are conducted to
destroy unserviceable, unstable, or unusable munitions and explosives
materials. In OB operations, explosives or munitions are destroyed by self-
sustained combustion, which is ignited by an external source, such as flame,
heat, or a detonation wave (that does not result in a detonation). In OD
operations, detonatable explosives and munitions are destroyed by a
detonation, which is initiated by the detonation of a disposal charge.
OB/OD operations can destroy many types of explosives, pyrotechnics, and
propellants. OB areas must be able to withstand accidental detonation of any
or all explosives being destroyed, unless the operating OB technicians
recognize that the characteristics of the materials involved are such that
orderly burning without detonation can be ensured. Personnel with this type
of knowledge must be consulted before any attempt is made at OB disposal,
especially if primary explosives are present in any quantity.
Berm
94P-3322 8/26/94
4-25 TYPICAL OPEN BURNING PAN AND CAGE
OB and OD can be initiated either by electric or burning ignition systems.
In general, electric systems are preferable because they provide better control
over the timing of the initiation. In an electric system, electric current heats
a bridge wire, which ignites a primary explosive or pyrotechnic, which, in
turn, ignites or detonates the material slated to be burned or detonated. If
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.425
4-101
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
necessary, safety fuses, which consists of propellants wrapped in plastic
weather stripping, are used to initiate the burn or detonation.
Applicability: OB/OD can be used to destroy unserviceable, unstable, or unusable
munitions and explosive materials.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• Minimum distance requirements for safety purposes mean substantial
space is required.
• OB/OD operations emissions are difficult to capture for treatment and
may not be permitted in areas with emissions limitations.
• OB/OD operations require that prevailing winds carry sparks, flame,
smoke, and toxic fumes away from neighboring facilities. OB/OD
operations are never conducted during sand, snow, or electrical storms
strong enough to produce static electricity, which might cause
premature detonation.
• In addition, with growing OB/OD restriction, DOD's ability to treat
energetic wastes is diminishing and energetics disposal may be
eliminated.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). Specific data required
to evaluate the potential use of OB/OD operations include:
• Location plan for proposed OB/OD operations showing adjacent land
uses and safety buffer zone.
• Emissions requirements for the geographic area of the OB/OD
operation.
Performance
Data: Several federal agencies are pursuing new technologies in this area with
DOE (molten salt technology) and the U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratories (CERL) (preliminary investigations) being the most
active.
Cost: Not available.
References: Teer, R.G., R.E. Brown, and H.E. Sarvis, June 1993. Status of RCRA
Permitting of Open Burning and Open Detonation of Explosive Wastes,
Presented at Air and Waste Management Association Conference, 86th
Annual Meeting and Exposition, Denver, CO.
USAF, 1990. Explosives Safety Standards, Air Force Regulation 127-100.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.425
4-102
10/27/94
-------
4.25 OPEN BURN/OPEN DETONATION
USAMC (U.S. Army Materiel Command), 1985. Explosives Safety Manual,
AMC-R, 385-100.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.425
4-103
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
M K01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.425
4-104
10/27/94
-------
4.26 PYROLYSIS
Description: Pyrolysis is formally defined as chemical decomposition induced in organic
materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. In practice, it is not possible to
achieve a completely oxygen-free atmosphere; actual pyrolytic systems are
operated with less than stoichiometric quantities of oxygen. Because some
oxygen will be present in any pyrolytic system, nominal oxidation will occur.
If volatile or semivolatile materials are present in the waste, thermal
desorption will also occur.
Clean Offgas
->- Condensed
Volatiles
Gas
Treatment
System
->¦ Spent Carbon
¦>• Water
¦>Treated Medium
Oversized
Rejects
Excavate
Pyrolysis
Material
Handling
Desorption
(Optional)
4-26 94P-2224 8/26/94
4-26 TYPICAL PYROLYSIS PROCESS
Pyrolysis transforms hazardous organic materials into gaseous components,
small quantities of liquid, and a solid residue (coke) containing fixed carbon
and ash. Pyrolysis of organic materials produce combustible gases, including
carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane, and other hydrocarbons. If the
off-gases are cooled, liquids condense producing an oil/tar residue and
contaminated water. Pyrolysis typically occurs under pressure and at
operating temperatures above 430 °C (800 °F). The pyrolysis gases require
further treatment. The off-gases may be treated in a secondary combustion
chamber, flared, and partially condensed. Particulate removal equipment
such as fabric filters or wet scrubbers are also required.
Pyrolysis is an emerging technology. Although the basic concepts of the
process have been validated, the performance data for an emerging
technology have not been evaluated according to methods approved by EPA
and adhering to EPA quality assurance/quality control standards.
Performance data are currently available only for vendors. Also, existing
data are limited in scope and quantity/quality and are frequently of a
proprietary nature.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.426
4-105
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for pyrolysis are SVOCs and pesticides. The
process is applicable for the separation of organics from refinery wastes, coal
tar wastes, wood-treating wastes, creosote-contaminated soils, hydrocarbon-
contaminated soils, mixed (radioactive and hazardous) wastes, synthetic
rubber processing wastes, and paint waste.
Pyrolysis systems may be applicable to a number or organic materials that
"crack" or undergo a chemical decomposition in the presence of heat.
Pyrolysis has shown promise in treating organic contaminants in soils and
oily sludges. Chemical contaminants for which treatment data exist include
PCBs, dioxins, PAHs, and many other organics. Pyrolysis is not effective
in either destroying or physically separating inorganics from the
contaminated medium. Volatile metals may be removed as a result of the
higher temperatures associated with the process but are similarly not
destroyed.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• There are specific feed size and materials handling requirements that
impact applicability or cost at specific sites.
• The technology requires drying of the soil to achieve a low soil
moisture content (<1%).
• Highly abrasive feed can potentially damage the processor unit.
• High moisture content increases treatment costs.
• Treated media containing heavy metals may require stabilization.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). In addition to
identifying soil contaminants and their concentrations, information necessary
for engineering thermal systems to specific applications include soil moisture
content and classification (no sieve analysis is necessary), and the soil fusion
temperature.
Performance
Data: Limited performance data are available for pyrolytic systems treating
hazardous wastes containing PCBs, dioxins, and other organics. The quality
of this information has not been determined. These data are included as a
general indication of the performance of pyrolysis equipment and may not
be directly transferrable to a specific Superfund site. Site characterization
and treatability studies are essential in further refining and screening the
pyrolysis technology.
Cost: The overall cost for remediating approximately 18,200 metric tons (20,000
tons) of contaminated media is expected to be approximately $330 per metric
ton ($300 per ton).
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.426
4-106
10/27/94
-------
4.26 PYROLYSIS
References: EPA, 1992. AOSTRA-SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Wide Beach
Development Site, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/MR-92/008.
EPA, 1992. Pyrolysis Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/S-92/010.
EPA, 1992. SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Outboard Marine
Corporation Site, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/MR-92/078.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.426
4-107
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
HT-V
TDI Thermal Dynamics
Mobile thermal desorption
unit with pyrolytic mode
Dioxin
99.99%
removal
NA
Deutsche
Babcock Anlagen
AG
NA
Desorb and combust
volatiles
Polycyclic
aromatics
99.77%
removal
NA
Wide Beach
Superfund Site
NY
SoilTech, Inc.
Anaerobic thermal
processor (ATP), indirectly
heated rotary kiln
5,000 ppm PCB
<2 ppm
$290/metric
ton ($265/ton)
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Donald Oberacker
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7510
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Paul dePercin
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7797
Fax: (513)569-7620
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.426
4-108
10/27/94
-------
4.27 VITRIFICATION (EX SITU)
Description: Ex situ vitrification is designed to encapsulate inorganic contaminants, rather
than reduce contaminant concentrations. Destruction of the organic
contaminants present in the treated media, however, does occur because of
temperatures achieved in the process.
Power Input Exhaust Gas
Air Pollution
Control Devices
Clean Gas
Blending
Vitrification
Contaminated
Soil
Limestone,
Soda Ash
If Needed
Quench or
Slow Cool
Solid Product
Vitrified Product
4-27 94P-3323 9/13/94
4.27 TYPICAL EX SITU VITRIFICATION PROCESS BLOCK FLOW
Ex situ vitrification is effective in reducing the mobility of the contaminated
wastes within the media. The vitrified mass has high strength and resistance
to leaching. The strength properties of material vitrified by different systems
can vary widely. Systems in which the vitrified mass is quench-cooled may
produce a more easily fractured mass than systems in which the mass is
allowed to air cool. Systems in which fluxing agents are used will also have
different strength properties. The composition of the soil that is vitrified
may also affect the strength properties of the vitrified material.
Ex situ vitrification is normally considered a standalone technology;
however, its potential for use in treating the solid residuals from other
technologies, such as incinerator ash, is receiving increasing attention.
Applicability: Ex situ vitrification is applicable to the full range of contaminant groups, but
inorganics is the target contaminant group. Metals, radionuclides, etc. are
encapsulated in the vitrified mass, resisting leaching for geologic time
periods.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
MK01\ftPT:02281012.009\compgde.427
4-109
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
• Organic off-gases need to be controlled. Some volatile heavy metal
and radioactive contaminants may volatilize and require treatment in
the off-gas system.
• Use or disposal of the resultant vitrified slag is required.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge). In addition to
identifying soil contaminants and their concentrations, information necessary
for engineering thermal systems to specific applications include soil moisture
content and classification (no sieve analysis is necessary), and the soil fusion
temperature.
Performance
Data: An EPA SITE program demonstration of plasma arc vitrification was
conducted in 1991 at DOE's Component Development and Integration
facility in Butte, Montana. During the demonstration, the furnace processed
approximately 1,820 kilograms (4,000 pounds) of waste. The waste
consisted of soil with heavy metals from the Silver Bow Creek Superfund
site, spiked with 28,000-ppm zinc oxide and 1,000-ppm hexachlorobenzene
and mixed in a 90-to-10 weight ratio with No. 2 diesel oil.
DOE is currently developing a full-scale prototype of a fixed hearth DC
plasma torch process that will convert full drums of waste materials directly
to an enhanced waste form in a one step process. An arc melter vitrification
process exists but requires engineering development.
Cost: Approximate overall cost is $770 per metric ton ($700 per ton). Ex situ
vitrification is a relatively complex, high-energy technology requiring a high
degree of specialized skill and training.
References: Circeo, Louis J., Ph.D., 1991. Destruction and Vitrification of Asbestos
Using Plasma Arc Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology for
USACERL, Champaign, IL.
DOE, undated. Technology Name: Arc Melter Vitrification, Technology
Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP
Reference No.: ID-132011.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Arc Melter Vitrification, Technology
Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP
Reference No.: ID-132010.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Fixed Hearth Plasma Torch Process,
Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech
Database, TTP Reference No.: PE-021202.
EPA, 1992. Babcock and Wilcox—Cyclone Furnace Vitrification, EPA
RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation Vol. I, EPA/540/R-92/017A,
PB92-222215; Technology Evaluation Vol. II, EPA/540/R-92/017B,
M K01\RPT: 02281012.009Vompgde.427
4-110
10/27/94
-------
4.27 VITRIFICATION
PB92-222223; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-92/017, PB93-122315;
Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/SR-92/017; and
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/011.
EPA, 1993. Babcock and Wilcox—Cyclone Furnace Vitrification, EPA
RREL, Emerging Tech., Bulletin, EPA/540/P-92/010; Emerging Tech.
Report, EPA/540/R-93/507, PB93-163038; Emerging Tech. Summary, EPA/
540/SR-93/507.
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
DOE
Butte, MT
Laurel Staley
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7863
Fax: (513)569-7620
Heavy metal waste fed
into plasma arc
centrifugal treatment
unit.
28,000 ppm
zinc oxide
1,000 ppm
hexachloro-
benzene
Meets TCLP
$2,000/
metric ton
($1,816/
ton)
Babcock &
Wilcox, Alliance
Research Center
Alliance, OH
Laurel Staley
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7863
Fax: (513)569-7620
Wastes containing
heavy metals and
organic compounds fed
into a cyclone furnace.
Pilot scale.
TCLP
49.9 ppm Cd
2.67 ppm Cr
97.1 ppm Pb
TCLP
<0.12 ppm Cd
0.22 ppm Cr
<0.31 ppm Pb
>99.99% DRE for
anthracene and
dimethylphthalate
$495 to
$605/ton
($450 to
$550/ton)
HRD Facility
Monaca, PA
Marta Richards
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Wastes containing
heavy metals and
organic compounds fed
into a hot reducing
atmosphere.
54,000 ppm Pb
410 ppm Cd
5,200 ppm As
860 ppm Ba
88 ppm Cr
TCLP
0.474 ppm As
0.175 ppm Ba
<0.05 ppm Cd
<0.06 ppm Cr
<0.33 ppm Pb
$220 to
$1,020/
metric ton
($200 to
$930/ton)
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Jaffer Mohiuddin
DOE
(301) 903-7965
EM-552, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
Randy Parker
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7271
Fax: (513)569-7620
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Hany H. Zaghloul, P.E.
USACE CERL
(217) 373-7249
(217) 352-6511
(800) USA-CERL
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.427
4-111
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:Q22810] 2.009\compgde,427
4-112
10/27/94
-------
Groundwater,
Surface Water,
and Leachate
Treatment
Technologies
-------
4.28 EXCAVATION, RETRIEVAL, AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
Description: Contaminated material is removed and transported to permitted off-site
treatment and/or disposal facilities. Some pretreatment of the contaminated
media usually is required in order to meet land disposal restrictions.
Contaminated
v Soil
4-28 94P-3320 8/26/94
4-28 TYPICAL CONTAMINATED SOIL EXCAVATION DIAGRAM
Applicability: Excavation and off-site disposal is applicable to the complete range of
contaminant groups with no particular target group. Although excavation
and off-site disposal alleviates the contaminant problem at the site, it does
not treat the contaminants.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Generation of fugitive emissions may be a problem during operations.
• The distance from the contaminated site to the nearest disposal facility
will affect cost.
• Depth and composition of the media requiring excavation must be
considered.
• Transportation of the soil through populated areas may affect
community acceptability.
• Disposal options for certain waste (e.g., mixed waste or transuranic
waste) may be limited. There is currently only one licensed disposal
facility for radioactive and mixed waste in the United States.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.428
4-113
10/27/94
-------
OTHER SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge).
The type of contaminant and its concentration will impact off-site disposal
requirements. Soil characterization as dictated by land disposal restrictions
(LDRs) are required. Most hazardous wastes must be treated to meet either
RCRA or non-RCRA treatment standards prior to land disposal. Radioactive
wastes would have to meet disposal facility waste form requirements based
on waste classification.
Performance
Data: Excavation and off-site disposal is a well proven and readily implementable
technology. 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 all ex situ treatments. As a consequence, the
remediation consulting community is very familiar with this option.
The excavation of 18,200 metric tons (20,000 tons) of contaminated soil
would require about 2 months. Disposal of the contaminated media is
dependent upon the availability of adequate containers to transport the
hazardous waste to a RCRA-permitted facility.
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 RCRA (40 CFR Parts 261-265),
and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates the transport of
hazardous materials (49 CFR Parts 172-179, 49 CFR Part 1387, and DOT-E
8876).
DOE has demonstrated a cryogenic retrieval of buried waste system, which
uses liquid nitrogen (LN2) to freeze soil and buried waste to reduce the
spread of contamination while the buried material is retrieved with a series
of remotely operated tools. Other excavation/retrieval systems that DOE is
currently developing include a remote excavation system, a hydraulic impact
end effector, and a high pressure waterjet dislodging and conveyance end
effector using confined sluicing.
Cost: Cost estimates for excavation and disposal range from $300 to $510 per
metric ton ($270 to $460 per ton) depending on the nature of hazardous
materials and methods of excavation. 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. Additional costs may include soil characterization and treatment
to meet land ban requirements.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.428
4-114
10/27/94
-------
4.28 EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
References: Church, H.K., 1981. Excavation Handbook, McGraw Hill Book Co., New
York, NY.
EPA, 1991. Survey of Materials-Handling Technologies Used at Hazardous
Waste Sites, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/010.
EPA, 1992. McColl Superfund Site — Demonstration of a Trial Excavation,
EPA RREL, series include Technology Evaluation EPA/S40/R-92/015, PB92-
226448; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-92/015; and Technology
Demonstration. Summary, EPA/540/SR/-92/015.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Jaffer Mohiuddin
DOE Program
Manager
(301) 903-7965
EM-552, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009Vcompgde.428
4-115
10/27/94
-------
OTHER SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Scompgde.428
4-116
10/27/94
-------
4.29 NATURAL ATTENUATION
Description: For 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 and pathways. The primary objective of site
modeling is to demonstrate that natural processes of contaminant degradation
will reduce contaminant concentrations below regulatory standards before
potential exposure pathways are completed. 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.
Air-Tight Monitoring Well
Cap/Water Sensor
4-29 94P-3325a KV21/94
4-29 TYPICAL MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM
Natural attenuation is not the same as "no action," although it often is
perceived as such. 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 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.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.429
4-117
10/27/94
-------
OTHER SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The attitude toward natural attenuation varies among agencies. USAF
carefully evaluates the potential for use of natural attenuation at its sites;
however, EPA accepts its use only in certain special cases.
Applicability: Target contaminants for natural attenuation are nonhalogenated VOCs,
SVOCs, and fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs and SVOCs and
pesticides may be less responsive to natural attenuation.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• 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 source material exists, it may have to be removed.
• Some inorganics can be immobilized, such as mercury, but they will
not be degraded.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.1
(Data Requirements for Soil, Sediment, and Sludge).
Many potential suppliers can perform the modeling, sampling, and sample
analysis required for justifying and monitoring natural attenuation. 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 and nitrate).
When available, information to be obtained during data review includes:
• Soil and groundwater quality data:
Three-dimensional distribution of residual-, free-, and dissolved-
phase contaminants. The distribution of residual- and free-
phase contaminants will be used to define the dissolved-phase
plume source area.
MK01\RFT02281012 009\compgde.429
4-118
10/27/94
-------
4.29 NATURAL ATTENUATION
Groundwater and soil geochemical data.
Chemical and physical characteristics of the contaminants.
Potential for biodegradation of the contaminants.
• Geologic and hydrogeologic data:
Lithology and stratigraphic relationships.
Grain-size distribution (sand vs. silt vs. clay).
Flow gradient.
Preferential flow paths.
Interaction between groundwater and surface water.
Location of potential receptors: groundwater, wells, and surface
water discharge points.
Performance
Data:
Cost:
Natural attenuation has been selected by AFCEE for remediation at 45 USAF
sites.
There are costs for modeling contamination degradation rates to determine
whether natural attenuation is a feasible remedial alternative. Additional
costs are 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. O&M costs would be
required for monitoring to confirm that contaminant migration has not
occurred.
References: Scovazzo, P.E., D. Good, and D.S. Jackson, 1992. "Soil Attenuation: In
Situ Remediation of Inorganics," in Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund
1992, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Bailey, G.W., and J.L. White, 1970. "Factors Influencing the Adsorption,
Desorption, and Movement of Pesticides in Soil," in Residue Reviews, F.A.
Gunther and J.D. Gunther, Editors, Springer Verlag, pp. 29-92.
Hassett, J J., J.C. Means, W.L. Banwart, and S.G. Woods, 1980. Sorption
Properties of Sediments and Energy-Related Pollutants, EPA, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/3-80-041.
Hassett, J.J., W.L. Banwart, and R.A. Griffin, 1983. "Correlations of
Compound Properties with Sorption Characteristics of Nonpolar Compounds
by Soils and Sediments; Concepts and Limitations," Environment and Solid
MK01\RPT:022S1012.009\compgde.429
4-119
10/27/94
-------
OTHER SOIL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Wastes, pp. 161-178, C.W. Francis and S.I. Auerbach, Editors, Butterworths,
Boston, MA.
Jeng, C.Y., D.H. Chen, and C.L. Yaws, 1992. "Data Compilation for Soil
Sorption Coefficient," Pollution Engineering, 15 June 1992.
Miller, R.N. 1990. "A Field-Scale Investigation of Enhanced Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Biodegradation in the Vadose Zone at Tyndall Air Force Base,
Florida," in Proceedings of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic
Chemicals in Groundwater, pp. 339-351, Prevention, Detection, and
Restoration Conference: NWAA/API.
Wiedemeier, T.H., D.C. Downey, J.T. Wilson, D.H. Kampbell, R.N. Miller,
and J.E. Hansen. 1994. Technical Protocol for Implementing the Intrinsic
Remediation (Natural Attenuation) with Long-Term Monitoring Option for
Dissolved-Phase Fuel Contamination in Ground Water, Brooks Air Force
Base, San Antonio, TX.
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Hill AFB, UT
AFCEE/ERT
Jerry Hansen
(210) 536-4353
Fax: (210)536-4339
NA
NA
NA
NA
Eglin AFB, FL
AFCEE/ERT
Jerry Hansen
(210) 536-4353
Fax: (210)536-4339
NA
NA
NA
NA
Elmendorf AFB,
AL
AFCEE/ERT
Jerry Hansen
(210) 536-4353
Fax: (210)536-4339
NA
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Capt. Tom Venoge
USAF
(904) 283-6205
AL-EQW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RTT:02281012.009\compgde.429
4-120
10/27/94
-------
4.30 CO-METABOLIC PROCESSES
Description: 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. An
emerging application involves the injection of water containing dissolved
methane and oxygen into groundwater to enhance methanotrophic biological
degradation. This class of microorganisms can degrade chlorinated solvents,
such as vinyl chloride and TCE, by co-metabolism.
Nutrient + pH
Adjustment
Methane
and Oxygen
Addition
To Further
Treatment
or Discharge
i r^ To Recharge
Groundwater
Extraction Vadose
Wells
Zone
Injection
Well
Contaminated
Groundwater
Saturated
Zone
Submersible
^/-Pump
94P-2729 8/26/94
4-30 TYPICAL CO-METABOLIC BIOREMEDIATION SYSTEM (IN SITU) FOR CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER
Applicability:
Target contaminants for co-metabolic processes are VOCs and SVOCs. The
process may also have some effectiveness in treating fuels and pesticides.
As with other biological treatments, treatability is highly dependent upon the
biodegradability of the contaminants.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• 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.
MK01VRPT:02281012.009\compgde.430
4-121
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
• Safety precautions (such as removing all ignition sources in the area)
must be used when handling methane.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Characteristics that should be addressed prior to system design include
aquifer permeability, site hydrology, dissolved oxygen content, pH, and
depth, type, concentration, and biodegradability of contaminants.
While ex situ bioreactors for methanotrophic TCE biodegradation are being
used in full-scale remediation, 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 DOE pilot-scale demonstration was performed at the Savannah River
site's abandoned seepage basin and process sewer line employed for disposal
of solvents used to degrease nuclear fuel target elements. Contamination is
mostly TCE and PCE with concentrations of 10,000 ppb in soil and 1,000
ppb in groundwater. Extensive soil and groundwater monitoring has
demonstrated that when methanotroph densities increased five orders of
magnitude, TCE and PCE concentrations declined to less than 2 ppb.
Cost: For the DOE Savannah River demonstration, capital investment costs were
$150K and 200 manhours for site preparation, setup, and assembly. The
operation is low maintenance, requiring only one technician at 25% time (10
hours per week); other operational costs are for electricity, natural gas, and
equipment maintenance.
O&M costs can be significant because a continuous source of methane
solution must be delivered to the contaminated groundwater.
References: EPA, 1993. In Situ Bioremediation: Biodegradation of Trichloroethylene
and Tetrachloroethylene by Injection of Air and Methane, Innovative
Remedial Technology Information Request Guide.
DOE, 1991. "Modeling Bioremediation Experiments at SRS ID," FY92
Technical Task Description, TIP No. AL 1211-02.
DOE, 1992. "SRS Integrated Demo: Remediation Tasks," FY92 Technical
Task Description, TTP Reference Number: SR 1211-06.
DOE-SR, 1993. Technical Name: Methanotrophic In Situ Bioremediation
Using Methane/Air and Gaseous Nutrient Injection Via Horizontal Wells,
Technology Information Profile, Rev. 2, DOE ProTech Database, TTP
Reference Number: SR-1211-06.
Performance
Data:
MK01\RPT:022»1012.009\compgde.430
4-122
10/27/94
-------
4.30 CO-METABOLIC PROCESSES
DOE, 1991. "VOCs in Non-Arid Soils Integration Demonstration, Analysis,
and Evaluation Task," FY92 Technical Task Summary/Description, TTP
Reference Number: SF 2111-01.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.430
4-123
10/27/94
-------
IN srru WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Tinker AFB
and ORNL
Alison Thomas
AL/EQW-OL
139 Barnes Drive
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
(904) 283-6303
Ex situ methanotrophic
bio reactor
NA
NA
NA
DOE Savannah
River Site
Aiken, SC
Terry C. Hazen
Westinghouse Savannah
River Co.
P.O. Box 616
Bldg. 773-42A
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 725-5178
Methane and air injected
into seepage basin by
horizontal wells
NA
TCE/PCE
<2 ppb
$150K cap
Bendix
Corp./Allied
Automotive
St. Joseph, Ml
NA
CERCLA Lead Predesign -
anaerobic cycle to treat
TCE
TCE, DCE, DCA,
VC
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Ronald Lewis
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7856
Fax: (513)569-7620
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
Kurt Gerdes
DOE
(301) 903-7289
EM-551, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.430
4-124
10/27/94
-------
4.31 NITRATE ENHANCEMENT
Descri ption: 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.
Nitrate
Solution
Addition
Nutrient and pH
Adjustment
To Further
Treatment
or Discharge
To Recharge
Groundwater
Extraction Vadose
Wells
Zone
Contaminated
Groundwater
Saturated
Zone
Submersible
^*P ump
94P-2728 8/26/94
4-31 TYPICAL NITRATE-ENHANCED BIOREMEDIATION SYSTEM
This technology enhances the anaerobic biodegradation through the addition
of nitrate. Fuel has been shown to degrade rapidly under aerobic conditions,
but success often is limited by the inability to provide sufficient oxygen to
the contaminated zones as a result of the low water solubility of oxygen.
Nitrate also can serve as an electron receptor and is more soluble in water
than oxygen. The addition of nitrate to an aquifer results in the anaerobic
biodegradation of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (TEX). The benzene
component of fuel has been found to be recalcitrant under strictly anaerobic
conditions. A mixed oxygen/nitrate system would prove advantageous in
that the addition of nitrate would supplement the demand for oxygen rather
than replace it, allowing for benzene to be biodegraded under microaerophilic
conditions.
Applicability: Target contaminants for the process are nonhalogenated VOCs, SVOCs, and
fuels. Nitrate enhancement has primarily been used to remediate
groundwater contaminated by BTEX. Pesticides also should have limited
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.431
4-125
10/27/94
-------
IN srru WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
treatability. As with other biological treatments, this is highly dependent
upon the biodegradability of the contaminants.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• 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.
• Nitrate has a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L. The
location and concentration of nitrate addition would have to consider
this, and downgradient monitoring may be required.
• Many states prohibit nitrate injection into groundwater because nitrate
is regulated through drinking water standards.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Characteristics that should be investigated prior to system design include
aquifer permeability, site hydrology, dissolved oxygen content, pH, and
depth, type, concentration, and biodegradability of contaminants.
Performance
Data: As with other in situ biodegradation processes, the success of this technology
is highly dependent upon soil and chemical properties.
Cost: One cost estimate is in the range of $40 to $60 per liter ($160 to $230 per
gallon) of residual fuel removed from the aquifer.
References: Hutchins, S.R., G.W. Sewell, D.A. Kovacs, and G.A. Smith, 1991.
"Biodegradation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Aquifer Microorganisms
Under Denitrifying Conditions," Environmental Science and Technology, No.
25, pp. 68-76.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), May 1991. Nitrate for Biorestoration of an Aquifer Contaminated
with Jet Fuel.
MK0I\RPT:02281012.009Vcompgde.43X
4-126
10/27/94
-------
4.31 NITRATE ENHANCEMENT
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Eglin AFB, FL
Alison Thomas
AUEQW
Tyndall AFB
(904) 283-6303
Nitrate enhancement of
anaerobic degradation of
JP-4
NA
NA
NA
Hanahan
Defense Supply
Point, SC
Don A. Vroblesky
USGS
Columbia, SC
29210-7651
(803) 750-6115
Nitrates added to
groundwater and injected
into aquifer to enhance
natural biodegradation of
jet fuel
2,000 mg/L BTEX
<10 mg/L
BTEX
NA
Stalworth Timber
Beatrice, AL
Jason Darby
(404) 347-3433
RCRA Lead — Currently in
predesign — addition of 02
potassium nitrate,
potassium phosphate, and
molasses
NA
NA
NA
Park City
Park City, KS
John Wilson
(405) 332-8800
CERCLA Lead — Full
scale since December
1992. Ammonium chloride
and nitrate addition
Petro, benzene
Benzene, 5
PPb
$650K
expected
total
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Alison Thomas
USAF
(904) 283-6303
AL/EQW-OL
139 Barnes Drive
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Frank Chapelle
USGS
(803) 750-6116
720 Gracem Road, Stephenson
Center, Suite 129
Columbia, SC 29210
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.431
4-127
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.431
4-128
10/27/94
-------
4.32 OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH AIR SPARGING
Description: 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. (VOC stripping
enhanced by air sparging is addressed in Treatment Technology Profile 4.34).
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 typically used in conjunction with SVE or bioventing to
enhance removal of the volatile component under consideration.
Nutrient
Adjustment
PH
Adjustment
-5 »i« 5-
Air
Blower
Fracturing of the product plume is a primary concern and has led to
some agencies not allowing the use of air sparging where free product
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.432
4-129
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
is present. This technology may be used in conjunction with free
product recovery.
• 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 as a result of the presence of less
permeable strata, sparging can push contaminated groundwater away
from the injection point. In these cases, a groundwater recovery
system or SVE system may be needed.
• Vapors may rise through the vadose zone and be released into the
atmosphere.
• Because air sparging increases pressure in the vadose zone, vapors can
build up in building basements, which are generally low pressure
areas.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Characteristics that should be investigated prior to system design include
aquifer permeability, site hydrology, dissolved oxygen content, pH, and
depth, type, concentration, and biodegradability of contaminants.
Performance
Data:
As with other biological treatments, the success of this technology is highly
dependent upon the biodegradability of the contaminants.
Although oxygen enhancement with air sparging is relatively new, the related
technology, bioventing (Treatment Technology Profile 4.2), is rapidly
receiving increased attention from remediation consultants. This technology
employs the same concepts as bioventing, except that air is injected below
the water table to promote the remediation of groundwater.
Cost: Cost estimates are $10 to $20 per 1,000 liters ($50 to $100 per 1,000
gallons) of groundwater treated or $85,000 per site.
References: Dey, C.D., R.A. Brown, and W.E. McFarland, 1991. "Integrated Site
Remediation Combining Groundwater Treatment, Soil Vapor Recovery, and
Bioremediation," Hazardous Materials Control, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 32-39,
March/April 1991.
MK01\MT:02281012.009\compgde.432
4-130
10/27/94
-------
4.32 OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH AIR SPARGING
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Mayville Fire
Department
Mayville, Ml
Jon Mayes
(517) 684-9141
Groundwater treatment
with indigenous organisms
BTEX
(1/800/70/300
PPb)
Expected
1/94
NA
Dover AFB
Dover, DE
Milton Beck
(302) 677-6845
Air sparge with bioventing
pilot studies
Several areas:
PAHs, TCE
metals, solvents
BTEX 10
ppm
TPH 1,000
ppm
One area
(230,000 m3)
Total
expected full
scale $1,2M
French Limited
Crosby, TX
Judith Black
(214) 655-6735
CERCLA Lead — air
sparge, 02, and nutrient
addition
PCB, As, and
petroleum
MCLs
Total
expected
$90M
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Jeffrey M. Fischer
DOE - USGS
(609) 771-3900
Mountain View Office Park
810 Bear Tavern Road
Suite 206
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.432
4-131
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
M KOI \RPT:02281012-009\compgde.432
4-132
10/27/94
-------
4.33 OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
Description: A dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide is circulated through the
contaminated groundwater zone to increase the oxygen content of
groundwater and enhance the rate of aerobic biodegradation of organic
contaminants by naturally occurring microbes.
Nutrient and pH H202
Adjustment Addition
To Further
Treatment
or Discharge
* i To Recharge
Groundwater
Extraction Vadose
Wells Zone
Injection
Well
Contaminated
Groundwater
Saturated
Zone
Submersible
^"Pump
94P-2730 8/26/94
4-33 OXYGEN-ENHANCED (H2OJ BIOREMEDIATION SYSTEM
Applicability: Oxygen enhancement with hydrogen peroxide is primarily designed to treat
VOCs, SVOCs, and fuels. Hie process may have some effect in treating
some pesticides.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
Concentrations of greater than 100 to 200 ppm in groundwater
are inhibiting to microorganisms.
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 the different zones of
contamination. Higher permeability zones are cleaned up much faster
because groundwater flow rates are greater.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.433
4-133
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Microbial enzymes and high iron content of subsurface materials can
rapidly reduce concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and reduce zones
of influence.
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.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate). For
best results, factors that must be considered include redox conditions,
presence of nutrient trace elements, pH, temperature, permeability of the
subsurface materials, and the contaminants' biodegradability.
Performance
Data:
Cost:
Two previous in situ bioremediation field tests that used hydrogen peroxide
to enhance the aerobic degradation of jet fuel showed poor oxygen transfer
and use and aquifer plugging as a result of geochemical reactions resulting
in poor overall performance of this technology. A joint effort is underway
by USAF and EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
(RSKERL) to perform an enhanced anaerobic field demonstration at a
petroleum, oils, and lubricant (POL) contamination site at Eglin AFB in
Florida. Field work for this effort began in March 1993 with site
characterization activities and sample collection for laboratory treatability
tests. Construction of the treatment system was scheduled to begin in
January 1994, and operation will continue for about 9 months.
Typical costs are $10 to $20 per 1,000 liters ($50 to $100 per 1,000 gallons)
of groundwater treated. O&M costs can be significant because a continuous
source of hydrogen peroxide must be delivered to the contaminated
groundwater.
References: Not available.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.433
4-134
10/27/94
-------
4.33 OXYGEN ENHANCEMENT WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Knispel
Construction Site
Horseheads, NJ
Frank Peduto
(518) 457-2462
UST Lead — Soil and
groundwater in situ land
treatment — H202 and
nutrient addition
Full-scale remedy
January-October 1989
NA
5 ppb
petroleum
hydro-
carbons
O&M $250K
Orkin Facility
Fort Pierce, FL
Joe Malinowski
(404) 888-2895
TSCA Lead — Planned
land treatment of
soil/groundwater with H202
and nutrient addition —
aerobic and anaerobic
cycles
Chlordane and
heptachlor
NA
NA
Farfield Coal &
Gas
Farfield, IA
Steve Jones
(913)551-7755
CERCLA Lead — Pilot
scale H202 and nitrate
injection — possible
problem with poor
transmissivity of aquifer in
full scale
Coal tar BTEX,
PAHs
1 ppb
benzene,
200 ppt
cPAHs
Total
expected
$1.6M
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.433
4-135
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01YRFT:02281012.009\compgde.433
4-136
10/27/94
-------
4.34 AIR SPARGING
Description: Air sparging is an in situ technology in which air is bubbled through a
contaminated aquifer. Air bubbles traverse horizontally and vertically
through the soil column, creating an underground stripper that removes
contaminants by volatilization. These air bubbles carry the contaminants to
a vapor extraction system. Vapor extraction is implemented in conjunction
with air sparging to remove the generated vapor phase contamination. This
technology is designed to operate at high flow rates to maintain increased
contact between groundwater and soil and strip more groundwater by
sparging.
Air
Blower
o-
1
Vent Gas
Collection Channels
Air
"Treatment
Injection
Well
T
To Further
"~"Treatment
or Discharge
Contaminated
Groundwater
o 0 °
* ° °
% °
Groundwater
Extraction Vac
ose
Wells
Zone
^
Submersible
Pump
Saturated
Zone
V777777777777Z7777777777777777777777777Z7777777777777777/
4-34 94P-3316 8/26/94
4-34 TYPICAL AIR SPARGING SYSTEM
Applicability:
Limitations:
The target contaminant groups for air sparging are VOCs and fuels. Only
limited information is available on the process.
Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Depth of contaminants and specific site geology must be considered.
• Air injection wells must be designed for site-specific conditions.
• Air flow through the saturated zone may not be uniform.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vcompgde.434
4-137
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Characteristics that should be determined include vadose zone gas
permeability, groundwater flow rate, aquifer permeability, presence of low
permeability layers, presence of DNAPLs, depth of contamination, and
contaminant volatility and solubility.
Performance
Data:
Cost:
References:
This technology will be demonstrated over the next 2 to 3 years at DOE's
Hanford Reservation as part of the agency's Integrated Technology
Demonstration Program for Arid Sites. Air sparging has demonstrated
sensitivity to minute permeability changes, which can result in localized
stripping between the sparge and monitoring wells.
One estimate, $371,000 to $865,000 per hectare ($150,000 to $350,000 per
acre) of groundwater plume to be treated, was available.
Hildebrandt, W. and F. Jasiulewicz, 1992. "Cleaning Up Military Bases,"
The Military Engineer, No. 55, p. 7, September-October 1992.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.434
4-138
10/27/94
-------
4.34 AIR SPARGING
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Savannah River,
IL
NA
NA
PCE 3-124
TCE 10-1,031
<184 ppb
<1.8 ppb
NA
Conservancy
Site
Belen, NM
NA
NA
BTX
49-60%
reduction
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Steve Stein
Environmental
Management
Organization, Pacific
Northwest Division
(206) 528-3340
4000 N.E. 41st Street
Seattle, WA 98105
Steven M. Gorelick
Stanford University
Dept. of Applied Earth
Sciences
(415) 725-2950
Stanford, CA 94305-2225
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.434
4-139
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compg
-------
4.35 DIRECTIONAL WELLS
Description: Drilling techniques are used to position wells horizontally, or at an angle, to
reach contaminants not accessible by direct vertical drilling. Directional well
technology is used exclusively as an enhancement technology for other in
situ treatment technologies. Technologies used with directional wells include
biodegradation, bioventing, SVE, soil flushing, and air sparging.
Injection Point for Air
Extraction of Air Containing Volatile Compounds
Ground Surface
Vadose Zone ,
.'y Slotted Casing^ _> i 1 -
xLlll
Water
Table
Water Saturated
Contaminated
4-35 94P-2403 8/26/94
4-35 TYPICAL DIAGRAM OF IN SITU AIR STRIPPING WITH HORIZONTAL WELLS
Hardware used for directional boring includes wireline coring rigs, hydraulic
thrust systems, electric cone penetrometers, steering tracking hardware, sonic
drilling, and push coring systems. Hydraulically activated thrust equipment
capable of exerting more than 40 tons of thrust is used to push the
directional boring heads into the earth. Directional control is obtained by
proper positioning of the face of the nonsymmetric boring head. Slow
rotation of the boring head will cut and compact the geologic material into
the borehole wall. Thrusting a boring head that is not rotating will cause a
directional change. The machinery is capable of initiating a borehole,
steering down to a desired horizontal depth, continuing at that depth, and
then steering back to the surface at a downrange location.
Applicability: Directional well technology is applicable to the complete range of
contaminant groups with no particular target group. It is particularly useful
when existing structures interfere with placement of vertical wells.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of this
technology:
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde 435
4-141
10/27/94
-------
IN srru WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
• Well failures are possible during system installation.
• The potential exists for the wells to collapse.
• Specialized equipment is required.
• Wells are difficult to position precisely.
• Installation of horizontal wells is typically costly.
• Currently, the technology is limited to depths of less than 50 feet.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Performance
Data: Testing was performed as part of the Mixed Waste Landfill Integrated
Demonstration at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. Several
directional holes were drilled; a depth of 12 meters (40 feet) was achieved
with a maximum horizontal extent of 174 meters (570 feet).
A DOE field demonstration at the Savannah River site was performed in
FY90 for in situ air stripping (ISAS), a mass transfer process that uses
horizontal injection and vacuum extraction wells to remediate sites
contaminated with VOCs within the vadose zone and soil/groundwater in the
saturated zone. Air is injected into the saturated zone through horizontal
injection wells placed below the water table. As the air passes through the
contaminant plume, it volatilizes the chemical constituents. This process
performs best in homogeneous soil conditions, while heterogeneities such as
formations, fractures, clay layers, and partial clay lenses hinder performance.
Clay layers often have high contaminant concentrations, while stratigraphy
can cause preferential flow paths and limit the process efficiency. ISAS has
been shown to be effective when some interbedded, thin, and/or
discontinuous clays are present. A full-scale demonstration, including 4%
methane enhancement as a bioremediation nutrient in the injection well, was
conducted during FY92, with results to be available in FY93. Better
underground transport modeling and bioremediation modeling are needed.
The technology was also used successfully in the DOE VOCs in the Non-
Arid Soils Integrated Demonstration in Savannah River, South Carolina.
Testing of directional boring for monitoring equipment installation was
performed in an actual contamination zone during the summer of 1992.
Cost: Estimated costs are about $60 to $250 per meter ($20 to $75 per foot) for
hydraulic bi-directional thrust drilling. Sonic drilling can be as much as
$330 per meter ($100 per foot).
MK.01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.435
4-142
10/27/94
-------
4.35 DIRECTIONAL WELLS
References: DOE, 1991. "Horizontal Hybrid Directional Boring," FY92 Technical Task
Plan, TIP Reference No.: AL-ZU23-J2.
DOE, 1991. "SRS Integrated Demonstration: Directional Drilling," FY92
Technical Task Plan, TIP Reference No.: SR-1211-01.
DOE, 1992. "Directional Sonic Drilling," FY93 Technical Task Plan, TIP
Reference No.: AL-2311-05.
DOE, 1993. Directional Boring and Thrusting with Hybrid Underground
Utility Industry Equipment, ProTech Database, TIP References: AL2211-16
and AL2211-03.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Slant-Angle Sonic Drilling, Technology
Information Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TIP Reference No.:
AL2310-05.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\eompgde.435
4-143
10/27/94
-------
IN SfTU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Skip Chamberlain
DOE-OTD
(301) 903-7248
EM-551, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
Geoscience Research
Drilling Office
DOE-Sandia National
Laboratories
(505) 844-2230
P.O. Box 5800
Org. 6111
Albuquerque, NM 87185
Mike Breazeale
USAF
(602) 988-6487
Williams AFB CA/OLS
6001 South Power Road, Bldg. 1
Mesa, AZ 85206-0901
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.435
4-144
10/27/94
-------
4.36 DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION
Description: 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.
Dual phase extraction is generally combined with bioremediation, air
sparging, or bioventing when the target contaminants include long-chained
hydrocarbons. Use of dual phase extraction with these technologies can
shorten the cleanup time at a site. It also can be used with pump-and-treat
technologies to recover groundwater from high yielding aquifers. Dual phase
provides a better control of the groundwater. When containment of vapors/
liquids is necessary, the results are far better than those obtained through air
sparging.
¦ Air Emission/
Off-Gas Treatment
Gas
Liquid
Groundwater
Treatment
Aboveground
Phase
Separator
Simultaneous
Gas and
Liquid
Extraction
4-36 94P-3399 8/26/94
4-36 TYPICAL DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION SCHEMATIC
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for dual phase extraction are VOCs and fuels.
Dual phase vacuum extraction is used to remediate soil and groundwater.
It is more effective than SVE for heterogeneous clays and fine sands.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• Site geology and contaminant characteristics/distribution may limit
effectiveness.
• Combination with complementary technologies (e.g., pump-and-treat)
may be required to recover groundwater from high yielding aquifers.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.436 4-145 10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Data Needs:
Performance
Data:
Cost:
References:
• Dual phase extraction requires both water treatment and vapor
treatment.
A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Data needs include contaminant characteristics and distribution, site geology
and hydrogeology, and soil properties.
Not available.
Estimated cost ranges from $85,000 to $500,000 per site.
Not available.
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde 436
4-146
10/27/94
-------
4.36 DUAL PHASE EXTRACTION
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Lockheed
Aeronautical
Systems Co.
Burbank, CA
David Bluesteiri
AWO Technologies, Inc.
49 Stevenson St., Suite
600
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 227-0822
AWD AquaDetox/SVE
System treating
groundwater and soil >3
years.
2.2 ppm TCE; 11
ppm PCE; 6,000
ppm total VOC
soil gas.
98-99.99 %
removal.
S3.2-5.8M
capital;
<$1.5M
yearly O&M.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Gordon Evans
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7684
Fax: (513)569-7620
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.436
4-147
10/27/94
-------
IN SfTU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.436
4-148
10/27/94
-------
4.37 FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY
Description: 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 more than
20 centimeters (8 inches) thick is floating on the water table. The free
product is generally drawn up to the surface by a pumping system.
Following recovery, it can be disposed of, re-used directly in an operation
not requiring high-purity materials, or purified prior to re-use. Systems may
be designed to recover only product, mixed product and water, or separate
streams of product and water (i.e., dual pump or dual well systems). Free
product recovery is a full-scale technology.
Groundwater
Treatment
or Disposal
Automatic
Shut-Off Valve
Product Recovery
Tank
Groundwater
Depression
Pump
Surface
a k£
Product Recovery Pump
Recovery Well
4-37 94P-3328 9/9/94
4-37 TYPICAL FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY DUAL PUMP SYSTEM
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for free product recovery are SVOCs and
fuels.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
Site geology and hydrogeology.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\eompgde.437
4-149
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
The potential for accumulation of liquid phase product that is free to move
by gravity above the water table is dependent on several factors, including
physical and chemical properties of the product released (e.g., viscosity,
density, composition, and solubility in water); soil properties (e.g., capillary
forces, effective porosity, moisture content, organic content, hydraulic
conductivity, and texture); nature of the release (e.g., initial date of
occurrence, duration, volume, and rate); geology (e.g., stratigraphy that
promotes trapped pockets of free product); hydrogeologic regime (e.g., depth
to water table, groundwater flow direction, and gradient); and anticipated
product recharge rate.
Once free product is detected, the immediate response should include both
removal of the source and recovery of product by the most expedient means.
Free product recovery methods will often extract contaminated water with
the product. If economically desirable, water and product can be separated
by gravity prior to disposal or recycling of the product. As a result of the
removal of substantial quantities of water during dual pumping operations,
on-site water treatment will normally be required. When treatment of
recovered water is required, permits will usually be necessary.
Cost: Because of the number of variances involved, establishing general costs for
free product response is difficult. Some representative costs are $500 per
month for a single phase extraction (hand bailing) system; $1,200 to $2,000
per month for a single phase extraction (skimming) system; and $2,500 to
$4,000 per month for a dual pumping system. These costs illustrate the
relative magnitudes of the various recovery options available, which are
typically less than other types of remediation.
Key cost factors for the recovery of free product include waste disposal,
potential for sale of recovered product for recycling, on-site equipment rental
(e.g., pumps, tanks, treatment systems), installation of permanent equipment,
and engineering and testing costs.
Performance
Data:
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.437
4-150
10/27/94
-------
4.37 FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY
References: American Petroleum Institute, 1989. A Guide to the Assessment and
Remediation of Underground Petroleum Releases, Publication 1628, API,
Washington, DC, 81 pp.
EPA, 1988. Cleanup of Releases from Petroleum USTs: Selected
Technologies, Washington, DC, EPA/530/UST-88/001.
Kram, M.L., 1990. Measurement of Floating Petroleum Product Thickness
and Determination of Hydrostatic Head in Monitoring Wells, NEES A Energy
and Environmental News Information Bulletin No. 1B-107.
Kram, M.L., 1993. Free Product Recovery: Mobility Limitations and
Improved Approaches. NFESC Information Bulletin No. IB-123.
NEES A, 1992. Immediate Response to Free Product Discovery. NEES A
Document No. 20.2-051.4.
MK01MOT:02281012.009\compgde.437
4-151
wmm
-------
IN srru WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Navy Gasoline
Station Coastal
Area
Mark Kram
NFESC Code 413
>0.25 ft floating product;
dual pumping extraction
and thermal vacuum spray
aeration and spray
aeration vacuum extraction
About 12,000
gallons of
gasoline
4,000 gallons
recovered by
diesel pump
$75,000 plus
vapor
extraction
costs
Navy Fuel Farm
Mike Radecki
SOUTHWESTDIV
0.5-2.5 ft free product.
Captured in pit and
pumped out with skimmers
and french drains
NA
NA
$300,000 to
date
Privately Owned
Gasoline Station
Near Urban
Drinking Water
Source
Connecticut DEP
(203) 566-4630
Immediate response
recovery wells and air
stripping
NA
NA
NA
Various USAF
and Navy Sites
USAF Armstrong Lab/
EQW
Tyndall AFB, FL
(904) 283-6208
Ron Hoeppel
(805) 982-1655
"Bioslurping" technology
demonstrations
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Mark Kram
NFESC
(805) 982-2669
Code 413
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Mike Radecki
SOUTHWESTDIV
(619) 532-3874
San Diego, CA
Tom Schruben
EPA Office of USTs
(703) 308-8875
Washington, DC
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RTT:02281012.009\compgde.437
4-152
10/27/94
-------
4.38 HOT WATER OR STEAM FLUSHING/STRIPPING
Description: Steam is forced into an aquifer through injection wells to vaporize volatile
and semivolatile contaminants. Vaporized components rise to the unsaturated
(vadose) zone where they are removed by vacuum extraction and then
treated. Hot water or steam-based techniques include Contained Recovery
of Oily Waste (CROW®), Steam Injection and Vacuum Extraction (SIVE®),
In Situ Steam-Enhanced Extraction (ISEE®), and Steam-Enhanced Recovery
Process (SERP®). Hot water or steam flushing/stripping is a pilot-scale
technology. In situ biological treatment may follow the displacement and is
continued until groundwater contaminants concentrations satisfy statutory
requirements.
Injection Well
Production Well
Steam-Slripped
Water
Low-Quality
Steam —
li
_Hot Water
Reinjection
Absorption Layer
*'i i in'MiA
Oil and Water
Production
Hot Water
Displacement
x. s
minimume
Residual Oil
Saturation
Original Oil Accumulation
t t \ \
Hot Water Formation
-A-.
Steam Injection
4-38 94P-5227 8/26/94
4-38 CROW™ SUBSURFACE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The process can be used to remove large portions of oily waste
accumulations and to retard downward and lateral migration of organic
contaminants. The process is applicable to shallow and deep contaminated
areas, and readily available mobile equipment can be used.
Applicability:
The target contaminant groups for hot water or steam flushing/stripping are
SVOCs and fuels. VOCs also can be treated by this technology, but there
are more cost-effective processes for sites contaminated with VOCs.
This technology can be applied at manufactured gas plants, wood-treating
sites, petroleum-refining facilities, and other sites with soils containing light
to dense organic liquids, such as coal tars, pentachlorophenol solutions,
creosote, and petroleum by-products.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.438
4-153
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations:
Data Needs:
Performance
Data:
Cost:
References:
Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Soil type, geology, and hydrogeology will significantly impact process
effectiveness.
A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Four vendors are promoting hot water or steam flushing/stripping processes.
The CROW system appears to be the most developed of the four.
The CROW technology was tested both at the laboratory and pilot-scale
under the EPA SITE Emerging Technology Program. The program showed
the effectiveness of the hot-water displacement and displayed the benefits
from the inclusion of chemicals with the hot water.
Not available.
EPA, 1990. Toxic Treatments In Situ Steam/Hot Air Stripping Technology,
Applications Analysis Report, Prepared by Science Applications International
Corporation, San Diego, CA, for EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin,
OERR, Washington, DC, EPA Report EPA/540/2-91/005.
EPA, 1992. The Superfiind Innovative Technology Evaluation Program:
Technology Profiles (Fifth Edition), OSWER, EPA/940/R-92/077.
EPA, 1994. In-Situ Steam Enhanced Recovery System — Hughes
Environmental Systems, Inc., Demonstration Bulletin EPA/540/MR-94/510.
MK01\RPT.02281012 009\compgde.438
4-154
10/27/94
-------
4.38 HOT WATER OR STEAM FLUSHING/STRIPPING
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Huntington
Beach, CA
Paul dePercin
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7797
EPA site demo of SERP
completed but results not
good, probably because of
poor application rather
than technology delivery
ineffectiveness
45,000 yd3 of soil
(diesel removal
fuel, TPH, and
TRPH)
20-40%
About
$40/ycP
Pennsylvania
Power & Light
Stroudsburg, PA
Eugene Harris
EPA RREL
26 West M.L King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7862
EPA SITE demo of
CROW, starting on-site
November 1994
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
John Mathur
DOE
(301)903-7922
EM-551, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
Paul dePercin
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7797
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.438
4-155
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde.438
4-156
10/27/94
-------
4.39 HYDROFRACTURING
Description: Hydrofracturing is a pilot-scale technology in which pressurized water is
injected to increase the permeability of consolidated material or relatively
impermeable unconsolidated material. Fissures created in the process are
filled with a porous medium that can facilitate bioremediation and/or
improve extraction efficiency. Fractures promote more uniform delivery of
treatment fluids and accelerated extraction of mobilized contaminants.
Typical applications are linked with soil vapor extraction, in situ
bioremediation, and pump-and-treat systems.
Water
Sand
Slurry
.• • V" •
"Cutting Jet
¦> ... .
O
3^—I
. • •• * *
; Notch
4-39 94P-3324 9/13/94
4-39 TYPICAL SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS FOR CREATING HYDRAULIC FRACTURES
The fracturing process begins with the injection of water into a sealed
borehole until the pressure of the water exceeds the overburden pressure and
a fracture is created. A slurry composed of a coarse-grained sand and guar
gum gel is then injected as the fracture grows away from the well. After
pumping, the sand grains hold the fracture open while an enzyme additive
breaks down the viscous fluid. The thinned fluid is pumped from the
fracture, forming a permeable subsurface channel suitable for delivery or
recovery of a vapor or liquid.
Applicability:
The hydraulic fracturing process can be used in conjunction with soil vapor
extraction technology to enhance recovery. Hydraulically-induced fractures
are used to deliver fluids and nutrients for in situ bioremediation
applications.
Hydrofracturing is applicable to a wide range of contaminant groups with no
particular target group.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.439
4-157
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• The technology should not be used in bedrock susceptible to seismic
activity.
• Investigation of possible underground utilities, structures, or trapped
free product is required.
• The potential exists to open new pathways leading to the unwanted
spread of contaminants (e.g., DNAPLs).
• Pockets of low permeability may still remain after using this
technology.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Performance
Data: The technology has had widespread use in the petroleum and water-well
construction industries but is an innovative method for remediating hazardous
waste sites.
Cost: The cost per fracture is estimated to be $1,000 to $1,500, based on creating
four to six fractures per day. This cost (including equipment rental,
operation, and monitoring) is small compared to the benefits of enhanced
remediation and the reduced number of wells needed to complete the
remediation. A number of factors affect the estimated costs of creating
hydraulic fractures at a site. These factors include physical site conditions
such as site accessibility and degree of soil consolidation; degree of soil
saturation; and geographical location, which affects availability of services
and supplies. The first two factors also affect the effectiveness of hydraulic
fracturing.
The costs presented in this analysis are based on conditions found at the
Xerox Oak Brook site. A full-scale demonstration was not conducted for
this technology. Because operating costs were not independently monitored
during the pilot-scale demonstrations at the Xerox Oak Brook and Dayton
sites, all costs presented in this section were provided by Xerox and
University of Cincinnati Center Hill.
MK01\RPT'0'22810n.009\compgde.439
4-158
10/27/94
-------
4.39 HYDROFRACTURING
References: EPA, 1993. Hydraulic Fracturing of Contaminated Soil, series includes
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/505; Technology Evaluation and
Applications Analysis Combined, EPA/540/R-93/505; and Technology
Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/SR-93/505.
Hubbert, M.K and D.G. Willis, 1957. "Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing,"
Petroleum Transactions AIME, Vol. 210, pp. 153 through 168.
Murdoch, L.C., 1990. "A Field Test of Hydraulic Fracturing in Glacial Till,"
in Proceedings of the Research Symposium, Ohio, EPA Report, EPA/600/9-
90/006.
Murdoch, L.C., 1993. "Hydraulic Fracturing of Soil During Laboratory
Experiments, Part I: Methods and Observations; Part II: Propagation; Part
III: Theoretical Analysis, Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, pp. 255 to 287.
University of Cincinnati (UC), 1991. Work Plan for Hydraulic Fracturing
at the Xerox Oak Brook Site in Oak Brook, Illinois.
Wolf, A. and L.C. Murdoch, 1992. The Effect of Sand-Filled Hydraulic
Fractures on Subsurface Air Flow: Summary of SVE Field Tests Conducted
at the Center Hill Research Facility, UC Center Hill Facility, Unpublished
Report.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.439
4-159
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Xerox Facility
Oak Brook, IL
NA
SVE of organic solvents.
10 times increase in vapor
extraction; 30 times
increase in area covered;
pore water infiltration
decreased.
NA
NA
$950-1,425
per fracture
Dayton, OH
NA
In situ bioremediation of
BTEX/UST site. 100 times
increase in water flow;
75% increase in
bioremediation rate.
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Naomi Barkley
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7854
Fax: (513) 569-7620
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
L. Murdoch, Director of
Research
Dept. Civil and
Environmental
Engineering
University of
Cincinnati
(513) 569-7897
5995 Center Hill Road
Cincinnati, OH
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde 439
4-160
10/27/94
-------
4.40 PASSIVE TREATMENT WALLS
Description: A permeable reaction wall is installed across the flow path of a contaminant
plume, allowing the water portion of the plume to passively move through
the wall. These barriers allow the passage of water while prohibiting the
movement of contaminants by employing such agents as chelators (ligands
selected for their specificity for a given metal), sorbents, microbes, and
others.
Cap
Waste
Material
Porous Media
Lower Confining Bed
ajssaaaasgiiv&jmwiftMrssssMses#,
94P-3317 8/26/94
4-40 TYPICAL PASSIVE TREATMENT WALL (CROSS-SECTION)
The contaminants will either be degraded or retained in a concentrated form
by the barrier material. The wall could provide permanent containment for
relatively benign residues or provide a decreased volume of the more toxic
contaminants for subsequent treatment.
Barrier and post-closure monitoring tests are being conducted by DOE in
field-scale demonstration plots and are being designed for actual
contaminated sites. The range of materials available for augmenting existing
barrier practice is broad. Two types of barriers have been the focus of initial
efforts of this program, i.e., permeable reactive barriers and in-place
bioreactors.
Applicability: Target contaminant groups for passive treatment walls are VOCs, SVOCs,
and inorganics. The technology can be used, but may be less effective, in
treating some fuel hydrocarbons.
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\eompgde.440
4-161
xonim
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• Passive treatment walls may lose their reactive capacity, requiring
replacement of the reactive medium.
• 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.
• Depth and width of barrier.
• Volume cost of treatment medium.
• Biological activity may limit the permeability of the passive treatment
wall.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Data needs include hydraulic gradient; contaminant characteristics (depth,
areal extent, type, and concentration); groundwater hydrology; water quality,
flow rate, and direction; soil permeability; and buffering capacity.
Performance
Data: Data have been developed by USAF, the University of Waterloo, and
Environmental Technologies but have received limited dissemination in the
technical literature to date. This technology currently is available from only
one vendor, Environmental Technologies (Canada).
The technology is not commercially available. Laboratory testing phase
occurred at CERL from 1989 to present. Full-scale implementation occurred
in Albuquerque, New Mexico, between 1989 and 1992.
DOE evaluation of currently installed systems was scheduled to be
completed in early 1994. The first barrier and monitoring systems were
installed in 1992 and tracer tests, which would include the effects of seasonal
changes in the environment, were scheduled for completion in 1993.
Approximately two additional years would be required to test and evaluate
each additional barrier system.
Baseline technologies currently being used by DOE include grouts, clay
slurries, and cements for pure hydrologic barriers, landfill caps for the
biotreatment systems, and monitoring well characterization for water-
saturation and contaminants during the post-closure monitoring approaches.
These barriers are all subject to cracking.
ivHC01\RJT:02281012.009\compgde.440
4-162
10/27/94
-------
4.40 PASSIVE TREATMENT WALLS
Cost: Field tests at DOE Los Alamos National Laboratory that were scheduled for
completion in early 1994 had an initial capital cost of $1,200,000 and an
O&M cost of $670,000 in FY93. Life cycle costs for operational systems
have not been estimated but are expected to be 5 to 10 times less than
excavation.
