&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Washington DC 20460
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
Superfund
EPA/540/5-88/001 Feb 1988
The Superfund
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program:
Progress and
Accomplishments
A Report to Congress
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
-------
EPA/540/5-88/001
February 1988
THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM
PROGRESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
A Report to Congress
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
I. Introduction 1-1
A. Statutory Authority 1-1
B. Historical Perspective 1-2
C. SITE Program Components 1-3
II. The SITE Demonstration Program 2-1
A. Selection of Technologies 2-1
B. Selection of Demonstration Sites 2-3
C. Negotiation of Cooperative Agreements 2-5
D. Community Relations Activities 2-5
E. Demonstration Planning Process 2-6
F. Program Outputs 2-7
III. First Year Progress and Accomplishments 3-1
A. Demonstration Program-Project Descriptions 3-1
B. Measurement and Monitoring Techniques Development 3-19
C. Technology Transfer/Clearinghouse 3-20
IV. Planned 1988 Activities 4-1
A. Demonstration Program 4-1
B. Emerging Technologies Program 4-1
C. Measurement and Monitoring Techniques Development 4-2
D. Innovative Development and Evaluation Program 4-3
E. Technology Transfer/Clearinghouse 4-5
in
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (Section
209(b)) amends Title III of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) by adding
Section 311 which directs the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish an "Alternative
or Innovative Treatment Technology Research
and Demonstration Program." Section 311(e)
requires EPA to submit a report to Congress
annually on the progress and results of this
program. This report presents the program's
accomplishments during Fiscal Year 1987 and
through January 30,1988.
In response to SARA, EPA created the
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program. The SITE Program is intended
to 1) accelerate the development, demonstration
and use of new or innovative treatment
technologies and 2) demonstrate and evaluate
new, innovative measurement and monitoring
technologies.
During FY 1987, the SITE Program estab-
lished a Demonstration Program, Measurement
and Monitoring Techniques Development
Program, and a Technology Transfer Program.
Demonstration Program. The demonstration
and evaluation of technologies developed by
private industry have been the primary
activities of the SITE Program in FY 1987. The
major objective of the demonstration program is
to develop reliable performance and cost
information of the technologies selected so that
they can be adequately considered in Superfund
decision making. Demonstrations take place at
Superfund sites or under conditions that either
duplicate or closely simulate wastes and
conditions found at Superfund sites. At the
close of FY 1987, 20 developers had been selected
to participate in the program, ten in each of two
solicitation cycles.
Measurement and Monitoring Techniques
Development Program. The Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas,
Nevada, has been supporting the development of
two monitoring/measurement techniques under
the SITE Program: immunoassays for toxic
substances and fiber optic sensing for in situ
analysis at Superfund sites.
Technology Transfer Program/
Clearinghouse. SARA requires that an
information dissemination program be
established in conjunction with the SITE
Program. During FY 1987, EPA designed a
Clearinghouse for information on the SITE
Program and other related information on
alternative hazardous waste treatment
technologies. The Clearinghouse includes a
hotline, an electronic bulletin
board/computerized data network, and a
reference library of relevant reports, books, and
articles.
In FY 1988, the SITE Program will continue
the programs described above, and will expand
to several new areas. An Emerging Technologies
Program will be initiated to support
technologies that are not yet ready for
demonstration but show high potential for
successful transition from conceptual to
demonstration stage. The solicitation for this
program has already been announced and
developers will be selected by Spring 1988.
Another new initiative in FY 1988 will be the
Innovative Development and Evaluation
Program which will accelerate the development
of alternative technologies developed by EPA's
Office of Research and Development.
-------
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (Section
209 (b)) amends Title HI of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) by adding
Section 311 which directs the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish an "Alternative
or Innovative Treatment Technology Research
and Demonstration Program" and to submit a
report to Congress annually on the progress and
results of this program. As required in Section
311(e), this report presents the program's
accomplishments during Fiscal Year 1987 and
through January 30,1988.
In response to SARA, EPA has established a
formal program to 1) accelerate the
development, demonstration and use of new or
innovative treatment technologies, and 2)
demonstrate and evaluate new, innovative
measurement and monitoring technologies. This
program is called the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program.
The overall goal of this program is to "carry
out a program of research, evaluation, testing,
development, and demonstration of alternative
or innovative treatment technologies . . . which
may be utilized in response actions to achieve
more permanent protection of human health and
welfare and the environment." SARA defines
"alternative technologies" as "those
technologies, including proprietary or patented
methods, which permanently alter the
composition of hazardous waste through
chemical, biological, or physical means so as to
significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume (or any combination thereof) of the
hazardous waste or contaminated materials
being treated. The term also includes
technologies that characterize or assess the
extent of contamination, the chemical and
physical character of the contaminants, and the
stresses imposed by the contaminants on
complex ecosystems at sites." Under the SITE
Program, alternative technologies are
categorized by their development status as
follows:
• Available Alternative Technology.
Technologies, such as incineration, that
are fully proven and in routine commercial
or private use.
• Innovative Alternative Technology. Any
fully-developed technology for which cost
or performance information is incomplete,
thus hindering routine use at hazardous
waste sites An innovative alternative
technology requires full-scale field testing
before it is considered proven and available
for routine use.
• Emerging Alternative Technology. An
emerging technology is one in an earlier
stage of development; the research has not
yet successfully passed laboratory- or pilot-
scale testing.
The SITE Program assists technology
developers in the development and evaluation of
new and innovative treatment technologies, and
thus enhances the commercial availability and
use of these technologies at Superfund sites as
alternatives to land-based containment systems
presently in use. The program consists of the
following major initiatives:
• Conduct and monitor demonstrations of
promising innovative technologies to
provide reliable performance and cost
1-1
-------
information for future site
characterization and cleanup decision
making.
• Identify and remove informational
impediments to the use of alternative
technologies.
• Develop procedures and policies that
encourage the use of alternative treatment
remedies at Superfund sites.
• Encourage the development of emerging
technologies.
Section 121(b) of SARA states a preference for
treatment technologies that permanently reduce
the volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous
waste. Section 209(b) of SARA authorizes EPA
to use hazardous waste from or representative of
Superfund sites for alternative technology
research and demonstrations.
The SITE Program also supports the testing
and development of improved monitoring and
measurement technologies to be used at
Superfund sites. This component of the program
is intended to improve capabilities in site
assessment, measuring the extent of
contamination, as well as measuring the
effectiveness of a selected remedy.
Recognizing that access to accurate,
pertinent information is essential to the
acceptance of alternative technologies, Section
311(b)(8) also directs EPA to ". . conduct a
technology transfer program including the
development, collection, evaluation,
coordination, and dissemination of information
relating to the utilization of alternative or
innovative treatment technologies for response
actions. . ." The statute requires the Agency to
establish and maintain a central reference
library for such information As described later
in this report, EPA has established a
clearinghouse to ensure that program findings,
as well as other treatability data, will be
available to the Agency and other interested
parties.
This report documents the progress made
prior to the enactment of SARA during Fiscal
Year 1987 and during the first quarter of Fiscal
Year 1988. It also summarizes activities planned
for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1988. The
report includes the following:
• An overview of the development of the
program and its components.
• A description of the process used for the
technology demonstration program.
• A description of progress made by the
program to date.
• An outline of activities for 1988.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Prior to the enactment of SARA, concern had
been growing among the scientific community,
citizens, and government officials over the
effectiveness and cost of conventional methods
for handling hazardous wastes at Superfund
sites. Over the past few years, it has become
evident that land disposal is not the best
solution for much of the hazardous waste present
at these sites. The need for long-term, reliable,
low cost treatment solutions has been stressed
by studies and legislation:
• The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (reauthorization of
the Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act) imposed prohibitions on land disposal
of certain hazardous wastes. These
restrictions will require treatment of many
Superfund wastes that previously may
have been placed untreated into land
disposal units.
• A 1985 report by the U.S. Congress, Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA)
highlighted concerns with lamd disposal of
hazardous wastes. It concluded that while
land disposal is a proven technology for
nonhazardous wastes, it is not a long-term
solution to our hazardous waste problems,
and that the long-term costs of land
disposal may be quite high when the costs
of monitoring, operation and maintenance,
and possible future cleanup action are
considered.
The scientific and engineering communities
recognized that the demand for treatment often
outstripped the availability and capability of
1-2
-------
existing technologies. OTA concluded in its
report that research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) devoted to innovative
cleanup technologies were inadequate. The
Science Advisory Board also recommended
embarking on a comprehensive research
program to identify more effective, permanent
solutions. However, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) directed that
Superfund resources be used only to support
activities directly related to site cleanups, and
prohibited the use of funds for R&D.
In response to these growing concerns, EPA
moved ahead in early 1986 to develop a
technology demonstration program within the
existing statutory and budgetary authority
provided by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. A strategy was developed
to lay out the problems, impediments, and
possible solutions relative to the increased use of
innovative treatment technologies at Superfund
sites. EPA convened a review group composed of
experts from large and small companies,
academia, State governments, environmental
groups, and consulting engineering firms to
review and help develop this strategy. The
review group provided much of the rationale for
developing a technology demonstration
program, citing the need for an objective
evaluation of new technologies being marketed
to the EPA Regional Offices and States for
cleanup efforts.
EPA advertised its first solicitation for
innovative treatment technology demonstration
proposals in the Commerce Business Daily on
February 13, 1986. This solicitation attracted 20
proposals ranging from containerization to
incineration to robotics. In addition, EPA
invited developers of promising technologies
that were already involved in hazardous
waste/Superfund demonstrations or cleanup
activities to participate in the program. EPA
staff also evaluated unsolicited proposals that
were submitted to EPA during the Spring and
Summer of 1986.
As a result of this initial work on the
program, when SARA was enacted in October
1986, EPA was able to respond with a program
that was already in the planning stages,
although funding had not been available.
SITE PROGRAM COMPONENTS
There are a number of obstacles inhibiting
the acceptance and use of alternative
technologies for the treatment of hazardous
wastes at Superfund sites. These technologies
often have not had the opportunity to be proven
effective on a commercial scale or have not been
used for specific applications at hazardous waste
sites. As a result, it is difficult to assure
potentially responsible parties, site owners, and
the affected community that technologies which
have not undergone full-scale demonstration
will be effective in remediating a site. A key
component of the SITE Program is the removal
of these informational impediments, by
supporting demonstrations that will provide
reliable performance and cost data.
To foster this comprehensive program for the
development and acceptance of new and
improved technologies, the SITE Program
includes several components These include the
following:
• Demonstration Program. The
demonstration and evaluation of
technologies developed by private industry
have been the primary activities in the
first year of the program (Fiscal Year
1987). As part of a cooperative agreement
between the technology developers and
EPA, the developers provide and operate
the technology, and EPA conducts
sampling and analysis. Evaluations
normally take place at a Superfund site,
EPA Test and Evaluation facility, or the
developer's site.
• Emerging Technologies Program. In Fiscal
Year 1988 EPA will assist private industry
in the development of emerging
technologies from the conceptual stage to
pilot-scale demonstration through cost-
sharing agreements. It is anticipated that
these projects will take place at the
developer's facility or at an EPA Test and
Evaluation Facility.
1-3
-------
• Innovative Development and Evaluation.
EPA R&D staff have been active in the
development of new technologies which
show potential for application at
Superfund sites but where the private
sector is not actively pursuing these
applications. This program will accelerate
the development and demonstration of
these technologies by quickly moving them
to the field demonstration stage.
