United States       Office of Solid Waste and   Office of Research and
           Environmental Protection   Emergency Response    Development
           Agency         Washington DC 20460    Washington DC 20460

           Superfund                   EPA/540/5-89. 009 Mar 1989
SEPA      The Superfund
           Innovative Technology
           Evaluation Program:

           Progress and
           Accomplishments
           Fiscal Year 1988

           A Second Report to Congress
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
rECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

-------
                                            EPA 540'5-89 009
                                                 March 1989
      THE  SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM

       PROGRESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
                     Fiscal Year 1988
                 A Second 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

-------
                                            PREFACE
  This document is the second Report to Congress on the
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation  (SITE)
Program.   This  report  summarizes  the progress,
accomplishments,  and  results of the SITE Program
through 1988. Although this report is similar in format to
the first SITE Report to Congress there are some significant
differences.  The first Report to Congress covered the
progress of only three components of the program because
it was published prior to the implementation of the other
components. In addition, the report was published prior to
the  completion of  the  program's  first  technology
demonstration  so  no results were available.   Field
demonstrations for eight projects have been completed
since publication of the first report. The second Report to
Congress focuses on the completed demonstrations and
provides performance data and results. The process used
to assess the economic feasibili ty of each demonstration is
presented. Specific cost information for the completed
demonstrations will be presented in the Demonstration
and Applications  Analysis  Reports  as they  become
available.  This report also describes the progress of the
components that were initiated during the first year of the
program and the two components implemented during
this past year. Another difference between the two reports
is that  the  second  Report  to  Congress identifies
the impediments encountered during the first two years of
the program and describes the refinements that EPA has
implemented to address these problems and improve the
effectiveness of the SITE Program.

-------
                                          CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	vi


I. INTRODUCTION	1-1

A.   Statutory Authority	1-1

B.   Historical Perspective	1-2

C.   SITE Program Components	1-3
     1.   SITE Demonstration Program	1-3
     2.   Emerging Technologies Program	1-4
     3.   Technology Transfer Program	1-4
     4.   Measurement and Monitoring Technologies
         Development Program	1-4
     5.   Innovative Technologies Program	1-5


H.  THE SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM	2-1

A.   SITE Implemention Process	2-1
     1.   Selection of Technologies	2-1
     2.   Selection of Demonstration Sites	2-2
     3.   Negotiation of Cooperative Agreements	2-3
     4.   Community Relations Activities	2-3
     5.   Demonstration Planning Process	2-4
     6.   Reporting Results	2-4

B.   Demonstration Program Progress and Accomplishments	2-5
     1.   Completed Demonstration Projects	2-5
     2.   Other Demonstration Projects	2-14
     3.   Future Activities of the Demonstration Program	2-23
     4.   Estimating Implementation Costs	2-24

C.   Refinement of the Demonstration Process	2-26
     1.   Technology Selection	2-26
     2.   Site Selection	2-28
     3.   Demonstration Planning and Implementation	2-28
     4.   Reporting Activities	2-29
     5.   Management of SITE Projects	2-29
     6.   Financial Impediments	2-30

-------
in. OTHER SITE PROGRAM COMPONENTS	3-1

A.  Emerging Technologies Program	3-1

B.  Technology Transfer Program	3-2

C.  Measurement and Monitoring Technologies
    Development Program	3-6

D.  Innovative Technologies Program	3-7
APPENDICES:     1. Sample Technology Fact Sheets
                  2. List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Trade Names

-------
                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
     The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) directs the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to establish an "Alternative or Innovative
Treatment Technology Research  and Demonstration
Program" and to submit an annual  report to Congress
describing the progress and results of this program.  In
response to this mandate, EPA established the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) 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. The strategy and program
plan for the SITE Program was published in December
1986, and the progress and accomplishments of the pro-
gram were first reported to the United States Congress in
February 1988.

     This document is the second report to Congress on
the progress and results of the SITE Program. This report
presents a brief history of the program and the statute that
authorized its establishment.  The  report includes an
overview of the five components of the SITE Program,
and describes the process, progress, results, and future
activities for each of the components. The major highlights
for each component are listed below.

     SITE Demonstration Program. The demonstration
program was established to develop extensive performance
engineering  and representative  cost information on
innovative alternative technologies for use in remediation
decision-making for hazardous waste sites.

     The 30 technologies presently active in the SITE
Demonstration Program representfiveprocesscategories.
There are currently eight thermal, four biological, six
solidification/stabilization,  three  chemical,  and  six
physical technologies in the program.  In addition, three
technologies use combined processes to treat wastes. To
date, eight technology field demonstrations have been
completed, and the  results described.
     With each solicitation cycle there has been a trend
toward the selection of new technological processes
(particularly biological and chemical) and  technologies
combining unit processes to form treatment trains. In the
recentSITE-004soh'citation,theEPAtargeted technologies
capable of  treating specific waste types (i.e., soils and
sludges, and mixed wastes containing low-level radioactive
material), those with materials handling capabilities, and
those that can be combined to form treatment trains.

     Future efforts will continue to inform new technology
innovators  of the program and  to  encourage  their
participation. The focus in the upcoming year will be the
field demonstrations of approximately 17  technologies
currently active in the SITE Program. Further efforts will
be directed to expediting the report preparation process
and providing interim reports of demonstration data through
the Clearinghouse.

     This report also addresses some of the refinements
to the SITE  Demonstration  Program that EPA has
implemented  to enhance the program's success.  Five
areas of the demonstration process have been enhanced,
including  technology  selection,  site selection,
demonstration planning and implementation, reporting
activities,  and  the management of  SITE  projects.
Refinement of these areas has included the establishment
of policies, guidelines, and procedures designed to address
the impediments encountered during the first two years of
the program.  The report also addresses the   financial
impediments that impact the program over which EPA has
limited control.

     Emerging Technologies Program.  This program
performs laboratory pilot-and bench-scale evaluations of
technologies that are not yet ready for field demonstration.
This "feeder" program to  the Demonstration Program
assures that technologies can be tested early in  their
development.

     In September 1988, seven technologies were selected
as a result of the E- 01 solicitation. First-year funding for

-------
these projects totalled approximately $1,000,000.  Five
of these technologies are rapidly  progressing toward
bench- scale testing and work is underway on pilot-scale
units. The E-01 projects will be applying for second year
funding.

      The E-02 solicitation, issued in July 1988, focused
on technologies that can handle complex mixes of organic
and inorganic contaminants in sludge  and soils by either
in-situ or surface processes.  Seventeen offerers were
invited to participate in the Fiscal Year 1989 Cooperative
Agreement application process to be completedby January
1989. Approximately $ 1,000,000 will be available for the
first year of the E-02 emerging technology projects.

     Technology Transfer Program.   Comprised  of
numerous components that incorporate a variety of outreach
activities, this program disseminates   demonstration and
waste remediation data from all components of the SITE
Program to Regional and State managers of Superfund
cleanup activities, Federal Agencies, the  engineering
community, related industries, and the public.

     The success of this program is demonstrated by the
selection of Terra- Vac's In-Situ Volatilization technology
for remediation efforts in two  states.  Ten areas  of
outreach activities are described in detail.

     Technology transfer activities will continue for the
technologies that are currently in the program and will be
initiated for the new technologies entering  the program
under the SITE-004 and E-02 solicitations.

     Measurement  and  Monitoring  Technologies
Development Program. Designed to improve Superfund
site characterization efforts, this component of the SITE
Program is continually developing  new and innovative
measurement  and monitoring technologies.   Recent
research activities have focused on  immunoassays for
toxic substances and fiber optic sensing for in-situ analysis.

     The application of immunoassays to environmental
monitoring has resulted  in significant advances during
Fiscal Year 1988.  Cooperative and interagency agree-
ments with numerous universities, state agencies, and
private developers  were initiated.  Significant advances
were also  reported for the fiber optics development
program and are described.

     Future activities will continue to enhance Superfund
site characterization efforts.

     Innovative Technologies Program. Developed as
an  outgrowth of early  R&D efforts,  the Innovative
Technologies  Program promotes  transfer  of EPA
developed  technologies to the  private sector for use at
Superfund sites.

     Research on  several  technologies for the onsite
destruction and cleanup of hazardous waste, with emphasis
on the treatment of excavated soils is underway. To date,
seven technologies have been  tested, and several have
been evaluated in the field.  Three of these technologies
are ready  to be transferred to the private sector for
commercialization  and were featured at the Innovative
Technologies Program Exhibition in January  1989. This
event marked the beginning of EPA's initiative to phase-
out the Innovative Technologies Program. The program
will continue  to provide   guidance  and assistance to
commercial developers relative to identifying specific
needs  at  Superfund  sites,  to  identify  promising
technological   approaches not available commercially,
and  to transfer technology-related information  to
commercial  suppliers and EPA  Remedial Project
Managers.
                                                   Vll

-------
                                     I. INTRODUCTION
A.  STATUTORY AUTHORITY

   The Superfund Amendments andReauthorization 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" and
to submit a report to Congress annually on the progress
and results of this program. AsrequiredinSection311(e),
this  report presents the program's accomplishments
through Fiscal Year 1988 and is the second annual report
to Congress.

   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 measure-
ment and monitoring technologies. This program is called
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program. The strategy and program plan was published
in December 1986, and the progress and accomplishments
of the program were first reported to the United States
Congress in February 1988 (The Superfund Innovative
Technology  Evaluation  Program  Progress  and
Accomplishments: A Report to Congress; EPA/540/5-88/
001).

   The overall goal of the SITE 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." Specifically, the goal
of the program is to maximize the use of alternatives to
land disposal in cleaning up Superfund sites by encourag-
ing the development and demonstration of new, innova-
tive  treatment and monitoring   technologies.  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:

•  AvailableAlternativeTechnology.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 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  involved laboratory testing and is
   being developed for pilot-scale testing prior to field
   testing at Superfund sites.

The commercialization   process   for  alternative
technologies,  depicted in  Exhibit 1-1,  illustrates the
interrelationships of the phases of development and the
technology categories.

    The SITE Program assists technology developers in
the development and evaluation of new and innovative
treatment technologies, and thus enhances the eventual
commercial availability and use of these technologies at
hazardous waste cleanup sites as alternatives to land-
based containment systems presently in use. The program
consists of the following major objectives:

•  To conduct and monitor demonstrations of promising
   innovative technologies to provide reliable perform-
   ance and cost information for future site character-
   ization and cleanup decision-making.

•  To identify and remove informational impediments to
   the use of alternative technologies.

•  To encourage the development of emerging techno-
   logies.

   Section 121(b) of SARA states a preference for treat-
ment technologies that permanently reduce the volume,
                                                 l-l

-------
      Concept
                       Concept
                       Proven
          Technology
          Developed
          Demonstration
               Data
         Alternative
         Technology
           Proven
             and
          Available
            Lab Scale
           Development
  Pilot
Scale-up
Demonstration
Technology
 Transfer
                      Emerging
                                Innovative
                                         Available
Exhibit 1-1. Development process for alternative technologies.
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
technologiestobeusedatSuperfundsites. 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
technology.

   Recognizing  that  access to accurate, pertinent
information is essential to the acceptance and  use of
alternative technologies, Section 311(b)(8) also  directs
EPA  to ". .  . conduct a technology transfer program
including the development, collection, evaluation, coord-
ination, 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 technology
transfer  program.  As described in Section IIIB of 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 parties responsible for
remediation activities at hazardous waste sites.

   This report documents the progress made by the SITE
Program through Fiscal Year 1988.  It also summarizes
                   activities planned for the future. 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.

                   •  A summary of activities planned for the future.

                   B. 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 and the volume of hazardous waste being
                   generated. Land disposal is not the best solution for much
                   of the hazardous waste present at these sites. The need for
                   reliable, low-cost treatment solutions has been stressed by
                   studies and recent legislation. In addition to the preferences
                   for waste treatment contained in SARA, the Hazardous
                   and  Solid Waste  Amendments  (HSWA)  of 1984
                   (reauthorization  of the Resources Conservation and
                   Recovery Act) imposed additional  prohibitions on land
                   disposal of most hazardous wastes, effective August 8,
                                                  1-2

-------
1988.  These restrictions affect nearly one-third of all
hazardous wastes regulated by  EPA and will require
treatment of many Superfund wastes that previously may
have been  placed untreated into  land disposal  units.
Additional prohibitions on the second third of remaining
wastes will be imposed on June 8,1989. By May 8, 1990,
the disposal of all hazardous wastes  regulated by EPA
under HSWA will be restricted.

   The scientific and engineering communities recognized
that the  demand for  treatment  often  exceeded the
availability and capability of existing technologies. Studies
have  concluded that  research,  development,  and
demonstration (RD&D)  devoted to innovative cleanup
technologies were inadequate. The EPA Science Advisory
Board also recommended embarking on a comprehensive
research program to investigate more effective, permanent
solutions.

   In response to these growing concerns, EPA moved
aheadinearly 1986 to develop a technology demonstration
program.  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, prior to the enactment of SARA.

   EPA advertised its first solicitation (SITE-001) 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. 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.

C. SITE PROGRAM COMPONENTS

   There are a number of impediments  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  that have not  undergone  field-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 the following
five  components:

•  SITE Demonstration Program

•  Emerging Technologies Program

•  Technology Transfer Program

•  Measurement and Monitoring Technologies Develop-
   ment Program

•  Innovative Technologies Program.


1. SITE Demonstration Program

  One of the most important aspects of the SITE Program
is the evaluation of the  demonstrations  of  full-scale
technologies or pilot-scale technologies that can be scaled
up for commercial use. The Demonstration Program is
the primary focus of the SITE Program because these
technologies are close to being available for selection in
remediation of Superfund sites.  The major objective of
the SITE Demonstration Program is to develop extensive
performance  engineering  and  cost  information   on
innovative alternative  technologies so that they can be
adequately  considered in remediation decision-making
for hazardous waste sites. The demonstrations are designed
to provide information to assist 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 tech-
nology, 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 risks.
Demonstrations usually occur 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.

   Developers are responsible for demonstrating their
innovative systems at selected sites and are expected to
pay the costs to transport equipment to the site, operate the
equipment onsite during the demonstration, and remove
                                                  1-3

-------
the equipment from the site.  EPA is responsible for
project planning,  sampling and  analysis, data quality
assurance and quality control, report preparation, and
information dissemination. If the developer is unable to
obtain financing elsewhere, in some instances, EPA will
consider bearing a greater portion of the total project cost.
The demonstrations enable EPA to assess the perfor-
mance,  reliability, applications, limitations, and costs of
new and innovative technologies.  This information can
then be used in conjunction with existing data to select the
most appropriate technologies for the cleanup of existing
Superfund sites.  Currently, EPA is working with 30
technologies and eight field demonstrations  have been
completed.

   During the first two years of the SITE Program, EPA
has gained  valuable insight  into  management  and
implementation of all aspects of the SITE Demonstration
Program. The Agency has incorporated refinements in the
demonstration process, including establishing  policies,
guidelines, and procedures to  streamline and  improve
technology  selection,  site  selection,  demonstration
planning and  implementation,  and  preparation  and
dissemination of final reports.  These refinements, and
their impact on the program, are discussed in Section IIC.

2. Emerging Technologies Program

   This portion of the SITE Program carries out pilot- and
bench-scale evaluation of technologies or approaches that
are not yet ready for full-scale demonstration. Its goal is
to ensure that a steady stream of improved  technologies
will be ready to be demonstrated, thereby increasing the
number of viable alternatives available for use in S uperfund
site remediations. The Emerging Technologies Program
incorporates  innovative  technologies  for  recycling,
separation, detoxification, destruction, and solidification/
stabilization of hazardous  constituents and materials
handling technologies. Candidate technologies must show
promise at the bench/laboratory-scale. It is anticipated
that the emerging  technologies will "feed" into the SITE
Demonstration  Program for field  demonstration and
evaluation. The projects are cooperatively funded by EPA
and the developer, and in Fiscal Year 1988, EPA accepted
the first seven projects in the Emerging Technologies
Program.  These projects examine technologies ranging
from a constructed wetlands-based treatment technology
to laser-stimulated  photochemical oxidation, and are
described in Section IIIA.

3. Technology Transfer Program

   The Technology Transfer Program encompasses a
variety of public outreach and information dissemination
activities that support the SITE Program. These efforts
are integral components of the program and are essential
to its success. Dissemination of datafrom demonstrations
conducted under the SITE Program and access to existing
hazardous waste remediation data are the key to increasing
the use of alternative technologies at Superfund sites. The
overall purpose of the technology transfer activities is the
development of an interactive communication process
with those requiring up-to-date technical information and
assistance.

   The Technology Transfer  Program is  composed of
numerous components that incorporate  a  variety of
activities, including:

•  Alternative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies
   Clearinghouse.

•  SITE  Brochures, Publications, Reports, and Videos.

•  Pre-Proposal Conferences on SITE Solicitations.

•  Public Meetings and Demonstration Site Visits.

•  Seminar Series.

•  SITE  Exhibit at Major Conferences.

•  Innovative Technologies Program Exhibition.

•  Networking with Forums, Associations, the Centers of
   Excellence, Regions, and States.

•  Technical Assistance to Regions, States, and Cleanup
   Contractors.

   The  various activities  that   have occurred  and
publications that have been prepared under each of these
components of the Technology Transfer Program are
described in Section IIIB.

4. Measurement and Monitoring
   Technologies Development Program

   This component of the SITE Program is designed to
support  Superfund site   characterization  efforts by
furthering the development of innovative measurement
and monitoring technologies.  EPA  laboratories  are
exploring new  and innovative  technologies  that will
permit improved assessment of the extent of contamination,
characterization of contaminants, and  evaluation of
remedial/removal activities at hazardous waste sites. The
four goals for  effective measurement and  monitoring
technologies at Superfund sites include: (1) to accurately
assess the degree of contamination at a site, (2) to provide
data and information to determine impacts to health and
                                                   1-4-

-------
the environment, (3) to supply data for the selection of the
most appropriate remedial action, and (4) to monitor the
success/failure or effectiveness of a selected remedy.
Through the enactment of SARA, EPA has been provided
with a mechanism specifically aimed at supporting
monitoring technologies  at   Superfund  sites.   The
Measurementand Monitoring Technologies Development
Program  has  focused on two major research areas—
immunoassay s for toxic substances and fiber optic sensing
for in-situ analysis. The progress and accomplishments
of the research in these two areas are discussed in Section
IIIC.

5. Innovative Technologies Program

   Prior to initiation of the SITE Program in 1986, EPA's
Office  of Research and Development  had supported
research on several technologies for the onsite destruction
and cleanup of hazardous wastes.  Formerly called the
Innovative Development and Evaluation Program, the
Innovative Technologies Program is an outgrowth of
these early R&D efforts. The objective of the program is
to encourage private sector development by firms that are
willing to commercialize these EPA technologies for use
at Superfund sites. The program's goal is to facilitate and
accelerate the development of these technologies from
pilot-scale  to  full-scale  demonstration and  then to
commercialization.

   Commercial firms are currently being sought to enter
into an agreement with EPA to commercialize some of the
technologies. These agreements are now authorized by
the Federal  Technology Transfer Act of 1986,  which
makes possible  the EPA-industry partnership necessary
to bring these technologies to  commercialization.  It is
expected that the marketing risk in commercializing these
technologies will be reduced and development accelerated.

   There are currently seven technologies in the Innova-
tive Technologies Program.   In  an effort to  promote
commercialization   of  three of  these  innovative
technologies.EPA sponsored an Innovative Technologies
Program Exhibition in January 1989, where participants
were invited to view videos of the technologies in operation,
inspect the equipment,  and obtain  information on the
assistance available in commercializing these technologies.
The three innovative technologies featured at the exhibition
were the Mobile Carbon Regeneration System, the Mobile
Soils  Washer, and  the  Mobile  In-Situ Containment/
Treatment System.   Descriptions of these and the other
four innovative technologies in the program are included
in Section HID.
                                                  1-5

-------
                   II. THE SITE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
   Based on the emphasis placed on demonstrations in
Section 311 (b) of CERCLA, the Demonstration Program
has been the primary focus of the SITE Program. Now in
its third year, the SITE Program is providing data on
alternative treatment technologies necessary to implement
new  Federal and  State cleanup requirements  that are
aimed at permanent remedies rather than land disposal.

   EPA has developed implementation procedures to
ensure that the SITE Demonstration Program encourages
developerparticipation, gathers required data, and provides
adequate safeguards for human health and the environment.
This process includes the following major steps:

•  Selection of technologies for participation.

•  Selection of sites for the demonstrations.

•  Development and implementation of community
   relations activities.

•  Preparation of detailed plans for the demonstration.

•  Establishment of Cooperative Agreements with
   developers.

•  Demonstration of the technology.

•  Preparation of reports on the demonstration results.
A. SITE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

   The procedures developed and the activities that have
been performed under each of these major steps of the
SITE demonstration process are briefly discussed in the
following sections.

1. Selection of Technologies

   Technologies are accepted into the program through
an annual solicitation published in the Commerce B usiness
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; materials handling capabilities; application to
   hazardous waste site cleanup; mobility of equipment;
   capital and operating costs; advantages over existing
   comparable technologies; previous performance data;
   and identification of health, safety, and environmental
   problems.

•  Capability of the Developer.  Development of other
   technologies; completion  of field tests; experience,
   credentials, and availability of key personnel; and
   capability to commercialize and market the 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 plan.

   Three solicitation cycles have been completed.  These
have been titled SITE-001, SITE-002, and SITE-003. The
SITE-004 solicitation was released on January 6,1989. A
list of the technologies that have been accepted into the
SITE Program under the three solicitations is presented in
Exhibit II-1.