References: DOE, 1993. Technical Name: Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring,
Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2), DOE Protech Database, TIP No.
AL-1211-25.
Hansen, W., et al., 1992. Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring, Briefing
Chart, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, TIP No. AL-
1212-25.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\coinpgde.440
4-163
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Costs
Hill AFB, UT
Maj. Mark Smith
USAF
Tyndall AFB, FL
(904) 283-6126
"Funnel and Gate" Demonstration
NA
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Ken Bostt'ck
Mail Stop J495
Organization EES-15
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545
(505) 667-3331
Fax: (505) 665-3866
Barriers and post-closure monitoring
— completion early 1994
$1.2M cap.
$670K O&M
in FY93
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Richard Scholze
USACE-CERL
(217) 373-3491
(217) 352-6511
(800) USA-CERL
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
Skip Chamberlain
DOE
(301) 903-7248
EM-551
Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
Mark Smith
USAF
(904) 283-6126
AL/EQW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
M KO1 \RPT:02281012.009\compgde.440
4-164
10/27/94
-------
4.41 SLURRY WALLS
Description: Slurry walls are used to contain contaminated groundwater, divert
contaminated groundwater from the drinking water intake, divert
uncontaminated groundwater flow, and/or provide a barrier for the
groundwater treatment system.
Waste
Material
B Bedrock §|
94P-2350 8/26/94
4-41 TYPICAL KEYED-IN SLURRY WALL (CROSS SECTION)
These subsurface barriers consist of a vertically excavated trench that is filled
with a slurry. The slurry 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 treatment and where soluble and
mobile constituents pose an imminent threat to a source of drinking water.
Slurry walls are a full-scale technology that have been used for decades as
long-term solutions for controlling seepage. They are often used in
conjunction with capping. The technology has demonstrated its effectiveness
in containing greater than 95% of the uncontaminated groundwater; however,
in contaminated groundwater applications, specific contaminant types may
degrade the slurry wall components and reduce the long-term effectiveness.
Most slurry walls are constructed of a soil, bentonite, and water mixture;
walls of this composition provide a barrier with low permeability and
chemical resistance at low cost Other wall compositions, such as sheet
piling, cement, bentonite, and water, may be used if greater structural
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.441
4-165
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
strength is required or if chemical incompatibilities between bentonite and
site contaminants exist.
Slurry walls are typically placed at depths less than 15 meters (50 feet) and
are generally 0.6 to 1.2 meters (2 to 4 feet) in thickness. The most effective
application of the slurry wall for site remediation or pollution control is to
base (or key) the slurry wall 0.6 to 0.9 meters (2 to 3 feet) into a low
permeability layer such as clay or bedrock, as shown in the preceding figure.
This "keying-in" provides for an effective foundation with minimum leakage
potential. An alternate configuration for slurry wall installation is a
"hanging" wall in which the wall projects into the groundwater table to block
the movement of lower density or floating contaminants such as oils, fuels,
or gases. Hanging walls are used less frequently than keyed-in walls.
Applicability: Slurry walls contain the groundwater itself, thus treating no particular target
group of contaminants. They are used to contain contaminated groundwater,
divert contaminated groundwater from drinking water intake, divert
uncontaminated groundwater flow, and/or provide a barrier for the
groundwater treatment system.
Limitations: Factors that may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process
include:
• The technology only contains contaminants within a specific area.
• Soil-bentonite backfills are not able to withstand attack by strong
acids, bases, salt solutions, and some organic chemicals. Other slurry
mixtures can be developed to resist specific chemicals.
• There is the potential for the slurry walls to degrade or deteriorate
over time.
A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
The following factors, at a minimum, must be assessed prior to designing
effective soil-bentonite slurry walls: maximum allowable permeability,
anticipated hydraulic gradients, required wall strength, availability and grade
of bentonite to be used, boundaries of contamination, compatibility of wastes
and contaminants in contact witn slurry wall materials, characteristics (i.e.,
depth, permeability, and continuity) of substrate into which the wall is to be
keyed, characteristics of backfill material (e.g., fines content), and site terrain
and physical layout.
Slurry walls have been used for decades, so the equipment and methodology
are readily available and well known; however, the process of designing the
proper mix of wall materials to contain specific contaminants is less well
developed. Excavation and backfilling of the trench is critical and requires
experienced contractors.
Data Needs:
Performance
Data:
MK01\RfT:02281012.009\compgde.441
4-166
10/27/94
-------
4.41 SLURRY WALLS
Cost: Costs likely to be incurred in the design and installation of a standard soil-
bentonite wall in soft to medium soil range from $540 to $750 per square
meter ($5 to $7 per square foot) (1991 dollars). These costs do not include
variable costs required for chemical analyses, feasibility, or compatibility
testing. Testing costs depend heavily on site-specific factors.
Factors that have the most significant impact on the final cost of soil-
bentonite slurry wall installation include:
• Type, activity, and distribution of contaminants.
• Depth, length, and width of wall.
• Geological and hydrological characteristics.
• Distance from source of materials and equipment.
• Requirements for wall protection and maintenance.
• Type of slurry and backfill used.
• Other site-specific requirements as identified in the initial site
assessment (e.g., presence of contaminants or debris).
References: Goldberg-Zoino and Associates, Inc., 1987. Construction Quality Control
and Post-Construction Performance for the Gilson Road Hazardous Waste
Site Cutoff Wall, EPA Report EPA/600/2-87/065.
McCandless, R.M. and A. Bodocsi, 1987. Investigation of Slurry Cutoff
Wall Design and Construction Methods for Containing Hazardous Wastes,
EPA Report EPA/600/2-87/063.
Miller, S.P., 1979. Geotechnical Containment Alternatives for Industrial
Waste Basin F, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado: A Quantitative
Evaluation, USAE-WES Technical Report GL-79-23.
Spooner, P.A., et al., 1984. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution
Migration Control, EPA Report EPA/540/2-84/001.
USACE, 1986. Civil Works Construction Guide Specification for Soil-
Bentonite Slurry Trench Cutoffs, National Institute of Building Sciences,
Construction Criteria Base, CW-02214.
Zappi, M.E., D.D. Adrian, and R.R. Shafer, 1989. "Compatibility of Soil-
Bentonite Slurry Wall Backfill Mixtures with Contaminated Groundwater,"
in Proceedings of the 1989 Supetfund Conference, Washington, DC.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.441
4-167
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Zappi, M.E., R.A. Shafer, and D.D. Adrian, 1990. Compatibility of Ninth
Avenue Superfund Site Ground Water with Two Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall
Backfill Mixtures, WES Report No. EL-90-9.
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Costs
Hazardous Waste Landfill
GEO-CON, Inc.
Bentonite alternative used
because of saltwater environment
and presence of incompatible
organic compound.
NA
Sanitary Landfill
GEO-CON, Inc.
Limited working area.
NA
Coal Tar Disposal Pond
NA
Circumferential containment of
leachate from pond with metals
and phenols. Keyed to impervious
till.
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Jesse Oldham
or Mark E. Zappi
USAE-WES
(601) 634-3111
(601) 634-2856
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3903 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde 441
4-168
10/27/94
-------
4.42 VACUUM VAPOR EXTRACTION
Description: In vacuum vapor extraction (also known as in well air stripping), 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 VOCs 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.
Activated Carbon Filter Blower
Off Air
Ambient Air
Monitoring Wells
Cement Cap
Grout
Unsaturated
Zone
Bentonite
Seal
Negative Pressure
Working GW Level Resting GW Level
Capillary Zone
Stripping Zone
Screen x GW
Circulation
Artificial Pack
Bentonite
Seal
Saturated Zone
Bentonite
Seal
4-42 94P-3474 8/26/94
4-42 TYPICAL UVB VACUUM VAPOR EXTRACTION DIAGRAM
Applicability:
The target contaminant groups for vacuum vapor extraction are halogenated
VOCs, SVOCs, and fuels. Variations of the technology may allow for its
effectiveness against some nonhalogenated VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and
inorganics.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• Fouling of the system may occur by oxidized constituents in the
groundwater.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.442
4-169
10/27/94
-------
IN SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Data Needs:
Performance
Data:
Cost:
References:
• Shallow aquifers may limit process effectiveness.
A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
A variation of this process, called UVB (Unterdruck-Verdampfer Brunner),
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 DOE's
Integrated Technology Demonstration Program. The Stanford system
combines air-lift pumping with a vapor stripping technique.
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.
Not available.
Not available.
M KO1 \RPT:02281012.< J09\co mpgde.442
4-170
10/27/94
-------
4.42 VACUUM VAPOR EXTRACTION
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
March AFB, CA
Jeff Bannon
WESTON
100 N. First St.
Suite 210
Burbank, CA 91502
(818) 556-5226
Fax: (818) 556-6894
Site demo of UVB system
NA
NA
NA
March AFB, CA
Michelle Simon
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7469
Site demo: air lift
pumping, in situ vapor
stripping, and air sparging
30 ppb TCE at
well inlet
<1 ppb
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Michelle Simon
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7469
Fax: (513)569-7676
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.442
4-171
10/27/94
-------
IN SrTU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT02281012.009\compgde.442
4-172
10/27/94
-------
4.43 BIOREACTORS
Description: Bioreactors degrade contaminants in water with microorganisms through
attached or suspended biological systems. In suspended growth systems,
such as activated sludge, fluidized beds, or sequencing batch reactors,
contaminated groundwater is circulated in an aeration basin where a
microbial population aerobically degrades organic matter and produces C02,
H20, and new cells. The cells form a sludge, which is settled out in a
clarifier, and is either recycled to the aeration basin or disposed of. In
attached growth systems, such as upflow fixed film bioreactors, rotating
biological contactors (RBCs), and trickling filters, microorganisms are
established on an inert support matrix to aerobically degrade water
contaminants.
Offgas
Treatment
Offgas
Treatment
Offgas
Treatment
Primary
Treatment
*
Raw
Waste
RBC Units
Secondary
Clarifier
Effluent
Solids
Disposal
Sludge
Disposal
4-43 94P-2352 8/26/94
4-43 TYPICAL ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR (RBC)
One promising methodology includes the use of active supports (such as
activated carbon, which adsorbs the contaminant and slowly releases it to the
microorganisms for degradation). The microbial population may be derived
either from the contaminant source or from an inoculum of organisms
specific to a contaminant. Other applications include wetland ecosystems
and column reactors.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.443
4-173
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Applicability: Bioreactors are used primarily to treat SVOCs, fuel hydrocarbons, and any
biodegradable organic material. The process may be less effective for some
pesticides. Successful pilot-scale field studies have been conducted on some
halogenated compounds, such as PCP and chlorobenzene and dichloro-
benzene isomers.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• Residuals from sludge processes require treatment or disposal.
• Very high contaminant concentrations may be toxic to
microorganisms.
• Air pollution controls may need to be applied if there is volatilization
from activated sludge processes.
Low ambient temperatures significantly decrease biodegradation rates,
resulting in longer cleanup times or increased costs for heating.
Nuisance microorganisms may preferentially colonize bioreactors,
leading to reduced effectiveness.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Data requirements include contaminants and their concentrations, soil
classification, texture, pH, presence of compounds toxic to microorganisms,
contaminant biodegradability, flow rate, temperature, and nutrient levels.
Performance
Data: This is a well developed technology that has been used for many decades in
the treatment of municipal wastewater. Equipment and materials are readily
available. As with other pump-and-treat technologies, time needed to clean
up is dependent upon subsurface conditions and the rate of desorption of
contaminants from subsurface materials, but it is typically faster than in situ
bioremediation.
Startup 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 startup and detention times.
DOE has demonstrated another biological process, biological destruction of
tank waste (BDTW), on the laboratory scale. This process is a separation
and volume-reduction process for supernatant and sluiced salt cake waste
from underground storage tanks. These wastes are usually composed of
various radionuclides and toxic metals concentrated in a nitrate salt solution.
The bacteria act as metal and radionuclide adsorbers and also as
denitrification catalysts that reproduce themselves at ambient temperature and
MK01\RPT.02281012.009\compgde.443
4-174
10/27/94
-------
4.43 BIOREACTORS
pressure. Some degradation of organic contaminants may also occur during
the process.
The field demonstration bioreactor tank size is about 100 cubic meters,
which corresponds to a waste treatment rate of 2 gpm, sufficient to treat a
1-million gallon tank in 1 year. At the 2-gpm size, the BDTW system is
transportable. The current bioreactor is able to process salt solutions having
nitrate concentrations up to 300,000 ppm. The maximum salt tolerance is
being explored. Power usage is estimated at 20 kW for pumping and
agitation.
Cost: 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.
Staging will vary from site to site depending on the wastestream. The cost
to install a single unit with a protective cover and a surface area of 9,300 to
13,900 square meters (100,000 to 150,000 square feet) ranges from $80,000
to $85,000.
References: DOE-ID, 1993. Technology Name: Biological Destruction of Tank Wastes,
Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech
Database, TIP Reference No.: ID-121204.
EPA, 1980. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
EPA, 1984. Design Information on Rotating Biological Contactors,
EPA/600/2-84/106.
EPA, 1987. Rotating Biological Contactors: U.S. Overview, EPA/600/D-
87/023.
EPA, 1991. BioTrol — Biotreatment of Groundwater, EPA RREL, series
includes Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5-91/001, PB92-110048;
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-91/001; Technology Demonstration
Summary, EPA/540/S5-91/001; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-
91/001.
EPA, 1993. BioTrol, Inc. — Methanotrophic Bioreactor System, EPA
RREL, series includes Emerging Technology Bulletin, EPA/540/F-93/506;
Emerging Technology Summary, EPA/540/SR-93/505; and Journal Article,
AWMA, \fol. 43, No. 11, November 1993.
Opatken, E.J., H.K. Howard, and J.J. Bond, 1987. Biological Treatment of
Hazardous Aqueous Wastes, EPA Report EPA/600/D-87/184.
Opatken, E.J., H.K. Howard, and J.J. Bond, 1989. "Biological Treatment of
Leachate from a Superfund Site," Environmental Progress, Vol. 8, No. 1.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.443
4-175
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Stinson, M., H. Skovronek, and T. Chresand, 1992. "EPA SITE
Demonstration of BioTrol Aqueous Treatment System," Journal of the Air
Waste Management Association, Vol. 41, No. 2, p. 228.
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Hanscomb AFB,
MA
Alison Thomas
USAF
Tyndall AFB, FL
(904) 283-6303
Testing of constitutive
TCE-degrading microbe
550 ppb TCE
About
85 ppb
NA
MacGillis &
Gibbs
New Brighton,
MN
Dennis Chilcote
BioTrol, Inc.
10300 Valley View Rd.
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-
3456
(612) 942-8032
SITE demo at Superfund
site — BioTrol Aqueous
Treatment System
(BATS)
45 ppm PCP
<1 ppm in
one pass
<$0.92/1,000 L
(<$3.50/1,000
gallons)
TCE Site
St. Joseph, Ml
Ronald Lewis
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7856
Fax: (513) 569-7620
SITE demo of
immobilized cell
bioreactor (ICB)
biotreatment system,
aerobic/anaerobic fixed
film bioreactor
TCE >100 ppm
Low ppbs
NA
Burleigh Tunnel
Silver Plume, CO
Rick Brown
Colorado Dept. of Health
4210 East 11th Ave.
Room 252
(303) 692-3383
Fax: (303)759-5355
Manmade wetland
ecosystem-based
treatment
50-60 ppm zinc
99%
reduction in
3 months
NA
Dow Chemical
Site, TX
Alison Thomas
USAF
Tyndall AFB
Chlorobenzene
degradation in a fluid bed
reactor
140 ppm
chlorobenzene
<5 ppb
chloro-
benzene
NA
Note: NA = not available
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Edward Bates
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7774
Fax: (513)569-7676
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
David Smith
EPA, Region VIII
(303) 293-1475
Fax: (303)294-1198
999 18th St.
Denver, CO 80202
Edward J. Opatken
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7855
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Alison Thomas
USAF
(904) 283-6303
AL/EQW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Sherry Gibson
DOE
(301) 903-7258
EM-552, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
Mary K. Stinson
EPA RREL
(908) 321-6683
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
MS-104
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 612-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.443
4-176
10/27/94
-------
4.44 AIR STRIPPING
Description: Air stripping is a full-scale technology in which 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.
Demister
Tower Pump)
High Level
Sensor
Water Inlet Line ¦
4-44 94P-3312 9/13/94
Spray Nozzle
=0
Packing
Clean Out
Air
Stripping
Tower
HI
Packing
Clean Out
Sump
-Air Valve
=H
Blower
SOURCE: RECOVERY EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, INC.
4-44 TYPICAL AIR STRIPPING SYSTEM
Air stripping involves the mass transfer of volatile contaminants from water
to air. For groundwater remediation, this process is typically conducted in
a packed tower or an aeration tank. The typical packed tower air stripper
includes a spray nozzle at the top of the tower to distribute contaminated
water over the packing in the column, a fan to force air countercurrent to the
water flow, and a sump at the bottom of the tower to collect decontaminated
water. Auxiliary equipment that can be added to the basic air stripper
includes an air heater to improve removal efficiencies; automated control
systems with sump level switches and safety features, such as differential
pressure monitors, high sump level switches, and explosion-proof
components; and air emission control and treatment systems, such as
activated carbon units, catalytic oxidizers, or thermal oxidizers. Packed
tower air strippers are installed either as permanent installations on concrete
pads or on a skid or a trailer.
M KO1 \RPT:02281012.009\compgde.444
4-177
10/27/94
-------
EX srru WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Aeration tanks strip volatile compounds by bubbling air into a tank through
which contaminated water flows. A forced air blower and a distribution
manifold are designed to ensure air-water contact without the need for any
packing materials. The baffles and multiple units ensure adequate residence
time for stripping to occur. Aeration tanks are typically sold as continuously
operated skid-mounted units. The advantages offered by aeration tanks are
considerably lower profiles (less than 2 meters or 6 feet high) than packed
towers (5 to 12 meters or 15 to 40 feet high) where height may be a
problem, and the ability to modify performance or adapt to changing feed
composition by adding or removing trays or chambers. The discharge air
from aeration tanks can be treated using the same technology as for packed
tower air discharge treatment.
Air strippers can be operated continuously or in a batch mode where the air
stripper is intermittently fed from a collection tank. The batch mode ensures
consistent air stripper performance and greater energy efficiency than
continuously operated units because mixing in the storage tanks eliminates
any inconsistencies in feed water composition.
Applicability: Air stripping is used to separate VOCs from water. It is ineffective for
inorganic contaminants. Henry's law constant is used to determine whether
air stripping will be effective. Generally, organic compounds with constants
greater than 0.01 atmospheres - m3/mol are considered amenable to stripping.
Some compounds that have been successfully separated from water using air
stripping include BTEX, chloroethane, TCE, DCE, and PCE.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• The potential exists for inorganic (e.g., iron greater than 5 ppm,
hardness greater than 800 ppm) or biological fouling of the equipment,
requiring pretreatment or periodic column cleaning.
• 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 volatility at ambient temperature may require
preheating of the groundwater.
• Off-gases may require treatment based on mass emission rate.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Vendors require the following information to select the properly sized tower
for a specific application: range of feedwater flow rates; range of water and
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde 444
4-178
10/27/94
-------
4.44 AIR STRIPPING
air temperatures; whether the tower will operate continuously or
intermittently; tower feed and discharge systems (gravity feed or type and
location of pumps); height restrictions on the tower; influent contaminant
identification and concentrations; mineral content; pH; requirements for
effluent water contaminant concentrations; and restrictions on air discharge
from the tower.
Performance
Data: Removal efficiencies around 99% are typical for towers that have 4.6 to 6
meters (15 to 20 feet) of packing and are removing compounds amenable to
stripping. Removal efficiencies can be improved by adding a second air
stripper in series with the first, heating the contaminated water, increasing
the air/liquid ratio, or heating the air. Thermal units for treating air stripper
emissions can be used as a source of heat. The performance of aeration
tanks can be improved by adding chambers or trays, or by increasing the air
supply, depending on the design of the tank.
The major problem encountered with packed tower air strippers is fouling of
the packing, which reduces the air flow rate. Fouling is caused by oxidation
of minerals in the feed water, such as iron and magnesium, by precipitation
of calcium, and by biological growth on the packing material.
Cost: A major operating cost of air strippers is the electricity required for the
groundwater pump, the sump discharge pump, and the air blower. The
power rating of the groundwater pump and discharge pump depends on the
pressure head and pressure drop across the column and should be obtained
from pump curves. As a generalized rule, pumps in the 4 to 80 liters per
minute (1 to 20-gpm) range require from 0.33 to 2 HP; from 80 to 290 liters
per minute (20 to 75 gpm) power ratings are 1 to 5 HP; and from 380 to
2,270 liters per minute (100 to 600 gpm), power ratings range from 5 to 30
HP. A crude method of estimating blower motor power assumes that each
foot of air stripper diameter requires 1.5 HP.
References: Dietrich, C., D. Treichler, and J. Armstrong, 1987. An Evaluation of Rotary
Air Stripping for Removal of Volatile Organics from Groundwater, USAF
Environmental and Service Center Report ESL-TR-86-46.
Elliott, M.G. and E.G. Marchand, 1990. "USAF Air Stripping and Emissions
Control Research," in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environmental
Symposium, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
Shukla, H.M. and R.E. Hicks, 1984. Process Design Manual for Stripping
of Organics, Water General Corporation for EPA, EPA/600/12-84/139, NTIS
PB 84 232628.
Singh, S.P., 1989. Air Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Groundwater: An Evaluation of a Centrifugal Vapor-Liquid Contractor,
USAF Environmental and Service Center Report ESL-TR-86-46.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.444
4-179
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Wilson, J.H., R.M. Counce, AJ. Lucero, H.L. Jennings, and S.P. Singh,
1991. Air Stripping and Emissions Control Technologies: Field Testing of
Counter Current Packings, Rotary Air Stripping, Catalytic Oxidation, and
Adsorption Materials, ESL TR 90-51.
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
9th Ave.
Superfund Site
Gary, IN
Beth Renting
USAE-WES
Attn: CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-
6199
(601)634-3943
Bench scale unit to treat
VOCs in groundwater
NA
NA
NA
Englin AFB
Edward G. Marchand
HQ AFCESA/RAVW
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-
5319
(904) 283-6023
Field testing of rotary air
stripper — high iron
content
NA
>99%
removal
NA
DOE - Savannah
River Site
NA
500-gpm air stripper, 11
wells
15-ppm TCE,
6.7-ppm PCE
Less than 1
TCE and
PCE
$0.20/1,000 L
($0.75/1,000
gallons)
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Capt. Edward G.
Marchand
USAF
(904) 283-6023
HQ AFCESA/RAV
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319
Dr. James Heidman
EPA RREL
FTS 684-7632
(513) 569-7632
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
T ransfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.444
4-180
10/27/94
-------
4.45 FILTRATION
Description: Filtration isolates solid particles by running a fluid stream through a porous
medium. The driving force is either gravity or a pressure differential across
the filtration medium. Pressure differentiated filtration techniques include
separation by centrifugal force, vacuum, or positive pressure. Installation of
filters in parallel is recommended so that groundwater extraction or injection
pumps do not have to stop operating when filters are changed.
Makeup
Water
Spray
Water
Holding
Tank
Filter Feed
Pump
Precoat
Slurry
Pump Slurry Tank
Precoat
Filter
Sludge and
Spent Precoat
Material
to Disposal
T reated Water
to Discharge
or Recharge
4-45 94P-5475 9/13/94
4-45 TYPICAL SCHEMATIC FOR FILTRATION OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
Applicability:
Limitations:
Data Needs:
Filtration is used mainly as a pretreatment or post-treatment process to
remove suspended solids or precipitated metals.
Factors that may affect the process include:
• The presence of oil and grease may interfere with the system by
decreasing flow rate.
A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
M KO 1\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.445
4-181
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Contaminant type and particle size will determine the filtration medium or
membrane to be used.
Performance
Data: Not available.
Cost: Typical costs for filtration range from $0.36 to $1.20 per 1,000 liters ($1.38
to $4.56 per 1,000 gallons) treated.
References: EPA, 1990. Dupont/Oberlin—Microflltration System, series includes
Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5-90/007, PB92-153410; Applications
Analysis, EPA/ 540/A5-90/007; Technology Demonstration Summary,
EPA/540/S5-90/007; and Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/M5-90/007.
EPA, 1990. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
EPA, 1992. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited—Chemical Treatment and
Ultrafiltration, Emerging Technology Bulletin, EPA/540/F-92/002.
EPA, 1992. SBP Technologies-Membrane Filtration, Demonstration
Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/014; and Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-
92/014.
EPA, 1993. Microflltration Technology EPOC Water, Inc., Demonstration
Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/513.
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde 445
4-182
10/27/94
-------
4.45 FILTRATION
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
American
Creosote Works
Pensacola, FL
EPA RREL
John Martin
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7758
Positive pressure
membrane hyperfiltration
unit
PAHs, smaller
phenolics
95%, <30%
removal
$500K - $1.2M
annual
Palmerton Zinc
Superfund Site
Palmerton, PA
John Martin
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7758
Pressure membrane
microfiltration — shallow
aquifer with dissolved
heavy metals
Zinc and TSS
99.95%
average
$213K -
$549K annual
DOE Rocky Flats
Golden, CO
Annette Gatchett
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7697
Colloid sorption filter for
metals and nontritium
radionuclides commercial
scale SITE demo
Uranium in
groundwater
influent at
filtration system
concentration 40-
100 mg/L
58-95%
removal of
uranium
$150K cap +
$0.40 to
$0.53/1,000 L
($1.50-$2.00 /
1,000 gallons)
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.445
4-183
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\eompgde.445
4-184
10/27/94
-------
4.46 ION EXCHANGE
Description: Ion exchange removes ions from the aqueous phase by the exchange of
cations or anions between the contaminants and the exchange medium. Ion
exchange materials may consist of resins made from synthetic organic
materials that contain ionic functional groups to which exchangeable ions are
attached. They also may be inorganic and natural polymeric materials.
After the resin capacity has been exhausted, resins can be regenerated for re-
use.
Raw water-
Service
Mixe
resin
Treated
Backwash
Air Out
Simultaneous
regeneration
- ¦¦
^Cationoo
Raw water
Mixing
Mixed
resin
Principle of mixed-bed ion exchange: (a) Sen/ice period, (b) Backwash period, (c) Simultaneous regeneration.
(Illinois Water Treatment Co.)
Source: Chemical Engineer's Handbook, Perry & Chilton (5th Edition)
4-46 94P-3318 9/13/94
4-46 TYPICAL ION EXCHANGE AND ADSORPTION EQUIPMENT DIAGRAM
Applicability:
Ion exchange can remove dissolved metals and radionuclides from aqueous
solutions. Other compounds that have been treated include nitrate, ammonia
nitrogen, and silicate.
Limitations: Factors that may affect the applicability and effectiveness of this process
include:
• Oil and grease in the groundwater may clog the exchange resin.
• Suspended solids content greater than 10 ppm may cause resin
blinding.
• The pH of the influent water may affect the ion exchange resin
selection.
• Oxidants in groundwater may damage the ion exchange resin.
Wastewater is generated during the regeneration step and will require
additional treatment and disposal.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.446
4-185
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Factors affecting the design of an ion exchange system include the presence
of oil and grease, suspended solids, metals, oxidants, inorganic ions in
groundwater; and pH of the groundwater.
Performance
Data: DOE has developed compact processing units (CPUs), or "modular waste
treatment units," which are relatively small mobile equipment modules.
They perform unit chemical process operations. The CPUs allow rapid
deployment of technologies for the treatment of radioactive wastes in
underground storage tanks. The modules would be manufactured off-site by
commercial vendors and moved into place using trucks or special transports.
The concept of having standardized modules is based on the notion that
various radioactive waste treatment subsystems could be standardized to
match the CPU hardware package, leading to more rapid, cost-effective
deployment. The cost benefits are realized even when multiple units are
deployed to achieve greater processing rates. The modular design concept
will also allow for reuse of CPU components for different unit processes or
process deployments.
The ion-exchange CPU will pump undiluted liquid tank waste from an
underground storage tank or receive liquid waste from a waste retrieval
system for treatment. DOE Northwest Laboratories developed the CPU
concept in FY91. Development of a cesium ion-exchange CPU technology
is scheduled for 1996. A radioactive waste treatment demonstration is
scheduled for FY97.
Another DOE technology, the resorcinol-formaldehyde ion exchange (ReFIX)
resin, is being developed for prototype demonstration at the Hanford site in
FY97. ReFIX resin is applicable to high-level wastestreams containing
cesium-supernate salt solutions.
Cost: The cost for a typical ion exchange system ranges from $0.08 to $0.21 per
1,000 liters ($0.30 to $0.80 per 1,000 gallons) treated. Key cost factors
include:
• Pretreatment requirements.
• Discharge requirements and resin utilization.
• Regenerant used and efficiency.
References: DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Cesium Removal by Compact Processing
Units for Radioactive Waste Treatment, Technology Information Profile
(Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.:
RL-321221.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.446
4-186
10/27/94
-------
4.46 ION EXCHANGE
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Resorcinol-Formaldehyde Ion Exchange
Resin for Elutable Ion Exchange in the Compact Portable Units (CPUs)
Proposed at Hanford, Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech,
DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: SR-1320-02.
EPA, 1990. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Sherry Gibson
DOE
(301) 903-7258
EM-552, Travion II
Washington, DC 20585
John Burckle
EPA
(513) 569-7506
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.446
4-187
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.446
4-188
10/27/94
-------
4.47 LIQUID PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION
Description: Liquid phase carbon adsorption is a full-scale technology in which
groundwater is pumped through a series of vessels containing activated
carbon to which dissolved contaminants adsorb. 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 removed and disposed of. Carbon used for explosives- or metals-
contaminated groundwater probably cannot be regenerated and should be
removed and properly disposed of. Adsorption by activated carbon has a
long history of use in treating municipal, industrial, and hazardous wastes.
Carbon Bed
Particulate
Filter
Influent
(Contaminated
Liquid)
——~ Effluent
(T reated Water)
Spent Carbon
4-47 94P-3314 8/25/94
4-47 TYPICAL FIXED-BED CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
The two most common reactor configurations for carbon adsorption systems
are the fixed bed (see figure) and the pulsed or moving bed. The fixed-bed
configuration is the most widely used for adsorption from liquids.
Suspended solids in a liquid stream may accumulate in the column, causing
an increase in pressure drop. When the pressure drop becomes too high, the
accumulated solids must be removed, for example, by backwashing. The
solids removal process necessitates adsorber downtime and may result in
carbon loss and disruption of the mass transfer zone. Pretreatment for
M KO1 \RPT:02281012.009\compgde.447
4-189
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
removal of solids from streams to be treated is, therefore, an important
design consideration.
Carbon can be used in conjunction with the steam reforming. Steam
reforming is a technology designed to destroy halogenated solvents (such as
carbon tetrachloride, CC14, and chloroform, CHC13) adsorbed on activated
carbon by reaction with superheated steam in a commercial reactor (the
Synthetica Detoxifier).
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for carbon adsorption are SVOCs and
explosives. Limited effectiveness may be achieved on halogenated VOCs,
fuels, and pesticides. Liquid phase carbon adsorption is effective for
removing contaminants at low concentrations (less than 10 mg/L) from water
at nearly any flow rate, and for removing higher concentrations of
contaminants from water at low flow rates (typically 2 to 4 liters per minute
or 0.5 to 1 gpm). Carbon adsorption is particularly effective for polishing
water discharges from other remedial technologies to attain regulatory
compliance. Carbon adsorption systems can be deployed rapidly, and
contaminant removal efficiencies are high. Logistic and economic
disadvantages arise from the need to transport and decontaminate spent
carbon.
Limitations: The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• The presence of multiple contaminants can impact process
performance. Single component isotherms may not be applicable for
mixtures. Bench tests may be conducted to estimate carbon usage for
mixtures.
• Metals can foul the system.
• Costs are high if used as the primary treatment on wastestreams with
high contaminant concentration levels.
• Type and pore size of the carbon, as well as the operating
temperature, will impact process performance. Vendor expertise for
carbon selection should be consulted.
• Carbon used for explosives-contaminated groundwater is not
regenerated; it must be properly disposed of.
• Water-soluble compounds and small molecules are not adsorbed well.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
MK01\RPT:02281012 009\compgde 447
4-190
10/27/94
-------
4.47 LIQUID PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION
The major design variables for liquid phase carbon applications are empty
bed contact time (EBCT), usage rate, and system configuration. Particle size
and hydraulic loading are often chosen to minimize pressure drop and reduce
or eliminate backwashing. System configuration and EBCT have an impact
on carbon usage rate. When the bed life is longer than 6 months and the
treatment objective is stringent (C/Co<0.05), a single adsorber or a
combination of single beds operating in parallel is preferred. For a single
adsorber, the EBCT is normally chosen to be large enough to minimize
carbon usage rate. When less stringent objectives are required (Ce/Co<0.3),
blending of effluents from partially saturated adsorbers can be used to reduce
carbon replacement rate. When stringent treatment objectives are required
(C,/Co<0.05) and bed life is short (less than 6 months), multiple beds in
series may be used to decrease carbon usage rate.
Performance
Data: Adsorption by activated carbon has a long history of use as a treatment for
municipal, industrial, and hazardous wastestreams. The concepts, theory, and
engineering aspects of the technology are well developed. It is a proven
technology with documented performance data. Carbon adsorption is a
relatively nonspecific adsorbent and is effective for removing many organic,
explosive, and some inorganic contaminants from liquid and gaseous streams.
Cost: Costs associated with GAC are dependent on wastestream flow rates, type
of contaminant, concentrations, and site and timing requirements. Costs are
lower with lower concentration levels of a contaminant of a given type.
Costs are also lower at higher flow rates. At flow rates of 0.4 million liters
per day (0.1 mgd), costs increase to $0.32 to $1.70 per 1,000 liters ($1.20
to $6.30 per 1,000 gallons) treated.
References: EPA, 1986. Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes,
EPA/540/2-86/003.
EPA, 1990. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
EPA, 1993. Approaches for the Remediation of Federal Facility Sites
Contaminated with Explosive or Radioactive Wastes, EPA/625/R-93/013.
Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and C.L. Teetar, 1992. Draft - Treatability of
Contaminated Groundwater from the Lang Superfund Site, USAE-WES.
Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, B.C. Fleming, and N.R. Francingues, 1991.
Treatability of Ninth Avenue Superfund Site Groundwater, WES Report EL-
91-8.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.447
4-191
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Verona Wellfield
Battle Creek, Ml
NA
Superfund - GAC as
pretreatment for air
stripper.
12,850 ppb
TVOC
11 ppb
NA
U.S. Coast Guard
Traverse City, Ml
NA
Pump/treat and discharge
to municipal sewer.
10,329 ppb
Toluene
<10 ppb
NA
Love Canal
Niagara Falls, NY
NA
GAC system for leachate
treatment.
28,000 ppb
Benzene
<10 ppb
NA
Milan AAP
Milan, TN
USAEC ETD
(410) 671-2054
Pilot scale study of GAC
for explosives-
contaminated groundwater.
1.0 - 2.0 mg/L
total explosives
ND (<10
ppb) for all 9
explosives
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Dr. James Heidman
EPA RREL
FTS 684-7632
(513) 569-7632
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
David Biancosino
DOE
(301) 903-7961
EM-551, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.447
4-192
10/27/94
-------
4.48 PRECIPITATION
Description: Precipitation of metals has long been the primary method of treating metal-
laden industrial wastewaters. As a result of the success of metals
precipitation in such applications, the technology is being considered and
selected for use in remediating groundwater containing heavy metals,
including their radioactive isotopes. In groundwater treatment applications,
the metal precipitation process is often used as a pretreatment for other
treatment technologies (such as chemical oxidation or air stripping) where
the presence of metals would interfere with the other treatment processes.
Reagent
Oxidation/
Reduction
(for Hydroxide
process)
Polymer
Ground Water.
pH Adjustment
and Reagent Addition
Flocculation
, Thickener
Overflow
Filtrate
• Effluent
tp
Clarification
Solids to
Disposal
4-48 94P-2726 8/25/94
1
L _
Sludge
Sludge
Dewatering
Sludge
Thickening
Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc.
4-48 TYPICAL METALS PRECIPITATION PROCESS
Metals precipitation from contaminated water involves the conversion of
soluble heavy metal salts to insoluble salts that will precipitate. The
precipitate can then be removed from the treated water by physical methods
such as clarification (settling) and/or filtration.
This process transforms dissolved contaminant into an insoluble solid,
facilitating the contaminant's subsequent removal from the liquid phase by
sedimentation or filtration. The process usually uses pH adjustment, addition
of a chemical precipitant, and flocculation. Typically, metals precipitate
from the solution as hydroxides, sulfides, or carbonates. The solubilities of
the specific metal contaminants and the required cleanup standards will
dictate the process used.
Applicability:
Precipitation is used mainly for metals.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.448
4-193
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations: Disadvantages of metals precipitation may include:
• As with any pump and treat process, if the source of contamination is
not removed (as in metals absorbed to soil), treatment of the
groundwater may be superfluous.
• The presence of multiple metal species may lead to removal
difficulties as a result of amphoteric natures of different compounds
(i.e., optimization on one metal species may prevent removal of
another).
• As discharge standards become more stringent, further treatment may
be required.
• Metal hydroxide sludges must pass TCLP prior to land disposal.
• Reagent addition must be carefully controlled to preclude unacceptable
concentrations in treatment effluent.
• Efficacy of the system relies on adequate solids separation techniques
(e.g., clarification, flocculation, and/or filtration).
• Process may generate toxic sludge requiring proper disposal.
• Process can be costly, depending on reagents used, required system
controls, and required operator involvement in system operation.
• Dissolved salts are added to the treated water as a result of pH
adjustment
• Polymer may be added to the water to achieve adequate settling of
solids.
• Treated water will often require pH adjustment.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Bench-scale treatability tests should be conducted to determine operating
parameters and characteristics [i.e., reagent type and dosage, optimum pH,
retention time, flow rate, temperature, mixing requirements, flocculent
(polymer) selection, suspended solids, precipitate settling and filtration rates,
and sludge volume and characteristics].
Performance
Data: Precipitation of heavy metals as the metal hydroxides or sulfides has been
practiced as the prime method of treatment for heavy metals in industrial
wastewater for many years. More recently, precipitation (usually as the
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.448
4-194
10/27/94
-------
4.48 PRECIPITATION
metal hydroxides) has been used in the electronics and electroplating
industries as a pretreatment technology for wastewater discharge to a
publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Metals precipitation is widely
used to meet NPDES requirements for the treatment of heavy metal-
containing wastewaters.
Because of its success in meeting requirements for discharge of treated
wastewater, metals precipitation is recognized as a proven process for use in
remedial activities such as groundwater treatment. Precipitation (combined
with sedimentation, and/or flocculation and filtration) is becoming the most
widely selected means for heavy metals removal from groundwater in pump
and treat operations.
Cost: The primary capital cost factor is design flow rate. Capital costs for 75- and
250-liters-per-minute (20-gpm and 65-gpm) packaged metals precipitation
systems are approximately $85,000 and $115,000, respectively.
The primary factors affecting operating costs are labor and chemical costs.
Operating costs (excluding sludge disposal) are typically in a range from
$0.08 to $0.18 per 1,000 liters ($0.30 to $0.70 per 1,000 gallons) of
groundwater containing up to 100 mg/L of metals.
For budgetary purposes, sludge disposal may be estimated to increase
operating costs by approximately $0.13 per 1,000 liters ($0.50 per 1,000
gallons) of groundwater treated. Actual sludge disposal costs (including
fixation and transportation) have been estimated at approximately $330 per
metric ton ($300 per ton) of sludge.
Costs for performing a laboratory treatability study for metals precipitation
may range from $5,000 to $20,000. Depending on the degree of uncertainty
or other requirements, a pilot or field demonstration may be needed.
Associated costs may range from $50,000 to $250,000 (depending on scale,
analytical requirements, and duration).
References: Balaso, C.A., et al., 1986. Soluble Sulfide Precipitation Study, Arthur D.
Little, Inc., Final Report to USATHAMA, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR-
87106.
Bricka, R. Mark, 1988. Investigation and Evaluation of the Performance of
Solidified Cellulose and Starch Xanthate Heavy Metal Sludges, USACE-
WES Technical Report EL-88-5.
EPA, 1980. Control and Treatment Technology for the Metal Finishing
Industry: Sulfide Precipitation, EPA/625/8-80/003.
EPA, 1990. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
MK01\RPT:022810I2.009\compgde.448
4-195
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Level*
Attained
Costs
Coakley Landfill
New Hampshire
NA
Pretreatment of
groundwater by hydroxide
precipitation with lime,
then air stripping for
removal of VOCs
Cr - 330 ppb
Ni - 122-200 ppb
As -10-90 ppb
Cr - 50 ppb
Ni -100 ppb
As - 50 ppb
NA
Stringfellow Acid
Pit Site
California
NA
Pretreatment for the
removal of metals and
organics, then POTW
Cr - 1.5-270 ppm
Cd - 0.32-9.3 ppm
Zn - 2.2-300 ppm
Cu -1.7-20 ppm
Cr - 0.5 ppm
Cd-0.11 ppm
Zn - 2.61 ppm
Cu - 2 ppm
NA
Winthrop Landfill
Winthrop, ME
NA
Pilot test of metals from
the groundwater by
precipitation
As - 0.1-0.8 ppm
Ni - 0.04 ppm
Zn - 0.2-0.6 ppm
As - 0.05 ppm
Ni - 0.04 ppm
Zn - 0.18 ppm
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Dr. D.B. Chan
NFESC
(805) 982-4191
Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Mark Bricka
USAE-WES
(601) 634-3700
CEWES-EE-S
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
R.L. Biggers
NFESC
(805) 982-2640
Code 414
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.448
4-196
10/27/94
-------
4.49 ULTRAVIOLET (UV) OXIDATION
Description: UV oxidation is a destruction process that oxidizes organic and explosive
constituents in wastewaters by the addition of strong oxidizers and irradiation
with UV light. The oxidation reactions are achieved through the synergistic
action of U V light, in combination with ozone (03) and/or hydrogen peroxide
(H202). If complete mineralization is achieved, the final products of
oxidation are carbon dioxide, water, and salts. The main advantage of UV
oxidation is that it is a destruction process, as opposed to air stripping or
carbon adsorption, for which contaminants are extracted and concentrated in
a separate phase. UV oxidation processes can be configured in batch or
continuous flow modes, depending on the throughput under consideration.
Reactor Off-Gas
(to be treated by ozone
decomposition, thermal
destruction, or
carbon adsorption)
Treated
Effluent
Air or
Oxygen
Mixer
Hydrogen
Peroxide
Ozone
Generator
Contaminated
Groundwater
(Pretreated if
necessary)
Reactor(s)
4-49 94P-3401 8/25/94
4-49 TYPICAL UV/OXIDATION GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Applicability: Practically any organic contaminant that is reactive with the hydroxyl radical
can potentially be treated. A wide variety of organic and explosive
contaminants are susceptible to destruction by UV/oxidation, including
petroleum hydrocarbons; chlorinated hydrocarbons used as industrial solvents
and cleaners; and ordnance compounds such as TNT, RDX, and HMX. In
many cases, chlorinated hydrocarbons that are resistant to biodegradation
may be effectively treated by UV/oxidation. Typically, easily oxidized
organic compounds, such as those with double bonds (e.g., TCE, PCE, and
vinyl chloride), as well as simple aromatic compounds (e.g., toluene,
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\con>pgde.449
4-197
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
benzene, xylene, and phenol), are rapidly destroyed in UV/oxidation
processes.
Limitations: Limitations of UV/oxidation include:
• The aqueous stream being treated must provide for good transmission
of UV light (high turbidity causes interference). This factor can be
critical for UV/H202 than UV/03. (Turbidity does not affect direct
chemical oxidation of the contaminant by H202 or 03.)
• Free radical scavengers can inhibit contaminant destruction efficiency.
Excessive dosages of chemical additives may act as a scavenger.
• The aqueous stream to be treated by UV/oxidation should be relatively
free of heavy metal ions (less than 10 mg/L) and insoluble oil or
grease to minimize the potential for fouling of the quartz sleeves.
• When UV/O3 is used on volatile organics such as TCA, the
contaminants may be volatilized (e.g., "stripped") rather than
destroyed. They would then have to be removed from the off-gas by
activated carbon adsorption or catalytic oxidation.
• Costs may be higher than competing technologies because of energy
requirements.
• Pretreatment of the aqueous stream may be required to minimize
ongoing cleaning and maintenance of UV reactor and quartz sleeves.
• Handling and storage of oxidizers require special safety precautions.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Design and operational parameters include contact or retention time, oxidizer
influent dosages, pH, temperature, UV lamp intensity, and various catalysts.
Performance
Data: The UV/oxidation is an innovative groundwater treatment technology that
has been used in full-scale groundwater treatment application for more than
10 years. Currently, UV/oxidation processes are in operation in more than
15 full-scale remedial applications. A majority of these applications are for
groundwater contaminated with petroleum products or with a variety of
industrial solvent-related organics such as TCE, DCE, TCA, and vinyl
chloride.
A wide range of sizes of UV/oxidation systems are commercially available.
Single-lamp benchtop reactors that can be operated in batch or continuous
modes are available for the performance of treatability studies. Pilot and
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgdc.449
4-198
10/27/94
-------
4.49 ULTRAVIOLET (UV) OXIDATION
full-scale systems are available to handle higher throughput (e.g., 3,800 to
3,800,000 liters or 1,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day).
Cost: Costs generally are between $0.03 to $3.00 per 1,000 liters ($0.10 to $10.00
per 1,000 gallons). Factors that influence the cost to implementing
UV/oxidation include:
• Types and concentration of contaminants (as they affect oxidizer
selection, oxidizer dosage, UV light intensity, and treatment time).
• Degree of contaminant destruction required.
• Desired water flow rates.
• Requirements for pretreatment and/or post-treatment.
References: Buhts, R., P. Malone, and D. Thompson, 1978. Evaluation of Ultra-
Violet/Ozone Treatment of Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Groundwater,
USAE-WES Technical Report No. Y-78-1.
Christman, P.L. and A.M. Collins, April 1990. "Treatment of Organic
Contaminated Groundwater by Using Ultraviolet Light and Hydrogen
Peroxide," in Proceedings of the Annual Army Environmental Symposium,
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
EPA, 1989. Ultrox International — UV Ozone Treatment for Liquids, EPA
RREL, series includes Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/5-89/012, PB90-
198177; Applications Analysis, EPA/540/A5-89/012; Technology
Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/S5-89/012; and Demonstration Bulletin,
EPA/540/MS-89/012.
EPA, 1990. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual,
EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
EPA, 1993. Magnum Water Technology — CAV-OX Ultraviolet Oxidation
Process, EPA RREL, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/520; and
Applications Analysis, EPA/540/AR-93/520.
EPA, 1993. Perox-Pure™ Chemical Oxidation Treatment, EPA RREL, series
includes Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/501; Applications
Analysis, EPA/540/AR-93/501; Technology Evaluation, EPA/540/R-93/501,
PB93-213528; and Technology Demonstration Summary, EPA/540/SR-
93/501.
EPA, 1993. PURUS, Inc. — Destruction of Organic Contaminants in Air
Using Advanced Ultraviolet Flashlamps, EPA RREL, series includes
Emerging Technology Bulletin, EPA/54A/F-93/501; Emerging Technology
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.449
4-199
10/27/94
-------
EX SITU WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Summary, EPA/540/SR-93/516; and Emerging Technology Report,
EPA/540/R-93/516, PB93-205383.
Zappi, M.E., et al., April 1990. "Treatability Study of Four Contaminated
Waters at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado, Using
Oxidation with Ultra-Violet Radiation Catalyzation," in Proceedings of the
14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, USATHAMA Report CETHA-
TE-TR-90055.
Zappi, M.E. and B.C. Fleming, 1991. Treatability of Contaminated
Groundwater from the Lang Superfund Site, Draft WES Report, USAE-WES,
Vicksburg, MS.
Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and M.J. Cullinane, 1992. "Treatment of
Contaminated Groundwater Using Chemical Oxidation," in Proceedings of
the 1992 ASCE Water Forum Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Munitions
Washout Lagoon
Submarine Base
Bangor, WA
Laura Yeh, NFESC
Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
(805) 982-1660
Bench-scale TNT and RDX
treatability test.
Recirculating UV/ozone
reactor. 30-minute
retention.
7 ppm TNT; 600
ppb RDX
0.25 ppb;
0.50 ppb
<$0.40 per
1,000 L
(<$1.50/
1,000
gallons)
Winthrop
Superfund Site,
ME
Dr. Raymond Machacek
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
(617) 498-5580
On-site demo - pretreat for
iron, then UV/oxidation
solvents.
5 ppm DMF
5 ppb
NA
Milan AAP
Milan, TN
USAEC ETD
(410) 671-2054
Pilot scale tests of UV/OX
for explosives-
contaminated groundwater.
20.0 ppm total
explosives
ND (<10
ppb) for all
explosives
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Mark E. Zappi
USAE WES
(601) 634-2856
3903 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Steve Maloney
USACE-CERL
(217) 352-6511
(800) USA-CERL
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
R.L. Biggers
NFESC
(805) 982-4856
Code 414
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Technology
Demonstration and
T ransfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.449
4-200
10/27/94
-------
4.50 NATURAL ATTENUATION
Description: 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 and pathways. The primary objective of site
modeling is to demonstrate that natural processes of contaminant degradation
will reduce contaminant concentrations below regulatory standards before
potential exposure pathways are completed. 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.
Air-Tight Monitoring Well
Cap/Water Sensor \
Electronic Water
Sensor
4-29 94P-3325a 8/26/94
4-50 TYPICAL MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM
Natural attenuation is not the same as "no action," although it often is
perceived as such. 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, removal of 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.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.450
4-201
10/27/94
-------
OTHER WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Where contaminants are expected to remain in place over long periods of
time, TI waivers must be obtained. In all cases, extensive site
characterization is required.
The attitude toward natural attenuation varies among agencies. USAF
carefully evaluates the potential for use of natural attenuation at its sites;
however, EPA accepts its use only in certain special cases.
Applicability: Target contaminants for natural attenuation are nonhalogenated VOCs and
SVOCs and fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs and SVOCs and
pesticides also can be allowed to naturally attenuate, but the process may be
less effective and may be applicable to only some compounds within these
contaminant groups.
Limitations: Factors that may limit applicability and effectiveness include:
• Data must be collected to determine model input parameters.
• 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.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.2
(Data Requirements for Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate).
Many potential suppliers can perform the modeling, sampling, and sample
analysis required for justifying and monitoring natural attenuation. 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).
When available, information to be obtained during data review includes:
• Soil and groundwater quality data:
Three-dimensional distribution of residual-, free-, and dissolved-
phase contaminants. The distribution of residual- and free-phase
M K01\RPT: 02281012,009\compgde.450
4-202
10/27/94
-------
4.50 NATURAL ATTENUATION
contaminants will be used to define the dissolved-phase plume
source area.
Groundwater and soil geotechnical data.
Historical water quality data showing variations in contaminant
concentrations through time.
Chemical and physical characteristics of the contaminants.
Potential for biodegradation of the contaminants.
• Geologic and hydrogeologic data:
Lithology and stratigraphic relationships.
Grain-size distribution (sand versus silt versus clay).
Aquifer hydraulic conductivity.
Flow gradient.
Preferential flow paths.
Interaction between groundwater and surface water.
• Location of potential receptors:
Groundwater wells.
Surface water discharge points.
Performance
Data: Natural attenuation has been selected by AFCEE for remediation at 45 sites.
Cost: There are costs for modeling contamination degradation rates, to determine
whether natural attenuation is a feasible remedial alternative, for subsurface
sampling and sample analysis (potentially extensive) to determine the extent
of contamination and confirm contaminant degradation rates and cleanup
status, and for migration and degradation monitoring.
References: Barker, J.F., et al., 1987, "Natural Attenuation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in a Shallow Sand Aquifer," Groundwater Monitoring Review, Winter 1987.
Bredehoeft, J.D., and L.F. Konikow, 1993. "Ground-Water Models -
Validate or Invalidate," Ground Water, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 178-179.
Bruce, L., T. Miller, and B. Hockman, 1991. "Solubility Versus Equilibrium
Saturation of Gasoline Compounds - A Method To Estimate Fuel/Water
Partition Coefficient Using Solubility or K^", in Proceedings of the
NWWA/API Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Ground Water, A.
Stanley, Editor, NWWA/API, pp. 571-582.
M KO1VRPT:02281012,009\compgde.450
4-203
10/27/94
-------
OTHER WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Chiang, C.Y., J.P. Salanitro, E.Y. Chai, J.D. Colthart, and C.L. Klein, 1989.
"Aerobic Biodegradation of Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene in a Sandy
Aquifer - Data Analysis and Computer Modeling, Ground Water, Vol. 27,
No. 6, pp. 823-834.
Lee, M.D., 1988. "Biorestoration of Aquifers Contaminated with Organic
Compounds," CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, Vol. 18, pp.
29-89.
Maclntyre, W.G., M. Boggs, C.P. Antworth, and T.B. Staufer, 1993.
"Degradation Kinetics of Aromatic Organic Solutes Introduced into a
Heterogeneous Aquifer," Water Resources Research, Vol. 29, No. 12,
pp. 4045-4051.
Weidemeier, T.H., P.R. Guest, R.L. Henry, and C.B. Keith, 1993. "The Use
of Bioplume To Support Regulatory Negotiations at a Fuel Spill Site Near
Denver, Colorado," in Proceedings of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons and
Organic Chemicals in Groundwater Prevention, Detection, and Restoration
Conference, NWWA/API, pp. 445-449.
Weidemeier, T.H., B. Blicker, and P.R. Guest, 1994b. "Risk-Based
Approach to Bioremediation of Fuel Hydrocarbons at a Major Airport," in
Proceedings of the Federal Environmental Restoration III & Waste
Minimization Conference & Exhibition.
Weidemeier, T.H., D.C. Downey, J.T. Wilson, D.H. Kampbell, R.N. Miller,
and J.E. Hansen, 1994. Technical Protocol for Implementing the Intrinsic
Remediation (Natural attenuation) with Long-Term Monitoring Option for
Dissolved-Phase Fuel Contamination in Ground Water, AFCEE, San
Antonio, TX.
MK01VRPT:0mi012.009\eompgde.450
4-204
10/27/94
-------
4.50 NATURAL ATTENUATION
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Columbus
AFB, MS
Tom deVenoga, USAF
Tyndall AFB, FL
(904) 283-6205
Controlled releases of
various hydrocarbons were
extensively monitored and
modeled over time
NA
NA
NA
Hill AFB, VT
AFCEE
NA
NA
NA
NA
Eglin AFB, FL
AFCEE
NA
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Gov Agency
Phone
Location
Tom deVenoge
USAF
(904) 283-6205
AL/EQW Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Technology Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\eompgde.450
4-205
10/27/94
-------
OTHER WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.450
4-206
10/27/94
-------
Air Emissions/
Off-Gas
Treatment
Technologies
-------
4.51 BIOFILTRATION
Description: Biofiltration is a full-scale technology in which vapor-phase organic
contaminants are passed 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. The biofilter provides several
advantages over conventional activated carbon adsorbers. First, bio-
regeneration keeps the maximum adsorption capacity available constantly;
thus, the mass transfer zone remains stationary and relatively short. The
filter does not require regeneration, and the required bed length is greatly
reduced. These features reduce capital and operating expenses.
Additionally, the contaminants are destroyed not just separated, as with GAC
technologies.
Caitoon Dioxide
M
f
Packed
Media
Nutrient Addition
L 1
Chlorinated VOCs and CH4
4-51 94P-5216 8/25/94
4-51 TYPICAL METHANOTROPHIC BIOFILM REACTOR DIAGRAM
Applicability:
As with other biological treatment processes, biofiltration is highly
dependent upon the biodegradability of the contaminants. Under
proper conditions, biofilters can remove virtually all selected
contaminants to harmless products. Biofiltration is used primarily to
treat nonhalogenated VOCs and fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated
VOCs also can be treated, but the process may be less effective.
Biofilters have been successfully used to control odors from compost
piles.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.451
4-207
10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations:
Data Needs:
Performance
Data:
Cost:
References:
The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the
process:
• The rate of influent air flow is constrained by the size of the biofilter.
• Fugitive fungi may be a problem.
• Low temperatures may slow or stop removal unless the biofilter is
climate-controlled.
A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.3
(Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases).
Nonproprietary filters that require low air loading rates for organics (>100
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.
Moisture levels, pH, temperature, and other filter conditions may have to be
monitored to maintain high removal efficiencies. Filter flooding and
plugging as a result of excessive biomass accumulation may require periodic
mechanical cleaning of the filter.
Cost estimates range from $5 to $10 per kilogram of contaminant ($2.27 to
$4.54 per pound).
Not available.
MK01VRPT:02281012.009\coinpgde.451
4-208
iomm
-------
BIOFILTRATION
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
SITE Emerging
Technology
(Membrane
Technology and
Process, Inc.)
Naomi Barkley
EPA RREL
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7854
Fax: (513)569-7620
Bench-scale
"bio scrubber*
10-20 ppm
Toluene
> 95%
removal
NA
SITE Emerging
Technology
(Remediation
Technologies, Inc.)
Fred Bishop
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7629
Fax: (513)569-7105
Immobilized film
bio reactor (gas-
phase biofilter
at bench and
pilot-scale)
10-1,000
ppm VOCs
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410)671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.451
4-209
10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.451
4-210
10/27/94
-------
4.52 HIGH ENERGY CORONA
Description: The High Energy Corona (HEC) technology is being developed by DOE as
one of many approaches toward decontaminating soil off-gases prior to
atmospheric release. The objective of the HEC technology is to provide a
standalone, field-portable means of treating soil off-gases produced during
soil treatment operations.
Head Space
Flow Meter
rSh®--
GC
Power
Meter
Dry Ice Trap
100 kV
30 mA
AC Supply
3 Caustic Scrubbers
•BorosffieateTube
Grounded Screen
Packed Bed
of Glass Beads
Flow Meter
GC
TCE
Water
<-52 94P-5217 VZMi
4-52 TYPICAL LOW TEMPERATURE PLASMA REACTOR
The HEC process uses high-voltage electricity to destroy VOCs at room
temperature. The equipment consists of the following: an HEC reactor in
which the VOCs are destroyed; inlet and outlet piping containing process
instrumentation to measure humidity, temperature, pressure, contaminant
concentration, and mass flow rate; a means for controlling inlet flow rates
and inlet humidity; and a secondary scrubber.
The HEC reactor is a glass tube filled with glass beads through which the
pretreated contaminated off-gas is passed. Each reactor is 2 inches in
diameter, 4 ft long, and weighs less than 20 pounds. A high voltage
electrode is placed along the centerline of the reactor, and a grounded metal
screen is attached to the outer glass surface of the reactor. A high-voltage
power supply is connected across the electrodes to provide 0 to 50 mA of
60-Hz electricity at 30 kV. The electrode current and power depend upon
the type and concentration of contaminant.
The technology is packaged in a self-contained mobile trailer that includes
gas handling equipment and on-line analytical capabilities. Installation
consists of connecting inlet and outlet hoses to the HEC process trailer.
Training in the use of the equipment can usually be accomplished well
within 1 hour. Failure control is provided by a combination of automated
and manually activated means, addressing electrical failure, loss of flow, and
MK01\RPT:022810n.009\compgde.452
4-211
10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
loss of VOC containment caused by breakage of the glass reactor vessel.
The HEC process can be operated with little, if any, maintenance required.
Neither catastrophic failure nor any diminishing in levels of performance
have been observed through months of periodic operation in the laboratory.
The on-line gas chromatograph and process instruments do require periodic
recalibration to ensure data quality.
Applicability: Contaminants that can be treated include most or all VOCs and SVOCs. The
potential also exists for treating inorganic compounds, such as oxides of
nitrogen and oxides of sulfur. This technique is specifically useful for
destroying organics and chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE),
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, diesel fuel, and
gasoline. Both gas and liquid phase contaminants are treatable.
Limitations: Continued research and development (R&D) is planned to accomplish the
following: fully characterize the reactor emissions to complete mass
balances; adapt the HEC process to complete real-time control; better
understand the physical and chemical phenomena that make the HEC process
work; develop larger reactors; and optimize the hardware and packaging
associated with the technology for specific, as well as modular or generic,
treatment applications.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.3 (Data
Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases).