• Measurement and Monitoring Techniques
Development. EPA laboratories are
exploring technologies that will permit
improved assessment of the extent of
contamination, characterization of
contaminants, and evaluation of
remedial/ removal activities at hazardous
waste sites.
• Technology Transfer Program.
Dissemination of data from
demonstrations conducted under the SITE
Program is the key to increasing the use of
alternative technologies at Superfund
sites. EPA has designed and will be
implementing a clearinghouse for
information relevant to the SITE Program.
The SITE demonstration program is the
major objective of SITE and the first
component to be fully implemented. The other
components will be fully implemented in 1988
and 1989.
1-4
-------
II. THE SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Based on the emphasis placed on
demonstrations in Section 31 Kb) of CERCLA,
the demonstration program has been the
primary focus of the SITE Program. The major
objective of the demonstration program is to
develop reliable performance and cost
information on innovative alternative
technologies so that they can be adequately
considered in Superfund decision making. The
demonstrations are designed to provide
sufficient information to enable potential users
to make sound judgments as to the applicability
of the technology for a specific site and to
compare the technology's effectiveness and cost
to other alternatives. The results of the
demonstrations identify the limitations of the
technology, the potential need for pre- and post-
processing of wastes, the types of wastes and
media to which the process can be applied, the
potential operating problems, and the
approximate capital and operating costs. The
demonstrations also permit evaluation of long-
term operating and maintenance costs and long-
term risks. Demonstrations take place at
Superfund sites or under conditions that
duplicate or closely simulate actual wastes and
conditions found at Superfund sites to assure the
reliability of the information collected and
acceptability of the data by users.
EPA has developed implementation
procedures to ensure that the demonstration
program facilitates developer participation,
gathers required data, and provides adequate
safeguards for human health and the
environment. This implementation process
includes the following major steps:
• Selection of technologies and developers
for participation.
• Selection of sites for the demonstrations.
• Development of cooperative agreements
with developers.
• Development and implementation of
community relations activities.
• Preparation of detailed plans for the
demonstration.
• Conduct of the demonstration.
• Preparation of reports on the
demonstration results.
The procedures developed and the activities
that have been performed under each of these
steps are discussed in the following sections.
SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGIES
The solicitation and selection processes
developed by EPA for the SITE Program are
designed to ensure that all technologies that are
potentially useful for cleaning up Superfund
sites are identified and screened, that those with
the most potential are selected for
demonstration, and that all developers have
access to the program.
The primary method used by EPA to identify
privately-developed technologies for potential
demonstration is advertisement of the annual
solicitation in the Commerce Business Daily. In
response to the solicitation, technology
developers submit proposals to EPA addressing
the following selection criteria:
• Technology Factors: description of the
technology and its history; identification of
effective operating range; application to
hazardous waste site cleanup; mobility of
equipment; capital and operating costs;
advantages over existing comparable
2-1
-------
technologies; and identification of health,
safety, and environmental problems.
• Capability of the Developer' development
of other technologies; completion of field
tests; experience, credentials, and
assignment of personnel; and capability to
commercialize and market technology.
• Approach to Testing: operations plan;
materials and equipment; range of testing;
health and safety plan; monitoring plan;
quality assurance plan; assignment of
responsibilities; backup treatment system
plan; and regulatory compliance plans.
Two solicitation cycles have been completed.
These have been titled SITE 001 and SITE 002.
Selection of Site 001 Demonstration
Projects
In response to the first solicitation in the
Commerce Business Daily in February 1986,
EPA received approximately 450 requests for
the SITE Program Request for Proposal (RFP).
The RFP was made available on March 15th and
the deadline for responses was April 25th. EPA
reviewed a total of 20 proposals by May. None of
the proposals was considered fully acceptable.
The proposals were categorized as "conditionally
acceptable," "rewrite," or "not acceptable "
Those that were considered "conditionally
acceptable" had either technical or
administrative issues that needed to be
addressed by the technology developer. The
"rewrites" required more extensive revision
Those that were "not acceptable" offered
unproven containment technologies, failed to
submit sufficient technical data, or provided
only bench-scale data.
In early July 1986, EPA notified the
developers of their proposal status.
Conditionally acceptable and rewritten
proposals were due for resubmission in August.
After reviewing the responses, the following six
vendors were considered acceptable:
• American Combustion, Inc. (PYRETRON
Oxygen-Air-Fuel Burner)
• Hazcon, Inc.
(Solidification/ Stabilization Process)
• Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.
(Infrared Thermal Destruction)
• Terra Vac, Inc.
(In situ Vacuum Extraction)
• Waste-Tech Services, Inc.
(Fluidized Bed Combustion)
• Westinghouse Electric Corporation
(Electric Pyrolyzer System and
Pyroplasma System)
A second method used by EPA to identify
SITE Program participants focused on
conducting evaluations of alternative
technologies that were in current use at
Superfund sites during routine response actions
associated with both removal and remedial
activities. Several projects were identified
through this method, including:
• The Haztech, Inc -owned Shirco Infrared
Systems Unit at the Peak Oil Superfund
site in Brandon, Florida
• Resources Conservation Company's Basic
Extraction Sludge Technology
demonstration at the General Refining
Superfund site in Savannah, Georgia.
• New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Plasma Arc
Unit demonstration at Love Canal, New
York.
• Ogden Environmental Services
Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor on
waste from California Superfund sites.
• International Waste Technology In Situ
Stabilization/Solidification Process at the
General Electric site in Hialeah, Florida.
• Detox Industries, Inc. Biological
Degradation Process at a Texas site.
In July, 1987, Waste-Tech Services, Inc.,
notified EPA that they were withdrawing from
the program due to indemnification issues. At a
future date, Waste-Tech may decide to
participate further in the SITE Program.
2-2
-------
Selection of Site 002 Demonstration
Projects
On January 15, 1987, EPA sent
approximately 400 Requests for Proposal (RFP)
for the SITE 002 cycle to private developers who
expressed an interest in becoming involved with
the program. The SITE 002 solicitation differed
from the SITE 001 program in that the 002
program included requests for pilot-scale
technologies as well as those at demonstration
scale. Responses to the RFP were due by March
13, 1987. Twenty-nine proposals were received
and were reviewed by a panel of EPA experts.
The review panel determined that:
• Twelve were not acceptable.
• Three were incomplete because they did
not specifically address the RFP and its
criteria. They were asked to submit a
complete proposal.
• Two were asked to rewrite their proposals
• Twelve were considered conditionally
acceptable and were asked to clarify issues
or submit additional information.
On June 12, 1987, a letter was sent to all 29
developers notifying them of the results of the
review. All but the 12 "not acceptable"
applicants were asked to address specific
questions or provide information pertaining to
their technologies.
The twelve proposals that were rejected
involved technologies that were already proven
as a viable alternative, or technologies that did
not meet the definition of an "alternative
technology."
As a result of this process, the following
developers were selected for participation in the
SITE Program and notified in September 1987:
Thermal Technology
•Retech, Inc
Extraction Technology
•C.F. Systems Corporation
Solidification/Stabilization Technology
•Soliditech, Inc.
•Chemfix Technologies, Inc.
•Waste Chem Corporation
•Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Ion Exchange Technology
•Sanitech, Inc.
Biological Technology
•Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
•Zimpro Environmental Control Systems
•MoTec, Inc.
SELECTION OF
DEMONSTRATION SITES
Once EPA has evaluated the technology
proposals and notified the developers of their
acceptance into the SITE Program, the
demonstration site selection process is initiated.
Potential SITE demonstration locations include
Federal and State Superfund removal and
remedial sites, EPA research facilities, sites
from other Federal agencies, and developers'
sites.
The criteria used to screen and select
candidate sites for target demonstrations
include the following:
•Compatibility of waste with technology
•Volume of waste
•Variability of waste
•Availability of data characterizing waste
•Accessibility of waste (i.e., degree of excavation
required)
•Applicability of demonstration to site cleanup
efforts
•Availability of required utilities (i.e., power
and water sources, sewers)
•Support of community, State and local
governments, and potentially responsible
parties
•Potential for adverse effects to public health
and the environment.
2-3
-------
In October 1986, each of EPA's Regional
Offices nominated Superfund sites for the
demonstration of the following SITE 001
demonstration projects that were brought into
the program through the solicitation process:
• Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.'s Infrared
Thermal Destruction
• Hazcon, Inc.'s Solidification/Stabilization
• Westinghouse Electric Corporation's
Electric Pyrolysis System and Pyroplasma
System
• Terra Vac's In situ Vacuum Extraction
A site was not requested for American
Combustion, Inc. since EPA's Combustion
Research Facility was selected for the
demonstration of its PYRETRON burner
The Regional Offices submitted information
on the type of waste(s) for which the technology
is appropriate and additional desirable site
characteristics, as provided by the developers
They also included a statement explaining why
the site was chosen.
Nineteen Superfund sites were nominated
for consideration by the EPA Regional Offices.
The sites were characterized by EPA
Headquarters in terms of a general description,
contaminants and media present, status of
Superfund remediation, presence of utilities,
and access considerations The strengths and
weaknesses of each site were compiled based on
considerations and preferences provided by the
developer and four principal program goals.
These goals include:
• Production of the most useful information on
each technology's capabilities
•Expeditious implementation.
•Production of information relevant to the
specific site cleanup efforts.
•Involvement of as many EPA Regions as
possible in the SITE Program.
EPA staff worked extensively with the
technology developers to obtain additional
information needed to match potential sites with
the technologies. EPA also coordinated with the
Department of Energy to identify possible sites
for technologies for which no Superfund site was
nominated During the Spring of 1987, as sites
were tentatively selected, a series of kick-off
meetings were held for each project to acquaint
the technology developer with appropriate EPA
and State officials. Visits were made to inspect
and confirm site access, physical layout, and
other factors. The site selections that resulted
from this process, or from current cleanup or
research activities, are listed below and are
described in further detail in Chapter III.
• American Combustion, Inc. -- The EPA
Combustion Research Facility in Jefferson,
Arkansas is treating contaminated soil
from the Stringfellow Acid Pit Superfund
site in California.
• Detox Industries, Inc. -- A Superfund site
in Conroe, Texas is being negotiated.
• Hazcon, Inc. -- Douglassville Disposal
Superfund site in Union Township, Berks
County, near Douglassville, Pennsylvania.
• Haztech, Inc./Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.
-- Peak Oil Superfund site in Brandon,
Florida.
• International Waste Technologies --
General Electric site in Hialeah, Florida
• New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation -- Love
Canal in New York.
• Ogden Environmental Services -- Ogden
facility in San Diego, California will treat
wastes from the Stringfellow Superfund
site and the McColl Superfund site in
Fullerton, California.
• Resources Conservation Company — no site
selected yet.
• Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc. -- Rose
Township-Demode Road Superfund site in
Michigan.
Terra Vac, Inc -
Superfund site
Massachusetts.
Groveland Wells
Groveland,
in
• Westinghouse Electric Corporation -- no
sites selected yet.
EPA is in the process of selecting sites for
SITE 002 demonstration projects
2-4
-------
NEGOTIATION OF COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS
In order to implement the SITE
demonstration program, SARA has authorized
the Agency to enter into grants, contracts and
cooperative agreements. Applicants whose
technologies are selected through the
solicitation process negotiate with the Agency to
determine the degree of cost sharing, if any, and
the conditions of the agreement.
Usually, the developer bears the
demonstration costs of building, locating on-site,
operating, and dismantling cleanup equipment.
EPA assists the developer with permit
acquisition and pays the costs associated with
sampling and analysis, quality assurance and
control, evaluating the data, and preparing
summary reports. Thus, the EPA contribution
reduces the actual cost of a demonstration
project to the developer.