Selection of SITE-001 Demonstration Projects

   In response to the first solicitation in the Commerce
Business Daily in February   1986,  EPA  received
approximately 450requestsfortheSITEProgramRequest
for Proposal (RFP). The RFP  was made available on
March 15, and the deadline for responses was April 25.
EPA reviewed a total of 20 proposals by May 1986.

   In early July 1986, EPA notified the developers of the
status of their proposals.  Some were asked to provide
additional information or clarification of proposal elements
in August.   After reviewing  the responses,  seven
technologies were considered acceptable.

   A second method  used by  EPA to identify SITE
Program participants focused on planned or ongoing use
of alternative technologies at Superfund sites during
response actions associated with both removal andremedial
activities. Six additional technologies were brought in
under SITE-001 through this method.

Selection of SITE-002 Demonstration Projects

   On January 15,1987, EPA sent out approximately 400
SITE-002 RFPs to private developers who expressed an
                                                 2-1

-------
interest in becoming involved with the program.  The
SITE-002 solicitation differed from that of SITE-001 in
that the SITE-002 program included requests for pilot-
scale technologies as well as those at field 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.

    On June 29,1987, a letter was sent to all 29 developers
notifying them of the results of the review.  Seventeen
applicants were asked to address specific questions or
provide information pertaining  to their technologies.
Twelve proposals were rejected because they involved
technologies that were already proven as viable alternatives
or technologies that did not meet the definition of an
"alternative technology."  As a result of this process, 11
technologies were selected for participation in the SITE
Program, and the developers were notified in September
1987.

Selection of SITE-003 Demonstration Projects

    On January 16, 1988, EPA sent out approximately
800 SITE-003 RFPs to technology developers. Like the
SITE-002 solicitation, the RFP was open to technologies
at the pilot- or demonstration-scale. Responses were due
by March 8,1988. Preproposal conferences were held in
Cincinnati, Ohio, on January 29, 1988; San Francisco,
California, on February 1,1988;and Crystal City, Virginia,
on February 3,1988. Thirty-one proposals were received
and reviewed.  Eleven  technologies  were  considered
acceptable, and those developers were notified in May
1988.  Meetings were held with developers to address
specific questions on their technologies. Presently, two of
the SITE-003 technologies have been accepted in  the
program on an accelerated basis.

Selection of SITE-004 Demonstration Projects

    The RFP for the SITE-004 solicitation was announced
in the October 17,1988, issue of the Commerce Business
Daily.  The SITE-004 RFP is the first SITE solicitation to
be advertised in trade journals, and the announcement was
published in approximately 80 journals. The RFP was
made available on January  6, 1989.  The  solicitation
emphasizes  technologies  that  address  the  following
problem areas: (1) treatment of soils and sludges containing
organic and inorganic constituents, (2) materials handling
as a preprocessing operation, (3) unit processes used in
combination to  create treatment trains, (4) treatment of
large  volumes  with relatively low concentrations  of
organics and/or inorganics, (5) biological technologies for
treating organic contaminants in soils and sludges, (6) in-
situ treatment processes for soils and groundwater that
serve as alternatives to conventional pump and treatment
approaches to remediation, and (7) separation/extraction
of low-level radioactive waste material.

    Technologies that address  leachates,  wastewater,
groundwater, aqueous  material,  and air may  also be
submitted in response to the SITE-004 solicitation, but
these are of lower priority to the Agency at the present
time.

2.  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,
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 the technology.

•   Volume of waste.

    Variability of waste.

•   Availability of data characterizing the waste.

•   Accessibility of waste.

•   Applicability of the technology to site cleanup goals.

•   Availability of required utilities (i.e.,powerand water
    sources, sewers).

•   Support of community, State and local governments,
    and potentially responsible parties.

    The process for selecting sites for demonstration of
the  technologies begins  with  the Regional  Offices
submitting information on  the  type of waste(s) and
additional applicable site characteristics. This information
is screened and potential sites are given to the developers
for comments.

   The strengths and weaknesses of each site are compiled
based on considerations and preferences provided by the
                                                   2-2

-------
developer and four principal program goals. These goals
are:

•  Production of the most useful information on each
   technology's capabilities.

•  Expeditious implementation.

•  Production of information relevant to the specific site
   cleanup goals.

•  Involvement of EPA Regions and States in the SITE
   Program.

Selection of SITE-001 Demonstration Sites

   In October 1986, EPA's Regional Offices nominated
19 Superfund sites to be considered for the demonstration
of SITE-001 projects. EPA staff worked extensively with
the technology developers to obtain additional information
needed to match  potential sites with the technologies.
During the spring  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.
Eleven site selections resulted from this process and are
described in further detail in Sections IIA and B.

Selection of SITE-002 Demonstration Sites

   In November 1987, the Regional Offices were asked to
nominate Superfund sites  for the demonstration of 11
waste treatment technologies selected under SITE-002.
The 11 technologies for which sites were requested are
described in Sections IIB.l and IIB.2.

   Nine Regional Offices nominated 21 sites for review.
After careful  consideration  of the  advantages  and
disadvantages for demonstrations at different Superfund
sites,  meetings  with Regional and State staff, and site
visits, site nominations were made for technologies ready
for demonstration.

Selection of SITE-003 Demonstration Sites

   In an effort to  expedite  the technology/site matching
process for the technologies accepted under the SITE-003
solicitation, new procedures were incorporated.  Rather
than seeking site nominations for specific technologies,
information was collected on potential  sites prior to the
acceptance of technologies into the program. Evaluation
and matching occurs from this inventory of information as
technologies are selected.  In addition, the developers
were encouraged to suggest sites.

   For technologies in the SITE-003 cycle, candidate
sites have been discussed with the developers and efforts
are underway to find acceptable sites.

3. 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  with
technology developers. Applicants whose technologies
are selected  through the solicitation process enter into
Cooperative Agreements with the Agency and determine
the roles and responsibilities of both parties to carry out
specific projects. Usually, the developer bears the cost of
locating the technology onsite, operating the equipment
during the test period, and demobilizing the equipment
following the demonstration. EPA assists the developer
with project planning and site preparation, and pays the
costs  associated with sampling  and analysis, quality
assurance and control, evaluating the data, and preparing
summary reports.

   Section 31 l(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. DevelopersselectedfortheSITEProgram
that desire assistance are required to demonstrate that an
earnest effort has been made to obtain financing and that
a financial need exists.  To date, EPA has not encountered
a demonstrated need for providing financial assistance.

4. Community Relations Activities

   A well-planned community relations effort is an integral
part of the Superfund program, as well as the SITE
Program.   In  fact,  Section 311(b)(5) requires  the
establishment of a public notice and comment period prior
to the final selection of a demonstration site. The objective
of this community relations program is  to actively
encourage two-way communication between affected
                                                   2-3

-------
communities and government Agencies responsible for
cleanup actions.  The program enables local citizens to
have input to decisions regarding demonstration activities
so that the demonstration plan reflects and responds to
public concerns. At the same time, the community relations
program ensures that the community is provided with
accurate and timely information about the demonstration
and its progress.

    In designing a community relations program for a
particular   SITE  demonstration, EPA  focuses on  the
special concerns of the community. EPA has prepared and
distributed site-specific technology fact sheets, and  has
sponsored public  meetings.   Each Regional or State
Community Relations Office has been encouraged to hold
at least one informational briefing or public meeting in the
community.  Communication with the local community
is emphasized during the actual demonstrations.  It may
include site tours, workshops, an on-scene information
office, community meetings, and status reports.

   Specific  activities  have  varied  for  each  of  the
demonstrations. A more detailed description of community
relations activities associated  with  the  completed
demonstration projects is included in  the technology
demonstration descriptions in Section IIB.l.

5. Demonstration Planning Process

   After technologies and sites are selected, the next step
in the process is development of a detailed technology
demonstration, testing, and evaluation plan.  The plan
includes specification of all activities needed to ensure
that the information objectives of the program are met and
is included in the Cooperative Agreement between EPA
and the developer. For each demonstration, the following
must be addressed by the developer and EPA:

•  Evaluation program duration and schedule.

•  Site preparation requirements.

•  Detailed evaluation design.

•  Sampling and analysis program.

•  Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program.

      Preparation and implementation of a QA/QC
      Project Plan.

   -  QA/QC field and laboratory audits.
•  Health and safety requirements.

      Provisions for medical monitoring of operating
      and management personnel, if necessary.

   -  Safety training for personnel who will be in a
      restricted zone.

      Determination of the level of required worker
      protection (classification of outergarments as a
      function of the type of exposure).

   -  Establishment of zones of safety; "clean area"
      establishmentandmovementrestrictions in various
      zones.

      Decontamination of personnel outergarments and
      equipment.

      Emergency procedures.

      Supervision responsibilities.

•   Demobilization of equipment.

6. Reporting Results

   There are two major reports for each demonstration.
The first is a technical report documenting the performance
data resulting from the demonstration, and the second is a
report that evaluates the applicability of the technology to
other sites and wastes.

   The first report, entitled the Demonstration 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/dis-
advantages compared with available technologies. EPA
is responsible  for distribution of the report following
review and approval.

   Successful  demonstration of  a technology  at one
S uperf und site does not, by itself, imply that the technology
can and will be adopted for use at  other Superfund sites.
To enable and encourage the general use of demonstrated
technologies, EPA prepares a second report that evaluates
all available information on the specific technology and
the applicability  of each technology to other site
characteristics, waste types, and  waste matrices.  The
report, entitled the Applications Analysis Report, also
                                                  2-4

-------
provides cost estimates for these applications and identifies
cost-controlling factors when appropriate.

   Once results become available, the technology transfer
component of the SITE Program will provide technical
information to potential users in a timely manner. Details
on the overall  approach to technology transfer in the SITE
Program are presented in Section IIIB.

B. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
   PROGRESS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

   There has been a noticeable  progression toward the
selection of more innovative treatment technologies in the
SITE Demonstration Program. Many of the technologies
accepted  under the SITE-001 solicitation cycle were
modifications of available proven technological processes
(especially  thermal treatment  systems).    These
modifications were designed to: (1) improve the destruction
and removal  efficiency of the existing technology, (2)
decrease the operational  cost of the existing technology,
and/or (3) increase the applicability of the existing
technology to various wastes. Although some treatment
processes included in the SITE-002 cycle are conventional,
they are innovative in their ability to treat complex organic
waste streams. This trend toward new, more innovative
technological processes (particularly biological  and
chemical processes) and the combining of technologies to
form treatment trains is continued for the SITE-003
solicitation technologies.  These include a number of
innovative biological and physical treatment processes.
In the SITE-004 solicitation, the Agency has started to
target specific waste treatment problems at Superfund
sites such as the treatment of soils and sludges contaminated
with a mixture of wastes. The SITE-004 RFP solicited
technologies that address the treatment of soils and sludges,
the treatment of mixed wastes containing  low-level
radioactive material, materials handling, and unitprocesses
used in treatment trains.

   The 30 technologies presently  active  in  the SITE
Program represent five process categories. There are
currently eight thermal, four biological, six solidification/
stabilization, three chemical, and six physical technologies
in the program. In addition, there are three technologies
that usecombined treatment technologies to process wastes.
The technologies and their categories are listed in Exhibit
II-1, along with a description of the status of the
demonstration project.

1. Completed Demonstration Projects

   Field demonstrations for 8 of the 30  technologies
active in the SITE Program have been completed to date.
Descriptions of the demonstration activities and the results
of the completed demonstrations are presented below.

American Combustion, Inc.

   The PyretronTM oxygen-air-fuel burner, developed
by American Combustion, Inc., of Norcross, Georgia, was
demonstrated at EPA's Combustion Research Facility
(CRF) in Jefferson, Arkansas, from November 1987 to
January 1988. The primary objective of the demonstration
was to compare the performance of the PyretronTM with
a conventional air-based incineration system.  For this
demonstration, the conventional air burner of the CRF
rotary kiln system was substituted with the PyretronTM
oxygen burner. Eight comparison tests were conducted
using contaminated soil from the Stringfellow Acid Pit
Superfund site in California. Stringfellow is a remedial
site that was used as a dump for industrial wastes from
World War II to the early  1980s.  Soils on the site are
contaminated with waste acids containing organics and
metals.

   For the conventional system, the optimum feed rate
was 21 Ibs at a charging interval of 12 minutes.  Higher
feed rates served to  destabilize the process.  Oxygen
depletion in the conventional kiln resulted in flameouts,
excessively high CO levels exiting the kiln, and CO
breakthroughs from the afterburner. While attempts were
made to increase air flows to provide additional oxygen,
residence times were reduced below levels necessary for
complete combustion.  In  addition, gaseous emissions
were observed on  several occasions due to the loss of
negative pressures in the conventional kiln.

   During testing of the PyretronTM, the mass charge
size was maintained at 21 Ibs.  However, the throughput
rate was doubled by reducing the charge interval from 12
to 6 minutes.  Test results show that at this rate,  the
temperature control was maintained in both the kiln and
afterburner. Oxygen levels at the kiln exit were maintained
at sufficiently high levels, and CO levels were kept to a
minimum, with no indication of CO in  the stack.  In
another test, the size of the batch charge was increased by
60% to determine the capability of the system to handle
the so-called "puffs" that are often experienced immediately
following a batch charge. Results from this test show that
the sufficient oxygen concentration was maintained in the
kiln.  CO levels at the kiln exit were well within  the
capacities of the afterburner system, and once again there
was no CO emitted from the afterburner. In addition,
destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs) exceeded
99.99% for all tests.
                                                   2-5

-------
                         EXHIBIT  11-1.   STATUS OF TECHNOLOGIES  IN  THE  SITE
                                                                   PROGRAM
                                                          SITE-001  PROJECTS
                                               (SOLICITATION  DATE:  MARCH  1986)
      DEVELOPER
                          TECHNOLOGY
                        PROPOSED
                       LOCATION OF
                     DEMONSTRATION
                                                                               STATUS
1) American Combustion
   Technologies, Inc.
   Norcross, GA
| Pyretron Oxygen
| Burner
.' (Thermal)
                                          Combustion Research Fa
                                          (CRF)
                                          Jefferson, AR
                                          (Region 6)
                                             The draft Demonstration Report and
                                             Applications Analysis Report have been
                                             prepared and are being reviewed by EPA
                                             and the developer.
2) DETOX Industries, Inc.
   Sugarland, TX
3) HAZCON, Inc.
   Katy, TX
4) Haztech/Shirco
   Atlanta, GA
• Biological         j United Creosote Superfund
• Degradation       \ Site
• Process for Organicsj Conroe, TX
: (Biological)        {(Regions)
                                                                     —.. samples were collected from a wood
                                                                     treatment site in Texas. A bench-scale
                                                                     treatabihty study is under way.  Review of
                                                                     the demonstration plan and the QAPP is
                                                                     under way. The demonstration  is scheduled
                                                                     to begin in early 1889.
• Solidification/
• Stabilization
• Infrared
! Incinerator
i (Thermal)
5) International Waste
  Technologies
  Wichita, KS
6) Ogden Environmental
   Services
   San Diego, CA
> In-situ
• Solidification
i (Solidification/
• Stabilization)
i Circulating
• Fluidized
• Bed Combustor
• (Thermal)
                                          Douglassville Superfund
                                          Site
                                          Reading, PA
                                          (Region 3)

                                         5 Peak Oil Superfund Site
                                         j Brandon,  Fl_
                                         ?(Region4)
                                         G.E. Facility
                                         Hialeah, FL
                                         (Region 4)
                                                                       ills
                                             The final Demonstration Report is in
                                             clearance. Draft Applications Analysis
                                             Report is in review.and will be revised by
                                             December 19, 1988.

                                             The final Demonstration Report has been
                                             published and is available. The Applications
                                             Analysis Report is expected to be completed
                                             by March 1989.

                                            ; The draft Demonstration Report has been
                                            ! revised and the developer's comments
                                            ; are being incorporated into the revised
                                            : draft.
                                         (McColl & Stringfellow Waste    ! After an extended holding time on this
                                         at Ogden Facility and at McColl  I project, favorable legal action will now permit
                                         Superfund Site               j this demonstration to resume. A new
                                         San Diego, CA.               I schedule is being developed.
7)  Resources Conservation
   Co.
   Bellevue, WA


8)  Shirco Infrared Systems,
   Inc.
   Dallas, TX
                                         iNone selected
Solvent Extraction
(B.E.S.T.)TM
(Chemical)


Infrared           JROS.T,
ln/-in.»tnr         J MOSe II
                                                                    : Five possible demonstration sites are under
                                                                    t consideration.
                       : Incinerator
                        (Thermal)
     'ownship
Demode Road
Superfund Site
Rose Township, Ml
(Region 5)
9) Terra Vac, Inc.
   Dorado, PR
10) Westinghouse Electric
    Corporation
    Madison, PA
                                             • The Demonstration Report is being
                                             j reviewed and is scheduled for publication
                                             | and distribution in Februan/1988.  A
                                             | draft of the Applications Analysis Report
                                             ; has been completed and is undergoing
                                             ; review.
                                                                    i
                       : In-situ Volatilization j Valley Manufacturing
                       ! (Physical)         jGroveland Wells
                       ;                  ; Superfund Site
                       J                  SGroveland, MA
                                         ^(Region 1)
: Pyroplasma System
• (Thermal)
                                          Westinghouse Facility
                                          Waltz Mill, PA
                                          (Region 3)
                                             j The first draft of the Applications Analysis
                                             i Report will be completed November 1989 .
                                             _; The draft Demonstration Report is
                                             £ undergoing EPA review.
                                             EPA and Westinghouse will perform the
                                             demonstration under the Westinghouse
                                             RCRA RD&D permit at their Waltz Mill facility
                                             in Waltz Mill, Pennsylvania.
11) New York State Depart-  : plasma Arc
    ment of Environmental ) (Thermal)
    Conservation         ;
    Albany, NY          ;
                                          Love Canal, NY
                                         ' (Region 2)
                                              Requested to withdraw from the program in May 1988 due to contractual issues with
                                              the developer.
    Golden, CO
13) Westinghouse Electric
    Corporation
    Madison, PA
                       ; Combustor
                       : (Thermal)
: Electric Pyrolyzer
: (Thermal)
                                          Done selected
                                         i Westinghouse Facility
                                         ! Waltz Mill, PA
                                         J (Region 3)

                                              Requested to withdraw from the program in its letter of July 1987 due to
                                              indemnification issues.
                                             Classified as removed from the program on September 7,1988. Status will remain un-
                                             changed unless Westinghouse meets the following two conditions: 1) successful
                                             completion of DOE test and 2) demonstration of the readiness of the technology.
                                                                           2-6

-------
EXHIBIT 11-1. STATUS OF TECHNOLOGIES IN THE SITE PROGRAM
                     (CONTINUED)
                   SITE-002 PROJECTS

                 (SOLICITATION DATE: JANUARY 1987)
DEVELOPER
1 4) C F Systems Corporation
Waltham, MA
1 5) Chemfix Technologies, Inc
Metaine, LA
1 6) GeoSafe Corporation
Kirkland, WA
1 7) MOTEC, Inc
Ml Juliet, TN
18)Retech, Inc
Ukiah, CA
19)Sanitech, Inc
Twinsburg, OH
20) Separation and Recovery
Systems, Inc
Irvine, CA
21)Soliditech, Inc
Houston, TX
22) Zimpro/Passavant, Inc
Rothschild, Wl
TECHNOLOGY
TENTATIVE
LOCATION OF
DEMONSTRATION
Solvent Extraction ; New Bedford Harbor
(Chemical) • New Bedford Harbor, MA
• (Region 1)
Chemical Fixation/
Stabilization
(Solidification/
Stabilization)
Portable Equipment Salvage
Co Site
Clackamas, OR
(Reg ion 10)
In-situ ! Parsons Chemical Works, Inc Site
Vitrification 8 Grand Ledge, Ml
(Thermal, : (Regions)
Solidification/ •
Stabilization) |
Liquid/Solid
Contact Digestion
(Biological)
Plasma Heat
(Thermal)
Ion Exchange
(Chemical, Physical)
„.,,,„ ™™
Solidification/
Stabilization
Solidification/
Stabilization
Powdered
Activated Carbon
Treatment
(PACT)
(Biological,
Physical)
L A. Clarke & Son's
Superfund Site
Spotsylvama County, VA
(Region 3)
Montana Pole/Silver Bow Creek
Superfund Sites
Butte, MT
(Region 8)
Chisman Creek Site
York County, VA
(Region 3)
None identified
Imperial Oil Co , Inc
Superfund Site
Morganville Township, NJ
(Region 2)
None selected
STATUS
The demonstration at New Bedford Harbor, MA,
has been completed
The demonstration is planned for March 1989
A Michigan site has been selected for the
demonstration The demonstration is
expected to occur some time between
March and November 1989. This is a joint
project with State of Michigan
A two-week treatabifrty study on wastes is under-
way The demonstration is expected to start
in April 1989 and continue for 4 months
A Montana DOE research facility (and NPL
site) in Butte, MT has been identified as a
candidate site for the demonstration
Preparation of the demonstration plan is
proceeding Treatability tests are scheduled
for January in Ukiah, Ca.
Preliminary negotiations are being made to
acquire groundwater samples from this site
to conduct a treatabilrty study. Two
possible sites have been proposed for the
demonstration and are under review
Efforts to identify a demonstration site are
under way
The draft demonstration plan has been
reviewed by NJDEP, EPA technical staff,
and IOC The demonstration is under way
at IOC and is expected to be completed in
December! 988 Four samples of waste
from this site have been laboratory tested
The demonstration plan has been drafted
Treatabilrty tests are on hold pending final
decisions on the site. A sitehas been
identified in Region 2 for the demonstration
and planning is underway
t


•
•
•
•
7


•
'>'/•
/*


•
•
•
•
. —

•

23) Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc
Altentown, PA
24) Waste Chem Corporation
Paramus, NJ
Fluid Bed Biologica
System
(Biological)
None selected
_ 	 ___.
	 .,
Volume Reduction ! Woodland Route 532 Site
Solidification \ Woodland Township, NJ
| (Region 2)
v<





„ —




/ <^
'/.