Performance
Data: The HEC technology can destroy more than 99.9% TCE. The technology
destroys PCE to a level of 90 to 95%. In preliminary tests with heptane,
destruction levels appear to be extremely high, but have not been quantified.
When chlorinated VOCs are treated, water containing either sodium
hydroxide or baking soda is recirculated in a scrubber to remove acid gases,
hydrochloric acid, and chlorine from the reactor effluent. It should also be
noted that further contaminant destruction appears likely in this wet scrubber.
This is presumably because of strong gaseous oxidants that exit the HEC
reactor. Typical outlet properties would be nondetectable concentrations of
TCE, ozone, hydrochloric acid, phosgene, and chlorine, with up to 1 ppmv
NOx (below regulatory limits). Air exits the HEC process at temperatures
of 100 °C or lower or slightly above ambient temperature if a wet scrubber
is used. A scrub solution (containing less than 10-wt% sodium chloride in
water) is produced when chlorinated VOCs are treated.
One reactor processes up to 5 scfm of soil off-gas. The HEC field-scale
process demonstrated at Savannah River uses 21 HEC reactors in parallel to
treat up to 105 scfm of contaminated off-gas. A typical application will
involve an inlet stream containing 1,800 ppmb of TCE in humid air at 10 to
20 °C. Power input is typically 50 to 150 W/scfm being processed. For dry
inlet streams, deionized water is added as steam to produce an inlet humidity
(hr) of 60 to 80%. Less than 20 mL per minute of water is required to
humidify a completely dry stream at a flow of 105 scfm. For water-saturated
inlet streams, the stream is preheated (using electric heaters) to lower the hr
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.452 4-212 10/27/94
-------
4.52 HIGH ENERGY CORONA
from 100% to 80%. In many cases, the vapor-extraction blower associated
with retrieving the VOCs from soil will sufficiently preheat the soil off-gas
to 80% or lower so that no further preheating is required.
Discussions with manufacturers/licensees have been initiated with the belief
that HEC is now ready for commercial availability. The 105-scfm field
prototype is available now for commercial testing and evaluation. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory (PNL) is continuing R&D to improve and scale the
technology. Scaleup to 50 scfm per reactor seems feasible for extremely
large applications.
Cost: Initial outlay for a 105 scfm process, the prototype field treatment system,
is $50,000. As with any other technology, large-scale production and
customization would significantly reduce costs, perhaps to as low as $20,000.
Labor requirements are projected as 0.25 fulltime equivalent. Energy
requirements are $27 per day, or roughly $0.35 per pound of contaminant.
Total cost is roughly $10 per pound of contaminant, including a 25%
contingency to account for any unknown additional costs. Although
maintenance costs are minimal, the total cost figure assumes 8% downtime
and a capital payback period of 6 months.
References: DOE-RL, 1993. Technology Name: High-Energy Corona, Technology
Information Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TIP
Reference No.: RL-3211-01.
TNA-II OTD/OER Crosswalk Worksheet, 1992, "High-Energy Corona for
Destruction of VOCs in Process Off Gases," The 1993 Technology Needs
Crosswalk Report, Vol. 3, Appendix H, TTP Reference No.: RL-3211-01,
Richland, WA, TRL009.
Virden, J.W., W.O. Heath, S.C. Goheen, M.C. Miller, G.M. Mong, and R.L.
Richardson, 1992. "High-Energy Corona for Destruction of Volatile Organic
Contaminants in Process Off-Gases," in Proceedings of Spectrum '92
International Topical Meeting on Nuclear and Hazardous Waste
Management, Vol. 2, pp. 670-673, 23-27 August 1992, Boise, ID.
M K01 \RPT:02281012,009\co mpgde.452
4-213
10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
DOE Savannah
River
DOE
Field Scale Process
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
David Biancosino
DOE
(301) 903-7961
EM-551, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
Technology
Demonstration and
T ransfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410)612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.452
4-214
10/27/94
-------
4.53 MEMBRANE SEPARATION
Description: A high pressure membrane separation system has been designed by DOE to
treat feedstreams that contain dilute concentrations of VOCs. The organic
vapor/air separation technology involves the preferential transport of organic
vapors through a nonporous gas separation membrane (a diffusion process
analogous to pumping saline water through a reverse osmosis membrane).
In this system, the feedstream is compressed and sent to a condenser where
the liquid solvent is recovered. The condenser bleed stream, which contains
approximately 5,000 ppm of the VOC, is then sent to the membrane module.
The membrane module is comprised of spiral-wound modules of thin film
membranes separated by plastic mesh spacers. The membrane and the
spacers are wound spirally around a central collection pipe. In the
membrane module the stream is further concentrated to 3% VOC. The
concentrated stream is then returned to the compressor for further recovery
in the condenser.
V
Spiral
Wound Membrane
(also removes VOCs)
Condenser
(cools VOCs and
converts vapor into
liquid for removal)
Compressor
(150 pounds per
square inch)
VOCs
~ •
Volatile
Organic
Compound
(VOCs)
Vapors
• O
VOC Liquid
(removed by condenser)
4-53 94P-5218 8/25/94
4-53 TYPICAL MEMBRANE SEPARATION DIAGRAM
Applicability: The targeted contaminants are VOCs, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform
in gas streams.
M KOI \RPT:02281012.009\compgde.453
4-215
10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSION/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations:
Data Needs:
Performance
Data:
Cost:
References:
Limitations of this technology are:
• Inability to handle fouling constituents in soil.
• Inability to handle fluctuations in VOC concentrations.
A detailed discussion of data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.3 (Data
Requirements for Air Emissions/Off Gases).
This technology is being tested at a Hanford site where VOCs will be
obtained by vacuum extraction. Carbon tetrachloride and chloroform will
preferentially be removed from the gas stream. Based upon a VOC effluent
concentration of 1,000 ppm, there is a 95% removal efficiency. The
remaining 5% is polished using carbon adsorption. Future work involves
sizing the pilot plant to handle fluctuations in the VOC concentrations and
fouling of the membrane with other constituents.
Capital equipment (7,000 scftn) is $2.5 million; O&M is $6,000 (replacement
every 3 years). Information on life-cycle will be available upon completion
of testing, and emissions treatment is $2,000 to $5,000 per pound of VOC
recovered.
DOE-RL, 1993. Technical Name: VOC Offgas Membrane Separation,
Technology Information Profile (Rev. 3), DOE ProTech Database, TTP
Reference No.: RL-9740.
EPA, 1992. SBP Technologies — Membrane Filtration, EPA RREL,
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-92/014; and Applications Analysis,
EPA/540/AR-92/014.
EPA, 1994. Membrane Technology and Research, Inc. — Volatile Organic
Compound Removal from Air Streams by Membrane Separations, EPA
RREL, Emergency Technology Bulletin, EPA/540/F-94/503.
EPA, 1994. Volatile Organic Compound Removal from Air Streams by
Membrane Separation, EPA RREL, Emerging Technology Bulletin,
EPA/540/F-94/503.
MK01VRPT:02281012.009\compgde.453
4-216
10/27/94
-------
4.53 MEMBRANE SEPARATION
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
DOE Hanford
DOE
Field Testing
1,000 ppm VOC
95% removal
$2.5M cap;
$6K annual
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
David Biancosino
DOE
(301) 903-7961
EM-551, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
M KOI \RFT:02281012.009\compgde.453
4-217
10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSiON/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.453
4-218
10/27/94
-------
4.54 OXIDATION
Description: Oxidation equipment (thermal or catalytic) is used for destroying
contaminants in the exhaust gas from air strippers and SVE systems.
Thermal oxidation units are typically single chamber, refractory-lined
oxidizers equipped with a propane or natural gas burner and a stack.
Lightweight ceramic blanket refractory is used because many of these units
are mounted on skids or trailers. If gasoline is the contaminant, heat
exchanger efficiencies are limited to 25 to 35%, and preheat temperatures are
maintained below 180 °C (530 °F) to minimize the possibility of ignition
occurring in the heat exchanger. Flame arrestors are always installed
between the vapor source and the thermal oxidizer. Burner capacities in the
combustion chamber range from 0.5 to 2 million Btus per hour. Operating
temperatures range from 760 to 870 °C (1,400 to 1,600 °F), and gas
residence times are typically 1 second or less.
Treated Vapor
Stream (Discharged
to Atmosphere or, if
Necessary, Treated by
Scrubbing to Remove
Hydrogen Chloride)
Catalyst
Bed
Fuel
Contaminated
Air Stream
Preheater Zone
Blower
n
4-54 94P-3315 8/25/94 Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc.
4-54 TYPICAL OXIDATION SYSTEM
Catalytic oxidation is a relatively recently applied alternative for the
treatment of VOCs in air streams resulting from remedial operations. The
addition of a catalyst accelerates the rate of oxidation by adsorbing the
oxygen and the contaminant on the catalyst surface where they react to form
carbon dioxide, water, and hydrochloric gas. The catalyst enables the
oxidation reaction to occur at much lower temperatures than required by a
conventional thermal oxidation. VOCs are thermally destroyed at
temperatures typically ranging from 320 to 540 °C (600 to 1,000 °F) by
using a solid catalyst. First, the contaminated air is directly preheated
MK01\RFT: 02281012.009\compgde.454
4-219
10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(electrically or, more frequently, using natural gas or propane) to reach a
temperature necessary to initiate the catalytic oxidation [310 to 370 °C (600
to 700 °F)] of the VOCs. Then the preheated VOC-laden air is passed
through a bed of solid catalysts where the VOCs are rapidly oxidized.
Thermal oxidizers can often be converted to catalytic units after initially high
influent contaminant concentrations decrease to less than 1,000 to 5,000
ppmv.
Catalyst systems used to oxidize VOCs typically use metal oxides such as
nickel oxide, copper oxide, manganese dioxide, or chromium oxide. Noble
metals such as platinum and palladium may also be used. Most
commercially available catalysts are proprietary.
In most cases, the thermal or catalytic oxidation process can be enhanced to
reduce auxiliary fuel costs by using an air-to-air heat exchanger to transfer
heat from the exhaust gases to the incoming contaminated air. Typically,
about 50% of the heat of the exhaust gases is recovered.
Applicability: The target contaminant groups for oxidation are nonhalogenated VOCs and
SVOCs and fuel hydrocarbons. Both precious metal and base metal catalysts
have been developed that are reportedly capable of effectively destroying
halogenated (including chlorinated) hydrocarbons. Specific chlorinated
hydrocarbons that have been treated include TCE, TCA, methylene chloride,
and 1,1-DC A.
Limitations: The following factors may limit applicability and effectiveness:
• If sulfur or halogenated compounds or high particulate loadings are in
the emissions stream, the catalyst can be poisoned/deactivated and
require replacement.
• Destruction of halogenated compounds requires special catalysts,
special materials or construction, and the addition of a flue gas
scrubber to reduce acid gas emissions.
• Influent gas concentrations must be <25% of the lower explosive
limit.
• The presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons (see comment above) and
some heavy metals (e.g., lead) may poison a particular catalyst.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.3
(Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases). Because of the
limitations discussed in the previous section, it is important that the
contaminated air stream be well characterized.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.454
4-220
10/27/94
-------
4.54 OXIDATION
Thermal oxidation is effective for site remediation. Its use is increasing
among remediation equipment vendors, and several variations in design are
being marketed. Growing applications include treatment of air stripper and
vacuum extraction gas-phase emissions.
More than 20 firms manufacture catalytic oxidation systems specifically for
remedial activities. These firms will generally supply the equipment to
remedial action contractors for integration with specific remedial
technologies, such as in situ vapor extraction of organics from soil or air
stripping of organics from groundwater.
Despite its relatively newer application in remedial activities, catalytic
oxidation is a mature technology, and its status as an implementable
technology is well established. Nevertheless, the technology continues to
evolve with respect to heat recovery techniques, catalysts to increase
destruction efficiency and/or to extend the operating life of the catalyst bed,
and performance data on a wider range of VOCs.
Cost: The primary factors that will impact the overall cost include quantity,
concentration, and type of contaminant; required destruction efficiencies;
management of residuals; and utility and fuel costs.
Thermal treatment is generally more costly than other remedial technologies
but offers the advantage of permanent, efficient contaminant destruction
within a relatively short time frame. Equipment costs range from $25,000
for a 200-scfm unit to as much as $200,000 for a 2,000-scfm unit.
Typical energy costs for a catalytic oxidation system alone, operating at 100
to 200 scfim, will range from $8 to $15 per day (for natural gas or propane-
fired systems) and $20 to $40 per day (for electrically heated systems).
Capital costs of equipment operating at throughputs of 2.8 to 5.6 cubic
meters per minute (100 to 500 scfm) are estimated to be in a range from
$20,000 to $100,000. If treatability studies, tests, or demonstrations are
required, additional costs may include;
• Laboratory treatability studies — $10,000 to $50,000.
• Pilot tests or field demonstrations — $100,000 to $500,000.
References: Elliott, Captain Michael G., and Captain Edward G. Marchand, 1989. "U.S.
Air Force Air Stripping and Emissions Control Research," in Proceedings of
the 14th Annual Army Environmental R&D Symposium, Williamsburg, VA,
USATHAMA Report No. CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
EPA, 1987. Destruction of Organic Contaminants by Catalytic Oxidation,
EPA/600/D-87/224.
Performance
Data:
MK01\RIT:02281012.009\compgde.454
4-221
10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Site Information:
Site Name
Contact
Summary
Beginning
Levels
Levels
Attained
Costs
Dover AFB
Maj. Mark Smith
Field test of various
catalysts in a catalytic
oxidation system treating
TCE emissions from air
strippers
NA
NA
NA
Wurtsmith AFB
NA
Groundwater
contaminated with TCE.
Air stripping
NA
NA
NA
Former gasoline
service station,
Santa Monica,
CA
NA
Leaking resulted in
contamination of soil and
groundwater with BTEX.
Dual extraction
NA
NA
NA
Los Angeles, CA
NA
SVE treatment of TCE
soils
NA
NA
NA
Note: NA = Not Available.
Points of Contact:
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Leslie Karr
NFESC
(805) 982-1618
Code 411
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
R.L. Biggers
NFESC
(805) 982-2640
Code 414
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
Major Mark Smith
USAF Environics
Directorate
(904) 283-6126
AL/EQW
Tyndall AFB, FL
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
MK01\RPT:0228l012.009V»mpg
-------
4.55 VAPOR-PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION
Description: Vapor-phase carbon adsorption is a remediation technology in which
pollutants are removed from air by physical adsorption onto activated carbon
grains. Carbon is "activated" for this purpose by processing the carbon to
create porous particles with a large internal surface area (300 to 2,500 square
meters or 3,200 to 27,000 square feet per gram of carbon) that attracts and
adsorbs organic molecules as well as certain metal and inorganic molecules.
Feed Air
Regenerated/Makeup
Activated Carbon
Spent Carbon
Regenerated/Makeup
Activated Carbon
Adsorber 1
Adsorber 2
Effluent
£Xl Valve Open
H Valve Closed
4-56 94P-2404 8/25/94
4-55 TYPICAL VAPOR-PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
Commercial grades of activated carbon are available for specific use in
vapor-phase applications. The granular form of activated carbon is typically
used in packed beds through which the contaminated air flows until the
concentration of contaminants in the effluent from the carbon bed exceeds
an acceptable level. Granular-activated carbon (GAC) systems typically
consist of one or more vessels filled with carbon connected in series and/or
parallel operating under atmospheric, negative, or positive pressure. The
carbon can then be regenerated in place, regenerated at an off-site
regeneration facility, or disposed of, depending upon economic
considerations.
Carbon can be used in conjunction with steam reforming. Steam reforming
is a technology designed to destroy halogenated solvents (such as carbon
tetrachloride, CC14, and chloroform, CHC13) adsorbed on activated carbon by
reaction with superheated steam (steam reforming) in a commercial reactor
(the Synthetica Detoxifier).
Applicability: Vapor-phase carbon adsorption is not recommended to remove high
contaminant concentrations from the effluent air streams. Economics favor
pretreatment of the VOC stream, followed by the use of a vapor-phase GAC
system as a polishing step.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\eompgde.455 4-223 10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Limitations: Factors that may limit the effectiveness of this process include:
• Spent carbon transport may require hazardous waste handling.
• Spent carbon must be disposed of and the adsorbed contaminants must
be destroyed, often by thermal treatment.
• Relative humidity greater than 50% can reduce carbon capacity.
• Elevated temperatures from SVE pumps (greater than 38 °C or
100 °F) inhibit adsorption capacity.
• Biological growth on carbon or high particulate loadings can reduce
flow through the bed.
• Some compounds, such as ketones, may cause carbon bed fires
because of their high heat release upon adsorption.
Data Needs: A detailed discussion of these data elements is provided in Subsection 2.2.3
(Data Requirements for Air Emissions/Off-Gases).
Factors that affect adsorption are temperature, pH, type, and pore size of the
carbon, the type and concentration of the contaminant, residence time in the
bed, and, in gas phase adsorption, temperature and humidity. At high
temperatures, the volatility of compounds increases, thus reducing their
affinity for carbon. Adsorption of organic acids such as benzoic acid
generally decreases with increasing pH. Basic compounds are adsorbed
better at high pH. Activated carbon is available from manufacturers in a
variety of grades with different properties and affinities for adsorption of
contaminants. Thus, it is often necessary to conduct adsorption tests with a
particular contaminated stream on a variety of activated carbons from several
manufacturers to identify a carbon that will be most effective for a particular
application.
Performance
Data: For gaseous systems, linear bed velocities typically range between 8 and 100
feet per minute, although velocities as high as 200 feet per minute have been
used, and residence times range from one tenth of a second to a minute.
If only one or two contaminants are of concern in the wastestream and there
is little or no contamination from natural organic materials, a batch isotherm
test is usually sufficient to design the system (i.e., determine system size and
carbon usage). It is also possible to use historical column test data that are
available from vendors for a wide assortment of contaminants to obtain
initial design estimates and to corroborate test results. Isotherm tests can
also be used to compare different carbons and to investigate the effects of
pH and temperature on carbon performance. If the use of regenerated carbon
is planned, tests should be performed with regenerated carbon to obtain a
more realistic estimate of the average adsorptive capacity that can be
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.455
4-224
10/27/94
-------
4.55 VAPOR-PHASE CARBON ADSORPTION
expected during operation. Regenerated carbon costs less but tends to have
a lower adsorptive capacity than virgin carbon.
Cost: Equipment costs range from less than $1,000 for a 100-scfm unit to $40,000
for a 7,000-scfm unit. Carbon cost is $2 to $3 per pound.
References: EPA, 1991. Granular Activated Carbon Treatment, Engineering Bulletin,
EPA, OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/024.
Hinshaw, G.D., C.B. Fanska, D.E. Fiscus, and S.A. Sorensen, Midwest
Research Institute, Undated. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) System
Performance Capabilities and Optimization, Final Report, USAEC, APG,
MD, MRI Project No. 81812-S, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR87 111.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA179828.
MK0IVRPT-.Cr228L012.009Vcompgde.455
4-225
10/27/94
-------
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Points of Contact;
Contact
Government Agency
Phone
Location
Beth Fleming
USAE-WES
(601) 634-3943
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-
6199
Ron Turner
EPA RREL
(513) 569-7775
26 West M.L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology
Demonstration and
Transfer Branch
USAEC
(410) 671-2054
Fax: (410) 612-6836
SFIM-AEC-ETD
APG, MD 21010-5401
David Biancosino
Program Manager
DOE
(301) 903-7961
EM-551, Trevion II
Washington, DC 20585
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.455
4-226
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
Section 5
REFERENCES
-------
Section 5
REFERENCES
This reference section has been divided into three subsections:
• 5.1 Document Sources
• 5.2 Listing by Topic
5.2.1 International Surveys and Conferences
5.2.2 Technology Survey Reports
5.2.3 Treatability Studies (General)
5.2.4 Groundwater
5.2.5 Thermal Processes
5.2.6 Biological
5.2.7 Physical/Chemical
5.2.8 Community Relations
• 5.3 Listing by Author
Subsection 5.1 contains points of contact and agencies for obtaining the documents presented in this
section. Subsection 5.2 lists the documents presented in the Federal Publications on Alternative
and, Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation, FRTR, 1993.
These documents address innovative technologies and are sorted by topic and by publishing agency.
Subsection 5.3 presents a complete listing of all published references exceipted from each source
document to this guide. This subsection has been sorted by author and date of publication.
¦ 5.1 DOCUMENT SOURCES
EPA documents and reports listed in this bibliography may be obtained from the following sources:
EPA scientific and technical reports:
Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI)
CERI
26 West M.L. King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7562
FAX (513) 569-7566
EPA/530 Document Numbers:
RCRA Docket and Information Center
EPA Document Numbers (except EPA/530):
National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (NCEPI)
EPA
Attn: RCRA Information Center
401 M Street, SW, WH-562
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9327
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road
Cincinnati, OH 45242
FAX Orders: (513) 891-6685
MK01\RPT:022810l2.009Ncompgde.s5
5-1
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
OSWER Directives:
Superfund Document Center
EPA/Document Center
401 M Street SW, OS-245
Washington, DC 20460
Attn. Superfund Directives
(202) 260-9760
Publications from
EPA/Ada Laboratory:
EPA/RSKERL
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
(405) 436-8651
Kay Cooper
NTIS Document Numbers:
(Non-EPA personnel must order EPA documents with NTIS numbers from NTIS.)
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
To order reports: (703) 487-4650
For general information: (703) 487-4600
Order U.S. Air Force materials not available from NTIS from:
Order U.S. Army documents from NTIS (see above) or DTIC:
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA 22304-6145
User Services: (703) 274-3848
Documents with CETHA or AMXTH numbers, not available through NTIS or
DTIC, may be requested from:
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ETD
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5401
(410) 671-2054
U.S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
AFCEE/CC
Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-5000
(210) 536-1110
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-2
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY DOCUMENT
Documents with WES numbers, not available from NTIS, may be requested from:
Environmental Engineering Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
(601) 643-2856
Order U.S. Department of Energy documents with OSTI Numbers from:
OSTI
U.S. DOE
Oak Ridge, TN 37801
U.S. Department of the Interior documents may be ordered from the Library of the Salt Lake City
Research Center:
Library
Salt Lake City Research Center
U.S. Department of Interior
729 Arapeen Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
(801) 524-6112
Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center (formerly NCEL and/or NEESA) documents that are
not available through NTIS may be requested from the laboratory directly:
Division Director
Code 411
560 Center Drive
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4328
MK01\RPT:02281012 009Vompgde.s5
5-3
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009*ompgde.s5
5-4
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
¦ 5.2 LISTING BY TOPIC
This bibliography addresses technologies that provide for the treatment of hazardous wastes;
therefore, it does not contain information or references for containment or other nontreatment
strategies, such as landfilling and capping. This bibliography emphasizes innovative technologies
for which detailed cost and performance data are not readily available. Information on more
conventional treatment technologies, such as incineration and solidification, is not included.
In addition to improving access to information on innovative technologies, the FRTR hopes this
bibliography will assist in the coordination of ongoing research initiatives and increase the
development and implementation of these innovative technologies for corrective action and site
remediation. This bibliography is intended as a starting point in pursuit of information on
innovative alternative hazardous waste treatment technologies and should not be considered all-
inclusive.
¦ 5.2.1 International Surveys and Conferences
EPA
Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications: Technology Review and Trip
Report Results.
EPA/540/2-88/003
Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications: Technology Identification
and Selection.
EPA/600/2-89/017
Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies, Domestic and International,
(Abstract Proceedings).
(First Forum, Atlanta, GA), EPA/540/2-89/055; NTIS: PB90-268509
(Second Forum, Philadelphia, PA), EPA/540/2-90/009; NTIS: PB91-145649
(Third Forum, Dallas, TX), EPA/540/2-91/016; NTIS: PB92-233881
(Fourth Forum, San Francisco, CA), EPA/540/R-92/081
NATO/CCMS Project — International Evaluation of In Situ Biorestoradon of Contaminated Soil
and Groundwater.
EPA/540/2-90/012
NATOICCMS Project — Demonstration of Remedial Action Technologies for Contaminated Land
and Ground Water.
Proceedings are maintained in the Hazardous Waste Collection, EPA Headquarters Library,
Washington, DC
Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil Venting.
EPA/600/R-92/174; NTIS: PB93-122323
MK01NRPT:022S1012.009Ncompgde.s5
5-5
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Remedial Action, Treatment, and Disposal of Hazardous Waste: Proceedings of the 18th Annual
RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium.
EPA/600/R-92/028; NTIS: PB92-166859
Residual Radioactivity and Recycling Criteria: Workshop Proceedings.
EPA 520/1-90/013; NTIS: PB91-179119
Second International Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management:
Proceedings of a Conference Held in Pittsburgh, PA, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
EPA/600/9-87/018F
Third International Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management: Proceedings
of a Conference Held in Pittsburgh, PA, Sept. 10-13,1989.
EPA/600/9-89/072
DOE
Bioremediation of Mercury-Contaminated Sites: Foreign Trip Report, Sept. 9-17, 1989.
Turner, R.R. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE, TN. Sept. 1989.
ORNL/FTR-3393; NTIS or OSTI: DE90001248
¦ 5.2.2 Technology Survey Reports
EPA
A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment of Hazardous Waste.
EPA/625/8-87/014
Approaches for Remediation of Uncontrolled Wood Preserving Sites.
EPA/625/7-90/011
Assessing Detoxification and Degradation of Wood Preserving and Petroleum Wastes in
Contaminated Soil. April, W., R. Sims, and J. Sims. Waste Management & Research.
8(1): 45-65. Feb. 90.
EPA/600/J-90/009; NTIS: PB90-243275
Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications — Technology Identification
and Selection.
EPA/600/S2-89/017
Assessment of Technologies for the Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Superfund Sites.
EPA/540/2-90/001; NTIS: PB90-204140
Behavior of Metals in Soils.
EPA/540/S-92/018; NTIS: PB93-131480
Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends.
EPA/542-R-92/012; NTIS: PB93-140762
MK01NRPT :02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-6
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Compendium of Costs of Remedial Technologies at Hazardous Waste Sites.
EPA/600/S2-87/087
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Metals-Contaminated Sites. (To be published by EPA).
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Pesticide-Contaminated Sites (To be published by EPA).
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Solvent-Contaminated Sites (To be published by EPA).
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Wood Preserving Sites.
EPA/600/R-92/182; NTIS: PB92-232222
Engineering Bulletin: Control of Air Emissions from Materials Handling During Remediation.
EPA/540/2-91/023
EPA Workshop on Radioactively Contaminated Sites.
EPA/520/1-90/009; NTIS: PB90-227950/AS
General Methods for Remedial Operation Performance Evaluation.
EPA/600/R-92/002
Guidance on Remedial Action for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination.
EPA/540/G-90/007; NTIS: PB91-921206
Guide to Treatment Technologies for Hazardous Wastes at Superfund Sites. Office of
Environmental Engineering and Technology, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Mar. 1989.
EPA/540/2-89/052; NTIS: PB 89-190821/XAB
Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste-Contaminated Soils.
EPA/540/2-90/002; NTIS: PB90-155607
Handbook: Stabilization Technologies for RCRA Corrective Action.
EPA/625/6-91/-2C; NTIS: PB92-114495
Innovative Operational Treatment Technologies for Applications to Superfund Sites.
EPA/540/2-90/006; NTIS: PB90-202656
EPA/540/2-90/004 (Nine Case Studies)
Innovative Processes for Reclamation of Contaminated Subsurface Environments. Canter, L.W.,
L.E. Streebin, M.C. Arquiaga, F.E. Carranza, and B.H. Wilson.
EPA/600/2-90/017 (Project Summary); NTIS: PB 90-199514
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Overview and Guide to Information Sources, October 1991.
EPA/540/9-91/002; NTIS: PB92-179001
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report. Number 4, October 1992.
EPA/542/R-92/011
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-7
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
In Situ Restoration Techniques for Aquifers Contaminated with Hazardous Wastes. Lee, M.D., J.T.
Wilson, and C.H. Ward. Journal of Hazardous Materials. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 14: 71-82. 1987.
EPA/600/J-87/032; NTIS: PB87-198396
Literature Survey of Innovative Technologies for Hazardous Waste Site Remediation: 1987-1991
July. 1992.
EPA/542/B-92/004
Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes.
EPA/540/2-86/003f
On-Site Treatment of Creosote and Pentachlorophenol Sludges in Contaminated Soil.
EPA/600/2-91/019; NTIS: PB91-223370
PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl) Sediment Decontamination, Technical/Economic Assessment of
Selected Alternative Treatments: Final Report, Jun. 1985-Feb. 1986. Carpenter, B.H. Hazardous
Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Dec. 1986.
EPA/600/2-86/112
Procuring Innovative Technologies at Remedial Sites: Q's and A's and Case Studies. (Fact Sheet).
EPA/542/F-92/012
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments.
EPA/625/6-91/028
Remediation of Sites Contaminated with TCE.
EPA/600/J-91/030; NTIS: PB91-182311
Report on Decontamination of PCB-Bearing Sediments. Wilson, D.L. Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Oct. 1987.
EPA/600/2-87/093
Review of In-Place Treatment Techniques for Contaminated Surface Soils. Volume I. Technical
Evaluation.
EPA/540/2-84/003a
Selection of Control Technologies for Remediation of Lead Battery Recycling Sites.
EPA/540/2-91/014; NTIS: PB92-114537
Seminar Publication — Corrective Actions: Technologies and Applications.
EPA/625/4-89/020
Subsurface Contamination Reference Guide.
EPA/540/2-90/011; NTIS: PB91-921292
Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil: Final Report.
EPA/540/2-90/002
MK.01NRPT.-022S1012.009Ncompgde.s5
5-8
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Superfund Engineering Issue—Treatment of Lead Contaminated Soils.
EPA/540/2-91/009; NTIS: PB91-921291
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program — Brochure.
EPA/540/8-89/010
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program — SITE Program Fact Sheet.
OSWER Directive 9330.1-03FS
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles.
EPA/540/R-92/077 (Fifth Edition, Nov. 1992); NTIS: PB92-224294
Superfund Treatability Clearinghouse Abstracts.
EPA/540/2-89/001; NTIS: PB90-119751
Survey of Materials-Handling Technologies Used at Hazardous Waste Sites.
EPA/540/2-91/010; NTIS: PB91-921283
Technical Resource Document: Treatment Technologies for Halogenated Organic Containing
Wastes. Volume I.
EPA/600/2-87/098
Technological Approaches to the Cleanup of Radiologically Contaminated Superfund Sites.
EPA/540/2-88/002; NTIS: PB89-122121
TCE Removal from Contaminated Soil and Ground Water.
EPA/540/S-92/002; NTIS: PB92-224104
Technologies and Options for UST Corrective Actions: Overview of Current Practice.
EPA/542/R-92/010
Technologies for In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Wastes. Sanning, D.E. and R.F. Lewis.
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Jan. 1987.
EPA/600/D-87/014; NTIS: PB87-146007/XAB
Technologies of Delivery or Recovery for the Remediation of Hazardous Waste Sites.
EPA/600/S2-89/066 (Project Summary); NTIS: PB90-156225
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of Soils and Sludges.
NTIS: PB 89-132674
Treatment of Lead-Contaminated Soils.
EPA/540/2-91/009
Treatment Potential for 56 EPA Listed Hazardous Chemicals in Soil. Sims, R.C., W.J. Doucette,
J.E. McLean, W.J. Greeney, and R.R. Dupont. Feb. 1988.
EPA/600/6-88/001; NTIS: PB89-174446
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-9
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Treatment Technology Background Document. Berlow, J.R. and J. Vorbach. Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Jun. 1989.
EPA/530/SW-89/048A; NTIS: PB89-221410/XAB
Workshop on Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated Sediments, June 13-14,1990,
Summary Report.
EPA/600/S2-90/054
DOE
Demonstrations of Technology for Remediation and Closure of Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Waste Disposal Sites. Spalding, B.P., G.K. Jacobs, and E.C. Davis. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, DOE, TN. Sept. 1989.
NTIS: ORNL/TM-11286; or OSTI: DE90001854
Treatability of Hazardous Chemicals in Soils: Volatile and Semivolatile Organics. Walton, B.T.,
M.S. Hendricks, T.A. Anderson, and S.S. Talmage. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE, TN.
Jul. 1989.
NTIS: ORNL-645I; or OSTI: DE89016892 (Also available from EPA, Ada, OK)
U.S. Air Force
Remedial Technology Design, Performance, and Cost Study. U.S. Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence, Brooks AFB, Texas. July 1992.
U.S. Army
Clean Up of Heavy Metals in Soils Technology Assessment: Draft. Bricka, R.M. and C.W.
Williford. U.S. Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1992.
No published document number.
Guidelines for Selecting Control and Treatment Options for Contaminated Dredged Material
Requiring Restrictions: Final Report. Cullinane, M.J., et a\. U.S. Army Coips of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station. Sept. 1986.
No published document number.
Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies. 1990 Edition. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Aug. 1990.
CETHA-TS-CR-90067
Proceedings from the 15th Annual Army Environmental R&D Symposium. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Jun. 1991.
CETHA-TS-CR-91076
Review of Removal, Containment and Treatment Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated
Sediment in the Great Lakes. Averett, D.E., B.D. Perry, and E.J. Torrey. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1990.
WES: MP-90-25
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-10
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
¦ 5.2.3 Treatability Studies (General)
EPA
Conducting Treatability Studies Under RCRA.
OSWER Directive 9380.3-09 (Fact Sheet); NTIS: PB92-963501
Groundwater and Leachate Treatability Studies at Four Superfund Sites.
EPA/600/2-86/029
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation Remedy
Screening.
EPA/540/2-91/013 A&B; NTIS: PB92-109065 and PB92-109073
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Chemical Dehalogenation.
EPA/540/R-92/013 A&B; NTIS: PB92-169044 and PB92-169275
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction.
EPA/540/2-91/019 A&B
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing.
EPA/540/2-91/1020 A&B; NTIS: PB92-170570 and PB92-170588
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Solvent Extraction.
EPA/540/R-92/016 A; NTIS: PB92-239581
Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA, Update.
EPA/540/R-92/017A
Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors, Volume I.
EPA/540/2-90/003a; NTIS: PB91-228395
Results of Treatment Evaluations of Contaminated Soils. Esposito, P., J. Hessling, B.B. Locke, M.
Taylor, and M. Szabo. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati,
OH. Aug. 1988.
EPA/600/D-88/181
Treatability of Hazardous Chemicals in Soils: Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organics.
NTIS: DE89-016892
Treatability Potential For EPA Listed Hazardous Wastes in Soil. Loehr, R.C.
EPA/600/2-89/011 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB 89-166581
Treatability Potential for 56 EPA Listed Hazardous Chemicals in Soil.
EPA/600/6-88/001 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB 89-174446
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview, 12/89.
OSWER Directive 9380.3-02FS (Fact Sheet); NTIS: PB90-273970
MK01NRPT.012810n.009vcompgde.s5
5-11
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
U.S. Army
Treatability of Ninth Avenue Superfund Site Groundwater. Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, and N.R.
Francingues. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1991.
WES: EL-91-8
¦ 5.2.4 Groundwater
EPA
Biorestoration of Aquifers Contaminated with Organic Compounds.
EPA/600/J-88/-78; NTIS: PB89-103527
Chemical Enhancements to Pump-and-Treat Remediation.
EPA/540/S-92/001 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB92-180074
Containment Transport in Fractured Media: Models for Decision Makers (Issue Paper).
EPA/540/4-89/004 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB92-268517
Considerations in Groundwater Remediation at Superfund Sites and RCRA Facilities—Update.
OSWER Directive 9283.1-06; NTIS: PB92-9633S8
Critical Evaluation of Treatment Technologies with Particular Reference to Pump-and-Treat
Systems.
EPA/600/A-92/224; NTIS: PB93-119857
Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids — A Workshop Summary.
EPA/600/R-92/030 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB92-178938
Emerging Technology Report — Biorecovery Systems Removal and Recovery of Metal Ions from
Ground Water.
EPA/540/5-90/005a (Evaluation Report); NTIS: PB90-252594
EPA/540/5-90/005b (Data and Supporting Information); NTIS: PB90-252602
Estimating Potential for Occurrence of DNAPL at Superfund Sites.
EPA Publication 9355.4-07FS (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB92-963338
Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies.
NTIS: PB90-18358 (Vol. 1, Summary Report)
PB90-274440 (Vol. 2, Case Studies [Interim Final])
PB90-274457 (Vol. 3, General Site Data, Data Base Reports [Interim Final])
Facilitated Transport (Issue Paper).
EPA/540/4-89/003 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB91-133256
Fundamentals of Ground Water Modeling.
EPA/540/S-92/005; NTIS: PB92-232354
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-12
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Ground Water Issue: Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids.
EPA/540/4-91/020A (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB91-195974
Ground Water Issue — Evaluation of Soil Venting Application.
EPA/540/S-92/004; NTIS: PB92-235605
Ground Water Issue — Reductive Dehalogenation of Organic Contaminants in Soils and Ground
Water.
EPA/540/4-90/054 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB91-191056
Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites.
EPA/540/G-88/003; NTIS: PB89-184618
In Situ Aquifer Restoration of Chlorinated Aliphatics by Methanotrophic Bacteria.
EPA/600/2-89/033; NTIS: PB219992
In Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Ground Water.
EPA/540/S-92/003; NTIS: PB92-224336
In Situ Treatments of Contaminated Ground Water: An Inventory of Research and Field
Demonstrations and Strategies for Improving Ground Water Remediation Technologies.
EPA/500/K-93/001
Opportunities for Bioreclamation of Aquifers Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
EPA/600/J-87/133; NTIS: PB88-148150
Performance Evaluations of Pump-and-Treat Remediations. (Issue Paper).
EPA/540/4-89/005 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK); NTIS: PB92-114461
Pump-and-Treat Ground Water Remediation Technology.
EPA/540/2-90/018; NTIS: PB91-921356
TCE Removal from Contaminated Soil and Ground Water.
EPA/540/S-92/002; NTIS: PB92-224I04
¦ 5.2.5 Thermal Processes
EPA
Applications Analysis Report — Babcock & Wilcox Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technology.
EPA/540/AR-92/017
Applications Analysis Report — Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., Flame Reactor
Technology.
EPA/540/A5-91/005
Applications Analysis Report — Retech, Inc., Plasma Centrifugal Furnace.
EPA/540/A5-91/007
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-13
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Demonstration Bulletin — AOSTRA-SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Wide Beach
Development Site.
EPA/540/MR-92/008
Demonstration Bulletin — Roy F. Weston, Inc.: Low Temperature Thermal Treatment System.
EPA/540/MR-92/019
Demonstration Bulletin — SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Outboard Marine Corporation
Site.
EPA/540/MR-92/078
Engineering Bulletin — Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment.
EPA/540/2-90/014
Engineering Bulletin — Pyrolysis Treatment.
EPA/540/S-92/010
Engineering Bulletin — Thermal Desorption Treatment.
EPA/540/2-91/008
Handbook— Vitrification Technology for the Treatment of Hazardous and Radioactive Waste.
EPA/540/R-92/012
Innovative Technology: In Situ Vitrification.
OSWER Directive 9200.5-251-FS (Fact Sheet)
Radio Frequency Enhanced Decontamination of Soils Contaminated with Halogenated
Hydrocarbons.
EPA/600/S2-89/008
DOE
Evaluation of the Molten Salt Oxidation Process Technology.
DOE/ID/12584-97, GJPO-105
U.S. Army
Bench-Scale Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) from Various Soil Types: Technical Report. Johnson, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks.
U.S. Army Environmental Center. Nov. 1987.
AMXTH-TE-CR-87124
Demonstration of Thermal Stripping ofJP-4 and other VOCs from Soils at Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma City, OK: Final Report. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 1990.
CETHA-TS-CR-90026
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-14
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Economic Evaluation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Soil: Technical Report. Marks, PJ. and J.W. Noland. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Aug.
1986.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86085
Final Report: Design Support for a Hot Gas Decontamination System for Explosives-Contaminated
Buildings. Maumee Research and Engineering. U.S. Army Environmental Center.
CETHA-TS-CR-91064
Final Technical Report: Pilot Test of Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated
Equipment at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant (HWAAP), Hawthorne, NV. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. July 1990.
No published document number.
Pilot Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil
(2 vols.). U.S. Army Environmental Center. Task 11. June 1986.
AMXTH-TE-TR-86074
¦ 5.2.6 Biological
EPA
A Bioventing Approach To Remediate A Gasoline Contaminated Surface.
EPA/600/A-92/220; NTIS: PB93-119816
Action of a Fluoranthene-Utilizing Bacterial Community of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Components of Creosote.
EPA/600/J -89/425
Adaptation to and Biodegradation of Xenobiotic Compounds by Microbial Communities from a
Pristine Aquifer. Aelion, C.M., C.M. Swindoll, and F.K. Pfaender. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
53(9): 2212-2217. Sept. 1987.
EPA/600/J-87/208; NTIS: PB 88-170584
Aerobic Biodegradation of Natural and Xenobiotic Organic Compounds by Subsurface Microbial
Communities. Swindoll, C.M., C.M. Aelion, D.C. Dobbins, et a\. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. 7(4): 291-299. Apr. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/067; NTIS: PB 89-103204
Alaskan Oil Spill Bioremediation Project.
EPA/600/8-89/073
Anaerobic Biotransformations of Pollutant Chemicals in Aquifers. Suflita, J.M., S.A. Gibson, and
R.E. Beeman. Journal of Industrial Microbiology. 3(3): 179-194. May 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/142; NTIS: PB 89-119341
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-15
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Anaerobic Degradation of Nitrogen Substituted and Sulfonated Benzene Aquifer Contaminants.
Suflita, J.M. Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials. 6(2): 121-133. Spring 1989.
EPA/600/J-89/190; NTIS: PB 90-140708
Anaerobic Degradation of o-, m- and p-Cresol by Sulfate-Reducing Bacterial Enrichment Cultures
Obtained from a Shallow Anoxic Aquifer. Suflita, J.M., L. Liang, and A. Saxena. Journal of
Industrial Microbiology. 4(4): 255-266. Jul. 1989.
EPA/600/J-89/187; NTIS: PB 90-140674
Applications Analysis Report — Biotrol: Biotreatment of Groundwater.
EP A/540/A5-91/001
Approach to Bioremediation of Contaminated Soil.
EPA/600/ J-90/203
Assessing Detoxification and Degradation of Wood Preserving and Petroleum Wastes in
Contaminated Soil.
EPA/600/J-90/099
Athias — An Information System for Abiotic Transformations of Halogenated Hydrocarbons in
Aqueous Solution. Ellenrider, W. and M. Reihhard. Chemosphere. 17(2): 331-344. Feb. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/026; NTIS: PB 88-224357
Biological Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, with Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes.
EPA/600/S9-91/001
Biological Treatment of Leachate from a Superfund Site.
EPA/600/J-89/001
The Biodegradation ofCresol Isomers in Anoxic Aquifers. Smolensk!, W.J. and J.M. Suflita. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 53(4): 710-716. Apr. 1987.
EPA/600/J-87/131; NTIS: PB 88-149125
Bioremediation Case Studies: Abstracts.
EPA/600/9-92/044; NTIS: PB92-232347
Bioremediation Case Studies: An Analysis of Vendor Supplied Data.
EPA/600/R-92/043; NTIS: PB92-232339
Bioremediation Field Initiative Fact Sheets.
EPA/540/F-92/012
Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils. Sims, J.L., R.C. Sims, and J.E. Matthews. Robert
S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Ada, OK. Aug. 1989.
EPA-600/9-89/073; NTIS: PB 90-164047/XAB
Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste.
EPA/600/9-90/041
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-16
10/27/94
-------
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Bioremediated Soil Venting of Light Hydrocarbons.
EPA/600/J-90/397; NTIS: PB91-171538/XAB
Biorestoration of Aquifers Contaminated with Organic Compounds. Lee, M.D., J.M. Thomas, R.C.
Borden, P.B. Bedient, C.H. Ward, and J.T. Wilson. CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental
Control. 18(1): 29-89. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/078; NTIS: PB 89-103527
Biotransformation of Priority Pollutants Using Biofilms and Vascular Plants. Wolvedon, B.C. and
R.CJ. McCales. Mississippi Academy of Sciences. Vol. XXXI. pp. 79-89. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/310; NTIS: PB 87-176764
Biotransformation of Selected Alkylbenzenes and Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in
Methanogenic Aquifer Material: A Microcosm Study. Smith, B.H., G.B. Smith, and J.S. Rees.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 20(10): 997-1002. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/227; NTIS: PB 87-170791
Demonstration Bulletin — Aqueous Biological Treatment System (Fixed Film Biodegradation).
EPA/540/M5-91/001
Demonstration Bulletin — International Technology Corporation: Slurry Biodegradation.
EPA/540/M5-91/009
Determination and Enhancement of Anaerobic Dehalogenation: Degradation of Chlorinated
Organics in Aqueous Systems.
EPA/600/2-88/054
Determination of Optimal Toxicant Loading for Biological Closure of a Hazardous Waste Site.
EPA/600/D-89/163
Engineering Bulletin — Slurry Biodegradation.
EPA/540/2-90/016; NTIS: PB91-228049
Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of Oxygen.
Huling, S. and B. Bledsoe.
EPA/600/2-90/006; NTIS: PB90-183435
Extrapolation of Biodegradation Results to Groundwater Aquifers: Reductive Dehalogenation of
Aromatic Compounds. Gibson, S.A. and J.M. Suflita. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 52(4): 681-688.
Oct. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/379; NTIS: PB87-212429/AS
Field Evaluation of Bioremediation of a Fuel Spill Using Hydrogen Peroxide.
NTIS: PB88-130257
Field Evaluation of In Situ Biodegradation for Aquifer Restoration. Semprini, L., P. Roberts,
G. Hopkins, D. Mackay. Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Nov. 1987.
EPA/600/2-87/096; NTIS: PB88-130257
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-17
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Innovative Technology: Slurry-Phase Biodegradation.
OSWER Directive 9200.5-252-FS (Fact Sheet)
In Situ Aquifer Restoration of Chlorinated Aliphatics by Methanotrophic Bacteria. Roberts, P.,
L. Semprini, G. Hopkins, et a\. Jul. 1989.
EPA/600/2-89/033; NTIS: PB 89-21992/AS
In Situ Bioremediation of Ground Water.
EPA/540/S-92/003; NTIS: PB92-224336
In Situ Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage Tanks: New Approaches for Site
Characterization, Project Design, and Evaluation of Performance. Wilson, J.T. and L.E. Leach.
EPA/600/2-89/042; NTIS: PB 89-219976 (Available from EPA, Ada, OK)
In Situ Biorestoration as a Ground Water Remediation Technique. Wilson, J.T., L.E. Leach,
M.J. Henson, and J.N. Jones. Ground Water Monitoring Review, pp. 56-64. Fall 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/305; NTIS: PB 87-177101
In-Situ Biotransformation of Carbon Tetrachloride under Anoxic Conditions.
EPA/600/S2-90/060
Interactive Simulation of the Fate of Hazardous Chemicals During Land Treatment of Oily Wastes:
Ritz User's Guide.
NTIS: PB-88-195540
Laboratory Studies Evaluating the Enhanced Biodegradation of Weathered Crude Oil Components
Through the Application of Nutrients.
EPA/600/D-90/139
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Remediation with Emphasis on In Situ Biorestoration.
Thomas, J.M., M.D. Lee, P.B. Bedient, et al. Jan. 1987.
EPA/600/2-87/008; NTIS: PB 87-168084
Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project. Volume 2. Percolate
Investigation in the Root Zone.
EPA/600/2-86/027b
Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project. Volume 5. Executive
Summary.
EPA/600/2-86/027e
Microbial Decomposition of Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds.
EPA/600/2-86/090
Microbial Degradation of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Sulfur Heterocyclic Compounds Under Anaerobic
Conditions: Studies with Aquifer Samples. Kuhn, E.P. and J.M. Suflita. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. 8(12): 1149-1158. Dec. 1989.
EPA/600/J-89/353; NTIS: PB 90-216276
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-18
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Microbial Removal of Halogenated Methanes, Ethanes, and Ethylenes in an Aerobic Soil Exposed
to Methane. Henson, J.M., M.V. Yates, J.W. Cochran, and D.L. Shackleford. FEMS Microbiology
Ecology. 53(3-4): 193-201. May-Jun. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/066; NTIS: PB 90-103196
Mobility and Degradation of Residues at Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Sites at Closure.
EPA/600/2-90/018; NTIS: PB90-212564/A5
Nitrate for Biorestoration of an Aquifer Contaminated with Jet Fuel.
EPA/600/S2-91/009
Opportunities for Bioreclamation of Aquifers Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Wilson,
J.T. and C.S. Ward. Developments in Industrial Microbiology (Journal of Industrial Microbiology
Suppl. I). Elsevier, Amsterdam, Biomedical Division. 27: 109-116. 1987.
EPA/600/J-87/133; NTIS: PB 88-148150
Promising Technologies for the Biological Detoxification of Hazardous Waste.
EPA/600/D-88/040
Reductive Dehalogenation of a Nitrogen Heterocyclic Herbicide in Anoxic Aquifer Slurries. Adrian,
N.R. and J.M. Suflita. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56(1): 292-294. Jan. 1990.
EPA/600/J-90/098; NTIS: PB 90-245267
Removal of Volatile Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in a Soil Bioreactor.
NTIS: PB88-170568
Removal of Volatile Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in a Soil Bioreactor. Kampbell, D., J. Wilson, H.
Read, and T. Stocksdale. Journal of Air Pollution Control and Hazardous Waste Management.
37(10): 1236-1240. Oct. 1987.
EPA/600/J-87/261; NTIS: PB 88-180393
Role of Microorganisms in the Bioremediation of the Oil Spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska.
EPA/600/D-90/119
Sequential Reductive Dehalogenation of Chloroanilines by Microorganisms from a Methanogenic
Aquifer. Kuhn, E.P. and J.M. Suflita. Environmental Science Technology. 23(7): 848-852. Jul.
1989.
EPA/600/J-89/103; NTIS: PB 90-117219/AS
Structural Properties of Organic Chemicals as Predictors of Biodegradation and Microbial Toxicity
in Soil. Walton, B.T. and T.A. Anderson. Chemosphere. 17(8): 1501-1507. Aug. 1989.
EPA/600/J-88/413; NTIS: PB 90-117078/AS
Transformation of Halo genated Aliphatic Compounds.
NTIS: PB88-249859
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-19
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Transport of Dissolved Hydrocarbons Influenced by Oxygen-Limited Biode gradation. I. Theoretical
Development. Borden, R.C. and P.B. Bedient. Water Resources Research. 22(13): 1973-1982.
Dec. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/333; NTIS: PB 87-179727
Transport of Dissolved Hydrocarbons Influenced by Oxygen-Limited Biodegradation. II. Field
Application. Borden, R.C., P.B. Bedient, M.D. Lee, C.H. Ward, and J.T. Wilson. Water Resources
Research. 22(13): 1983-1990. Dec. 1986.
EPA/600/J-86/333; NTIS: PB 87-179735
DOE
Biodenitrification of Hanford Groundwater and Process Effluents: FY 1988 Status Report.
Koegler, S.S., T.M. Brouns, W.O. Heath, and R.J. Hicks. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE,
Richland, WA. Sept. 1989.
PNL-6917; NTIS or OSTI: DE90000993
Bioremediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil at the T-12 Plant. Donaldson, T.L., G.W. Strandberg,
G.P. McGinnis, A.V. Palumbo, D.C. White, D.L. Hill, T.J. Phelps, C.T. Hadden, N.W. Revis, and
G. Holdsworth. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE, TN. Sept. 1988.
ORNL/TM-10750; NTIS or OSTI: DE89001335
Development of a Biological Process for Destruction of Nitrates and Carbon Tetrachloride in
Hanford Groundwater. Koegler, S.S., T.M. Brouns, and R. Hicks. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
DOE, Richland, WA. Oct. 1989.
PNL-SA-16928; NTIS or OSTI: DE90004675
Development of a Biological Treatment System for Hanford Groundwater Remediation: FY 1989
Status Report. Brouns, T.M., S.S. Koegler, W.O. Heath, J.K. Fredrickson, (Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, WA); H.D. Stensel, (Washington University, Seattle, WA); Johnstone, D.L.,
(Washington State University, Pullman, WA); and T.L. Donaldson, (Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, TN). Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA. Apr. 1990.
PNL-7290; NTIS or OSTI: DE90010365
Test Plan for In Situ Bioremediation Demonstration of the Savannah River Integrated
Demonstration Project DOE/OTD TTP No.: SR0566-01 (U).
WSRC-RD-91-23
DOI
A Biohydrometallurgical Technique for Selenium Removal from Wastewater. Larsen, D.M., K.R.
Gardner, and P.B. Altringer. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association 23rd
Annual Conference and Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987.
AWRA Technical Publication TPS-87-4
Advances in Biological Cyanide Detoxification. Altringer, P.B., R.H.Lien, and B.E. Dinsdale.
Proceedings from the Randol Gold forum, Vancouver '92.
No published document number.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde s5
5-20
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Arsenic Removal from Mining Wastewaters Using Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in a Two-Stage
Bioreactor. Belin, D.D., B.E. Dinsdale, and P.B. Altringer. To be presented at International
Biohydrometallurgy Symposium. August 1993.
No published document number.
Bacterial Destruction of Cyanide. Altringer, P.B. and R.H. Lien. A Report from the Conference
on "Successful Mine Reclamation: What Works."
No published document number.
Bacterial Leaching of Metals from Various Matrices Found in Sediments, Removing Inorganics from
Sediment-Associated Waters Using Bioaccumulation and!or BIO-FIX Beads. Altringer, P.B.
Presented at EPA-ARCS Workshop, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, 1990.
No published document number. See Biological Remediation of Contaminated Sediments with
Special Emphasis on the Great Lakes (EPA/600/9-91/001)
BIO-FIX Water Treatment Technology. Jeffers, T.H., C.R. Ferguson, and P.G. Bennett. Published
in the Randol Gold Forum Cairns '91 Proceedings. April 1991.
No published document number.
Biological Arsenic Removal from Mining and Mill Waters by Anaerobic Sulfate Reducing Bacteria.
Dinsdale, B.E., D.D. Belin, and P.B. Altringer. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Environmental Issues and Management of Waste in Energy and Mineral Production, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, September 2-4, 1992.
No published document number.
Biological and Chemical Cyanide Destruction from Heap Leachates and Residues. Lien, R.H., B.E.
Dinsdale, and P.B. Altringer. Environmental Management for the 1990's. 1991.
No published document number.
Biological and Chemical Cyanide Destruction from Precious Metals Solutions. Lien, R.H., B.E.
Dinsdale, and P.B. Altringer. Presented at AIME-SME GOLDTech 4, Reno, NV. Sept. 1990.
No published document number.
Biological and Chemical Selenium Removal from Precious Metals Solutions. Altringer, P.B., R.H.
Lien, and K.R. Gardner. Environmental Management for the 1990's. 1991.
No published document number.
Biological Treatment of Acid Mine Waters — Case Studies. Bennett, P.G., C.R. Ferguson, and T.H.
Jeffers. Published in Proceedings, Second International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic
Drainage. Sept. 1991.
No published document number.
Biologically Assisted Control of Selenium in Process Waste Waters. Larsen, D.M., K.R. Gardner,
and P.B. Altringer. Presented at the 118th Annual AIME Meeting, February 1989.
No published document number.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-21
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Bioreduction of Selenate and Selenite and Potential Industrial Applications. D.J. Adams, P.B.
Altringer, and W.D. Gould. Presented at the Engineering Foundation Innovative Separation
Technologies Meeting, Palm Coast, Florida, March 1993.
No published document number.
Bioremediation for Removal of Inorganics from Contaminated Sediment. D.J. Adams and P.B.
Altringer. Presented at the Assessment and Treatment of Contaminated Sediments in the North
Branch of the Chicago River Conference, October 19-20, 1992.
No published document number.
Biosorption of Metal Contaminants from Acidic Mine Waters. Jeffers, T.H., C.R. Ferguson, and
P.G. Bennett. Published by the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society. 1991.
No published document number.
Biosorption of Metal Contaminants from Acidic Mine Waters. Corwin, R.R. and T.H. Jeffers.
Published in Conference Proceedings: Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs, 13th
Annual Conference by Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Oct. 1991.
No published document number.
Biosorption of Metal Contaminants Using Immobilized Biomass. Jeffers, T.H., C.R. Ferguson, and
D.C. Seidel. Published in Biohydrometallurgy — Proceedings of the International Symposium,
Jackson Hole, WY, August 13-18, 1989. 1989.
No published document number.
Biosorption of Metal Contaminants Using Immobilized Biomass — A Laboratory Study. Jeffers,
T.H., C.R. Ferguson, and P. G. Bennett. 1990.
No published document number.
Case Study: Bacterial Cyanide Detoxification During Closure of the Green Springs Gold Heap
Leach Operation. Lien, R.H. and P.B. Altringer. To be presented at the International
Biohydrometallurgy Symposium, August 1993.
No published document number.
Chemical and Biological Cyanide Destruction and Selenium Removal from Precious Metals Tailings
Pond Water. Lien, R.H, B.E. Dinsdale, K.R. Gardner, and P.B. Altringer. Published in Gold 90.
Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. 1990.
No published document number.
Determining Mechanisms of Anoxic Bacterial Selenium Removal. Altringer, P.B., R.H. Lien, and
K.R. Gardner. Published in Selenium in the Environment. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1993.
No published document number.
Mathematically Modeling the Removal of Heavy Metals from a Wastewater Using Immobilized
Biomass. Trujillo, E.M., T.H. Jeffers, C.R. Ferguson, and H.Q. Stevenson. Environmental Science
and Technology. 25:9:1,559-1,568. 1991.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-22
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Removal of Metal Contaminants from a Waste Stream Using BIO-FIX Beads Containing Sphagnum
Moss. Bennett, P.G. and T.H. Jeffers. Presented at the Western Regional Symposium on Mining
and Mineral Processing Wastes. 1990.
No published document number.
Removal of Metal Contaminants from Waste Waters Using Biomass Immobilized in Polysulfone
Beads. Ferguson, C.R., and M.R. Peterson. Presented at the 1989 AIME Annual Meeting. 1989.
Published in Biotechnology in Minerals and Metals Processing. 1989.
No published document number.
U.S. Air Force
Aerobic Degradation of Trichlorethylene. Nelson, M.J.K., P.H. Pritchard, S.O. Montgomery, and
A.W. Bourquin. Jul. 1987.
ESL-TR-86-44; NTIS: AD-A184 948/8/XAB
A Field-Scale Investigation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Degradation in the Vadose Zone Enhanced
by Soil Venting at Tyndall AFB, FL. Miller, R.N, C.M.Vogel, and R.E. Hinchee. Published in In-
Situ Bioreclamation (R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, Editors), pp. 283-302. 1991.
No published document number.
A Rapid Rise In-Situ Respiration Test for Measuring Aerobic Biodegradation Rates of
Hydrocarbons in Soils. Hinchee, R.E. and S.K. Ong. Journal of the American Waste Management
Association. 42:1305-1312. 1992.
Assessment of In-Situ Bioremediation Potential and the Application of Bioventing at a Fuel
Contaminated Site. Dupont, R.R., W.J. Doucette, and R.E. Hinchee. Published in Bioreclamation.
pp. 262-282. 1991.
Batch and Column Studies on BTEX Biodegradation by Aquifer Microorganisms Under Denitrifying
Conditions. Hutchins, S.R., S.W. Moolenaar, and D.E. Rhodes. March 1993.
ESL-TR-92-16
Bench Scale Studies of the Soil Aeration Process for Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Soil. Hinchee, R.E. and M. Arthur. Journal of Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 28/
29:287-289. 1991
Biodegradation and Sorption of Organic Solvents and Hydrocarbon Fuel Constituents in Subsurface
Environments. Wilson, J.T., J.M. Henson, M.D. Piwoni, B.H. Wilson, and P. Baneijee.
Engineering and Services Laboratory, Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall Air Force
Base, FL. Mar. 1988.
ESL-TR-87-52; NTIS: AD-A203 753/9/XAB
Biodegradation of Dichloromethane and Its Utilization as a Growth Substrate Under Methanogenic
Conditions. Freedman, D.L. and J.M. Gossett. Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
57:2847-2857. 1991.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-23
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Biodegradation of Dichloromethane in a Fixed Film Reactor Under Methanogenic Conditions.
Freedman, D.L. and J.M. Gossett. Proceedings — In-Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation: An
International Symposium. San Diego, CA. 1991.
No published document number.