Section 311(b)(5) permits EPA to fund up to
50% of the developer's cost of a SITE
demonstration project, if the developer shows
that it cannot obtain appropriate private
financing on reasonable terms sufficient to carry
out the project without Federal assistance. EPA
can provide no more than $3 million total for any
single project and no more than $10 million total
in any one year for such assistance. EPA's
guidelines for financial assistance were
announced in January 1988 in the SITE 003
solicitation. Developers selected for the SITE
Program that desire assistance will be required
to show that a good faith effort has been made to
obtain financing and that a financial need
exists.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
ACTIVITIES
A well-planned community relations effort is
an integral part of the Superfund program,
including the SITE demonstration program. In
fact, Section 311(b)(5) requires the
establishment of a public notice and comment
period prior to the final selection of a SITE
demonstration site. The objective of this
community relations program is to actively
encourage two-way communication between
communities affected by releases of hazardous
substances and government agencies
responsible for cleanup action. The program
enables local citizens to have input to decisions
regarding cleanup actions so that planning
reflects public concerns. At the same time, the
community relations program ensures that the
community is provided accurate and timely
information about cleanup plans and progress.
In designing a community relations program
for a particular SITE demonstration, EPA
focuses on the special concerns of the
community. The Agency has noted that the
amount of information available on the
operation of each technology affects the degree
and nature of public concern. For example, some
communities are concerned with the
developmental, unproven aspect of the
technology and may oppose the demonstration.
Other communities may support a
demonstration irrespective of limited data
because of their belief that the demonstration
represents progress in cleaning up the site. Some
communities may be concerned with potential
increased health risks posed by possible failure
of the technology demonstration.
To address these and other concerns,
community relations activities occur during all
phases of the SITE Program. Activities began
during the first site selection process and have
continued through actual demonstrations. EPA
has prepared and distributed site-specific
technology fact sheets, published notices in local
newspapers, and held public meetings. Each
Regional Community Relations Office has been
encouraged to hold at least one informational
briefing or public meeting in the community.
Public meetings have been held in Brandon,
Florida; Rose Township, Michigan;
Douglassville, Pennsylvania; Groveland,
Massachusetts; and Love Canal, New York.
Public reaction at these meetings has generally
been supportive of the proposed demonstrations.
Communication with the community
continues during the actual demonstrations. It
may include site tours, workshops, an on-scene
information office, community meetings, and
status reports. A summary of the demonstration
results and the final report are made available
to the community.
2-5
-------
Specific activities have varied for each
demonstration. A more detailed description of
community relations activities associated with
each demonstration project is included in
Chapter III.
DEMONSTRATION PLANNING
PROCESS
After technologies and sites are selected, the
next step in the process is development of a
detailed design of the technology demonstration,
testing, and evaluation program. The design
includes specifications for all activities needed to
ensure that the information objectives of the
program are met. For each demonstration, the
following must be addressed by the developer
and EPA.
• Evaluation program duration and
schedule. The duration of the testing
program needed to sufficiently
demonstrate and evaluate the technology,
including estimates of the time required
for test preparation, performance,
equipment dismantling, and technical
evaluation preparation.
• Site requirements. Utilities, certain types
of test materials (i.e., contaminated
liquids, soils, or sludges); land area for
setup; legal access to the land; proximity to
support facilities (i.e., machine shops);
geographical or geological restrictions;
personnel support, security provisions; and
personnel safety provisions.
• Detailed evaluation design. Operating
conditions outside of and within the
expected operating range; all operating
and control variables and their full range
of settings; the expected influence on the
performance of each variable, including a
sensitivity analysis for each variable;
measurements to be taken during the
experiment; calibration of all measuring
equipment, exclusive of sampling points
with samples of calibration curves from
previous activities; proposed information
for nonmeasurement-related operating
conditions; data from previous
experiments; detailed operating log sheets
that identify operating problems, system
weaknesses, safety problems, and other
pertinent operating information; all
logistics and support requirements,
including the number and training levels
of operating personnel, specific utility
requirements, and other support
information as given in the site logistics
requirements identified above.
• Sampling and analytical program. To
provide data adequate to support the
claims for the proposed technology and to
evaluate its effectiveness.
• Quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC)
program. QA/QC is a critical element of
each SITE demonstration because QA/QC
procedures ensure that data are of known
and acceptable quality for their intended
use. There are three separate tasks
pertaining to the QA/QC activities:
• QA/QC Audit of the Proposed
Technology Testing Facility. A QA/QC
audit of the technology testing facility
is performed by EPA. Where the
developer's facility is used, the
developer makes the facility available
to be audited by EPA and/or EPA
contractor(s) and provides appropriate
assistance to them. The developer
agrees to upgrade the testing facility
as necessary based upon the outcome of
the audit. A QA/QC audit is performed
when sampling is implemented at the
site as well as an audit at the
laboratory when the samples are
analyzed.
• Preparation of a QA/QC Program Plan.
EPA prepares a QA/QC program plan
covering general QA/QC goals for all
evaluation projects. This plan serves as
a coordinating and format guide
document for the specific QA/QC
project plans prepared for each
technology evaluation project.
• Preparation and Implementation of a
Written QA/QC Project Plan. Preparing
and implementing a QA/QC project
plan is the responsibility of EPA with
assistance from the developer. This
plan identifies QA/QC goals specific to
the evaluation of the developer's
2-6
-------
technology and is in accordance with
EPA established requirements and
procedures for all QA/QC activities.
^Health and safety requirements. A coordinated
health and safety plan contains the following
elements:
• Provisions for medical monitoring of
operating and management personnel,
if necessary.
• Safety training for personnel who will
be in restricted zone
• Level of worker protection
(classification of outergarments as a
function of the type of exposure).
• Establishment of zones of safety;
"clean area" establishment and
movement restrictions in various
zones.
• Decontamination of personnel outer-
garments and equipment.
• Emergency procedures.
• Supervision responsibilities.
Seven demonstration plans have been
completed.
PROGRAM OUTPUTS
There are two major outputs for each
demonstration. The first is a technical report
documenting the performance data resulting
from the demonstration. The report includes
testing procedures, data collected, and QA/QC
conducted. It summarizes the results in terms of
performance (effectiveness and reliability) and
cost. The report also addresses issues such as
applicability, pre- and post-treatment
requirements, and advantages/disadvantages
compared to available technologies. EPA is
responsible for distribution of the report
following review and approval. The first such
report, from Haztech, Inc.'s demonstration of the
Shirco Infrared System at the Peak Oil site in
Brandon, Florida, is scheduled to be completed
in Spring, 1988.
Successful demonstration of a technology at
one Superfund site does not, by itself, imply that
the technology will be adopted for full-scale use
at other Superfund sites. To enable and
encourage the general use of demonstrated
technologies, EPA prepares a second report that
evaluates the applicability of each technology to
other sites and wastes, and provides cost
estimates for these applications. This
information will then be disseminated to
potential users in the form of an Applications
Analysis Report. The Applications Analysis
Report for each technology will be available
approximately two months after the first
performance data report.
The development and reporting of cost data
for the demonstrated technologies is a difficult
issue. Specific site and waste characteristics
have a significant impact on costs. In some cases,
the SITE demonstration period comprises only a
portion of the time a process is in operation at a
site. For purposes of the two reports described
above, a protocol for evaluating SITE
demonstration costs has been developed and will
be applied to all projects The SITE cost protocol
makes use of both the raw variable cost data
collected during the demonstration, as well as
the developer's specific baseline cost data. By
allowing the developer to specify his underlying
cost structure, the Agency precludes the
possibility of misrepresenting the cost to
potential customers. A balance is provided by
critically analyzing the developer's costs in light
of the demonstration experience. These costs can
then be placed within a competitive range of
similar processes. The reader will then be able to
draw a more complete picture of the potential
costs given a particular sites' characteristics.
The dissemination of information on the
performance of technology demonstrations and
applications of the technologies is crucial once
results from demonstration projects are
available. If alternative technologies are to be
applied more broadly at Superfund sites, Agency
personnel, engineers, and others must have
access to reliable technical information. Thus,
the technology transfer/ clearinghouse
component of the SITE Program is intended to
provide technical information from the
SITEdemonstrations to interested parties in a
timely manner. Details on the overall approach
to technology transfer in the SITE Program are
given in Chapter III
2-7
-------
-------
III. FIRST YEAR PROGRESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
During the first year of the SITE Program
(Fiscal Year 1987), EPA focused on establishing
the processes and procedures needed to
implement the program and initiate activity in
several program components. Specifically, the
following were accomplished in FY 1987:
Demonstration Program
• SITE 001 - Twelve technologies were
selected for demonstrations; sites have
been selected for nine of the technologies;
three demonstrations have been
completed; and two more are underway.
• SITE 002 - Ten developers have been
selected to conduct alternative technology
demonstrations and the site selection
process is underway.
Measurement and Monitoring Techniques
Development
Support was provided to the development of
the following two technologies:
• Immunoassays for toxic substances
• Fiber optic sensing for in situ analysis
Technology Transfer/Clearinghouse
A long-term technology transfer strategy
was developed and a clearinghouse was
established that included:
• A hotline
• An electronic bulletin board
• A collection of reports, journals and other
pertinent documents
Progress and accomplishments in each of
these three areas are described in the sections
that follow.
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
During the first year of the SITE Program,
the demonstration program followed the process
outlined in the previous chapter. While it took
time to establish the new process, the developers
and EPA have made considerable progress. In
addition, the experience of the first year has
contributed lessons that will enable EPA to
move more rapidly in subsequent years of the
program. Descriptions of each of the SITE 001
and SITE 002 demonstration projects follows.
Site 001 Demonstration Project
Descriptions
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.
Technology
The Shirco Infrared Thermal Destruction
System is a transportable thermal treatment
unit (See Figure 1). The Shirco process uses rows
of electrically-powered silicon carbide rods to
bring the waste to combustion temperatures.
Remaining combustibles are destroyed in an
afterburner.
The full-scale four-component system can
process from 100 to 250 tons of waste per day,
depending on the waste characteristics. The first
component, the primary furnace, is lined with
layers of lightweight ceramic fiber blanket
insulation. The furnace generates temperatures
up to 1850°F using infrared radiant heat
provided by horizontal rows of silicon carbide
rods (located above the conveyor belt). Waste
moves through the primary furnace on a woven
3-1
-------
Figure 1. Transportable Infrared Thermal Unit
wire mesh belt. The second component, an
infrared or gas-fired secondary combustion
chamber, is capable of reaching temperatures up
to 2300°F. The secondary chamber destroys
gaseous volatiles from the primary furnace. The
third component consists of an emissions control
system which removes particulates in a venturi
scrubber. Acid vapors are neutralized in a
packed tower scrubber, and an induced draft
blower draws cleaned gases from the scrubber
into the exhaust stack. The fourth component
consists of a process management and
monitoring control center.
Progress and Accomplishments
Shirco Infrared Systems,
participating in two demonstrations.
Inc.,
is
Demonstration One. Full-Scale System
Site Selection EPA contracted with
Haztech, Inc , of Atlanta, Georgia, to incinerate
approximately 7,000 cubic yards of waste oil
sludge contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and lead. In November 1986,
Haztech began setting up a full-scale, mobile
thermal processing system, owned by Haztech
but manufactured by Shirco Infrared Systems,
Inc. In early 1987, the SITE Program sought to
include this technology in the demonstration
program and to monitor and evaluate the
performance of this system during the cleanup
operation.