$




•wvw»






/cF /
'A
///



— «,

— „


Requested to withdraw from the program in its tetter of September 20, 1988 due to
indemnification and site selection issues. A report of the treatabilrty study results will
be prepared
Requested to withdraw from the program in Us letter dated October 1 988 due to its inability to
compete economically with applicable technologies
                           2-7

-------
EXHIBIT 11-1. STATUS OF TECHNOLOGIES IN THE SITE PROGRAM
                     (CONTINUED)

                   SITE-003 PROJECTS
                 (SOLICITATION DATE: JANUARY 1988)
DEVELOPER
25) Biotrol, Inc
Chaska, MN
26) Biotrol, Inc
Chaska, MN
27) CBI Freeze
Technologies, Inc
Plainfield, IL
28) Chemical Waste
Management, Inc
Riverdale, IL
29) Detox, Inc
Dayton, OH
30) E 1 DuPont de
Nemours, Inc
Newark, DE
31) Freeze Technologies
Corporation
Raleigh, NC
32) Silicate Technology
Corporation
Scottsdale, AZ
33) Toxic Treatments, Inc
San Mateo, CA
34) Ultrox International, Inc
Santa Ana, CA
35) Weston Services, Inc
West Chester, PA
TECHNOLOGY
Biological
Degradation
(Biological)
Soils Washing
(Physical)
Physical Separatran
(Physical)
Rotary Thermal
Desorber (X'TR AX)
(Thermal)
Fixed-film Biological
Treatment
(Biological)
Microfiltration
(Physical)
Physical Separation/
Concentration
(Physical)
Stabilization/
Fixation for Organics/
Inorganics
(Solidification/Stabilization)
In-Situ Air/Steam
Stripping
(Physical)
Oxidatrve
Destruction Using
UV Radiation
and Ozone (Chemical)
Low-Temperature
Thermal Treatment (LT3 )
(Thermal)
TENTATIVE
LOCATION OF
DEMONSTRATION
MacGillis » Gibbs Co
Bell Lumber & Pole Site
New Brighton, MN
(Region 5)
MacGillis & Gibbs Co
Bell Lumber & Pole Site
New Brighton, MN
(Region 5)
None selected
None identified
None selected
None selected
Stringfellow Superfund Site
Stringfeltow, CA
(Region 9)
Tacoma Tar Pits
Tacoma, WA
(Region 10)
Annex Terminal Site
San Pedro, CA
(Region 9)
Lorentz Barrel and Drum Site
San Jose, CA
(Region 9)
Tinker Air Force Base
Oklahoma City, OK
(Region 6)
STATUS
A PCP-contaminated site in Washington is
being considered for the demonstration
site
A wood-preserving facility in Minnesota is
being considered for the demonstration
site
Four candidate sites have been proposed
for the demonstration and are under review
The demonstration plan is in preparation
The demonstrate plan is in preparation
The Cooperative Agreement has been
submitted The demonstration is expected
to occur in June 1989 This technology was
accepted into the program as a "fast-track"
project
EPA sent a letter requesting that treatability
studies be inflated by December 1 Four
candidate sites have, been identified and are
under review
The developer is preparing a Cooperative
Agreement application Two candidate sites
have been identified for the demonstration
and are under review
Four candidate sites have been proposed for
the demonstration and are under review Th<
demonstration plan is being developed and
discussions with Region 9 are underway
regarding the use of Strmgfellow
A tentative site has been selected Treat-
ability studies are planned on site wastes
during October-December 1989
A San Pedro, CA site has been chosen, and
a preliminary demonstration plan will
undergo review The Cooperative
Agreement application has been submitted
The demonstration is scheduled for
February 1989
The draft demonstration plan is under review
and the public comments that were received
are being reviewed
This technology was accepted into the
program as a "fast-track" project
A
.
.
.
.
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
f/f
.
.




•
.
•
•
•
0








•
•


r










y>











//












-------
    The Demonstration and Applications Analysis Reports
are expected to be completed by early 1989.

C.F. Systems Corporation

    OneoftheSITE-002projectparticipants,C.F.Systems
Corporation of Waltham, Massachusetts, has developed a
solvent extraction technology.  The technology uses
liquified gases (propane or carbon dioxide) as solvents to
remove organic constituents from sludges, solids, and
liquid wastes. The system uses vapor recompression and
conventional distillation  to  recycle the solvents and
concentrate the organic constituents.

    During the month of September 1988, C.F. Systems'
pilot-scale unit was tested on polychlorinated biphenyl-
contaminated harbor  sediments from the Massachusetts
New Bedford Harbor Superfund site. Public meetings
were held on June 13 and July 11, 1988, to discuss the
demonstration. The major objective of the demonstration
was to evaluate the ability of the  extraction system to
remove and concentrate polychlorinated bipheny Is (PCB s)
from the sediments.  Visitors' Days, held on August 26-
27,1988, were attended by 135 visitors who viewed the
technology in progress.

    The demonstration began on September 6,1988, and
continued through October 7,1988. During the demon-
stration, PCB concentrations and residence times were
varied for each of four tests.  Each test consisted of a
number of passes, or runs, through the pilot-scale unit.
These data were necessary for design of the full-scale unit
and for projection of final concentration of PCBs for the
full-scale unit. During the 30-day demonstration, 300 Ibs
of harbor  sediment containing PCBs and heavy metals
were  treated.  Preliminary data analyses indicated that
after six passes, or runs, a 96% reduction in PCBs in the
3,000-4,000 ppm concentration range occurred.  The
primary objective of this demonstration was to evaluate
the extraction of the organic constituents, including PCBs;
the heavy metals were not removed by the process, and the
developer did notclaim any metal removal by thisprocess.
Exhibit n-2. Visitors' day activities at CF Systems Corporation demonstration site at New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts.
                                                  2-9

-------
If necessary, such residual metals could be processed
through solidification/stabilization, a proven technology
for the metals (cadmium, chrome, lead, copper, and zinc)
at this site. Although these initial results are encouraging,
it should be noted that they are preliminary. It is anticipated
that all analytical samples will be processed by December
1988.

    The Demonstration Report is expected to be completed
by March 1989, and the Applications Analysis Report is
scheduled to be completed by April 1989.

HAZCON, Inc.

    The solidification/stabilization process developed by
HAZCON, Inc., of Katy, Texas, was demonstrated in
October 1987 at the Douglassville Superfund site, near
Reading, Pennsylvania. This process blends contaminated
soil or sludge with cement (or other pozzolans) and a
proprietary ingredient called Chloranan.  The result is a
concrete-like mass that immobilizes  the contaminants.
The demonstration site was selected on March 3,1987. A
public meeting was held on September 9,1987, following
a  30-day  public  comment  period,  to  discuss  the
demonstration project.   The  demonstration  began on
October 12 and was completed on October 16. AVisitors'
Day was held on October 14,1987, and 30 visitors viewed
the demonstration.  Approximately 50 cubic yards of
contaminated  soil were treated  during the  five-day
demonstration.
    The contaminated soil wastes at the Douglassville
site came from six sources:   one  each from two large
lagoons once filled with waste oil sludges and subsequently
drained and backfilled with soil; an oily filter cake disposal
area; an oil drum storage area; an oil reprocessing area;
and a waste land  farm.  Samples  were taken from the
untreated waste, the blended (treated) slurry after seven
days of curing, and core samples from the 28-day-old
blocks. The samples were analyzed for soil characteristics,
leachability,  permeability,  unconfined compressive
 Exhibit II-3. Casting of a concrete-like mass using the solidification/stabilization process developed by HAZCON.
                                                  2-10

-------
strength (UCS), microstructure changes, and contaminant
levels.   Results  of the demonstration indicated the
following:

•  The physical characteristics of the treated wastes were
   very good. The UCS of the solidified waste ranged
   from about 200-1500 psi.  Short-term durability test
   results were also very good, but the microstructural
   analysis seemed to indicate possible sample degradation
   in the future.  Permeabilities of the solidified waste
   were very low, in the range of 108 to 10' cm/sec, and
   considered excellent. There was a large increase in the
   volume of the solidified waste to approximately double
   that of the waste feed.

•  Stabilization of metals in  the waste was successful,
   with reductions of metal leachate concentrations greater
   than a factor of 100. Even with high concentrations of
   organics that interfere with the stabilization process,
   the metals were effectively treated.  According to test
   procedures, the solidified  mass was  subjected to a
   grinding process prior to  leach tests; the leaching
   concentrations of organics  (volatile, semivolatile, and
   oil and grease) were little changed before and after
   treatment.
   The Demonstration Report was completed in December
1988, and the Applications Analysis Report is scheduled
to be completed by March 1989.

Haztech, Inc.

   A100-ton per day Shirco Infrared Incineration System
operated by Haztech, Inc., was demonstrated at the Peak
Oil Superfund site in Brandon, Florida. During the 1950s,
oily wastes from the Peak Oil Recycled Oil Refinery were
deposited into a natural lagoon at the site that is located in
sandy soils with a shallow water table. The site was placed
on the National Priorities List (NPL) primarily because of
PCB and lead contamination of the local groundwater, in
addition to other hazardous materials that were suspected
to be present in the lagoon.

   The demonstration took place during a removal action
conducted under contract to Haztech, Inc., of Atlanta,
Georgia. The testing began on August 1,1987, and was
completed on August 4,1987, near the end of the removal
action.   During  the  four-day  demonstration  test,
approximately 360 tons of recycled oil refinery sludges
 Exhibit U-4. Shirco's Mobile Infrared System operated by Haztech. The system consists of (1) infrared primary furnace, (2)
 infrared secondary furnace, (3) emissions control system, and (4) process management and monitoring center.
                                                   2-11

-------
were treated. The DRE evaluation included a determination
of toxic materials in the feed waste as well as analyses of
all the effluent streams, including ash, wastewater, and air
emissions. These streams were analyzed for heavy metals,
organics, PCBs, dioxins, furans, NOx, and  inorganic
acids. Leaching tests were also performed on the ash. The
analytical results of the work indicate the following:

•  The PCB content of the waste feed was reduced from
   about 5 ppm to less than 1 ppm.

•  Although bench-scale research had indicated that the
   lead compounds in the ash would become insoluble
   because they would be complexed with  carbon, the
   ash could not be considered nonleachable, based on
   EP toxicity tests.
•  Paniculate emissions ranged from 171-358 mg/dscm,
   corrected to 7% 02.  This compares with  RCRA
   standards of 180 mg/dscm.  Although  it  exceeded
   RCRA pollution standards during the tests, the air
   pollution control equipment can be modified to meet
   RCRA requirements.
•  An economic  analysis  indicated that  during  this
   remediation action, the  cost ranged from $196/ton
   (when  unit was operating at 80% capacity) to $795/
   ton (when unit was operating at 19% capacity).

   The Demonstration Report was published on November
10,1988, and the Applications Analysis Report is expected
to be completed by March 1989.

International Waste Technologies

   In cooperation with General Electric, Inc., International
Waste Technologies  (IWT) demonstrated its in-situ
stabilization/solidification process at a closed electric
service shop in Hialeah, Florida. At that site approximately
13,000 square feet of ground is contaminated with PCBs
and lead.  IWT used Geo-Con, Inc.'s Deep  Soil Mixing
system to drill and blend waste material  with IWT's
patented bonding agent. The IWT process bonds organic
and inorganic compounds, creating "macromolecules,"
that are highly resistant to acids and other deteriorating
factors.
Exhibit II-5. Illustration of four construction steps in International Waste Technologies' in-situ stabilization technology. (1)
Auger initiates boring; (2) Boring is completed at a pre-determined depth; (3) Bonding agent is injected as the auger is
withdrawn; (4) Process results in stabilized treated soil column.
                                                 2-12

-------
Exhibit II-6. Geo-Con, Inc.'s deep-soil mixing system used by International Waste
Technologies' stabilization/solidification process.
   The demonstration site was  selected in September
1986. The major objectives of the demonstration were to
evaluate the ability of the process to immobilize PCBs in
the soil; determine the level of performance and reliability
of the mechanical equipment being  used; assess the
effectiveness of the process for land stabilization; and to
observe the integrity of the solidified soil over a period of
five years. The demonstration began on March 21,1988,
and was  completed on  June 6,  1988.  There  were 80
                    attendees   to   view    the
                    demonstration at the Visitor's Day
                    held on April 14, 1988. During
                    this two-week demonstration, the
                    stabilization/solidification process
                    was tested on two sectors of ground
                    measuring 200 square feet each.
                    The soil was blended and stabilized
                    in depths of 14-18 feet.

                       The Demonstration Report is
                    expected to be completed by April
                    1989,  and  the  Applications
                    Analysis  Report  should be
                    completed by August 1989.

                    Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.

                       To further test the effective-
                    ness  of  the  Shirco Infrared
                    Systems, Inc.'s Infrared Incinera-
                    tion System, a portable pilot (one-
                    ton per day) unit was evaluated at
                    the Rose Township-Demode Road
                    Superfund site in Michigan. The
                    remaining contaminated   soils
                    tested contained high  concentra-
                    tions of PCBs and metals, including
                    lead.  The primary objectives of
                    the project were  to  determine
                    whether treatment (1) destroys the
                    PCBs, and (2) reduces the potential
                    for lead to leach from the ash. The
                    unit was operated at the site for
                    approximately  two   weeks in
                    November 1987 and treated about
                    10 cubic yards  of contaminated
                    soil. The overall program consisted
                    of three extended test burn runs
                    conducted under the  normal
                    operating conditions of the unit
                    and a series of 14  shorter tests
                    conducted under several operating
                    conditions. These tests investigated
                    the unit's thermal destruction
                    effectiveness  under various
parameters.  Preliminary results  from  the tests indicate
that:

•   Estimated destruction and removal  efficiencies of
    PCBs exceeded 99.99%.

    Acid gas removal efficiencies approached 99% and
    paniculate emissions were below theRCRA standard.
                                                  2-13

-------
•   Under none of the operating conditions of those tests
    was there any evidence of a decrease in leaching
    potential for lead after treatment.

•  The system may be more economical  if the BTU or
   the waste feed is augmented by fuel oil, and if primary
   combustion chamber temperature is optimized.

•  Some PCBs and very low levels of tetrachlorodiben-
   zofurans  (TCDFs) were detected in the furnace ash
   when the primary combustion chamber operated at
   900°F instead of the design temperature of 1600°F,
   indicating that 900°F is not sufficient to fully decontam-
   inate the test soil matrix.

•  Some semivolatile and volatile organics were detected
   in the stack gas at near detection levels. These com-
   pounds may be byproducts of incomplete combustion.

  The Demonstration Report is scheduled to be completed
by February  1989, and the Applications Analysis Report
should be completed by March 1989.

Soliditech, Inc.

   Soliditech, Inc., of Houston, Texas, has developed a
solidification and stabilization process to chemically and
physically immobilize hazardous constituents contained
in slurries.  During the process, the proprietary reagent
URRICHEMTM is  dispersed throughout the  waste in
order to achieve complete blending of  all ingredients
(waste, pozzolan,  aqueous phase, and other additives).
The multiphase  cementation process  immobilizes
hazardous compounds  by cross-linking organic and
inorganic particles, coating large particles, and sealing
small pores and spaces. This sealing process significantly
reduces leaching potential. This technology can be applied
to a broad range of organic and inorganic slurries and to
bulk hazardous liquids prior to disposal.

   The Imperial Oil Co., Inc., site, an  abandoned oil
recycling facility  in New Jersey,  was selected as the
demonstration  site.  Soliditech conducted treatability
studies and  drafted a demonstration plan  that was
distributed to the responsible party, New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection, and other interested parties.
The field demonstration was completed in December
1988.

Terra Vac, Inc.

   From  January to April 1988, an in-situ vacuum
extraction process developed by Terra Vac, Inc., of Dorado,
Puerto Rico, was used to extract volatile contaminants
from soils at the Groveland municipal water supply in
Groveland, Massachusetts. In that area of the site, waste
oils and degreasing  solvents have  contaminated the
subsurface soils  with  volatile  organic  compounds
(principally  trichloroethylene) and  with  lesser
concentrations  of  1,2-dichloroethane  and  tetra-
chloroethylene. Mostof the contamination occurs beneath
a concrete slab that is used as a storage platform and above
the water table.

   The demonstration site was selected in April 1987, and
a public meeting to discuss the demonstration was held on
July 29,1987, following a 30-day public comment period.
The demonstration began on December 1,1987, and was
completed on May 2,1988. Seventy-five visitors attended
the demonstration Visitors' Day held on January 15,1988.
Four extraction wells were drilled at the edge of the
contaminated area.  Three of the wells acted as a sink
intercepting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that
would normally be drawn to the fourth well. The  fourth
well was used to measure the cleanup. Samples of the soil
gas, process gas, stack gas emissions, and liquid from the
vapor/liquid separator were collected.  Initial results
indicate:

•  A total of approximately 1,300 Ibs of volatile organic
   compounds were extracted.

•  Some shallow soil gas concentrations were reduced by
   more than 95%.

•  The extraction process  seemed to  work  most
   successfully in wet clay soils.

   The potentially responsible party  has selected Terra
Vac to cleanup the Groveland site after the demonstration
has been completed. The Demonstration Report is expected
to be  completed by April 1989, and the Applications
Analysis Report will be completed by November 1989.

2. Other Demonstration Projects

SITE-001 Technologies

   This section describes the progress of those SITE-001
technologies whose demonstrations have not yet been
completed.

DETOX Industries, Inc. (Texas)

   DETOX Industries, Inc., of Sugarland, Texas, has
developed a process  for degrading  targeted organic
                                                  2-14

-------
contaminants in a water/sludge/soil matrix through the
application of  proprietary  naturally occurring  non-
pathogenic organisms.   This process involves  the
accelerated  growth  of  these  microorganisms  and
inoculation into the waste matrix. The result is a systematic
biodegradation of the contaminants over a relatively short
period of time, usually two to four months.

   This technology is capable of treating liquids, sludges,
and soils.  Microorganisms have been developed to
biodegrade the following  organic contaminants: PCBs,
pentachlorophenols  (POPs), creosote, oil, phenolics,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlordane,
and myrex.

   Soil samples were collected from a wood treatment
site in Conroe, Texas, and a bench-scale treatability study
is planned. This site contains sludge pits that were used to
dispose of creosote wastes  and  has  been  selected for
DETOX's demonstration.
         Ogden Environmental Services

            A circulating-bed combustor,  developed by Ogden
         Environmental Services, destroys a variety of waste
         materials at temperatures near 1560°F (850°C). The unit
         employs simultaneous limestone injection, which captures
         acid gases and eliminates the need for a scrubber. The unit
         may be used to  recover heat as  steam or to produce
         electricity, hot water, or air.

            This technology may be applicable to  hydrocarbon
         wastes,  soils and lagoons containing hazardous and
         nonhazardous wastes, oily sludges, and munitions and
         chemical agents.  It is said to be capable of treating
         feedstock contaminated with PCBs, PCPs, halogenated
         wastes, chlorinated sludges, aniline still-bottoms, and oily
         and solvents sludges, among others.  It has also been
         applied,  during trial tests, to wastes such as  carbon
         tetrachloride,  freon,  malathion,  trichloroethylene,
         dichlorobenzene, aromatic nitrate, and PCBs.
                                                                                       STACK
       COMBUSTOR
         LIQUID
         FEED
                                                                       FLUE GAS
                                                                         (DUST)
                                                                         FILTER
FEEDWATER
  LOOP SEAL
                                                             ASH CONVEYOR SYSTEM
                                             COOLING
                                             WATER
Exhibit II-7. Process diagram of Ogden Environmental Services' transportable fluidized circulating bed combustor.

                                                  2-15

-------
   This technology is one of only seven incinerators
nationwide permitted to burn PCBs. Currently, EPA is
preparing with Ogden to transport their 16-inch field-
scale unit to the McColl  Superfund site in Fullerton,
California, for demonstration.  Ogden would first treat
PCB-contaminated soil samples from McColl using a
stationary pilot-scale unit located in La Jolla, California.
Legal proceedings caused an 18-month delay in the
demonstration. Following the pilot- scale demonstration,
a one-month field-scale demonstration at the McColl site
using a 100-ton per day transportable unit will take place.

 Resources Conservation Co.

   The  Basic Extraction Sludge Treatment (B.E.S.T.)
process, developed by Resources Conservation Co. in
Bellevue, Washington, is  used to de-water and de-oil
contaminated sludges and soils, including those containing
PCBs. The process uses differences in chemical solubility
of triethylamine (TEA) in water at different temperatures
to break waste into three constituents:  dischargeable
water, oil and 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.

   This technology has application to difficult-to-handle
oily  sludges, oils, or PCB-contaminated  soils  and
sediments. There are no special climatic restrictions to the
B.E.S.T. system, although some system modifications
may be required in extremely cold climates.

   The system has been used as part of a removal action
in Region 4 near Savannah, Georgia, and suitable sites for
a formal demonstration are under evaluation, but the
developer is seeking a site with accompanying funds for
remedial or removal action, and this has resulted in a delay
in site selection.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

   Westinghouse Electric Corporation has developed a
transportable pyroplasma arc unit that treats pumpable
waste at a rate of three gallons per minute. This technology
uses an electric arc in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere to
produce plasma gas at temperatures  from 9,000°F to
36,000°F (5,000°C-15,000°C).  These high temperatures
break down chemicals in the waste to their atomic state.
The  atoms  then  recombine  into  hydrogen,  carbon
monoxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen, paniculate carbon,
and carbon dioxide.  The product gas is scrubbed with
caustic soda to neutralize and remove acid gas and to
remove particulate  carbon.   The system  is computer
controlled, and the entire unit is contained in a 48-foot
trailer.