Biodegradation of Mixed Solvents by a Strain of Pseudomonas. Spain, J.C., C.A. Pettigrew, and
B.E. Haigler. Published in Environmental Biotechnology for Waste Treatment. Plenum Press.
New York, NY. 1991.
Biodegradation ofMonoaromatic Hydrocarbons by Aquifer Microorganisms Using Oxygen, Nitrate,
or Nitrous Oxide as the Terminal Electron Acceptor. Hutchins, S.R. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology. 57:2403-2407. 1991.
Biological Reductive Dechlorination of Tetrachloroethylene and Trichloroethylene to Ethylene
Under Methanogenic Conditions. Freedman, D.L. and J.M. Gossett. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology. 55:2144-2151. 1989.
Biotransformation and Mineralization of Benzene, Toluene, and Xylenes Under Denitrifying and
Microaerophilic Conditions. Hutchins, S.R. Extended Abstract, 3rd International Conference on
Groundwater Quality Research. Dallas, TX. In Press. 1992.
No published document number.
Chlorobenzene Degradation by Bacteria Isolated from Contaminated Groundwater. Nishino, S.F.,
J.C. Spain, L. A. Belcher, and C.D. Litchfield. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 58:1719-
1726. 1992.
Column Studies on BTEX Biodegradation Under Microaerophilic and Denitrifying Conditions.
Hutchins, S.R., S.W. Moolenaar, and D.E. Rhodes. Proceedings — 4th Annual Symposium of the
Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center. Lamar University, Beaumont, TX. pp. 67-90.
1992.
No published document number.
Column Studies on BTEX Biodegradation Under Microaerophilic and Denitrifying Conditions.
Hutchins, S.R., S.W. Moolenaar, and D.E. Rhodes. Extended Abstract, 3rd International Conference
on Groundwater Quality Research. Dallas, TX. In Press. 1992.
No published document number.
Combined Biological and Physical Treatment of a Jet Fuel-Contaminated Aquifer. Downey, D.C.,
R.E. Hinchee, M.S. Westray, and J.K. Slaughter. Proceedings — NWWA/API Conference on
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater. Houston, TX. 1988.
No published document number.
Combined Biological and Physical Treatment of a Jet Fuel-Contaminated Aquifer. Downey, D.C.,
R.E. Hinchee, M.S. Westray, and J.K. Slaughter. U.S. Air Force Engineering and Services Center,
Tyndall, Air Force Base, FL. 1989.
No published document number.
MK01\RPT.02281012 009Ywmpgde.s5
5-24
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Enhanced Bioreclamation of Jet Fuels — A Full-Scale Test at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Hinchee,
R.E., D.C. Downey, M.S. Westray, and J.K. Slaughter. Air Force Engineering and Services
Laboratory Technical Report. 1989.
ESL-TR-88-78; NHS: AD-A22 348/5/XAB
Enhanced Bioreclamation, Soil Venting, and Groundwater Extraction: A Cost-Effectiveness and
Feasibility Comparison. Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, and E. Coleman. Proceedings of the
Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention,
Detection, and Restoration. 1988.
No published document number.
Enhanced In Situ Biodegradation: Uncontrolled Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide by Bacteria.
Spain, J.C., D.C. Downey, and J.D. Milligan. Groundwater. 27:163-167. 1989.
Enhancing Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fuels in the Vadose Zone through Soil
Venting. Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, and T.C. Beard. Proceedings — API/NWWA Conference:
Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Subsurface Environment, pp. 235-248. 1989.
No published document number.
Enhancing Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons through Soil Venting. Hinchee, R.E., D.C.
Downey, P.K. Aggarwal, and R.N. Miller. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 27:315-325. 1991.
Formulation of Nutrient Solutions for In-Situ Bioremediation. Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, and R.E.
Hinchee. Published in In-Situ Bioreclamation (R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, Editors), pp.
51-66. 1991
No published document number.
In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly Air Force Base, TX. Vol. I: Site Characterization,
Lab Studies, and Treatment System Design and Installation. Wetzel, et al. Air Force Engineering
and Services Center. Apr. 1986.
ESL-TR-85-52; NTIS: AD-A169 993/3/XAB
In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly Air Force Base, TX. Vol. 2: Field Test Results and
Cost Model. Final Report. Wetzel, et al. Air Force Engineering and Services Center.
Jul. 1987.
ESL-TR-85-52 Vol 2; NTIS: AD-A187 486/6/XAB
In Situ Biological Degradation Test at Kelly Air Force Base, TX. Vol. 3: Appendices. Final
Report. Wetzel, et al. Air Force Engineering and Services Center. Jul. 1987.
ESL-TR-85-52 Vol 3; NTIS: AD-A186 279/6/XAB
In-Situ Respirometry for Determining Aerobic Degradation Rates. Ong, S.K., R.E. Hinchee, R.
Hoeppel, and R. Scholze. Published in In-Situ Bioreclamation (R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel,
Editors), pp. 541-545. 1991.
No published document number.
MK01NRPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-25
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Methods to Select Chemicals for In Situ Biodegradation of Fuel Hydrocarbons. Aggarwal, P.K.,
J.L. Means, R.E. Hinchee, G.L. Headington, and A.R. Gavaskar. Jul. 1990.
ESL-TR-90-13
Monitoring In-Situ Biodegradation of Hydrocarbons Using Stable Carbon Isotopes. Aggarwal, P.K.
and R.E. Hinchee. Environmental Science and Technology. 26(6):1178-1180. 1991.
Optimizing Bioventing in Shallow Vadose Zones and Cold Climates. Leeson, A., R.E. Hinchee,
G.D. Sayles, C.M. Vogel, and R.N. Miller. Proceedings — In-Situ Bioremediation Symposium.
Ontario, Canada. 1992.
No published document number.
Performance of Selected In-Situ Soil Decontamination Technologies: An Air Force Perspective.
Downey, D.C. and M.G. Elliott. Environmental Progress. 9:169-173. 1990.
Preliminary Development of a Bench-Scale Treatment System for Aerobic Degradation of
Trichloroethylene. Nelson, M.J.K., A.W. Bourquin, and P.H. Pritchard. Proceedings — Reducing
Risks from Environmental Chemicals through Biotechnology Conference. University of
Washington. 1987.
No published document number.
Surface Based Biological Treatment ofTCE Contaminated Groundwater. Battelle Columbus Final
Report to the U.S. Air Force.
ESL-TR-90-03
The Role of Hydrogen Peroxide Stability in Enhanced Bioreclamation Effectiveness. Hinchee, R.E.,
D.C. Downey, and E. Voudrias. Proceedings — NWWA/API Conference on Petroleum
Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater. Houston, TX. 1988.
No published document number.
Use of Hydrogen Peroxide as an Oxygen Source for In-Situ Biodegradation: Part I, Field Studies.
Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, and P.K. Aggarwal. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 27:315-325.
1991.
Use of Hydrogen Peroxide as an Oxygen Source for In-Situ Biodegradation: Part II, Laboratory
Studies. Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, D.C. Downey, and R.E. Hinchee. Journal of Hazardous
Materials. 27:301-314. 1991.
Use of Methanotrophs in an Above-Ground Reactor To Treat Groundwater Contaminated with
Trichloroethylene. Allen, B.R., D.W. Anderson, and R.A. Ashworth. Proceedings of the
Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention.
Detection, and Restoration. 1988.
No published document number.
U.S. Army
Biogrowth Control Mechanisms. U.S. Army Environmental Center. June 1986.
CETHA-TS-CR-91070
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-26
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Biotreatment of Gaseous-Phase Volatile Organic Compounds. U.S. Army Environmental Center.
Jan. 1991.
CETHA-TE-CR-89061
Composting Explosives/Organics Contaminated Soils. Doyle, R.C., et al. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. May 1986.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86077
Composting of Explosive-Contaminated Soil Technology. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Oct.
1989.
CETHA-TE-CR-90027
Field Demonstration — Composting of Propellants Contaminated Sediments at the Badger Army
Ammunition Plant (BAAP). U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 1989.
CETHA-TE-CR-89061
Field Demonstration — Composting of Explosives-Contaminated Sediments at the Louisiana Army
Ammunition Plant (LAAP). Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and PJ. Marks. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Sept. 1988.
AMXTH-IR-TE-88242
Final Technical Report: Evaluation of Composting Implementation. U.S. Army Environmental
Center. Aug. 1989.
No published document number.
Final Technical Report: Proceedings for the Workshop on Composting of Explosives Contaminated
Soils. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Sept. 1989.
CETHA-TS-SR-89276
Literature Review of Biodegradation in Soil of Selected Rocky Mountain Arsenal Contamination:
Isodrin, Dieldrin, Diisopropylmethylphosphate, 1, 2-Dibromo-3-Chloro-propane, and p-Chloro-
Phenylmethylsulfoxide. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Apr. 1987.
CETHA-TS-CR-91065
Process and Economic Feasibility of Using Composting Technology to Treat Waste Nitrocellulose
Fines. U.S. Army Environmental Center. March 1991.
CETHA-TE-CR-91012
Reclamation of Metals from Water with a Silage-Microbe Ecosystem. U.S. Army Environmental
Center. March 1991.
CETHA-TE-CR-91037
Task Order 11: Biodegradation of D1MP, Dieldrin, Isodrin, DBCP, and PCPMSO in Rocky
Mountain Arsenal Soils. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Jan. 1989.
CETHA-TE-CR-89006
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-27
10C7/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
U.S. Navy
Biodecontamination of Fuel Oil Spill Located at NAVCOMMSTA, Thurso, Scotland: Final Report.
Polybac Corporation, U.S. Naval Station, Point Mugu, CA. Dec. 1985.
No published document number.
Biodegradation for On-Site Remediation of Contaminated Soils and Groundwater at Navy Sites.
Hoeppel, R.E. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. 1989.
No published document number.
Bioreclamation Studies of Subsurface Hydrocarbon Contamination, NAS Patuxent River, MD.
Groundwater Technology, Inc. Dec. 1988.
No published document number.
Bioventing Soils Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Hoeppel, R.E., R.E. Hinchee, and
M.F. Arthur. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Journal of Industrial Microbiology. 8:141-146.
May 1991.
Combined In Situ Technologies for Reclamation of Jet Fuel Contamination at a Maryland Fuel
Farm. Hoeppel, R.E. Oct. 1989.
No published document number.
Design! Construction!Installation of Large Soil Columns, And Development/Testing of Innovative Soil
Aeration Methods to Stimulate In Situ Biodegradation. Arthur, M.F., T.C. Zwick, and G.K. O'Brien.
Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, OH. Jul. 1988.
No published document number.
Evaluation of Innovative Approaches to Stimulate Degradation of Jet Fuels in Subsoils and
Groundwater. Arthur, M.F., G.K. O'Brien, S.S. Marsh, and T.C. Zwick. Battelle Laboratories,
Columbus, OH. Aug. 1989.
No published document number.
In Situ Bioreclamation — Applications and Investigations for Hydrocarbon and Contaminated Site
Remediation. Hinchee, R.E. and R.F. Olfenbuttel (Eds). Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA. 1991.
No published document number.
In Situ Generation of Oxygen by Electrolysis and the Electrochemical Effects on Microorganisms'
Population. Han, M.K., R.E. Wyza, and R.F. Olfenbuttel. Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, OH.
Nov. 1991.
No published document number.
Literature Survey on Landfarming for Bioreclamation of Fuel-Contaminated Soil at Twenty Nine
Palms, California. Taback, H.J. and K. Khan. AeroVironment Inc., Monrovia, CA. Dec. 1987.
No published document number.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-28
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Removal of Aqueous Phase Petroleum Products in Groundwater by Aeration. Wickramanayake,
G.B., M.F. Arthur, A.J. Pollack, and S. Krishan. Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, OH. Dec. 1988.
No published document number.
Technology Review: In Situ/On-Site Biodegradation of Refined Oils and Fuel. Riser, E. Sept. 1988.
No published document number.
¦ 5.2.7 Physical/Chemical
EPA
Advanced Oxidation Processes for Treating Groundwater Contaminated with TCE (Trichloro-
ethylene) and PCE (Tetrachloroethylene): Lab Studies. (Journal Version). Glaze, W.H. and J.W.
Kang. Water Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. 1988.
EPA/600/J-88/114
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — AWD Technologies: In Situ Vapor Extraction and
Steam Vacuum Stripping.
EPA/540/A5-91/002
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — AWD Technologies: Integrated
AquaDetox®/SVE Technology.
EP A/540/A5-89/003.
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — BioTrol, Inc.: Soils Washing.
EPA/540/A5-91/003
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — CF Systems Organics Extraction System, New
Bedford, MA. Volume I.
EPA/540/5-90/002
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — CF Systems Organics Extraction System, New
Bedford, MA. Volume II.
EPA/540/5-90/002a
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — Dehydrotech Corp.: The Carver-Greenfield
Process.
EPA/540/AR-92/002; NTIS: PB93-101152
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — DupontlOberlin: Microvibration Technology.
EP A/540/A5-90/007; NTIS: PB92-119023
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — NOVATerra, Inc.: In Situ Steam!Hot Air
Stripping.
EPA/540/5-90/008
MiC01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.sS 5-29 10/29/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program) — Toxics Treatment, Inc.: In Situ Steam/Hot Air Soil
Stripping.
EPA/540/5-90/003; NTIS: PB91-181768
Applications Analysis Report (SITE Program)—Ultrox International: Ultraviolet Ozone Treatment
for Liquids.
EPA/540/5-89/012
Catalytic Dehydrohalogenation: A Chemical Destruction Method for Halogenated Organics.
EPA/600/2-86/113
Chemical Destruction/Detoxification of Chlorinated Dioxins in Soils. Peterson, R.L. and
C.J.Rogers. Proceedings, 11th Annual Research Symposium, Cincinnati, OH. pp. 106-11. 1985.
EPA/600/9-85/028
Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review.
NTIS: PB 89-212757/AS
Comprehensive Report on the KPEG Process for Treating Chlorinated Wastes.
EPA/600/2-90/005; NTIS: PB 90-163643/AS
Demonstration Bulletin (SITE Program) — Bergman USA: Soil/Sediment Washington System.
EPA/540/MR-92/075
Demonstration Bulletin (SITE Program) — Resources Conservation Co.: The Basic Extractive
Sludge Treatment (B.A.S.I.C.).
EPA/540/MR-92/079
Demonstration Bulletin (SITE Program) — SBP Technologies: Membrane Microfiltration.
EPA/540/MR-92/014
Demonstration Bulletin (SITE Program) — Toronto Harbour Commissioners: Soil Recycling
Treatment Train.
EPA/540/MR-92/015
Destruction of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons by Catalytic Oxidation. Joint EPA and AFESC Report
published by EPA.
EPA/600/2-86/079
Development of Electroacoustical Soil Decontamination (ESD) Process for In Situ Application.
EPA/540/5-90/004
Development of Chemical Countermeasures for Hazardous Waste Contaminated Soil.
EPA/600/D-84/039
Engineering Bulletin — Chemical Dehalogenation: APEG Treatment.
EPA/540/2-90/015
MK01NRPT.02281012.009Ncompgde.s5
5-30
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment.
EPA/540/2-91/025
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Flushing.
EPA/540/2-91/021
Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction.
EPA/540/2-91/006
Engineering Bulletin — In Situ Steam Extraction.
EPA/540/2-91/005
Engineering Bulletin — Soil Washing Treatment.
EPA/540/2-90/017
Engineering Bulletin — Solvent Extraction Treatment.
EPA/540/2-90/013
Engineering Bulletin — Supercritical Water Oxidation.
EPA/540/S-92/006
Evaluation of BEST*" Solvent Extraction Sludge Treatment Technology 24-Hour Test.
NTIS: PB88-245907
Evaluation of Soil Venting Application.
EPA/540/S-92/004; NTIS: PB92-232362
Field Applications of the KPEG Process for Treating Chlorinated Wastes.
EPA/600/2-89/036
Field Studies of In Situ Soil Washing. Nash, J.H., Mason and Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc.,
Leonardo, NJ. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
Dec. 1987.
EPA/600/2-87/110; NTIS: PB88-146808/XAB
Innovative Technology: BEST Solvent Extraction Process.
OSWER Directive 9200.5-253-FS (Fact Sheet)
Innovative Technology: Glycolate Dehalogenation.
OSWER Directive 9200.5-254-FS (Fact Sheet)
Innovative Technology: Soil Washing.
OSWER Directive 9200.5-250-FS (Fact Sheet)
Interim Report on the Feasibility of Using UV (Ultraviolet) Photolysis and APEG (Alkali Poly-
ethylene Glycolate) Reagent for Treatment of Dioxin Contaminated Soils.
EPA/600/2-85/083
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-31
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Method for the Supercritical Fluid Extraction of Soils/Sediments.
EPA/600/4-90/026; NTIS: PB91-127803/CCE
Mobile System for Extracting Spilled Hazardous Materials from Excavated Soils.
EPA/600/2-83/100
PCB Destruction: A Novel Dehalogenation Reagent.
EPA/600/J-85/407
Report on the Feasibility of APEG: Detoxification of Dioxin-Contaminated Soils.
EPA/600/2-84/071
Sequential Dehalogenation of Chlorinated Ethenes.
EPA/600/J-86/030
Soil Vapor Extraction Technology: Reference Handbook.
EPA/540/2-91/003
State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction Systems.
NTIS: PB 89-195184
Technology Evaluation Report — U.S. EPA, RREL: Debris Washing System.
EPA/540/5-91/006
Treating Chlorinated Wastes with the KPEG Process.
EPA/600/S2-90/026
Treatment of Contaminated Soils with Aqueous Surfactants. Ellis, W.D., J.R. Payne, and G.D.
McNabb. 1985.
EPA/600/2-85/129
U.S. EPA's Mobile In Situ Containment/Treatment Unit.
Videocassette from EPA, Edison, NJ
U.S. EPA's Mobile Soil Washing System.
Videocassette from EPA, Edison, NJ
DOE
Analytical Solutions for Steady State Gas Flow to a Soil Vapor Extraction Well in the Unsaturated
Zone. Shan, C, R.W. Falta, and I. Javandel. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, DOE, Berkeley, CA.
1991.
LBL-30924
Application of Soil Venting at a Large Scale: A Data and Modeling Analysis.
NTIS: DE91001995/XAB
MlC01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-32
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Cryogenic Barrier Enhanced Soil Cleanup, A Literature Review. University of Idaho.
EG&G Report to be published (Contact DOE, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.)
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. FY 1989 Annual Report.
Garland, S.B. II, and G.R. Payton. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE, TN. Oct. 1990.
ORNL/TM-11337
An Evaluation of the Use of a Combination of Ozone-Ultraviolet Radiation and Hydrogen Peroxide
to Remove Chlorinated Hydrocarbons from Groundwater at the U.S. Department of Energy Kansas
City Plant. FY 1988 Annual Report. Garland, S.B. II. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE, TN.
May 1989.
ORNL/TM-11056; NTIS or OSTI: DE89015678
Feasibility Testing of In Situ Vitrification on Arnold Engineering Development Center Contaminated
soils. Timmerman, C.L. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA. Mar. 1989.
ORNL/Sub-88-14384/1; NTIS or OSTI: DE89008976
In Situ Air Stripping: Cost Effectiveness of a Remediation Technology Field Tested at Savannah
River Integrated Demonstration Site.
LA-UR-92-1927
In Situ Vitrification: A Review. Cole, L.L., and D.E. Fields. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
DOE, TN. Nov. 1989.
ORNL/TM-11293; NTIS or OSTI: DE90003379
In Situ Vitrification, Heat and Immobilization are Combined for Soil Remediation. Fitzpatrick, V.,
and J. Hansen. Geosafe Corp., Kirkland, WA. Hazmat World. 2(12): 30-34. Dec. 1989.
No published document number.
In Situ Vitrification of PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl)-Contaminated Soils: Final Report.
Timmerman, C.L. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA. Oct. 1986.
EPRI-CS-4839; NTIS or OSTI: DE87003328
In Situ Vitrification: Test Results for a Contaminated Soil-Melting Process, Supplement 1. Buelt,
J.L., C.L. Timmerman, and J.H. Westsik, Jr. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA.
Oct. 1989.
PNL-SA-15767-Suppl. 1; NTIS or OSTI: DE90005231
In Situ Vitrification of Transuranic Wastes: An Updated Systems Evaluation and Applications
Assessment. Buelt, J.L., C.L. Timmerman, K.H. Oma, V.F. Fitzpatrick, and J.G. Carter. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, DOE, Richland, WA. Mar. 1987.
PNL-4800-Suppl. 1; NTIS or OSTI: DE87007356
Remediation of Contaminated Soil Using Heap Leach Mining Technology. Tork, D.A. and
P.L. Aamodt. Los Alamos National Laboratory, DOE, NM. 1990.
LAUR-90-701; NTIS or OSTI: DE90007510
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-33
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Steam Stripping and Batch Distillation for the Removal/Recovery of Volatile Organic Compounds.
Hassan, S.Q., and J.P. Herrin. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cincinnati University,
Cincinnati, OH. 1989.
NTIS: PB 89-218796/XAB
DOI
Acid Leach Processing of an Arsenic-Containing Copper Waste. Gritton, K.S. and J.E. Gebhardt.
Published in Proceedings of the Western Regional Symposium on Mining and Mineral Processing
Wastes. Berkeley, CA, May 30 - June 1, 1990.
No published document number.
Alternatives for Treatment of Arsenic-Containing Copper Industrial Bleed Streams. Gritton, K.S.
and J.E. Gebhardt. Published in Proceedings of the COPPER 91 — COBRE 91 International
Symposium, Ottawa, Canada. August 18-21, 1991.
No published document number.
Copper Extraction from Aqueous Solutions with Liquid Emulsion Membranes: A Preliminary
Laboratory Study. Nilsen, D.N., B.W. Jong, and A.M. Stubbs. Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigation 9375, 1991.
No published document number.
Development and Evaluation of a Laboratory-Scale Continuous Circuit for the Extraction of Copper
with Emulsion Membranes in Hydrometallury and Electrometallurgy of Copper. Nilsen, D.N. and
G.L. Hundley. Published in Proceedings of the Copper 91-Cobre 91 International Symposium,
Ottawa, Canada, August 18-21, 1991.
No published document number.
Evaluation of the Performance of a Laboratory-scale Continuous Circuit for the recovery of
Copper. Nilsen, D.N. and G.L. Hundley. Presented at an "Open Industry Briefing," Annual
Meeting of the Arizona Section of AIME, Tucson, Arizona, Dec. 6-7, 1992.
No published document number.
Extraction of Cu from Mine Drainage Solution with Liquid Emulsion Membranes: A Preliminary
Laboratory Study. Nilsen, D.N. and A.M. Stubbs. Presented at Pacific NW Metals and Minerals
Conference, Portland, Oregon. April 22-24. 1990.
No published document number.
Liquid Emulsion Membrane for Wastewater Cleanup (Briefing Sheet). O'Hare, S.A. and D.N.
Nilsen. 1992.
No published document number.
Metal Recovery from Acid-Leach Processing of Arsenic-Containing Copper Wastes. Steele, D.K.
and K.S. Gritton. Presented at the 1991 SME Annual Meeting.
No published document number.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-34
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
Metal Recovery from Metallurgical Wastes. Gritton, K.S., L.J. Froisland, M.B. Shirts, and J.E.
Gebhardt. Presented at the SME Annual Meeting. 1990.
No published document number.
Selenium Removal with Ferrous Hydroxide. Moody, C.D. and A.P. Murphy. Proceedings of Toxic
Substances in Agricultural Water Supply and Drainage, U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage,
pp. 231-241. Jun. 1989.
Available from Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Air Force
In Situ Decontamination by Radiofrequency Heating — Field Test. Dev, H., J. Enk, G. Stresty,
J. Bridges, and D. Downey. Sept. 1989.
ESL-TR-88-62; NTIS: AD-A221 186/0/XAB
Radio Frequency/Vapor Extraction Technology To Treat Hydrocarbons in Soil. Looney, B.
Savannah River Plant, Aiken, SC. 1992-93.
No published document number.
Removal of Volatile Organics from Humidified Air Streams by Absorption. Coutnat, R.W.,
T. Zwick, and B.C. Kim. Dec. 1987.
ESL-TR-87-24
Surfactant-Enhanced In Situ Soils Washing. Nash, J., R. Traver, and D.C. Downey. Sept. 1987.
ESL-TR-87-18; NTIS: AD-A188 066/5/XAB
Vapor-Phase Catalytic Oxidation of Mixed Volatile Organic Compounds. Greene, H. University
of Akron, Akron, OH. Sept. 1989.
ESL-TR-89-12
U.S. Army
Adsorption and Desorption of Dinitrotoluene on Activated Carbon. U.S. Army Environmental
Center. Aug. 1987.
CETHA-TS-CR-91048
Arsenic Contaminated Treatment Pilot Study at the Sharpe Army Depot (SHAD) Lathrope, CA:
Final Technical Report. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Dec. 1990.
CETHA-TS-CR-90184
Bench-Scale Investigation of Air Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil: Technical
Report. McDevitt, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Aug.
1986.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86092
Demonstration Testing of Plastic Media Blasting (PMB) at Letterkenny Army Depot. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Jan. 1989.
No published document number.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-35
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Draft Final Report for Pilot Demonstration of an Air Stripping Technology for the Treatment of
Groundwater Contaminated with Volatile Organic Compounds at Sharpe Army Depot. U.S. Army
Environmental Center.
CETHA-TS-CR-91071
Engineering and Development Support of General Decontamination Technology for the DARCOM
Installation Restoration Program Task 4. Desensitization of Explosive-Laden Soils!Sediments,
Phase II — Lab Studies. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 84-Nov. 85.
DRXTH-TE-CR-83207; NTIS: AD-A162 456/8/XAB
Evaluation of Ultraviolet! Ozone Treatment of Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Groundwater. Buhts,
R., P. Malone, and D. Thompson. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
Technical Report. 1978.
Report No. Y-78-1
Final Technical Report: Bench Scale Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Various Soil Types. U.S. Army Environmental Center.
Nov. 1987.
AMXTH-TE-CR-87124
Final Technical Report: Demonstration of Thermal Stripping of JP-4 and Other VOCs from Soils
at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. U.S. Army Environmental Center. March
1990.
CETHA-TE-CR-90026
Final Technical Report: Economic Evaluation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Soil. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Aug. 1986.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86085
Final Technical Report: Pilot Investigation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Soil (2 Vols). U.S. Army Environmental Center. June 1986.
AMXTH-TE-TR-86074
Final Technical Report: Use of Activated Carbon for Treatment of Explosive-Contaminated
Groundwater at the Badger Army Ammunition Plant (BAAP). U.S. Army Environmental Center.
Aug. 1989.
CETHA-CR-89216
Final Technical Report: Use of Activated Carbon for Treatment of Explosive-Contaminated
Groundwater at the Milan Army Munitions Plant (MAAP). U.S. Army Environmental Center. May
1990.
CETHA-CR-90041
Heavy Metal Contaminated Soil Treatment. Roy F. Weston, Inc. U.S. Army Environmental Center.
Feb. 1987.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86101
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-36
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
In Situ Air Stripping of Soils Pilot Study: Final Report. Anastos, G.J., et al. U.S. Army
Environmental Center. Oct. 1985.
AMXTH-TE-TR-85026
In Situ Volatilization Remedial System Cost Analysis: Technical Report. Metzer, N., et al. U.S.
Army Environmental Center. Aug. 1987.
AMXTH-TE-CR-87123
Laboratory Study of In Situ Volatilization Technology Applied to Fort Campbell Soils Contaminated
with JP-4: Final Report. Marks, P., et al. U.S. Army Environmental Center. May 1987.
No published document number.
Laboratory Study of In Situ Volatilization Technology Applied to Letterkenny Army Depot Soils.
U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 1988.
AMXTH-TE-CR-88009
Soil Washing Development Program and Demonstration Test on Basin F Materials. Arthur D.
Little, Inc. U.S. Army Environmental Center. May 1988.
AMXTH-TE-CR-86016
Technical and Economic Evaluation of Air Stripping for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Removal from Contaminated Groundwater at Selected Army Sites. Tennessee Valley Authority
National Fertilizer and Environmental Research Center, Muscle Shoals, AL. Jul. 1991.
CETHA-TE-91023
Use of Vapor Extraction Systems for In Situ Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil.
Bennedsen, H.B., J.P. Scott, and J.D. Hartley. U.S. Army Environmental Center. Mar. 1987.
No published document number.
U.S. Navy
Advanced Oxidation Process for Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater. Olah and Law. Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory. 71-080 20#T357104.
TM-71-90-2
Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP). Chan, D.B.
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Aug. 1991.
Technical Data Sheet.
No published document number.
Demonstration of PCB Dechlorination Using Base-Catalyzed Decomposition. Rogers, C. Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory. Oct. 1990.
No published document number.
Evaluation of Combined Treatment Technology for Navy Remediation Site Groups (PACT Process).
Barber, D.B. and L.W. Canter. Environmental and Ground Water Institute, University of
Oklahoma Dec. 1989.
No published document number.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-37
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Evaluation of Photochemical Oxidation Technology for Navy Remediation Site Groups. Paul, D. and
L.W. Canter. University of Oklahoma. Dec. 1989.
No published document number.
Evaluation of Processes to Chemically Treat PCBs and Hazardous Materials. Hinchee, R.E., G.B.
Wickramanayake, B.C. Kim and H. Nack. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Dec. 1989.
No published document number.
Initial Feasibility Report: Investigation of Photochemical Oxidative Techniques for Treatment of
Contaminated Groundwater. Olah and Law. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. 71-080.
TM-71-90-9
Test Report: KPEG Process for Treating Chlorinated Wastes. PEI Associates. Sept. 1989.
No published document number.
Treatment of Navy Landfill Leachate Contaminated with Low Levels of Priority Pollutants. Jue, C.
and R.W. Regan, Sr. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Oct. 1991.
No published document number.
¦ 5.2.8 Community Relations
EPA
A Citizen's Guide To Innovative Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Soils, Sludges,
Sediments, and Debris.
EPA/542/F-92/001
EPA/542/f-92/014 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To How Innovative Treatment Technologies Are Being Successfully Applied at
Superfund Sites.
EPA/542/F-92/002
EPA/542/F-92/015 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To Soil Washing.
EPA/542/F-92/003
EPA/542/F-92/016 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To Solvent Extraction.
EP A/542/F-92/004
EPA/542/F-92/017 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To Glycolate Dehalogenation.
EPA/542/F-92/005
EPA/542/F-92/-18 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To Thermal Desorption.
EP A/542/F-92/006
MK.01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-38
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY TOPIC
EPA/542/F-92/019 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To In Situ Soil Flushing.
EPA/542/F-92/007
EPA/542/F-92/020 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To Bioventing.
EPA/542/F-92/008
EPA/542/F-92/021 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To Using Indigenous and Exogenous Microorganisms in Bioremediation.
EPA/542/F-92/009
EPA/542/F-92/022 (Spanish)
A Citizen's Guide To Air Sparging.
EPA/542/F-92/010
EPA/542/F -92/023 (Spanish)
Understanding Bioremediation: A Guidebook for Citizens.
EPA/540/2-91/002
EPA/542/F-92/024 (Spanish)
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-39
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-40
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
¦ 5.3 LISTING BY AUTHOR
The following is a complete listing of all references presented in the source documents (see
Appendix E):
ABB Environmental Services, Inc., undated. " ABB-ES Two-Zone Plume-Interception Treatment
Technology," Environmental Product Profiles, National Environmental Technology Applications
Coiporation.
Accutech, 1993. Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction and Hot Gas Injection, Phase I, includes
Technology Evaluation, EPA Report EPA/540/R-93/509, Technology Demonstration, Summary, EPA
Report EPA/540/SR-93/509; Demonstration Bulletin, EPA Report EPA/540/MR-93/509; and
Applications Analysis, EPA Report EPA/540/AR-93/509.
Adams, J.Q. and R.M. Clark, January 1991. "Evaluating the Costs of Packed Tower Aeration
and GAC for Controlling Selected Organics," Journal of the American Water Works Association,
pp. 49-57.
Aggarwal, P.K., J.L. Means, R.E. Hinchee, G.L. Headington, and A.R. Gavaskar, July 1990.
Methods To Select Chemicals for In-Situ Biodegradation of Fuel Hydrocarbons, Air Force
Engineering & Services Center, Tyndall AFB.
Alleman, B. 1991. Degradation of Pentachlorophenol by Selected Species of White Rot Fungi,
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arizona.
American Petroleum Institute, 1989. A Guide to the Assessment and Remediation of Underground
Petroleum Releases, Publication 1628, API, Washington, DC, 81 pp.
Anderson, W.C., 1993. Innovative Site Remediation Technology — Thermal Desorption,
American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
Arthur, M.F., T.C. Zwick, G.K. O'Brien, and R.E. Hoeppel, 1988. "Laboratory Studies To
Support Microbially Mediated In-Situ Soil Remediation," in 1988 DOE Model Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 3, NTIS Document No. PC A14/MF A01, as cited in Energy Research Abstracts
EDB-89:134046, TIC Accession No. DE89014702.
Atlas, R.M., 1981. "Microbial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: An Environmental
Perspective," Microbiology Review, Vol., 45, pp. 180-209, as cited by Aggerwal et al., July 1990.
Averett, D.E., B.D. Perry, and E.J. Torrey, 1989. Review of Removal, Containment, and
Treatment Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes, Prepared
for EPA by US ACE-WES, Vicksburg, MS.
AWMA and HWAC (Air and Waste Management Association and the Hazardous Waste Action
Council), 1992. Bioremediation: The State of Practice in Hazardous Waste Remediation
Operations, a Live Satellite Seminar Jointly Sponsored by AWMA and HWAC, AWMA,
Pittsburgh, PA, 9 January 1992.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-41
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
AWMA and HWAC, April 1992. Bioventing and Vapor Extraction: Uses and Applications in
Remediation Operations, AWMA and the HWAC Satellite Seminar, AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA.
Ayorinde, O. and M. Reynolds, December 1989. "Low Temperature Effect on Systems for
Composting Explosives-Contaminated Soils," Part I, Literature Review, U.S. Army CRREL.
Bailey, G.W., and J.L. White, 1970. "Factors Influencing the Absorption, Desorption, and
Movement of Pesticides in Soil," in Residue Reviews, F.A. Gunther and J.D. Gunther, Editors,
Springer Verlag, pp. 29-92.
Balaso, C.A., et al., 1986. Soluble Sulfide Precipitation Study, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Final Report
to USATHAMA, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR-87106.
Barich, J.T., May 1990. "Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation of Organic Contaminants in Ground,
Waste and Drinking Waters," in Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-
90/010.
Barker, J.F., et al., 1987. "Natural Attenuation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in a Shallow Sand
Aquifer," Groundwater Monitoring Review, Winter 1987.
Barker, J.F., G.C. Patrick, and D. Major, Winter 1987. "Natural Attenuation of Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in a Shallow Sand Aquifer," Groundwater Monitoring Review, pp. 64-71.
Barnhart, Michael J. and Julian M. Myers, October 1990. "Pilot Bioremediation Tells All About
Petroleum Contaminated Soil," Pollution Engineering, Vol. XXI, No. 11, pp. 110-113.
Barth, E.F., April 1991. "Summary Results of the SITE Demonstration for the CHEMFIX
Solidification/Stabilization Process," in Proceedings of the 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste
Research Symposium, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/9-91/002.
Basu, T.K., A. Selvakumar, and R. Gaire, undated. Selection of Control Technologies for
Remediation of Lead Battery Recycling Sites, Prepared by Foster Wheeler Envirosponse, Inc. for
EPA, RREL and ORD, Cincinnati, OH.
Bennedsen, M.B., February 1987. "Vacuum VOCs from Soil," Pollution Engineering, 19:(2).
Bennedsen, M.B., J.P. Scott, and J.D. Hartley, 1985. "Use of Vapor Extraction Systems for In
Situ Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil," in Proceedings of National
Conference on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Materials Control Research
Institute (HMCRI), pp. 92-95, as cited by Hutzler et al., 1989.
Bioremediation Service, Inc., Winter 1990/91a. "Microbial Environments," Biologic, Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 1.
Bioremediation Service, Inc., Winter 1990/91b. "Advanced Soil Conditioning Equipment
Delivered," Biologic, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1.
MK01NRPT :02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-42
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
Biotrol, Inc., Fall 1990. "EPA Awards Emerging Technology Grant to Biotrol," Bioline,
Vol. 2., No. 2., pp. 1-2.
Bohn, H., April 1992. "Consider Biofiltration for Decontaminating Gases," Chemical
Engineering Progress, pp. 34-40.
Borden, R.C., M.D. Lee, J.M. Thomas, P.B. Bedient, and C.H. Ward, Winter 1989. "In Situ
Measurement and Numerical Simulation of Oxygen Limited Biotransformation," Groundwater
Monitoring Review, pp. 83-91.
Bourquin, A.W., September/October 1989. "Bioremediation of Hazardous Waste," HMC, pp.
50-51.
Bouwer, E.J., and P.L. McCarty, 1983. "Transformation of Halogenated Organic Compounds
Under Denitrification Conditions," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 45:1295-1299.
Bouwer, E.J., and J.P. Wright, 1988. "Transformation of Trace Halogenated Aliphatics in
Anoxic Biofilm Columns," Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2:155-169.
Bricka, M„ C.W. Williford, and L. W. Jones, December 1993. Technology Assessment of Currently
Available and Developmental Techniques for Heavy Metals-Contaminated Soils Treatment,
Prepared for USACE-WES, Environmental Laboratory.
Bricka, R. Mark, 1988. Investigation and Evaluation of the Performance of Solidified Cellulose
and Starch Xanthate Heavy Metal Sludges, USACE-WES Technical Report EL-88-5.
Bricka, R.M., et al., 1988. An Evaluation of Stabilization/Solidification of Fluidized Bed
Incineration Ash (K048 and K051), USAE-WES Technical Report EL-88-24.
Brown, R.A. and R.T. Cartwright, October 1990. "Biotreat Sludges arid Soils," Hydrocarbon
Processing, pp. 93-96.
Brubaker, Gaylen R., April 1989. Screening Criteria for In-Situ Bioreclamation of Contaminated
Aquifers, Presented at Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Conference, New Orleans.
Buhts, R., P. Malone, and D. Thompson, 1978. Evaluation of Ultra-Violet/Ozone Treatment of
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Groundwater, USAE-WES Technical Report No. Y-78-1.
Bumpus, J.A., and S.D. Aust, 1985. "Studies on the Biodegradation of Organopollutants by a
White Rot Fungus," in Proceedings of the International Conference on New Frontiers for
Hazardous Waste Management, 15-18 September 1985, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 404-410, EPA/600/9-
85/025.
Bunis, D.R. and J.A. Cherry, June 1992. Emerging Plume Management Technologies: In Situ
Treatment Zones, Paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA,
Manuscript 92-34.04.
California Base Closure Environmental Committee, November 1993. Treatment Technologies
Matrix for Base Closure Activities.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-43
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Canonie Environmental Services Corporation, 1990. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration, Soil
Remediation Services, Porter, IN.
Canter, L.W. and R.C. Knox, 1985. Groundwater Pollution Control, Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, MI.
Canter, Larry W., April 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.
Christman, P.L. and A.M. Collins, April 1990. "Treatment of Organic Contaminated
Groundwater by Using Ultraviolet Light and Hydrogen Peroxide," from Proceedings of the
Annual Army Environmental Symposium, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
Church, H.K., 1981. Excavation Handbook, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Circeo, Louis J., Ph.D., 1991. Destruction and Vitrification of Asbestos Using Plasma Arc
Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology for USACERL, Champaign, IL.
Coe, C.J., 1986. "Ground Water Restoration Using Bioreclamation in Fractured
Pennsylvanian Bedrock," in Proceedings of the Sixth National Symposium and Exposition on
Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, pp. 413-424, National Water Well Association.
Connor, J.R., 1990. Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Hazardous Wastes, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
Connor, J.R., January 1988. "Case Study of Soil Venting," Pollution Engineering, 20:(1).
Corbitt, R.A., 1989. Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, NY.
Cowherd, Chatten, et al., March 1989. "An Apparatus and Methodology for Predicting
Dustiness of Materials," American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 50, No. 3.
Crittenden, J.C., R.D. Cortright, B. Rick, S-R Tang, and D. Perram, May 1988. "Using GAC To
Remove VOCs from Air Stripper Off-Gas," Journal of the American Water Works Association,
pp. 73-84.
Cudahy, J.J. and W.L. Troxier, 1990. 1990 Thermal Remediation Industry Contractor Survey,
Prepared by Focus Environmental, Inc. for AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA.
Danko, J. P., M.J. McCann, and W.D. Byers, May 1990. "Soil Vapor Extraction and Treatment
of VOCs at a Superfund Site in Michigan," in Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, EPA, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/2-90/010.
MK01NRPT. 02281012.009Ncompgde.s5
5-44
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
de Percin, P., 1991. Thermal Desorption Technologies, Superfund Technology Demonstration
Division, AWMA Conference, Vancouver, BC, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
de Percin, P., 1991. Thermal Desorption Attainable Remediation Levels, Superfund Technology
Demonstration Division, EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) Symposium,
Cincinnati, OH.
DePaoli, David W., James H. Wilson, and Carl O. Thomas, August 1990. A Model for
Economically Based Conceptual Design of Soil Vapor Extraction Systems, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
Dev, H., G.C. Sresty, J. Enk, N. Mshaiel, and M. Love, 1989. Radiofrequency Enhanced
Decontamination of Soils Contaminated with Halogenated Hydrocarbons, EPA RREL, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, EPA Report EPA/600/2-89/008.
Dev, H„ G.C. Sresty, J.E. Bridges, and D. Downey, 1988. "Field Test of the Radio Frequency
In Situ Soil Decontamination Process," in Superfund '88, Proceedings of the 9th National
Conference, pp. 498-502, HMCRI, Silver Spring, MD.
Dibble, J.T. and R. Bartha, 1979. "Effects of Environmental Parameters on the Biodegradation
of Oil Sludge," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 37, pp. 729-739, as cited by Molnaa
and Grubbs (no date).
Dietrich, C., D. Treichler, and J. Armstrong, 1987. An Evaluation of Rotary Air Stripping for
Removal of Volatile Organicsfrom Groundwater, US AF Environmental and Service Center Report
ESL-TR-86-46.
DOD (U.S. Department of Defense), August 1994. Accessing Federal Data Bases for
Contaminated Site Clean-up Technologies, Prepared by the Member Agencies of the DOD
Environmental Technology Transfer Committee.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), undated. In Situ Vitrification: Technology Status and a
Survey of New Applications, Prepared by Battelle Northwest Laboratories for DOE, Richland, WA.
DOE, undated. Technology Name: Arc Melter Vitrification, Technology Information Profile (Rev.
2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: ID-132011.
DOE, 1989. Joule-Heated Glass Furnace Processing of a Highly Aqueous Hazardous Waste
Stream, Prepared by EE&G Mound Applied Technologies for DOE, Richland, WA.
DOE, 1989. Vitrification Technologies for Weldon Spring Raffinate Sludges and Contaminated
Soils, Phase 2 Report: Screening of Alternatives, Prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories for DOE, Richland, WA.
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, DOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, ORNL/TM-11337.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-45
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
DOE, 1991. Environmental Assessment for Retech Inc.'s Plasma Centrifugal Furnace
Evaluation, DOE, Washington, DC, DOE/EA 0491.
DOE, 1991. "Horizontal Hybrid Directional Boring," FY92 Technical Task Plan, TTP Reference
No.: AL-ZU23-J2.
DOE, 1991. "Modeling of Bioremediation Experiments at SRS ID," FY92 Technical Task
Description, TTP Reference No: AL-1211-02.
DOE, 1991. "SRS Integrated Demonstration: Directional Drilling," FY92 Technical Task Plan,
TTP Reference No.: SR-1211-01.
DOE, July 1992. "116-B-6A Crib ISV Demonstration Project," FY92 Technical Task Plan and
Technical Task Description, TTP Reference No. RL-8160-PT.
DOE, 1992. "Directional Sonic Drilling," FY93 Technical Task Plan, TTP Reference No.: AL-
2311-05.
DOE, 1992. "ISV Planning and Coordination," FY92 Technical Task Plan and Technical Task
Description, TTP Reference Number: RL-8568-PT.
DOE, 1992. In Situ Vitrification, Technology Transfer Bulletin, Prepared by Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories for DOE, Richland, WA.
DOE, 1992. RCRA Research, Development and Demonstration Permit Application for a Thermal
Enhanced Vapor Extraction System, Sandia National Laboratories, Environmental Restoration
Technology Department, Albuquerque, NM.
DOE, 1992. ReOpt: Electronic Encyclopedia of Remedial Action Options, Prepared by Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories for DOE, Richland, WA, PNL-7840/UC-602,603.
DOE, 1993. Directional Boring and Thrusting with Hybrid Underground Utility Industry
Equipment, ProTech Database, TTP References: AL2211-16 and AL2211-03.
DOE, 1993. Methanotrophic In Situ Bioremediation Using Methane/Air and Gaseous Nutrient
Injection Via Horizontal Wells, Technology Information Profile, Rev. 2, DOE ProTech Database,
TTP Reference No: SR-1211-06.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Arc Melter Vitrification, Technology Information Profile (Rev.
2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: ID-132010.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 2), DOE Protech Database, TTP No. AL-1211-25.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Biological Destruction of Tank Wastes, Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 2), DOE Protech Database, TTP Reference Number: ID-121204.
MK01\RPT:02281012 009Vompgde.s5
5-46
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Cesium Removal by Compact Processing Units for Radioactive
Waste Treatment, Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference
Number: RL-321221.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Fixed Hearth Plasma Torch Process, Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 2) for ProTech, DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: PE-021202.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: High-Energy Corona, Technology Information Profile (Rev. 2),
DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference Number: RL-3211-01.
DOE, (Revised) 1993. Technology Name: Methanotrophic In Situ Bioremediation Using
Methane/Air and Gaseous Nutrient Injection Via Horizontal Wells, Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference Number: SR-1211-06.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Resorcinol-Formaldehyde Ion Exchange Resin for Elutable Ion
Exchange in the Compact Portable Units (CPUs) Proposed at Hanford, Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: SR-1320-02.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Six Phase Soil Heating, Technology Information Profile (Rev.
2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference Number: RL 331004.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Slant-Angle Sonic Drilling, Technology Information Profile (Rev.
2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference No.: AL2310-05.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: Thermal Enhanced Vapor Extraction System, Technology
Information Profile (Rev. 2), DOE ProTech Database, TTP Reference Number: AL221121.
DOE, 1993. Technology Name: VOC Offgas Membrane Separation, Technology Information
Profile (Rev. 3), DOE ProTech Database TTP Reference Number: RL-9740.
DOE, February 1994. Technology Catalogue, First Edition.
Downey, Douglas C. and Michael G. Elliott, August 1990. "Performance of Selected In Situ Soil
Decontamination Technologies: An Air Force Perspective", Environmental Progress, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp. 169-173.
Du Pont, R.R., W.J. Doucette, and R.E. Hinchee, 1991. "Assessment of In Situ Bioremediation
Potential and the Application of Bioventing at a Fuel-Contaminated Site," in In Situ
Bioreclamation. Applications and Investigations for Hydrocarbon and Contaminated Site
Remediation, R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, Editors, Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham, MA,
pp. 262-282.
Ebasco Services, Inc., undated. Remedial Planning Units Activities at Selected Uncontrolled
Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites, Region IV, Treatability Study for Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits
Site.
Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, Jr., 1966. Industrial Water Pollution Control, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, NY.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-47
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
ECOVA Corporation, 1987. Final Report: Soil Treatment Pilot Study at BRIO/DOP Site,
Friendswood, TX.
Elliott, Captain Michael G., and Captain Edward G. Marchand, 1989. "U.S. Air Force Air
Stripping and Emissions Control Research," in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army
Environmental R&D Symposium, Williamsburg, VA, USATHAMA Report No. CETHA-TE-TR-
90055.
Elliott, M.G. and E.G. Marchand, 1990. "USAF Air Stripping and Emissions Control
Research," in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium, USATHAMA
Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
Ensite, Inc., 1990. The SafeSoil Bio treatment Process: A Technical Review, Ensite, Inc., Atlanta,
GA.
Environmental Law Institute, 1984. Compendium of Cost of Remedial Technologies at Hazardous
Waste Sites, a Report to the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), EPA,
Environmental Law Institute.
Environmental Solutions, Inc., undated. On-Site Treatment Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils,
under Contract by Western States Petroleum Association.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), undated. Bioremediation Resource Guide,
EPA/532-B-93/004.
EPA, undated. Bioremediation Using the Land Treatment Concept, EPA/600/R-93/164.
EPA, undated. Engineering Issue, In-Situ Bioremediation of Contaminated Unsaturated
Subsurface Soils, EPA/540/S-93/501.
EPA, undated. Environmental Research Brief; Complex Mixtures and Groundwater Quality,
EPA/600/S93/004.
EPA, undated. Ground Water Issue: Evaluation of Soil Venting Application, EPA/540/S-92/004.
EPA, undated. Ground Water Issue: Suggested Operating Procedures for Aquifer Pumping
Tests, EPA/540/S93/503.
EPA, undated. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Superfund Site, Project Summary,
EP A/540/SR-9 3/516.
EPA, 1980. Control and Treatment Technology for the Metal Finishing Industry: Sulfide
Precipitation, EPA/625/8-80/003.
EPA, 1980. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, EPA, Office of Water
Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.s5
5-48
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
EPA, 1982. Superfuttd Record of Decision: Sylvester Site, NH (IRM), EPA, OERR, Washington,
DC, EPA/ROD/ROl-82/005.
EPA, 1983. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Toxic Organic
Compounds in Ambient Air, EPA, Research Triangle Parte, NC, EPA/600/4-83/027.
EPA, 1984. Design Information on Rotating Biological Contactors, EPA/600/2-84/106.
EPA, 1984. Slurry Trench Construction for Migration Control, EPA, OERR, and Office of
Research and Development (ORD), Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-84/001.
EPA, 1985. Handbook — Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites, EPA, ORD, Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, EPA/625/6-85/006.
EPA, September 1986. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic
Compounds in Ambient Air (Supplement to EPA/600/4-84/041), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC,
EPA/600/4-87/006.
EPA, 1986. Grouting Techniques in Bottom Seating of Hazardous Waste Sites, USACE-WES,
Vicksburg, MS, and Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA/600/2-86/020.
EPA, 1986. Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes, EPA, OERR, Washington,
DC, EPA/540/2-86/003(f).
EPA, 1987. A Compendium of Technologies Used in the Treatment of Hazardous Wastes, EPA
Construction Engineering Laboratory (CERL), Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/8-87/014.
EPA, 1987. Catalytic Dehydrohalogenation: A Chemical Destruction Method for Halogenated
Organics, Project Summary, EPA/600/52-86/113.
EPA, 1987. Destruction of Organic Contaminants by Catalytic Oxidation, EPA/600/D-87/224.
EPA, 1987. Handbook - Groundwater, EPA, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
(RSKERL), Ada, OK, EPA/625/6-87/016.
EPA, 1987. Incineration of Hazardous Waste, Fact Sheet, EPA, OSW, Washington, DC,
EPA/530-SW-88-018.
EPA, 1987. Incineration of Hazardous Waste, Fact Sheet, EPA, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, Washington, DC, S/AT/87-2.
EPA, 1987. Rotating Biological Contactors: U.S. Overview, EPA/600/D-87/023.
EPA, 1988. Assessment of International Technologies for Superfund Applications: Technology
Review and Trip Report Results, EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER),
Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-88/003.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-49
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
EPA, 1988. Cleanup of Releases from Petroleum USTs: Selected Technologies, Washington, DC,
EPA/530/UST-88/001.
EPA, 1988. Evaluation of the B.E.S.T.™ Solvent Extraction Sludge Treatment Technology
Twenty-Four Hour Test, EPA/600/2-88/051.
EPA, 1988. Experience in Incineration Applicable to Superfund Site Remediation, EPA, RREL
and Center for Environmental Research Information, EPA/625/9-88/008.
EPA, 1988. Groundwater Modeling: An Overview and Status Report, EPA, ORD, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/2-89/028.
EPA, 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, Washington, DC, EPA/540/G-89/004.
EPA, 1988. Hazardous Waste Incineration: Questions and Answers, EPA, OSW, Washington,
DC, EPA/530-SW-88-018.
EPA, June 1988. Radio Frequency Enhanced Decontamination of Soils Contaminated with
Halogenated Hydrocarbons, Final Report, EPA, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, June 1988. Second Supplement to Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic
Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, EPA, Research Triangle Parte, NC, EPA/600-4-89/018.
EPA, 1988. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges, EPA,
OSWER and OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-88/004
EPA, 1989. Air Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, Volume 1: Application
of Air Pathway Analysis for Superfund Activities, Interim Final, EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC, EPA/450/1-89/001.
EPA, 1989. Air Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, Volume 2: Application
of Air Pathway Analysis for Superfund Activities, Appendix, Interim Final, EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC, EPA/450/1-89/002.
EPA, 1989. Air Supeifund National Technical Guidance Study Series, Volume 3: Estimation
of Air Emissions from Cleanup Activities at Superfund Sites, Interim Final, EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC, EPA/450/1-89/003.
EPA, 1989. Air Superfund National Technical Guidance Study Series, Volume 4: Procedures
for Dispersion Modeling and Air Monitoring for Superfund Air Pathway Analysis, Interim Final,
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA/450/1-89/004.
EPA, 1989. Applications Analysis Report — Shirco Infrared Incineration System, EPA, ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-89/010.
EPA, 1989. Biennial Reporting System, EPA, OSW, Washington, DC.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-50
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
EPA, 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils, EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK,
EPA/600/9-89/073.
EPA, 1989. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final, EPA,
OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-89/0058.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology — Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA, OSWER, Washington,
DC, Directive 9200 5-254FS.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: Soil Washing, OSWER Directive 9200.5-250FS.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: BEST Solvent Extraction Process, EPA, OSWER,
Washington, DC, Directive 9200.5-253FS.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology — Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA, OSWER, Washington,
DC, Directive 9200 5-254FS.
EPA, 1989. Innovative Technology: Soil Washing, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, Directive
9200.5-250FS.
EPA, 1989. SITE Program Demonstration Test International Waste Technologies In Situ
Stabilization!Solidification Hialeah, Florida, Technology Evaluation Report, EPA RREL,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/5-89/004a.
EPA, 1989. SITE: Treatability Study Report - Results of Treating McCoU. Superfund Waste in
Ogden's Circulating Bed Combustor Research Facility, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/X-
89/342.
EPA, 1989. Soils Washing Technologies for: Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks, Site Remediation.
EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes — Physical Tests,
Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening and Field Activities, EPA, ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/625/6-89/022.
EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests, Chemical
Testing Procedures, Technology Screening, and Field Activities, EPA, CERL, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA/625/6-89/022.
EPA, December 1989. Superfund Treatability Study Protocol: Bench-Scale Level of Soils
Washing for Contaminated Soils (Interim Final), EPA, Washington, DC.
EPA, 1989. Technologies for Upgrading Existing or Designing New Drinking Water Treatment
Facilities, EPA, Office of Drinking Water (ODW), Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/4-89/023.
EPA, 1989. Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges, EPA,
OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-88/004.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-51
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
EPA, 1989. Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction System, Applications Analysis Report, EPA,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/A5-89/003.
EPA, 1990. Applications Analysis Report: Toxic Treatments In Situ Steam/Hot-Air Stripping
Technology, Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, San Diego, CA, for EPA,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1990. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Groundwater Remediation Technology, EPA, ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-90/003.
EPA, 1990. Bioremediation in the Field, EPA/540/2-90-004.
EPA, 1990. CF Systems Organics Extraction Process New Bedford Harbor, MA, Applications
Analysis Report, Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE), EPA, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/A5-90/002. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-1133845.
EPA, 1990. ChemicalDehalogenation Treatment: APEG Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,
OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/015.
EPA, 1990. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, EPA, Office of Water
Program Operations, EPA/430/9-78/009.
EPA, 1990. International Evaluation of In Situ Biorestoration of Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/012.
EPA, 1990. International Waste Technologies/Geo-Con In Situ Stabilization/Solidification,
Applications Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-89/004.
EPA, 1990. Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA OERR and
ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/014.
EPA, 1990. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Chapter 3), EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/450/3-90/006.
EPA, May 1990. Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/010.
EPA, 1990. Slurry Biodegradation, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, EPA/540/2-90/016.
EPA, 1990. Soil Washing Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/2-90/017. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-228056.
EPA, 1990. Solvent Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
Washington, DC, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/2-90/013.
EPA, 1990. State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction System Technology, Hazardous
Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/2-89/024.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-52
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
EPA, 1990. Summary of Treatment Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil, EPA,
OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-89/053.
EPA, June 1990. Supetfund Design and Construction Update, Publication 9200.5-2151.
EPA, 1990. Supetfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program and the Inventory of
Treatability Study Vendors, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/003b.
EPA, 1990. Technology Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration of the Ultrox
International Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/5-89/012.
EPA, 1990. Treating Chlorinated Wastes with the KPEG Process, Project Summary, EPA RREL,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/S2-90/026.
EPA, 1990. Ultrox International Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation Technology, Applications
Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-89/012.
EPA, 1991. Access EPA, EPA/MSD-91-100.
EPA, 1991. Air Stripping of Aqueous Solutions, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, Washington,
DC, EPA/540/2-91/022.
EPA, 1991. AWD Technologies: Integrated AquaDetox®/SVE Technology, EPA, ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-89/003.
EPA, 1991. AWD Technologies, Integrated Aquadetox/SVE Technology, Applications Analysis
Report, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/A5-91/002.
EPA, 1991. BCD: An EPA-Patented Process for Detoxifying Chlorinated Wastes, EPA, ORD.
EPA, 1991. Biological Treatment of Wood Preserving Site Groundwater, Applications Analysis
Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-91/001.
EPA, 1991. Chemical Oxidation Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/530/2-91/025.
EPA, 1991. Chemical Oxidation Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/025.
EPA, 1991. Control of Air Emissions from Materials Handling During Remediation, Engineering
Bulletin, EPA, OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/022.
EPA, 1991. EPA's Mobile Volume Reduction Unit for Soil Washing, H. Masters and B. Rubin,
Editors, EPA/500/D-91/201. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. PB91-231209.
EPA, 1991. Granular Activated Carbon Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/024.
M K01\RPT:02281012.009'*=ompgde.s5
5-53
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
EPA, 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction,
EPA, OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/019A.
EPA, 1991. In Situ Soil Flushing, Engineering Bulletin, EPA/540/2-91/021.
EPA, 1991. In-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, RREL, Cincinnati,
OH, EPA/540/2-91/006.
EPA, 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/005.
EPA, 1991. Innovative Technology — In Situ Vitrification, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC,
Directive 9200.5-251FS.
EPA, 1991. Innovative Treatment Technologies — Overview and Guide to Information Sources,
EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/540/9-91/002.
EPA, 1991. Microbial Degradation of Alkylbenzenes under Sulfate Reducing and Methanogenic
Conditions, EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK, EPA/600/S2-91/027.
EPA, 1991. Overview of Air Biofilters, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, April 1991. Proceedings of the 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium,
EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/9-91/002.
EPA, 1991. Project Summary — Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook, EPA,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/S2-91/003.
EPA, 1991. Pyrolysis Treatment (Draft), Engineering Bulletin, OERR, Washington, DC, and ORD,
Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1991. Slurry Walls, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/2-92/0038.
EPA, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology Reference Handbook, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati,
OH, T.A. Pedersen and J.T. Curtis, Editors, EPA/540/2-91/003, pp. 88-91, 115.
EPA, 1991. Survey of Materials-Handling Technologies Used at Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA,
ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/010.
EPA, 1991. Thermal Desorption Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/008.
EPA, 1991. Toxic Treatments: In Situ Steam/Hot-Air Stripping Technology, EPA, ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-90/008.
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Bioventing, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/542/F-92/008.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-54
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Glycolate Dehalogenation, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC,
EPA/542/F-92/005.
EPA, March 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Soil Washing, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/542/
F-92/003.
EPA, 1992. A Citizen's Guide to Thermal Desorption, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC,
EPA/542/F-92/006.
EPA, 1992. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies, Second
Edition, Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/B-92/002.
EPA, 1992. Air Pathways Analysis, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/S-
92/013.
EPA, 1992. Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) (Electronic
Bulletinboard), EPA, RREL, Edison, NJ.
EPA, 1992. AOSTRA-SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Wide Beach Development Site,
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/MR-92/008.
EPA, 1992. Babcock & Wilcox Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technology, Applications Analysis
Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/AR-92/017.