Community Relations. As part of
community relations activities for the removal
action, EPA distributed a notice to the local
community of the upcoming action and held an
openhouse at the town hall. The public
3-2
-------
expressed little interest in the planned removal
activities.
Demonstration Status. The first SITE
demonstration involving Haztech, Inc.'s Shirco
Infrared System was conducted at the Peak Oil
Superfund site in Brandon, Florida, on July 31
through August 5, 1987, during a removal
operation by EPA Region IV
In February 1987, SITE contractors began
preparing a demonstration plan, which included
the test and quality assurance plans. The main
components of the demonstration were to
evaluate the reliability of the performance of the
unit for the destruction of PCBs and validate the
manufacturer's claim that the lead compounds
could be converted from a soluble to an insoluble
form by the Shirco process In addition to the
standard trial burn tests, the demonstration
would attempt to establish a material balance
for the unit, identify products of incomplete
combustion (PICs), and assess reliability and
operational factors.
By June, the unit was operating at
approximately 100 tons per day and was ready
for performance testing. The on-site
demonstration and testing of the infrared
system began on July 31 and continued through
August 5, 1987. EPA SITE staff and contractors
were present to observe and collect data During
the week, the SITE project team conducted a
trial burn (three 8-hour runs), and extensive
sampling, including solid waste feed, stack gas,
furnace ash, scrubber liquid effluent, scrubber
water influent, scrubber effluent solids, and
ambient air. All operating conditions during the
runs were documented. By mid-October, the
phase of the removal action involving the use of
the infrared system was completed A total of
7,000 cubic yards of waste material had been
processed.
In addition to the sampling data described
above, the report on the demonstration will
document the entire mechanical operating
history of the system and the problems
encountered in operating this type of full-scale
system. This documentation should be
particularly useful to other users of innovative
technologies. A final technical report on the
demonstration is scheduled to be completed in
Spring, 1988.
Demonstration Two. Pilot-Scale System
Site Selection. The pilot-scale infrared
destruction system is a portable one-ton per day
version of the system described above, housed in
one trailer. The site identified for the evaluation
of the portable pilot-scale Shirco unit was the
Rose Township - Demode Road Superfund site in
Michigan. The Rose Township dump site is a 20-
acre site used to bury and dump drums of
various solvents and paint sludges. The drums
were removed in 1980, but the contaminated soil
contains high concentrations of organics, PCBs,
and metals, principally lead. EPA chose the Rose
Township site for the following reasons:
• Successful destruction of PCB-containing
waste provides a good indication of
thermal destruction efficiency
• The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, which has the lead for site
cleanup, is interested in determining the
fate of metals in thermal treatment
systems
• The draft feasibility study identified
thermal treatment as a potential remedy;
therefore, the demonstration will have
direct application to the final cleanup
remedy selection. (The Record of Decision
has since selected thermal destruction).
In addition, it is anticipated that this
demonstration was intended to determine
whether the treatment will fuse the lead in the
waste to the ash, thus reducing the potential for
lead leaching out of the ash over time and the
potential for lead emissions in the stack gas.
During the development of the
demonstration plan, EPA worked with the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to identify all regulatory requirements
that apply to this demonstration. The Michigan
Air Pollution Control Commission issued a
permit to Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc. to
proceed with the test program for the Shirco
unit. The Michigan DNR waived the
requirement for hazardous waste construction
3-3
-------
and operating permits based, in part, on the
short duration of the test.
Community Relations. On June 30 and July
1, 1987, the State of Michigan held an open
house, followed by a public meeting on both the
planned demonstration and the draft feasibility
study for the Superfund cleanup. Approximately
30 townspeople attended and expressed general
support for the demonstration. The public
comment period ended on July 29, 1987, with no
serious issues raised. EPA performed an
environmental review and the State of Michigan
reviewed the project through the
intergovernmental review. Thus, EPA and the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
decided to proceed with the planned
demonstration in the Fall of 1987. Public
visitors' days were held on October 31 and
November 4, 1987.
Demonstration Status. The demonstration
took place November 2-13, 1987. The pilot-scale
infrared thermal destruction unit treated about
ten cubic yards of contaminated soil The project
utilized a blend of the most highly PCB- and
lead-contaminated soils at the site. During the
first three days of testing, EPA conducted
detailed sampling of solid waste feed, stack gas,
primary furnace off-gas, furnace ash, scrubber
liquid effluent, scrubber water influent,
scrubber effluent solids, and ambient air
During the remaining six days of operation,
Shirco varied several operating parameters, and
EPA sampled furnace ash, furnace off-gas,
scrubber effluent, and stack emissions In
particular, the test investigated the effect of
varied operating conditions on the fate of lead in
the system. The stack discharge from the unit
was monitored closely to determine the
effectiveness of the technology and to ensure the
health and safety of individuals in and around
the project area. A final technical report on the
demonstration is scheduled to be completed in
June 1988.
American Combustion, Inc.
Technology
American Combustion, Inc. (ACI), has
developed the PYRETRON, an oxygen- air-fuel
burner, which can be fitted onto any
conventional combustion unit for burning
liquids or solids and sludges (See Figure 2).
Pure oxygen in combination with air and
natural gas is combusted in a proprietary burner
to destroy liquid hazardous waste. Solids and
sludges can be coincinerated when the burners
are used in conjunction with a rotary kiln or
similar equipment. The use of oxygen allows a
higher burning temperature (up to 4500°F as
compared to a maximum of 2400°F in a
conventional burner) without the addition of
excess air. Using less air is advantageous
because the nitrogen in air takes away heat,
puts a greater load on the air pollution control
equipment, and requires a longer retention time
in the combustor before the waste is fully
incinerated. The higher temperatures also
ensure more complete incineration of the wastes,
thereby increasing the destruction and removal
efficiency and reducing stack gas emissions. The
rate of waste through-put is also increased, thus
reducing unit costs.
The PYRETRON burner is a proprietary
design which employs advanced fuel injection
and mixing concepts to provide faster ignition
and more thorough burning of wastes. Burner
operation is computer controlled to automati-
cally adjust the amount of oxygen according to
sudden changes in the heating value of the
waste
Progress and Accomplishments
Site Selection. Prior to the initial SITE
solicitation, the American Combustion, Inc.,
PYRETRON burner was selected for research at
EPA's bench-scale facility at Research Triangle
Park. The proposal from American Combustion
was subsequently accepted and a demonstration
at the larger-scale EPA Combustion Research
Facility (CRF) in Jefferson, Arkansas, was
planned.
Contaminated soil from the Stringfellow
Acid Pit Superfund site in California is being
burned during the demonstration at the CRF.
The Stringfellow site is a 17-acre remedial site
in a California canyon that was used as a dump
for industrial wastes from World War II to the
early 1980s. The site contained about 20 unlined
ponds into which were dumped waste acids
3-4
-------
Figure 2. Pyretron ™ Oxygen Enhanced Burner
containing metals and organics. In addition to
some five dozen organic compounds, a large
amount of sulfuric acid was deposited at the site.
The surface liquids have been removed, but
contaminated soils and rock remain. Chemicals
from the site have leached into the drinking
water supplies of the nearby town, Glen Avon.
Wells have been installed at the site for
pumping water to an on-site treatment plant
California has the lead in cleaning up the site
and is considering thermal treatment; thus the
demonstration will have direct application to the
feasibility study the State is preparing
Community Relations. EPA and the State of
California have developed and distributed
information to the community to introduce the
SITE Program. At a Stringfellow public meeting
held in July 1987, EPA addressed the excavation
of wastes for the demonstration and the role of
the SITE project in the overall remediation
process. A public visitors' day was held on
November 20, 1987
Demonstration Status. The demonstration of
the PYRETRON burner began November 16,
1987, and is scheduled to be completed by the
end of January 1988 The objective of the
demonstration tests is to provide data to
evaluate three ACI claims:
1) The PYRETRON System reduces the
magnitude of the transient high levels of
organic emissions, carbon monoxide, and
soot ("puffs") that occur with repeated batch
charging of waste to the rotary kiln.
2) The PYRETRON System is capable of
acheiving the RCRA-mandated 99.99
percent destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) of principal organic hazardous
constituents in wastes incinerated at a
higher waste feedrate than for conventional
air-only incineration.
3-5
-------
Figure 3. Hazcon's Truck-Mounted Solidification/Stabilization System
3) The PYRETRON system is more economical
than conventional incineration.
It is anticipated a final technical report on
the demonstration will be completed in
July/August 1988.
Hazcon, Inc.
Technology
The Hazcon solidification/stabilization
process uses a patented nontoxic chemical blend
which Hazcon claims encapsulates organic
molecules and renders them ineffective in
retarding or inhibiting solidification. The wastes
are then mixed with pozzolans (such as fly ash,
kiln dust, or portland cement) and water to
immobilize and bind the contaminants into a
hardened concrete-like mass. The encapsulated
material attains compressive strengths between
1000 and 5000 psi. It is nearly impermeable,
denser than concrete, and only slightly porous.
The Hazcon process utilizes mobile field
blending units. These units, mounted on trucks
or trailers (See Figure 3), consist of soil and
cement holding bins, a chloranan feed tank, and
a blending auger to mix all of the components.
Water is added as necessary, and the resultant
slurry is transferred to molds.
Progress and Accomplishments
Site Selection. The Douglassville Disposal
Superfund site located in Union Township,
Berks County, near Douglassville,
Pennsylvania, was chosen as the demonstration
site for the Hazcon technology. The 50-acre site
is an abandoned oil recovery facility on the
floodplain of the Schuylkill River. The site
includes two large lagoons once filled with waste
oil sludges and subsequently drained and
backfilled with soil, an oily filter cake disposal
3-6
-------
area, an oil drum storage area, and an area
where waste oil sludge was land-farmed into the
soil. More than 250,000 cubic yards of soil may
be contaminated with a wide variety of
constituents including volatile organics, PCBs,
and lead. A Record of Decision was signed in
1985 approving capping and diking of a portion
of the site. However, additional engineering
work is ongoing to consider the possibility of
treatment.
EPA chose the Douglassville site for the
Hazcon demonstration for the following reasons:
• It is relevant to the remedial analysis of
the site.
• The developer requested a site containing
oily wastes.
• It provides an opportunity to demonstrate
fixation of both high concentration organic
and metal-bearing wastes
Community Relations. A public notice and
comment period was held during August with a
public meeting held on September 9, 1987. An
environmental review was performed and the
State of Pennsylvania was given an opportunity
to comment on the project during its
intergovernmental review The public comment
period ended with no significant comments
raised. A public visitors' day was held on
October 14,1987
Demonstration Status. The demonstration
took place October 13-16, 1987. The primary
objectives of the demonstration were to evaluate
reduced contaminant mobility and the integrity
of the solidified soil mass. Wastes from six areas
of the site were chosen for the demonstration
Five cubic yards of each of the six feedstocks
were processed, two to three feedstocks each day,
with the last day being an extended run
processing 25-30 cubic yards. Samples were
taken from the untreated soil feedstocks and
from the blended slurry for analysis after seven
days of curing. The solidified blocks were buried
and core samples were taken after 28 days of
curing. The samples were analyzed for soil
characteristics, teachability, permeability,
unconfined compressive strength,
microstructure changes, and contaminant
levels. A final technical report is scheduled to be
completed in May 1988.
Terra Vac, Inc.
Technology
Terra Vac, Inc., has developed a process for
the in situ vacuum extraction of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from soils and groundwater.
The major functional parts of the system are a
subsurface extraction well and a vacuum pump.