   Westinghouse has applied for an R&D permit for the
Waltz Mill facility near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and will
conduct  a demonstration at  their  facility.   Wood
preservative waste from a Superfund site in Maryland will
be transported to the Waltz Mill facility for a demonstration
in 1989.

Withdrawn SITE-001 Technologies

   In July 1987, Waste-Tech Services, Inc., withdrew its
fluidized bed combustor from the SITE Program due to
liability  issues.  Westinghouse Electric  Corporation
received a letter in August 1988 from the EPA, informing
them that their pyrolyzer technology would be removed
from the program because it was not ready  for a field
demonstration.   New York  State Department of
Environmental Conservation withdrew  its plasma arc
technology from the program in May 1988 because New
York State cancelled its plans to develop this technology
for use at Love Canal.

SITE-002 Technologies

   Site selection is nearly completed for all of the SITE-
002 projects. Preliminary sites have been selected for the
projects, and treatability studies are completed or planned
for most. Treatability studies test small samples of waste
from  the selected sites to  verify that  the  waste has
characteristics  appropriate  to  the  technology  being
demonstrated and to establish operational parameters.

Chemfix Technologies, Inc.

   Chemfix Technologies, Inc., of Metairie,  Louisiana,
has developed a proprietary process (CHEMFIX) that
stabilizes high-molecular-weight organic and inorganic
constituents in waste slurries. This fixation/stabilization
process uses soluble silicates, silicate setting agents, and
additives to crosslink with waste components to produce
a stable, solid  matrix.  The polymeric matrix  displays
properties  of good stability,  high melting point, and a
rigid, friable texture similar to that of a soil. This technology
is suitable for base, neutral, or acid extractable organics of
high molecular weight such as refinery wastes, creosote,
and wood-treating wastes.
                                                   2-16

-------
    Treatability studies performed on the synthetic soil
 matrix and site soils have shown promising results. A
 Superfund  site  in  Oregon has  been  selected  for  a
 demonstration scheduled in early 1989.

 GeoSafe Corporation

    GeoSafe Corporation of Kirkland, Washington, will
 demonstrate a technology developed by Battelle Pacific
 Northwest  Laboratory.  The  technology  is  an in-situ
 vitrification (IS V) process that thermally destroys organic
 constituents and converts contaminated soil or sludge into
 a glass and crystalline product.  Organic pollutants are
 destroyed by pyrolysis and  inorganic pollutants are
 immobilized within the vitrified mass. Both the airborne
 organic and inorganic combustion by products are collected
 in a  negatively pressurized  hood  which  draws the
 contaminants into an off-gas treatment system thatremoves
 particulates and other pollutants of concern.  The basic
 configuration of the IS V process consists of an electrical
 network with four electrodes driven/pushed into or placed
 in drilled augered holes in the soil or sludge, a capture
hood to collect fumes or gases from the setting and direct
it to an off-gas treatment system, and the off-gas treatment
system itself.

   This process has been demonstrated at full-scale on
radioactive wastes at the Department of Energy' s Hanford
Nuclear Reservation; pilot tests have also been performed
on PCB  wastes,  industrial lime sludge, dioxins, metal
plating wastes, and other solid combustibles and liquid
chemicals.

   The site currently  under consideration  is a former
pesticide formulator plant, Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.,
in Grand Ledge, Michigan. This project is a joint effort by
EPA and the S tate of Michigan. The surface and subsurface
soils of the site are contaminated with dioxins, pesticides,
and inorganic and organic compounds. It is estimated that
1,000 cubic  yards  of soil  will be  treated  during  the
demonstration, which is expected to start in April 1989,
and  operate for approximately two weeks.  Monitoring
efforts are expected to continue for one year.
                              Electrodes
                                    \
                Floating Layer
              (Rocks, Ceramics)
                 Off-Gases
                To Treatment
                                                Surface
                                              Combustion v.
                                             (Some Cases) ^VA
                                                            CD
                                            Nonvolatiles
                                           (Distribution,
                                           Incorporation)
                                                          Volatiles
                                                        (Dissociation,
                                                         Destruction)
                             Off-Gas
                            Collection
                              Hood
                 $
                  m
                          Subsidence
                       Due to Densification
                            Maximum Extent
                                of Melt
                          (Mixture of Soil and
                            Melt at Surface;
                            Size Depends on
                           Electrode Spacing,
                            up to 42' Deep)
                                                                 Denser Layer
                                                             (Ceramics, Pure Metals)
Exhibit n-8.  Schematic illustration of Geo-Safe Corporation's in-situ vitrification process developed by Battelle Pacific
Laboratory.
                                                   2-17

-------
MOTEC, Inc.

   MOTEC, Inc., of Juliet, Tennessee, has developed a
portable  high-energy  method  of  organic  waste
biodegradation, referred  to as Liquid-Solid Contact
Digestion (LSCD). During this process, sludges or soils
contaminated with organic compounds are first mixed
with water and emulsifiers. The waste then undergoes
aerobic  biological treatment in a batch digester and is
transferred to a polishing cell for final treatment. Following
the completion of the process, the supernatant from the
polisher is recycled to the primary contact tank, and the
sludge is treated in land farms  or reactors onsite. This
technology is applicable  for treating halogenated and
nonhalogenated organic compounds, PCBs, dioxins, and
pesticides. However, it is not suitable for inorganic-laden
wastes.

   Recently,  treatability  studies  were conducted by
MOTEC on soil samples from a wood-preserving site. A
three-month demonstration is planned for April 1989 and
will process 50-100 cubic yards of contaminated soil.

Retech, Inc.

   Retech, Inc., of Ukiah, California,  has developed a
thermal treatment centrifugal reactor that uses plasma
heat to decompose organics in a mixed solid and liquid
feed. The solid components  are  melted and cast or
granulated for disposal, while the volatile compounds are
vaporized and decomposed in an afterburner.

   Liquid and solid organic compounds can be treated by
this technology.  It is most suitable for soils and sludges
contaminated with metals and hard-to-destroy organic
compounds.

   A Department of Energy (DOE)  facility in Butte,
Montana, is being considered for a demonstration of this
technology in mid-1989.  Plans are being made for the
treatability testing, which will use a standard soil matrix.
During  the  demonstration, the  reactor  will  process
approximately 4,000 Ibs of waste at 100 Ibs/hour.

Sanitech, Inc.

   The  Waste Processing Unit developed by Sanitech,
Inc., of Twinsburg, Ohio, uses ion-exchange-like materials
to  selectively  remove   toxic  heavy  metals  from
contaminated groundwater or surface water.  During the
process, aqueous  waste passes  through a filter bed that
consists of coated compounds that are attached to an inert
carrier.  Acid treatment of the bed recovers the captured
metal ions and  regenerates the bed material.  This
technology can be used to treat contaminated groundwaters
or surface waters laden with toxic heavy metals such as
zinc, chrome HI and IV,  nickel, cadmium, lead, copper,
and mercury.

   This technology is very waste-specific and as a result,
six potential demonstration sites have been rejected to
date. Additional candidate sites are currently under review.

Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.

   This limestone-based technology has been developed
by Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc., of Irvine,
California. In this process, sludge is removed from the
waste pit and mixed with lime in a separate blending pit.
The fixation reactions occur over a 20-minute period and
are exothermic.  The temperature of the material in the
blending pit rises for a very brief time to around 100°C,
and some steam is evolved.  After 20 minutes, almost all
of the material has been fixed. The reactions are completed
over the next few days. The fixed material is stored in a
product pile until the waste pit has been cleaned, and then
the product is returned to the pit. Permeabilities of the
solidified waste are expected to be low, around 1010 cm/
sec.  The volume of the waste is only increased by 30%.
This process uses conventional earth moving equipment
and is,  therefore, highly mobile.   This technology is
applicable  to acidic sludges  containing at least  5%
hydrocarbons. It can also stabilize waste containing up to
    i organics.
   This separation technology results in a sandy granular
material and has been used previously in Sands Springs,
Oklahoma, as partof a private responsible party evaluation
of nonthermal technology alternatives. Efforts to identify
a site are under way.

Zimpro/Passavant, Inc.

   The wastewater treatment process  developed by
Zimpro/Passavant, Inc.,  of Rothschild,  Wisconsin,
combines biological treatment, powdered activated carbon
treatment (PACT™), and wet air oxidation to treat aqueous
waste.  This technology is applicable to both municipal
and industrial wastewater containing organic pollutants.

   Treatability studies of the initially selected site indicated
that the waste components were not amenable to biological
treatment. A site in Region 2 has been tenatively selected,
and planning efforts are underway.
                                                   2-18

-------
Withdrawn SITE-002 Technologies

   Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., withdrew from the
SITE Program in September 1988, due to liability and
indemnification issues. In October 1988, Waste Chem
Corporation notified EPA of its intent to withdraw from
the program.

SITE-003 Technologies

   Information has been solicited from Superfund Division
Directors, SITE coordinators, and technology developers
on Superfund sites suitable for the SITE- 003 technologies.
Demonstration sites have been identified for  many of
these projects, and initial planning activities are underway.

Biotrol, Inc.

   Biotrol, Inc., of Chaska, Minnesota, has developed a
soil washing process for soils contaminated with organic
wood treating chemicals. A mobile, 500 Ib/hr pilot-scale
unit has been tested at a wood-preserving site in Minnesota.
The  system is applicable to soils that are predominantly
coarse silts, sands, and gravel, with a majority of the soil
particles greater than 20 to 70 microns.

   The process is based on a series of physical separation
and washing steps using water as a carrier for the soil. It
achieves a significant volume  reduction by separating
washed soil from a concentrated contaminant stream
(clays and organic residue).  For the washed soil fraction,
contaminant removal efficiencies of 90 to 95 percent have
been achieved.

   There are two major waste streams: process water and
fine solids (less than 20 to 70 microns). The process water
is treated in a fixed-film biological reactor.  Treatment
alternatives for the fine solids could include biological
treatment, stabilization, solvent extraction,or incineration.

   The technology is designed to treat soil contaminated
with PCP up to 5,000 ppm; oil, grease, and creosote up to
5%;  and hydrocarbon petrochemicals up to 5 to 10%. A
wood-preserving facility in Minnesota contaminated with
PCP is being considered for the demonstration.

Biotrol, Inc.

   Biotrol, Inc., has also developed a system for the
treatment of toxic organics in wastewater streams.  The
organics  are degraded by  microorganisms  which  are
immobilized in  a submerged, fixed-film  bioreactor.
Compounds which may be successfully treated include
PCP, PAHs, and petroleum hydrocarbons.

   The  degradation is  accomplished primarily  by
indigenous microorganisms; however, the system can be
amended  with  specific  micioorganisms  with special
metabolic capabilities. For example, a bioreactor treating
a waste stream containing PCP — a compound normally
resistant to microbial degradation - can be amended with
an organism with the specific capability to degrade PCP.
Biotrol  has  previously  demonstrated  treatment  of
wastewater containing up to 90 ppm PCP. Removals from
95 to 99% wereachieved with a one hour hydraulic retention
time.

   The system  is primarily  applicable to treatment of
groundwater; however, treatment of process and lagoon
waters has also been demonstrated.  Biotrol has built a
mobile system  with a nominal capacity of 5 gal/min.
The  bioreactor  and  all  ancillary  equipment  are
mounted in an  enclosed trailer. A PCP-contaminated
site in the State of Minnesota  is being investigated
for the demonstration.

CBI Freeze Technologies, Inc.

   CBI Freeze Technologies, Inc., of Plainfield, Illinois,
separates contaminants from aqueous waste by freezing
the waste. This new technology operates on the principle
that when water freezes, the ice crystal structure naturally
excludes all contaminants from the water molecule matrix.
Thus, when water containing hazardous waste is cooled
below its freezing point, pure water crystallizes out and
may  be  physically separated  from  the  hazardous
constituents.  This technology uses a secondary freezing
concept, i.e., the refrigerant does not come into direct
contact with the contaminated solution and,  therefore,
does not have to be separated from the waste stream.

   CBI  Freeze hopes to demonstrate that its trailer-
mounted,  1,500-gallon/day unit  may be used to treat
aqueous wastes containing from 1-10% dissolved solids.
Liquid wastes containing ions, metals, organic compounds,
and pesticide rinse waters are suitable for this technology.
Four potential sites for the CBI Freeze demonstration are
under re view.

 Chemical Waste Management,  Inc.

   Chemical Waste Management, Inc., of Riverdale,
Illinois, has developed a mobile thermal desorption system,
called X*TRAX™, that has been designed to treat waste
                                                  2-19

-------
                                  Ice
                                  Separation
                                  Tank
                                                                     Product
                                                                     Water
     Centrifugal
     Pump
                                            Positive
                                            Oispla
                                            Pump
                      Positive
                      Displacement
                      Pump
lacement
P
stallizer
7-^
ntrifugal
mp
"% ^


t^J
&*



^«



\

Wash
Column

i






*-
-^—

Surge
Tank
X^-







-]
1
                                                                    I
   Reject
   Precipitate
           Reject
           Concentrate
Exhibit II-9. CBI Freeze Technologies, Inc.'s physical freeze concentration process.
 solids or sludges containing organics. The X*TRAX™
 system employs a process in which solids with organic
 contamination are indirectly heated, driving off the water
 and organic contaminants and producing a dry solid
 containing trace amounts of organic residue. The system
 consists of two parts:  the dryer trailer and off-gas trailer.
 The dryer is  an  indirectly-fired rotary kiln.   An inert
 nitrogen carrier gas is recirculated through the kiln to
 transport the volatilized water and organics to the off-gas
 handling system. In the off-gas handling system, the
 volatilized materials are condensed in a three-stage cooling
 and condensing train, removing most of the water and
 most of the volatile and semivolatile organics.   The
 nitrogen is then passed through a carbon adsorption system
 to remove the remaining organics.
    The X*TRAX™ is  designed  to remove organic
 contaminants from solids and sludges with a pH between
 5 and 11 and that contain less than 10% organics and 60%
 moisture.
 Detox, Inc. (Ohio)
    Detox, Inc., of Dayton, Ohio, has developed a new
 biological process that treats aqueous wastes that have low
 concentrations of organics.  The submerged fixed-film
bioreactor  relies  on  aerobic  microbial  processes to
metabolize contaminants that are present in a liquid waste
stream. The design of the system allows for the biological
treatment of liquids containing low concentration of readily
biodegradable materials to  discharge concentrations in
the low ppb range. A typical Detox system consists of an
above ground fixed-film reactor, supplemental nutrient
storage tank and pump, pump tank with pump, cartridge
filter, and an activated carbon filter. This technology is
typically used to treat groundwater and industrial process
waters but is also applicable to lagoon and/or pond waters.
The treatment is particularly effective in treating alcohols
and ketones that are not amenable to carbon adsorption.
   Detox is working with EPA to develop a demonstration
plan and a health and safety plan. Efforts are underway to
find a suitable site for a demonstration project using this
technology.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc.
   E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc., of Newark, Delaware,
has developed a  microfiltration process that  removes
heavy metals and suspended solids from aqueous wastes.
The  treatment involves a new  automatic filtration
                                                   2-20

-------
technology based on DuPont's new Tyvek microfilter
media and an Oberlin automatic pressure filter for un-
attended submicron filtration.  Wastes  are treated as
necessary by a basket strainer or bag filter to remove
debris and solids, by polymer flocculants and coagulants
to increase particle size, and by chemical or powdered
activated carbon treatment to remove soluble constituents.
The system  may be used to treat any liquid waste that
contains hazardous solids or soluble constituents that can
be precipitated or removed by powdered activated carbon
(e.g., heavy metals,  metal  oxides  and  hydroxides,
radioactive  constituents,  organic  precipitates,  waste
catalysts, and cyanide waste) and to treat wastes with total
concentrations of 25-25,000 ppm.  Solids are usually
limited to less than 5,000 ppm and particle sizes greater
than 0.1 microns.

   Two candidate sites for the demonstration are being
reviewed, and DuPont has applied for  a Cooperative
Agreement with the Agency.

Freeze Technologies Corporation

   Freeze Technologies Corporation of Raleigh,  North
Carolina, uses freeze crystallization to separate organics
and inorganics from aqueous and liquid wastes.  The ice
crystals may then be recovered and washed with pure
water to remove adhering brine contaminants. Residuals
generated by this process include treated water and con-
centrated  waste  sludge, typically 10% of the  original
waste volume. Freeze Technologies currently has a mobile
pilot system that will process up to 1,000 gallons/day, and
a 15,000-gallons/day unit is under construction.   This
technology will remove both organic and inorganic, and
ionic and non-ionic species from contaminated aqueous
streams.  It works on both surface waters and groundwa-
ters as well as directly on process wastes.

   Four candidate sites have been identified  for the
demonstration and are under review.  In addition, Freeze
Technologies is working with the State of California to
locate a demonstration site under the State's Innovative
Technologies Demonstration Program.

Silicate Technology Corporation

   Silicate Technology Corporation of Scottsdale, Ari-
zona, has developed a method to stabilize metals and high-
molecular-weight organics in soils and sludges. This new
technology uses a proprietary reagent, FMS silicate, to
selectively adsorb organic contaminants prior to mixing
the waste with cementing material to form a solid, high-
strength  mass.  The process can  use standard debris
screening and mixing equipment (such as cement trucks)
and has already been used at hazardous waste sites.

    According to Silicate Technology, this process may be
used to treat the following contaminants  in unlimited
concentrations:  metals, cyanides,  fluorides, arsenates,
and ammonia, and other organics as well as higher weight
organics, such as halogenated, aromatic, and aliphatic
compounds.

    The Tacoma Tar Pits in Tacoma, Washington, is the
Superfund site that tentatively has been selected for this
demonstration and extensive treatability tests are being
conducted.

Toxic Treatments (USA), Inc.

    Toxic Treatments, Inc. (TTUSA), of San Mateo, Cali-
fornia, has developed the Detoxifier, an in-situ method of
removing volatile and some semivolatile organics from
soil, using steam and heated air to strip the contaminants.
The transportable unit uses drills that have been modified
to allow for the expulsion of steam and air through the
cutting blades.  First, the soil is made permeable by the
blades on the drills. Then steam and air are injected to strip
the organic contaminants and carry them to the surface. A
shroud covers the treatment area to trap and transport the
stripped volatiles to the treatment trailer. The water and
organics  in the gases are condensed and the water and
organics separated and recovered.

    The system is most practical  for contaminants with
boiling points of less than 300-350°F. Thus, semivolatiles
with some vapor pressure at these temperatures will be
removed to some extent. The remediation depth must be
less than 27 feet, and the ground should contain no
obstacles larger than 14 inches in diameter.

    Work is proceeding toward using the Annex Terminal
site in San Pedro, California, for demonstrating the Toxic
Treatments technology in February 1989. The field treata-
bility study at this site has been completed and a report
submitted to the State of California.

Ultrox International

    Ultrox International of  Santa Ana, California, has
proposed the use of its UV/oxidation technology and
equipment to oxidize organic compounds found in ground-
water.  Ultrox's process uses combinations of ultraviolet
                                                   2-21

-------
                                                         EFFLUENT AIR
                                   DECOMPOZON™
                              CATALYTIC (X, DECOMPOSER .
                                                                                         TREATED
                                                                                         EFFLUENT
                                                                                          WATER
                                            SCOOLING WATER
                                                RETURN
                          »AIR COMPRESSOR

                    -AMBIENT AIR
Exhibit 11-10.  Ultrox International's U/V Oxidation process.
 radiation, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide to oxidize or-
 ganic compounds in water.  The final products of the
 reaction are salts, water, carbon dioxide, and possibly
 some organic degradation products.  The reactor is the
 center of the process, where UV radiation and oxidants are
 brought into close contact with contaminated water.  The
 approximate UV intensity and ozone/hydrogen peroxide
 dosages are determined from pilot-scale studies. The high
 reaction rate and treatment efficiency are attributed to the
 direct photolysis of certain organics by the UV light and
 the generation of hydroxyl radicals which have a high
 oxidation potential. The system has been developed and
 used to destroy explosives, pesticides, VOCs, PCBs, and
 other organic compounds in wastewater and groundwater.

    Ultrox has various size units available for  bench-,
 pilot-, and full field-scale commercial use. A proposed
 demonstration project on a Superfund site with contami-
 nated groundwater is scheduled to begin in early 1989.
Weston Services, Inc.

   Weston Services, Inc., of West Chester, Pennsylvania,
has developed the LT3 (Low-Temperature Thermal Treat-
ment) process used to decontaminate soil using a low-
temperature (indirect heat) process to volatilize the con-
taminants from the soil, followed by high temperature
incineration of the exhaust fumes in an afterburner. The
Weston unit can process eight tons/hour and is designed to
remove organic contaminants with high volatility. Much
of the research work on the technology was provided by
the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
(USATHAMA).

   The demonstration will be conducted at Tinker Air
Force Base, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  At this site,
leakage occurred where fuel and solvent storage handling
and transfer operations were located, and surface soil in
this area is contaminated from  spills and leakage.  At
Tinker Air Force Base, jet propulsion  fuel (JP-4) and
                                                   2-22

-------
Exhibit 11-11. Weston Services, Inc.'s Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3).
chlorinated organics such as trichloroethene (TCE) have
caused a contamination problem. Since the LT3 has low-
energy requirements, its innovation and commercializa-
tion should provide a cost savings in processing soils that
contain volatile organic compounds.