EPA, 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies: Abstracts, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/9-92/044.
EPA, 1992: BioTrol Soil Washing System for Treatment of a Wood Preserving Site, Applications
Analysis Report, SITE, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-91/003.
EPA, 1992. Circulating Bed Combustor, Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, CERL, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA/540/MR-92/001.
EPA, 1992. Control of Air Emissions from Superfund Sites, EPA, ORD, EPA/625/R-92/012.
EPA, 1992. Cost of Biofiltration Compared to Alternative VOC Control Technologies, EPA,
RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1992. Demonstration of a Trial Excavation at the McCoU Superfund Site, Applications
Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/AR-921/015.
EPA, January 1992. Estimation of Air Impacts for Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Systems, EPA
450/1-92/001.
EPA, 1992. Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., Flame Reactor Technology,
Applications Analysis Report, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-91/005.
EPA, 1992. Innovative Treatment Technologies — Semi-Annual Status Report, Fourth Edition,
EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/542/R-92/011.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-55
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
EPA, 1992. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semiannual Status Report, Third Edition, EPA,
OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/001.
EPA, May 1992. In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater: An Inventory of Research
and Field Demonstrations and a Role for EPA in Improving Groundwater Remediations, EPA,
Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC.
EPA, 1992. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT System, Demonstration Bulletin,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/MR-92/019.
EPA, 1992. Pyrolysis Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR, Washington, DC, EPA/540/S-
92/010.
EPA, 1992. Retech, Inc., Plasma Centrifugal Furnace, Applications Analysis Report, EPA, ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/A5-91/007.
EPA, 1992. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology, Reference Handbook, EPA, ORD, Washington,
DC, EPA/540/2-91/003.
EPA, 1992. SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Processor: Outboard Marine Corporation Site,
Demonstration Bulletin, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/MR-92/078.
EPA, 1992. Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies,
Second Edition, Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/542/B-
92/003.
EPA, 1992. Technologies and Options for UST Corrective Actions: Overview of Current
Practice, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC, EPA/542/R-92/010.
EPA, 1992. Technology Assessment of Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging, Project
Summary, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/SR-92/173.
EPA, 1992. Technology Evaluation Report — Ogden Circulating Bed Combustor at the McCoU
Superfund Site, EPA, OERR and ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/540/R-92/001.
EPA, 1992. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles,
Fifth Edition, OSWER, EPA/940/R-92/077.
EPA, 1992. Thermal Desorption Applications for Treating Nonhazardous Petroleum
Contaminated Soil, (Draft), EPA, RREL, Edison, NJ.
EPA, 1993. Approaches for the Remediation of Federal Facility Sites Contaminated with
Explosive or Radioactive Wastes, EPA/625/R-93/013.
EPA, 1993. Demonstration Bulletin: Fungal Treatment Bulletin, EPA/540/MR-93/514.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-56
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
EPA, 1993. In Situ Bioremediation: Biodegradation of Trichloroethylene and
Tetrachloroethylene by Injection of Air and Methane, Innovative Remedial Technology
Information Request Guide.
EPA, 1993. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Status Report, Fifth Edition,
EPA/542/R-93/003.
EPA, 1993. Perspective Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection for CERCLA
Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil, EPA/540/F-93/048.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization and Its Application to Waste Materials, Technical
Resource Document, EPA, ORD, Washington, DC, EPA/5 30/R-93/012.
EPA, 1993. Solidification/Stabilization ofOrganics and Inorganics, Engineering Bulletin, EPA,
ORD, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/S-92/015.
EPA, 1993. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles, Sixth
Edition, EPA, OSWER and RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/540/R-93/526.
EPA, 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT), Parts 1 and 2, EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC.
EPA, 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment, Engineering Bulletin, EPA, OERR and ORD,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/5-94/501.
EPA/U.S. Air Force, July 1993. Remedial Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide,
Version 1.
EPA/U.S. Navy, November 1993. EPA/Navy CERCLA Remedial Action Technology Guide.
Fahy, L.J., L.A. Johnson, Jr., D.V. Sola, S.G. Horn, and J.L. Christofferson, December 1992.
"Enhanced Recovery of Oily NAPL at a Wood Treating Site Using the CROW Process," in
Proceedings of the HMClSuperfund '92, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Falta, R.W., et al., 1992. "Numerical Modeling of Steam Injection for the Removal of
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids from the Subsurface 2. Code Validation and Application," Water
Resources Research, 28(2):451-465.
Fitzgerald, C. and J. Schuring, September 1992. "Integration of Pneumatic Fracturing To
Enhance In Situ Bioremediation," in Proceedings of the Symposium on Gas, Oil, and
Environmental Biotechnology, Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, IL.
Flathman, P.E. and G.D. Githens, 1985. "In Situ Biological Treatment of Isopropanol, Acetone,
and Tetrahydrofuran in the Soil/Groundwater Environment," Groundwater Treatment
Technology, E.K. Nyer, Editor, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Flathman, P.E., D.E. Jerger, and L.S. Bottomley, 1989. "Remediation of Contaminated
Groundwater Using Biological Techniques," Ground Water Monitoring Review, 9( 1): 105-119.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-57
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Fouhy, Ken, and Agnes Shanley, March 1991. "Mighty Microbes," Chemical Engineering, Vol.
98, No. 3, pp. 30-35.
Fountain, J.C., and D.S. Hodge, February 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.
Frank, Uwe, December 1993. "Pneumatic Fracturing Increases VOC Extraction Rate," Tech
Trends, p. 1, EPA, RREL, EPA/542/N-93/010.
Frankenberger, W.T. Jr., K.D. Emerson, and D.W. Turner, undated. "In Situ Bioremediation of
an Underground Diesel Fuel Spill: A Case History," Environmental Management, 13(3):325-
332.
Freeman, H.M. (Editor), 1988. Incinerating Hazardous Wastes, Technomic Publishing Company,
Lancaster, PA.
Freeman, Harry M. (Editor in Chief), 1989. Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment
and Disposal, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Friday, Thomas L. and Rakesh Gupta, August 1991. "Selection of Treatment Process To Meet
OCPSF Limitations," Environmental Progress, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 218-224.
FRTR (Federal Remediation Technologies Round Table, Member Agencies ol), August 1993.
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition.
FRTR, September 1993. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up
Technologies, Third Edition.
FRTR, September 1993. Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment
Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation, Third Edition.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (Member Agencies of), October 1993. Federal
Publications on Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site
Remediation, Third Edition, EPA/542/B-93/007.
Funfschilling, M.R. and R.C. Eschenbach, June 1992. A Plasma Centrifugal Furnace for Treating
Hazardous Waste, Presented at the Electrotech 92-International Congress on Electrotechnologies,
Canadian Committee on Electrotechnologies, Montreal, PQ.
Getty, D. and W.S. Butterfield, 1993. Contaminants and Remedial Options at Solvent-
Contaminated Sites, prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. for EPA RREL.
Gillham, R.W. and S.F. O'Hannesin, October 1992. A Permeable Reaction Wall for In Situ
Degradation of Halogenated Organic Compounds, Paper presented at the 45th Canadian
Geotechnical Society Conference, Toronto, ON.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.s5
5-58
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
Gillham, R.W. and S.F. O'Hannesin, May 1992. "Metal-Catalyzed Abiotic Degradation of
Halogenated Organic Compounds," Modern Trends in Hydrogeology, presented at the 1992 IAH
Conference, Hamilton, ON.
Goldberg-Zoino and Assoc. Inc., 1987. Construction Quality Control and Post-Construction
Performance for the Gilson Road Hazardous Waste Site Cutoff Wall, EPA/600/2-87/065.
Govind, R., V. Utgikar, Y. Shan, S.I. Safferman, and D.F. Bishop, undated. Studies on Aerobic
Degradation of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in an Activated Carbon Packed Bed
Biofilter, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, and EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH. Unpublished
Report.
Gravitz, N„ July 1985. "Derivation and Implementation of Air Criteria During Hazardous
Waste Cleanups," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 35(7).
Greene, H.L., 1989. Vapor-Phase Catalytic Oxidation of Mixed Volatile Organic Compounds:
Final, USAF Engineering and Services Center, Engineering and Services Laboratory, Tyndall AFB,
FL, ESL-TR-89-12. Also available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA243426.
Grubbs, R.B., June 1986. "Enhanced Biodegradation of Aliphatic and Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Through Bioaugmentation," Paper presented to the Fourth Annual Hazardous Materials
Management Conference/Exhibit, Atlantic City, NJ.
Grube, W. E., 1991. "Soil Barrier Alternatives," in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual RREL
Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/9-91/002.
Hall, D.W., J. A. Sandrin, and R.E. McBride, 1989. An Overview of Solvent Extraction Treatment
Technologies, Presented at AIChE Convention, Philadelphia, PA.
Hall, D.W., J.A. Sandrin, and R.E. McBride, 1990. "An Overview of Solvent Extraction
Treatment Technologies," Environmental Progress, 9(2):98-105.
Halloran, A.R., R. Troast, and D.G. Gilroy, 1991. "Solvent Extraction of a PAH-Contaminated
Soil," in Proceedings of the 12th National Conference, Superfund '91, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Hansen, W., et al., 1992. Barriers and Post-Closure Monitoring, Briefing Chart, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, TTP No. AL-1212-25.
Hartz, A.A. and R.B. Beach, 1992. "Cleanup of Creosite-Contaminated Sludge Using a
Bioslurry Lagoon," in Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund '92, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Hassett, J. J., J.C. Means, W.L. Banwart, and S.G. Wood, 1980. Sorption Properties of Sediments
and Energy-Related Pollutants, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/3-80-041.
Hassett, J.J., W.L. Banwart, R.A. Griffin, 1983. "Correlation of Compound Properties with
Sorption Characterises of Nonpolar Compounds by Soils and Sediments; Concepts and
Limitations," Environment and Solid Wastes, C.W. Francis and S.I. Auerbach, Editors,
Butterworths, Boston, MA, pp. 161-178.
MK01\RPT.02281012.009\compgde s5
5-59
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Hater, Gary R., C.D. Goldsmith, Randall von Wedel, James Philips, and William Hunt, undated.
In-Situ and Ex-Situ Bioremediation of Soils Contaminated by Petroleum Distillates, Made
Available by Biochemical Division of Sybron Chemicals Inc., Birmingham, NJ.
Hazen, T.C., B.B. Looney, M. Enzien, M.M. Franck, C.B. Fliermans, and C.A. Eddy, September
1993. In-Situ Bioremediation Via Horizontal Wells, Preprint Extended Abstract, Presented at the
I&EC Special Symposium, American Chemical Society, Atlanta, GA.
Heyse, E„ S.C. James, and R. Wetzel, August 1986. "In Situ Aerobic Biodegradation of Aquifer
Contaminants at Kelly Air Force Base," Environmental Progress, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-211.
Hildebrandt, W. and F. Jasiulewicz, September-October 1992. "Cleaning Up Military Bases,"
The Military Engineer, No. 55, p.7.
Hinchee, R.E., D.C. Downey, R.R. Du Pont, P. Aggarwal, and R.E. Miller, 1991. "Enhancing
Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons through Soil Venting," Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 23(3).
Hinshaw, G.D., C.B. Fanska, D.E. Fiscus, and S.A. Sorensen, Midwest Research Institute, Undated.
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) System Performance Capabilities and Optimization, Final
Report, USAEC, APG, MD, MRI Project No. 81812-S, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR87111.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA 179828.
HMCRI (Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute), 1991. Hazardous Materials Control
Buyer's Guide and Source Book 1992, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
HMCRI, 1992. Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund '92, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Hoffelner, W. and R.C. Eschenbach, February 1993. Plasma Treatment for Radioactive Waste,
Presented at the EPRI Conference, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Hoffman, F., 1993. "Ground Water Remediation Using Smart Pump and Treat," Ground
Water, 31:(1).
Holcombe, T.C., J. Cataldo, and J. Ahmad, 1990. "Use of the Carver-Greenfield Process® for
the Cleanup of Petroleum-Contaminated Soils," in Proceedings of the New York-New Jersey
Environmental Expo '90, Meadowlands Convention Center, Secaucus, NJ, 16-18 October 1990.
Hubbert, M.K and D.G. Willis, 1957. "Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing," Petroleum
Transactions AIME, Vol. 210, pp. 153 through 168.
Hudson, J., et al., June 1991. Remote Sensing of Toxic Air Pollutants at a High Risk Point
Source Using Long Path FTIR, 91-57.1, Presented at the 1991 Air and Waste Management
Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC.
Hunter, Marie, July 1989. "Biological Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater Systems,"
Pollution Engineering.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009v£ompgde.s5
5-60
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
Hutchins, S.R., G.W. Sewell, D.A. Kovacs, and G.A. Smith, 1991. "Biodegradation of Aromatic
Hydrocarbons by Aquifer Microorganisms Under Denitrifying Conditions," Environmental
Science and Technology, 25:68-76.
Hutchins, S.R., W.C. Downs, J.T. Wilson, G.B. Smith, D.A. Kovacs, D.D. Fine, R.H. Douglass, and
D.J. Hendrix, 1991. "Effect of Nitrate Addition on Biorestoration of Fuel-Contaminated
Aquifer: Field Demonstration," Ground Water, 29(4):571-580.
Hutzler, Neil J., Blane E. Murphy, and John S. Gierke, June 1989. State of Technology Review,
Soil Vapor Extraction Systems, EPA, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/2-89/024.
Hylton, T.D., 1992. "Evaluation of the TCE Catalytic Oxidation Unit at Wurtsmith Air Force
Base," Environmental Progress, ll(l):54-57.
Janshekar, H. and Fiechter A., 1988. "Cultivation of P. Chrysosporium and Production of
Lignin Peroxidases in Submerged Stirred Tank Reactors," Journal of Biotechnology, 8:97-112.
Jeng, C.Y., D.H. Chen, and C.L. Yaws, 1992. "Data Compilation for Soil Sorption Coefficient,"
Pollution Engineering, 15 June 1992.
Jhaveri, V. and A.J. Mazzacca, 1986. "Bioreclamation of Ground and Groundwater by In Situ
Biodegradation: Case History," Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Washington, DC.
Johnson, N.P. and M.G. Cosmos, October 1989. "Thermal Treatment Technologies for
Hazardous Waste Remediation," Pollution Engineering.
Johnson, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Marks, 1987. Bench-Scale Investigation of Low Temperature
Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds From Various Soil Types: Technical Report,
AMXTH-TE-CR-87124, USATHAMA.
Johnson, P.C., D.D. Stanley, M.W. Kemblowski, D.L. Byers, and J.D. Colthart, Spring 1990. "A
Practical Approach to the Design, Operation, and Monitoring of In Situ Soil Venting
Systems," GWMR, pp. 159-178.
Kampbell, D., 1991. "Bioventing/Biodegradation Remediates Liquid Hydrocarbons in
Unsaturated Zone," Tech Trends, EPA/540/M-91/004, No. 6.
Keeler, July 1991. "Bioremediation: Healing the Environment Naturally," R&D Magazine.
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.
Kram, M.L., 1990. Measurement of Floating Petroleum Product Thickness and Determination
of Hydrostatic Head in Monitoring Wells, NEESA Energy and Environmental News Information
Bulletin No. IB-107.
MK01\RPT:022810]2.009\compgde s5
5-61
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Kram, M.L., October 1993. Free Product Recovery: Mobility Limitations and Improved
Approaches, NFESC Information Bulletin No. IB-123.
Kuhn, W.L., May 1992. Steady State Analysis of the Fate of Volatile Contaminants During In
Situ Vitrification, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, prepared for DOE; PNL-8059, US-
602.
Kulwiec, R.A., 1985. Materials Handling Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
La Mori, P.N., May 1990. "In-Situ Hot Air/Steam Extraction of Volatile Organic
Compounds," in Proceedings of the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-90/010.
La Mori, P.N. and J. Guenther, September 1989. "In Situ Steam/Air Stripping," in Proceedings
of the Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International,
EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/S-89/056.
Laboratory Paper presented at the 1990 Summer National Meeting of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers (AIChE), San Diego, CA.
Lamar, Richard T. and Dietrich D.M., 1990. "In Situ Depletion of Pentachlorophenol from
Contaminated Soil by Phanerochaete Species," Applied Environmental Microbiology, 56, 3093.
Lamar, Richard T. and Richard J. Scholze, 4-6 February 1992. White-Rot Fungi Biodegradation
of PCP-Treated Ammunition Boxes, Presented at the National Research and Development
Conference on the Control of Hazardous Materials, San Francisco, CA.
Lamar, Richard T. and Dietrich D.M., 1990. "In Situ Depletion of Pentachlorophenol from
Contaminated Soil by Phanerochaete Species," Applied Environmental Microbiology, 56, 3093.
Lebron, C.A., June 1990. Ordnance Bioremediation - Initial Feasibility Report, NCEL.
Lebron, C.A., L.A. Karr, T. Fernando, and S.D. Aust, 1992. Biodegradation of 2,4,6-
Trinitrotoluene by White Rot Fungus, U.S. Parent Number 5,085,998.
Lighty, J., et al., 1987. The Cleanup of Contaminated Soil by Thermal Desorption, Presented at
Second International Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management, EPA Report
EPA/600/9-87/018.
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, 25-
26 March 1991, Geosafe Corporation, Richland, WA.
Little, J.C., B.J. Marinaras, and R.E. Selleck, July 1991. "Crossflow vs. Counterflow Air
Stripping Costs," Environmental Engineering: Proceedings of the 1991 Specialty Conference, pp.
331-336, P.A. Krenkle, Editor, Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reno, NV.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.s5
5-62
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
Lodge, J.P. (Editor), 1989. Methods of Air Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition, Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Chelsea MI.
Lord, A.E., L.J. Sansone, R.M. Koerner, and J.E. Brugger, April 1991. "Vacuum-Assisted Steam
Stripping To Remove Pollutants from Contaminated Soil — A Laboratory Study," in
Proceedings of the 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, EPA, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/9-91/002.
Luey, J.S., S. Koegler, W.L. Kuhn, P.S. Lowerey, and R.G. Winkelman, September 1992. "In Situ
Vitrification of Mixed-Waste Contaminated Soil Site: The 116-B-6A Crib at Hanford," CERCLA
Treatability Test Report, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, prepared for DOE, Report
PNL-8281, UC-602.
Major, D.W. and E.W. Hodgins, 1991. "Field and Laboratory Evidence of In Situ
Biotransformation of Tetrachloroethene to Ethene and Ethane at a Chemical Transfer Facility
in North Toronto," in On-Site Biorectarnation, Processes for Xenobiotic and Hydrocarbon
Treatment, pp. 147-171, R.E. Hinchee and R.F. Olfenbuttel, Editors, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Boston, MA.
Marchand, E„ 1991. "Catalytic Oxidation Emissions Control for Remediation Efforts," in
Third Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International:
Technical Papers, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/015.
Marks, P.J. and J.W. Noland, 1986. Economic Evaluation of Low Temperature Thermal Stripping
of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil, Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-86085,
USATHAMA.
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.
Massey, M.J. 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, 29-30 August 1989.
Maumee Research and Engineering, April 1986. Design Support for a Hot Gas Decontamination
System for Explosives-Contaminated Buildings.
Mayer, G., W. Bellamy, N. Ziemba, and L.A. Otis, 1990. "Conceptual Cost Evaluation of
Volatile Organic Compound Treatment by Advanced Ozone Oxidation," in Proceedings of the
Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International, 15-17 May 1990, Philadelphia, PA, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/2-90/010.
McCandless, R.M. and A. Bodocsi, 1987. Investigation of Slurry Cutoff Wall Design and
Construction Methods for Containing Hazardous Wastes, EPA/600/2-87/063.
McCoy and Associates, Inc., September/October 1992. "Innovative In Situ Cleanup Processes,"
The Hazardous Waste Consultant.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-63
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
McCoy and Associates, Inc., 1989. The Hazardous Waste Consultant, Vol. 7, Issue 3.
McDevitt, N.P., J.W. Noland, and P.J. Maries, 1986. Bench-Scale Investigation of Air Stripping
of Volatile Organic Compounds from Soil: Technical Report, AMXTH-TE-CR-86092,
USATHAMA.
McGowan, T. and R. Ross, October 1991. "Hazardous Waste Incineration Is Going Mobile,"
Chemical Engineering, pp. 114-123.
McNeill, W„ et al., October 1987. Pilot Plant Testing of Hot Gas Building Decontamination
Process - Final Report, USATHAMA Report AMXTH-TE-CR-87130.
Means, R.S. Company, Inc., 1988. Building Construction Cost Data 1989, R.S. Means Publishing,
Kingston, MA.
Meckes, et al., 1992. "Solvent Extraction Processes: A Survey of Systems in the SITE
Program," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 42, No. 8.
Miller, R.N., 1990. "A Field-Scale Investigation of Enhanced Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Biodegradation in the Vadose Zone at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida," in Proceedings of the
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention, Detection, and
Restoration Conference, NWAA/API, pp. 339-351.
Miller, S., 1980. "Adsorption on Carbon: Solvent Effects on Adsorption," Environmental
Science & Technology, 14(9): 1037-1049.
Miller, S.P., 1979. Geotechnical Containment Alternatives for Industrial Waste Basin F, Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado: A Quantitative Evaluation, USAE-WES Technical Report
GL-79-23.
Mitchell, M.M., D.B. McMindes, and R. Young, May 1991. Time Critical Response Action for
a JP-4 Free Product Plume—Kelly AFB," Presented at the Environmental Restoration Technology
Symposium, USAF, San Antonio, TX.
Molnaa, B.A. and R.B. Grubbs, undated. Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soils Using
a Microbial Consortia as Inoculum, Solmar Corporation, Orange, CA.
Montamagno, C.D., 1990. Feasibility of Biodegrading TNT-Contaminated Soils in a Slurry
Reactor - Final Technical Report, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-90062.
Montgomery, A.H., C.J. Rogers, and A. Kornel, 1992. Thermal and Dechlorination Processes for
the Destruction of Chlorinated Pollutants in Liquid and Solid Matrices, Presented at the AIChE
1992 Summer Annual Meeting, 9-12 August, AIChE, New York, NY.
Morrison, R.T. and R.N. Boyd, 1973. Organic Chemistry, Third Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
Boston, MA.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.s5
5-64
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
Murdoch, L.C., 1990. "A Field Test of Hydraulic Fracturing in Glacial Till," in the
Proceedings of the Research Symposium, Ohio, EPA Report, EPA/600/9-90/006.
Murdoch, L.C., 1993. "Hydraulic Fracturing of Soil During Laboratory Experiments, Part I:
Methods and Observations; Part II: Propagation; Part III: Theoretical Analysis,"
Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 2, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 255 to 287.
Nash J., R.P. Traver, and D.C. Downey, 1986. Surfactant-Enhanced. In Situ Soils Washing,
USAF Engineering and Services Laboratory, Florida. ESL-TR-97-18, Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA188066.
NCEL, 1990. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Removal and Treatment of PCB-
Contaminated Soils at Building 3000 Site PWC Guam.
NEESA, 1992. Immediate Response to Free Product Recovery, NEESA Document No. 20.2-051.4.
NEESA and NCEL, July 1992. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-Catalyzed
Decomposition Process, Technical Data Sheet.
NEESA and NCEL, August 1991. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: Base-Catalyzed
Decomposition Process, Technical Data Sheet.
Nelson, M.J., J.V. Kinsella, and T. Montoya, 1990. "In Situ Biodegradation of TCE
Contaminated Groundwater," Environmental Progress, 9(3):190-196.
Nelson, M.J.K., S.O. Montgomery, E.J. O'Neill, and P.H. Pritchard, 1986. "Aerobic Metabolism
of Trichloroethylene by a Bacterial Isolate," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 52(2):383-
384.
Nelson, Michael J.K., John A. Cioffi, and Harlan S. Borow, November 1990. "In-Situ
Bioremediation of TCE and Other Solvents," in Proceedings of the 11 th National Superfund
Conference (Superfund '90), HMCRI, pp. 800-806.
NETAC (National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation), 1990. A Technology
Overview of Existing and Emerging Environmental Solutions for Wood Treating Chemicals,
Prepared for Beazer East, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
Nielson, R. and M. Cosmos, 1988. Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT 3) of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Soil: A Technology Demonstrated, Presented at the AIChE Meeting,
Denver, CO.
NIOSH, OSHA, USCG (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, U.S. Coast Guard), and EPA, 1985. Occupational Safety and Health
Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Washington, DC, Publication 85-115.
MK01\RPT:0mi012.009\compgde.s5
5-65
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Noland, J.W., et al., 1984. Task 2: Incineration Test of Explosives Contaminated Soils at
Savanna Army Depot Activity, Final Report, Savanna Illinois, USATHAMA Report DRXTH-TE-
CR 84277.
Norris, et al., 1994. Handbook of Bioremediation, EPA-RSKERL, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press,
2000 Corporate Boulevard, Boca Raton, FL 33431.
Nunno, T.J., J.A. Hyman, and T. Pheiffer, December 1988. "Development of Site Remediation
Technologies in European Countries," in Workshop on the Extractive Treatment of Excavated
Soil, EPA, Edison, NJ.
Nyer, E.K., 1985. Groundwater Treatment Technology, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Opatken, E.J., H.K. Howard, and J.J. Bond, 1987. Biological Treatment of Hazardous Aqueous
Wastes, EPA/600/D-87/184.
Opatken, E.J., H.K. Howard, and J.J. Bond, 1989. "Biological Treatment of Leachate from a
Superfund Site," Environmental Progress, Vol. 8, No. 1.
Pedersen, T.A. and J.T. Curtis, 1991. Soil Vapor Extraction Technology, EPA/540/2-91/003.
Piotrowski, Michael R., January 1991. "Bioremediation, Experts Explore Various Biological
Approaches to Cleanup," Hazmat World Special Report, pp. 47-49.
Pisciotta, T., D. Pry, J. Schuring, P. Chan, and J. Chang, October 1991. "Enhancement of Volatile
Organic Extraction in Soil at an Industrial Site," in Proceedings of the FOCUS Conference on
Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues, National Water Well Association, Portland, ME.
Plaines, A.L., R.J. Piniewski, and G.D. Yarbrough, undated. Integrated Vacuum Extraction/
Pneumatic Soil Fracturing System for Remediation of Low Permeability Soils, Terra Vac, Tampa,
FL.
Pope, D.F. and J.E. Matthews, 1993. Bioremediation Using the Land Treatment Concept, EPA
Report EPA/600/R-93/164.
Portier, R.J., et al., 1990. "Bioremediation of Pesticide-Contaminated Groundwater,"
Remediation, l:(l):41-60.
Raghavan, R., D.H. Dietz, and E. Coles, 1988. Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction Agents:
A State-of-the-Art Review, EPA Releases Control Branch, Edison, NJ, EPA Report EPA 600/2-
89/034.
Ramin, A., 1990. Thermal Treatment of Refinery Sludges and Contaminated Soils, Presented at
the American Petroleum Institute, Orlando, FL.
RCRIS (Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System), July 1992. RCRIS National
Oversight Database, EPA, OSW, Washington, DC.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-66
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
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.
Ritcey, R. and F. Schwartz, May 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.
Roberts, P.V., L. Semprini, G.D. Hopkins, D. Grbic-Galic, P.L. McCarty, and M. Reinhard, 1989.
In Situ Aquifer Restoration of Chlorinated Aliphatics by Methanotropic Bacterial, Center for
Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/2-89/033.
Robinson, Kevin G., Kimyoung Kim, William S. Farmer, and John T. Novak, August 1990.
"Bioremediation Removes Gasoline Residues," Pollution Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 76-81.
Rogers, C., A. Kornel, and L. Peterson, 1987. "Mobile KPEG Destruction Unit for PCBs,
Dioxins, and Furans in Contaminated Waste: Land Disposal Remedial Action, Incineration,
and Treatment of Hazardous Waste," in Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Research
Symposium, p. 361, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/9-87/015.
Rowe, R„ December 1987. "Solvent Extraction," Evaluation of Treatment Technologies for Listed
Petroleum Refinery Wastes, Final Report of the American Petroleum Institute, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, DC.
Roy, Kimberly A., October 1991. "Vacuum Extraction Provides In Situ Cleanup of Organics-
Contaminated Soil," Hazmat World, pp. 38-41.
Royer, M.D., undated. Contaminants and Remedial Options at Metals-Contaminated Sites.
Prepared by Battelle Columbus Division for EPA, RREL and ORD, Cincinnati, OH.
Schlienger, E., W.R. Warf, and S.R. Johnson, March 1993. The Mobile PCF2, Presented at Waste
Management '93, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
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.
Scholz, R. and J. Milanowski, 1983. Mobile System for Extracting Spilled Hazardous Materials
from Excavated Soils, EPA, EPA-600/S2-83-100.
Schuring, J. and P. Chan, 1992. Vadose Zone Contaminant Removal by Pneumatic Fracturing,
Summary of Project (1 July 1988-30 June 1992), New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.
Schuring, J., J. Valdis, and P. Chan, September 1991. "Pneumatic Fracturing of a Clay
Formation To Enhance Removal of VOCs," in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Madison
Waste Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Schuring, J., J. Jurka, and P. Chan, Winter 1991/92. "Pneumatic Fracturing To Remove VOCs,"
Remediation Journal, 2:(1).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-67
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Scovazzo, P.E., D. Good, and D.S. Jackson, 1992. "Soil Attenuation: In Situ Remediation of
Inorganics," in Proceedings of the HMC/Superfund 1992, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Semprini, L., G.D. Hopkins, D.B. Janssen, M. Lang, P.V. Roberts, and P.L. McCarty, 1991. In-
Situ Biotransformation of Carbon Tetrachloride Under Anoxic Conditions, EPA/2-90/060.
Semprini, Lewis, Paul V. Roberts, Gary D. Hopkins, and Perry L. McCarty, September/October
1990. "A Field Evaluation of In-Situ Biodegradation of Chlorinated Ethenes: Part 2, Results
of Biostimulation and Biotransformation Experiments," Ground Water, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp.
715-727.
Shirco Infrared Systems, 10-13 February 1987. Final Report: On-Site Incineration Testing at
Brio Site, Friendswood, Texas, Report No. 846-87-1 (Portable Test Unit).
Shukla, H.M. and R.E. Hicks, 1984. Process Design Manual for Stripping of Organics, Water
General Corporation for EPA, EPA/600/12-84/139, NTIS PB 84 232628.
Sims, J.L., R.C. Sims, and J.E. Matthews, 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils,
EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK, EPA Report, EPA-600/9-89/073.
Sims, Judith L„ Ronald C. Sims, and John E. Matthews, 1990. "Approach to Bioremediation of
Contaminated Soil," Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 117-149.
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
1 and 2, EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK, EPA/600/S6-86/003.
Singh, S.P., 1989. Air Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds from Groundwater: An
Evaluation of a Centrifugal Vapor-Liquid Contractor, USAF Environmental and Service Center
Report ESL-TR-86-46.
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.
Smarkel, K.L., 3 November 1988. Soil Washing of Low Volatility Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Staff
Technology Demonstration Report, California Department of Health Services. Abstract Available
on ATTIC.
Spalding, B.P., G.K. Jacobs, N.W. Dunbar, M.T. Naney, J.S. Tixier, and T.D. Powell, November
1992. Tracer-Level Radioactive Pilot-Scale Test of In Situ Vitrification for the Stabilization of
Contaminated Soil Sites at ORNL, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Publication No. 3962,
prepared for DOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Report NG ORNL/TM- 12201.
Spellicy, R.L., November/December 1991. "Spectroscopic Remote Sensing: Addressing
Requirements of the Clean Air Act. 24," Spectroscopy, 6(9).
Spooner, P.A., et al., 1984. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution Migration Control,
EPA/540/2-84/001.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-68
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
Sresty, G., H. Dev, and J. Houthoofd, February 1992. In Situ Decontamination by Radio
Frequency Heating, Presented at the International Symposium on In Situ Treatment of
Contaminated Soil and Water, AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA.
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.
Stenzel, M.H. and W.J. Merz, 1989. "Use of Carbon Adsorption Processes in Groundwater
Treatment," Environmental Progress, 8(4):257-264.
Stinson, M.K., 1989. "EPA SITE Demonstration of the Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction
Process in Groveland, Massachusetts," Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association,
Vol. 39, No. 8, p. 1054.
Stinson, M.K., 1990. "EPA SITE Demonstration of the International Waste Technologies/Geo-
Con In Situ Stabilization/Solidification Process," Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association, Vol. 40, No. 11, p. 1569.
Stinson, M.K., H. Skovronek, and T. Chresand, 1991. "EPA SITE Demonstration of Biotrol
Aqueous Treatment System," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 41, No. 2,
p. 228.
Stinson, M.K., H. Skovronek, and T. Chresand, 1992. "EPA SITE Demonstration of Biotrol
Aqueous Treatment System," Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 41,
No. 2, p. 228.
Stinson, M.K., 1992. Contaminants and Remedial Options at Wood Preserving Sites, Prepared
by Foster Wheeler Enviresponse for EPA, RREL and ORD, Cincinnati, OH.
Stumbar, J., et al., 1990. EPA Mobile Incineration Modifications, Testing, and Operations:
February 1986 to June 1989, EPA/600/2-90/042.
Stumbar, J., et al., 1990. "Effect of Feed Characteristics on the Performance of Environmental
Protection Agency's Mobile Incineration System," in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual
Research Symposium, Remedial Action, Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes, EPA/600/9-
90/006.
Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan, 1981. Aquatic Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Sturges, S.G., Jr., P. McBeth, Jr., R.C. Pratt, 1992. "Performance of Soil Flushing and
Groundwater Extraction at the United Chrome Superfund Site," Journal of Hazardous
Materials, El Savior Science Pub., B.V., Amsterdam, Vol. 29, pp. 59-78.
Swanstrom, C. and C. Palmer, 1990. X*TRAX Transportable Thermal Separator for Organic
Contaminated Soils, Presented at the Second Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International, Philadelphia, PA.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-69
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Taylor, D.S. and A.E. Peterson, 1991. "Land Application for Treatment of PCBs in Municipal
Sewage Sludge," Bioremediation, 3:464-466.
Taylor, M.L., et al. (PEI Associates), 1989. Comprehensive Report on the KPEG Process for
Treating Chlorinated Wastes, EPA Contract No. 68-03-3413, EPA RREL, Cincinnati, OH.
Teer, R.G., R.E. Brown, and H.E. Sarvis, June 1993. Status ofRCRA Permitting of Open Burning
and Open Detonation of Explosive Wastes, Presented at Air and Waste Management Association
Conference, 86th Annual Meeting and Exposition, Denver, CO.
Torpy, M.F., H.F. Stroo, and G. Brubaker, 1989. "Biological Treatment of Hazardous Waste,"
Pollution Engineering.
Trost, P.B. and R.S. Rickard, 1987. On-Stte Soil Washing—A Low Cost Alternative, Paper
Presented at ADPA, 29 April 1987, Los Angeles, CA, MTA Remedial Resources, Inc., Golden, CO.
Abstract available on ATTIC.
Udell, K. S. and L.D. Stewart, Jr., June 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, UCB-SEEHRL Report No. 89-2.
Unger, M.T., 1993. "Catalytic Oxidation for VOCs," The National Environmental Journal,
3:(2):46-48.
USAF (U.S. Air Force), 1986. Surfactant-Enhanced In Situ Soils Washing, J. Nash, R.P. Traver,
and D.C. Downey, Editors, USAF Engineering and Services Laboratory, Florida, ESL-TR-97-18.
Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA188066.
USAF, 1987. Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources Air Emissions and Controls, USAF,
Tyndall AFB, FL. Available from NTIS: PB88-106166.
USAF, 1987. An Evaluation of Rotary Air Stripping for Removal of Volatile Organics from
Groundwater, Final Report, C. Dietrich, D. Treichler, and J. Armstrong Editors, Traverse Group,
Inc., USAF Engineering and Services Laboratory, Tyndall AFB, FL, ESL-TR-86-46. Available
from NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA178831.
USAF, 1989. Enhanced Bioreclamation of Jet Fuels—A Full-Scale TestatEglin AFB, FL, Final
Report, ESL-TR-88-78, R.E. Hinchee, D.C. Downey, J.K. Slaughter, D.A. Selby, M.S. Westray, and
G.M. Long, Editors, USAF Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall AFB, FL. Available from
NTIS, Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA222348.
USAF, 1989. In Situ Decontamination by Radio Frequency Heating—Field Test, Final Report,
USAF/SD Contract No. F04701-86-C-0002, USAF, USAF/SD, Los Angeles, CA.
USAF, 1990. Explosives Safety Standards, Air Force Regulation 127-100.
USAF, 1991. Control of Air Stripping Emissions Using Catalytic Oxidation, Tyndall AFB, FL.
M K01NRPT :02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-70
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
USAF, July 1992. Remedial Technology Design, Performance and Cost Study, USAF, Air Force
Center for Environmental Excellence, Brooks AFB, TX.
USAF/EPA, July 1993. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide,
Version 1.
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, Editors,
Midwest Research Institute, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA),
APG, MD, MRI Project No. 8182-S, Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR87111. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA, Order No. ADA179828.
U.S. Army, August 1990. The Low Temperature Thermal Stripping Process, USATHAMA,
APG, MD, USATHAMA Cir. 200-1-5.
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 USATHAMA, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, CETHA-TE-CR-91023.
U.S. Army, 1992. Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control Technologies: 1992
Edition, USATHAMA, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-92053.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1986. Civil Works Construction Guide Specification
for Soil-Bentonite Slurry Trench Cutoffs, National Institute of Building Sciences, Construction
Criteria Base, CW-02214.
USAEC (U.S. Army Environmental Center), November 1992. Installation Restoration and
Hazardous Waste Control Technologies, Third Edition.
University of Cincinnati (UC), 1991. Work Plan for Hydraulic Fracturing at the Xerox Oak
Brook Site in Oak Brook, Illinois.
USAMC (U.S. Army Materiel Command), 1985. Explosives Safety Manual, AMC-R, 385-100.
USATHAMA (U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, now USAEC), 1987. Draft
Report, Bench-Scale Classification Test on Basin F Materials, Prepared by Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories for USATHAMA, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.
USATHAMA, July 1990. Pilot Test of Hot Gas Decontamination of Explosives-Contaminated
Equipment at Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant (HWAAP), Hawthorne, NV, Final Technical
Report, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-90036.
USCG (U.S. Coast Guard), September 1991. "Innovative Groundwater and Soil Remediation
at the USCG Air Station, Traverse City, Michigan," in Proceedings of the Third Forum on
Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International, EPA,
Washington, DC, EPA/540/2-91/015.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-71
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
USN (U.S. Navy), August 1991. Tech Data Sheet — Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment:
Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP), U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port
Hueneme, CA.
USN/EPA, November 1993. EPAJNavy CERCLA Remedial Action Technology Guide.
Unkefer, P.J., J.L. Hanners, CJ. Unkefer, and J.F. Kramer, April 1990. "Microbial Culturing of
Explosives Degradation," in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium,
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
Vance, David B„ September/October 1991. "Onsite Bioremediation of Oil and Grease
Contaminated Soils," The National Environmental Journal, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 26-30.
Venkatadri, R., S. Tsai, N. Vukanic, and L.B. Hein, 1992. "Use of Biofilm Membrane Reactor
for the Production of Lignin Peroxidase and Treatment of Pentachlorophenol by
Phanerochaete Chrysosporium," Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, Vol. 9, pp. 231-243.
von Wedel, Randall J., Gary R. Hater, Rodney Farrell, and C. Douglas Goldsmith, Jr., February
1990. "Excavated Soil Bioremediation for Hydrocarbon Contaminations Using Recirculating
Leachbed and Vacuum Heap Technologies," in Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management
Association and EPA Hazardous Waste Treatment of Contaminated Soil Symposium, Cincinnati,
OH.
von Wedel, Randall J., November 1990. Augmented Bioremediation of Excavated Soil
Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Paper presented at the Superfund '90 Conference,
Biotreatment Session, Washington, DC.
Vorum, M., June 1991. SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal Process (ATP): Rigorous and Cost
Effective Remediation of Organic Contaminated Solid and Sludge Wastes, Presented at the Air
and Waste Management Association, (AWMA) Conference in Kansas City, KS. Available from
AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA.
Weimer, L.D., September 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.
West, C.C. and J.H. Harwell, 1992. Application of Surfactants to Remediation of Subsurface
Contamination, EPA, RSKERL and the University of Oklahoma, Institute for Applied Surfactant
Research and School of Chemical Engineering and Materials Research, EPA, Ada, OK.
Weston Services, Inc., 1988. Project Summary - LT3 Processing of Soils Contaminated with
Chlorinated Solvents and JP-4.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.), 1993. Windrow Composting Demonstration for Explosives-
Contaminated Soils at the Umatilla Depot Activity, Hermiston, Oregon, Final Report, Prepared
for USAEC, Contract No. DACA31-91-D-0079, Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-93043.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-72
10/27/94
-------
REFERENCES BY AUTHOR
WESTON, IT Research Institute, November 1992. Final Rocky Mountain Arsenal In Situ Radio
Frequency Heating/Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Report, Vol. I, U.S. Army Report 5300-01-12-
AAFP.
Wetzel, R.S., C.M. Durst, D.H. Davidson, and D.J. Sarno, July 1987. In-Situ Biological Treatment
Test at Kelly Air Force Base, Volume II: Field Test Results and Cost Model, AD-A187 486, Air
Force Engineering & Services Center, Tyndall AFB, FL.
Wiedemeir, T.H., D.C. Downery, J.T. Wilson, D.H. Hampbell, R.N. Miller, and J.E. Hansen, 1994.
Technical Protocol for Implementing the Intrinsic Remediation (Natural Attenuation) with Long-
Term Monitoring Option for Dissolved-Phase Fuel Contamination in Ground Water, Draft,
Prepared for AFCEE, San Antonio, TX, 14 March 1994.
Wiles, C.C., 1991. Treatment of Hazardous Waste with Solidification/Stabilization, EPA Report
EPA/600/D-91/061.
Williams, R.T. and P.J. Marks, November 1991. Optimization of Composting for Explosives-
Contaminated Soils, USATHAMA Report CETHA-TS-CR-91053.
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks, March 1989. Field Demonstration - Composting
of Propellants-Contaminated Sediments at the Badger Army Ammunition Plant (BAAP),
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-CR-89061.
Williams, R.T., P.S. Ziegenfuss, and P.J. Marks, September 1988. Field Demonstration -
Composting of Explosives-Contaminated Sediments at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant,
USATHAMA Report AMXTH-IR-TE-88242.
Wilson, J., 1991. "Nitrate Enhanced Bioremediation Restores Fuel Contaminated
Groundwater to Drinking Water Standard," Tech Trends, EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/540/M-
91/002.
Wilson, J.H., R.M. Counce, A.J. Lucero, H.L. Jennings, and S.P. Singh, 1991. Air Stripping and
Emissions Control Technologies: Field Testing of Counter Current Packings, Rotary Air
Stripping, Catalytic Oxidation, and Adsorption Materials, ESL TR 90-51.
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.
Wilson, J.T., L.E. Leach, J. Michalowski, S. Vandegrift, and R. Callaway, 1989. In Situ
Bioremediation of Spills from Underground Storage Tanks: New Approaches for Site
Characterization Project Design, and Evaluation of Petformance, EPA/600/2-89/042.
Wolf, A. and L.C. Murdoch, 1992. The Effect of Sand-FiUed Hydraulic Fractures on Subsurface
Air Flow: Summary of SVE Field Tests Conducted at the Center Hill Research Facility, UC
Center Hill Facility, Unpublished Report.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s5
5-73
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Woodland, L.R., et al., August 1987. Pilot Testing of Caustic Spray/Hot Gas Building
Decontamination Process, USATHAMA Report AMHTH-TE-CR-87112.
Woodward, Richard E., September 1990. "Soil Remediation Techniques at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 40, No. 9, pp.
1234-1236.
Zappi, M.E. and B.C. Fleming, 1991. Treatability of Contaminated Groundwater from the Lang
Superfund Site, Draft WES Report, USAE-WES, Vicksburg, MS.
Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and M.J. Cullinane, 1992. "Treatment of Contaminated
Groundwater Using Chemical Oxidation," from Proceedings of the 1992 ASCE Water Forum
Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Zappi, M.E., B.C. Fleming, and C.L. Teetar, 1992. DRAFT - Treatability of Contaminated
Groundwater from the Lang Superfund Site, USAE-WES.
Zappi, M.E., C.L. Teeter, B.C. Fleming, and N.R. Francingues, 1991. Treatability of Ninth Avenue
Superfund Site Groundwater, WES Report EL-91-8.
Zappi, M.E., D. Gunnison, C.L. Teeter, and N.R. Francigues, 1991. Development of a Laboratory
Method for Evaluation of Bioslurry Treatment Systems, Presented at the 1991 Superfund
Conference, Washington, DC.
Zappi, M.E., D.D. Adrian, and R.R. Shafer, 1989. "Compatibility of Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall
Backfill Mixtures with Contaminated Groundwater," in Proceedings of the 1989 Superfund
Conference, Washington, DC.
Zappi, M.E., et al., April 1990. "Treatability Study of Four Contaminated Waters at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado, Using Oxidation with Ultra-Violet Radiation
Catalyzation", from Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environmental Symposium,
USATHAMA Report CETHA-TE-TR-90055.
Zappi, M.E., R.A. Shafer, and D.D. Adrian, 1990. Compatibility of Ninth Avenue Superfund Site
Ground Water with Two Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall Backfill Mixtures, WES Report No. EL-90-9.
Zitrides, Thomas G., May 1990. "Bioremediation Comes of Age," Pollution Engineering,
Vol. XXII, No. 5, pp. 57-62.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s5
5-74
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
Section 6
INDEX
-------
Section 6
INDEX
air sparging 2-9, 2-22, 2-25, 3-8, 3-9,
3-60, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-71, 3-38, 3-42,
3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-50, 4-24, 4-129, 4-130,
4-137, 4-138, 4-141, 4-145, 4-171, A-6
air stripping 2-9, 2-12, 2-15, 2-22, 2-26,
3-1, 3-9, 3-18, 3-21, 3-27, 3-56, 3-65, 3-78,
3-44, 3-50, 3-51, 3-53, 4-33, 4-34, 4-87,
4-134, 4-141, 4-142, 4-152, 4-154, 4-169,
4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-193, 4-196,
4-197, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, B-3, B-10, D-6
biodegradation 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-9, 2-10,
2-12, 2-15, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23,
2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-36, 2-40, 2-41, 3-1, 3-6,
3-8, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 3-16,
3-22, 3-23, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-35, 3-56,
3-58, 3-59, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 3-67, 3-37,
3-39, 3-41, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-50, 3-55,
4-61, 4-62, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-5, 4-7,
4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 4-24, 4-25, 4-32,
4-40, 4-43, 4-45, 4-48, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53,
4-63, 4-70, 4-117, 4-119, 4-120, 4-122,
4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-133, 4-141, 4-174,
4-197, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, B-12, C-16
biofiltration 2-9, 3-10, 3-34, 3-79, 3-57,
3-58, 4-207
biological treatment 1-5, 2-4, 2-6, 2-9,
2-15, 2-19, 2-22, 2-24, 2-36, 2-39, 2-40,
2-41, 3-2, 3-3, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11,
3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-29, 3-31,
3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-58, 3-60,
3-61, 3-62, 3-64, 3-66, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70,
3-71, 3-46, 3-58, 4-64, 4-43, 4-45, 4-46,
4-51, 4-153, 4-175, 4-207, A-4
bioreactors 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 2-36, 2-40,
3-9, 3-34, 3-68, 3-70, 3-49, 3-50, 4-51,
4-122, 4-161, 4-173, 4-174
bioremediation 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-10, 2-17,
2-18, 2-19, 2-23, 2-25, 2-39, 3-9, 3-11,
3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-21, 3-24, 3-29,
3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-58, 3-59,
3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 3-67, 3-70, 3-38,
3-39, 3-40, 3-45, 3-47, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64,
4-7, 4-9, 4-14, 4-19, 4-43, 4-44, 4-47, 4-49,
4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-68, 4-121, 4-122, 4-125,
4-129, 4-130, 4-133, 4-134, 4-142, 4-145,
4-157, 4-160, 4-174, 4-203, A-4, A-5, A-6,
B-3, B-6, B-12, D-4, D-6
bioventing 2-2, 2-5, 2-9, 2-12, 2-15, 2-19,
2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 3-3, 3-6, 3-13, 3-16, 3-60,
3-63, 3-45, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10,
4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-141, 4-145, A-6, D-4
burn pits 2-8, 2-14, 2-21, 2-27
carbon adsorption 2-6, 2-12, 2-13, 2-20,
2-22, 2-25, 2-26, 2-36, 3-1, 3-9, 3-10, 3-18,
3-19, 3-34, 3-71, 3-79, 3-44, 3-50, 3-52,
3-55, 3-57, 3-60, 4-63, 4-98, 4-134, 4-175,
4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-197, 4-198, 4-216,
4-223, D-6
catalytic oxidation 2-13, 3-22, 3-23, 3-72,
3-55, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 4-180, 4-198, 4-219,
4-220, 4-221, 4-222, B-6
CERCLA 1-3, 1-8, 2-2, 3-56, 4-25, 4-29,
4-37, 4-48, 4-79, 4-83, 4-114, 4-117, 4-124,
4-127, 4-131, 4-135, 4-201, E-l, D-7
chemical reduction/oxidation 2-6, 2-22,
2-28, 3-36, 4-55
co-metabolic processes 3-8, 3-60, 3-38,
3-40, 3-41, 4-121
composting 2-9, 2-15, 2-19, 2-22, 2-24,
2-36, 2-40, 2-41, 3-7, 3-31, 3-33, 3-34,
4-11, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-46, D-4
containment 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 2-29, 2-36,
3-1, 3-49, 3-54, 3-78, 3-59, 4-145, 4-161,
4-167, 4-168, 4-211, B-2, B-4, D-4, D-6
controlled solid phase biological
treatment 3-7, 3-31, 4-43, 4-46
destruction 2-1, 2-19, 2-20, 2-25, 2-43,
3-1, 3-10, 3-11, 3-23, 3-29, 3-36, 3-48,
3-51, 3-53, 3-58, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 3-70,
3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 3-79, 3-80, 3-33, 3-34,
3-36, 3-54, 3-55, 4-12, 4-65, 4-90, 4-93,
4-97, 4-109, 4-110, 4-174, 4-175, 4-197,
4-198, 4-199, 4-212, 4-220, 4-221, B-2,
B-3, B-4, B-6, B-9, C-9, C-35, C-43
directional wells 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-45,
4-141
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s6
6-1
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
DOD 1-2, 1-4, 1-6, 2-40, 2-42, 3-33,
4-102, 4-122, B-12, C-l, C-5, C-6, C-18,
C-19, C-20, C-23, C-53, D-2, D-3
DOE 1-2, 1-3, 1-7, 3-15, 3-16, 3-21, 3-23,
3-26, 3-27, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-52, 3-56,
3-57, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-65, 3-70, 3-72,
3-74, 3-75, 3-78, 3-80, 4-64, 4-65, 4-9,
4-10, 4-17, 4-19, 4-27, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35,
4-36, 4-37, 4-39, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-102,
4-110, 4-111, 4-114, 4-115, 4-122, 4-123,
4-124, 4-131, 4-138, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144,
4-155, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-170,
4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-180, 4-183, 4-186,
4-187, 4-192, 4-212, 4-214, 4-216, 4-217,
4-225, B-l, B-ll, D-ii, C-l, C-3, C-6, C-8,
C-9, C-10, C-21, C-22, C-24, C-25, C-26,
C-27, C-34, C-35, C-36, C-39, C-41, C-42,
C-47, C-48, E-l, D-2, D-3, D-5, D-7
DOI 1-2, 1-8, 3-16, 3-52, 3-55, 3-57, 3-62,
3-69, 3-75, 3-78, C-l, D-2, D-3
DOT 4-114
dual phase extraction 2-9, 2-22, 3-9,
3-64, 3-44, 3-45, 4-145, 4-146
EPA 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 2-1, 2-2, 2-7, 2-8, 2-11,
2-33, 2-43, 3-3, 3-4, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-18,
3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26,
3-27, 3-28, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38,
3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45,
3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53,
3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-61, 3-63, 3-65, 3-69,
3-70, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-78,
3-80, 3-56, 4-64, 4-65, 4-6, 4-10, 4-13,
4-14, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-22,
4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31,
4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-39, 4-42, 4-47,
4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57,
4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-69,
4-70, 4-71, 4-74, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82,
4-83, 4-84, 4-87, 4-88, 4-95, 4-96, 4-99,
4-100, 4-105, 4-107, 4-108, 4-110, 4-111,
4-115, 4-118, 4-119, 4-122, 4-124, 4-134,
4-147, 4-151, 4-152, 4-154, 4-155, 4-159,
4-160, 4-167, 4-171, 4-175, 4-176, 4-179,
4-180, 4-182, 4-183, 4-187, 4-191, 4-192,
4-195, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-209, 4-216,
4-221, 4-224, 4-225, A-l, A-2, A-4, B-l,
B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9, B-10, B-ll, B-12,
B-13, C-l, C-4, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-10, C-12,
C-13, C-14, C-24, C-28, C-29, C-37, C-38,
C-39, C-44, C-46, C-52, C-55, C-57, C-59,
E-l, E-2, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7,
D-i, 3-78
ex situ soil vapor extraction 4-73
ex situ solidification/stabilization 4-77,
4-78
ex situ vitrification 3-75, 3-36, 4-109,
4-110
excavation and off-site disposal 2-32,
2-36, 3-8, 3-54, 3-36, 3-37, 4-113, 4-114
explosives 1-4, 2-1, 2-13, 2-14, 2-20, 2-34,
2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42,
2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 3-8, 3-52, 3-32, 3-33,
3-34, 3-52, 3-53, 4-61, 4-12, 4-13, 4-15,
4-40, 4-41, 4-45, 4-51, 4-89, 4-90, 4-94,
4-95, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-189, 4-190,
4-192, 4-200
extraction 2-1, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-11,
2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-22, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28,
2-33, 2-34, 2-36, 2-43, 2-44, 3-1, 3-6, 3-7,
3-9, 3-16, 3-17, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22,
3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-27, 3-28, 3-36, 3-37,
3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-45, 3-56,
3-57, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-72, 3-73, 3-29,
3-30, 3-31, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-49,
3-59, 3-60, 4-5, 4-8, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18,
4-19, 4-21, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-31,
4-33, 4-47, 4-64, 4-69, 4-73, 4-74, 4-81,
4-82, 4-83, 4-137, 4-142, 4-145, 4-146,
4-150, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-157, 4-160,
4-169, 4-181, 4-212, 4-215, 4-220, 4-222,
A-6, A-7, A-8, B-3, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-10,
B-12, C-16, C-35, D-6
filtration 2-7, 2-28, 2-33, 2-34, 2-36, 3-9,
3-10, 3-26, 3-45, 3-69, 3-71, 3-72, 3-74,
3-77, 3-50, 3-51, 3-53, 3-54, 4-181, 4-182,
4-183, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-216, B-12,
C-16
free product recovery 2-3, 2-15, 2-22,
2-26, 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-46, 4-130, 4-149,
4-150, 4-151
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s6
6-2
10/27/94
-------
INDEX
fuels 1-4, 2-1, 2-6, 2-8, 2-14, 2-21, 2-22,
2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 3-15, 3-22, 3-23,
3-35, 3-51, 3-57, 3-62, 3-78, 3-31, 3-34,
3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-49,
3-52, 3-59, 4-20, 4-24, 4-32, 4-68, 4-85,
4-98, 4-121, 4-125, 4-129, 4-133, 4-137,
4-145, 4-149, 4-153, 4-166, 4-169, 4-190
GAC 2-45, 3-51, 3-58, 4-191, 4-192,
4-207, 4-223, 4-224
glycolate dehalogenation 3-7, 4-64, 4-65
hazardous waste 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-19, 2-25,
2-32, 3-30, 3-33, 3-37, 3-56, 4-13, 4-14,
4-21, 4-25, 4-30, 4-56, 4-74, 4-78, 4-81,
4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-99, 4-114, 4-115, 4-117,
4-158, 4-167, 4-168, 4-201, 4-213, 4-223,
B-4, D-ii, C-2, C-4, C-5, C-7, C-8, C-ll,
C-13, C-14, C-16, C-21, C-23, C-24, C-28,
C-29, C-51, E-l, E-2, D-2, D-4, D-7, D-i
high temperature thermal desorption
3-48, 3-31, 4-85
hot gas decontamination 2-36, 3-8, 3-48,
3-31, 3-32, 4-89, 4-90
hot water or steam flushing/stripping
3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-46, 4-153, 4-154
hydrofracturing 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-47,
4-157
in situ soil vapor extraction 4-23
in situ vitrification 2-4, 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
3-25, 3-26, 4-35, 4-37, B-2, B-3, B-4
incineration 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-15,
2-17, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-36,
2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 3-8, 3-34, 3-35,
3-41, 3-42, 3-48, 3-52, 3-65, 3-30, 3-31,
3-33, 4-64, 4-68, 4-78, 4-81, 4-85, 4-87,
4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, A-9, B-6, D-4
innovative 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 2-2, 2-33,
3-3, 3-16, 3-24, 3-28, 3-35, 3-47, 3-53,
3-57, 3-63, 3-65, 3-70, 3-75, 3-78, 3-80,
4-56, 4-65, 4-69, 4-83, 4-87, 4-122, 4-154,
4-158, 4-175, 4-182, 4-187, 4-191, 4-195,
4-198, 4-199, A-l, A-2, A-4, B-l, B-13,
C-4, C-ll, C-13, C-14, C-16, C-26, C-35,
E-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-i
inorganics 1-4, 2-1, 2-4, 2-6, 2-27, 2-28,
2-29, 2-32, 2-33, 3-25, 3-26, 3-46, 3-48,
3-56, 3-57, 3-72, 3-75, 3-80, 3-29, 3-30,
3-35, 3-36, 3-38, 3-47, 3-49, 3-52, 3-57,
4-61, 4-7, 4-20, 4-28, 4-30, 4-35, 4-36,
4-55, 4-68, 4-77, 4-79, 4-81, 4-106, 4-109,
4-118, 4-119, 4-161, 4-169, 4-202, B-4,
B-10, B-ll, B-12, B-13
ion exchange 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-28, 2-33,
2-34, 3-1, 3-9, 3-42, 3-55, 3-71, 3-72, 3-77,
3-50, 3-52, 4-20, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, B-2,
B-4
lagoons 2-8, 2-14, 2-27, 2-34, 2-39, 2-45
land disposal restrictions 2-20, 2-33,
3-36, 3-37, 4-113,4-114
landfarming 2-9, 2-15, 2-19, 2-22, 2-24,
2-36, 3-7, 3-31,4-47, 4-49
landfills 2-8, 2-14, 2-21, 2-27, 2-34, 3-56
liquid phase carbon adsorption 2-13,
2-20, 2-22, 2-26, 2-36, 3-9, 3-71, 3-50,
3-52, 4-189, 4-190
LNAPL 2-3, 2-19, 2-24, 4-8
low temperature thermal desorption
2-24, 2-25, 3-48, 3-50, 3-31, 3-33, 3-34,
4-97
mixed waste 2-8, 2-14, 2-27, 2-32, 2-33,
3-56, 3-37, 4-78, 4-113, 4-142, B-2, D-5
natural attenuation 2-3, 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
3-8, 3-10, 3-54, 3-76, 3-37, 3-38, 3-55,
3-56, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-201,
4-202, 4-203
nitrate enhancement 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 3-8,
3-60, 3-38, 3-41, 3-42, 4-125, 4-127
NPL 4-50
open burn 2-36, 2-43, 3-8, 3-48, 3-34,
4-12, 4-101
open detonation 2-43, 3-8, 3-48, 3-31,
3-34, 4-12, 4-101,4-102
oxygen enhancement with air sparging
3-8, 3-42, 4-129, 4-130
oxygen enhancement with hydrogen
peroxide 3-8, 3-43, 4-133
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.s6
6-3
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
passive treatment walls 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
2-28, 2-36, 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-47, 3-48,
4-161, 4-162
pesticides 2-16, 2-19, 3-11, 3-29, 3-43,
3-45, 3-51, 3-58, 3-66, 3-74, 3-77, 3-29,
3-31, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-39, 3-41, 3-42,
3-43, 3-49, 3-50, 3-52, 3-56, 4-61, 4-6,
4-20, 4-28, 4-32, 4-39, 4-45, 4-48, 4-51,
4-55, 4-59, 4-64, 4-68, 4-77, 4-85, 4-106,
4-118, 4-119, 4-121, 4-125, 4-129, 4-133,
4-169, 4-174, 4-190, 4-201, B-7, B-8, B-10,
B-ll, B-12, B-13
pneumatic fracturing 3-6, 3-17, 3-24,
4-15, 4-17, 4-18, A-7, B-6
precipitation 2-7, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33,
2-34, 3-10, 3-42, 3-45, 3-62, 3-69, 3-71,
3-72, 3-74, 3-77, 3-50, 3-53, 4-28, 4-48,
4-63, 4-179, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196,
B-8
presumptive remedies 1-1, 1-2, 2-2, 2-11
pyrolysis 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 3-8, 3-48, 3-31,
3-35, 3-36, 4-35, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, A-9,
A-10
radioactive 2-1, 2-8, 2-27, 2-29, 2-32,
2-33, 3-43, 3-56, 3-32, 3-35, 3-36, 3-52,
3-53, 4-20, 4-37, 4-70, 4-78, 4-85, 4-106,
4-110, 4-113, 4-114, 4-186, 4-191, 4-193,
B-4, B-7, B-13, C-10, C-48
radionuclides 2-27, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 3-26,
3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-52, 3-55, 3-29, 3-36,
3-51, 4-28, 4-36, 4-67, 4-77, 4-78, 4-109,
4-174, 4-183, 4-185, B-2, B-4, B-6, B-8,
B-9
RCRA 1-2, 2-19, 2-27, 2-29, 3-40, 3-53,
4-29, 4-33, 4-79, 4-94, 4-102, 4-114, 4-127,
C-13, C-14, C-16
RI/FS 1-1, 1-4, 1-5, 2-2
RPM 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 3-24
separation 2-4, 2-9, 2-25, 2-31, 2-34,
2-44, 3-1, 3-10, 3-17, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39,
3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-48, 3-53,
3-55, 3-57, 3-64, 3-70, 3-71, 3-74, 3-75,
3-77, 3-79, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-34, 3-35,
3-51, 3-54, 4-20, 4-67, 4-70, 4-82, 4-85,
4-88, 4-97, 4-106, 4-174, 4-181, 4-194,
4-215, 4-216, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, B-3,
B-4, D-6
SITE 1-3, 3-24, 3-34, 3-35, 3-45, 3-46,
3-53, 3-75, 4-17, 4-29, 4-37, 4-110, 4-154,
4-176, 4-183, 4-209, E-l, D-4, D-5
slurry phase biological treatment 2-19,
3-7, 3-31, 4-51
slurry walls 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 2-28, 2-36,
3-1, 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-48, 4-165, 4-166
soil flushing 2-4, 2-5, 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
2-28, 3-1, 3-6, 3-17, 3-32, 3-45, 4-19, 4-20,
4-21, 4-141, A-8, C-16
soil washing 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
2-28, 2-36, 2-44, 3-1, 3-7, 3-32, 3-35, 3-36,
3-37, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-56, 3-73,
3-30, 4-53, 4-57, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70,
4-81, A-8, B-6, B-7, D-2, D-3, D-4
solidification/stabilization 1-6, 2-4, 2-15,
2-28, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 3-17, 3-45, 3-46,
3-75, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 4-27, 4-30, 4-68,
4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-81, 4-85, A-8
solvent extraction 2-9, 2-15, 2-22, 2-36,
2-43, 2-44, 3-1, 3-7, 3-36, 3-38, 3-39, 3-43,
3-45, 3-30, 3-31, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, A-8,
B-7, B-8, B-10
solvents 2-4, 2-19, 3-11, 3-15, 3-27, 3-29,
3-40, 3-45, 3-51, 3-56, 3-58, 3-62, 3-66,
3-78, 3-30, 3-39, 3-41, 3-54, 4-61, 4-6,
4-10, 4-48, 4-51, 4-81, 4-121, 4-122, 4-131,
4-160, 4-190, 4-197, 4-200, 4-211, 4-223,
B-3, B-8, B-10
Superfund 1-2, 1-3, 1-7, 2-8, 2-11, 3-22,
3-28, 3-41, 3-44, 3-46, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53,
3-55, 3-69, 3-73, 3-77, 3-56, 4-63, 4-21,
4-27, 4-46, 4-53, 4-56, 4-60, 4-61, 4-64,
4-68, 4-70, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-87, 4-88,
4-94, 4-95, 4-106, 4-108, 4-110, 4-115,
4-117, 4-119, 4-154, 4-167, 4-168, 4-175,
4-176, 4-180, 4-183, 4-191, 4-192, 4-200,
4-201, B-l, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9, B-ll, B-12,
B-13, D-ii, C-2, C-5, C-7, C-8, C-ll, C-14,
C-16, C-28, C-29, C-37, E-l, D-4, D-i
surface impoundments 2-8, 2-14, 2-21,
2-27
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s6
6-4
10/27/94
-------
INDEX
SVOCs 1-4, 2-1, 2-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19,
2-20, 2-23, 2-24, 2-37, 3-24, 3-27, 3-28,
3-45, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-29, 3-31,
3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-46,
3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-52, 3-56, 3-59, 4-20,
4-28, 4-32, 4-36, 4-45, 4-55, 4-59, 4-64,
4-68, 4-77, 4-85, 4-98, 4-100, 4-106, 4-118,
4-121, 4-125, 4-129, 4-133, 4-149, 4-153,
4-161, 4-169, 4-174, 4-190, 4-201, 4-211,
4-220, B-3, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-10, B-ll,
B-12, B-13
thermal oxidation 2-13, 2-14, 3-21, 3-23,
3-79, 3-57, 3-59, 4-215, 4-219, 4-220
thermally enhanced soil vapor extraction
3-6, 4-31
TSCA 3-53,4-94,4-135
U.S. Navy 1-3, 3-61, 3-73, E-l, D-3, D-7
USACE 3-33, 3-72, 3-75, 4-15, 4-50,
4-111, 4-164, 4-167, 4-195, 4-200, C-18,
C-24, D-7
USAEC 1-3, 2-38, 2-42, 2-43, 3-75, 4-65,
4-10, 4-13, 4-15, 4-19, 4-22, 4-27, 4-28,
4-31, 4-35, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-48,
4-50, 4-54, 4-57, 4-61, 4-66, 4-71, 4-75,
4-80, 4-84, 4-88, 4-91, 4-96, 4-100, 4-103,
4-108, 4-111, 4-115, 4-120, 4-124, 4-127,
4-131, 4-135, 4-139, 4-144, 4-147, 4-152,
4-155, 4-160, 4-164, 4-168, 4-171, 4-176,
4-180, 4-183, 4-187, 4-192, 4-196, 4-200,
4-204, 4-209, 4-214, 4-217, 4-222, 4-224,
4-225, C-7, C-30, C-31, E-l, D-3
USAF 1-3, 2-1, 3-4, 3-13, 3-30, 3-59,
3-67, 3-40, 3-56, 4-6, 4-19, 4-21, 4-27,
4-28, 4-102, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-127,
4-134, 4-144, 4-152, 4-162, 4-164, 4-176,
4-179, 4-180, 4-201, 4-204, 4-222, E-l,
D-3, D-6, D-7
USTs 3-78,4-151,4-152
UV oxidation 2-9, 2-15, 2-20, 2-22, 2-36,
2-45, 3-10, 3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 3-50, 3-54,
4-197
vacuum vapor extraction 2-9, 2-15, 2-22,
2-28, 3-9, 3-64, 3-44, 3-49, 3-60, 4-169
vapor phase carbon adsorption 3-10,
3-19, 3-79, 3-57, 3-60
VISITT 1-6, 1-7, A-l, A-2, A-4
VOCs 1-4, 2-1, 2-4, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11,
2-12, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-23, 3-9, 3-10,
3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-24, 3-27,
3-28, 3-40, 3-45, 3-46, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51,
3-52, 3-53, 3-65, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-79,
3-80, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-34, 3-37, 3-41,
3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-49, 3-50,
3-51, 3-52, 3-56, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 4-14,
4-20, 4-24, 4-27, 4-28, 4-32, 4-36, 4-40,
4-45, 4-48, 4-55, 4-59, 4-64, 4-68, 4-73,
4-77, 4-81, 4-85, 4-98, 4-100, 4-118, 4-121,
4-123, 4-125, 4-129, 4-133, 4-137, 4-142,
4-145, 4-153, 4-161, 4-169, 4-178, 4-180,
4-190, 4-196, 4-201, 4-207, 4-209, 4-211,
4-212, 4-215, 4-219, 4-220, B-2, B-3, B-4,
B-6, B-7, B-8, B-10, B-ll, B-12, B-13
white rot fungus 2-36, 2-40, 2-41, 3-6,
3-13, 4-11,4-12, 4-13, 4-14
widely/commonly used 2-1
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.s6
6-5
10/27/94
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
Appendix A
VISITT
-------
Appendix A
VISITT
EPA publishes the Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT). This data base has been developed by the Technology
Innovation Office (TIO) in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) as part of a broad effort to promote the use of innovative treatment
technologies for the cleanup of soil and groundwater contaminated by hazardous
and petroleum waste. VISITT is designed to capture current information on the
availability, performance, and cost of innovative treatment to remediate
contaminated waste sites.