The capacity of the vacuum pump and the depth
of wells used at a site are dependent on the
subsurface conditions (i.e., soil type,
stratigraphy, groundwater depth) and the
chemical characteristics of the contaminants
(i.e., vapor pressure, solubility). The vacuum
induces a negative pressure gradient in the well,
which propagates laterally (10 feet to more than
100 feet depending on soil conditions),
volatilizing liquid and adsorbed VOCs (See
Figure 4). The gases migrate through the soil to
the area of lowest pressure (the well), where
they are extracted and pulled through
separation tanks and an air emission control
technology apparatus before being discharged to
the atmosphere. Various air emission control
technologies include activated carbon
adsorption, thermal oxidizers, catalytic
oxidizers, or simple dispersion stacks.
The process has been applied to a wide range
of volatile compounds such as chlorinated
organic solvents The process is capable of
removing volatile contaminants from the vadose
zone, the layer of soil below the surface and
above the water table. Terra Vac can use
existing monitoring wells, if they are properly
constructed, and Terra Vac's process can also be
used for groundwater recovery and treatment, if
necessary.
Progress and Accomplishments
Site Selection. The site chosen for this
demonstration is the Groveland Wells
Superfund site, Groveland, Massachusetts. This
site contains two municipal wells along with the
surface water and groundwater that supply
them. Vall'ey Manufactured Products Company,
Inc., a machine shop at the site, is one of three
3-7
-------
Figure 4. Terra Vac, Inc.'s In-Situ Vacuum Extraction Process
potential sources of soil and groundwater
contamination resulting from surface and
subsurface disposal of solvents and cutting oils
A two-acre area containing 2000 to 3000 cubic
yards of soil is contaminated with volatile
organic compounds, principally trichloro-
ethylene, with lesser concentrations of 1,2-trans-
dichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene
EPA chose the Groveland site for the Terra
Vac, Inc., demonstration because of the desirable
depth of the watertable and relevance to the
ongoing feasibility study. For example, most of
the contamination at the facility occurs above
the water table and beneath a concrete slab
which is being used as a storage platform. Thus,
as part of the feasibility study, EPA is
considering in situ treatments such as soil-
flushing and vacuum extraction because
excavation of soil beneath the facility would be
difficult due to space constraints, the proximity
of local residents to the site, and the potential for
health and safety incidents. The demonstration
is expected to provide data on the feasibility and
cost effectiveness of in situ vacuum extraction as
a possible alternative treatment of VOCs at the
Groveland site
Community Relations. On July 16, 1987,
EPA Region I issued a public notice of the
proposed demonstration and announced a public
meeting for July 29. Fifteen citizens and local,
State, and Federal officials attended; the
reaction was generally supportive of the
demonstration. An environmental review was
performed and both the State of Massachusetts
and Puerto Rico reviewed the project during the
intergovernmental review. A public visitors' day
was held January 15, 1988.
Demonstration Status. The demonstration
plan has been completed. The demonstration site
3-8
-------
STAGE
Figure 5. Circulating Bed Combustor Unit
preparation began November 30 and continued
until December 18, 1987. Field work resumed
January 4, 1988. The demonstration officially
began January 8, 1988, and is expected to last
through April. The demonstration is to provide
data to evaluate in situ vacuum extraction of
VOCs in the soil beneath a building at the site.
The test will measure the ability of the
technology to reduce the level of contaminant
concentration in the soil. Four extraction wells
have been drilled at the edge of the
contamination zone; three of the wells are acting
as barrier wells and intercept VOCs that would
normally be drawn to the main extraction well.
The vacuum extraction system is operating
continuously (24 hours per day). Samples
collected and analyzed daily include: soil gas;
process gas (from various locations of the
vacuum system unit); activated carbon, liquid
from the vapor/liquid separator; and stack gas
emissions.
COOLING
WATER
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.
Technology
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc., has
developed a circulating bed combustor (CBC), an
improvement over traditional fluidized bed
combustion because it yields improved
performance and simpler operation (See Figure
5). The improvements arise in part from an
increased fluidization of the bed in the
combustion chamber (greater turbulence) and
the reinjection of solids removed from the
combustion gas. Stated advantages over other
types of thermal units include lower
temperature of operation, reduced NOx and CO
generation, simplicity of solid/liquid/auxiliary
fuel feed, and better contaminant removal. In
particular, the system has achieved very high
destruction and removal efficiencies for
halogenated organics and other acid-containing
wastes.
3-9
-------
In the Ogden system, waste material and
limestone, a neutralize!", are fed into a
combustion chamber along with recirculating
bed material from a hot cyclone. The materials
travel at a high speed through the combustion
chamber to the cyclone, where solids are
separated from the hot gases, which pass
through a convective cooler and baghouse filter
before being exhausted to the atmosphere.
Progress and Accomplishments
Site Selection. Wastes from two California
Superfund sites, Stringfellow and McColl, were
originally scheduled to be taken to Ogden's
facility in San Diego for the demonstration. The
Stringfellow site has already been described.
(See American Combustion, Inc., Technology
description.) The McColl site, in Fullerton,
California, covers 9.5 acres, bordering both the
Los Coyotes National Park and a golf course
Pits at the McColl site were used to dump
asphalt, tars, and drilling muds from oil
production and refining from 1942 to 1962. The
resulting wastes are a mixture of very oily,
odorous substances and soils containing high
levels of organics and sulfur. The original
Record of Decision signed in 1983 recommended
off-site disposal but the State and EPA are
reevaluating the remedy options.
The State was already considering using the
Ogden combustor to run treatability tests on
these wastes as part of their feasibility study, so
EPA offered to evaluate these tests under the
SITE Program. Both of these wastes have a high
sulfur content. This acidic characteristic will
test the circulating bed combustor's ability to
neutralize waste, thus minimizing corrosion and
extending the unit's operating life. Wastes from
both sites have been excavated and are awaiting
shipment to the Ogden facility pending the
issuance of a local use permit from San Diego
Community Relations. Public comment
periods and hearings were held prior to issuance
of Federal, State and local permits. EPA and the
State of California developed and distributed in-
formation to the communities surrounding the
two Superfund sites to introduce the SITE
Program and address the role of the SITE project
in the overall remediation process.
At the McColl site, the EPA Regional office
meets periodically with a community action
group. At a May 1987 meeting, the Regional
staff discussed burning McColl waste during the
Ogden demonstration Once the local use permit
is issued to Ogden, the Region intends to develop
a fact sheet on the demonstration for the
community.
Demonstration Status On March 30, 1987,
EPA Region IX issued an RD&D permit to
Ogden to operate the CBC. The California
Department of Health Services has also issued a
hazardous waste facility operating permit to
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. On
December 8, 1987, the San Diego City Council
voted 7 to 2 to deny the issuance of a local
conditional use permit to Ogden. As a result, the
Ogden transportable CBC will be used for an on-
site demonstration at a Superfund site Site
selection is presently underway
Resources Conservation Company
Technology
BEST (Basic Extraction Sludge Technology)
is a patented solvent extraction-type process for
dewatering and deoiling hazardous sludges and
contaminated soils (See Figure 6). BEST
employs the unusual inverse miscibility
properties of aliphatic amines (soluble in water
below room temperature and insoluble above) to
break difficult-to-handle emulsions and
suspensions. Sludges that resist physical/
mechanical concentration are easily separated
by BEST into three distinct fractions:
dischargeable water, reusable oil/organics, and
dry, oil-free solids. Heavy metals are isolated by
conversion to hydrated oxides, which precipitate
out and exit the process with the solids fraction.
Progress and Accomplishments
Site Selection. During early 1987, the BEST
system was in use as part of a removal action at
the General Refining Superfund site near
Savannah, Georgia. EPA recognized this as an
opportunity to evaluate the performance and
reliability of the technology under the SITE
Program. Unfortunately, the removal operation
was completed in early March 1987, before funds
were available for the SITE evaluation
contractor. The developer is currently
3-10
-------
Figure 6. Basic Extraction Sludge Technology Field Equipment Program
negotiating the use of BEST for a remediation
action at another Superfund site which could
provide an opportunity for a technology
demonstration.
Community Relations. The BEST demonstration
has not reached the level of planning to warrant
community relations activities as no site has
been selected
Demonstration Status. On November 19,
1987, more data from the remediation action at
the General Refining Site near Savannah,
Georgia, were received. Based on the evaluation
of these data, Resources Conservation Company
was officially accepted into the SITE Program on
December 2, 1987
International Waste Technologies
Technology
International Waste Technology's (IWT) in
situ stabilization/solidification process utilizes
proprietary chemicals and a unique soil mixing
technology which precludes the need for soil
excavation. IWT claims that the process
generates a complex crystalline connective
network of organic polymers in a two-step
reaction. The first reaction is reported to produce
chemical bonding between the IWT chemicals
and the ions and neutral organics present in the
soil. The second reaction involves building
macromolecules which are generated over a long
period of time
The method for injecting the chemical into
the soil involves a widely used Japanese
technology which utilizes a hollow drill with
helical blades containing injection ports (See
Figure 7) The drill is advanced into the ground
to the desired depth. The chemical additive is
then injected at low pressure to prevent
excessive spreading and is blended with the soil
as the drill rotates The treated soil forms a solid
vertical column Soil columns overlap to ensure
all the soil is adequately treated The soil
surface is then covered with a layer of asphalt to
protect the solidified mass from rain and water
erosion.
Progress and Accomplishments
Site Selection. IWT's in-situ stabilization/
solidification process demonstration is
tentatively scheduled to occur during a test of
the process at the General Electric (GE) site in
3-11
-------
Figure 7. International Waste Technologies' In-Situ Stabilization/Solidification Process
Hialeah, Florida. About 7000 cubic yards of soil
are contaminated with PCBs which were
disposed of on-site. Because this is not a
Superfund site, but a private developer site, the
demonstration is currently awaiting a decision
by GE to proceed with the cleanup.
Community Relations. There have been no
EPA-sponsored community relations
activities for this SITE demonstration as this
is a private clean-up at a non-Superfund site.
Demonstration Status. Both EPA and IWT
are fully prepared to conduct the
demonstration. A delay has been encountered
because General Electric has not committed to
a project start date. The general objectives of
the demonstation will be to evaluate the
ability of the method to immobilize PCBs and
the uniformity and integrity of the in situ
solidified soil mass
Detox Industries, Inc.
Technology
Detox Industries, Inc., has developed a
biological process for the degradation of targeted
organic contaminants in a water/sludge/soil
matrix through the application of proprietary
naturally occurring nonpathogenic organisms.
The process involves the accelerated growth of
these microorganisms and eventual inoculation
into the soil or other matrix in which the waste
is contained Nutrients and catalysts are added
to the matrix to enhance the microbial activity.
Subsequent inoculations of microorganisms,
nutrients, and catalysts are added over time on
an as-needed basis. The result is a systematic
biodegradation of the contaminants over a
3-12
-------
Figure 8. Detox Industries Process Treatment Tank with Waste Being Treated
relatively short period of time (usually two to
four months). Detox claims that the process can
be applied on-site in soil or sludge as well as in
open tanks where depth of contamination makes
in situ treatment impractical (See Figure 8)
Byproducts of metabolic consumption are
carbon dioxide, water, and cell protoplasm. Once
the contaminants have been biodegraded, the
microorganisms die due to the lack of adapted
food source, leaving nonhazardous cell
protoplasm behind, which in turn acts as a food
source for the indigenous microorganisms
present in the matrix.