3. Future Activities of the Demonstration Program

   A major challenge of the SITE Program is to gain the
participation of firms that are innovators in the field of
hazardous waste treatment.  The program is interested in
evaluating individual technologies that are representative
of generic groups of technologies.  The program is not
interested in distinguishing between individual vendors.
Efforts will continue to inform new technology innovators
of the program and to encourage their participation. For
example, a status brochure is prepared prior to selected
conferences  and is  widely  distributed through a SITE
program exhibit in  an effort to reach new technology
developers. The announcement of the annual solicitation
for new technologies was published in 80 trade journals,
and sent directly to 800 potential developers.

   The next solicitation will be the program's fourth and
will specifically request those technologies that will address
the following problem areas:

1. Treatment of solids (including soils and sludges)
   containing either organic or inorganic constituents, or
   both.

2. Material handling  techniques  that improve pre-
   processing and post-treatment operation.

3. Unit operations used in combination to create treatment
   trains for specific wastes.

4. Treatment of large volumes of soils with relatively low
   concentrations of organics and/or inorganics.

5. Biological  technologies   for  treating  organic
   contaminants in soils and sludges.
                                                   2-23

-------
                                                                             AIR TO
                                                                           ATMOSPHERE
                                                                AIR CONTAINING
                                                                STRIPPED VOC'S
                                                                 COMBUSTION AIR
                                                                    BLOWER
Exhibit 11-12.  Schematic illustration of Weston Services, Inc.'s Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3) process.
Components include: (1) soil feed hopper; (2) thermal processor; (3) Holo-Flite screw; (4) trough jacket; (5) oil heating system;
(6) off-gas emission monitoring system; (7) afterburner; and (8) stack testing system.
6. In-situ treatment processes for soils and groundwater
   that serve as alternatives to conventional pump and
   treatment approaches to remediation.

7. Separation of radioactive materials from wastes.

   A major focus  in the upcoming year will be the field
demonstration of approximately 17 technologies that are
currently in the SITE Program. Efforts will be directed to
expediting the report preparation  process and providing
interim results through the Clearinghouse.

4. Estimating Implementation Costs

   SARA requires the SITE Program to determine whether
or not each demonstrated technology is "effective and fea-
sible." The selection of a cleanup solution involves trade-
offs  among  alternative criteria, including cost.  Thus,
SITE demonstrations must be concerned with both  the
engineering  and economic  aspects of implementing a
technology.  Estimating the range of each technology's
implementation cost is a  critical aspect of the SITE
Demonstration Program.

   Implementation costs include capital, and operating
and maintenance costs. An economic model for estimat-
ing the costs (dollars per ton) will be prepared for each
SITE demonstration evaluation treatment technology. For
example, in Section B.I, "Completed Demonstration
Projects" for the Haztech/Shirco Transportable Infrared
Incinerator Unit, an economic analysis  indicated that
during the remedial action, the costs ranged from $ 196/ton
(when the unit operated at 80%  capacity) to  $795/ton
(when the unit operated at 19%capacity). Thesetwocosts
represent the upper and lower ranges of the possible costs
per ton for the overall operations of the Shirco Unit during
this cleanup action. Details on the assumptions that were
used in preparing these cost estimates are provided in the
EPA report, Technology Evaluation Report SITE Pro-
gram Demonstration Test, Shirco Infrared Incineration
System, Peak Oil, Brandon, Florida.
                                                   2-24

-------
   The SITE Applications Analysis Report will provide
more information on projected costs for applying a specific
treatment technology to a potential Superfund removal or
remedial action, and a more comprehensive picture of the
technology's potential  for Superfund applications.  To
provide a completely objective perspective (or projection)
on unit cost estimates, a special section within the report
(unimpeded by the Agency's review process) has been set
aside to allow the vendor an opportunity to present claims
regarding the process, including the vendor's own cost
projections.

Implementation Costs Methodology

   An estimated range  of potential costs is necessary to
compare the effectiveness of one technology with an-
other.  While cost alone will not be the sole criteria for
accepting or rejecting any technology, relative costs will
be critical.   The foundation for the SITE economics
methodology is based on standard cost engineering ap-
proaches used for developing cost estimates of industrial
processes.

   The most important part of the cost estimating process
is selecting those assumptions that will serve as the basis
for the final estimate. It is essential that the basis for the
cost estimates and the assumptions made in deriving these
estimates are clearly stated. One approach to estimating
implementation costs would be to standardize each of the
SITE cost analyses around a typical cleanup scenario.
However, this method was ruled out due to the tremendous
variability in the size and composition of Superfund sites.
No economic analysis can hope to provide cost figures
that take into account all of the operating parameters that
ultimately impact cost, but good economic analysis in-
sures that those assumptions that form the basis for the
estimate are explicitly (and clearly) stated.

   Implementation costs will be presented in a format that
offers a simple framework for presenting assumptions.
Costs will be partitioned into categories, each reflecting
typical cleanup activities encountered on Superfund site.
This forces key assumptions within each category to be
explicitly stated. The ultimate goal is to provide the reader
with sufficient background information to allow an
independent reconstruction of the estimates. Individual
analysts can easily modify the assumptions and tailor the
economic analysis to fit their own unique site and waste
conditions. More important, readers will be able to use the
framework as a tool to enhance technology comparisons.
   The 12 cost categories presented below represent costs
within specific activity-related groups.

•  Site Preparation Costs -including site design and lay-
   out, surveys and site investigations, legal searches,
   access rights and roads, preparations for support facili-
   ties, decontamination  facilities, utility connections,
   and auxiliary buildings.

•  Permitting and ReeulatoryCost5~mclu
-------
•  Analytical Costs—including laboratory analyses for
   operations and environmental monitoring.

•  Facility Modification.  Repair, and  Replacement
   Casts-including design adjustments, facility modifi-
   cations, scheduled maintenance, and equipment re-
   placement

•  Site Demobilization Coste-including shutdown, site
   cleanup and restoration, permanent storage costs, and
   site security.

   While these categories encompass the typical opera-
tions associated with Superfund cleanups, they may not be
applicable to all SITE technologies. Data regarding a
given cost category may be unavailable, unsubstantiated,
or even irrelevant.  By focusing on these 12 specific
categories, the analyst must make a conscious effort to
note the omission of data within any one category. Thus,
the reader will not be led to false conclusions and will be
able to make appropriate adjustments when conducting
relative cost comparisons.

   This approach differs from traditional cost engineer-
ing practice in that costs are no longer placed into strict
capital and operating cost categories.  While that has
proven to be a useful approach for conducting design-
level cost estimates, it is an approach that makes it more
difficult to detect the omission of critical cost compo-
nents.  In addition, grouping of related cost items into
logical categories facilitates the comparison of implemen-
tation costs among different technologies.

   The final step in estimating implementation costs for a
technology is to return to the information derived from the
engineering evaluation and critically review those data
from the prospective of process economics. This means
determining the cost implications arising out of deviations
from typical operating parameters.  The goal is not to
provide a precise cost analysis for each and every sce-
nario, but rather to alert the reader to those conditions that
experience suggests are likely to have a major impact
(positive or negative) on costs.

C.  REFINEMENT OF THE DEMONSTRATION
PROCESS

   The primary focus  of the SITE Program is the
demonstration and evaluation of alternative technologies
for treating  hazardous  wastes.   One of the major
accomplishments of the program during 1988 is the
completion of  eight technology  field demonstration
projects.  There are currently 30 different technologies,
representing five separate process categories (i.e., thermal,
biological,  solidification/stabilization, chemical,  and
physical), being evaluated in the SITE Program. The EPA
SITE Project Managers have learned a great deal from
their experiences  with  the previous  technology
demonstrations.  The demonstration process  has been
refined to reflect the lessons learned during the past two
years and has remained a dynamic process to facilitate
improvements that will enhance the success of the program.
Demonstration  process  refinements  that  have been
implemented to date  include  establishing  policies,
guidelines, and procedures to streamline and improve: (1)
acceptance into and removal from the SITE Program, (2)
matching of demonstration sites for specific technologies,
(3) demonstration planning  and  implementation, (4)
preparation of the Demonstration Report and Applications
Analysis Report, and (5) overall management of the SITE
demonstration projects.

1. Technology Selection

   EPA implemented three  major refinements to the
technology  selection process during Fiscal  Year 1988.
The first refinement is the establishment of a "fast- track"
policy for streamlining the acceptance of technologies
ready for demonstration into the SITE Program.   The
second is the establishment of project status categories
and an "exit policy." The third refinement is improvement
of the solicitation and proposal review process.

"Fast-Track" Process

   The "fast-track"  process  is designed to encourage
technologies that are scheduled for field application to
participate in the SITE Demonstration Program.   The
"fast-track" process supplements the conventional solici-
tation process to ensure that valuable opportunities for
evaluating these innovative technologies are not prohib-
ited by delays that can result from the annual solicitation
schedule. Technologies considered for "fast-track" entry
into  the program must meet the following criteria:

•  The technologies must be ready for demonstration.

•  An appropriate site must be available for demonstra-
   tion of the technology.
                                                 2-26

-------
•  A failure to initiate activity quickly would result in a
   lost opportunity for the SITE Program.

•  Meet the evaluation criteria contained in the solicita-
   tion.

   Candidate technologies are reviewed and evaluated
according to these criteria, and if deemed acceptable, an
EPA investigative team  is  immediately  sent  to the
demonstration site to collect information that would
normally be submitted in response to the SITE solicitation.
EPA then initiates a Cooperative Agreement with the
developer and begins to develop a work plan. To date, two
SITE-003 projects have been accepted under the "fast-
track" process, including Chemical Waste Management,
Inc.'s  Rotary Thermal  Desorber (X*TRAX™) and
Weston's Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment (LT3)
technology.  EPA has also taken steps  to shorten the
review period for these proposals in order to  streamline
the technology selection process.

 Project Status Categories and "Exit Policy"

   In the first two years of the SITE Program, it became
apparent that acceptance of a technology into the program
did not ensure that  an acceptable demonstration site,
agreed upon by both EPA and the developer, could be
quickly identified. Problems encountered by some par-
ticipants in developing their technologies and preparing
for demonstration have led to the identification and defi-
nition of four SITE project status categories.

   All technologies accepted into the SITE Demonstra-
tion Program are assigned a project status by EPA. Project
status is identified under one of the four following catego-
ries:  ACTIVE, COMPLETED, REMOVED,  or REEN-
TRY.

•  ACTIVE.  This denotes that a project is progressing
   satisfactorily.  Generally this means that the project re-
   mains within six months of scheduled milestone dates
   and will be finished within two years of acceptance
   into the program.

•  COMPLETED. This denotes that the field demonstra-
   tion has been finished,  equipment has been decon-
   taminated, any residuals have been properly disposed
   of, the final Demonstration and Applications Analysis
   Reports have been reviewed and accepted by EPA, and
   the Cooperative Agreement has been closed out. Once
   the project has been completed, no further work by
   EPA or the developer is required.

•  REMOVED.  Sufficient progress has not been made
   toward the eventual completion of the project. By re-
   moving a project from the program EPA can eliminate
   further expenditures of manpower in implementing a
   demonstration.  Although EPA reserves the right to
   unilaterally remove a project from the SITE Demon-
   stration Program, the Agency  recognizes that this
   decision can have possible implications for the devel-
   oper and for the commercialization and implementa-
   tion  of the technology.  Thus, EPA will carefully
   consider and consult with the developer before action
   is taken. S ince the inception of the SITE Program, only
   one project has been classified under REMOVED
   status.

   It is essential  that the technologies  accepted into the
SITE Program be demonstrated and evaluated as soon as
possible. Longer-term delay sin conducting the technology
demonstration may result in the technology being classified
as "removed" from the program, either voluntarily or
involuntarily. Concerning the latter, EPA has developed
an "exit policy" that assists EPA in deciding to remove
technologies from the program when  there are  serious
reservations concerning the developer's capability and/or
willingness to conduct a demonstration project.  These
reservations may include  such issues  as technology
readiness (for field-scale demonstration), inability to find
a waste stream for the demonstration that is mutually
agreeable to both EPA and the developer, or that the
technology is not applicable to treatment of Superfund
wastes.

    REENTRY.  Developers that  have been removed
    from the program, either voluntarily or involuntarily,
    will be able to request that EPA reconsider ACTIVE
    status for their technology  if the conditions that
    warranted removal are corrected and no other condi-
    tions that may cause removal are present. The desig-
    nation of the  project status is determined and revised
    by EPA.

   However, prior to changing the status of any project,
EPA must provide written notice to the developer citing
the reasons for the proposed change.
                                                 2-27

-------
Solicitation and Proposal Review

   EPA has refined and improved each SITE solicitation
that has been issued since SITE-001. For the selection of
SITE-003 projects, EPA met with the developers during
the proposal review process to allow developers to clarify
confusing issues or add any  information required by the
Agency to  better  understand the proposed technology
treatment process. EPA streamlined the solicitation pro-
cess by reducing  the technical details required in the
proposal and providing more experienced reviewers to
evaluate the proposals (especially with the institutional
experience gained in the SITE-001 and SITE-002 reviews).

2. Site Selection

   The  Agency recognizes  impediments  in the initial
process of selecting the most appropriate site for a
demonstration and has taken efforts to streamline it for the
SITE-003  technologies.    Screening  of  sites before
technologies enter the SITE Program will hasten both the
site selection process and initiation of the demonstration.
It is preferable to identify sites early in the demonstration
planning process to minimize delays to the demonstration
if problems are encountered.  SITE Project Managers will
be working more closely with the Regional Offices and
the developers to identify demonstration  sites  for the
technologies. These efforts have reduced the time required
for the  selection of demonstration  sites for SITE-003
projects by 50%.

   EPA has refined the site  selection process by:

•  Categorizing the information requested in the SITE-
   003 solicitation responses concerning required dem-
   onstration sites and wastes so that the information is
   immediately available when the project  is accepted in
   the SITE Program.

•  Requesting suggestions for demonstration sites from
   the developers in the proposals.

•  Increasing the involvement of the SITE Project Man-
   ager, developer, Regional staff, States,  and OSWER
   staff in the entire site selection process.

   To hasten the site selection process and initiation of
demonstrations, States that are testing the same or similar
technologies as in the SITE Program are actively partici-
pating in the site selection process. The Regions will be
invited to contribute to the review process  for the SITE-
004 proposals. Certain  states, including Delaware, New
Jersey, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma,  Illinois, and
California, have expressed an interest in helping the
Agency to identify appropriate sites for demonstrations.
California has implemented a program very similar to the
SITE Program and has expressed an interest in inviting the
Agency to evaluate the technologies demonstrated under
its program.

   In November 1988, EPA established an agreement
with Region 3 to pro vide research and technical assistance
to the Region for the selection of alternative technologies
remediation and removal actions.  Region 3  has also
agreed to assist EPA in identifying potential sites for the
demonstrations conducted under the SITE Program. EPA
entered into an agreement with the State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection to undertake a
program of cooperation in the testing and demonstration
of technologies  for the  treatment of radiologically
contaminated materials.  One of the objectives  of this
cooperative effort is to assist in the identification of sites
for the demonstration of technologies for the treatment of
radiologically contaminated materials.

3. Demonstration Planning and Implementation

   There have been two major refinements of the SITE
demonstration planning and implementation process during
Fiscal Year 1988. The first refinement concerns the use of
extramural experts to review demonstration plans, QA/
QC plans, and demonstration results. The second is the
establishment of a treatability policy that allows limited
laboratory  testing of waste  at  non-permitted  offsite
facilities.

Extramural Reviews

   The progress of some of the demonstrations has been
delayed by the necessity for engineering modifications to
field units. Most of these problems were foreseeable but
unpredictable in their specific nature and are inherent in
implementing innovative,  complex  engineering
technologies in the field for the first time. To help predict
these kinds of problems before startup, EPA has initiated
the practice of using recognized extramural experts  to
critically review demonstration plans and QA/QC plans
before initiating the field demonstration. These reviewers
have expertise in materials handling  and in  thermal,
chemical, physical, and biological treatment technologies
and analytical techniques as appropriate for the technology
being reviewed. In addition to evaluating demonstration
and QA/QC plans, extramural experts are used to review
Demonstration Reports and Applications Analysis Reports.
                                                  2-28

-------
The SITE Project Manager is responsible for coordinating
review activities. To date, this review procedure has been
used to contribute to the Terra Vac,  HAZCON, C.F.
Systems, Soliditech, and International Waste Technologies
demonstration projects.

Guidelines for Treatability Testing

   Another refinement of the demonstration planning
process, to avoid delays in initiating field demonstrations,
was the establishment of guidelines  for bench-scale
treatability tests.   It is  usually preferable to conduct
laboratory bench-scale treatability tests, where possible,
to screen the potential applicability of a technology prior
to the actual field demonstration. These guidelines allow
the use of non-permitted off site facilities for the laboratory
testing of limited quantities of waste.   Laboratories
conducting treatability tests are required to submit a test
plan and have a health and safety plan. However, EPA
prefers to use permitted facilities to conduct the bench-
scale treatability tests where practical.

4. Reporting Activities

   A number of impediments have been encountered in
preparing the final reports following completion of the
demonstration.  Although the delay in the production of
the final reports did not impede the transfer of information
to decision-makers, the Agency has taken steps to accelerate
the  production  of  the  final  reports.    Significant
improvements  should  be  possible  by  concurrently
generating the Demonstration and Applications Analysis
Reports. The Agency is also encouragingmeetingsbetween
the developer and SITE Project Manager to address and
resolve reporting issues prior to initiating review of the
reports.  A tracking system has also been instituted so that
program management can monitor progress  on report
development as well as other aspects of the program.  As
a result of these efforts, it is anticipated that significant
reductions  will  occur in the time to  produce  the
Demonstration and Applications Analysis Reports.

   Evaluation of the performance and identification of the
costs associated with each technology demonstrated under
the SITE Program are essential components of the final
reports.   To facilitate the comparison of costs among
different technologies, EPA developed standardized cost
categories.  The Agency has been striving to standardize
specifications for the Applications Analysis Report  to
ensure consistency and comparability among the variety
of  data  and cost  categories for  the  demonstrated
technologies. The standardized cost categories enable the
comparison of costs from one type of technology (e.g.,
incineration) with another (e.g., stabilization).

   In addition, EPA has developed five  categories  of
standardized soils, each contaminated with different types
of simulated wastes. These standardized soil samples are
used, when appropriate, to test the applicability of the
technology to handle a variety of wastes  as well as to
compare results between similar treatment technologies
within a category.  EPA expects that the data generated
from these treatability tests, as  well   as from  the
demonstration, will be utilized to prepare the Applications
Analysis Reports.

5. Management of SITE Projects

   One of the  most  significant  refinements in  the
management of the SITE Program during the past fiscal
year was the  establishment of the SITE Demonstration
and  Evaluation Branch (SDEB) at the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL) on July 1, 1988. This
branch,  staffed with  20  full-time professionals, has
responsibility for managing all of the SITE  Program
activities.  Formation of the SDEB within the Superfund
Technology Demonstration Division (STDD) was a major
step in focusing the management and staffing structure for
the SITE Program, enabling SITE Project Managers to
devote their efforts exclusively to the management of the
SITE Program.

   During  the past two years, SITE Project Managers
have learned a great deal concerning the problems that can
be encountered in managing a SITE demonstration project.
EPA has prepared a Guidance Document on Conducting
SITE Projects that is designed to provide guidance  in
managing  a demonstration project to those individuals
who are selected to be SITE Project Managers.  The
guidance document also contains ageneric project schedule
for a typical demonstration project, the process  for
establishing a Cooperative Agreement with a developer,
and guidance on general management and administrative
issues  (e.g.,  work  assignments,  quality  control,
demonstration  planning  and  implementation,  and
community relations activities).

   In addition to the Guidance Document on Conducting
SITE Projects, EPA has implemented a number of activities
to improve the SITE  management process.   Monthly
meetings are held with SITE Project Managers to discuss
each component of the program and the progress of the
individual   projects.  During these meetings, Project
                                                   2-29

-------
Managers can solicit advice, comments, and guidance
from other ProjectManagers and SITE Program Directors.
It is through these monthly meetings that SITE Program
improvements and policy changes are discussed and
evaluated.

6.  Financial Impediments

   Another lesson learned by the Agency during the first
two years of the SITE Program is that there are some
impediments that EPA cannot change or control to further
enhance the program.  One such problem is the issue of
indemnification.  Indemnification concerns have led not
only to delays in the progress of demonstrations, but also
to the withdrawal of two qualified developers from the
SITE  Program in 1988.   Similarly, the cost of the
demonstrations can be intimidating to small firms that
have developed innovative technologies, and SARA sets
exact  and stringent limits on the Agency's ability to
underwrite the developers'  costs  in conducting  the
demonstration.

Indemnification

   Section 119 of CERCLA authorizes EPA to indemnify
response action contractors, including persons conducting
SITE demonstrations against third party liability that may
result from the project. However, there are a number of
limitations on the indemnification. EPA does not indemnify
for all liability that may arise but only where the developer's
negligence causes a  release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants that results in harm or damage.
Moreover, while developers are not subject to a standard
of strict liability under Federal law, Section 119 does not
preempt  strict liability  under  state  law.    EPA's
indemnification applies only if the developer cannot obtain
adequate insurance at a fair and reasonable price and the
developer must pay the first $100,000 of any liability
costs.
Financing the Demonstration

   Demonstration start-up costs can exceed $ 1 million for
complex technologies that require extended field trials,
and many small developers are not in a financial position
to risk this large of an investment on a demonstration
project.  Section 311(b)(5)  of SARA places stringent
limits on EPA's ability to underwrite the developer's cost
in conducting a demonstration. SARA permits EPA to
fund  up to  50%  of the developer's cost of a SITE
demonstration project, only if the developer shows that it
cannot fund the demonstration from its own assets and that
itcannot obtain appropriate private financingonreasonable
terms sufficient to carry out the project without Federal
assistance.  The Agency's contribution to underwriting
developers' costs that meet these criteria is limited to $3
million total for any single project and $ 10 million total in
any one year for such assistance.