VISITT provides environmental professionals with rapid access to up-to-date
information on innovative technologies and the companies that offer them.
VISITT's menu-driven design allows the user to search the extensive technology
information for particular applications and technology types. The user, for
example, can enter a waste description to identify innovative technologies in the
system that treat such wastes. The user can also locate specific sites where vendors
may have conducted treatability studies or cleanups.
Once the data base identifies the technologies and vendors meeting the user's
requirements, the user can then review such information as available equipment,
performance data, and experience. Printing options include printing all of the
technology information for a given vendor, or only those data fields of particular
interest.
The basic information on each technology includes the vendor name, address, and
phone number; technology description; highlights; limitations; and the contaminant
and waste/media treated. Many of the vendors with technologies at the pilot and
full scale also provide a summary of performance data, project names and contacts,
available hardware and capacity, unit price information, treatability study
capabilities, and literature references. Performance data, project information, and
literature citations can be used to substantiate a vendor's claims.
The third revision of the data base, VISITT 3.0, is offered on four SVi-inch or three
3V4-inch floppy disks, accompanied by a user manual. The data base requires a
personal computer with at least 640K of RAM (random access memory), an
operating system of DOS Version 3.3 or higher (that is, IBM or IBM-compatible),
and 10 megabytes of hard disk storage. VISITT is not offered for Apple Macintosh
format. The data base is compiled and requires no other software to operate.
VISITT is compatible with most printers and local area networks (LANs). EPA,
through PRC Environmental Management, Inc., offers technical assistance to correct
any hardware or software problems associated with installing or using VISITT.
MK01\RHT:02281012.009\compgde.apa
A-l
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
3.0 is also available as a downloadable file (VISITT 3.2ip) on EPA's Cleanup
Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN). For a list of files on the CLU-IN,
type
-------
VISITT
ORDERING VISITT 3.0
To order the VISITT 3.0 diskettes and user manual, and to become a registered user, please
complete this order and registration form and mail or fax it to the location indicated below. VISITT
3.0 is available at NO CHARGE. VISITT 3.0 also is available on EPA's CLU-IN Bulletin Board.
IMPORTANT: All registered users of version 1.0 and 2.0 should complete this form
and mail or fax it to the location indicated below.
Special Note to EPA Staff: TIO is working directly with EPA Headquarters and
Regional offices, EPA laboratories, and EPA libraries to install VISITT on LANs and
at workstations. For more information, contact the OSWER Technology Innovation
Office.
EPA Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
(VISITT) Version 3.0 Order and Registration Form
Mail to: U.S. EPA/NCEPI
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419
FAX to: U.S. EPA/NCEPI
or (513) 891-6685
[Verification: (513) 891-6561]
Please type or print legibly. Allow 3 to 4 weeks for delivery.
Name:
Company/Agency
Street
City
Country
Date Ordered
State
Telephone Number
Register me as a VISITT user.
Send me VISITT 3.0 diskettes and a user manual.
Diskette size (check one) 3'A 5% _
Send me a VISITT 3.0 user manual only.
I am an innovative treatment technology vendor and would like to receive an
application to be included in VISITT 4.0. Place me on the VISITT 4.0
Application Mailing List.
I am an innovative measurement or monitoring technology vendor and would
like to receive an application for the new measurement and monitoring vendor
data base. Place me on the Measurement/Monitoring Data base Application
Mailing List.
MK01\RPT'.02281012.009\compgde.apa
A-3
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apa
A-4
10/26/94
-------
VISITT
LIST OF VENDORS BY TECHNOLOGY
Inclusion in EPA's Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) does not mean that
EPA approves, recommends, licenses, certifies, or authorizes the use of any of the technologies. Nor does EPA
certify the accuracy of the data. This listing means only that the vendor has provided information on a technology that
EPA considers to be eligible for inclusion in this data base.
AIR EMISSIONS/OFF GAS TREATMENT
OFF-GAS TREATMENT
BECO Engineering, Co. (412)828-6080
Bohn Biofilter Corporation (602) 621-7225
Compact Membrane Systems, Inc. (302) 984-1762
Ecology Technologies International, Inc. (602) 985-5524
EG&G Corporation (914) 246-3401
Envirogen, Inc. (609) 936-9300
General Atomics (619) 455-2499
IT Corporation (615)690-3211
KSE, Inc. (413) 549-5506
M.L. Energia (609) 799-7970
Membrane Technology and Research, Inc. (415) 328-2228
Nucon International, Inc. (614) 846-5710
Process Technologies, Inc. (208) 385-0900
Purus, Inc. (408) 955-1000
TAUW Hilieu (31 -570) 099-911
(the Netherlands)
Zapit Technology, Inc. (408) 986-1700
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
BIOREMEDIATION — IN SITU GROUNDWATER
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (617) 245-6606
Chester Environmental (412) 269-5700
Cognis Inc. (707) 576-6204
Ecology Technologies International, Inc. (602) 985-5524
Electrokinetics, Inc. (504) 388-3992
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (805) 388-3775
EODT Services, Inc. (615) 690-6061
ESE Biosciences, Inc. (919) 872-9686
GAIA Resources, Inc. (312) 329-0368
Geo-Microbial Technologies, Inc. (918) 535-2281
Groundwater Technology, Inc. (510) 671-2387
IT Corporation (615) 690-3211
Kamron Environmental Services, Inc. (404) 636-0928
Microbial Environmental Services (515) 276-3434
OHM Corporation (419) 424-4932
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (919) 967-3723
Waste Stream Technology, Inc. (716) 876-5290
Yellowstone Environmental Science, Inc. (406) 586-3905
BIOREMEDIATION — IN SITU LAGOON
Ecology Technologies International, Inc. (602) 985-5524
OHM Corporation (419) 424-4932
Praxair, Inc. (formerly Union Carbide) (914) 789-3034
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apa A-5 10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
LIST OF VENDORS BY TECHNOLOGY (CONTINUED)
BIOREMEDIATION — IN SITU SOIL
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (617) 245-6606
Billings and Associates, Inc. (505) 345-1116
Biogee International, Inc. (713) 578-3111
Chester Environmental (412) 269-5700
Detox Industries (713) 240-0892
Ecology Technologies International, Inc. (602) 985-5524
Electrokinetics, Inc. (504) 388-3992
ESE Biosciences, Inc. (919) 872-9686
Geo-Microbial Technologies, Inc. (918) 535-2281
Grace Dearborn, Inc. (905) 279-2222
Hayward Baker Environmental, Inc. (410) 551-1995
In-Situ Fixation, Inc. (602) 821-0409
Kemron Environmental Services (404) 636-0928
Microbial Environmental Services, Inc. (515) 276-3434
Quarternary Investigations, Inc. (Q) (909) 423-0740
SBP Technologies, Inc. (904) 934-9282
Waste Stream Technologies, Inc. (716) 876-5290
BIOREMEDIATION — SLURRY PHASE
Biosolutions, Inc. (201)616-1158
Biogee International, Inc. (713) 578-3111
Bogart Environmental Services, Inc. (615) 754-2847
Cognis, Inc. (707)575-7155
Ecology Technologies International, Inc. (602) 985-5524
Elmco Process Equipment Co. (801) 526-2082
EODT Services, Inc. (615) 690-6061
Geo-Microbial Technologies, Inc. (918) 535-2281
IT Corporation (615) 690-3211
OHM Corporation (419) 424-4932
Praxair, Inc. (formerly Union Carbide) (914) 789-3034
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (602) 577-8323
SBP Technologies, Inc. (904) 934-9282
Waste Stream Technologies, Inc. (716) 876-5290
Yellowstone Environmental Science, Inc. (406) 586-3905
BIOREMEDIATION — SOLID PHASE
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (617) 245-6606
Alvarez Brothers (512) 576-0404
Arctech, Inc. (703) 222-0280
Biogee International, Inc. (713) 578-3111
Bioremediation Services, Inc. (503) 624-9464
Chester Environmental (412)269-5700
Clean-up Technology, Inc. (310) 828-4844
Cognis, Inc. (707) 575-7155
Earthfax Engineering, Inc. (801) 561-1555
Ecology Technologies International, Inc. (602) 985-5524
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (508) 635-9500
Environmental Tech. of North America, Inc. (919) 299-9998
ETUS, Inc. (407) 321-7910
Geo-Microbial Technologies, Inc. (918) 535-2281
Grace Dearborn, Inc. (905) 279-2222
Groundwater Technology,'Inc. (510) 671-2387
IT Corporation (615)690-3211
Microbial Environmental Services, Inc. (515) 276-3434
Mycotech Corporation (406) 782-2386
OHM Corporation (419)424-4932
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (602) 577-8323
SBP Technologies, Inc. (904) 934-9282
Waste Stream Technology, Inc. (716) 876-5290
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apa
A-6
10/26/94
-------
VISITT
LIST OF VENDORS BY TECHNOLOGY (CONTINUED)
BIOREMEDIATION — NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
B&S Research, Inc. (218) 984-3757
Bioremediation Services, Inc. (503) 624-9464
Bioremediation Technology Services, Inc. (209) 984-4963
Chempete, Inc. (708) 365-2007
Clyde Engineering Services (504) 362-7929
Detox Industries, Inc. (713) 240-0892
Eco-Tec, Inc./Ecology Technology (206) 392-0304
EPG/Haecon, Inc. (708) 381-0020
Sybron Chemicals (609) 893-1100
ETUS Inc. (407)321-7910
BIOVENTING
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (617) 245-6606
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (509) 372-2273
Engineering Sciences, Inc. (303)831-8100
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (508) 635-9500
Environeering (419) 885-3155
H20 Science, Inc. (714) 379-1157
Hayward Baker Environmental, Inc. (410) 551-1995
IT Corporation (615) 690-3211
Mittlehauser Corporation (714) 472-2444
OHM Corporation (419) 424-4932
Quanternary Investigations, Inc. (Ql) (909) 423-0740
Terra Vac, Inc. (714) 252-8900
Vapex Environmental Technologies, Inc. (617) 821-5560
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
ACID EXTRACTION
Center for Hazardous Materials Research (412) 826-5320
Cognis, Inc. (707) 575-7155
Earth Treatment Technologies (610) 497-6729
IT Corporation (615) 690-3211
Lockheed Corporation (702) 897-3626
ADSORPTION/ABSORPTION — IN SITU
Dynaphore, Inc. (804) 672-3464
Environmental Fuel Systems, Inc. (210) 796-7767
AIR SPARGING — IN SITU GROUNDWATER
Billings & Associates, Inc. (505) 345-1116
Hayward Baker Environmental Inc. (410) 551-1995
Horizontal Technologies (813) 995-8777
I EG Technologies Corporation (704) 357-6090
IT Corporation (615)690-3211
Quarternary Investigations, Inc. (Q) (909) 423-0740
Terra Vac Inc. (714) 252-8900
Vapex Environmental Technologies, Inc. (617) 821-5560
CHEMICAL TREATMENT — IN SITU GROUNDWATER
Environmental Technologies, Inc. (519) 824-0432
Geochem Division of Terra Vac (303) 988-8902
Intera, Inc. (512) 346-2000
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.apa A-T 10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
LIST OF VENDORS BY TECHNOLOGY (CONTINUED)
CHEMICAL TREATMENT — OTHER
Cleantech of Arkansas, Inc.
Davy Research and Development Ltd.
Environmental Scientific, Inc. (ESI)
EPS Environmental, Inc.
Integrated Chemistries, Inc.
Viking Industries
DECHLORINATION
A.L. Sandpiper Corporation
SDTX Technologies, Inc.
DELIVERY/EXTRACTION SYSTEMS
Drilex Systems, Inc.
Eastman Charrington Environmental
Horizontal Technologies, Inc.
Miligard Environmental Corporation
Novaterra, Inc.
DUAL-PHASE EXTRACTION
Billings & Associates
Dames & Moore
First Environment, Inc.
IT Corporation
Terra Vac, Inc.
Vapex Environmental Technologies, Inc.
MAGNETIC SEPARATION
S.G. Frantz Co., Inc.
MATERIALS HANDLING/PHYSICAL SEPARATION
Canonie Environmental Services Corporation
Ecova Corporation
Microfluidics Corporation
Onsite * Offsite Inc./Battelle PNL
Portec, Inc.
Recra Environmental, Inc.
OXIDATION/REDUCTION
Arctech, Inc.
Eli Eco Logic International, Inc.
EM&C Engineering Associates
ETUS, Inc.
G.E.M., Inc.
High Voltage Environmental Applications
IT Corporation
R & M Technologies, Inc.
Synthetica Technologies, Inc.
PNEUMATIC FRACTURING
(501) 834-7600
(44-692) 607-108 (UK)
(919) 941-0847
(201) 368-7902
(612) 636-2380
(615) 890-1018
(614) 486-0405
(518) 734-4483
(713) 937-8888
(713) 722-7777
(813) 995-8777
(313) 261-9760
(310) 843-3190
(505) 345-1116
(215) 657-7134
(201) 616-9700
(615) 690-3211
(714) 252-8900
(617) 821-5560
(609) 882-7100
(303) 790-1747
(303) 279-9712
(617) 969-5452
(818) 303-2229
(605) 665-8770
(716) 691 -2600
(703) 222-0280
(519) 856-9591
(714) 957-6429
(407) 321-7910
(501) 337-9410
(305) 593-5330
(615) 690-3217
(800) 699-7227
(510) 525-3000
Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc.
Terra Vac, Inc.
(908) 739-6444
(714) 252 8900
Mli01\RPT:022S1012.009Ncompgde.apa
A-8
10/26/94
-------
VISITT
LIST OF VENDORS BY TECHNOLOGY (CONTINUED)
SOIL FLUSHING — IN SITU
Horizontal Technologies, Inc. (813) 995-8777
Scientific Ecology Group, Inc. (412) 247-6255
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
AWD Technologies, Inc. (301) 948-0040
Geo-Con, Inc. (412) 856-7700
IT Corporation (615) 690-3211
Mittiehauser Corporation (708) 368-0201
Terra Vac, Inc. (714) 252-8900
Vapex Environmental Technologies, Inc. (617) 821-5560
SOIL WASHING
Alternative Remedial Technologies, Inc. (813) 264-3506
B&W Nuclear Environmental Services, Inc. (804) 948-4610
Benchem (412) 361-1426
Bergmann USA (615)452-5500
Bio-Recovery Systems, Inc. (505) 523-0405
Biotrol, Inc. (612)942-8032
Canonie Environmental Services Corp. (303) 790-1747
Divesco, Inc. (601)932-1934
Earth Decontaminators, Inc. (714) 262-2290
Geochem Division of Terra Vac (303) 988-8902
Lockheed Corporation (702) 897-3626
Nukem Development (713) 520-9494
OHM Corporation (510) 256-6100
On-Site Technologies, Inc. (408) 371-4810
Scientific Ecology Group, Inc. (412) 247-6255
Turboscope Velco Environmental Service (713) 799-5289
Warren Spring Laboratory (44-438) 74-122 (UK)
West Pac Environmental, Inc. (206) 762-1190
Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. (404) 299-4736
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
Chemfix Technologies, Inc. (504) 461-0466
Funderburk & Associates (903) 545-2004
International Waste Technologies (316) 269-2660
Geo-Con, Inc. (412) 856-7700
Silicate Technology Corporation (602) 948-7100
Soliditech, Inc. (713) 497-8558
WASTETECH, Inc. (615)483-6515
S.M.W. Seiko, Inc. (510) 783-4105
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc. (714) 261-8860
Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. (603) 929-3000
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Art International, Inc. (201)627-7601
CF Systems Corporation (617) 937-0800
Dehydro-Tech Corporation (201) 887-2182
EM&C Engineering Associates (714) 957-6429
Envirogen, Inc. (609) 936-9300
Geo-Microbial Technologies, Inc. (918) 535-2281
Integrated Chemistries, Inc. (612) 636-2380
Nukem Development (713) 520-9494
Resources Conservation Co. (301) 596-6066
SRE, Inc. (201) 661-5192
Terra-Kleen Corporation (405) 728-0001
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apa A-9 10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
LIST OF VENDORS BY TECHNOLOGY (CONTINUED)
THERMAL TREATMENT
ELECTRICAL SEPARATION
Electro-Petroleum, Inc. (610) 687-9070
Electrokinetics, Inc. (504) 388-3992
Water and Slurry Purification Process (303) 650-5674
ELECTRO-THERMAL GASIFICATION — IN SITU
Bio-Electrics, Inc. (816) 474-4895
INCINERATION
Alberta Special Waste Treatment Centre (403) 333-4197
Allied-Signal Tar Products (205) 787-8605
Aptus (801)531-4273
BDT, Inc. (716) 759-2868
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (800) 541-5511
Environmental Systems Co. (ENSCO) (800) 349-7407
L.W.D, Inc. (502) 395-8813
Laidlaw Environmental Services (800) 922-3309
Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. (713) 688-9311
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. (609) 342-7051
Ross Incineration Services, Inc. (216) 748-2171
Thermall KEM, Inc. (803) 324-5310
Trade Waste Incineration (618) 271-2804
WESTON, Inc. (610) 701 -7423
Waste Technologies Industries (216) 385-7337
PYROLYSIS
Bio-Electrics, Inc. (816) 474-4895
Product Control Ltd - E. Someus (44-481) 726-426 (UK)
SLAGGING OFF-GAS TREATED
Horsehead Resource Development Co., Inc. (412) 773-2289
THERMAL DESORPTION
Advanced Soil Technologies (612) 486-7000
Ariel Industries, Inc. (615) 894-1957
Canonie Environmental Services Corp. (219) 926-8651
Carlo Environmental Technologies, Inc. (810) 468-9580
Carson Environmental (310) 478-0792
Clean Berkshires, Inc. (617) 695-9770
Clean-Up Technology, Inc. (310) 828-4844
Contamination Technologies, Inc. (617) 575-8920
Conteck Environmental Services, Inc. (612) 441-4965
Covenant Environmental Technologies, Inc. (901) 759-5874
DBA, Inc. (510)447-4711
Ecova Corporation (303) 279-9712
Enviro-Klean Soils, Inc. (206) 888-9388
Hazen Research, Inc. (303) 279-4501
Hrubetz Environmental Services, Inc. (214) 363-7833
IT Corporation (615)690-3211
Kalkaska Construction Service, Inc. (616) 258-9134
OBG Technical Services, Inc. (315) 437-6400
Pet-Con Soil Remediation, Inc. (608) 588-7365
Pittsburgh Mineral & Environmental Technologies (412) 843-5000
Recycling Science International, Inc. (312) 357-1448
M K01ARPT :02281012.009^ompgde.apa
A-10
10/26/94
-------
VISITT
LIST OF VENDORS BY TECHNOLOGY (CONTINUED)
THERMAL DESORPTION (Continued)
Remediation Technologies, Inc. (508) 371-1422
Roy F. Weston, Inc (610)701-7423
Rust Remedial Services, Inc. (803) 646-2413
Seaview Thermal Systems (215) 654-9800
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc. (714) 261-8860
Soil Purification, Inc./ASTEC (706) 861-0069
Soiltech ATP Systems, Inc. (303) 790-1747
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. (602) 577-7680
Texarome, Inc. (210) 232-6079
Thermotech Systems Corporation (407) 290-6000
Western Research Institute (307) 721 -2443
Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. (404) 299-4721
THERMALLY ENHANCED RECOVERY IN SITU
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (509) 376-0554
Bio-Electrics, Inc. (816) 474-4895
EM&C Engineering Associates (714) 957-6429
Hrubetz Environmental Services, Inc. (214) 363-7833
KAI Technologies, Inc. (617) 932-3328
Novaterra, Inc. (310) 843-3190
Praxis Environmental Technologies, Inc. (415) 282-9568
R.E. Wright Associates, Inc. (REWAI) (717) 944-5501
Sive Services (510) 820-5449
Thermatrix, Inc. (408) 944-0220
VITRIFICATION
B&W Nuclear Environmental Services, Inc. (804) 948-4610
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (509) 376-6576
Bio-Electrics, Inc. (816) 474-4895
EET Corporation (615)671-7800
Electro-Pyrolysis, Inc. (610) 687-9070
EM&C Engineering Associates (714) 957-6429
Geosafe Corporation (509) 375-0710
Retech, Inc. (707) 462-6522
Stir-Melter, Inc. (419) 536-8828
Texaco Syngas, Inc. (914) 253-4003
Vortec Corporation (610) 489-2255
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apa
A-11
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies 1*
Screening Matrix and DOE SITE
Reference Guide REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE
CONTAMINANT MATRIX
AND
COMPLETED SITE
DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM
PROJECTS AS OF
OCTOBER 1993
-------
Appendix B
DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
BY WASTE CONTAMINANT MATRIX
AND
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM PROJECTS
AS OF OCTOBER 1993
The DOE Technology Catalogue contains extensive information on technologies
used for characterization, monitoring, and remediation. These technologies range
from innovative/emerging to proven technologies.
Table B-l was extracted from the DOE Technology Catalogue (Document No.
DOE/EM-0138P) to provide a complete listing of the technology information
presented in that document. Specific detailed information about each listed
technology can be obtained by referring to the DOE Technology Catalogue or by
calling DOE at 1-800-736-3282 (7EM-DATA)
Table B-2 was reproduced from Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program, Technology Profiles, Sixth Edition (Document No. EPA/540/R-93/526).
This table provides information on completed SITE Demonstration Programs
organized in alphabetical order by developer name. Technology contact names and
telephone numbers are also provided in the table.
MK.01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apb
B-l
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-1
DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE CONTAMINANT
Technology
Media
Waste Contaminant
Description
Treatment Technology No.
Arc Melter Vitrification
Soil
Toxic metals
Vitrification
4.27
Barriers and Post-Closure
Monitoring
Arid soils
Soluble metals
Containment/T reatment
4.40
Biological Destruction of Tank Waste
Supernatants,
aqueous streams
Toxic metals
Biosorption
4.43
In Situ Vitrification of Contaminated
Soils
Soil
Heavy metals
Destruction/Immobilization
4.9
Polyethylene Encapsulation of
Radionuclides and Heavy Metals
Aqueous salt and
concentrate,
saltcake, sludge,
ash, ion exchange
resin in tanks
Toxic metals, Cr, Pb, Cd
Encapsulation
4.19
Mixed Waste
Arc Melter Vitrification
Soil
Mixed waste (TRU)
Vitrification
4.27
Dynamic Underground Stripping of
VOCs
Soil, groundwater
Mixed waste
Enhanced Removal
4.8
Fixed Hearth DC Plasma Torch
Process
Soil, stored waste
Mixed waste
Waste Form Enhancement
4.27
In Situ Vitrification of Contaminated
Soils
Soil
Mixed waste
Immobilization
4.9
Arc Melter Vitrification
Soil
Organics
Vitrification
4.27
Barriers and Post-Closure
Monitoring
Arid soils
VOCs, organics
Containment/Treatment
4.40
Biological Destruction of Tank Waste
Supernatants,
aqueous streams
Organics
Biosorption
4.43
MKO1NRPT :02281012.009\compgde.apb
B-2
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-1
DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE CONTAMINANT (Continued)
Technology
Media
Waste Contaminant
Description
Treatment Technology No.
Organics (Continued)
Dynamic Underground Stripping of
VOCs
Soil, groundwater
VOCs
Enhanced Removal
4.8
Fixed-Hearth DC Plasma Torch
Process
Soil, stored waste
Organics
Waste Form Enhancement
4.27
High-Energy Corona
Gas, aqueous and
non-aqueous liquids
VOCs, halogenated
solvents, TCE, PCE,
carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, diesel fuel,
gasoline
Destruction
4.52
In Situ Air Stripping
Permeable soils,
groundwater
VOCs, light hydrocarbons,
chlorinated solvents, TCE,
PCE
Enhanced Removal
4.35
In Situ Vitrification of Contaminated
Soils
Soil
VOCs
Destruction/Immobilization
4.9
Methane-Enhanced Bioremediation
for the Destruction of TCE
Soil, groundwater
Halogenated aliphatic
organics, TCA, TCE, PCE
Cometabolic Destruction
4.30
Six-Phase Soil Heating
Soil
VOCs, SVOCs
Extraction
4.8
Steam Reforming
Off-gas of soil
Halogenated solvents,
carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform adsorbed on
granular-activated carbon
beds
Destruction
4.55
Thermal Enhanced Vapor Extraction
System
Arid soils
VOCs, SVOCs, VOC-oil
mixtures, chemicals with
vapor pressures <0.0002
atm @ 20 °C
Extraction
4.8
VOC Off-Gas Membrane Separation
Gas stream
VOCs, halogenated
solvents, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform
Membrane Separation
4.53
MK01NRPT:02281012.005Ncompgde.apb
B-3
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-1
DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE CONTAMINANT (Continued)
Technology
Media
Waste Contaminant
Description
Treatment Technology No.
Biological Destruction of Tank Waste
Supernatant
aqueous streams
Various radionuclides, TRU
Separation Volume
Reduction
4.43
Compact Processing Units for
Radioactive Waste Treatment
Liquids, sludges,
slurries
High-level, low-level, TRU
Biosorption
4.46
Cryogenic Retrieval of Buried Waste
Soil
TRU
Freezing/Retrieval
Containment
4.28
In Situ Vitrification of Contaminated
Soils
Soil
Various radionuclides, TRU
Immobilization
4.9
Polyethylene Encapsulation of
Radionuclides and Heavy Metals
Aqueous salt and
concentrate,
saltcake, sludge,
ash, ion exchange
resin in tanks
Various radionuclides, TRU
Encapsulation
4.19
Resorcinol-Formaldehyde Ion
Exchange Resin for Cesium
Removal
Cs supernatant salt
streams
Cs
Ion Exchange
4.46
Other or Waste Independent
Biological Destruction of Tank
Wastes
Supernatants,
aqueous streams
Nitrate
Separation Volume
Reduction
4.43
Cryogenic Retrieval of Buried Waste
Soil, buried waste
Hazardous waste
Freezing/Containment
4.28
Decision Support System To Select
Migration Barrier Cover Systems
Arid and humid soils
N/A
Multi-objective Decision
Making Software System
4.40
Dynamic Underground Stripping of
VOCs
Soil, groundwater
NAPLs, DNAPLs
Enhanced Removal
4.8
Fixed-Hearth DC Plasma Torch
Process
Soil, stored waste
Wide variety of solid and
liquid wastes, inorganics
Waste Form Enhancement
4.27
MK01\RPT:02281012.00SNcompgde.apb
B-4
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-1
DOE SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES BY WASTE CONTAMINANT (Continued)
Technology
Media
Waste Contaminant
Description
Treatment Technology No.
Other or Waste Independent (continued)
High-Pressure Waterjet Dislodging
and Conveyance End Effector Using
Confined Sluicing
Supernatant, sludge,
saltcake in tanks
N/A
Confined Sluicing
4.28
Hydraulic Impact End Effector
Hard waste forms in
tanks
N/A
Fracturing
4.28
Remote Excavation System
Soil
Buried waste
Retrieval
4.28
MK01\RPT:02281012.00SNcompgde.apb
B-5
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-2
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993
Developer
Technology/
Demonstration Location
Technology
Contact
EPA Project
Manager
Waste Media
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
Organic
Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc.
Keyport, NJ (005)a
Demonstration Data:
July - August 1992
Pneumatic Fracturing Extraction
and Catalytic Oxidation/New
Jersey Environmental Cleanup
Responsibility Act (ECRA) site
in Hillsborough, NJ
Harry Moscatello
908-739-6444
Uwe Frank
908-321-6626
Soil, Rock
Not Applicable
Halogenated and
Nonhalogenated
VOCs and SVOCs
American Combustion, Inc.
Norcross, GA (001)
Demonstration Date:
November 1987 - January 1988
PYRETRON® Thermal
Destruction/EPA's Incineration
Research Facility in Jefferson,
AK, using soil from Stringfellow
Acid Pit Superfund Site in Glen
Avon, CA
Gregory Gitman
404-564-4180
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Soil, Sludge, Solid
Waste
Not Applicable
Nonspecific Organics
AWD Technologies, Inc.
San Francisco, CA (004)
Demonstration Date:
September 1990
Integrated Vapor Extraction and
Steam Vacuum Stripping/San
Fernando Valley Groundwater
Basin Superfund Site in
Burbank, CA
David Bluestein
415-227-0822
Gordon Evans
513-569-7684
Groundwater, Soil
Not Applicable
VOCs
Babcock & Wilcox Co.b
Alliance, OH (006)
Demonstration Date:
November 1991
Cyclone Furnace/Developer's
Facility in Alliance, OH
Lawrence King
216-829-7576
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Solids, Soil,
Sludges
Nonspecific, Low-
Level Radionuclides
Nonspecific Organics
Bergmann USA
Gallatin, TN (007)
Demonstration Date:
May 1992
Soil and Sediment Washing/
Saginaw Bay Confined
Disposal Facility in Saginaw, Ml
Richard Traver
615-230-2217
Jack Hubbard
513-569-7507
Sediment, Soil
Heavy Metals
PCBs, Nonspecific
Organics
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc.
Des Plaines, IL (005)
Demonstration Date:
November 1992
BioGenesis®* Soil Washing
Process/Refinery site in
Minnesota
Charles Wilde
703-250-3442
Mohsen Amiran
708-827-0024
Annette Gatchett
513-569-7697
Soil
Not Applicable
Volatile and
Nonvolatile
Hydrocarbons, PCBs
Bio-Rem, Inc.
Butler, IN (007)
Demonstration Date:
May 1992 - June 1993
Augmented In Situ Subsurface
Bioremediation Process/
Williams AFB in Phoenix, AZ
David O. Mann
219-868-5823
800-428-4626
Kim Lisa Kreiton
513-569-7328
Soil, Water
Not Applicable
Hydrocarbons,
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons, and
Chlorinated
Compounds
MK01\RPT:02281012.00SNcompgde.apb
B-6
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-2
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993 (Continued)
Developer
Technology/
Demonstration Location
Technology
Contact
EPA Project
Manager
Waste Media
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
Organic
BioTrol, Inc.
Eden Prairie, MN (003)
Demonstration Date:
July - September 1989
Biological Aqueous Treatment
System/MacGillis and Gibbs
Superfund Site in New
Brighton, MN
Dennis Chilcote
612-942-8032
Mary Stinson
908-321-6683
Liquid Waste,
Groundwater
Nitrates
Chlorinated and
Nonchlorinated
Hydrocarbons,
Pesticides
BioTrol, Inc.
Eden Prairie, MN (003)
Demonstration Date:
September - October 1989
Soil Washing System/MacGillis
and Gibbs Superfund Site in
New Brighton, MN
Dennis Chilcote
612-942-8032
Mary Stinson
908-321-6683
Soil
Metals
High Molecular
Weight Organics,
PAHs, PCP, PCBs,
Pesticides
Brice Environmental
Services Corporation
Fairbanks, AK (007)
Demonstration Date:
September 1992
Soil Washing Plant/Alaskan
Battery Enterprises Superfund
Site in Fairbanks, AK
Craig Jones
907-452-2512
Hugh Masters
908-321-6678
Soil
Radioactive and
Heavy Metals
Not Applicable
Canonie Environmental Services
Corporation
Porter, IN (007)
Demonstration Date:
September 1992
Low Temperature Thermal
Aeration (LTTA)/Pesticide Site
in Phoenix, AZ
Chetan Trivedi
219-926-7169
Paul dePercin
513-569-7797
Soil, Sediment,
Sludge
Not Applicable
VOCs, SVOCs,
OCPs, OPPs, TPHs
CeTech Resources, Inc.
(A Subsidiary of Chemfix
Technologies, Inc.)
St. Rose, LA (002)
Demonstration Date:
March 1989
Solidification and
Stabilization/Portable
Equipment Salvage Company
in Clackamas, OR
Sam Pizzitola
504-461-0466
Edwin Barth
513-569-7669
Soil, Sludge,
Solids, Ash,
Electroplating
Wastes
Heavy Metals
High Molecular
Weight Organics
CF Systems Corporation
Woburn, MA (002)
Demonstration Date:
September 1988
Solvent Extraction/New Bedford
Harbor Superfund Site in New
Bedford, MA
Chris Shallice
617-937-0800
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Soil, Sludge,
Wastewater
Not Applicable
PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs,
Petroleum Wastes
MK0mPT:02281012.(KWcompgde.apb
B-7
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-2
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993 (Continued)
Developer
Technology/
Demonstration Location
Technology
Contact
EPA Project
Manager
Waste Media
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
Organic
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Schaumburg, IL (005)
Demonstration Date:
September 1992
PO*WW*ER™ Technology/
Developer's Facility in Lake
Charles, LA
Annamarie Connolly
708-706-6900
Randy Parker
513-569-7271
Wastewater,
Leachate,
Groundwater
Metals, Volatile
Inorganic Compounds,
Salts, Radionuclides
VOCs and Nonvolatile
Organic Compounds
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Anderson, SC (003)
Demonstration Date:
May 1992
X'TRAX™ Thermal Desorption/
Re-Solve, Inc., Superfund Site
in North Dartmouth, MA
Carl Palmer
803-646-2413
Paul dePercin
513-569-7797
Soil, Sludge,
Other Solids
Not Applicable
VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs
Dehydro-Tech Corporation
East Hanover, NJ (004)
Demonstration Date:
August 1991
Carver-Greenfield Process® for
Solvent Extraction of Oily
Waste/EPA Research Facility in
Edison, NJ
Theodore
Trowbridge
201-887-2182
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Soil, Sludge,
Sediments
Not Applicable
PCBs, Dioxins,
Oil-Soluble Organics
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Co. and Oberlin Filter Co.
Newark, DE and Waukesha, Wl (003)
Demonstration Date:
April - May 1990
Membrane Microfiltration/
Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site
in Palmerton, PA
Ernest Mayer
302-366-3652
John Martin
513-569-7758
Groundwater,
Leachate,
Wastewater,
Electroplating
Rinsewaters
Heavy Metals,
Cyanide, Uranium
Organic Particulates,
Volatile Organics
ECOVA Corporation
Golden, CO (006)
Demonstration Date:
May - September 1991
Bioslurry Reactor/EPA Test and
Evaluation Facility in Cincinnati,
OH
William Mahaffey
303-273-7177
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
Soil
Not Applicable
Creosote and
Petroleum Wastes
ELI Eco Logic International, Inc.
Rockwood, Ontario, Canada (006)
Demonstration Date:
October - November 1992
Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction
Process/Middleground Landfill
in Bay City, Ml
Jim Nash
519-856-9591
Gordon Evans
513-569-7684
Soil, Sludge,
Liquids, Gases
Not Applicable
PCBs, PAHs,
Chlorinated Dioxins
and Dibenzofurans,
Chlorinated Solvents
and Chlorophenols
ELI Eco Logic International, Inc.
Rockwood, Ontario, Canada (006)
Demonstration Date:
October - November 1992
Thermal Desorption Unit/
Middleground Landfill in Bay
City, Ml
Jim Nash
519-856-9591
Gordon Evans
513-569-7684
Soil, Sludge,
Liquids, Gases
Not Applicable
PCBs, PAHs,
Chlorinated Dioxins
and Dibenzofurans,
Chlorinated Solvents
and Chlorophenols
EPOC Water, Inc.
Fresno, CA (004)
Demonstration Date:
May 1992
Precipitation, Microfiltration, and
Sludge Dewatering/lron
Mountain Superfund Site in
Redding, CA
Gary Bartman
209-291-8144
Jack Hubbard
513-569-7507
Sludge,
Wastewater,
Leachable Soil
Heavy Metals
Pesticides, Oil,
Grease
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apb
B-8
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-2
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993 (Continued)
Developer
Technology/
Demonstration Location
Technology
Contact
EPA Project
Manager
Waste Media
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
Organic
Filter Flow Technology, Inc.
League City, TX (006)
Demonstration Date:
September 1993
Heavy Metals and Radionuclide
Polishing Filter/Rocky Flats
Plant in Golden, CO
Tod Johnson
713-334-6080
Annette Gatchett
513-569-7697
Groundwater,
Industrial
Wastewater
Heavy Metals,
Radionuclides
Not Applicable
Funderburk & Associates (formerly
HAZCON, Inc.)
Oakwood, TX (001)
Demonstration Date:
October 1987
Dechlorination and
Immobilization/Former Oil
Processing Plant in
Douglassville, PA
Ray Funderburk
903-545-2004
Paul dePercin
513-569-7797
Soil, Sludge,
Sediments
Heavy Metals
Nonspecific Organics
General Atomics
(formerly Ogden Environmental
Services)
San Diego, CA (001)
Demonstration Date:
March 1989
Circulating Bed
Combustor/Ogden's Facility in
La Jolla, CA, using waste from
McColl Superfund Site in
Fullerton, CA
Jeffrey Broido
619-455-4495
Douglas Grosse
513-569-7844
Soil, Sludge,
Slurry, Liquids
Metals, Cyanide
Halogenated and
Nonhalogenated
Organic Compounds,
PCBs
GIS/Solutions, Inc.
Concord, CA (007)
Demonstration Date:
August 1993
GIS/Key™ Environmental Data
Management Software/San
Francisco, CA
Asad Al-Malazi
510-827-5400
Dick Eilers
513-569-7809
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Gruppo Italimpresse (developed by
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.)
Rome, Italy (001)
(2 Demonstrations)
Demonstration Dates:
Florida: August 1987
Michigan: November 1987
Infrared Thermal
Destruction/Peak Oil Superfund
Site in Brandon, FL, and Rose
Township Superfund Site in
Oakland County, Ml
Rome
011-39-06-8802001
Padova
011-39-049-773490
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Soil, Sediment
Not Applicable
Nonspecific Organics
Horsehead Resource Development
Co., Inc. (HRD)
Moriaca, PA (004)
Demonstration Date:
March 1991
Flame Reactor/Developer's
Facility in Monaca, PA, using
waste from National Smelting
and Refining Company
Superfund Site in Atlanta, GA
Regis Zagrocki
412-773-2289
Donald Oberacker
513-569-7510
Marta Richards
513-569-7783
Soil, Sludge,
Industrial Solid
Residues
Metals
Not Applicable
Hrubetz Environmental Services, Inc.
Dallas, TX (007)
Demonstration Date:
January - February 1993
HRUBOUT® Process/Kelly AFB
in San Antonio, TX
Michael Hrubetz or
Barbara Hrubetz
214-363-7833
Gordon Evans
513-569-7684
Soil
Not Applicable
Halogenated or
Nonhalogenated
Volatiles or
Semivolatiles
MK0l\RPT:02281012.009Scompgde.apb
B-9
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-2
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993 (Continued)
Developer
Technology/
Demonstration Location
Technology
Contact
EPA Project
Manager
Waste Media
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
Organic
Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.
Manhattan Beach, CA (005)
Demonstration Date:
August 1991 - September 1993
Steam Enhanced Recovery
Process/Fuel Spill Site in
Huntington Beach, CA
Ron Van Sickle
310-616-6634
Paul dePercin
513-569-7797
Soil, Groundwater
Not Applicable
VOCs and SVOCs
Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute/Halliburton NUS
Oak Ridge, TN (007)
Demonstration Date:
August 1993
Radio Frequency Heating/Kelly
AFB in San Antonio, TX
Paul Carpenter
904-283-6022
Clifton Blanchard
615-483-9900
Guggliam Sresty
312-567-4232
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Soil
Not Applicable
VOCS and SVOCs
International Waste Technologies/
Geo-Con, Inc.
Wichita, KS and Monroeville, PA (001)
(2 Demonstrations)
Demonstration Date:
April - May 1988
In Situ Solidification and
Stabilization Process / General
Electric Service Shop in
Hialeah, FL
Jeff Newton
316-269-2660
Chris Ryan
412-856-7700
Mary Stinson
908-321-6683
Soil, Sediment
Nonspecific Inorganics
PCBs, PCP, Other
Nonspecific Organics
Magnum Water Technology
El Segundo, CA (007)
Demonstration Date:
March 1993
CAV-OX® Process/Edwards
AFB, CA
Dale Cox
310-322-4143
Jack Simser
310-640-7000
Dick Eilers
513-569-7809
Groundwater,
Wastewater
Not Applicable
Nonspecific Organic
Compounds
NOVATERRA, Inc.
(formerly Toxic Treatments USA, Inc.)
Torrance, CA (003)
Demonstration Date:
September 1989
In Situ Steam and Air
Stripping/Annex Terminal, San
Pedro, CA
Philip LaMori
310-843-3190
Paul dePercin
513-569-7797
Soil
Nonspecific
Inorganics, Heavy
Metals
VOCs, SVOCs,
Hydrocarbons
Peroxidation Systems, Inc.
Tucson, AZ (006)
Demonstration Date:
September 1992
perox-pure™ Advanced
Oxidation Technology/Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory
in Altamont Hills, CA
Chris Giggy
602-790-8383
Norma Lewis
513-569-7665
Groundwater,
Wastewater
Not Applicable
Fuel Hydrocarbons,
Chlorinated Solvents,
PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs
Resources Conservation Company
Ellicott City, MD (001)
Demonstration Date:
July 1992
B.E.S.T. Solvent Extraction
Technology/Grand Calumet
River in Gary, IN
Lanny Weimer
301-596-6066
Mark Meckes
513-569-7348
Soil, Sludge,
Sediment
Not Applicable
Oil, PCBs, PAHs,
Pesticides, Herbicides
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apb
B-10
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-2
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993 (Continued)
Developer
Technology/
Demonstration Location
Technology
Contact
EPA Project
Manager
Waste Media
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
Organic
Retech, Inc.
Ukiah, CA (002)
Demonstration Date:
July 1991
Plasma Arc Vitrification/DOE
Component Development and
Integration Facility in Butte, MT
Ronald Womack or
Leroy Leland
707-462-6522
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Soils, Sludge
Metals
Nonspecific Organics
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH (006)
Demonstration Date:
August 1993
Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination
Process/Koppers Company
Superfund Site in Morrisville,
NC
Charles Rogers
513-569-7626
Yei-Shong Shieh
215-832-0700
Terrence Lyons
513-569-7589
Soils, Sediments
Not Applicable
PCBs, PCPs,
Halogenated
Compounds
Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH (007)
Demonstration Date:
November 1992
Volume Reduction Unit/
Escambia Wood Preserving
Site in Pensacola, FL
Richard Griffiths
908-321-6629
Teri Richardson
513-569-7949
Soil
Metals
Creosote, PCPs,
PAHs, VOCs, SVOCs,
Pesticides
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory and
IT Corporation
Cincinnati, OH (004)
Demonstration Dates:
September 1988, December 1989,
and August 1990
Debris Washing System/
Superfund Sites in Detroit, Ml;
Hopkinsville, KY; and Walker
County, GA
Michael Taylor or
Majid Dosani
513-782-4700
Naomi Barkley
513-569-7854
Debris
Nonspecific Inorganics
Nonspecific Organics,
PCBs, Pesticides
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory and University
of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH (005)
Demonstration Date:
July 1991 - September 1992
Hydraulic Fracturing/Feasibility
Studies Conducted in
Oakbrook, IL, and Dayton, OH
Larry Murdoch
513-556-2526
Naomi Barkley
513-569-7854
Soil, Groundwater
Nonspecific Inorganics
Nonspecific Organics
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory and USDA
Forest Products Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH (006)
Demonstration Date:
September 1991 - November 1992
Fungal Treatment Technology/
Brookhaven Wood Preserving
in Brookhaven, MS
Richard Lamar
608-231-9469
John Glaser
513-569-7568
Kim Lisa Kreiton
513-569-7328
Soil
Not Applicable
PCPs, PAHs,
Chlorinated Organics
MKO 1\RPT:02281012.00SNcompgde.apb
B-ll
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-2
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993 (Continued)
Developer
Technology/
Demonstration Location
Technology
Contact
EPA Project
Manager
Waste Media
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
Organic
SBP Technologies, Inc.
Stone Mountain, GA (005)
Demonstration Date:
October 1991
Membrane Filtration and
Bioremediation/American
Creosote Works in Pensacola,
FL
David Drahos
404-498-6666
Kim Lisa Kreiton
513-569-7328
Groundwater,
Soils, Sludges
Not Applicable
Organic Compounds,
PAHs, PCBs, TCE,
PCP
Silicate Technology Corporation
Scottsdale, AZ (003)
Demonstration Date:
November 1990
Chemical Fixation/Solidification
Treatment Technologies/Selma
Pressure Treating Site in
Selma, CA
Stephen Pelger or
Scott Larsen
602-948-7100
Edward Bates
513-569-7774
Soil, Sludge,
Wastewater
Metals, Cyanide
High Molecular
Weight Organics
J.R. Simplot Company6
Pocatello, ID (007)
Demonstration Date:
July 1993
Biodegradation of Dinoseb/
Bowers Field in Ellensburg, WA
Dane Higdem
208-234-5367
Wendy Davis-Hoover
513-569-7206
Soil
Not Applicable
Nitroaromatics
J.R. Simplot Company6
Pocatello, ID (007)
Demonstration Date:
September 1993 - October 1993
Biodegradation of
Trinitrotoluene/DOD Site in St.
Louis, MO
Dane Higdem
208-234-5367
Wendy Davis-Hoover
513-569-7206
Soil
Not Applicable
Nitroaromatics
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.
Englewood, CO (005)
(2 Demonstrations)
Demonstration Dates:
New York: May 1991
Illinois: June 1992
Anaerobic Thermal Processor/
Wide Beach Superfund Site in
Brant, NY, and Waukegan
Harbor Superfund Site in
Waukegan, IL
Roger Nielson
303-290-8336
Joseph Hutton
219-926-8651
Paul dePercin
513-569-7797
Soil, Sludge,
Refinery Wastes
Not Applicable
PCBs, Chlorinated
Pesticides, VOCs
Soliditech, Inc.
Houston, TX (002)
Demonstration Date:
December 1988
Solidification and Stabilization/
Imperial Oil Company/
Champion Chemical Company
Superfund Site in Morganville,
NJ
Bill Stallworth
713-497-8558
Jack Hubbard
513-569-7507
Soil, Sludge
Metals, Nonspecific
Inorganics
Nonspecific Organics
Terra Vac, Inc.
San Juan, PR (001)
Demonstration Date:
December 1987 - April 1988
In Situ Vacuum Extraction/
Groveland Wells Superfund
Site in Groveland, MA
James Malot
809-723-9171
Mary Stinson
908-321-6683
Soil
Not Applicable
VOCs and SVOCs
Toronto Harbour Commission
Toronto, Ontario, Canada (007)
Demonstration Date:
April - May 1992
Soil Recycling/Toronto Port
Industrial District in Toronto,
Ontario
Dennis Lang
416-863-2047
Teri Richardson
513-569-7949
Soil
Nonspecific Inorganics
Nonspecific Organics
MK01\RPT:02281012.00SNx>mpgde.apb
B-12
10/26/94
-------
TABLE B-2
COMPLETED SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OF OCTOBER 1993 (Continued)
Developer
Technology/
Demonstration Location
Technology
Contact
EPA Project
Manager
Waste Media
Applicable Waste
Inorganic
Organic
Ultrox International
Santa Ana, CA (003)
Demonstration Date:
March 1989
Ultraviolet Radiation and
Oxidation/Lorentz Barrel and
Drum Company in San Jose,
CA
David Fletcher
714-545-5557
Norma Lewis
513-569-7665
Groundwater,
Leachate,
Wastewater
Not Applicable
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons, VOCs,
Pesticides, PCBs
EPA
San Francisco, CA (007)
Demonstration Date:
June - July 1990
Excavation Techniques and
Foam Suppression Methods/
McColl Superfund Site in
Fullerton, CA
John Blevins
415-744-2241
Jack Hubbard
513-569-7507
Soil
Volatile Inorganics
Volatile Organics
WASTECH Inc.
Oak Ridge, TN (004)
Demonstration Date:
August 1991
Solidification and Stabilization/
Robins AFB in Warner Robins,
GA
Benjamin Peacock
615-483-6515
Terrence Lyons
513-569-7589
Soil, Sludge,
Liquid Waste
Nonspecific
Radioactive Inorganics
Nonspecific Organics
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
West Chester, PA (006)
Demonstration Date:
November - December 1991
Low Temperature Thermal
Treatment (LT3®) System/
Anderson Development
Company Superfund Site in
Adrian, Ml
Mike Cosmos
215-430-7423
Paul dePercin
513-569-7797
Soil, Sludge
Not Applicable
VOCs, SVOCs,
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, PAHs
Roy F. Weston, Inc./IEG Technologies
Woodland Hills, CA (007)
Demonstration Date:
May - November 1993
UVB - Vacuum Vaporizing
Well/March AFB, CA
Jeff Bannon or
Ron Chu
818-596-6900
Eric Klingel
704-357-6090
Michelle Simon
513-569-7469
Groundwater
Not Applicable
VOCs
' Solicitation Number.
b From Emerging Technology Program.
Source: EPA, November 1993. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program, Technology Profiles, Sixth Edition, EPA CRD, EPA/540/R-93/526.
MKO 1NRPT:02281012.009N=ompgde.apb
B-13
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
Appendix C
FEDERAL
DATA BASES
AND
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
SOURCES
-------
APPENDIX C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
INTRODUCTION C-l
FEDERAL DATA BASES
C.l ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION
CENTER (ATTIC) C-ll
C.2 CASE STUDY DATA SYSTEM C-13
C.3 CLEANUP INFORMATION BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (CLU-IN) C-14
C.4 COST OF REMEDIAL ACTION (CORA) MODEL C-16
C.5 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD
SYSTEM (DEEBBS) C-18
C.6 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK INFORMATION
EXCHANGE (DENIX) C-19
C.7 DEFENSE RDT&E ONLINE SYSTEM (DROLS) C-20
C.8 ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DATA BASE C-21
C.9 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (ETIS) C-23
C.10 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES REMEDIAL ACTIONS
DATA EXCHANGE (EnviroTRADE) C-25
C.ll ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS) C-26
C.12 HAZARDOUS WASTE SUPERFUND COLLECTION DATA BASE
(HWSFD) C-28
C.13 INSTALLATION RESTORATION DATA MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM C-30
C.14 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS)
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA BASE C-32
C.15 NEW TECHNOLOGY FROM DOE (NTD) C-34
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apc C-i 10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Section Title Page
C.16 PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGY (PROTECH) AND THE
TECHNOLOGY CATALOGUE C-35
C.17 RECORDS OF DECISION SYSTEM (RODS) C-37
C.18 REOPT: ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA OF REMEDIAL ACTION
OPTIONS C-39
C.19 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS (RIP) DATA BASE C-41
C.20 RREL TREATABILITY DATA BASE C-43
C.21 SOIL TRANSPORT AND FATE DATA BASE C-45
C.22 TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION SYSTEM SUPPORT (TISS) C-47
C.23 WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM C-48
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
C.24 U.S. ARMY HOTLINE C-51
C.25 CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION
(CERI) C-52
C.26 DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) C-53
C.27 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (GPO) C-54
C.28 NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS
AND INFORMATION C-55
C.29 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS) C-56
C.30 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) BULLETIN
BOARD C-57
C.31 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ELECTRONIC
BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (ORD BBS) C-58
C.32 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTER (PIC) C-59
C.33 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTORY C-60
C.34 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEWSLETTER C-61
MK.01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc C-ii 10/26/94
-------
Appendix C
FEDERAL DATA BASES AND
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
¦ INTRODUCTION
The profiles contained in this appendix were identified through a review of reports,
articles, and publications by the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR) member agencies and telephone interviews with data base experts. FRTR
members include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI). In addition, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) participates in FRTR meetings.