Progress and Accomplishments
Site Selection. EPA selected the United
Creosote Superfund site, a wood preservation
facility in Conroe, Texas, for the technology
demonstration. The company used a pressurized
treating process employing pentachlorophenol
(PCP) and creosote. Creosote was produced on
the site from the distillation of coal tar and is a
sticky substance consisting mainly of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The PCP was
not produced on-site but was stored in above-
ground tanks. The total site comprises 100 acres
and contains two large waste ponds which were
used to treat or dispose of the creosote wastes.
Leaching from ponds is causing a plume of
contaminated groundwater. The pond area has a
temporary soil cover installed by EPA to divert
runoff. There are approximately 85,000 cubic
yards of soil contaminated with PCPs, PAHs,
dibenzofurans, and chlorinated dioxins. The
wood preserving facility was demolished in 1975
and the property was sold, half for business
development and half for residential
development.
EPA Region VI is coordinating with the
Texas Water Commission on a nine-month study
to explore treatment technologies that may
permanently clean up the site Biodegradation
3-13
-------
and contaminant desorption (soil washing) are
two possible alternatives.
The contamination at the sites consists
entirely of organic chemicals which potentially
can be destroyed by the biodegradation
technique. It is anticipated that this
demonstration will provide EPA and the State
with useful and timely information for the site
cleanup.
Community Relations. The surrounding
community will be given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed demonstration in the
near future.
Demonstration Status. The treatability
study plan is undergoing final review. The
revised demonstration plan is scheduled to be
completed by the end of January 1988. An access
agreement for the treatability study has been
obtained, and this study is tentatively scheduled
to begin in February 1988. The demonstration is
planned for May through September 1988
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Technology
Westinghouse has developed two thermal
technologies to be demonstrated in the SITE
Program -- the Pyroplasma System and the
Electric Pyrolyzer.
The Pyroplasma System is based on the
concept of pyrolyzing waste molecules using a
thermal plasma field. The unit has been
developed to destroy liquid organic waste by
dissociation to its component elements. The
heart of the destruction system is a plasma torch
(See Figure 9). The system uses 800 kW of
electric power across a colinear electrode
assembly to produce an electric arc in a medium
of dry low pressure air. The intense energy
causes the air stream to become ionized,
producing a thermal plasma with temperatures
ranging from 5,000 to 15,000°C.
Liquid waste is injected directly into the
plasma where the hazardous molecules are
broken down to their atomic states in an oxygen-
deficient atmosphere. The atoms then recombine
according to chemical kinetics to produce
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, hydrogen
chloride, particulate carbon and small amounts
of carbon dioxide, ethylene, and acetylene. The
product gas is scrubbed with caustic soda to
neutralize and remove acid gas (HC1) and to
remove particulate carbon. The scrubber fluid is
used once. The remaining gas is drawn off by an
induction fan and flared. The unit can process 2
to 3 gallons per minute.
The entire system is process computer
controlled The computer updates temperature,
pressure, flow, fluid reserve, and other
performance parameters while providing
continuous online monitoring of the process. The
computer is programmed to shut down the
process in the event of deviation from set
parameters. Onboard monitoring of bulk gas
constituents in the off-gas is provided. The
entire unit is contained in a 48-foot trailer.
The Electric Pyrolyzer is a mobile system
designed to thermally destruct hazardous
organic wastes, without combustion (See Figure
10) The system operates a rapid transfer of
energy to waste materials causing dissociation
of organic molecules into individual atoms. The
destruction of wastes is accomplished without
oxidation and the associated generation of
products of incomplete combustion (PIC).
The Electric Pyrolyzer will accept a wide
range of waste types including both liquid and
solid waste. The prototype system is designed to
process 5 to 20 tons per day of solid waste
containing up to 10% (by weight) organics and
up to 25% (by weight) water. Input materials
may range in size from fine powders and sludges
to large solids (< 4 inches in diameter).
The Electric Pyrolyzer is designed to operate
at temperatures up to 3250°F. Residence times
for materials in the gaseous and liquid phases
are fully controllable by the operator. Thus, a
wide range of destruction efficiencies may be
achieved, depending on regulatory
requirements. The resultant products are
vitrified solids and clean off-gas.
Progress and Accomplishments
Site Selection. No Superfund site has yet
been selected for either demonstration.
3-14
-------
Process Gas
Heated process gas
Plasma column
Electrodes
Figure 9. Schematic of Westinghouse Plasma Torch
Demonstration Status. Currently,
Westinghouse has both units at their Waltz Mill,
Pennsylvania facility for further modifications
and testing. Westinghouse is also awaiting
issuance of an RD&D permit by EPA. EPA plans
to observe and/or collect data from the
Westinghouse testing Upon successful
operation of the units, EPA will select
Superfund sites for the SITE demonstrations of
each unit, which could occur in mid-1988 if
Westinghouse's testing indicates the units are
operational and ready for Field demonstration.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
Technology
The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and
EPA established a cooperative agreement in
1982 for the construction and testing of a mobile
plasma arc system for the destruction of liquid
hazardous wastes. The project consisted of four
phases:
Phase I Design and construction of the
unit by NYSDEC's contractor,
Pyrolysis Systems, Inc.
Phase II: Performance testing of the unit
at the Kingston, Ontario,
Canada test site.
Phase III: Installation of the plasma arc
system and additional
performance testing at a site in
New York
Phase IV: Demonstration testing as
designated by NYSDEC at a
New York hazardous waste site.
The first two phases were completed in
Canada by April 1986 Refer to the
Westinghouse Pyroplasma System (described
3-15
-------
Figure 10. Side View of the Westinghouse Electric Pyrolyzer
previously) for a description of the plasma arc
system.
Progress and Accomplishments
Site Selection. In accordance with Phase III
of the EPA/NYSDEC agreement, New York
State chose the Love Canal site for testing the
unit. Perimeter drains installed around Love
Canal have been intercepting underground
water (leachate) for treatment. Oily sludges are
separated from the leachate and stored on-site.
It is these sludges, containing 200 to 300
different chemicals, including dioxins and many
chlorinated organics, that will be destroyed in
the plasma arc unit.
Community Relations. Since 1982,
NYSDEC has held regular public meetings
involving Love Canal and has discussed the
plasma arc at several; one meeting was
dedicated solely to the use of the plasma arc on
Love Canal waste. In May 1986, NYSDEC held a
weekend open house where the community could
walk through the mobile plasma arc unit and
talk with State and contractor staff;
approximately 300 to 400 people attended The
NYSDEC has an office located at Love Canal,
with two full-time employees dedicated to
community relations. One of the office functions
is to publish regular notices and a quarterly
newsletter on site activities, including the status
of the plasma arc demonstration. New York has
chosen to follow the State Environmental
Quality Review Act which requires a public
hearing on this demonstration project.
Demonstration Status. In October 1986,
EPA accepted the plasma arc demonstration into
the SITE Program. New York has the lead in
cleaning up the site and has decided to meet all
substantive technical permit requirements,
including complying with RCRA, the New York
State air regulations, the New York State
Pollution Discharge Elimination System
regulation, and drafting an environmental
impact statement. EPA is assisting NYSDEC in
developing these documents. Based on receiving
the approvals, the demonstration is planned for
the Spring of 1988.
Site 002 Demonstration Project
Descriptions
SITE 002 Projects were accepted into the
SITE Program in September 1987, and site
selection is underway. EPA's Regional Offices
3-16
-------
have recommended sixteen sites to be considered
as demonstration locations.
Retech,Inc.
Retech, Inc., offers a technology that uses a
centrifugal reactor with plasma heat to
decompose organics in a mixed solid and liquid
feedstock. The solid components are melted and
cast or granulated for disposal. The volatile
compounds are vaporized and decomposed in an
afterburner heated by plasma heat in an oxygen-
enriched atmosphere. The off-gases from the
afterburner are.treated for removal of fine
particles and scrubbed.
During the process, solid and liquid wastes
are fed steadily through a hollow trunnion into
the spinning reactor well. A plasma torch, with
the arc transferred to a conducting spindle, adds
energy to the feedstock. The spinning motion
spreads out the charge; the plasma heat turns
liquids into gas, and solids into glassy or
metallic liquids. The temperature of the
condensing phase is so high that no combined
carbon can remain. If the melt is metal, it may
dissolve some carbon. The condensed phase
accumulates in the centrifugal reactor bowl.
When removal of the condensed phase is
desirable, the reactor is tilted by a hydraulic
mechanism and the "slag" is poured into a
cooling mold. The scrubber water contains
enough caustics to tie up halogens in the off-gas.
Almost all the scrubber water is recycled, adding
enough makeup to keep dissolved solids below
the saturation level.
C.F. Systems
C.F. Systems offers a solvent extraction
technology that uses liquefied gases near their
critical conditions as solvents to remove organic
constituents from sludge, solid, or liquid wastes.
The proposed solvents have lower viscosities and
higher diffusivities, allowing more favorable
rates of mass transfer than other solvent
extraction processes. The patented processes
include a combination of liquefied gas extraction
with vapor recompression and conventional
distillation to recycle the solvents and
concentrate the organic constituents in an
effluent stream. The effluent stream may
require further treatment prior to land disposal.
Soliditechjnc..
The Soliditech solidification process uses the
concept of microblending and micro-
encapsulating hazardous waste materials.
Microblending is used to thoroughly mix the
reagent, URR1CHEM, with the waste stream.
Microencapsulation occurs by cross-linking the
organic and inorganic particles during a five-
phase cementation process, coating the large
particles with pozzolanic materials, and by
sealing the matrix containing micropores and
spaces. The reagent formula can be modified for
the treatment of a specific waste thus optimizing
the chemical reaction and resulting character of
the solidified waste.
Chemfix Technologies
The Chemfix fixation/stabilization process is
based on the use of soluble silicates and silicate
setting agents. The combination and proportions
of reagents are optimized for each particular
waste requiring treatment. Three classes of
interactions can be described:
•A reaction between soluble silicates and
polyvalent metal ions, producing insoluble
metal silicates.
•A reaction between soluble silicates and
reactive components producing a gel structure.
•Hydrolysis, hydration, and neutralization
reactions.
The Chemfix process may be useful for the
reduction in toxicity of high molecular organics
(BNA and PAHs) and the immobilization of
metals.
Waste Chem Corporation
Waste Chem Corporation has developed a
mobile volume reduction and solidification
system, designed to decontaminate and solidify
liquids, sludges, or dried soils. The system
consists of a two-stage process:
1) A fluidized waste stream feed and an asphalt
stream are simultaneously fed to an
3-17
-------
extruder-evaporator unit. The waste-asphalt
mixture is discharged into a 55-ga!lon drum
where solidification is allowed to take place.
The extruder is heated indirectly causing
constituents to volatilize.
2) Organic volatiles are then scrubbed with a
caustic solution and condensed volatiles are
stored in a tank where further treatment is
provided by ozonation. Residues from the
ozonation tank as well as uncondensed
volatiles are filtered through carbon
absorption filters. These filters may need to
be incinerated prior to land disposal.
Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory
The Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory
has developed an in situ vitrification technology,
a thermal treatment process which converts
contaminated soil or sludge into a chemically
inert, stable glass and crystalline product.
Because the soil is not electrically conductive
once the moisture is driven off, a conductive
mixture of flaked graphite and glass frit is
placed among the electrodes to act as a starter
path. An electrical potential is applied to the
electrodes establishing an electrical current.
The graphite starter path is eventually
consumed by oxidation and the current is
transferred to the soil which is electrically
conductive in the molten state. As the vitrified
zone grows, it incorporates nonvolatile elements
and destroys organic components by pyrolysis.