   Although EPA has published guidelines and procedures
for obtaining Federal funds for the demonstrations, no
demonstration financing has been requested from EPA.
Some developers in the program are seeking sites where
a third party is willing to underwrite the demonstration
costs for the firm. Financial concerns have led to significant
delays in some demonstrations, and may be deterring
some developers from entering the program because of the
substantial costs required for the demonstration.

   The refinements that have been implemented during
the first two years of the  SITE Program  reflect the
knowledge gained from experience.  EPA is utilizing the
knowledge gained from the demonstrations conducted to
date to reshape and improve the SITE Program.
                                                  2-30

-------
                   IH.  OTHER SITE PROGRAM COMPONENTS
A. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

   Technologies considered for cooperative funding under
the Emerging Technologies Program are required to show
promise at the bench/laboratory-scale. The emerging
technologies are expected  to  "feed" into  the SITE
Demonstration Program for full-scale demonstration.
Selected technology developers receive a maximum of
two  years'  funding  to  enable them to  move their
technologies toward commercialization. The program
provides awards of up to $ 150,000 per year, for a maximum
of $300,000 over two years.  However,  second-year
funding depends on the achievement of significantprogress
during the first year.

   On September 17, 1987, EPA published the  first
solicitation of the Emerging Technologies Program (E-
01). TheE-01 solicitation applied to technologies showing
definite promise in reducing the contaminant level in the
waste or altering the contaminants' constituents to inhibit
their environmental mobility. Eligible technologies were
those that featured engineering solutions  to problems
encountered at waste sites, such as handling and treatment
of contaminated air emissions, liquids (surface  and
groundwater and leachates), sludges, and solids (soils,
debris, and sediments). The E-01 solicitation resulted in
a total of 84 preproposals for consideration.  Following a
technical review of these preproposals, 15 offerers were
invited to submit full proposals and  to enter into the
Cooperative Agreement  application process.  Twelve
offerers entered the program and  three declined.  In
September 1988, seven projects were awarded first-year
funding totalling approximately $ 1,000,000. Projects were
selected that offered solutions to critical disposal and
treatment problems at Superfund sites, had high potential
for the successful transition from proven concept to
demonstration stage, and showed a major commitment or
capability  by  the  developer  to  commercialize the
technology. The following seven projects received funding
under the Emerging Technologies Program in Fiscal Year
1988:

•    Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Chalk  River,
    Ontario, is preparing a laboratory-scale demonstration
    technology to extract dissolved toxic metals from
    groundwater.  The technology involves the  use of
    ultra-  iltration in combination with water-soluble
    macromolecular compounds to selectively remove
    heavy metal ions from aqueous waste solutions.
•  Battelle Memorial Institute,  Columbus, Ohio, is
   preparing a bench-scale testof theElectroacoustic Soil
   Decontamination (ESD) process for in-situ treatment
   of soils contaminated with fuel oil, hazardous organic
   compounds, and heavy metals.

•  Bio-Recovery Systems,Inc.,LasCruces,New Mexico,
   is testing  AlgaSORB™, a new technology for the
   removal and recovery of heavy  metal  ions  from
   groundwaters.  AlgaSORB™ is a biological sorption
   process based on the affinity of algae cell walls for
   heavy metals. Immobilized algae cells in a silica gel
   polymer are used  in  much the same  way as ion-
   exchange resins.

•  The Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, is
   experimenting with a constructed, wetlands-based
   treatment  technology predicated on the concept  of
   using natural geochemical and  biological processes
   inherent in  a  wetland ecosystem to  remove and
   accumulate metals from influent waters.

•  Energy  &  Environmental   Engineering,   Inc.,
   Somerville, Massachusetts,   is  investigating  a
   technology designed  to  photochemically  oxidize
   aromatics to non-toxic species.  A laser beam is used
   to contact and oxidize toxic organic waste particulates
   filtered and washed from groundwater.

•  Envirite Field  Services, Inc.,  Atlanta, Georgia, is
   conducting a series of laboratory tests on a soil washing
   process that uses  a blend of  solvents  to cleanse
   contaminated soils. The solvents are then removed
   from the soil by steam stripping. The tests will determine
   how different soils  separate  from  solvents  using
   pressure filtration and centrifugation.

•  The Western Research Institute, Laramie, Wyoming,
   is conducting several  tests to recover oil and water
   from soil using conventional oil recovery technology
   and  controlled injections of steam and hot and cold
   water.  Residual organic pollutants  in the  soil are
   biodegraded to remediate the hazardous oily waste.

Future Activities

   Five of the E-01 emerging technologies are rapidly
progressing toward bench-scale testing and work is
beginning on pilot-scale units. The  E-01 projects will be
applying for second year funding.
                                                  3-1

-------
   EPA issued its second solicitation of the Emerging
Technologies Program (E-02) on July 8,1988. The E-02
solicitation focused on technologies that can handle
complex mixtures of hazardous organic and inorganic
contaminants in sludge and soils by either in-situ  or
surface processes that separate, remove, destroy, detoxify,
or stabilize the contaminants  or provide for improved
solids handling and pretreatment. Technologies that are
applicable to only treating aqueous or air streams were
considered butwereof less interest. Likewise, technologies
applicable to problems that exist at only a few Superfund
sites were considered less desirable than those applicable
to numerous Superfund sites.

   Sixty preproposals were received in response to the E-
02 solicitation. These preproposals were reviewed by
EPA on October  18-19, 1988.  Invitation and rejection
letters were sent out on November 23. Seventeen offerers
were invited  to submit proposals and participate in the
Fiscal Year  1989 Cooperative  Agreement  application
process  to  be  completed by  January  17,   1989.
Approximately $1,000,000 will be available to fund the
first year of the selected E-02 emerging technology projects.
Extramural reviewers will be utilized to review applications
for second year funding for the E-02 projects.

   There is a progressive trend in the SITE Program
toward emphasizing in-situ technologies that address the
treatment of  soils and  sludges, the treatment of mixed
wastes containing low-level radioactive material, materials
handling, and unit processes used in treatment trains. The
future Emerging Technologies Program solicitations will
continue to emphasize technologies that are applicable to
treating complex mixtures of hazardous organic and
inorganic contaminants in sludges and soils, as well  as
those technologies  that are applicable to remediating
numerous Superfund sites.

 B. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM

   The Technology Transfer Program component of the
SITE Program involves all of the community relations,
information  dissemination,  and  technical  assistance
activities that support the other four components  of the
SITE Program. The technology transfer strategy focuses
on compilation and dissemination of SITE Program results
to various audiences.   The purpose of the  technology
transfer activities is the development of an interactive
information  exchange  network that  consolidates
information  on  existing  hazardous waste treatment
technologies  to assist  those making hazardous  waste
remediation decisions.  The primary audience of SITE
Program data is Regional and State managers of Superfund
cleanup activities, who often supervise the  work  of
contractors and potentially responsible parties. Additional
audiences include other Federal Agencies, the engineering
community, the pollution  control industry,  and  the
interested public.

   The Technology Transfer Program encompasses a
variety of public outreach and information dissemination
programs and activities, including:

•  Alternative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies
   Clearinehouse. The Clearinghouse was initiated in
   November 1987, and is presently composed of three
   major components:  (1)  a  hotline, (2) an electronic
   bulletin  board, and (3) a reference library.  The
   Clearinghouse was  designed to be  implemented in
   three successive phases.  Phase I of the Clearinghouse
   consists of these three components and has been in
   operation since November 1987.

   Under the current Clearinghouse format, a user with a
   technical information request can contact the hotline
   or access the bulletin board and is directed to a contact
   person at a Regional Office or research laboratory and
   an existing data source. These data sources, resident at
   different geographic locations, exist in various formats
   (hard copy and automated) which  are not directly
   compatible. To access a particular data source requires
   the user to be knowledgeable about the structure and
   retrieval capabilities of that source or to interact with
   an individual at the facility who has this understanding
   and experience.  This process  must be repeated for
   each data source.  Phase II, under development since
   March 1988, involves expanding the Clearinghouse to
   serve as an interactive information retrieval system.
   Implementation of Phase II will involve expanding the
   role of the Clearinghouse to serve as a true information
   retrieval system  through  the  development of a
   centralized computer database network. This network
   will include key word search capabilities as well as
   two-page abstracts  on   technical  information from
   each database.  An  operator will utilize the existing
   Clearinghouse components and will integrate the
   existing  hazardous  waste  data sources and SITE
   Program data into a comprehensive searchable resource.
   The Clearinghouse,  under Phase II, will enable a user
   to access a central source of information on hazardous
   waste treatment technology that can search existing
   data sources, provide comprehensive searches of online
                                                   3-2

-------
databases, conduct technical evaluations of existing
data, and serve as an interface with the various EPA
research laboratories.

A working prototype of the Clearinghouse database
was developed in August 1988. This prototype con-
tains  information from  a variety of data sources,
including  the  SITE Program, industry, and several
State  agencies.  Ongoing activities  include further
development  of the  computerized  database  and
evaluation and acquisition of new data sources.  It is
anticipated that the Clearinghouse database network
will be available to respond to user requests by January
1989. The Regions and States have expressed interest
in becoming actively involved in the Clearinghouse
network.

Technical Assistance to Regions. States, and Cleanup
Contractors. EPASITEProjectManagersareavailable
to  assist  technology  users  in the  evaluation of
technologies for specific remedial/removal measures.
In conducting SITE demonstration projects, the Project
Managers receive operational and process information
that allows them to provide quick-response technical
assistance to Regions, States, and cleanup contractors.

SITE Brochures. Publications. Reports, and Videos.
SITE brochures are prepared twice each year, one for
the annual RREL Symposium and the other for the
Superfund Conference and Exhibition. The brochures
provide a brief background of the SITE Program and
its components.   It  contains brief  technology
descriptions for the SITE Program projects and the
progress and accomplishments of the program to date.
In addition, the  brochures identify ways  to obtain
information on the SITE Program, who should apply,
how to  apply, what occurs under  the program,  and
when the  next solicitation will be  issued.  These
brochures are widely disseminated at these conferences.

EPA has recently prepared The Superfund Innovative
TechnologyEvaluation Program: Technology Profiles
(EPA/540/5-88/003).   The  Technology Profiles
document includes an overview of the SITE Program,
a list of the program participants, and profiles on each
of the technologies, including a description of the
technology,  a discussion on waste applicability, the
status of the project, and an  EPA and technology
contact for further information.  The purpose of the
Technology Profiles is to provide Regional decision-
makers and other interested individuals with a ready
reference  on  those  technologies  in  the  SITE
DemonstrationandEmerging Technologies Programs.

SITE reports, specifically, the Demonstration and
Applications Analysis Reports, are prepared following
the completion of each denonstration and laboratory
analyses.  The Demonstration Report is a technical
report documenting the performance data resulting
from the  demonstration,  including the  process
description,  sampling  and  analysis  procedures,
performance data,  and  QA/QC  program.   The
Applications Analysis  Report  evaluates available
information on  the  technology and presents  the
applicability of each technology to other site and waste
characteristics. Copies of these reports and summaries
of these reports will be disseminated by EPA, and
additional copies will be available through the National
Technical Information Service. ThefirstDemonstration
Report, Technology Evaluation Report SITE Program
Demonstration  Test,  Shirco Infrared System, Peak
Oil, Brandon,  Florida  (EPA/540/5-88/002a),  was
published and  available on November 10, 1988.
Fourteen more reports are expected to be completed by
spring 1989.

Press releases are issued by EPA to announce the
selection of new technologies into the SITE Program,
the selection of sites for demonstrations, and the results
of the demonstrations. Program status memoranda are
sent regularly to the Regional Offices and States, and
the  Technology Transfer Newsletter,  published
quarterly by the Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI), lists available SITE reports. Site-
specific Technology Fact Sheets are prepared for each
technology prior to the field demonstration.  Sample
Technology Fact Sheets are provided in Appendix 1.
The fact sheets are distributed in the local community
and  among developers, State, and Regional staff.
Videos  of  the technology demonstrations are  also
produced  to supplement  the  other informational
materials describing the demonstrations.

EPA has prepared reports that present information
generated by the SITE Program and other programs to
identify alternative technologies that can be  used to
clean up Superfund sites.   For example, EPA has
prepared  the  Technology Screening  Guide  for
Treatment ofCER CLA Soils and Sludges (EP A/540/2-
88/004).  This  is  a guide for screening  feasible
alternative treatment technologies for soils and sludges
at Superfund sites, and it provides a screening
                                               3-3

-------
methodology to identify treatment technologies that
may be suitable for the management of soils and
sludges containing CERCLA wastes. EPA has also
prepared the Assessment of International Technologies
for SuperfundApplications (EPA/540/2-88/003). This
document  identifies and  assesses technologies
applicable to hazardous waste site remediation in the
United  States.   A  report  entitled  Technological
Approaches  to the  Cleanup  of  Radiologically
Contaminated Superfund Sites (EPA/540/2-88/002)
identifies technologies that may be useful in removing
or  stabilizing radiological  contamination at
uncontrolled Superfund sites that contain radionuclides.
Information  on  SITE  and  Superfund  Programs
publications  is  available through  the  SITE
Clearinghouse electronic bulletin board and hotline
(800-424-9346 or 382-3000 in Washington, D.C.).

Preproposal  Conferences  on  SITE Solicitations.
Preproposal conferences were  held  in Washington,
D.C., Cincinnati, Ohio, and San Francisco, California,
prior to the release of the SITE-003 solicitation. The
purpose of these conferences is to  allow potential
offerers the  opportunity  to  gather information
concerning the SITE Program, the types of technologies
in which EPA is interested, and the requirements for
and benefits of entering the program. Theseconferences
are  designed  to  give  potential  responders the
opportunity to discuss the purpose, scope, and process
of the SITE Program with EPA personnel.   The
conferences are intended to encourage developers to
participate in  the  program  and allow  EPA the
opportunity to respond  to developers' questions.
Similar conferences will be conducted prior to the
dissemination of the  SITE-004 solicitation.  These
conferences are scheduled to be held in Washington,
D.C., on January 30,1989; Cincinnati, Ohio, on January
31,1989; and San Francisco, California, on February
2, 1989.

Public Meetinss and Demonstration Site Visits. Each
Regional and/or State Community Relations Officer is
encouraged to hold at least one informational briefing
or  public  meeting  in  the community  on each
demonstration site. In addition, Section 31 l(b)(5) of
CERCLArequirestheestablishmentofapublic notice
and  comment period prior to final  selection  of a
demonstration site. Following the comment period, a
responsiveness summary is prepared and a  formal
decision is made  on whether to proceed with the
demonstration at the proposed site. A Visitors' Day is
  sponsored by EPA during each SITE demonstration to
  allow first-hand observation of the technology during
  field use and discussions with the developers. Visitors'
  Days have been held for  the demonstrations listed in
  the following table.
DEVELOPER/
DEMONSTRATION
LOCATION
DATE OF
VISITORS'
DAY
HAZCON, Inc.
Douglassville Superfund Site
Reading, PA

Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.
Rose Township Demode Road
Superfund Site
Rose Township, MI

Terra Vac, Inc.
Groveland Wells Superfund Site
Groveland, MA

International Waste Technologies
Hialeah Service Shop
Hialeah, FL

C.F. Systems Corporation
New Bedford Harbor
New Bedford Harbor, MA

Soliditech, Inc.
Imperial Oil Co., Inc.
Superfund Site
Morganville, NJ
October 14,1987
November 4, 1987
January 15, 1988
April 14, 1988
August 26-27, 1988
December 7, 1988
   Attendance at the sites on Visitors' Days have ranged
   from 30-135 visitors. Public participation in the SITE
   Program is of major importance to EPA. The Agency
   recognizes the  impact  of public  opinion  on the
   remediation actions of Superfund sites and is working
   to  identify  those  hazardous  waste  treatment
   technologies  that offer more permanent protection of
   human health and the environment.

  Seminar Series. EPA has initiated seminars to further
  the transfer of information on alternative technologies.
  The seminars include modules  in CERI's ongoing
  alternative technology series, as well as special technical
  seminars on completed SITE demonstrations. The first
                                                3-4

-------
seminar  was held on  November  16  at  RREL in
Cincinnati, Ohio.  The topic of this  seminar was
separation technologies for extracting contaminants.
The seminars are held the third Thursday of each
month, and the topics are posted on the Clearinghouse
electronic bulletin board.

SITE Exhibit at Major Conferences. The SITE exhibit
is displayed at major conferences each year.  S LIE bro-
chures are available at the exhibit.  The most recent
conference at which the SITE exhibit was displayed
was the Superfund Conference held November 28-30,
1988. The SITE exhibit is designed to provide infor-
mation concerning the SITE Program, the demonstra-
tions, and the technologies in the program.

Innovative Technologies Program Exhibition. EPA is
sponsoring a technology  transfer exhibit at Edison,
New Jersey, on January 25-26,1989, for three mobile
technologies developed by the Agency — the Mobile
Carbon Regeneration System, the Mobile Soils Washer,
and the MobileIn-Situ Containment/Treatment System.
Following presentations of video and slide shows of
the technologies in operation, visitors will be allowed
to inspect the actual equipment.  Information will be
available on  the process  for acquiring one of these
systems, the assistance  available  to  commercial
developers, and the responsibilities accruing to the
government.  This exhibition marks the beginning of
an EPA initiative to move technologies developed by
the Federal government into commercialization and
applications that will benefit both the hazardous waste
industry and the general public.

Networking with Forums. Associations, the Centers of
Excellence. Regions, and States.   SITE  staff will
network with engineering forums, associations such
as the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
ManagementOfficials(ASTSWMO)andtheNational
Governors' Association (NGA), and the EPA Centers
of Excellence, as well as Regional and State personnel,
to disseminate information on the SITE Program and
to encourage the use of these alternative technologies
in the field.

Cooperative Efforts with  States and Regions.  EPA
established an  agreement in mid-November with
Region 3 to provide research and technical assistance
to  the  Region  for  the  selection  of alternative
technologies  for remediation and removal actions.
The agreement includes the exchange of personnel to
   provide opportunities to actively participate in  the
   SITE Program activities and to assist the Region in
   identifying SITE technologies for its sites. On October
   26,1988, EPA entered into an agreement with the State
   of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
   to  work  cooperatively  to conduct testing  and
   demonstration projects applicable for the treatment of
   radiologically contaminated soil. The purpose of this
   EPA-NJ cooperative effort is to improve and assist in
   the commercialization and  availability of  new and
   innovative  technologies   for  the  treatment   of
   radiologically contaminated materials at uncontrolled
   waste sites in New Jersey and throughout the nation.

   One of the most significant measures of the success of
the SITE Program is the impact of the program on the use
of alternative, innovative technologies in  the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites. Technology transfer activities are
extremely important to ensure that the information available
on  the  technologies  following the demonstration is
disseminated to remedial project managers.  Following
completion of the successful SITE demonstration of Terra
Vac's in-situ volatilization process, Terra Vac was selected
by a potentially responsible party in Pennsylvania for
remediation of another Superfund site.   Terra Vac will
also be conducting the remediation efforts at the Groveland,
Massachusetts, site where the demonstration took place.

   Technology  transfer activities for the Measurement
and  Monitoring Technologies Development  Program
component of the SITE Program have included  the
formulation and distribution of a list of target compounds
to industry  and  academia and the  possible inclusion of
Agency guidelines for evaluating immunoassays  into
studies by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC).
Presentations describing  the accomplishments of  the
program were made  at national professional meetings,
including the American Chemical Society and the AOAC.

Future Activities

   Most of the activities and programs of the Technology
Transfer Program are continuous throughout each year of
the SITE Program.  These efforts will continue for the
technology projects that are currently in the program and
will be initiated for the new technologies entering  the
program under the SITE-004 and E-02 solicitations. EPA
Project Managers will provide technical assistance on
their  completed demonstrations  as  results  become
available.
                                                3-5

-------
   The future activities for the Clearinghouse are  to
proceed with the implementation of Phase II of the plan.
Effort  will  continue  on the  development  of the
computerized database network with the goal of completing
it in 1990. This interactive, or expert, system will provide
immediate response to multiple  users throughout the
country simultaneously.

   As  SITE demonstration  project  results  become
available, there will be increased efforts in the area  of
technology transfer.  Project summaries will be prepared
to  make assimilation of information easier and to help
reviewers determine what is relevant to their  individual
needs.  These summaries will be widely distributed  to
EPA, State, and contractor personnel through a mailing
list where names will be added upon  request.  The
Demonstration and Applications Analysis Reports will
receive a more limited distribution and will be available
on request through the hotline or directly through CERI in
Cincinnati.

   A continued major focus of Clearinghouse activities in
1989 will be  publicizing  the  availability  of the
Clearinghouse to potential users. Information concerning
the Clearinghouse will be available  and disseminated
through  brochures,   seminars, newsletters,  and
presentations. 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.

C. MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING
   TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT
   PROGRAM

   The  EPA  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. Research is focused on two areas: immunoassays
for toxic substances, and fiber optic sensing  for in-situ
analysis at Superfund sites.