This appendix is a reference tool that provides information on those systems
maintaining data on remedial technologies. It may be used by project managers as
a pointer to repositories of technical information, or as a source of contacts that
may be useful to future system design. Each data base profile contains information
on data elements, system uses, hardware and software requirements, and access.
The profiles also contain contacts for each system. A matrix showing system
characteristics of the data bases included in this document is provided in Table C-l.
Table C-2 summarizes the information contained in the data base profiles.
Additional information sources are provided on pages C-50 through C-60. For each
information source, the primary contact, address, telephone numbers, hours of
operation, description of service, and the primary focus are provided.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-l
10/26/94
-------
Federal
Data Bases
-------
TABLE C-1
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
System Name
Technology
Description
Performance
Data
Cost
Data
Case
Studies
Updated
Periodically
User
Fee
Public
Access
System
Operator
Online
Capability
Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Case Study Data System
X
X
X
X
CLU-IN Bulletin Board System (BBS)
X
X
X
X
X
X .
Cost of Remedial Action Model (CORA)
X
X
X
X
X
Defense Environmental Electronic
Bulletin Board System (DEEBS)
X
X
X
X
Defense Environmental Network
Information Exchange (DENIX)
X
X
X
Defense RDT&E Online System
(DROLS)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Energy Science and Technology Data
Base
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Environmental Technical Information
System (ETIS)
X
X
X
X
X
Environmental Technologies Remedial
Actions Data Exchange (EnviroTRADE)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Environmental Technology Information
System (TIS)
X
X
X
X
X
Hazardous Waste Superfund Data
Collection
X
X
X
X
X
¦
X
X
MK01\RPT:02281012.00SN:ompgde.apc
C-2
10/26/94
-------
TABLE C-1
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
(CONTINUED)
System Name
Technology
Description
Performance
Data
Cost
Data
Case
Studies
Updated
Periodically
User
Fee
Public
Access
System
Operator
Online
Capability
installation Restoration Data
Management Information System
(IRDMIS)
X
National Technical Information Service
Bibliographic Data Base
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
New Technology from DOE (NTD)
X
X
X
X
ProTech & the Technology Catalogue
X
X
X
X
Record of Decision System (RODS)
X
X
X
X
X
X
ReOpt: Electronic Encyclopedia of
Remedial Action Options
X
X
X
X
X
X
Research in Progress
X
X
X
X
X
RREL Treatability Data Base
X
X
X
X
X
Soil Transport and Fate Data Base
X
X
Technology Integration System Support
(TISS)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Waste Management Information System
(WMIS)
X
X
X
MK01\RPT:02281012.00SNcompgde.apc
C-3
10/26/94
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY TABLE OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
Name
Objective
Data/Technology
Information
Hardware/Software
Contacts
Alternative Treatment
Technology Information
Center (ATTIC)
ATTIC is an information
retrieval network that
provides site remediation
managers with technical
information on alternative
treatment methods for
remediating hazardous
waste.
The data base contains
abstracts from more than
2,000 technical references,
including books, EPA
publications, journal articles,
and treatability studies.
A computer, modem, and
communications software
are required to access the
system.
Online Data: (703) 908-2138
Voice Support: (703) 908-2137
ATTIC Project Manager
EPA-RREL
(908) 321-6677
Case Study Data System
This data system stores and
retrieves case-specific
information to support rule
and guidance development
activities affecting facility
siting, corrective action, and
closure.
The data system contains
more than 200 case studies
that address topics such as
floodplains, disposal
technology, treatment, and
environmental effects.
The data base system is
written in dBase III and
formatted for an IBM PC.
Andy O'Palko
EPA
Office of Solid Waste
703-308-8646
CLU-IN Bulletin Board
System (BBS)
The system serves as a
communications mechanism
to assist hazardous waste
cleanup professionals obtain
current information about
innovative cleanup
technologies.
The system offers
messages, bulletins,
computer files, and data
bases.
A computer, modem, and
communications software
are required to access the
system.
Online System: 301-589-8366
HelpLine: 301-589-8368
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-4
10/26/94
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY TABLE OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
(CONTINUED)
Name
Objective
Data/Technology
Information
Hardware/Software
Contacts
Cost of Remedial Action
Model (CORA)
This computerized expert
model is designed to
recommend remedial actions
for Superfund hazardous
waste sites and estimate the
cost of these actions.
The model is comprised of
two independent
subsystems: an expert
system that uses site
information to recommend a
range of remedial response
actions, and a cost system
that develops cost estimates
for the technologies
selected.
CORA is a stand-alone
system requiring an IBM or
compatible PC, MS-DOS
environment, 640K RAM,
and 5MB of hard disk space.
Jaya Zyman
CORA Hotline
CH2M Hill
703-478-3566
Defense Environmental
Electronic Bulletin Board
System (DEEBS)
This system serves as a
centralized communications
platform for disseminating
DERP information pertaining
to DOD's scheduled
meetings, training, clean-up
sites, and technologies.
The system provides user
mail service, multi-user
access, and
upload/download features.
It permits access to 800
number dial in and to other
environmental data
networks.
The system can be
accessed with a dumb
terminal or a PC with a
modem and communications
software.
Patricia Jensen
Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense
(Environment)
703-695-7820
Defense Environmental
Network Information (DENIX)
To provide DOD personnel
information on
environmental, legislative,
compliance, restoration,
cleanup, and DOD guidance
information.
DENIX provides the
capability to review
environmental publications
online, send and receive
electronic mail via DENIX
host and the internet, and
enter the interactive
discussion forums on
various subjects.
The system can be
accessed only by DOD
personnel. A password is
necessary to access the
system. DENIX is available
online.
Kim Grein
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
217-373-4519
MKO 1«PT:02281012.005Ncompgde.apc
C-5
10/26/94
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY TABLE OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
(CONTINUED)
Name
Objective
Data/Technology
Information
Hardware/Software
Contacts
Defense RDT & E Online
System (DROLS)
This bibliographic data base
provides information on
DOD's ongoing research
and technology efforts.
The system provides access
to three separate data
bases: Research Work Unit
Information System,
Technical Report Data Base,
and Independent Research
and Development Data
Base.
The system is available
through dial-up to the
Defense Technical
Information Center's central
computer system.
Defense Technical Information
Center
703-274-6871
Energy Science and
Technology Data Base
This multidisciplinary
bibliographic file contains
worldwide references to
basic and applied scientific
and technical research
literature.
The system includes
references to journal
literature, conferences,
patents, book, monographs,
theses, and engineering and
software materials.
The system is available via
dial-up through DOE's
Integrated Technical
Information System (ITIS)
and to the public through
DIALOG Information
Services.
ITIS
DOE Office of Science and
Technical Information
615-576-1222
DIALOG Information Services
800-334-2564
Environmental Technical
Information System (ETIS)
This system is designed to
help DOD conduct analyses
to document environmental
consequences of its
activities.
ETIS's subsystems include
data and information
exchange on chemicals,
regulations, hazardous
materials, and hazardous
wastes.
The system is available via
dial-up with a computer,
modem, and
communications software
capable of VT-100
emulation.
Kim Grein
CERL
800-USA-CERL x 652
ETIS Support
. 217-333-1369
Environmental Technologies
Remedial Actions Data
Exchange (EnviroTRADE)
This system is being
designed to help facilitate
the exchange of
environmental restoration
and waste management
technologies.
The system will contain
information on international
environmental restoration
and waste management
technologies, organizations,
sites, activities, funding, and
contacts.
The system will be available
to DOE users in 1993 and
other users at a later date.
Hardware and software
requirements have not been
finalized.
International Technology
Exchange Program
DOE
301-903-7930
MK01\RPT:02281012.00SNx>mpgde.apc
C-6
10/26/94
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY TABLE OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
(CONTINUED)
Name
Objective
Data/Technology
Information
Hardware/Software
Contacts
Environmental Technology
Information System (TIS)
This system provides
technical experts with
information about potential
waste cleanup technologies.
The system offers advice on
screening remedial options
based on site-specific input
information.
The system can be
accessed via dial-up using a
PC, minicomputer, or
mainframe. Special
software is required.
Claire Ross
Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory
208-526-0614
Hazardous Waste Superfund
Collection Data Base
This online bibliographic
data base corresponds to a
special collection of
hazardous waste documents
located throughout the EPA
library network.
The system includes
bibliographic references and
abstracts on EPA reports,
OSWER policy and
guidance directives,
legislation, regulations, and
non-government books.
The system is available
online through the EPA
Online Library System or it
can be downloaded from
CLU-IN. Both methods of
access require a PC,
modem, and communica-
tions software.
Felice Sacks
EPA Headquarters Library
202-260-3021
Installation Restoration Data
Management Information
System (IRDMIS)
This data base supports
technical and managerial
requirements of the Army's
Installation Restoration
Program and other
environmental efforts.
The data base contains
analytical results from
chemical, geotechnical, and
radiological sampling.
The system requires
software provided by
USAEC.
Jim Wood
USAEC
410-671-1655
National Technical
Information Service (NTIS)
Bibliographic Data Base
This is a bibliographic
retrieval system that
references the reports of
major federal agencies.
The system consists of
unclassified government-
sponsored research,
development, and
engineering reports, as well
as other analyses prepared
by government agencies
and their contractors.
The data base is available
through a number of
commercial data base
vendors, such as DIALOG,
BRS, STN, Orbit, and CISTI.
National Technical Information
Service
U.S. Dept. of Commerce
703-487-4650
MKO 1\RPT:02281012.00S\compgde.apc
C-7
10/26/94
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY TABLE OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
(CONTINUED)
Name
Objective
Data/Technology
Information
Hardware/Software
Contacts
New Technology from DOE
(NTD)
This system is designed to
disseminate information
about DOE research results
that have potential for
commercialization.
The system includes
technology descriptions,
patent status, secondary
applications, literature
citations, and DOE
information.
The data base is available
to DOE users with a
computer, modem, and
communications software
capable of VT-100
emulation.
Integrated Technical Information
System
615-576-1222
Protech and the Technology
Catalogue
1. Minimize the time and
effort that field personnel
spend providing information
on their technologies.
2. Provide more detailed
technical cost performance
data on deployable
technologies advanced by
DOE's Office of Technology
Development (EM-50) to its
customers, DOE's Offices of
Waste Management (EM-30)
and Environmental
Restoration (EM-40) and
their contractors.
Description of technologies
supported under Integrated
Demonstrations (IDs).
Macintosh Computer
Platform.
ProTech Contact:
David Biancosino (DOE-HQ)
301-903-7961
Technology Catalogue Contact:
Joe Paladino (DOE-HQ)
301-903-7449
Records of Decision System
(RODS)
This system provides
comprehensive information
on Superfund Records of
Decision for hazardous
Waste cleanup sites
nationwide.
The data base contains the
full text of all signed
Records of Decision.
A personal computer,
modem and communications
software are required to
access the system.
Jalania Ellis
EPA/OERR
703-603-8889
M KO 1\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-8
10/26/94
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY TABLE OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
(CONTINUED)
Name
Objective
Data/Technology
Information
Hardware/Software
Contacts
ReOpt: Electronic
Encyclopedia of Remedial
Action Options
The system provides
information collected from
EPA, DOE, and other
sources about remedial
action technologies.
The system contains
diagrams, descriptions,
engineering or design
parameters, contaminants
treated, technical and
regulatory constraints, and
other information for about
90 technologies.
The system runs on IBM-PC
and compatibles in a
WINDOWS™ environment
and Macintosh II (or
greater). It requires at least
5 megabytes of RAM and 12
megabytes of hard disk
space. OMNIS SEVEN™
software is embedded in the
system, and a fee is
required for a license and
installation materials.
Janet Bryant
Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs
509-375-3765
Research in Progress Data
Base
This data base bridges the
information gap that occurs
between initiation and
completion of a research
project by providing
information about ongoing
research projects.
The data base contains
administrative and technical
information about all
unclassified current and
recently completed research
projects performed or
funded by DOE.
A computer, modem, and
communications software
capable of VT-100 emulation
are required to access the
system.
Kelly J. Dwyer
DOE
615-576-9374
DIALOG Information Services
800-334-2564
RREL Treatability Data Base
The data base provides
treatability data for the
removal/destruction of
organic and inorganic
chemicals in aqueous and
solid media.
The system contains 1,207
compounds with 13,500 data
sets.
The data base is menu-
driven and can be loaded on
an IBM or compatible PC
with DOS Version 2.0 to 6.0,
640K RAM, and 7MB of
hard disk storage. It is also
available for downloading
through CLU-IN.
Glenn M. Shaul
EPA/RREL
513-569-7408
MK01NRPT:02281012.009Scompgde.apc
C-9
10/26/94
-------
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY TABLE OF FEDERAL DATA BASES
(CONTINUED)
Name
Objective
Data/Technology
Information
Hardware/Software
Contacts
Soil Transport and Fate Data
Base and Model
Management System
The data base provides
information on chemical
properties, toxicity,
transformation, and
bioaccumulation for
hundreds of chemical
compounds.
The data base includes
information on approximately
400 chemicals as well as
models for predicting the
fate and transport of
hazardous organic
constituents in the vadose
zone.
The data base will run on
any IBM-compatible
computer with 640K RAM,
12.5 MB of hard disk
storage, and a math
coprocessor.
David S. Burden
EPA/RSKERL
405-332-8800
Technology Integration
System Support (TISS)
This system supports DOE
in the development of new
environmental technologies
by providing a central focus
for information exchange
between DOE and industry,
other federal agencies
(OFAs), and universities.
Includes DOE environmental
technologies, points of
contact, DOE documents,
vendor information, DOE
procurement activities, and
requestor data bases.
NextStep system, which
runs object-oriented
Knowledge Base on 486
platform.
Richard Machanoff, Project
Manager, HAZWRAP, Martin
Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
615-435-3173
DOE Environmental Technology
Information Service
800-845-2096
Waste Management
Information System (WMIS)
The system provides an
accurate and complete
resource for the explanation
and selection of appropriate
technologies for handling
hazardous, mixed,
radioactive, or remedial
action waste.
The system includes waste
generation/process data,
information on T/S/D
capabilities, and waste
profiles.
WMIS resides on a Novel
local area network at DOE.
Use Wachter
HAZWRAP
615-435-3281
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-10
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.1 ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION CENTER
(ATTIC)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Edison, NJ
Description Of Services: ATTIC is a comprehensive information retrieval system
containing data on alternative treatment technologies for
hazardous waste. It contains several data bases that are
accessed through a free public access bulletin board. The
central component of ATTIC is the Treatment Technology
Data base, which contains abstracts and summaries from
technical documents that are free-text searchable. Search
results can then be downloaded for review on the user's
computer. Access is also provided to a number of other
data bases, including a technology performance/treatability
study data base and an underground storage tank data base.
New features include full text downloadable files of key
treatment technology documents, including Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program
documents. The bulletin board also features news items,
bulletins, and E-mail.
Data: ATTIC users can access four data bases directly through
the BBS:
• ATTIC Data Base (contains more than 2,000
records on alternative treatment technologies for
remediating hazardous waste).
• RREL Treatability Data Base (provides data on the
treatability of contaminated water and soil).
• Technical Assistance Directory (identifies experts
on a given technology or contaminant).
• Calendar of Events (lists of upcoming conferences
and events).
Access: Users can dial directly into the ATTIC system through
their own computer by dialing (703) 908-2138. Users
without access to a computer or those with questions about
the system can contact the system operator for assistance.
Hardware/Software: ATTIC is accessible by any PC or terminal equipped with
communications software and a modem.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-ll
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Contact: ATTIC Project Manager
EPA/RREL
2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS-106)
Edison, NJ 08837
(908) 321-6677
FAX (908) 906-6990
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apc
C-12
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.2 CASE STUDY DATA SYSTEM
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Washington, DC
Description Of Services: The Case Study Data System (CSDS) is an inventory of
more than 220 case studies that were developed to support
RCRA rule and guidance development activities affecting
facility location, RCRA Corrective Action, and closure.
The system was completed in April 1990. The system can
be used to identify case studies that contain information on
treatment technologies used at various specific hazardous
waste sites.
Data: The case studies are organized by number in a library at
EPA. The CSDS is the indexing system for this library
that identifies appropriate case studies by using data fields
and keywords. The case studies contain formatted
information about the geology, general problems, processes
associated with waste handling, and treatment technologies
(including innovative, standard, and regular procedures) for
specific sites. The case studies address a variety of topics
such as floodplains, disposal technology, treatment, and
environmental effects.
Access: The data base is available for downloading from the
Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) Bulletin Board. The
manual is available to those who fill out an online script
questionnaire on CLU-IN requesting a copy.
Hardware/Software: The Case Study Data System is written in dBase III and is
formatted for use on an IBM PC or compatible computer.
Contact: Andy O'Palko
EPA/Office of Solid Waste
Mail Code 5303W
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 308-8646
FAX (703) 308-8617
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\x>mpgde.apc
C-13
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.3 CLEANUP INFORMATION BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (CLU-IN)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC
Description Of Services: The RCRA CLU-IN is designed for hazardous waste
cleanup professionals to use in finding current events
information about innovative technologies, consulting with
one another online, and accessing data bases. CLU-IN is
used by those involved in the cleanup of Superfund,
RCRA corrective action, and underground storage tank
sites, including EPA staff, other federal and state
personnel, consulting engineers, technology vendors,
remediation contractors, researchers, community groups,
and the public.
Data: CLU-IN has the following features:
• Electronic messages allowing users to leave
messages for individual users or to a large
audience of users.
• Bulletins that can be read online, such as
summaries of Federal Register and Commerce
Business Daily notices on hazardous waste,
descriptions and listings of EPA documents, a
calendar of EPA training courses, notices of
upcoming meetings and SITE Program
demonstrations, and the text of EPA newsletters.
• Files that can be downloaded for use on the user's
computer—such as directories, data bases, models,
and EPA documents.
• Online Data Bases that can be searched on CLU-
IN.
In addition, CLU-IN has special interest group areas
(SIGs) with all of the functions of the main board, but
limited to a particular group or subject area. Examples of
SIGs include treatability study investigation, OSC/
removal, and groundwater technologies.
Access: Users can dial directly into CLU-IN at (301) 589-8366.
Communications settings are:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-14
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
8 data bits
1 stop bit
No parity
1200-9600 baud
VT-100 terminal emulation
Hardware/Software:
To access CLU-IN, you will need a computer, modem,
telephone line, and communications software.
Contact:
CLU-IN System Operator
(301) 589-8368
FAX (301) 589-8487
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.apc
C-15
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.4 COST OF REMEDIAL ACTION (CORA) MODEL
Sponsoring Agency:
Description of Services:
Data:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Washington, DC
The Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) Model is a
computerized expert advisor used to recommend remedial
actions for Superfund hazardous waste sites and estimate
their costs. The stand-alone PC-based system may also be
used for RCRA corrective action sites. The model is
designed for both current site-specific estimates and for
program budgeting and planning. The system provides
recommendations for remedial action technologies on a
site-specific basis, and provides a method to estimate
remedial action costs in the pre-feasibility stage of
analysis.
The CORA Model is comprised of two independent
subsystems:
Expert System—allows a user to enter site
information generally accessible at the remedial
investigation stage and recommends a range of
remedial response actions from among 44
technology descriptions contained in the system.
It includes descriptions of innovative treatment
technologies:
Soil vapor extraction
Solidification
Soil slurry bioreactor
Pressure filtration
Soil flushing
In situ biodegradation
In situ stabilization
• Cost System—develops order of magnitude (+50/-
30%) cost estimates for the technologies selected
and may be used to independently assess remedy
recommendations from other sources.
Access: The model is available from the contact below for a cost
of $280, which includes a run-time version of the system
and 1 hour of technical assistance.
M K01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apc
C-16
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Hardware/Software: The CORA Model is a stand-alone application, not
designed for LAN use. The following are the hardware
specifications:
• IBM-compatible PC
• MS-DOS environment
• 640 kilobytes of RAM
• 5 megabytes of hard disk space
Contact: CORA Hotline:
Jay a Zyman
CH2M Hill
625 Herndon Parkway
Hemdon, VA 22070
(703) 478-3566
FAX (703) 4810980
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.apc
C-17
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
U C.5 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL ELECTRONIC BULLETIN BOARD
SYSTEM (DEEBBS)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Defense
Washington, DC
Description of Services: The Defense Environmental Electronic Bulletin Board
System (DEEBBS) serves as a centralized communication
platform for disseminating Defense Environmental
Restoration Program (DERP) information pertaining to
DOD's cleanup sites, technologies, program policy and
guidance, scheduled meetings, and training. It fosters
online communications and technology transfer among
DOD components.
Data:
DEEBBS contains a messaging component as well as the
capability for file transfers. DEEBBS includes information
on cleanup technologies, policies, and regulatory
information.
Access:
DEEBBS is an online system available only to DOD
personnel.
Hardware/Software:
The system can be accessed with a dumb terminal or a
computer, modem, and communications software.
Contact:
For online access:
Kim Grein
CERL/USACE
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(800) USA-CERL, ext. 652
FAX (217) 373-7222
Patricia Jensen
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Environment)
Pentagon, Room 3D833
Washington, DC 20301-8000
(703) 695-7820
FAX (703) 697-7548
M K01NRPT: 02281012.009Ncompgde. ape
C-18
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
C.6 DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK INFORMATION EXCHANGE
(DENIX)
Sponsoring Agency:
Description of Services:
Data:
U.S. Department of Defense
Defense Environmental Network Information Exchange
(DENIX) was developed to provide DOD personnel in the
environmental arena with a central communications
platform that allows timely access to environmental,
legislative, compliance restoration, cleanup, and DOD
guidance information.
The following information is available on the DENIX data
base.
Current world, national, federal, and state news.
Service-specific news, events, and reports.
Current policy, guidance, and directives.
Legislative and regulatory news.
Environmental publications.
Training directories.
Environmental contacts directory.
Presidential and Congressional calendars.
Discussion forums.
Access:
The data base is available only to DOD personnel.
Application procedures and a password are required to
access the data base.
Hardware/Software:
Contact:
DENIX provides the capability to review environmental
publications online, send and receive electronic mail via
the DENIX host and the Internet, enter into interactive
discussion forums about various subject areas, upload and
download data files, and access listings of environmental
training.
Kim Grein
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(217) 373-4519
FAX (217) 373-4421
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-19
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.7 DEFENSE RDT&E Online System (DROLS)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Defense
Defense Technical Information Center
Description of Services: The Defense RDT&E Online System (DROLS) was
developed by the Defense Technical Information Center
(DTIC) to provide online access to its data collection of
ongoing DOD research and technology efforts. The
system includes citations to reports distributed by DOD.
DROLS is used to identify, input, and order documents.
The system can be searched by author, source, date, title,
subject, project, contract, report numbers, and funding
sources.
Data: DROLS provides access to three separate data bases:
• Research and Technology Work Unit Information
System (WUIS) Data Base (containing ongoing
DOD research and technology efforts at the work
unit level).
Technical Report Data Base (consisting of
bibliographic records of technical reports
submitted to DTIC).
• Independent Research and Development (IR&D)
Data Base (containing contractors' independent
research and development efforts shared with
DOD). This data base is proprietary and accessible
only to classified DOD terminals.
Access: DROLS is an online system that can be accessed through
the DTIC central computer system. To subscribe to the
online system, contact DTIC at the number below.
Hardware/Software: Classified users are required to use dedicated phone lines
requiring special encryption equipment or STU-III
installation. Dial-up or dedicated access to DROLS is
available for unclassified users.
Contact: Defense Technical Information Center
Attn: Registration and Services Branch (DTIC-BCS)
Building 5, Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA 22304
(703) 274-6871
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-20
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.8 ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DATA BASE
Sponsoring Agency:
Description of Services:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science and Technical Information
Oak Ridge, TN
The Energy Science and Technology Data Base is a multi-
disciplinary bibliographic data base containing references
to basic and applied scientific and technical energy- and
nuclear-science related research literature worldwide. The
information is collected for use by government managers
and researchers at the DOE National Laboratories, other
DOE researchers, and the public. Abstracts are included
for most records. Items date from 1976 to the present,
with older literature included in some subject areas.
Data:
The Energy Science and Technology Data Base includes
references to journal literature, conferences, patents, books,
monographs, theses, and engineering and software
materials. Approximately 50% of the references are from
foreign sources. Coverage includes the following areas of
energy-related research:
• Engineering
• Environmental sciences
• Geosciences
• Hazardous waste management
• Materials handling
The data base is continually updated by about 180,000
records per year. The system can be searched by author,
title, subject, and research organization.
Access: The Energy Science and Technology Data Base is
available to the public through DIALOG Information
Services (a commercial system) for a fee. A limited
version of the system is also available to DOE employees,
DOE contractors, and other government agencies through
DOE's Integrated Technical Information System (ITIS).
In addition, DIALOG has a companion file called Nuclear
Science Abstracts, covering the period from 1947 to mid-
1976, that is not available through ITIS.
Hardware/Software: Users can dial into the system through DIALOG with a
computer, modem, and communications software. DOE
users should contact ITIS for access.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009^ompgde.apc
C-21
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Contact: Integrated Technical Information System (ITIS)
DOE/OSTI
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(615) 576-1222
DIALOG Information Services
(800) 334-2564
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-22
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.9 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (ETIS)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
Champaign, IL
Description Of Services: The Environmental Technical Information System (ETIS)
is a minicomputer-based system designed to help DOD
personnel conduct environmental analyses to document
environmental consequences of its activities. The system
is now used by other federal agencies as well as the
general public.
Data: The ETIS system contains a number of subsystems
including:
• Environmental Impact Computer System (to
identify potential environmental impacts of
programs or activities).
• Computer-Aided Environmental Legislative Data
System (CELDS) (to allow users to search Federal
and State environmental regulations by keywords).
• Hazardous Materials Management System
(contains data on hazardous chemicals including
physical and chemical properties, guidance for
handling, storage, and transportation).
• Soils Information Retrieval System (provides
information on soils anywhere in the United
States).
• Hazardous Waste Management Information System
(assists in record-keeping for and management of
hazardous waste at military bases).
• Electronic bulletin boards (for networking with
others involved in site cleanup). Electronic
bulletin boards on ETIS include:
Discuss with Experts Environmental
Problems (DEEP)—used primarily by
installation environmental officers.
Covers air quality, asbestos, wildlife
conservation, cultural resources,
compliance, environmental management,
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-23
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
noise conflict, resource conservation and
recovery, solid waste, and water quality.
Lists environmental experts at each Army
and Air Force base as well as training
courses and job listings.
Hazardous Expertise (HAZE)—for users
involved in hazardous materials handling
and disposal. Covers disposal methods,
labeling, good management practices,
hazardous waste minimization, testing and
dispensing, spill control, hazardous
materials storage, and hazardous waste
treatment.
Access: Users can dial into ETIS once they have set up an account.
To obtain an account, military, DOE, and EPA users
should contact the CERL contact below. Private sector
and other users should contact the ETIS Support Center.
There is a connect hour fee for non-military and non-EPA
users.
Hardware/Software: ETIS is accessible by a computer or terminal equipped
with communications software and a modem. VT-100
emulation is recommended.
Contact: ETIS Support Center
Elizabeth Dennison
1003 West Nevada St.
Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 333-1369
Kim Grein
CERL/USACE
PO Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(800) USA-CERL, ext. 652
FAX (217) 373-7222
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apc
C-24
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.10 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES REMEDIAL ACTIONS DATA
EXCHANGE (EnviroTRADE)
Sponsoring Agency:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Washington, DC
Description of Services:
The Environmental Technologies Remedial Actions Data
Exchange (EnviroTRADE) is an international information
system that will facilitate the exchange of environmental
restoration and waste management technologies.
Data: EnviroTRADE contains both foreign and domestic
technologies and needs profiles. Users can identify
possible matches between worldwide environmental
restoration and waste management needs and technologies.
EnviroTRADE will also provide general information on
international environmental restoration and waste
management organizations, sites, activities, funding, and
contracts. The system is user friendly, providing visually
oriented information such as photographs, graphics, maps,
and diagrams of technologies and sites. The system has
expanded into a fully functionally geographical information
system (GIS).
Hardware/Software: EnviroTRADE is in the final stages of development. DOE
plans to make it available to DOE users in 1993 with
domestic and international networking to follow.
Informix/Online is the Relational Data Base Management
System and the Graphical user Interface is DevGuide.
EnviroTRADE is presently being developed on a SUN
workstation and will migrated to the PC and Macintosh in
FY93.
Access: Network access as planned will be online through Internet.
Contact: Susan Johnson
International Technology Exchange Program
DOE
Trevion II, EM-523
Washington, DC 20585-0002
(301) 903-7930
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apc
C-25
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
m C.11 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS)
Sponsoring Agency: Department of Energy
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Idaho Falls, ID
Description Of Services: The Environmental Technology Information System (TIS)
contains technology information relative to innovative and
available technologies to support environmental
management. Cost, vendor information, previous uses (if
any), and measures of effectiveness are included when
those data are available in the literature.
Uses of the TIS include:
• Online access to information regarding
technologies for environmental management
processes.
• Aid in identification of currently listed
technologies.
• Aid in access of other computerized information
(through "launch" of other computer programs).
• Documentation of technology choices.
• Linkage of information from one document to
another.
• Data collection and storage.
• Full-text retrieval of technology information.
Data: The TIS provides descriptive information gathered from
journals and other references, conference proceedings, and
expert experience. Retrieval of information is by any word
found within the TIS. Expert knowledge is built into the
TIS by use of logic trees to aid the uninitiated user.
Current users continue to add information to the TIS.
Access: While the TIS development project is not currently funded,
access of the present system is available to the DOE and
its contractors upon request. It is possible that the TIS
will be "privatized."
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-26
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Hardware/Software: TIS resides on a VAX/DEC 5800 ethernet server, which is
accessible by IBM-compatible or Macintosh PC,
minicomputer, or mainframe. A "client piece" of the
"Topic" software is required.
Contact: Claire Ross
DOE/Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
P.O. Box 1625-3970
Idaho Falls, ID 83415
(208) 526-0614
FAX (208) 526-6802
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-27
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.12 HAZARDOUS WASTE SUPERFUND COLLECTION DATA BASE
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Description of Services: The Hazardous Waste Superfund Collection is a special
collection within the EPA Headquarters Library on the
subject of hazardous waste. The Hazardous Waste
Superfund Collection Data Base (HWSFD) is a data base
containing bibliographic references and abstracts for the
documents in the collection. The data base is designed to
better meet the information needs of EPA staff by making
key documents and services more readily available through
the EPA library network. The system provides:
• A unified resource of major hazardous waste
reports, books and journals available through the
EPA library network.
• Current information to assist EPA staff in making
timely and effective policy and regulatory
decisions.
• Assistance in the transfer of hazardous waste
information from the EPA to the states as part of
the Agency's technology transfer effort.
Data: Continually growing, the HWSFD contains abstracts of
books, legislation, regulations, reports from federal
agencies, EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) policy and guidance directives, and
EPA reports from selected program offices.
Entries can be searched by the following categories:
• Keywords (from a thesaurus)
• Title
• EPA program office
• Date
• Author
• Abstract
The HWSFD is updated quarterly. Selected documents
from the collection are distributed to the 10 EPA regional
libraries as well as to EPA laboratory libraries in Ada, OK;
Cincinnati, OH; Edison, NJ; Las Vegas, NV; Research
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-28
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Triangle Park, NC; and the National Enforcement
Investigations Center in Denver, CO.
Access: The Data Base is available to the public through two
sources: the EPA Online Library System (OLS), which
resides on the EPA mainframe (online version), and files
that can be downloaded from EPA's CLU-IN Bulletin
Board (PC version). To access either version, a user will
need a computer, modem, and communications software.
The number to dial into the online version is (919) 549-
0720. The communications parameters are as follows:
• 300-9600 baud
• 7 data bits
• 1 stop bit
• Even parity
At the first prompt, type IBMPSI.
At the second prompt, choose the option for OLS.
To log off, type QUIT and follow the prompts.
For user support, call (800) 334-2405. For an OLS user
manual, call (919) 541-2777.
Files to assemble the PC version can be downloaded from
the CLU-IN Bulletin Board by dialing 301-589-8366.
Parameters are:
• 8 data bits
• 1 stop bit
• No parity
• 1200-9600 Baud
Hardware/Software: Both versions can be accessed with a PC, modem, and
communications software.
Contact: Felice Sacks
Hazardous Waste Superfund Collection
EPA Headquarters Library
Mail Code: PM-211A
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3021
CLU-IN Help Line
(301) 589-8368
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-29
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.13 INSTALLATION RESTORATION DATA MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Description Of Services: The Installation Restoration Data Management Information
System (IRDMIS) exists to support the technical and
managerial requirements of the Army's Installation
Restoration Program (IRP) and other environmental efforts
of the USAEC (formerly the U.S. Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency). Since 1975, more than 5 million
technical data records have been collected and stored in
the IRDMIS. These records represent information
collected from over 100 Army installations.
Data: The records contain information on:
• Geodetic map coordinates of all sampling efforts.
• Digitized map information pertaining to
installation boundaries and other key features.
• Geodetic elevations.
• Field drilling procedures and sampling.
• Water table measurements.
• Chemical sampling and analytical results.
• Radiological sampling and results.
• Meteorological information.
• Standards for specific analytes.
• Method descriptions of chemical, geotechnical, and
radiological sampling and analysis procedures.
Data consist primarily of analytical results from chemical,
geotechnical, and radiological sampling, coupled with
sampling location information. A printed Data Dictionary
specifying data base filed definitions, acceptable entries,
and file formats is available upon request.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009^compgde.apc
C-30
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
The IRDMIS data are stored in a relational data base with
menus for accessing data and producing reports. Graphical
display capabilities are provided so that users can
interactively view and manipulate data in two and three
dimensions.
Access: The system is available to USAEC project managers and
contractors actively submitting data into IRDMIS.
Contractors are restricted to data concerning their
respective activities only. Access by other federal and
state agencies are handled on a case by case basis.
Hardware/Software: Users are provided with DOS-based software to access the
data base.
Contact: Jim Wood
USAEC
Attn: CETHA-Room I
Building E, 4462T
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
(410) 671-1655
M m\RPT: 02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-31
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.14 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES (NTIS)
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA BASE
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA
Description of Services: The National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
Bibliographic Data Base is a self-supporting agency of the
U.S. Department of Commerce and is the largest single
source for public access to federally produced information.
NTIS is the federal agency charged with collecting and
distributing federal scientific, technical, and engineering
information. The NTIS collection covers current
technologies, business and management studies, foreign
and domestic trade, environment and energy, health, social
sciences, general statistics, and hundreds of other areas.
When government agencies and their contractors forward
reports and other items to NTIS, these items are entered
into the NTIS computerized bibliographic data base and
become part of the NTIS archive.
Data: The NTIS bibliographic data base contains data about
federally generated machine-readable data files and
software, U.S. government inventions available for
licensing, reports on new technologies developed by
federal agencies, federally generated translations, and
reports prepared by non-U.S. government agencies. An
increasing proportion of the data base consists of
unpublished material originating outside the United States.
Most NTIS records include an abstract.
Access: The NTIS data base is available to the public through a
number of commercial vendors including:
• BRS (800-345-4277)
• CISTI (613-993-1210/in Canada)
• DIALOG (800-334-2564)
• ORBIT (800-456-7248,703-442-0900/in Virginia)
• STN International (800-848-6533)
Some of these systems also allow ordering printed copies
of documents from the NTIS collection. NTIS also allows
ordering of documents from the sales desk (703-487-4650).
The data base is also available on CD-ROMs from a
number of vendors.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-32
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Hardware/Software: The hardware and software required to access NTIS online
depend upon the individual system used, but generally
include a computer, modem, and communications software
for dial-in access and a computer and CD-ROM drive for
a CD-ROM version.
Contact: National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, YA 22161
(703) 487-4650
FAX (703) 321-8547
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-33
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.15 NEW TECHNOLOGY FROM DOE (NTD)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science and Technical Information
Oak Ridge, TN
Description of Services: New Technology from DOE (NTD) contains brief
descriptions of DOE research results that have potential for
commercialization by U.S. industries. This data base is the
centralized source of online information on DOE technical
innovations and advancements.
Data: Each NTD record includes a technology description, patent
status, secondary or spinoff applications, literature
citations, DOE laboratory and sponsoring information,
subject descriptors, and a contact for further information.
The NTD currently contains 1,200 records from 1986 to
the present. It is anticipated that older records dating from
1983 will be added to the data base.
Access:
The data base is available to DOE and its contractors
through the Integrated Technical Information System
(ITIS). Public access is provided through the National
Technical Information Service's Technology Transfer
Program.
Hardware/Software:
DOE and its contractors can access the ITIS using a
computer, modem, and communications software capable
Contact:
Integrated Technical Information System
DOE/Office of Science and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(615) 576-1222
Technology Transfer Program
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4738
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-34
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.16 PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGY (PROTECH) AND THE TECHNOLOGY
CATALOGUE
Sponsoring Agency:
Description of Services:
Data:
Hardware/Software:
Access:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Washington, DC
Computer-based communication tool to describe innovative
environmental cleanup technologies. ProTech can provide
management support to IDCs and DOE Office of
Technology Development personnel as well as minimize
the time and effort that field personnel spend providing
information on their technologies. It will provide more
detailed technical cost performance data on deployable
technologies advanced by the Office of Technology
Development to its customers, DOE's Offices of Waste
Management (EM-30) and Environmental Restoration
(EM-40) and their contractors. The Technology Catalogue
will take and use the data produced by Protech and be
distributed to personnel throughout DOE and its laboratory
system.
ProTech is a prototype system that has been approved to
become a national system to describe innovative
environmental cleanup technologies. The user is presented
with a schematic that divides all technologies into five
categories: drilling, characterization and monitoring,
extraction, above-ground treatment, and in-ground
destruction and/or immobilization of contaminants. Each
of these categories are divided into "ID technologies" and
"baseline technologies." The user can click on any
technology and pull up a fact sheet describing the need
and objective of the technology and a graphic describing
the components of the technology.
Macintosh computer platform.
Still in prototype. System is expected to be ready late
May or June of 1993.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-35
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Contact: ProTech:
David Biancosino (DOE)
(301) 903-7961
Gretchen McCabe (Battelle Seattle Research Center)
(206) 528-3338
Technology Catalogue:
Joe Paladino (DOE-HQ)
(301) 903-7449
Nancy Prindle (Sandia National Labs)
(505) 844-7227
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apc
C-36
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.17 RECORDS OF DECISION SYSTEM (RODS)
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Washington, DC
Description of Services: The Records of Decision System (RODS) is an online data
base containing the full-text of the Superfund Records of
Decision for National Priorities List sites nationwide. The
Record of Decision contains information about the
remediation technology to be used for a site, including the
justification for why the technology was chosen. The
RODS system can be used to:
• Search for a Record of Decision for a particular
Superfund site
• Search for Records of Decision for sites with
similar conditions, wastes, or media
• Search for Records of Decision for sites that use
a particular technology
Data: Each record in the RODS system contains the text of a
single Record of Decision (ROD). A Record of Decision
describes EPA's selection of the cleanup method to be
used at a site. The ROD usually includes a history of the
site, description of alternatives for cleaning up the site,
rationale for the chosen cleanup method, cost estimates,
and a responsiveness summary of the public comments
received. The system can be searched by region, state, site
name, ROD date, ROD ID number, media, contaminant,
selected keywords, remedy, abstract, and full text.
Access: Direct access to RODS is available only to EPA staff
members and firms that have relevant EPA contracts.
Contact the RODS Help Line for an account. For those
who are not eligible for direct access, searches will be
done by an information specialist at the RODS Help Line.
Hardware/Software: RODS is located on EPA's mainframe computer in
Research Triangle Park, NC, and is accessible through a
computer, modem, and communications software. EPA
employees may have direct access to the RODS system
through their LANs or through access to the EPA data
switch.
M K01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apc
C-37
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Contact:
Jalania Ellis
EPA/OERR
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 5201G
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 603-8889
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-38
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.18 REOPT: ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA OF REMEDIAL ACTION
OPTIONS
Sponsoring Agency: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, WA
Description of Services: ReOpt is a user-friendly personal computer program that
provides information about remedial action technologies.
The information contained in ReOpt is derived from a
number of sources, including DOE, EPA, and industry
sources. ReOpt provides descriptions of approximately 90
technologies, breaking the information into useable
categories of information, including application and
regulatory information for nearly 850 contaminants.
ReOpt was developed for DOE as part of the Remedial
Action Assessment System (RAAS) project.
Data: For each technology, ReOpt contains information for the
following categories:
• Flow diagram
• Description
• Engineering or design parameters.
• Contaminant applicability.
• Data Requirements.
• Associated technologies.
• Technical constraints for site, medium, and
contaminant.
• Regulatory Constraints for site, medium, and
contaminant.
• References.
• Previous/Applications.
ReOpt allows users to search by media, contaminant, and
the way the functional manner in which the user wants to
restore the site (such as, in situ treatment) to focus the
analysis of those technologies potentially applicable to the
scenario.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-39
10^26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Access: The system is available on diskette for federal government
users and their contractors under a Limited Government
License from the Energy Science and Technology Software
Center (ESTSC). ReOpt is available for purchase for non-
federal and commercial use through Sierra Geophysics
(Halliburton Industries) located in Kirkland, WA, 1-800-
826-7644, ext. 120.
Hardware/Software: ReOpt is available to run on IBM-PC and compatibles in
a WINDOWS™ environment and Macintosh II (or greater)
computer systems. The system requires a high-resolution
color monitor (supporting 640 x 480 pixels); a mouse; a
3.5" high density disk drive; at least 5MB of RAM; and
approximately 12MB hard disk storage space. The system
contains an embedded data base software product, OMBIS
SEVEN™ by Blyth Corporation and requires that a
licensing fee be paid to obtain this license and the
installation materials.
Contact: Energy Science and Technology Software Center
(615) 576-2606
Janet Bryant
Battelle - Pacific Northwest Laboratory
P.O. Box 999, MSIN: K7-94
Richland, WA 99352
RAAS/ReOpt FAX Hotline: (509) 375-6417
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-40
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.19 RESEARCH IN PROGRESS (RIP) DATA BASE
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Oak Ridge, TN
Description of Services: The Research in Progress (RIP) Data Base contains
administrative and technical information about all
unclassified current and recently completed research
projects performed funded by DOE. This file bridges the
information gap that occurs between initiation and
completion of a research project. It serves as a technology
transfer medium, a management information system for use
in program planning and implementation, a system for
current awareness and networking for the scientific
community, and a resource base for publishing summaries
of research in specific programmatic areas.
Data: RIP contains information on approximately 23,000 DOE
research efforts. Records are maintained for five years
after project completion. All information on file is
updated annually or when significant changes occur. With
each annual data base update, researchers may change the
information to reflect current work.
Access: RIP is available to DOE and its contractors through the
DOE Integrated Technical Information System. It is
available to the public as part of the Federal Research in
Progress (FEDRIP) data base on the DIALOG information
system (a commercial system) for a fee. Some records and
data elements appropriate only for DOE use are omitted
from the FEDRIP version.
Hardware/Software: RIP is accessible by any IBM or compatible personal
computer or Macintosh equipped with a modem and
communications software capable of VT-100 emulation.
FEDRIP is available via dial-up to the DIALOG system
with a computer, modem, and communications software.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.apc
C-41
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Contact: Kelly J. Dwyer
DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(615) 576-9374
DIALOG Information Services
(800) 334-2564
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-42
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.20 RREL TREATABILITY DATA BASE
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
Description of Services: The RREL Treatability Data Base provides a thorough
review of the effectiveness of proven treatment
technologies in the removal or destruction of chemicals
from media such as municipal and industrial wastewater,
drinking water, groundwater, soil, debris, sludge, and
sediment. The data base includes only those technologies
that are commercially available. The data base is
distributed to federal, state, and local governments; foreign
governments; academia; industry; and many other groups.
Data: Version 5.0 of the data base was released in May 1993 and
contains 1207 compounds and 13,500 treatability data sets.
The data base is organized by chemical. For each
compound, the data base includes:
• Physical/chemical properties.
• Freundlich isotherm data.
• Aqueous and solid treatability data.
• Scale (bench, pilot, or field).
• Average concentration of contaminants in influent
and effluent.
Average percentage of removal.
Reference citations with a reference abstract.
Access: The data base is available for free upon request. To obtain
a diskette copy of the system, send a written request or fax
to the contact listed below. Please indicate the disk size
(5 lA HD or 3 Vi HD) you prefer. The system is also
searchable online through ATTIC (see page C-ll) and is
downloadable from CLU-IN (see page D-14).
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-43
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Hardware/Software: The Data Base is a stand-alone menu driven system that
runs on an IBM PC or compatible using DOS 2.0 to 6.0.
The system requires 7 megabytes of hard disk space and
640 kilobytes or RAM.
Contact: Glenn M. Shaul
EPA/RREL
26 West Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7408
FAX (513) 569-7787
MK.01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-44
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.21 SOIL TRANSPORT AND FATE DATA BASE AND MODEL
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, OK
Description of Services: The Soil Transport and Fate (STF) Data Base Version 2.0
presents quantitative and qualitative information
concerning the behavior of organic and inorganic
chemicals in soil. The STF Data Base provides users with
recent information on chemical properties, toxicity,
transformation, and bioaccumulation for hundreds of
chemical compounds. It can be used by environmental
managers, scientists, and regulators working on problems
related to vadose zone contamination and remediation.
Data: The software consists of three major components: the STF
Data Base; the Vadose Zone Interactive Processes (VIP)
Model and Regulatory and Investigative Treatment Zone
(RITZ) Model; and the VIP and RITZ model editors. The
data base includes approximately 400 chemicals identified
by chemical name (as referenced in 40CFR Part 261), the
Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, and the
common chemical name. The VIP and RITZ models are
one-dimensional models that are used in predicting the fate
and transport of hazardous organic constituents in the
vadose zone. The VIP and RITZ model editors aid in the
creation of input files for the respective models and are
designed to interface with the STF Data Base.
Access: Users can obtain a copy of the system and user manual by
sending six pre-formatted diskettes (360K minimum) to the
address listed below.
Hardware/Software: The hardware/software requirements for the STF Data Base
and Model Management System are:
• IBM-compatible computer
• 640K RAM
• Math coprocessor (for VIP and RITZ models only)
• 12.5 megabytes of hard disk space
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.apc
C-45
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Contact: David S. Burden
Center for Subsurface Modeling Support
EPA/RSKERL
Environmental Research Laboratory
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
(405) 332-8800
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-46
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
¦ C.22 TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION SYSTEM SUPPORT (TISS)
Sponsoring Agency: U. S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management
Washington, DC
Description of Services: This system supports DOE in the development of new
environmental technologies by providing a central focus
for information exchange between DOE and industry, other
federal agencies (OFAs), and universities.
Data: Includes DOE Environmental Technologies, DOE
Technology Needs, DOE Documents, DOE Procurement
Activities, Vendor Information, Requestor Data Base, and
DOE Points of Contact.
Access: Call DOE-HQ central point of contact at Environmental
Technology Information Service to provide information or
request information. DOE transmits the request to Oak
Ridge Information Center, which provides the requested
information. An information packet is prepared and
mailed in response to the request.
Hardware/Software: NextStep system using object oriented, multitasking
knowledge base on a 486 platform.
Contact: Richard Machanoff
Project Manager, HAZWRAP
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
(615) 435-3173
DOE Environmental Technology Information Service
(800) 845-2096
MK01\ttPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-47
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.23 WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Sponsoring Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, TN
Description Of Services: The Waste Management Information System (WMIS) is a
dynamic system currently being developed as a
management and planning tool. The system provides an
accurate and complete resource for information pertaining
to waste streams and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities throughout the DOE complex. WMIS in its
present form is populated with mixed, hazardous, and
radioactive waste data from the various DOE sites. As
DOE's primary waste management information system,
WMIS supports a variety of DOE programs as well as
customizing reports to meet the needs of specific projects.
During FY 1993, WMIS was migrated from a VAX 8700
mainframe to a microcomputer-based environment.
Data: The data exists in two major areas:
• Treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
Capabilities—a compilation of DOE facilities, both
existing and planned, for the treatment, storage,
and disposal of waste. Storage capabilities,
capacities, and information on types of acceptable
feedstocks are included. Treatment and disposal
methodologies are presented with operating
parameters and restrictions.
• Waste Profiles—data on the various wastestreams
that have been identified for waste management
activities. Data includes generation rates,
quantities, characterization, point of contact
information, and applicable waste management
options.
The data in the two areas presented above are being
merged through an artificial link that enables the user to
determine which waste profiles or wastestreams are
managed at the facilities listed in the TSD Capabilities.
Access: Direct access to the system is available at DOE
Headquarters.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-48
10/26/94
-------
FEDERAL DATA BASES
Hardware/Software: The data base resides on a Novel local area network and
applications are written in FoxPro.
Contact: Lise Wachter, HAZWRAP
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 2003, MS-7606
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7606
(615) 435-3281
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-49
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-50
10/26/94
-------
Additional
Information
Sources
-------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
¦ C.24 U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL HOTLINE
Primary Contact:
Address:
Telephone:
Hours:
Description of Services:
Primary Focus:
Commander
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Attn: SFIM-AEC-ECS (Environmental Hotline)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5401
Continental U.S.:l-800-USA-EVHL
Outside the Continental U.S.: DSN 584-1699
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Monday - Friday
The Army's Environmental Hotline is a comprehensive
source for environmental information, including hazardous
waste management regulations, forms, training
requirements, or any other environmental concerns or
questions.
The hotline is available to all Department of Army
employees worldwide, soldier or civilian, active or reserve
component.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-51
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.25 CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION (CERI)
Primary Contact:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
Hours:
Dorothy Williams
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI)
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7562 (CML)
(8) 684-7562 (FTS)
(513) 569-7566 (CML)
(8) 684-7566 (FTS)
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Monday - Friday
Description of Services: CERI is the focal point for the exchange of scientific and
technical environmental information produced by EPA. It
supports the activities of the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), its laboratories, and associated
programs nationwide.
Primary Focus: CERI's technical information components are responsible
for the production and distribution of scientific and
technical reports, and for responding to requests for
publications. CERI publishes brochures, capsule and
summary reports, handbooks, newsletters, project reports,
and manuals. Services are provided to EPA employees;
federal, state, and local agencies; businesses; and the
public.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-52
10/26/94
-------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
¦ C.26 DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC)
Primary Contact:
Address:
Defense Technical Information Center
Building 5, Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA 22304-6145
Telephone:
(703) 274-3848
DSN 284-3848
1-800-225-3842
Fax: (703) 274-9274
Description Of Services: The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) is the
central point within the Department of Defense (DOD) for
acquiring, storing, retrieving, and disseminating scientific
and technical information (STI) to support the management
and conduct of DOD research, development, engineering,
acquisition planning, and studies programs. DTIC's
governing regulation is DOD Directive 3200.12, DOD
Scientific and Technical Information Program. To carry
out its mission, DTIC pursues a program for applying
advanced techniques and technologies to DOD STI
systems to improve services and information transfer
effectiveness.
Primary Focus: DTIC's collection includes topics normally associated with
Defense research, such as aeronautics, missile technology,
space technology, navigation, and nuclear science.
Because DOD's interests are widespread, such subjects as
biology, chemistry, energy, environmental sciences,
oceanography, computer sciences, sociology, and human
factors engineering are also included. DTIC services are
available to DOD and its contractors and to other U.S.
Government agencies and their contractors.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-53
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.27 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (GPO)
Primary Contact:
Address:
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402
Telephone:
(202) 783-3238 (CML)
Fax:
Telex:
Hours:
(202) 275-0019 (CML) (Subscriptions Only)
(202) 275-2529 (Inquiries/Orders)
(710) 822-9413 (International)
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Monday - Friday
Description of Services: The mission of the GPO is the production or procurement
of printing for Congress and the agencies of the federal
government. GPO also disseminates information to the
public through the Superintendent of Documents
publications, sales, and depository library programs.
Through its documents program, GPO disseminates what
is possibly the largest volume of informational literature in
the world. The Superintendent of Documents offers
approximately 17,000 titles to the public at any given time.
These are sold principally by mail order and through a
series of bookstores across the country.
Primary Focus: GPO's primary mandate is to facilitate the printing of
Congressional work in an efficient and cost-effective
manner. The Congressional Record and Federal Register
are printed daily. Although often referred to as the
"Nation's largest publisher," the Superintendent of
Documents neither initiates nor exercises control over the
publications GPO sells. Virtually all government
publications are issued by Congress and the various
government agencies. GPO prints or procures the printing
of these publications and distributes them through its sales
and/or depository programs.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-54
10/26/94
-------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
¦ C.28 NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLICATIONS AND
INFORMATION
Primary Contact: National Center for Environmental Publications and
Information (NCEPI)
Address: 11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Fax: (513) 891-6685
Description of Services: The National Center for Environmental Publications and
Information is the primary national large volume
publications distribution clearinghouse for the EPA. More
than 4,000 different Agency documents and publications
are contained in NCEPI and more than 800,000 documents
are distributed monthly to domestic and international
destinations.
Primary Focus: The Center for Environmental Research Information
(CERI), is NCEPI's largest client. They support the
activities of the Office of Research and Development
(ORD), its laboratories, and associated programs
nationwide. CERI takes publication requests directly
through the NCEPI system (an automated inventory and
ordering system), which draws down from their inventory
and provides a mailing slip through NCEPI which prints
that evening. The publication/s are packaged and shipped
the next day. CERI also accepts phone, written, and fax
requests which are collected and forwarded to NCEPI for
processing.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-55
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.29 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS)
Primary Contact:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
Telex:
Hours:
Description of Services:
Primary Focus:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
Springfield, VA 22161
(800) 336-4700
(703) 487-4650 (CML)
(703) 487-4639 (TDD)
(703) 321-8547 (CML)
89-9405 (Domestic)
64617 (International)
8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Monday - Friday
NTIS, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is
the central source for the public sale of U.S. and foreign
government-sponsored research, development, engineering,
and business reports. NTIS manages the Federal Computer
Products Center, which provides access to software
datafiles and data bases by federal agencies.
Technical and nontechnical information from government
agencies with a heavy emphasis on the publications of the
Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and
Human Services, NASA, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. NTIS provides archival service for all of its
publications. The primary audience of NTIS is the
business and scientific community. Services are also
available to the general public, libraries, and educational
and environmental groups.
M K.01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde. ape
C-56
10/26/94
-------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
¦ C.30 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) BULLETIN
BOARD
Primary Contact:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
Description of Services:
Primary Focus:
Denis Lussier
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Control Systems Staff
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7354 (CML)
(8) 684-7354 (FTS)
(513) 569-7566 (CML)
(8) 684-7566 (FTS)
The Bulletin Board System (BBS) is designed to facilitate
the exchange of technical information and ORD products.
The title, publication number, an abstract, author,
performing organization, and the availability of the product
are included in the Bulletin Board.
The BBS offers an electronic message system, brief
bulletins with information about ORD products and
activities, and an online data base for identifying ORD
publications. All EPA employees, other federal agencies,
states, universities, industry, and the public may access the
system.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.apc
C-57
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
¦ C.31 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ELECTRONIC BULLETIN
BOARD SYSTEM (ORD BBS)
Primary Contact: Jose Peres
(513) 569-7272 (CML)
(8) 684-7272 (FTS)
Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone:
Fax:
Hours:
(513) 569-7610 (CML)
(8) 684-7610 (FTS)
(513) 569-7566 (CML)
24-hour-a-day access to ORD BBS
Description of Services: The ORD BBS is an online, text-searchable data base of
every ORD publication produced since 1976 (more than
15,000 citations). Each citation includes title, authors,
abstract, ordering information, and much more. The ORD
BBS also offers such features as messages, bulletins of
new information, public domain files, and online
registration for ORD meetings, and currently has five
specialty areas, such as water, regional operations, expert
systems, biotechnology, and quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC).
Primary Focus: The ORD BBS is open to everyone with immediate access
to its communication and technology transfer features.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Ncompgde.apc
C-58
10/26/94
-------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
¦ C.32 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTER (PIC)
Primary Contact:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
Hours:
Description of Services:
Primary Focus:
Kevin Rosseel, Director
Alison Cook, Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Center, PM-211B
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-7751 (CML)
(8) 475-7751 (FTS)
(202) 382-7883 (CML)
(8) 382-7883 (FTS)
8:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Monday - Friday
PIC is the primary point of communication between EPA
and the public, and responds to more than 5,000 requests
per month on all major environmental topics. In addition,
PIC acts as a referral center, directing requests for
technical information to appropriate offices, both inside
and outside EPA.
Examples of documents available at PIC are brochures on
EPA programs, factsheets and pamphlets on environmental
topics, consumer guides, educational materials, and other
nontechnical consumer-oriented information about the
environment and EPA.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-59
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
m C.33 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTORY
Primary Contact:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
Hours:
Dorothy Williams
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI)
ORD Publications Unit
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7369 (CML)
(8) 684-7369 (FTS)
(513) 569-7566 (CML)
(8) 684-7566 (FTS)
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Monday - Friday
Description Of Services: The programs, areas of expertise, and primary contacts in
each of the major ORD operations are conveyed in this
directory.
Primary Focus: The information is provided to improve communication
and technology transfer and is useful for the environmental
community, other federal agencies, and individuals who
need to locate specific programs within ORD.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-60
10/26/94
-------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES
¦ C.34 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEWSLETTER
Primary Contact:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
Description of Services:
Primary Focus:
Dorothy Williams
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI)
ORD Publications Unit
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7369 (CML)
(8) 684-7369 (FTS)
(513) 569-7566 (CML)
(8) 684-7566 (FTS)
Published semiannually, this document lists titles and
descriptions of printed publications that are available from
CERI.
The newsletter provides interested parties with access to
the broad range of currently available technology transfer
documents produced by the Office of Research and
Development (ORD).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apc
C-61
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
Appendix D
FACTORS
AFFECTING
TREATMENT
COST AND
PERFORMANCE
-------
Appendix D
FACTORS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST
AND PERFORMANCE
Technology cost or performance is affected by waste characteristics and operating
conditions. Because the relevant factors are technology-specific, the most important
parameters are identified for each technology. These parameters should be
documented, if possible, during report preparation and can serve as guidance for
determining a field sampling program during site remediation.
The selected parameters for matrix characteristics and technology operation are
shown in Tables D-l and D-2, respectively. These parameters were developed
based on information in scientific literature and from technical judgment. These
parameters can serve as a base level of data that is desirable to evaluate the
performance of a technology across sites or from one application to the next. The
matrix characteristics can be valuable in assessing the applicability of results from
the completed project to other potential sites.
The measurement procedures and potential effects on treatment cost or performance
for matrix characteristics and technology operation are shown in Tables D-3 and
D-4, respectively. These tables also indicate whether documentation is important
for the listed measurement procedures.
Note: The tables in this appendix were updated as of November 1994,
subsequent to the initial October 1994 printing of the document.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apd
D-l
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-1
SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT FULL-SCALE TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
In Situ Soil Remediation
Ex Situ Soil Remediation
Groundwater Remediation
Matrix Characteristics
Bio-
venting
Flush.
SVE
Land
Treat.
Compost.
Slurry
Phase
Biorem.
Soil
Wash
Thermal
Desorp.
Incinera-
tion
Stabili-
zation
In Situ
Biorem.
Sparging
Pump/
Treat"
Soil Types
Soil Classification
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clay Content and/or
Particle Size Distribution
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aggregate Soil Properties
Hydraulic Conductivity/
Water Permeability
•
•
•
•
Moisture Content
•
•
•
•
Air Permeability
•
•
pH
•
•
•
•
•
Porosity
•
•
•
Transmissivity
•
Organics
Total Organic Carbon
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oil & Grease or Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
•
•
Nonaqueous Phase
Liquids
•
•
•
•
•
•
Miscellaneous11
b
b
D
b
aMatrix characteristics shown for pump and treat are for groundwater pumping/extraction. Treatment process selection may affect the list of desirable characteristics to be documented.
bMiscellaneous matrix characteristics include field capacity for land treatment; cation exchange capacity for soil washing of metal-containing wastes; Btu value, halogen content, and
metal content for incineration; and bulk density and Lower Explosive Limit for thermal desorption.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apd
D-2
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-2
SUGGESTED PARAMETERS TO DOCUMENT FULL-SCALE TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS:
OPERATING PARAMETERS AFFECTING TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
In Situ Soil Remediation
Ex Situ Soil Remediation
Groundwater Remediation
Operating Parameters
Bio-
venting
Flush.
SVE
Land
Treat.
Compost.
Slurry
Phase
Biorem.