The pyrolized products migrate to the surface of
the vitrified zone where they may oxidize in the
presence of oxygen. A hood is placed over the
processing area to confine any combustion
products. All gases are then drawn into an off-
gas treatment system. This process was
developed primarily for vitrifying nuclear waste
at the Hanford-Department of Energy facility in
Richland, Washington.
Sanitech,Inc.
Sanitech, Inc., has developed a technology
that uses ion-exchange-like materials to process
and selectively remove toxic heavy metals from
contaminated groundwater or surface waters.
The new materials are stronger and more
abrasion resistant than resins. They operate
over a wide pH range, have high absorption
capacities, and appear unaffected by most
organic contaminants and changes in
temperature or pressure.
A series of compounds, selective to one or
several similar metals, have been developed by
the substitution of electrophilic groups onto the
benzene ring of catechol-type siderophore.
Metal-contaminated water can be passed
through a bed of the coated particles, during
which time the metal is selectively removed
from the water. A method has been developed to
chemically attach the compounds to silica
spheres. In all past experiments, the selected
captured metal ions have been completely
recovered from the bed material by acid
treatment. The bed material has been fully
regenerated for reuse.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,
(Formerly Dorr-Oliver)
This technology offers a mobile biotreatment
technique for treating aqueous waste containing
hazardous and toxic organic substances. A fixed-
film fluidized-bed biological reactor contains
either an inert media or activated carbon as the
fluidized media. Pure oxygen is predissolved and
totally consumed in the process thus limiting air
stripping of volatile organics. The use of
activated carbon as the media in the Oxitron
Activated Carbon System improves the
treatment capabilities of the basic Oxitron
system. Components which are easily
biodegradable are rapidly converted to carbon
dioxide and water. Organic compounds are
adsorbed on the carbon, producing an effluent
consistent with conventional activated carbon
treatment. Compounds which degrade more
slowly, however, are eventually converted
biologically.
Zimpro Environmental Control Systems
Zimpro Environmental Control Systems
offers a powdered activated carbon treatment
(PACT) process using a biological treatment
process. In the PACT process, powdered
activated carbon is added to the aeration basin
at a dosage that varies depending on the
biodegradability and adsorptive characteristics
of the waste material. Treatment effectiveness
3-18
-------
depends on the carbon dosage applied and other
process parameters such as the hydraulic
retention time of the wastewater in the aeration
basin, the solids residence time of the carbon and
biomass, and the carbon concentration in the
aeration basin.
Motec, Inc.
MoTec, Inc., offers a three-stage aerobic
organic waste biodegradation process. In the
first stage, water and emulsifiers are mixed with
contaminated sludges or soils. In the second
stage, after the organics have been solubilized,
the mixture is transferred to a batch digester,
where acclimated seed bacteria are added and
aerobic biological oxidation occurs. The third
stage is a biological step where target
concentration levels of organics are achieved.
The technology is known as liquid/solids contact
digestion. The system uses portable tanks or
lined in situ earthen digesters.
MEASUREMENT AND MONITOR-
ING TECHNIQUES DEVELOP-
MENT
One of the components of the SITE Program
is the demonstration and development of new
and innovative measurement and monitoring
technologies which will be applicable to
Superfund site characterization. There are four
important roles for monitoring and
measurement technologies at Superfund sites:
(1) to assess the extent of contamination at a site
(remedial investigation and for the Hazard
Ranking System), (2) to supply data and
information to determine impacts on human
health and the environment (exposure and risk
assessment), (3) to supply data to select the
appropriate remedial action (feasibility study),
and (4) to monitor the success or effectiveness of
the selected remedy.
KFA has been involved with the
development and evaluation of monitoring
methodologies practically since its inception.
EPA monitoring research has focused primarily
on the application of existing technologies to
support its monitoring requirements. EPA has
been conducting research and development
projects concerning geophysical instru-
mentation, monitoring well design, sampling
strategies, site characterization, groundwater
flow and contaminant transport modelling, soil
sampling, and vadose zone monitoring, among
other areas.
With the enactment of SARA, EPA has been
supplied with a mechanism specifically aimed at
supporting monitoring needs at Superfund sites.
The Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada (EMSL-LV)
has been supporting the development of
improved measurement and monitoring
techniques in conjunction with the SITE
Program, with a focus on two areas:
immunoassays for toxic substances and fiber
optic sensing for in situ analysis at Superfund
sites.
Immunoassay Program
EMSL-LV's research on immunoassays for
toxic substances actually began prior to the
enactment of SARA. Laboratory researchers
were initially interested in the use of
biomarkers in exposure and risk assessment. In
FY 1987, two requests for information (RFI)
were published in the Commerce Business Daily
soliciting input from industry concerning the
State of the technology of biomarkers and
immunoassays. As a result of the responses to
the RFIs, two meetings were held in FY 1987
during which industry was invited to present the
status of their research
The application of immunoassays to
environmental monitoring is still in the
developmental stage and has received support
from the SITE Program. During the first year of
the SITE Program, EMSL-LV has initiated
efforts in the following areas:
• Participation in the development and
evaluation of a monoclonal antibody-based
immunoassay for pentachlorophenol.
Results of the initial testing of the
monoclonal antibody assay, although
promising, were not up to expectations
because of prevailing irreproducibility of
antigen binding to commercial plates.
Subsequent research indicates that this
problem can be overcome and will allow
3 19
-------
relative standard deviations of less than
10% for repetitive analysis.
• Submission of two requests for information
to the Commerce Business Daily. One
requested information concerning general
advancements in immunoassay
technology and biomarkers. A number of
innovative approaches were brought
forward from the commercial sector.
EMSL-LV has attempted to function as a
catalyst to encourage the interaction
necessary to advance the field, particularly
for field screening applications. The
second Request for Information was
directed toward advanced analytical
methods specifically for benzene,
ethylbenzene, toluene, and phenol. As a
result of that solicitation, a cooperative
agreement is being negotiated with
Westinghouse to develop monoclonal
antibody assays for these chemicals.
• Initiation of an interagency agreement
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
to develop monoclonal antibodies and
immunoassays of mutual interest for
monitoring programs
• Negotiation of an interagency agreement
with the California Department of Food
and Agriculture for EMSL-LV to develop
sample preparation techniques for
environmental matrices which will be
compatible with immunoassays. If
consummated, activities will begin by mid-
FY 1988.
• Negotiation of cooperative agreements
with scientists at the University of
California, Berkeley and Davis campuses,
to develop monoclonal antibodies and
immunoassays for selected compounds of
interest to Superfund for which the
commercial sector has shown little
interest.
Fiber Optics Program
EMSL-LV embarked on a program in 1982
to determine the feasibility of using fiber optic
sensing to monitor groundwater. The program
was a fragment of the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory sensor development
program, and it led to the development of
lightweight portable instrumentation, a sensor
for organic chloride detection, a sensor for pH
and, most importantly, an abundant interest in
and new ideas for other fiber optic based
chemical sensors. EPA is joined in fiber optic
sensor research by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National
Institutes of Health, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of Defense, Department of Energy,
National Bureau of Standards, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
industrial community.
In FY 1987, EMSL-LV applied SITE
resources to its fiber optic sensor program. The
fiber optic chemical sensor for chloroform (the
primary tri- halomethane component) that has
been under development for about three years
has been significantly improved over the last six
months. The latest modifications and calibration
studies have permitted measurement of
chloroform concentrations in soil gases above
contaminated groundwater with confidence that
the sensor response was linear between 2 and 12
ng/ml. The reproducibility at 6 ng/ml in the field
was + 10%, which exceeded that of the portable
gas chromatograph being used for verification in
the field. In addition, the sensor results were
obtained in only 10 to 20% of the time required
for the chromatographic results. The latest
modifications have resulted in a more sensitive
and rugged sensor which can be reliably loaded
with sensing reagent in about 10 seconds.
However, the sensor is presently limited to
making measurements in the gas phase.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER/
CLEARINGHOUSE
The technology transfer program initiated in
November 1987 to support the SITE program is
composed of three major components:
• a hotline, incorporated into the
RCRA/CERCLA hotline
• an electronic bulletin board, using the
office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) Technology Transfer
Bulletin Board
• a collection of reports, journals, and other
documents.
3-20
-------
The hotline provides callers with up-to-date
information on SITE projects, demonstration
schedules, and the availability of data on
demonstration results. It also serves as a
referral source for callers, providing them with
information on other resources available in the
area of innovative hazardous waste treatment
technologies. These resources include other
databases on relevant topics, such as the
Hazardous Waste Control Technology Database
and individuals with particular areas of
expertise.
The information available through the
hotline has also been placed on the office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Technology Transfer Bulletin Board. Users can
access the bulletin board through a personal
computer and obtain information on the SITE
Program and other databases.
Finally, the EPA Library maintains a
Hazardous Waste Collection which makes key
documents available through the EPA library
network. This Collection contains reports, books,
EPA policy and guidance directives, legislation
and regulations, periodicals, and a listing of
commercial databases containing hazardous
waste information. The database is accessible
using a personal computer, and provides
automated search and retrieval capability by the
following access points: keyword or subject
heading, abstract, title, author, sponsoring
organization or office, project manager's name,
or contract number. Documents related to
innovative treatment technologies have been
added to the collection and reports on SITE
demonstrations will be added as they become
available.
A one-page flyer describing the
clearinghouse has been distributed to potential
users at appropriate meetings and conferences.
The flyer outlines the three components of the
clearinghouse and methods of gaining access to
each.
The Clearinghouse on Alternative
Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies was
designed and initiated by an Implementation
Committee composed of representatives from
relevant EPA Headquarters, Regional offices,
and Laboratories. This committee will continue
to oversee the implementation of the
Clearinghouse and plan for its future activities.
3-21
-------
-------
IV. PLANNED ACTIVITIES
The goal of the SITE Program in Fiscal Year
1988 and beyond is to expand its scope by
furthering the development of technologies that
are at the proof of concept stage and require
additional developmental assistance to reach the
field demonstration stage. In addition, the
program will continue to support the evaluation
of technologies provided by private industry at
the pilot- and full- scale. Technologies developed
by EPA also will be accelerated to the field
demonstration stage.
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The first year of the SITE Program
concentrated its efforts and resources on the
Demonstration Program. Since SARA
Section209(b) requires initiation of at least ten
field demonstrations per year, this component of
the program will continue to be the primary
focus in the coming years. At this time, 20
developers have been accepted into the SITE
Program in the first two solicitation cycles, and
it is anticipated that between 10 and 15 new
ones will be added in 1988.
In 1988, site selection and other steps will be
undertaken for SITE 002 projects, and
demonstrations of remaining SITE 001 projects
will occur. Reports on the performance, cost and
applicability of these technologies will also be
published as the demonstrations are completed.
The solicitation for SITE 003 projects was
announced in January 1988. Under this
solicitation, EPA will permit co-funding of
demonstration projects for the first time. This
provision allows up to 50% cost-sharing by EPA
of the total estimated cost of the demonstration
not to exceed a total of $10 million per year or $3
million for any given project. To qualify, the
developer must demonstrate that it cannot
obtain private financing on reasonable terms
and conditions that is sufficient to carry out the
demonstration.
EMERGING
PROGRAM
TECHNOLOGIES
In FY 1988, the first Emerging Technologies
Program solicitation was issued. It is expected
that this solicitation, like the Demonstration
Program, will be issued annually in the future.
For 1988, projects will be selected that offer
solutions to critical disposal and treatment
problems at Superfund sites, have high potential
for the successful transition from conceptual to
demonstration stage, and show a major
commitment or capability by the developer to
commercialize the technology.