   The Las Vegas laboratory' s research in immunoassays
for toxic substances actually began prior to the enactment
of SARA in 1986.  The initial interest was  the use  of
biomarkers in exposure and risk assessment.   In Fiscal
Year 1987,  the  application  of immunoassays  to
environmental monitoring received considerable support
from the SITE Program and has resulted in  significant
advances during Fiscal Year  1988.  Immunoassays for
toxic substances offer a less costly measurement and
monitoring alternative to conventional GC/MS analytical
techniques and implementation in the  field and could
result in a significant cost savings.

   Through cooperative and interagency agreements with
the University of California at Davis and Berkeley, the
California Department  of  Food and Agriculture, and
Westinghouse Bio-Analytic Systems (WBAS), work has
been initiated on immunoassays for benzene, toluene,
ethyl benzene, phenol, chlorobenzene, and nitroaromatic
compounds.  Haptens have been synthesized, and antisera
have been produced for many of these compounds.
Laboratory evaluation of the WBAS immunoassay for
PCP has been completed, and the results of interlaboratory
comparisons  and gas  chromatography  methodology
comparisons all look favorable.  A final report of the
evaluation study is near completion.

   Other Cooperative Agreements with the University of
Nevada Environmental Research Center have resulted in
additional immunoassay personnel in the program.  To
expand methods development capabilities and increase
sample throughout, additional instrumentation has been
obtained.    Other  laboratory  activities  include  the
development of sample  preparation  techniques  for
analyzing soils for triazine  herbicides by immunoassay,
and  ongoing laboratory  evaluations   for  various
immunoassays for soil extracts.

   In support of the Innovative Technologies Program,
requests for information regarding the development and
availability  of specific  antibodies for environmental
contaminants were issued both in the Commerce Business
Daily and in  Science. This request resulted in the receipt
of six proposals.

   Significant advances were also reported for the fiber
optics development program. The field performance of
the portable  fiber optic  fluorimeter developed in Fiscal
Year 1987  was  outstanding.  Capable  of measuring
chloroform, oxygen, CO2, and pH, the instrument design
spurred the  development of a commercially  produced
instrument for an underground storage  tank (UST) leak
detector system.  Fiber optic sensing devices offer the
convenience of in-situ analysis and are easily transported
to hazardous waste sites. These types of sensing devices
can be  utilized for field monitoring at potentially lower
cost and higher reliability.

   The innovation phase of the fiber optics program was
transcended with demonstrations of precommercial, field-
                                                  3-6

-------
hardened prototypes of trihalomethane and gasoline sensors
applied  to actual environmental monitoring programs.
The operational range of these sensors promises to exceed
that of others currently available for UST leak detection at
potentially lower cost and higher reliability.

   Development of other sensors, funded by groups like
the American Water Works who have benefitted from the
laboratory's collaboration and guidance, will continue for
the measurement  of benzene,  cyanide, iron, nitrate,
phosphate, toluene, and xylene.

   EMSL-LV  has been  successful  in providing the
technical definition, concepts, and guidance necessary
that has attracted firm commercial commitments for the
production  of fiber optic sensors for environmental
monitoring. Its position in this emerging technology was
demonstrated by its being invited to author a chapter on
sensors  for environmental monitoring in the "CRC
Handbook on Fiber Optic Chemical Sensors," which was
completed in Fiscal Year 1988.

Future Activities

   In further supporting Superfund site characterization
efforts, the  Measurement and Monitoring Technologies
Development Program will continue to develop the emerg-
ing technologies of fiber optic sensing for in-situ analysis
and immunoassays for environmental monitoring.

   The  fiber optics development plans for Fiscal  Year
1989 include:

•  A  field demonstration of the PCP immunoassay for
   water samples at a Superfund site.

•  Continuation of the evaluation of the immunoassay for
   benzene, toluene, and xylene for soil samples.  De-
   pending on the results of the evaluation study, there are
   plans for demonstration of the assay at a Superfund
   site.

•  Development of immunoassays  for nitroaromatic
   compounds for environmental samples.

•  The compilation of a listing of specific immunoassay
   reagents that have already been developed and the
   utilization of them to help solve Agency monitoring
   needs.

    Additionally, due to the outcome of the field tests of
the redesigned  trihalomethane sensor and to the fact that
the sensitivity  attained approached the drinking water
compliance requirements, in-situ chloroform measure-
ments in water have been scheduled for demonstration in
Fiscal Year 1989.

D. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

   Prior to the initiation of the SITE Program in 1986,
EPA's Office of Research and Development supported
research on several technologies for the on-site destruction
and cleanup of hazardous waste, emphasizing the treatment
of excavated soils. This effort has led to the establishment
of the Innovative Technologies Program (FTP) component
of the  SITE Program.  The objective of the FTP is to
encourage private sector development by firms that are
willing to commercialize these EPA technologies for use
at Superfund sites.

   To achieve this, the program is divided into four major
areas of activity.  They are (1) characterization of the
problems, (2) evaluation of the state-of-the-art, (3) design
and demonstration of promising viable systems, and (4)
technology transfer  to Federal  and State government
decision-makers and the private sector.

   EPA's  ongoing contaminant characterization efforts
have focused on the physio-chemical properties of metal-
lic and organic contaminants and determination of their
interrelationships with solid particles.  This research has
contributed to the development of protocols for treatabil-
ity studies.

   Evaluation of commercially available technologies is
being conducted using information collected through
literature searches and treatability studies performed in
support of site-specific problems. EPA has designed and
demonstrated a  number of innovative technologies that
can be used to treat hazardous wastes at Superfund sites.
The  following seven technologies are included in the
SITE Innovative Technologies Program.

•  The Mobile  Incineration System (MIS) consists of
   specialized equipment mounted on four trailers and on
   free-standing modules.  The first element is a rotary
   kiln, in which organic wastes are vaporized and par-
   tially oxidized. Incombustible treated soil/ash is dis-
   charged directly from the kiln. The volatile organic
   compounds or gases from the primary unitpass through
   a high  temperature cyclone and into  a secondary
   combustion chamber (SCC) where oxidation is com-
   pleted.  The flue gas exits from the SCC, is cooled, and
   is then  passed into air pollution  control equipment.
   There, submicron-sized particulates are removed by a
                                                  3-7

-------
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 are discharged from the system.  The
cleaned gases are discharged from the system through
a 40-foot high stack. The incinerator can process up to
5,000 Ibs of contaminated soil or 75 gallons of liquid
per hour. The actual feed rates are dependent upon the
heat content and/or moisture content of the feed mate-
rials, and other variables.

Upon request from EPA Region 7, the MIS was trans-
ported to the James  Denney Farm site in McDowell,
Missouri, where in 1985 it was used by EPA to dem-
onstrate greater than 99.9999% destruction and re-
moval efficiency at a trial burn on liquids and solids
contaminated with dioxins. A subsequent trial burn in
1987 successfully demonstrated destruction of PCBs
and a variety of other compounds. It has been operated
over the past four years for cleanup of dioxin-contami-
nated liquids and soils from the Denney Farm site and
from seven other dioxin sites in southwest Missouri.
To date, over 9 million Ibs of liquids and  solids have
been processed. It is currently processing the remain-
der of the dioxin-contaminated materials at  the Den-
ney Farm site and may soon be processing EPA's
Office  of Pesticide Programs'  cancelled pesticides,
including 2,4,5-T/Silvex liquids and solids. It is antici-
pated that EPA will complete this effort in mid-1989.
As a direct result of the MIS, commercial units have
been developed and are being utilized in the field.

The Mobile Soils Washing System was designed for
the separation/segregation and  volumetric reduction
of spilled hazardous materials and chemicals from
soils at cleanup sites. It will be transferred by EPA to
the commercial sector in early 1989 under the author-
ity of the Federal Technology Transfer  Act.   This
system separates contaminants from excavated soil by
high energy contacting and mixing of soils with water
supplemented  with  additives, including surfactants,
chelants, acids, and bases.  It consists  of a drum
washer, a counter current extraction  chamber, and a
dewatering unit and will (1) vigorously mix the  con-
taminated soils with treatment agents, (2)  separate/
segregate the  highly contaminated fines (clay, silt)
from the cleanable soils fractions for  further process-
ing and/or disposal, and (3) treat volatile organic con-
taminants that have been stripped from the soils through
the use of vapor phase carbon canisters.  The drum
washer, which treats course sand and gravels, has a
maximum throughput capacity of 18 cubic yards per
hour; the  countercurrent trailer, which treats finer
particles, is limited to 2 cubic yards per hour.  The
Mobile Soils Washing System is one of three innova-
tive technologies that will be featured at the Innovative
Technologies Program Exhibition in January 1989 to
encourage the commercialization of innovative tech-
nologies. Participants will be invited to view videos of
the technologies in operation, inspect the actual equip-
ment, and obtain information on the assistance avail-
able in commercializing these technologies.

KPEG is a chemical process for onsite destruction of
halogenated waste (including PCBs) in soils or as
liquids. In this process, potassium polyethylene glyco-
late (KPEG) reagents are used  to strip the  halogen
atoms of halogenated hydrocarbon waste to produce a
detoxified waste.  In some KPEG  reagent formula-
tions, dimethylsulfoxide is added as a patented co-
solvent to enhance reaction rates. Chemicals used to
prepare KPEG reagents are stable  in air, are easily
stored, and can be safely transported to waste sites.

In July and August 1986, a 2,700 gallon KPEG mobile
unit was used in Butte, Montana, and Kent, Washing-
ton, to successfully treat 16,200 gallons of oily PCP
waste, reducing polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs)
to non-detectable levels (<0.3 ppb). In May 1988, a
pilot-scale test was conducted in Guam on 17 cubic
yards of soil contaminated with PCBs (1600-3200
ppm).  PCBs were successfully reduced to < 2.0 ppm
detection limit prescribed by the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). The unit was a 21-cubic-yard
horizontal reactor specially modified for field opera-
tion.

The Mobile In-Situ Containment/Treatment Sys-
tem is designed to isolate and treat spills of hazardous
materials. The system is mounted on a 43-foot drop
deck trailer and includes a diesel electric generator and
air compressor, mixing tanks, hoses, a solids feed con-
veyor, pipe injectors, soil testing apparatus, and acces-
sory items. In-situ containment is  accomplished by
direct injection of grouting material into the soil around
the contaminated area  to isolate the spill and then
treatment of the hazardous materials  in place by oxida-
tion/reduction, neutralization, or precipitation. When
necessary, contaminated water can be withdrawn from
wet wells and treated by other means. The Mobile In-
                                                3-8

-------
   Situ Containment/Treatment System is another of the
   innovative technologies that will be displayed at the
   Innovative Technologies Program Exhibition.

•  The Mobile Spent Activated Carbon Regenerator
   is designed for field use in detoxifying/regenerating
   spent granular activated carbon (G AC) used in spill or
   waste site cleanup operations. GAC is used to remove
   residual hazardous organic substances from water that
   has been contaminated by a spill or release, or from the
   aqueous leachate in uncontrolled dumpsites. During
   the treatmentprocess,theGACbinds the contaminants,
   accumulating relatively high levels of hazardous
   organic chemicals.   When the carbon reaches its
   adsorptive limit, it must be discarded or regenerated in
   an approved manner. The Mobile Carbon Regenerator
   is intended to process the spent GAC for reuse at the
   site.   Wet  GAC  is screw-fed  to a direct-fired
   countercurrent rotary  kiln  where  the contaminated
   organic substances are desorbed and  volatilized. All
   vapors and gases from the kiln flow through a duct into
   the  secondary  combustion  chamber  where the
   hazardous organic substances, including chlorinated
   hydrocarbons, are oxidized and detoxified. Off-gases
   are water-quenched and scrubbed with an alkaline
   solution  before being vented into the atmosphere.
   Stack gases and used process water are monitored. The
   Mobile Spent Activated Carbon Regenerator is one of
   the innovative technologies featured at the Innovative
   Technologies Program Exhibition to encourage the
   commercialization of this technology.

 •  A  process  for  the  Electrokinetic Removal of
   Contaminants from the ground was designed to be
   used in conjunction with pumping to  expedite ion
   migration and removal from a saturated soil system. A
   series of  wells is used as anodes and cathodes across
   which a direct current is applied. The current density
   results  in an accelerated movement of charged ions.
   The  effect  of ion  migration  is greater with pulse
   pumping.

•  A hydromechanical debris decontamination technology
   has been evaluated at laboratory-scale and pilot-scale.
   It was  evaluated during the  week of September 6,
   1988,  at the pilot-scale at  a  PCB-contaminated
   Superfund site in Detroit, Michigan. The technology,
   Experimental Debris Decontamination  Module
   (EDDM), consists primarily of a series of tanks that
   contain a solution  of deionized water and  sodium
   metasilicate mixed in a ratio of 7 to 1. It is a closed-
   loop system, with a 300-gallon cleaning unit, an oil/
   water separator, and a solution recovery system coupled
   with a  carbon filter to remove PCBs from  the
   contaminated wastewater generated  by the process.
   The EDDM is trailer mounted.

   The fourth area of the ITP involves the transfer of
engineering,  performance,  and waste  applicability
information to firms interested in commercializing such
technologies. The partnerships necessary to transfer these
technologies to the private sector have been authorized by
the Technology Transfer Act of 1986. EPA has conducted
a variety of technology transfer activities designed to
encourage  and  maintain technical  dialogue  among
representatives  of  Federal  and State  governments,
academia, and the private sector.  One such activity was
held in December 1988  in Edison, New Jersey, on the
subject of extraction treatments of excavated soils, sludges,
and sediments.  This event marked the beginning of a
series of small, highly focused technical exchanges in this
technology area.

Future Activities

   With the  commercial  capability  for providing
alternative   technologies  for cleanup  now  rapidly
expanding,  the need for developmental work on the part of
EPA is diminishing. The future needs are  (1) to provide
guidance   and  assistance  to   firms  interested   in
commercializing these innovative technologies, (2) to
identify  alternative  technologies  with  widespread
application  that are not currently  under development by
the private  sector, and (3) to transfer technology-related
information to EPA Remediation Project Managers and
pollution control contractors.

     Demonstration  and evaluation  of  alternative
technologies in the Innovative Technology Program will
continue in the next fiscal year. The results of these efforts
will  be published and  disseminated  to  government,
academia,  and  commercial  sectors.     Additionally,
automated information systems will be  developed and
maintained  to facilitate access to the large amount of data
and relevant information that is being generated under the
SITE  Demonstration Program and the  ITP, and other
sources of treatability information. In addition, EPA will
continue to sponsor meetings,  workshops, and other
technology  transfer activities.

   As more technologies become available, the demand
to objectively evaluate pilot-scale commercial systems
                                                   3-9

-------
and to perform numerous, simultaneous treatability studies    specific cleanup problems. The prototype Mobile Spent
in support of specific cleanup problems will increase. To    Activated Carbon  Regenerator, Mobile Soils  Washer
meet this demand, ORD will  provide  a testing and    System, and the Mobile In-Situ Containment/Treatment
evaluation facility in Edison, New Jersey, to be available    System, which have been developed and tested, will be
for use in 1991.  This facility will be instrumental in    transferred for commercial development and application
evaluating  pilot-scale  treatment technologies  and  in    in early 1989.
performing numerous treatability studies in support of
                                                   3-10

-------
APPENDIX 1. SAMPLE TECHNOLOGY




         FACT SHEETS

-------
                                                           NOVEMBER  1988
               PROGRESS
                 Silver Bow Creek
                 Superfund Site  Report
                  By Montana Department of Health and Environmental
                  Sciences & Environmental Protection Agency
INTRODUCTION  	
  Butte has been chosen as the site for the testing of a
new technology to treat various types of Superfund site
contaminants. Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences will first seek public comments
about the proposed project. This progress report will
describe the project, the opportunity for public comment
and the future of the program.
   The project is being run by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, with cooperation from the U.S.
Department of Energy and the Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences. The treatment
technology these agencies plan to test in Butte is called a
"plasma furnace"  (in this usage, "plasma" refers to a gas
which is so hot it can conduct electricity). Contaminated
soils will be thermally oxidized by extremely high tern-

TESTING TO TAKE PLACE IN BUTTE  _
  The proposed plan for the demonstration includes
testing to be conducted at the Department of Energy's
Component Development and Integration Facility (CDIF)
on the south edge of Butte, which primarily has been
used to test magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). The project
will begin in late spring or early summer 1989, lasting
approximately seven months. The project will be broken
into two phases. The first phase, lasting about a month,
will involve testing the unit on organic and heavy metal
contaminants from Butte area Superfund sites — the
Montana Pole and the Silver Bow Creek sites. The
second phase will last six months and will help DOE
researchers determine the endurance and reliability of the
system.  During the second phase, DOE will also
determine how effective the process is for materials
which resemble contaminants found at some DOE sites.
All samples to be tested will be from the Butte area. No
samples will be brought into the state for the second
phase.
  Throughout both phases, the three involved agencies
will work closely with each other and Retech, Inc., the
peratures in the plasma furnace to destroy their toxicity. The
plasma furnace is explained in more detail later in this report.
  The contaminated soils to be tested during the demonstra-
tion will be taken from the Montana Pole and Silver Bow
Creek Superfund sites. The Montana Pole site is located on the
south side of Butte. It is a defunct pole-treating operation with
contamination consisting primarily of organic wastes such as
pentachlorophenol. The Silver Bow Creek site begins in Butte
and continues down the Silver Bow Creek and Clark Fork
drainages to the Milltown Reservoir, about five miles east of
Missoula. Contaminants on this site are mostly the result of
mining and smelting operations.
   The public will be given the opportunity to comment on
this project for 30 days, from Nov.  15 - Dec. 15, 1988. (See
section on Public Comment).
   PfWM If HonUM Slfll* L*»»T
       Chvk T«k CS Prai«ct
owners and makers of the furnace, to evaluate its efficiency in
terms of time, money, and destruction of contaminants.

-------
WHAT IS THE "SITE" PROGRAM?
   SITE is an abbreviation, or acronym, for Superfund Inno-
vative Technology Evaluation. Under this program, EPA is
trying to find better solutions for hazardous waste cleanup.
The SITE program at Butte includes carefully planned
demonstrations of the plasma arc furnace  technology devel-
oped by Retech, Inc., of California.
   EPA started the SITE program in 1986 so they could take
positive steps to provide more information on new or
innovative treatment technologies that will be needed in the
future.  The SITE program's objective is to develop,
demonstrate, and encourage the use of successful alternative
technologies.
PLASMA FURNACE IS SAFE
   The Retech Plasma Furnace is an innovative heat treat-
ment system, or furnace, which is currently being tested at
the Retech home office in Ukiah, California.  The furnace
will be brought to Montana to help EPA determine how
effective it will be at destroying contamination often found
at Superfund sites.

   The plasma furnace destroys toxic organic molecules and
ties up heavy metals in a non-leaching glass.  Toxic material
to be heated in the furnace is placed in a feeder and then
continues into the primary furnace at a rate of about 100
pounds per hour. The main furnace chamber and all parts of
the system are kept sealed so that all material stays within
the system until the toxic wastes are destroyed in either the
primary or secondary furnace chamber.  Hot  gases from the
furnace are cleaned and purified by a "scrubber"; contami-
nants in the gases are removed into water which is later
disposed of after testing.  After passing through the scrub-
ber, the gas then passes through an activated charcoal
system for added safety before being released into the
atmosphere. (See diagram of plasma furnace).

   The process will be continuously monitored during op-
eration and all exhaust will be extensively sampled. If a
problem occurs in the process, a safety back-up system goes
into effect and collects the gases. No gases are released
until the system is checked and/or fixed. Any gas  tempo-
rarily stored during a breakdown is reprocessed through the
reactor and gas cleaning system before being released.

   Any residues will be disposed of at an approved solid
waste or, if necessary, hazardous waste facility.
 DEMONSTRATION TO BEGIN IN LATE SPRING 1989
   The EPA phase one SITE demonstration will occur over
 a five-week period starting in late spring or early summer
 1989.  The furnace will be sent from California to Butte and
 will take approximately two weeks to set up at the CDIF
 facility.  During the remaining three weeks, approximately
 2,000 pounds of waste from the Montana Pole and Silver
 Bow Creek Superfund sites will be processed in the plasma
 furnace.

   EPA plans to meet four objectives during phase one of
 the tests:

   1. Determine the furnace's efficiency in removing
 organic contaminants from soils.

   2. Determine how well the reactor can tie up heavy
 metals in a glass-type waste.
   4. Evaluate how well the furnace performs and how
 reliable it is.
   The U.S. Department of Energy will conduct the second
 phase of the demonstration and will build on what was
 learned during the EPA's first phase.  This phase will last
 six months while DOE tests the system at higher feed rates
 and with other wastes.  "Wastes" in this phase will
 primarily consist of clean soil with simulated contaminants
 mixed into it. The purpose of this second phase is for DOE
 to see how effectively the system can treat their wastes and
 to see how durable the system is.  DOE hopes to determine
 whether  the system can run for longer periods of time and
 with greater amounts of waste than in phase one. DOE will
 also evaluate the costs of the system.
   3. Determine costs of the process.

-------
CAN THIS TECHNOLOGY CLEAN UP  BUTTE?
   Although the plasma furnace system, if successful, will
destroy organic contaminants and contain heavy metals, it
will not be a practical cleanup remedy for the majority of
wastes in Butte. With the many thousands of tons of
contaminated soils in the Silver Bow Creek and Montana
Pole sites, it would be too costly. However, if the plasma
furnace proves successful, it may be helpful in cleaning up
small, heavily contaminated areas in Butte, along the Silver
Bow Creek site, and on the Montana Pole site.