Soil
Wash
Stabili-
zation*
Incinera-
tion
Thermal
Desorp.
In Situ
Biodeg.
Sparging
Pump/
Treat
System Parameters
Air Flow Rate
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mixing Rate/Frequency
•
•
•
Moisture Content
•
•
•
•
Operating Pressure/ Vacuum
•
•
•
PH
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pumping Rate
•
•
Residence Time
•
•
•
•
•
System Throughput
•
•
•
•
Temperature
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Washing/Flushing Solution
Components/Additives and
Dosage
•
•
Biological Activity
Biomass Concentration
•
•
Microbial Activity
Oxygen Uptake Rate
•
•
Carbon Dioxide Evolution
•
Hydrocarbon Degradation
•
•
•
•
Nutrients/Other Soil
Amendments
•
•
•
•
•
Soil Loading Rate
•
'Additional operating parameters for stabilization include additives and dosage, curing time, compressive strength, volume increase, bulk density, and permeability.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apd
D-3
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-3
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS: MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
Matrix Characteristics
Measurement Procedures
Important To
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Soil Types
Soil Classification
Soil classification is a semi-empirical measurement of sand, silt,
clay, gravel, and loam content. Several soil classification schemes
are in use and include the ASTM Standard D 2488-90, Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure),
and the USDA and CSSC systems.
Yes
Soil classification is an important characteristic for
assessing the effect on cost or performance of all
technologies shown on Table D-1. For example, in soil
vapor extraction, sandy soils are typically more amenable
to treatment than clayey soils. (See related information
under clay content and/or particle size distribution.)
Clay Content and/or Particle
Size Distribution
Clay content and/or particle size distribution is measured using a
variety of soil classification systems, including ASTM D 2488-90
under soil classification.
Yes
Clay and particle size distribution affect air and fluid flow
through contaminated media. In slurry phase
bioremediation systems, particle size affects ability to hold
media in suspension. In soil washing, the particle
size/contaminant concentration relationship affects
potential for physical separation and volume reduction.
For thermal desorption systems, clay and particle size
affects mass and heat transfer, including agglomeration
and carryover to air pollution control devices.
MKO1 \RPT :02281012.009\compgde.apd
D-4
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-3
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS: MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
(CONTINUED)
Matrix Characteristics
Measurement Procedures
Important To
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Aggregate Soil Properties
Hydraulic Conductivity/
Water Permeability
Hydraulic conductivity/water permeability can be determined
through several procedures. Hydraulic conductivity, which is a
measure of the ease of water flow through soil, is typically
calculated as a function of permeability or transmissivity. ASTM D
5126-90, Guide for Comparison of Field Methods for Determining
Hydraulic Conductivity in the Vadose Zone, is a guide for
determining hydraulic conductivity. Water permeability is often
calculated by pumping out groundwater, measuring groundwater
draw-down rates and recharge times through surrounding
monitoring wells, and factoring in the distance between the wells
and the pump. Method 9100 in EPA SW-846 is used to measure
permeability, as well as several ASTM standards: D 2434-68
(1974), Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant
Head); D 4630-86, Test Method for Determining Transmissivity and
Storativity of Low Permeability Rocks by In Situ Measurements
Using the Constant Head Injection Test; and D 4631-86, Test
Method for Determining Transmissivity and Storativity of Low
Permeability Rocks by In Situ Measurements Using the Pressure
Pulse Technique.
Yes
This characteristic is important in groundwater remediation
technologies including in situ groundwater bioremediation,
groundwater sparging, and pump and treat systems.
Hydraulic conductivity and water permeability affect the
zone of influence of the extraction wells and, therefore,
affect the number of wells needed for the remediation
effort and the cost of operating the extraction wells.
Moisture Content
Procedures for measuring soil moisture content are relatively
standardized. Soil moisture content is typically measured using a
gravimetric ASTM standard, D 2216-90, Test Method for
Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and
Rock.
No
The moisture content of the matrix typically affects the
performance, both directly and indirectly, of technologies
including soil vapor extraction, and ex situ technologies
such as stabilization, incineration, and thermal desorption.
For example, air flow rates during operation of soil vapor
extraction technologies are affected by moisture content of
the soil. Thermal input requirements and air handling
systems for incineration and desorption technologies can
also be affected by soil moisture content. (Effects of
moisture content on operation of technologies are
discussed in Table D-4).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vcompgde.apd
D-5
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-3
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS: MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
(CONTINUED)
Matrix Characteristics
Measurement Procedures
Important To
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Air Permeability
Air permeability is a measure of the ease of air flow through soil
and is a calculated value. For example, air permeability may be
calculated by applying a vacuum to soil with a pump, measuring
vacuum pressures in surrounding monitoring wells, and fitting the
results to a correlation derived by Johnson et al., 1990.
Yes
This characteristic is important for in situ soil remediation
technologies that involve venting or extraction. Air
permeability affects the zone of influence of the extraction
wells, and, therefore, affects the number of extraction wells
needed for the remediation effort and the cost of operating
the extraction wells.
pH
pH is a measure of the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a matrix.
Procedures for measuring and reporting pH are standardized and
include EPA SW-846 Method 9045 and ASTM methods for soil
(ASTM D 4972-89, Test Method for pH of Soils) and groundwater
(ASTM D 1293-84).
No
The pH of the matrix can impact the solubility of
contaminants and biological activity. Therefore, this
characteristic can affect technologies such as soil
bioventing, soil flushing, land treatment and composting
and in situ groundwater bioremediation. pH can also affect
the operation of treatment technologies (see Table D-4).
pH in the corrosive range (e.g., <2 and >12) can damage
equipment and typically requires use of personal protection
equipment and other special handling procedures.
Porosity
Porosity is the volume of air- or water-filled voids in a mass of soil.
Procedures for measuring and reporting porosity are standardized.
Porosity is measured by ASTM D 4404-84, Test Method for
Determination of the Pore Volume and Pore Volume Distribution of
Soil and Rock by Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry.
No
This characteristic is important for in situ technologies,
such as soil bioventing, soil vapor extraction, and
groundwater sparging, that rely upon use of a driving force
for transferring contaminants into an aqueous or air-filled
space. Porosity affects the driving force and thus the
performance that may be achieved by these technologies.
Transmissivity
Transmissivity, the flow from a saturated aquifer, is the product of
hydraulic conductivity and aquifer thickness.
No*
This characteristic is important for groundwater pump and
treat systems. Transmissivity affects the zone of influence
in this type of remediation, which impacts the number of
wells and the cost of operating the wells.
*The measurement of hydraulic conductivity is important to document; because transmissivity is a product of hydraulic conductivity and aquifer thickness, it would not be necessary
to document the measurement procedure for this characteristic.
D-6
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apd
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-3
MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS: MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
(CONTINUED)
Matrix Characteristics
Measurement Procedures
Important To
Document
Measurement
Procedure?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Organics
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
TOC is a measure of the total organic carbon content of a matrix.
Measurement of TOC is standardized (e.g., Method 9060 in EPA
SW-846).
No
TOC affects the desorption of contaminants from soil and
impacts in situ soil remediation, soil washing, and in situ
groundwater bioremediation.
Oil & Grease (O&G) or Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
Procedures for measuring O&G and TPH are standardized. O&G
is measured using Method 9070 in EPA SW-846, and TPH is
measured using Method 9073. A TPH analysis is similar to an
O&G analysis with an additional extraction step. TPH does not
include nonpetroleum fractions, such as animal fats and humic and
fulvic acids.
No
O&G and TPH affect the desorption of contaminants from
soil. For thermal desorption, elevated levels of TPH may
result in agglomeration of soil particles, resulting in longer
residence times.
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
(NAPLs)
There is no standard measurement method for determining the
presence of NAPLs; rather, their presence is determined by
examining groundwater and identifying a separate phase. The
presence of NAPLs is reported as either being present or not
present.
Yes
NAPLs may be a continuing source of contaminants for in
situ technologies. NAPLs may lead to increased
contaminant loads and thus to greater costs or longer
operating periods for achieving cleanup goals.
MK01\RFT:02281012.009\compgde.apd
D-7
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-4
OPERATING PARAMETERS: MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
Operating Parameters
Measurement Procedures
Documentation
Required as a
Result of Method
Variability?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
System Parameters
Air Flow Rate
The air flow rate is a parameter set for a vapor extraction or
treatment system. The measurement of air flow rate is
standardized (i.e., measured with flow meters).
No
Air flow rate affects the rate of volatilization of
contaminants in technologies that rely on
transferring contaminants from a soil or aqueous
matrix to air, such as soil bioventing, soil vapor
extraction, and groundwater sparging. For
technologies involving oxidation processes, this
parameter affects the availability of oxygen and
the rate at which oxidation occurs (e.g., for
biotreatment or incineration processes).
Mixing Rate/Frequency
Mixing rate or frequency is the rate of tilling for land treatment,
the rate of turning for composting, and the rotational frequency of
a mixer for slurry phase bioremediation.
No
The mixing rate affects the rate of biological
activity (through increased contact between
oxygen and contaminants) and volatilization of
contaminants.
Moisture Content
Procedures for measuring soil moisture content are relatively
standardized. Soil moisture content is typically measured using a
gravimetric ASTM standard: D 2216-90, Test Method for
Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and
Rock. Moisture content as a treatment system operating
parameter characterizes the amount of water and aqueous
reagent added to the soil (for example, moisture content for slurry
phase bioremediation refers to the solid to liquid ratio).
No
The moisture content affects the rate of
biological activity in soil bioventing, land
treatment, composting, and slurry phase
bioremediation technologies. Contaminants
must be in an aqueous phase for
biodegradation to occur, and water is typically
added to a soil to maintain a sufficient level of
moisture to support biodegradation.
Operating Pressure/Vacuum
Operating pressure or vacuum is measured using a pressure or
vacuum gauge, such as a manometer. The measurement of this
parameter is relatively standardized.
No
Operating pressure/vacuum affects the rate of
volatilization of contaminants in technologies
that rely on transferring contaminants from a soil
or aqueous matrix to air, such as soil
bioventing, soil vapor extraction, and
groundwater sparging.
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.apd
D-8
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-4
OPERATING PARAMETERS: MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
(CONTINUED)
Operating Parameters
Measurement Procedures
Documentation
Required as a
Result of Method
Variability?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
PH
Procedures for measuring and reporting pH are standardized
(e.g., Method 9045 in EPA SW-846). The pH of soil and
groundwater is adjusted during ex situ treatment as an operating
parameter by the addition of acidic and alkaline reagents.
No
pH affects the operation of technologies that
involve chemical or biological processes, such
as soil flushing, soil washing, and
bioremediation processes. For example, in soil
washing, contaminants are extracted from a
matrix at specified pH ranges based on the
solubility of the contaminant at that pH.
Pumping Rate
Pumping rate is the volume of groundwater extracted from the
subsurface. The pumping rate is measured through a production
well or treatment system using a flow meter or a bucket and
stopwatch.
No
Pumping rate affects the amount of time
required to remediate a contaminated area, and
is important for technologies that involve
extraction of groundwater, such as soil flushing,
and pump and treat.
Residence Time
Residence time is the amount of time that a unit of material is
processed in a treatment system. Residence time is measured
by monitoring the length of time that a unit of soil is contained in
the treatment system.
No
Residence time is important for ex situ
technologies, such as land treatment,
composting, slurry-phase soil bioremediation,
incineration, and thermal desorption, to measure
the amount of time during which treatment
occurs.
System Throughput
System throughput is the amount of material that is processed in
a treatment system per unit of time.
No
System throughput affects the costs for capital
equipment required for a remediation and
operating labor for ex situ technologies such as
slurry phase soil bioremediation, soil washing,
incineration, and thermal desorption.
Temperature
Temperature is measured using a thermometer or thermocouple.
No
For bioremediation technologies, temperature
affects rate of biological activity. For
stabilization, incineration, and thermal
desorption, temperature affects the physical
properties and rate of chemical reactions of soil
and contaminants.
MKO1 \RPT :02281012.009\compgde.apd
D-9
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-4
OPERATING PARAMETERS: MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
(CONTINUED)
Operating Parameters
Measurement Procedures
Documentation
Required as a
Result of Method
Variability?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Washing/Rushing Solution
Components/Additives and Dosage
The components and dosages of washing and flushing solutions
are site- and waste-specific "recipes' of polymers, flocculants,
and coagulants. The type and concentrations of additives for a
particular treatment application are determined based on site and
waste characterization, treatability and performance tests, and
operator experience. The actual amounts added are measured
based on the volume and concentration of additive solutions
metered into the treatment system.
No
For soil flushing and washing technologies, the
types and dosages of additives affects the
solubility and rate of extraction for contaminants;
and thus affects the costs for constructing and
operating flushing and washing equipment.
Biological Activity
Biomass Concentration
Biomass concentration is the number of microorganisms per unit
volume in a treated or untreated aqueous matrix. Biomass
concentrations are typically measured by direct plate counts.
Portable water test kits are available for field tests. Methods
10200 through 10400 from Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater are used in laboratory analyses of
biomass concentration.
Yes
Biomass concentration is an important
parameter for slurry phase soil bioremediation
and in situ groundwater biodegradation.
Biomass is necessary to effect treatment and
thus the concentration of biomass is directly
related to performance.
Microbial Activity
Oxygen Uptake Rate (OUR)
Carbon Dioxide Evolution
Hydrocarbon Degradation
Oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide evolution, and hydrocarbon
degradation are all used to measure the rate of biodegradation in
a treatment system. Oxygen uptake is measured using ASTM D
4478-85, Standard Test Methods for Oxygen Uptake. Carbon
dioxide evolution is measured with a carbon dioxide monitor.
Hydrocarbon degradation is measured by sampling the influent to
and effluent from the treatment system and analyzing samples for
organic constituents, such as total petroleum hydrocarbons (EPA
SW-846 Method 9073).
Yes
Microbial activity is an important parameter for
soil bioventing, land treatment, composting, and
slurry phase soil bioremediation technologies.
Hydrocarbon degradation is commonly used as
an indicator of treatment performance for these
technologies, while OUR and carbon dioxide
evolution are used in specific applications to
supplement the hydrocarbon degradation data.
MK01VRPT :02281012.009\compgde.apd
D-10
12/14/94
-------
TABLE D-4
OPERATING PARAMETERS: MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON TREATMENT COST OR PERFORMANCE
(CONTINUED)
Operating Parameters
Measurement Procedures
Documentation
Required as a
Result of Method
Variability?
Potential Effects on Cost or Performance
Nutrients and Other Soil Amendments
Nutrients usually consist of nitrogen and phosphorus (and trace
inorganic constituents such as calcium and magnesium), and are
typically reported as a ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus.
Carbon is measured as total organic carbon, with EPA SW-846
Method 9060. Nitrogen is measured as both ammonia nitrogen
using ASTM D 1426-89, Test Methods for Ammonia Nitrogen in
Water, and as nitrite-nitrate using ASTM D 3867-90, Test Method
for Nitrite-Nitrate in Water. Phosphorus is measured using ASTM
D 515-88, Test Methods for Phosphorus in Water. Calcium and
magnesium are measured using ASTM D 511-88, Test Method
for Calcium and Magnesium in Water. Other soil amendments
may include bulking agents for composting (e.g., sawdust).
Yes
Nutrients and other soil amendments can affect
soil bioventing and in situ groundwater
biodegradation as this parameter directly affects
the rate of biological activity and, therefore,
contaminant biodegradation. This is also
applicable to ex situ soil remediation
technologies such as land treatment,
composting, and slurry phase soil
bioremediation.
Soil Loading Rate
Soil loading rate is the amount of soil applied to a unit area of a
composting system.
No
The soil loading rate affects the rate of
biological activity and can impact the costs for
operation.
MK01VRPT:02281012.009\compgde.apd
D-ll
12/14/94
-------
£J-Q pdBepedUKKASOOZLOlSSZffldWiOMW
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
Appendix E
DESCRIPTION
OF SOURCE
DOCUMENTS
-------
APPENDIX E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Title
Page
E.l INSTALLATION RESTORATION AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
E-l
E.2 SYNOPSES OF FEDERAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOVATIVE
SITE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES E-2
E.3 ACCESSING FEDERAL DATA BASES FOR CONTAMINATED SITE
CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES E-3
E.4 FEDERAL PUBLICATIONS ON ALTERNATIVE AND INNOVATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND
SITE REMEDIATION E-3
E.5 THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
(SITE) PROGRAM: TECHNOLOGY PROFILES E-4
E.6 TECHNOLOGY CATALOGUE E-4
E.7 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX AND
REFERENCE GUIDE E-5
E.8 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESIGN, PERFORMANCE, AND
COST STUDY E-6
E.9 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES APPLICATIONS MATRIX FOR
BASE CLOSURE ACTIVITIES E-7
E.10 EPA/NAVY CLEAN REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY GUIDE E-7
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.ape
E-i
10/26/94
-------
Appendix E
DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS
A list of U.S. Government reports documenting innovative and conventional site
remediation technologies that are incorporated into this compendium guide is
presented in Table E-1. These documents are described in greater detail below.
TABLE E-1
U.S. GOVERNMENT REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY REPORTS
Government Sponsoring Agency
Title
U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC)
Installation Restoration and Hazardous Waste Control
Technologies, Third Edition, November 1992
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative
Site Remediation Technologies, Third Edition, August
1993.
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site
Clean-Up Technologies, Third Edition, September
1993.
Federal Publications on Alternative and Innovative
Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and
Site Remediation, Third Edition, September 1993.
EPA
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program: Technology Profiles, Sixth Edition,
November 1993
DOE
Technology Catalogue, First Edition, February 1994
USAF, EPA
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide, Version I, July 1993
USAF
Remedial Technology Design, Performance, and Cost
Study, July 1992
California Base Closure Environmental
Committee
Treatment Technologies Applications Matrix for Base
Closure Activities, November 1993
EPA/U.S. Navy
EPA/Navy CERCLA Remedial Action Technology
Guide, November 1993
¦ E.1 INSTALLATION RESTORATION AND HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES (THIRD EDITION, NOVEMBER 1992)
The purpose of this guide is to provide a reference to pertinent and current
treatment technologies for public and private sector program managers dealing with
installation restoration and hazardous waste control technologies. The third edition
of this handbook was published in 1992 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency, Report CETHA-TS-CR-92053, 1992).
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.ape
E-1
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
The information contained in this handbook was obtained through personal
interviews with Army, Navy, Air Force, and EPA personnel directly involved in
research, development, and implementation of new and effective methods to
accomplish the following: restoration of contaminated soil, groundwater, and
structures; and minimization of the generation of hazardous waste materials.
The summaries of specific technologies include:
• The purpose of developing the technology.
• In what cases the technology is applicable.
• A description of the technology.
• Advantages and limitations of the technology with respect to environmental
impact.
• Costs associated with implementing the technology.
• Availability of equipment required.
• The current status of development.
• References, including reports, journal articles, and patents; photographs and
drawings, if available; and points of contact for additional technical
information.
¦ E.2 SYNOPSES OF FEDERAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOVATIVE SITE
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES (THIRD EDITION, AUGUST 1993)
This publication (EPA/542/B-93/009) was prepared under the auspices of the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). This organization was
created to establish a process for applied hazardous waste site remediation
technology information exchange, to consider cooperative efforts of mutual interest,
and to develop strategies and analyze remedial problems that would benefit from
the application of innovative technologies.
This collection of abstracts describes field demonstrations of innovative
technologies to treat hazardous waste at contaminated sites. The collection is
intended to be an information resource for hazardous waste site project managers
who are assessing the availability and viability of innovative technologies for
treating contaminated groundwater, soils, and sludge. It also is intended to assist
government agencies in coordinating ongoing hazardous waste remediation
technology research initiatives, particularly those sponsored by EPA, DOD, DOE,
and DOI. Innovative technologies, for the purposes of this compendium, were
defined as those for which detailed performance and cost data were not readily
available.
The demonstrations discussed in this document were all sponsored by EPA, DOD,
DOE, and DOI. In total, 112 demonstrations in six different technology categories
are described. These demonstrations involve the use of innovative technologies to
MK01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.ape
E-2
10/26/94
-------
DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS
treat soil and groundwater. Only federally sponsored studies and demonstrations
that have tested innovative remedial technologies with site-specific wastes under
realistic conditions as a part of large pilot- or full-scale field demonstrations are
included.
¦ E.3 ACCESSING FEDERAL DATA BASES FOR CONTAMINATED SITE
CLEAN-UP TECHNOLOGIES
The FRTR developed this publication (EPA/542/B-93/008) to provide information
on accessing federal data bases that contain data on innovative remediation
technologies. The profiles contained in this edition were identified through a
review of reports, articles, and publications by FRTR member agencies and
telephone interviews with data base experts. Roundtable members include EPA,
DOD, DOE, and DOI. In addition, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) participates in FRTR meetings.
This document is a reference tool that provides information on those systems
maintaining data on remedial technologies. It may be used by project managers as
a pointer to repositories of technical information, or as a source of contacts that
may be useful to future system design. Each data base profile contains information
on data elements, system uses, hardware and software requirements, and access.
The profiles also contain contacts for each system. A matrix showing system
characteristics of the data bases and a table summarizing information contained in
the data base profiles are provided.
¦ E.4 FEDERAL PUBLICATIONS ON ALTERNATIVE AND INNOVATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND SITE
REMEDIATION
The FRTR has prepared this bibliography (EPA/542/B-93/007) to publicize the
availability of federal documents pertaining to innovative and alternative
technologies to treat hazardous wastes. This updated edition contains references
for documents and reports from EPA, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the USAF,
DOE, and DOI. The FRTR obtained this reference information from a variety of
sources:
• Federal agency report, project, and publication lists from EPA, the Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory, USAEC, the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, the USAF Engineering and Sciences Center, DOE, and
DOI.
• The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and other data bases.
This bibliography addresses technologies that provide for the treatment of
hazardous wastes; therefore, it does not contain information or references for
containment or other nontreatment strategies, such as landfilling and capping. This
bibliography emphasizes innovative technologies for which detailed cost and
performance data are not readily available. Information on more conventional
treatment technologies, such as incineration and solidification, is not included.
In addition to improving access to information on innovative technologies, FRTR
hopes this bibliography will assist in the coordination of ongoing research
MK01\RPT:022810J2.009\compgde.ape
E-3
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
initiatives and increase the development and implementation of these innovative
technologies for corrective action and site remediation. This bibliography is
intended as a starting point in pursuit of information on innovative alternative
hazardous waste treatment technologies and has been included, whole, in Section
5, References.
¦ E.5 THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
(SITE) PROGRAM: TECHNOLOGY PROFILES (SIXTH EDITION,
NOVEMBER 1993)
The SITE Program evaluates new and promising treatment and monitoring and
measurement technologies for cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The program was
created to encourage the development and routine use of innovative treatment
technologies. As a result, the SITE Program provides environmental decision-
makers with data on new, viable treatment technologies that may have performance
or cost advantages compared to traditional treatment technologies.
This document, prepared between June 1993 and October 1993, was intended as a
reference guide (EPA/540/R-93/526) for those interested in technologies under the
SITE Demonstration, Emerging Technology, and Monitoring and Measurement
Technologies Programs. The two-page profiles, which are organized into two
sections (completed and ongoing projects) for each program, are presented in
alphabetical order by developer name. Each technology profile contains:
• A technology developer and process name.
• A technology description, including a schematic diagram or photograph of
the process.
• A discussion of waste applicability.
• A project status report.
• EPA project manager and technology developer contacts.
• A schematic diagram or photograph of the process.
The profiles also include summaries of demonstration results if available. The
technology description and waste applicability sections are written by the developer.
EPA prepared the status and demonstration results sections.
Reference tables for SITE Program participants precede the sections and contain
EPA and developer contacts. The tables present both waste and media categories.
The waste categories include specific chemicals or chemical groups. The following
media categories are considered: air/gases, groundwater/liquids, leachate, sediment,
sludge, soil, solid debris, and wastewater.
¦ E.6 TECHNOLOGY CATALOGUE (FIRST EDITION, FEBRUARY 1994)
The DOE Technology Catalogue features technologies successfully demonstrated
in the field and sufficiently mature to be used in the near future. Technologies to
address the following are presented in the catalogue:
MK01\RPT:02281012.009Vompgde.ape
E-4
10/26/94
-------
DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS
• Buried waste.
• Mixed waste landfill.
• Underground storage tank (UST).
• Volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in arid soil.
• VOC contamination in non-arid soil.
Several methodologies were employed to select and prepare technology profiles.
Factors affecting the selection of technologies included the availability and quality
of technical information and the maturity of the technology. The primary source
of information for the catalogue was the ProTech Prospective Technology Database
developed by Battelle Seattle Research Center for DOE. ProTech is a prototype
electronic system including innovative technologies that are part of integrated
demonstrations. Additional sources of information included technical task plans,
conference proceedings, technical journals, environmental permit applications, and
data supplied by principal investigators.
Technology entries are each two to three pages long and include the following
areas:
• Technology title and description.
• Technical performance and cost data.
• Projected near-term performance (1 to 3 years).
• Applicable waste types and forms.
• Development status.
• Key regulatory considerations regarding the application of the technology.
• Potential non-DOE applications.
• Baseline comparison technology.
• Intellectual property rights.
• Points-of-contact (POCs) and references for more information.
A summary of the technologies presented in this document, organized by
contaminant applicability, is presented in Appendix B.
¦ E.7 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX
AND REFERENCE GUIDE (VERSION I, JULY 1993)
This U.S. Air Force (USAF)/EPA document (EPA/542/B-93/005) provides
information to help site RPMs narrow the field of remediation alternatives and
identify potentially applicable technologies for more detailed assessment prior to
remedy selection.
Forty-eight technologies, including in situ and ex situ biological, thermal, and
physical/chemical processes, are included. In addition to treatment technologies,
processes designed to be used primarily for containment, waste separation, and
enhanced recovery have been included to provide a broad range of remedial
options.
The technologies presented in the matrix are evaluated in relation to 13 factors that
address specific cost, performance, and technical, developmental, and institutional
issues. These screening factors were chosen to assist RPMs in identifying
applicable technologies for media and contaminants of concern at their sites.
MK.0l\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.ape
E-5
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
This document was developed with extensive input from technical experts,
including 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.
More than 30 experts participated in an intensive workshop on 2-3 March 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 were evaluated.
Workshop participants then separated into three small groups and focused on the
technologies in their individual areas of specialization (biological processes, thermal
processes, and physical/chemical processes) to develop the ratings for each of the
technologies shown in the matrix. Each technical expert had the opportunity to
review draft documents independently and provide written comments.
Two appendices provide additional information. Appendix A contains a list of
reference materials, including field demonstration reports and case studies, that
RPMs 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.
¦ E.8 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESIGN, PERFORMANCE, AND COST
STUDY (JULY 1992)
The purpose of this USAF study was to provide a technical reference for USAF
engineers and project managers on the state-of-the-art for established remedial
technologies likely to be used at USAF installations. For purposes of this report,
established technologies were defined as those involved in more than 100
remediation projects so that information about design, performance, and cost would
be available for a variety of environmental conditions. The technologies reviewed
in this study included bioremediation, air stripping, vacuum extraction, thermal
treatment, carbon adsorption, stabilization and solidification, and contaminant
recovery and separation.
This independent source of information supports the review of USAF contractor
activities, including reviews of feasibility studies identifying a preferred remedial
strategy, cost estimates and proposals for site remediation, and designs for remedial
equipment and systems.
A second purpose of this study was to obtain information from vendors about their
experience in selecting remedial technologies and developing strategies for their
implementation. Such information provides additional substance on which USAF
engineers can base decisions for remedial actions at USAF sites.
More than 200 vendors were contacted for information. Site visits were conducted
with 35 vendors who had extensive experience with at least one of the remedial
technologies in order to elicit detailed information on equipment design,
performance, cost, and technology selection and implementation.
M K01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.ape
E-6
10/26/94
-------
DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE DOCUMENTS
¦ E.9 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES APPLICATIONS MATRIX FOR BASE
CLOSURE ACTIVITIES (NOVEMBER 1993)
The Treatment Technologies Applications Matrix for Base Closure Activities was
prepared as a collaborative effort by representatives of the USAF Center for
Environmental Excellence; USACE; U.S. Navy, WESTDIV; DOE; EPA, Region
IX; California State Water Resources Control Board; and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
A result of a 23-25 June 1992 base closure meeting in Sacramento, California, was
a recommendation to develop a means for the transfer of treatment technology
information currently available and applicable to Installation Restoration Program
(IRP) sites at federal facilities. The California Military Base Closure
Environmental Committee addressed this issue by forming a Process Action Team
(PAT) to identify and evaluate (1) existing data regarding contaminant problems
common to base closure facilities and (2) treatment technologies associated with
those problems that have proven effective. The matrix was developed by the PAT
to facilitate identification of potentially applicable treatment technologies that
should be considered for hazardous waste site cleanup.
The matrix identifies the major categories of contaminants and contaminated media
found at these sites and lists the treatment technologies that may be applicable. In
addition to listing the technologies for each of the contaminant types, the matrix
provides information on each technology, including advantages, technology
restrictions, California sites where the technology is used, contacts with extensive
knowledge of the technology, general comments, and references. Supporting
documentation also includes a description of typical problem areas and the
contaminants found at these sites. Comments on advantages and restrictions for
each technology are noted in the matrix by references to the attached sections
listing technology advantages and restrictions.
¦ E.10 EPA/NAVY CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGY GUIDE
(NOVEMBER 1993)
The EPA/Navy CERCLA Remedial Action Technology Guide is a collection of (1)
engineering bulletins produced by EPA's Technical Support Branch in Cincinnati,
Ohio, and (2) remedial action technical data sheets produced by the Naval Energy
and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA) in Port Hueneme, California. These
documents comprehensively summarize the latest information obtainable on many
of the best available remedial technologies. The intent is to convey information
(based on previous applications) to help RPMs, engineers in charge, on-scene
coordinators, Navy resident officers in charge of construction, and contractors
decide if a technology should be used at a hazardous waste site and, if so, what are
the relevant design, implementation, and cost considerations. Addenda will be
issued periodically to update the original bulletins and technical data sheets, and
other technologies may be added.
MK.01\RPT:02281012.009\compgde.ape
E-7
10/26/94
-------
Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide
ATTACHMENTS
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Treatment Technologies
Screening Matrix
-------
attachment 1 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES SCREENING MATRIX
NOTE: Specific site and contaminant characteristics
may limit the applicability and effectiveness of
4/
/
/
*
/
/ ^
//
/ Contaminants
Treated
£
/
/ /
any of the technologies and treatments
listed below. This matrix is optimistic in
nature and should always be used in
conjunction with the referenced text sections,
which contain additional information
that can be useful in identifying potentially
applicable technologies.
/ / /«y //N, <& / / / / /
/? / / £ /f// / / / / /$¦& /*/ A?
/i/t// /$$// /
/f/f/.f Mjb/sh /s/f/i-i/£
///// £ d /oyo*/
SOIL, SEDIMENT, AND SLUDGE
3.1 In Situ Etiological Treatment 1
4.1 Biodegradation
Full
¦
None
No
¦
¦
¦
A
¦
A
A
•
O&M
4.2 Bioventing
Full
¦
None
No
¦
¦
¦
A
1
¦
•
¦
Neither
4.3 White Rot Fungus
Pilot
A
None
No
A
A
A
A
¦
A
A
#
O&M
13.2 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment I
4.4 Pneumatic Fracturing (enhancement)
Pilot
A
None
Yes
#
•
•
#
#
¦
NA
¦
Neither
4.5 Soil Flushing
Pilot
¦
Liquid
No
¦
•
©
¦
A
•
A
1
O&M
4.6 Soil Vapor Extraction (In Situ)
Full
¦
Liquid
No
¦
O
¦
A
A
¦
•
¦
O&M
4.7 Solidification/Stabilization
Full
¦
Solid
No
A
•
A
¦
A
¦
¦
¦
CAP
3.3 In Situ Thermal Treatment
4.8 Thermally Enhanced SVE
4.9 Vitrification
Full
Pilot
•
A
Liquid
Liquid
No
No
•
O
¦
~Sr
A
¦
A
A
¦
¦
A
Both
Both
13.4 Ex Situ Biological Treatment (assuming excavation) I
4.10 Composting
Full
¦
None
No
1
•
¦
A
¦
¦
¦
Neither
4.11 Controlled Solid Phase Bio. Treatment
Full
¦
None
No
_|
©
¦
A
¦
¦
•
¦
Neither
4.12 Landfarming
Full
¦
None
No
J
•
¦
A
•
¦
¦
Neither
4.13 Slurry Phase Bio. Treatment
Full
•
None
No
|
m
¦
A
¦
#
•
•
Both
3.5 Ex Situ Phvsical/Chemical Treatment (assuming excavation)
4.14 Chemical Reduction/Oxidation
Full
¦
Solid
Yes
•
II
@
¦
A
¦
¦
11
Neither
4.15 Dehalogenation (BCD)
Full
A
Vapor
No
•
¦
A
A
A
1
1
1
1
4.16 Dehalogenation (Glycolate)
Full
•
Liquid
No
#
¦
A
A
A
A
A
A
Both
4.17 Soil Washing
Full
•
Solid, Liquid
Yes
#
¦
¦
¦
¦
#
¦
#
Both
4.18 Soil Vapor Extraction (Ex Situ)
Full
i
Liquid
No
¦
•
®
A
A
¦
•
¦
Neither
4.19 Solidification/Stabilization
Full
¦
Solid
No
A
•
A
¦
A
¦
¦
¦
CAP
4.20 Solvent Extraction (chemical extraction)
Full
•
Liquid
Yes
•
¦
•
A
¦
•
A
A
Both
13.6 Ex Situ Thermal Treatment (assuming excavation) I
4.21 High Temperature Thermal Desorption
Full
¦
Liquid
Yes
•
¦
#
A
A
•
#
Both
4.22 Hot Gas Decontamination
Pilot
•
None
No
A
A
A
A
¦
¦
¦
¦
Both
4.23 Incineration
Full
¦
Liquid,Solid
No
©
¦
¦
A
¦
•
¦
A
Both
4.24 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
Full
¦
Liquid
Yes
¦
•
¦
A
¦
#
¦
¦
Both
4.25 Open Burn/Open Detonation
Full
¦
Solid
No
A
A
A
A
¦
¦
¦
¦
Both
4.26 Pyrolysis
Full
A
Liquid,Solid
No
#
¦
#
A
1
1
¦
A
Both
4.27 Vitrification
Full
O
Liquid
No
•
•
O
¦
A
•
•
A
Both
3.7 Other Treatment I
4.28 Excavation, Retrieval, and Off-Site Disposal
NA
H
TE
NA
No
19
•
li
•
• IB
¦
A
Neither
! GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AND LE^
iCHA
None
No
¦
1
1 1
I 1
1 I
A
¦
A
" 1
Neither
! 3.8 In Situ Biological Treatment I
4.30 Co-metabolic Treatment
Pilot
A
None
No
!¦
¦
•
A
•
f!
•
O&M
4.31 Nitrate Enhancement
Pilot
A
None
No
a
¦
¦
A
ill
II
¦
Neither
4.32 Oxygen Enhancement with Air Sparging
Full
¦
None
No
¦
A
¦
©
¦
Neither
4.33 Oxygen Enhancement with H2O2
Full
¦
None
No
¦
¦
¦
A
©
A
•
•
O&M
13.9 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment I
4.34 Air Sparging
Full
j|
Vapor
Yes
m
A
A
¦
¦
Neither
4.35 Directional Wells (enhancement)
Full
A
NA
Yes
3
O
•
•
¦
1
Neither
4.36 Dual Phase Extraction
Full
¦
Liquid,Vapor
Yes
¦
A
¦
A
A
•
©
•
O&M
4.37 Free Product Recovery
Full
¦
Liquid
No
A
¦
¦
A
A
®
¦
¦
Neither
4.38 Hot Water or Steam Flushing/Stripping
Pilot
®
Liquid,Vapor
Yes
il
¦
¦
A
A
A
¦
•
CAP
4.39 Hydrofracturing (enhancement)
Pilot
i
None
Yes
#
#
©
©
•
¦
¦
W
Neither
4.40 Passive Treatment Walls
Pilot
A
Solid
No
¦
¦
•
¦
¦
1
A
1
CAP
4.41 Slurry Walls (containment only)
Full
¦
NA
NA
•
•
•
@
¦
¦
¦
CAP
4.42 Vacuum Vapor Extraction
Pilot
A
Liquid,Vapor
No
¦
•
¦
1
A
¦
#
•
CAP
I 3.10 Ex Situ Biological Treatment (assuming Dumping) I
4.43 Bioreactors
Full
¦
Solid
No
¦
¦
¦
A
•
#
NA
¦
CAP 1
I 3.11 Ex Situ Phvsical/Chemical Treatment (assuming pumping) I
4.44 Air Stripping
Full
¦
Liquid,Vapor
No
¦
•
•
A
A
¦
NA
¦
O&M
4.45 Filtration
Full
¦
Solid
Yes
A
A
A
¦
•
¦
¦
¦
Neither
4.46 Ion Exchange
Full
¦
Solid
Yes
A
A
A
¦
A
¦
#
¦
Neither
4.47 Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption
Full
¦
Solid
No
¦
¦
•
#
¦
¦
NA
A
O&M
4.48 Precipitation
Full
¦
Solid
Yes
A
A
A
¦
1
¦
•
¦
Neither
4.49 UV Oxidation
Full
¦
None
No
¦
¦
¦
A
¦
A
NA
#
Both
[ 3.12 Other Treatment I
3.13 AIR EMISSIONS/OFF-GAS TREATMENT
Full
¦
•
None
None
1
1
1 ¦
¦
A
¦
#
*
A
NA
¦ ¦
Neither
4.52 High Energy Corona
Pilot
A
None
NA
1
I ¦
#
A
A
NA
#
1
4.53 Membrane Separation
Pilot
A
None
P™
A
#
A
NA
#
1
4.54 Oxidation
Full
¦
None
¦ ¦
A
#
¦
NA
¦
Neither
4.55 Vapor Phase Carbon Adsorption
Full
¦
Solid
1 I
•
¦
¦
NA
u
Neither
Rating Codes (See Table 3-1)
¦ Better I Inadequate Information
® Average NA Not Applicable
A Worse
94P-5181 10/11/94
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Remediation Technology Application
and Cost Guide
• D.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996-722-719/83251
-------
Remediation Technology Application and Cost Guide
INFORMATION NECESSARY TO USE THIS GUIDE
• An estimate of contaminant mass. This estimate is not the same as the volume of contaminated media. Instead it is the weight of spilled JP-4, of iandfilled solvent or
whatever material contaminates a site.
• A conceptual site model or site map showing the source of contamination and the approximate extent of contamination. The contaminant concentration at a source
is several orders of magnitude higher than detection limits and regulatory action levels, tf no source can be identified, the need to remediate should be reevaluated.
Features within approximately 500 yards of a site should be known.
• Site characteristics such as depth to groundwater, the measured thickness of any free product layer, groundwater flow direction, and subsurface geology.
• A list of completed exposure pathways identified through a risk assessment.
• The range of contaminant concentrations in environmental media.
August
1994
The Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas
Prepared for:
by:
For technical assistance Greg Vogel, The MITRE Corporation George Maione, The MITRE Corporation
please contact: 703483-6168 703-883-6377
The MITRE Corporation
McLean, Virginia
Remediation Strategy
» A strategy should be developed
prior to technology selection
> A strategy may include any
combination or these options
» No containment measure
should be considered
permanent
• Removal and destruction are
often used together
• Each medium affected by a
completed risk exposure
pathway should be remediated
• The majority of contaminant
mass is likely to be located
in soil
• Groundwater remediation
should be coordinated with
source remediation in the
unsaturated zone
Remediation Technology
These technologies may be
considered to be proven
technologies; innovative
technologies are not included
Technology selection can be
guided by performance of nearby
remediation projects at similar
sites. IRPIMS may be used to
locate sites having similar media,
stratigraphy and contaminants of
concern.
Conditions Favorable to Use
These generalizations are based on projects
demonstrating acceptable performance and
cost effectiveness; they are not presented
as rigid guidelines because each project
needs to be evaluated individually
Conditions Unfavorableto Use
• These generalizations are based on projects
demonstrating acceptable performance and
cost effectiveness; they are not presented as
rigid guidelines because each project needs
to be evaluated individually
Unit Cost Range
These costs are typical of successful projects conducted
by the Air Force and private industry
These costs may be used tor budget planning and as a
rough check of contractor proposals
These costs are typical of those charged by companies
specialized in each technology
A useful measure of merit for evaluating costs is to
computed the project cost per pound of contaminant
- Cost effective projects typically run < $200 per pound
- Projects where the costs are orders of magnitude higher
than $200 per pound should be reevaluated
Major Cost Drivers
• Reviews of project cost estimates can
focus on these areas to expedite the
reviews
• Regulatory requirements for monitoring
ana preparing project documentation can
be major cost drivers for any project, and
they are not addressed in this guide
because of the wide range of variability in
regulatory requirements among state and
local agencies.
Additional Comments
• These comments and performance
estimates are provided as helpful hints and
observations based on successful projects
CONTAINMENT
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater pumping
Receptors actually or imminently at risk
Active sources of contamination remain because
soil and free product sources not isolated or
removed, such as pooled DNAPLs in the
saturated zone
$40-$80 per foot of well for installation
$4,000-59,000 per well for pumping system
Water treatment systems costed below
Power
Effluent treatment (options listed below)
Not a cost-effective method for remediating
contaminant mass
Solidification
Inorganic contaminants present
Non-volatile organics <1%
Volatile organics present
High-clay soils
High debris content
$30-$150 per ton of soil treated (ex-situ)
$60-5200 per ton of soil treated (irvsitu)
Reagents and transportation
Materials handling (large volume increase)
Site-specific treatability testing mandatory
Very long term stability difficult to predict
Stabilization
inorganic contaminants present
Non-volatile organics <1%
Volatile organics present
High-clay soils
High debris content
$30-$150 per ton of soil treated
Reagents and transportation
Materials handling
Site-specific treatability testing mandatory
Very long term stability difficult to predict
Asphalt blending ("soil recycling")
Petroleum product contamination
SOIL
Slurry walls
Sheet piling
HOPE walls
Volatile organics present
High-clay soils
High debris content
_Hal02enatedj>r2anics£re8«nt_
$55-5100 per ton of soil treated
Feed material preparation (crushing,
screening, aggregate addition)
Groundwater levels < 20 feet
Receptors imminently at risk
Availability of aquitard within 40 feet of ground
surface to anchor walls
Corrosive contaminants and strong electrolytes
Highly expansive soils
High climate moisture variation (extreme wet-dry
cycles)
Complex terrain
$7-$10 per square foot of wall
Trenching depth
Soil additives (cements, aggregate)
Site-specific compatibility testing
recommended
Wall may degrade over time
Capping
Rainfall > 10 inches per year
Large contaminated soil volume
Relatively low hazard
Use as an interim measure
Presence of material that will settle in landfill
Dry climates
$25-530 per square yard for RCRA cap
$10-$15 per square yard for clay cap
Long-term monitoring and mairtenance
requirements
Regulatory specifications for cap
construction
Gas collection and treatment
Off-site landfilling
Quick remediation required
Concern about long-term liability
Dust control
Short term control of exposure pathway
Dry climate
High soil moisture content
$200—$500 per ton tipping fee
$.40-$.90 per ton-mile for transportation
Disposal fee
Transportation
Construction quality assurance to ensure low
conductivity of the cap is critical
Gas collection may be necessary
Cap can enhance soil vapor extraction
^efficiency
Costs provided for hazardous material
landfilling
$.02-5.04 per square foot for seeding or one chemical spray
application
$.30-$.40 per square foot for one foam application
^Sj^eOjjeMsguar^ooMo^yntheti^cover^^^^^^^
Labor
Foam application and synthetic cover can also
inhibit contaminant volatilization
DNAPL
DRE
gpm
HDPE
O&M
PCB
Abbreviations
Dense nonaqueous phase liquid POL
Destruction and removal efficiency ppm
Gallons per minute
High density polyethylene ppmv
Operations and maintenance of equipment >
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Petroleum products, oils, and lubricants
Parts per million, equivalent to milligrams per liter (mg/l)
or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
Parts per million on a volume basis, generally applied to
gas mixtures
Greater than
Less than
Sources Used for this Guide
Remedial equipment vendors
Remediation service companies
Remediation Technology Design, Performance, and Cost Study, The MITRE Corporation,
MTR92W80, July 1992
Means Site Work and Landscape Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc., 1993
Disclaimer. Innovative technologies are not represented in this guide and may be an acceptable or preferred alternative to the
technologies listed herein. Indications for use of these selected technologies and their costs are generalizations only. Site specific
data and regulatory requirements should be evaluated fully to determine the appropriate remedial technology and associated
costs.
94M-0181-1
Page 1 of 3
-------
Remediation Technology Application and Cost Guide
INFORMATION NECESSARY TO USE THIS GUIDE
• An estimate of contaminant mass. This estimate is not the same as the volume of contaminated media. Instead it is the weight of spilled JP-4, of landfilled solvent or
whatever material contaminates a site.
A conceptual site model or site map showing the source of contamination and the approximate extent of contamination. The contaminant concentration at
is several orders of magnitude higher than detection limits and regulatory action levels. If no source can be identified, the need to remediate should be ree'
Features within approximately 500 yards of a site should be known.
Site characteristics such as depth to groundwater, the measured thickness of any free product layer, groundwater flow direction, and subsurface geology.
A list of completed exposure pathways identified through a risk assessment.
The range of contaminant concentrations in environmental media.
a source
reevaluated.
August
1994
Prepared for:
by:
For technical assistance
please contact:
The Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas
The MITRE Corporation
McLean, Virginia
Greg Vogel, The MITRE Corporation
703-883-6168
George Matone, The MITRE Corporation
703-863-6377
Remediation Strategy
A strategy should be developed
prior to technology selection
A strategy may include any
combination of these options
No containment measure
should be considered
permanent
Removal and destruction are
often used together
Each medium affected by a
completed risk exposure
pathway should be remediated
The majority of contaminant
mass is likely to be located
in soil
• Groundwater remediation
should be coordinated with
source remediation in the
unsaturated zone
Remediation Technology
These technologies may be
considered to be proven
technologies; innovative
technologies are not included
Technology selection can be
guided by performance of nearby
remediation projects at similar
sites. IRPIMS may be used to
locate sites having similar media,
stratigraphy and contaminants of
concern.
Conditions Favorable\o Use
These generalizations are based on projects
demonstrating acceptable performance and
cost effectiveness; they are not presented as
rigid guidelines because each project needs
to be evaluated individually
Conditions Unfavorable to Use
These generalizations are based on projects
demonstrating acceptable performance and
cost effectiveness; they are not presented as
rigid guidelines because each project needs
to be evaluated individually
Unit Cost Range
• These costs are typical of successful projects conducted
bythe Air Force and private industry
• These costs may be used for budget planning and as a
rough check of contractor proposals
• These costs are typical of those charged by companies
specialized in each technology
• A useful measure of merit for evaluating costs is to
compute the project cost per pound of contaminant
• Cost effective projects typically run < $200 per pound
- Projects where the costs are orders of magnitude higher
Major Cost Drivers
Reviews of project cost estimates can
focus on these areas to expedite the
reviews
Regulatory requirements for monitoring
and preparing project documentation can
be major cost drivers for any project, and
they are not addressed in this guide
because of the wide range of variability in
regulatory requirements among state and
local agencies.
Additional Comments
These comments and performance
estimates are provided as helpful hints and
observations based on successful projects
REMOVAL
Liquid phase carbon adsorption
Contamination < 10 ppm
Presence of semi-volatile halogenated and non
halogenated contaminants
Flow rate < 10 gpm if contamination >10 ppm
Suspended solids > 50 ppm
Oil, grease content >10 ppm
High volatile organic content
Presence of humic and fulvic acids
Capital cost:
10-30 gpm: $200 per gpm
30-500 gpm: $130 per gpm
Carbon regeneration
Residuals disposal
Operating cost:
$20-$50 pc
per pound of contaminant removed
Best suited for low volume, low concentration
applications such as effluent polishing
Removal efficiencies of 100% can be attained
On-site regeneration usually not cost effective
Air Stripping
Volatile organic contaminants > 10 ppm
Presence of non-volatile organics
Iron content >10 ppm
Hardness > 800
Capital cost:
$250-$400 per gpm throughput up to 100 gpm
Operating cost:
$20-50 per pound contaminant removed
GROUNDWATER OR
SURFACE WATER
Instrumentation for automated operation
Power consumption
Air reheat
Offgas treatment (options listed below)
Tray strippers have less visual Impact than
packed towers and tray strippers may be less
prone to fouling
Units designed for removal efficiencies
around 99%
Free product removal by pumping
Measured thickness of organic layer > 6 inches
Water table depth <50 feet below ground
surface
Viscous free product that is difficult to pump
Thin free product layers
Water table depth >100 feet below ground surface
$3,000-$5,000 for a single well
$1,500 per well for additional wells in multi-well systems
Product treatment or disposal (excluding
recovery credits)
Should be initiated immediately upon
discovery of free product layer
Single phase pumping less costly than two
fihase pumping which requires water
reatment
Phase separation (oil-water)
Contamination > 2,000 ppm
Flow rate >100 gpm
Presence of emulsions
$10-$20 per gpm capacity of separator
Equipment
Effluent concentration seldom < 10 ppm
Air sparging
Volatile contaminants present
Low permeability aquifer
Presence of free product > 6 inches thick
Capital Cost:
$7o per foot for injection wells
$5,000-$25,000 for air injection pump
Trial test
Implementation
Small scale (one or two wells) pilot test
recommended
Sparging may spread contamination to clean
areas, such as basements or utility lines
May be used with SVE
Soil vapor extraction
SOIL
Volatile contaminant concentrations > 1,000
ppmv in soil gas
Presence of low permeability surface cap
Presence of contamination > 30 feet below
ground surface
Structures or utilities present that would
hinder excavation
Water table <10 feet below ground surface
Clay content > 20 percent
Capital Cost:
$15-$2~
25 per scfm capacity for extraction skid with no emissior
controls (See contaminant destruction by thermal treatment
for emission control costs)
$40-$75 per foot for extraction wells
Equipment
Process monitoring
Trial test if no nearby SVE applications
Excavation
Soil washing
Ex-situ treatment planned, such as thermal,
soil washing or biological treatment
Off-site treatment available
Contamination < 20 feet beiow ground surface
Presence of structures and utilities
Very volatile or toxic contaminants
Noise sensitive environments
$2-$5 per cubic yard for excavating and loading
$1-$3 per cubic yard for backfilling and compacting
Treatment costs additional
Field implementation
Treatment or disposal of contaminated
material
Emission control equipment probably
necessary; contaminant destruction by
thermal treatment is the preferred alternative
Operation is generally not cost effective at
removal rates <10 pounds per day
Air flow promotes biodegradation
Can be used with air sparging
Thermal treatment prohibited
Soil cannot be disposed of off-site
Presence of > 30 percent silt and clay
Presence of a sensitive aquifer that may be
affected by residual washing chemicals
$100-$500 per ton of soil treated
Number of extraction stages required
Waste stream management or
decontamination
Due to the complexity of this technology, a
compelling reason for use should exisit
Treatment of numerous waste streams
required
Condensation
GAS
SVE exhaust
Air stripper exhaust
Vapor phase carbon adsorption
Gas flow rate < 200 scfm
High contaminant concentrations
Collection efficiencies > 80-90 percent are not
j^guired^
Gas flow rate > 200 scfm
Dense or viscous condensate
$15,000-$20,000 for a 200 scfm unit
Equipment
Compressor power
Both contaminants and water will condense,
water will require treatment prior to discharge
Recovered product may be partially oxidized,
unfit for reuse, and may plug the condenser
Application on trial test SVE units
Short term (< one month) emission control
required
Contaminant concentrations <100 ppmv
Application on air strippers
Flow rates > 200 scfm
Application to water-saturated gas streams
Capital cost:
< $1,000 for units 200 scfm or less
$3-$4 per scfm capacity for larger units
Operating cost:
$40-$100 per pound of contaminant removed
Equipment
Carbon replacement
On-site carbon reactivation is generally not
cost effective; vendors provide carbon
replacement service
Removal efficiencies of 100% can be attained
but saturated gases impede performance
Abbreviations
DNAPL Dense nonaqueous phase liquid POL
DRE Destruction and removal efficiency ppm
gpm Gallons per minute
HDPE High density polyethylene
O&M Operations and maintenance of equipment
PCB Poly chlorinated biphenyls
ppmv
Petroleum products, oils, and lubricants
Parts per million, equivalent to milligrams per liter (mg/i)
or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
Parts per million on a volume basis, generally applied to
gas mixtures
Greater than
Less than
Sources Used for this Guide
Remedial equipment vendors
Remediation service companies
Remediation Technology Design, Performance, and Cost Study, The MITRE Corporation,
MTR92W80, July 1992
Means Site Work and Landscape Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc., 1993
Disclaimer Innovative technologies are not represented in this guide and may be an acceptable or preferred alternative to the
technologies listed herein. Indications for use of these selected technologies and their costs are generalizations only. Site specific
data and regulatory requirements should be evaluated fully to determine the appropriate remedial technology and associated
costs.
94M-0181-2
Page 2 of 3
-------
Remediation Technology Application and Cost Guide
INFORMATION NECESSARY TO USE THIS GUIDE
• An estimate of contaminant mass. This estimate is not the same as the volume of contaminated media. Instead it is the weight of spilled JP-4, of landfilled solvent or
whatever material contaminates a site.
• A conceptual site model or site map showing the source of contamination and the approximate extent of contamination. The contaminant concentration at a source
is several orders of magnitude higher than detection limits and regulatory action levels. If no source can be identified, the need to remediate should be reevaluated.
Features within approximately 500 yards of a site should be known.
• Site characteristics such as depth to groundwater, the measured thickness of any free product layer, groundwater flow direction, and subsurface geology.
• A list of completed exposure pathways identified through a risk assessment.
• The range of contaminant concentrations in environmental media.
August
1994
Prepared for: The Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Brooks Air Force Base, Texas
by: The MITRE Corporation
McLean, Virginia
For technical assistance Greg Voael, The MITRE Corporation George Maione, The MITRE Corporation
please contact: 703483-6168 703-883-6377
Remediation Strategy
A strategy should be developed
prior to technology selection
A strategy may include any
combination of these options
No containment measure
should be considered
permanent
Removal and destruction are
often used together
Each medium affected by a
completed risk exposure
pathway should be remediated
The majority of contaminant
mass is likely to be located
in soil
Groundwater remediation
should be coordinated with
source remediation in the
unsaturated zone
Remediation Technology
These technologies may be
considered to be proven
technologies; innovative
technologies are not included
Technology selection can be
guided by performance of nearby
remediation projects at similar
sites. IRPIMS may be used to
locate sites having similar media,
stratigraphy and contaminants of
concern.
Conditions FavorableXo Use
• These generalizations are based on projects
demonstrating acceptable performance and
cost effectiveness; they are not presented as
rigid guidelines because each project needs
to be evaluated individually
Conditions Unfavorable to Use
These generalizations are based on projects
demonstrating acceptable performance and
cost effectiveness; fhey are not presented as
rigid guidelines because each project needs to
be evaluated individually
Unit Cost Range
These costs are typical of successful projects conducted
by the Air Force and private industry
These costs may be used for budget planning and as a
rough check of contractor proposals
These costs are typical of those charged by companies
specialized in each technology
A useful measure of merit for evaluating costs is to
compute the project cost per pound of contaminant
- Cost effective projects typically run < $200 per pound
* Projects where the costs are orders of magnitude higher
Major Cost Drivers
• Reviews of project cost estimates can
focus on these areas to expedite the
reviews
Regulatory requirements for monitoring
and preparing project documentation can
be major cost drivers for any protect, and
they are not addressed in this guide
because of the wide range of variability in
regulatory requirements among state and
local agencies.
Additional Comments
• These comments and performance
estimates are provided as helpful hints and
observations based on successful projects
DESTRUCTION
Intrinsic remediation or natural
attenuation
Contaminant mass < 2,000 pounds
No receptors at risk
GROUNDWATER
Biotreatment:
In-situ
Ex-sltu
Presence of water-soluble organic
contaminants
For in-situ treatment, aquifer must have
permeability > 10"Meet per day
Contaminant mass ranging from 1000 to 8000
pounds
Presence of halogenated organics or
heavy metals
^resence^Mreeproduct
No capital or O&M costs
Monitoring
Halogenated organics degrade slowly
Presence of halogenated organics
Presence of free product
Presence of inorganic contaminants
S13-S50 per cubic yard fortaitu
S40-S175 per cubic yard for ex-situ
Trial test
Monitoring
Trial test is recommended to determine
performance
Biotreatment:
In-situ
Ex-situ (composting)
Bioventing
Moist, permeable soil, neutral to basic pH
Temperature > 40°F
Presence of free product
Presence of halogenated organics or inorganics
Saturated soil or water content >50%
Rapid remediation required
S15-S50 per cubic yard
Trial test
Field implementation
SOIL
Thermal treatment:
Low temperature
High temperature
High contaminant concentrations and
presence of free product
Water content < 20 percent
Contaminant mass > 2,000 pounds for on-site
treatment
Rapid remediation required
High clay content
$50-S150 per ton for POL only (tow temperature treatment)
$300-$600 per ton for halogenated organics (high temperature
treatment)
$700-51,500 per ton if PCBs present
$6,000 per ton if process-related dioxins are present in soil
Trial test is recommended, especially if
microorganisms are added to soil
Nutrient requirements need to be determined
Performance depends on soil pore structure,
low ppm levels may not be attained
Contaminant type determining whether high
or tow temperature treatment is required
On-site or off-site location of treatment unit
Need for air emission controls
Off-site treatment at high range of costs, on
site at low range of costs
Soils with water content > 25 percent require
drying
High temperature treatment units achieve
DREs >9d.99% and often require acid gas
scrubbing and pollution control systems
Low temperature unit performance is usually
>95% DRE
GAS
SVE exhaust
Air stripper exhaust
Air sparging emissions
Thermal treatment:
Catalytic
Flame
Reactive bed
Emission control stipulated by regulatory
agencies
Contaminant concentrations > 1,000 ppmv
favors use of flame units
Concentrations from 100 to 5,000 ppmv can be
treated in catalytic oxidizers
High particulate or water droplet loading requires
filtering or separation
Capital cost:
$65-$100 per scfm throughput for thermal equipment cost
$60-$90 per scfm throughput for acid gas emission control
equipment
Operating cost:
~$50 per scfm throughput annual O&M cost for thermal unit
$250-$400 per scfm throughput annual O&M cost for thermal
unit with scrubber
Gas flow rate
Presence of halogens requiring acid gas
cleaning
Performance >95% DRE usually attained
Base metal catalysts may be more cost
effective than precious metal catalysts if
halogens are present
Units available that convert from flame to
catalytic operation as concentrations decrease
Influent concentration generally kept < 25% of
lower explosive limit by dilution
Abbreviations
DNAPL Dense nonaqueous phase liquid POL
DRE Destruction and removal efficiency ppm
gpm Gallons per minute
HDPE High density polyethylene ppmv
O&M Operations and maintenance of equipment >
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
Petroleum products, oils, and lubricants
Parts per million, equivalent to milligrams per liter (mg/l)
or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
Parts per million on a volume basis, generally applied to
gas mixtures
Greater than
Less than
Sources Used for this Guide
Remedial equipment vendors
Remediation service companies
Remediation Technology Design, Performance, and Cost Study, The MITRE Corporation,
MTR92W80, July 1992
Means Site Work and Landscape Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc., 1993
Disclaimer. Innovative technologies are not represented in this guide and may be an acceptable or preferred alternative to the
technologies listed herein. Indications for use of these selected technologies and their costs are generalizations only. Site specific
data and regulatory requirements should be evaluated fully to determine the appropriate remedial technology and associated
costs.
94M-0181-3
Page 3 of 3
-------
Section 1 - Introduction
Section 2 - Contaminant Perspectives
Section 3 - Treatment Perspectives
Section 4 - Treatment Technology Profiles
Section 5 - References
Section 6 - Index
Appendix A - VISIT!
B -DOE 3:ic Remediation Technologies by Waste Contsrr.inant Matrix
and Completed Site Demonstration Program Projects as of October 1993
Appendix C -federal Data Bases and Addition, si Information Sources
Appendix D -Factors Affecting Treatment Cost and Performance
Appendix E - Description of Source Documents
Attachments
------- |