This Emerging Technologies Program will
foster the further development of technologies or
approaches that are not yet ready for
demonstration. The goal is to ensure that a
steady stream of more cost-effective technologies
will be ready to be demonstrated, thereby
increasing the number of viable alternatives
available for use in Superfund cleanups.
The Emerging Technologies Program will
deal with innovative technologies for recycling,
separation, detoxification, destruction, and
solidification/stabilization of hazardous
constituents and material handling
technologies. Candidate technologies must show
promise at the bench/laboratory scale. This
program will enable technology developers to
advance from the bench/laboratory to pilot scale
through cooperative funding with EPA.
4-1
-------
New candidate technologies will be added as
they become available if they appear to be
extremely promising and rank high on a
comparative evaluation using established
ranking criteria. Flexibility must be built into a
program such as this that deals with emerging
technologies.
The first solicitation for the program
appeared in the Commerce Business Daily on
September 17, 1987. The program was also
advertised in trade or professional journals,
newsletters, and at conferences. The Request for
Proposals was available on November 15. Pre-
proposals were due on December 15, 1987. A
total of 84 were received. Those developers
selected to prepare full proposals will have until
May 16, 1988 for submission.
The funding mechanism to be used for the
Emerging Technologies Program is the
competitive cooperative agreement. The
maximum length of the cooperative agreements
within this program will be two years.
Maximum funding per project will be $300,000
total and $150,000 per year. EPA will fund part
or all of an emerging technology project
development. The developer must show progress
after the first year before EPA will consider
funding for a second year.
Proposal evaluation criteria will incorporate
both technical and cost-sharing considerations,
such as technical description of the technology,
description of the proposed project, summary of
data results to date, estimated resources
(funding) needed for test project, company and
personnel experience, and value of technology to
Superfund program.
Thus, when proposals are technically equal,
the degree of developer cost sharing will affect
selection.
It is anticipated that there will be 5-10
awards in FY 1988.
MEASUREMENT AND
MONITORING TECHNIQUES
DEVELOPMENT
Future monitoring and measurement
technology efforts will include:
• Development and demonstration of
immunoassay and fiber optic sensor
technology.
• Identification of private entities which
have monitoring technologies to
demonstrate, specifically for monitoring in
the saturated and vadose zones.
• Consideration of identified technologies
that can be used to determine the physical
and chemical character of contaminants.
• Consideration of identified technologies
that can be used to measure and monitor
the stresses imposed by contaminants on
complex ecosystems at Superfund sites.
• Coordination with other ORD laboratories
to identify existing and planned research
which may be useful for environmental
monitoring at Superfund sites and
considered under the SITE Program.
Immunoassay research plans for FY 1988
include:
• Evaluation of monoclonal antibody-based
immunoassays for benzene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, and phenol.
• Continuation of the evaluation of the
immunoassay for pentachlorophenol
initiated in FY 1987.
• Depending on the results of the above
evaluation, demonstration of the
pentachlorophenol immunoassay at a
Superfund site.
• Compilation of a list of EPA priority
compounds for potential immunoassay
applications.
• Investigation of currently available
standard delivery systems to determine
potential use for Agency monitoring
activities.
Plans for fiber optics research include
developing it for aqueous phase measurements
in order to extend its application to in situ
groundwater monitoring. With adequate
improvements in sensitivity, other potential
applications for the chloroform sensor would be
monitoring trihalomethanes in drinking water.
4-2
-------
Other FY 1988 goals include the development of
several compound-specific sensors, for
compounds such as gasoline, aviation gasoline
(JP-4), and trichloroethylene.
The laboratory intends to integrate its
immunoassay techniques with the ongoing fiber
optics research. Applying these tools jointly in
Superfund site assessment will serve as a means
to cross check and validate data generated by
each method.
INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT
AND EVALUATION PROGRAM
Over the past few years, EPA's office of
Research and Development has been developing
alternative technologies for the destruction and
cleanup of hazardous waste. These efforts
complement the SITE program. Several of these
technologies are approaching the field
evaluation and demonstration stage and
research on these technologies has progressed to
a point where regional requests have been
received to apply these technologies to
Superfund wastes. After the technologies are
satisfactorily demonstrated on these Superfund
wastes, it is expected that technologies will be
commercialized and marketed by private
industry. The Technology Transfer Act of 1986
simplifies the government-industry partnership
necessary to bring these in house technologies to
market. It is expected that market risk will be
reduced and development accelerated by
conducting field evaluations and, in some cases,
field demonstrations under the SITE program
The SITE Program will also actively
disseminate information concerning these
technologies. Some of these technologies are
discussed below.
EPA Mobile Incinerator System
The mobile incinerator consists of
specialized equipment mounted on four trailers.
The first trailer contains the rotary kiln, in
which organic wastes are vaporized and
partially oxidized at approximately 1800°F with
a nominal retention time up to 60 minutes.
Incombustible treated soil/ash is discharged
directly from the kiln. The volatile organic
compounds or gases from the primary unit or
first trailer pass through the secondary
combustion chamber (SCO in the second trailer,
where oxidation is completed at a temperature of
2200-2400°F and a retention time of 2.2 seconds.
The flue gas exits from the SCC and is cooled
from 2200°F to approximately 190°F by a
venturi quench elbow. The gases then pass into
air pollution control equipment on the third
trailer. There, submicron- sized particulates are
removed by a wet electrostatic precipitator, and
byproduct acid gases are neutralized in an
alkaline scrubber. Gases are drawn through the
system by an induced draft fan, which maintains
an overall vacuum to ensure that no toxic gases
escape from the system. The cleaned gases are
discharged from the system through a 40 foot
high stack. The incinerator can process 9,000
pounds of contaminated soil or 75 gallons of
liquid per hour.
System performance is monitored through
instruments and automatic safety shutdown
controls. Additionally, the system is manually
monitored and thus can be shut down by an
operator.
Upon request from EPA Region VII, the
Mobile Incineration System (MIS) was
transported to the James Denney Farm site in
McDowell, Missouri, in 1985. The MIS
demonstrated a greater than 99.9999%
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) at a
trial burn on liquids and solids contaminated
with dioxins and has been operated over the past
two years for cleanup of dioxin-contaminated
liquids and soils at the site and from numerous
other dioxin sites in southwest Missouri. To
date, over 2 million pounds of solids and 18,000
gallons of liquids have been processed.
The unit is currently processing the
remainder of the dioxin-contaminated materials
at the Denney Farm site and may soon be
processing EPA's office of Pesticide Programs
cancelled pesticides, including 2,4,5-T/Silvex
liquids and solids.
EPA Mobile Soils Washing System
The Mobile Soils Washing System has been
designed for the extraction of a broad range of
hazardous materials from spill-contaminated
soils using water as the extraction solvent. The
system will: 1) treat excavated contaminated
4-3
-------
soils, 2) return the treated soil to the site and 3)
separate the extracted hazardous materials from
the washing fluid for further processing and/or
disposal. The prototype has been developed
utilizing conventional equipment for screening,
size reduction, washing, and dewatering of the
soils. The washing-fluid water may contain
additives, such as acids, alkalies, detergents,
and selected organic solvents to enhance soil
decontamination. The nominal processing rate is
4 yd-Vhr of contaminated soil for soil particles
less than 2 mm in size, and up to 18 yd3/hr for
soil of larger particle size.
EPA Mobile Carbon Regeneration
System
The Mobile Carbon Regeneration System
was designed for field use in reactivating spent
granular activated carbon used in spill or waste
site cleanup operations. Using the process of
adsorption in which the molecules of one
substance adhere to the surface of another, the
mobile carbon regenerator provides an
important means of removing dissolved organic
hazardous material from water. When
contaminated granular activated carbon (GAC)
is heated in the kiln, organic substances are
desorbed and volatilized. All vapors and gases
from the kiln flow through a duct into the
secondary combustion chamber where an excess
oxygen level is maintained. Temperature and
residence time are controlled to assure
desorption/detoxification of hazardous organic
substances, including chlorinated hydrocarbons.
off-gases are water-quenched and scrubbed with
an alkaline solution before being vented to the
atmosphere. Stack gases and used process water
are monitored.
KPEG Chemical Detoxification
The KPEG process has been developed as a
method to dechlorinate toxic organochlorine
compounds, i.e., PCBs, dioxins, and furans. In
the process, potassium hydroxide reacts with
polyethylene glycol to form an alkoxide. The
alkoxide in turn reacts initially with one of the
chlorine atoms on the aryl ring to produce an
ether and potassium chloride salt. In some
KPEG reagent formulations, dimethylsulfoxide
(DMSO) is added as a cosolvent to enhance
reaction rate kinetics.
The mobile field equipment comprises a
2,700-gallon batch reactor mounted on a 45-foot
trailer equipped with a boiler and cooling system
and a laboratory control room area.
The KPEG process has been used to detoxify
wastes generated at a wood- treating site in
Butte, Montana. This waste was generated as an
oily phase of groundwater and, after separation
by decantation, contained approximately 3%
pentachlorophenol (PCP) in a diesel-like oil. The
PCP-oil waste contained homologs of chlorinated
dibenzodioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated
dibenzofurans (CDFs) ranging from 147 ppb of
tetra- to 84,000 ppb of the octa-congeners. The
data indicate that after processing, all CDDs and
CDFs were destroyed to concentrations below
detection limits, which were, on the average,
less than 1 ppb.
In another application, the equipment was
transported to a Superfund site in Kent,
Washington, where it successfully processed
7,550 gallons spent solvent containing an oily
waste with a high moisture content (28%), total
chlorides of 20,700 mg/1, and a 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
content of 120 ppb. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
detected at levels higher than the detection limit
of 0.3 ppb in any of the processed batches.
More recently, a 40-gallon reactor was
evaluated on PCB-contaminated liquids and
soils at the General Electric Moreau site in
Glens Falls, New York. As a result, a 2.1 yd3
reactor was constructed and will be tested in
January 1988 at the U.S. Navy Public Work
Center in Guam on soil and sludge contaminated
with PCBs, ranging from 2000 to 4500 ppm. This
testing is a cooperative effort between EPA and
the U.S. Navy. Following successful testing of
the KPEG reactor in Guam, the unit will be
further tested and evaluated at the Wide Beach,
New York, PCB Superfundsite and eventually
will be used to treat PCB- contaminated oil and
soil in Butte, Montana.
4-4
-------
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER/
CLEARINGHOUSE
Over the next several years, the SITE
technology transfer program will move
increasingly toward immediate access to
information by telephone or computer linkage.
Users will be able to obtain answers to questions
concerning alternative technologies by
telephone or via computer hookup with
EPAdatabases. The information available will
include up-to-date status reports on individual
SITE projects and final reports on those that
have been completed, information on other
alternative technologies, and information on
relevant conferences and publications.
A major focus of Clearinghouse activities in
1988 will be outreach to potential users. A
brochure describing the Clearinghouse will be
mailed to potential users. In addition, EPA will
implement a feedback system to ensure that the
information provided by the Clearinghouse
meets users' needs, is timely, and is accurate.
4-5
r US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1988 548-010/80018
-------
-------
-------
-------
-]• "•- :^T ~~-TT -
-------
m
-o
c_n
-C*
O
en
i
co
co
o
o
3f* ^
a f 5
n 5 ^ u
o i _ 3
3 " c a
5 o S 5
^ C6
C» X
en o
a. X
Q. m
a n
J ^
? m
D U
2
CD
CO
o
o
------- |