  In any case, if the plasma furnace is successful, it will
benefit the Superfund program by providing us with one
more way to clean up Superfund wastes.
                           RETECH  PLASMA   FURNACE   FOR
                           TREATING  CONTAMINATED   DIRT
       CONTAMINATED DIRT  IN
                                                                                    OLEAN
                                                                                     QAS
                                                                                     OUT
                                                   PLASMA TORCH SUPERHEATS
                                                     DIRT TO 1000 DEO f
                   BURN INS
                   COMPLETED
                   HERE
                                                                    OAS CLEANUP
                                                                        A	
WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOUR COMMENTS
   A 30-day public comment period will begin Nov. 15 and
will run through Dec. 15. During that time, the public is en-
couraged to comment on the plan and ask questions about it.
Further information about the SITE program and the plasma
furnace can be found at the Montana Tech Library in Butte.
Anyone with comments or questions is encouraged to call or
write to:
Janie Stiles
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Room B201, Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
1-800-648-8465 (in-state) or 406-444-2821.
  Comments must be postmarked by Dec. 15 to be consid-
ered by EPA. Comments sent to the above address will be
reviewed by the Montana Department of Health and Envi-
ronmental Sciences and responded to by EPA.

-------
                            United States
                            Environmental
                            Protection Agency
                          New Bedford Harbor Site
                          Enseada de New Bedford
                          New Bedford, Massachusetts
June 1988
Junho de 1988
                            Region 1
                                                                     RegiSo
   oEPA
Superfund  Update
Atualizapao  do  Superfundo
Introduction

  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engi-
neering (DEQE), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
have completed  plans to conduct a pilot dredging and dis-
posal study to collect vital information on clean-up options
for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. In a separate,
but related effort, the EPA has proposed  to use the New
Bedford Harbor Superfund .site to demonstrate and evaluate
a newly-developed treatment unit that can be used to clean
up Superfund  sites containing  PCB-contaminated sedi-
ments, such as those found in the harbor. With the publica-
tion of this update, EPA is seeking public comments on the
selection of this site  for the  pilot-scale treatment technology
demonstration.  This project will provide information on a
new non-incineration technology for use in the New Bedford
Harbor feasibility study. If this site is approved, the demon-
stration project will take place over a two-week period in the
fall of 1988, concurrently with  the Corps of Engineers Pilot
Study and at  the same location, north of Sawyer Street.
Workgroup Meetings

  EPA, DEQE, and the developer of the technology at-
tended the monthly meeting of the Greater New Bedford
Environmental Community Workgroup, held on June 13, to
solicit comments concerning the project.  This is the same
workgroup that was established in October 1987 to represent
the community's interests and facilitate public education on
the clean-up plans for the New Bedford Harbor Superfund
Site. A community workgroup contact is  listed in the back
of this document for further information  on workgroup ac-
tivities. The next monthly workgroup meeting will  be held
on July 11; EPA, DEQE, and the developer of the technol-
ogy will be available again to answer any questions on the
demonstration of the treatment unit. A  Portuguese trans-
lator will be at the meeting and members of the public are
urged to attend.

  Workgroup  Meeting
   Monday, July 11
   7.00p.m.
   Buttonwood Library—West End
   745 Rockdale Avenue
                           Introdu^ao
                             A  Agencia de Proteiao do Meio-Ambicnte dos Ksiados
                           Unidos (EPA),  o Departamcnto de Engenhana dc Quali-
                           dade do Meio  Ambiente de Massachusetts (DKQK) e o
                           Corpo de Engenheiros do Exert ito dos Kstados Unutos lon-
                           cluiram  pianos para  a reahy,a<,fu> tk-  um csUido piloio dc
                           dragagem e remocao do polucntcs, a lim dc (ohi>u  mloi-
                           macao critica para as opcocs de limpiv.a da Knscad.i dc Nc\\
                           Bedford, linanciada pelo Superlundo Km trabalho scpaiado
                           mas  correlate,  a EPA propos a utih/a^ao  da  Knsrada dc
                           New Bedford para demonstrar e avaliar um tratamcnto rc-
                           cem-desenvolvido que podera ser usado na Hmpc/.a dos lo-
                           cais  financiados pelo Superfundo que contem  sedimcntos
                           poluidos por PCB, tais como os  encontrados na cnscada.
                           Com a publicacao desta atualizacao, a EPA procura receber
                           comentarios do publico sobre a escolha da enseada para  a
                           demonstracao piloto  da tecnologia de tratamento. Este pro-
                           jeto proporcionara informacao sobre uma nova tecnologia de
                           nao-incineracao a ser usada no estudo  de viabilidade da
                           Enseada. Se este local for aprovado, o projeto dc demonstra-
                           cao  sera realizado em duas semanas  no outono dc 1988,
                           simultaneamente com o Estudo Piloto do Corpo dc Enge-
                           nheiros  do Exercito  e no mesmo  local ao norte da Sawyer
                           Street.
                           Reunioes do  Grupo de Trabalho
                              A EPA, o DEQE  e o fabricante da tecnologia participa-
                           ram da reuniao mensal do Grupo de Trabalho da Comuni-
                           dade sobre o Meio Ambiente da Grande New Bedford, rea-
                           lizada  em  13  de junho, a fim  de solicitar comentarios
                           relacionados com  o  projeto. Esse grupo de  trabalho e  o
                           mesmo criado em outubro de 1987 para representar os mtc-
                           resses da comumdade e informar melhor o publico a respeito
                           dos  pianos de limpeza  da  Enseada de  New Bedford. Os
                           interessados poderao obter mformacoes mais dctalhadas so-
                           bre  atividades  do Grupo de Trabalho com o reprcsentantc
                            do mesmo, cujo endereco figura na contracapa dcste docu-
                            mento. A proxima reuniao  mensal do grupo sera realizada
                            em 11 de julho. A EPA, o DEQE e o fabricante da tecnologia
                            estarao novamente a disposicao para responder  a quaisquer
                            perguntas sobre a demonstracao da unidade de tratamento
                            Havera interpretacao ao portugues na reuniao e o publico,
                            em geral, esta convidado.
                            Reuniao do Grupo de Trabalho
                            Segunda-feira, lldejulho
                            19,00horas
                            Buttonwood Library—West End
                            745 Rockdale Avenue

-------
 Why

   The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation pro-
 gram, commonly known as the SITE program,  is a nation-
 wide program established for the purpose of evaluating new,
 promising technologies to determine if they can be used to
 address contamination problems at Superfund sites. As the
 name suggests,  the program is focused on new technologies
 being developed now  Because the technologies are not "tried
 and true", they must be carefully evaluated, to prove  their
 effectiveness at actual sites. The New Bedford site was pro-
 posed for a SITE project because the technology  to be tested
 is designed to strip PCBs from contaminated sediments and
 sludges.  Because the Army Corps of  Engineers is already
 engaged in dredging and  disposal activities at  the harbor,
 contaminated sediments to be used  in  the  demonstration
 project will be easily  obtained.
   As in other stages of the  Superfund program, the public
 must be allowed to comment on  the project  before  it is
 approved. A 30-day comment period will extend from June
 20 to July 19.  Comments on the proposed treatment  unit
 demonstration can be mailed to the address provided at the
 end of this update. (Public comments have already been
 accepted on the dredging and disposal pilot study.)
For Que?
  O programa de Avaliacao de Nova Tecnologia do Super-
fundo, conhecido comumente pela sigla mglesa SITE,  e um
programa de ambito nacional estabelecido para avaliar tec-
nologias novas e promissoras a fim de determmar se poderao
ser usadas para resolver problemas  de  poluicao nos  locals
financiados pelo Superfundo. Como  sugere o nome, o pro-
grama enfoca novas tecnologias que estao sendo desenvolvi-
das agora.  Como nao sao comprovadas, as tecnologias  novas
devem ser rigorosamente testadas, a fim de provar sua efi-
ciencia  no proprio local.  A  Enseada de  New  Bedford  foi
proposta como local de projeto SITE porque o processo a
ser testado se destina a extrair PCB de sedimentos poluidos
e detritos. Como o Corpo de Engenheiros ja realiza  ativi-
dades de dragagem e remocao na Enseada,  sera facil  obter
sedimentos  poluidos  a  serem   usados  no  projeto  de
demonstracao.
  Como em  outras fases do programa do  Superfundo, o
publico tern o direito de opinar sobre o projeto antes de  ser
aprovado. O  prazo de 30 dias para comentarios ira de  20 de
junho a 19 de julho. Os comentarios sobre a demonstragao
da  unidade de tratamento proposta  poderao ser remetidos
ao  endereco  que figura  no fim deste panfleto. (Ja foram
aceitos comentarios do publico sobre o estudo piloto de dra-
gagem e remocao.)
 Where

   The New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts Superfund site
 is a large area encompassing over 18,000 acres. The harbor
 received PCB-contammated materials and solutions  con-
 taining metals such as lead, cadmium, copper, and chro-
 mium, for several decades until the late 1970s. Currently,
 the Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a pilot study at
 the site to evaluate three dredging techniques and two dis-
 posal techniques for the contaminated sediments. Dredging
 activities  are scheduled to  begin  in late August or  early
 September.  Construction  of a  Confined Disposal Facility
 (CDF) is  underway now. The CDF will be used to contain
 contaminated sediments dredged from the harbor. The  pro-
 posed treatment demonstration  is essentially a new phase in
 the feasibility study being prepared for the site and will be
 coordinated with the Corps' activities.

  Exhibit 1 is  a  map of the harbor area, indicating the
location of the CDF, an underwater disposal area (Confined
Aquatic Disposal Area, CAD), the  new soccer field, and the
proposed technology demonstration site, between the CDF
and the security fence.
Onde

  O local  das obras do Superfundo na Enseada de New
Bedford e uma area vasta que abrange mais de 728 hectares.
Materials contaminados por PCB e solucoes contendo me-
tais como chumbo, cadmio, cobre e cromo foram deposita-
dos na enseada durante varios decenios ate o fim da decada
de 70. O Corpo de Engenheiros do Exercito esta atualmente
fazendo um estudo piloto na enseada para avaliar tres me-
todos de dragagem e duas tecnicas de remocao dos sedimen-
tos poluidos.  As  atividades de dragagem deverao comecar
no  fim de agosto ou no  inicio  de setembro. Ja esta  em
construcao um Local de Descarga Confinado (CDF), que
sera usado para receber os sedimentos poluidos retirados da
enseada. A demonstracao do tratamento proposto e basica-
mente uma nova fase do estudo de viabilidade que esta sendo
preparado para o local e sera coordenada com as  atividades
do Corpo de  Engenheiros.
  O Grafico  1 apresenta um mapa da enseada, indicando o
CDF,  a  area de descarga  submarina (Area  de  Descarga
Aquatica Confinada—CAD),  o novo campo de futebol  e o
local de demonstracao da tecnologia proposta, entre o CDF
e a cerca de seguranca.

-------
                                        Exhibit 1
      Grafico 1
                                                                Proposed
                                                                Demonstration
                                                                Site
                                                                Confined
                                                                Disposal
                                                                 Facility
                                                                  (CDF)
                                    COGGESHALLST.^M
What
  The innovative technology  proposed to be demonstrated
was  developed  by CF Systems Corporation of Waltham,
Massachusetts.  The entire extraction unit is mounted on a
tractor-trailer truck so that it can be moved to the most
favorable location at Superfund sites. The unit uses propane
gas,  liquefied under pressure, to selectively extract PCBs
and  other complex organics from  contaminated sludge and
sediments. The propane gas is collected after treating sedi-
ments so that it can be reused in the process. At other pilot
study demonstrations, this extractor unit has been shown to
remove over 99% of the organics from sludges.
OQue?

  A nova tecnologia a ser demonstrada foi desenvolvida pela
CF Systems Corporation de Waltham, Massachusetts. Toda
a unidade de extracao e montada num caminhao reboquc de
trator para poder ser transportada ao melhor local das opc-
racoes do  Superfundo.  A unidade usa gas propano, lique-
feito sob pressao aha, para extrair seletivamente  os PCB e
outras substancias organicas dos sedimentos e detritos soli-
dos poluidos. O gas propano e recolhido depois do trata-
mento dos sedimentos para  ser reciclado  novamente no pro-
cesso.  Em outras demonstracoes do estudo  piloto,  essa
unidade de extracao mostrou ter capacidade de extrair 99%
das substancias organicas dos detritos solidos.

-------
 Exhibit 2 provides a simplified flow chart of the process.
                                                  Exhibit 2
   Simplified Flow Chart
   Here is the CF Systems unit operating cycle, for extracting and separating organics
   from contaminated sediments:
   1. Contaminated sediments fed
   into top of extractor.
                       Extractor
4. Mixture of propane and
organics leaves extractor.
passes to separator through
valve where pressure is
partially reduced.
           1.
          Sediments
   2. Condensed by compression
   at 70° F, propane flows
   upwards through extractor,
   making non-reactive contact
   with waste. Propane typically
   dissolves out up to 99 % of
   organics.
   3. Clean sediments
   then removed from
   extractor.
                                                                                                    Compressor
    Clean
 Sediments
Organics
5. In separator, propane
vaporized and recycled as
fresh solvent.

6. Organics drawn off from
separator, recovered for
disposal or reused off-site
in industrial processes.
How

  If the New Bedford  site  is approved, the demonstration
will be run for a two-week  period in early fall of this year.
The  demonstration is designed to  meet  the  following
objectives.

  1.  Determine the ability of the extraction process to re-
     duce PCBs  and  other  complex organics  in harbor
     sediments;
  2.  Determine the effectiveness of the technology to achieve
     decontamination  over  a  range  of  different   con-
     centrations;
  3.  Develop costs for  applications of the technology; and
  4.  Evaluate the process performance and  reliability.

  The demonstration equipment will  be operated only on
weekdays during normal business hours. The unit is  con-
structed such that there are no possible odor or noise prob-
lems. Air monitoring will be  conducted  regularly to assure
that there are no emissions. A locked trailer  will be used for
storage of cleaning chemicals  and the sediments before and
after treatment. The trailer and  the treatment unit will be
                         located within a temporarily-fenced area inside the security
                         fence erected by the Corps.  Security personnel will be on-
                         site  during  non-operational hours (nights and weekends)
                         unless the Corps of Engineers will also be on-site conducting
                         dredging operations during those hours. A strict health and
                         safety plan  will be prepared  for  the  project and will  be
                         followed  during set-up, demonstration, and removal of all
                         equipment and materials used  for the demonstration.

                           During their dredging activities, the Corps will provide
                         approximately 15 55-gallon drums of contaminated  sedi-
                         ment to the  developer of the technology. One drum of sedi-
                         ments will be run  through the extractor unit per  day. The
                         "cleaned" sediments will be evaluated after the test. If their
                         PCB levels do not exceed those of the sediments in  the CDF,
                         the decontaminated sediments  will  be handled in  the CDF.
                         Otherwise they will be shipped off-site. The small quantity
                         (less than half a drum) of concentrated  organics1 stripped
                         from the sediments  will be incinerated  off-site in a licensed
                         hazardous waste incinerator. The  solvents (less  than  five
                         drums) used for cleaning out the unit after the demonstra-
                         tion project  is completed will either be incinerated or recy-
                         cled off-site.

-------
O Grafico 2 apresenta um organograma simplificado do processo.
                                                       Grafico 2
      Organograma Simplificado
        Encontra-se aqui o ciclo de operatic da unidade dos
      CF Systems para extrair e separar substancias qufmi-
      cas organicas dos sedimentos polufdos.
                                  4.  Mistura de gas propano e substancias organicas
                                     sai do extrator, passa para o separador por meio
                                     duma valvula onde a pressao e parcialmente
                                     reduzida.
     1.  Sedimentos polufdos sao
        alimentados pela pane
        superior do extrator.
                          Extrator
             1.
            Sedimentos
      Gas propano, condensado
      por compressao alta a
      uma temperatura de
      70°C, sobe  pelo extrator
      entrando em contato nao-
      reativo com os detritos.
      O propano tipicamente
      extrai por dissolucao ate
      99% das substancias organicas
    3.  Sedimentos limpos sao
       removidos do extrator.
                                                                                                   Compressor
              5. No separador, o gas propano e
                 evaporado e reciclado no processo como
                 solvente novo.
              6. Substancias organicas sao extraidas
                 do separador, recolhidas para remocao
                 ou reutilizadas fora do local em
                 processes industrials.
                                        Sedimentos
                                           limpos
Substancias organicas
Como
  Se for aprovado o projeto da Enseada de New Bedford, a
demonstrable sera feita num periodo de duas semanas no
inicio do outono  deste ano. A demonstracao destina-se a
alcancar os seguintes objetivos:
   1.  Determinacao  da capacidade do processo de extracao
      de reduzir a concentracao de PCB e outras substancias
      organicas complexas nos sedimentos da enseada;
   2.  Determinacao da eficiencia da tecnologia em conseguir
      descontaminar uma ampla serie de sedimentos de di-
      ferentes concentracoes;
   3.  Estimativa do custo de utilizacao da tecnologia;
   4.  Avaliacao do desempenho e confiabilidade do processo.
  O equipamento de demonstracao so funcionara nos  dias
de semana durante o horario comercial.  A unidade e cons-
truida de tal maneira que nao havera  problemas de odor ou
barulho.  A qualidade do ar no ambiente sera vigiada fre-
quentemente  para assegurar que nao havera emissoes.  Um
carro-reboque trancado sera utilizado  como deposito para os
produtos quimicos de limpeza e os sedimentos antes e depois
do tratamento. O carro-reboque e a unidade de tratamento
estarao localizadas, dentro de uma cerca  de seguranca cons-
truida pelo Corp, Guardas de seguranca estarao  no local
fora  dos horarios normais dos dias  utcis (noitcs e fins de
semana) a nao ser que o Corpo de Engenheiros estara tam-
bem no local para realizar dragagem durante tais horarios.
Um  piano rigoso de saude e seguranca sera preparado para
o projeto o qual sera seguido  durante a iniciacao,  demons-
tracao e remo?ao de todo o equipamento e materials usados
para a demonstracao.
  Durante as atividades de dragagem, o Corpo de Enge-
nheiros fornecera ao fabricante  da tecnologia aproximada-
mente  15  barris de 208 litres de sedimentos polufdos.  A
unidade de extracao processara um barril de sedimentos por
dia.  Os sedimentos "limpos" serao avaliados depois do teste.
Se seus nfveis de PCB nao ultrapassarem os dos sedimentos
no CDF, os sedimentos  descontaminados serao tratados no
CDF. Caso contrario,  serao removidos do local.  A pequena
quantidade (menos da metade de um barril) de  substancias
organicas  concentradas, extraidas dos sedimentos, sera re-
movida da enseada para ser destruida  num incinerador de
detritos perigosos,  devidamente autorizado Terminada  a
demonstracao,  os solventes (menos  de cinco barris) usados
na limpeza da unidade serao incmerados ou removidos para
serem reciclados.

-------
If you know of someone who
list, please fill out and mail
Name-
Mailing List Additions
is not receiving information and would like to be placed on the New Bedford Harbor Super fund \itr mailing
this form to:
Paul Knittel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Public Affairs, RPA-2203
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts
Address-
Affiliafinn-

TV'Ifphnrv


Acrescimos a Lista de Endere?os
Se souber de alguem que queria receber informafdo sobre a area do Superfundo na Enseada de New Bedford, par favor, preencha o
formuldrio abaixo e remeta-o a:
Paul Knittel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Public Affairs, RPA-2203
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Nnmp;


Af;];^


-------
APPENDIX 2. LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS,




             AND TRADE NAMES

-------
                                         ACRONYMS
AOAC
ASTSWMO
ATS
CERCLA
CERI
CRF
CROW
DRE
EDDM
EMSL-LV
EPA
EP Toxicity
BSD
GAC
HSWA
ISV
KPEG
LSCD
LT3
MIS
NGA
NPL
NTIS
ORD
OSWER
OTA
PAHs
PCBs
PCDDs
Association of Official Analytical Chemists
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
Aqueous Treatment System
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Center for Environmental Research Information
Combustion Research Facility
Contained Recovery of Oily Waste
Destruction and Removal Efficiency
Experimental Debris Decontamination Module
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas
Environmental Protection Agency
Elutriate Procedure Toxicity
Electroacoustic Soil Decontamination
Granular Activated Carbon
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
In-Situ Vitrification
Potassium Polyethylene Glycolate
Liquid-Solid Contact Digestion
Low-Temperature Thermal Treatment
Mobile Incineration System
National Governors Association
National Priorities List
National Technical Information Service
Office of Research and Development
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Technology Assessment
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins

-------
PCDFs
PCPs
QA/QC
RCRA
R&D
RD&D
RFP
RREL
SARA
SDEB
SITE
STDD
TCDF
TCE
TEA
TSCA
USATHAMA
UST
UCS
uv
VOCs
WBAS
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
Pentachlorophenols
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
Research and Development
Research, Development, and Demonstration
Request for Proposal
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE Demonstration and Evaluation Branch
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Trichloroethylene
Triethylamine
Toxic Substances Control Act
United States Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Underground Storage Tank
Unconfined Compressive Strengths
Ultraviolet
Volatile Organic Compounds
Westinghouse Bio-Analytical Systems

-------
                                  ABBREVIATIONS
cm



CO



dscm



GC/MS



JP-4




kg



Ibs



mg



NOx



O2



ppb



ppm




psi



sec



2,4,5-T
Centimeter



Carbon Monoxide



Dry Standard Cubic Meter



Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrophotometer



Jet Propulsion Fuel



Kilogram



Pounds



Milligram



Nitrous Oxides



Oxygen



Parts Per Billion



Parts Per Million



Pounds Per Square Inch



Second




2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
AlgaSORB



B.E.S.T.



CHEMFIX



Chloranan



Oberlin



PACT



Pyretron



Silvex



Tyvek



URRICHEM



X*TRAX
                                    TRADE NAMES
Basic Extraction Sludge Treatment
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment

-------