unneo siaies environmental rroiecuon t
Washington. DC 20460
Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9380.3-04
2. Originator Information
Mail Cod*
OS-200
Office
OERR
Telephone Cod*
382-2180
Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris:
Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on Use of Superfund
Treatment Technologies
4. Summary ol Directive (include brief statement of purpose) ~~~~"~~~~
Recommendation 34A
The purpose of this memo is to transmit an analysis of the effectiveness
of treatment technologies for contaminated soil and debris in response
to the recommendation in the Superfund Management Review to "carefully
evaluate impact of RCRA land ban and other rules on use of alternative technologies,
5. Keyword*
6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directwe(s)?
b. Does tt Supplement Previous OtrecUve(s)?
n
No
No
Yes What directive (number, trte)
Yes What dlrectfce (number, tffle)
7. Draft Level
A-SlgnedbyAA/OAA
8 - Signed by Office Director
n=-
For Review & Comment
> - 8s Development
8.
Document to
•
be
**.
distributed
to
States
by Headquarters? | | Yt*
MW^M
No
Tnli Requeat Meets OSWER Olrectlvea System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
Betti VanEpps
10. Nam* and Title of Approving Official
Henry L. Longest II
Date
11-30-89
Date
11-30-89
EPA Form 131S-17 (Rev. S-«7) Previous edition* are obsolete.
sale**"
OSWER M OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
NOV 30
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9380.3-04
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Analysis of Treatability Data for Soil and Debris:
Evaluation of Land Ban Impact on Use of Superfund
Treatment Technologies
Superfund Management Review: Recommendation 34A
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia3/ty^f£<)nse (OS-200)
TO: Addressees
Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to transmit an analysis of the
effectiveness of treatment technologies for contaminated soil and
debris in response to the recommendation in the Superfund
Management Review to "carefully evaluate impact of RCRA land ban
and other rules on use of alternative technologies." This
analysis will provide support to Regional decisions to employ
treatability variances for complying with the RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions as applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements for Superfund actions involving contaminated soil
and debris.
Background
Th* Superfund Management Review acknowledged that Superfund
respongjfc-actions may not be able to meet treatment standards
basedJlpfbest demonstrated available technology" (BOAT) under
the L«a||tpisposal Restrictions (LDR). This may limit the
potentUr treatment technologies available for Superfund clean-
ups, with technologies such as soil washing, stabilization, and
biological treatment being precluded because they may not meet
the highest level of performance required by LDRs. In contrast,
the study encouraged the greater use of innovative technologies
and urged the reduction of non-technical barriers, such as
regulatory and policy constraints, that inhibit use of treatment
technologies, while preserving the intent and spirit of
applicable RCRA regulations.
-------
OSWER program offices recognized the potential limitation
treatment technologies for Superfund actions and developed a
process *bo use LOR treatability variances for soil and debris.
Guidance was issued to the Regions in July 1989 through the
Superfund LOR Guide 6A, "Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability
Variance for Remedial Actions" (OSWER Directive 9347.3-06FS) .
Superfund LOR Guide 6B, "Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability
Variance for Removal Actions," is scheduled to be issued in
December 1989. These guides describe the treatability variance
process, include alternate treatment levels to be obtained under
treatability variances, and identify treatment technologies which
have achieved the recommended levels. OSWER recognizes that the
use of treatability variances represents an interim approach and
is currently in the process of acquiring additional data for
developing a regulation on treatment standards for contaminated
soil and debris.
The following analysis summarizes the effectiveness of
treatment technologies applied to soils and other environmental
wastes and provides support for decisions by the Regions to use •
treatability variances, when appropriate. The analysis
identifies some of the key technical considerations to be
evaluated in obtaining a treatability variance when there is a
reasonable doubt that a technology operated at full scale cannot
consistently meet the BOAT treatment standards for the. soil and
debris to be treated.
Analysis of Treatment Effectiveness
An extensive effort was undertaken during 1987 and 1988 to
collect existing data on treatment of soil, sludge, debris, and
related environmental media. The results from several hundred
studies were collected and reviewed. All applicable treatment
information from 67 studies was extracted, loaded into a data
base, and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of technologies
to treat different chemical groups (Summary of Treatment
Technology Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil, U.S. EPA,
EPA/ 540/2-8 9/053) .
ugh some of the data on which the analysis is based
have Halted quality assurance information, the data,
nevertheless, do indicate potential effectiveness (at least 90%
to 99% reduction of concentration or mobility of hazardous
constituents) of treatment technologies to treat Superfund
wastes. Some reductions in organic concentrations or organic
mobility of more volatile compounds may actually represent the
removal of those compounds as a direct result of volatilization
during dechlorination, bioremediation, soil washing, or
immobilization, which requires consideration of appropriate
emission controls. Percentage removal reductions are not always
a good measure of effectiveness, especially when high
concentrations remain in the residuals. Some of the performance
-------
summarized below is based upon a relatively snail number of data
points and may not extrapolate well to the broad array of soils
requiring treatment.
Based on this analysis, a number of technologies commonly
used in the Superfund program provide substantial reduction in
mobility and toxicity of wastes as required in Section 121 of the
Superfund Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1986. For
example:
- Thermal destruction has been proven effective on all
organics compounds, usually accomplishing well over 99%
reduction of organics.
- Although the data indicate that PCBs, dioxins; furans,
and other aromatic compounds have been dechlorinated to
approximately 80%, more recent data indicating that
removal efficiencies may approach 99.9%.
- Bioremediation successfully treats many halogenated
aliphatic compounds, non-halogenated aromatics,
heterocyclics, and other polar compounds with reduction
efficiencies in excess of 99%.
- Removal efficiencies for low temperature thermal
desorption have been demonstrated with averages up to
99% for non-polar halogenated aromatics and with
treatment often exceeding 90% for other polar organics.
- Soil washing data on organic compounds indicate average
removal efficiencies of approximately 90% for polar non-
halogenated organics and 99% for halogenated aromatics,
with treatment often exceeding 90% for polynuclear
aromatics. The chemical extraction process, with
optimized solvent selection, has demonstrated removal
efficiencies often exceeding 90% for volatile and non-
volatile metals.
- Immobilization processes, while not actually destroying
the organic compounds, reduce the mobility of
contaminants an average of 99% for polynuclear aromatic
compounds. Immobilization may not effectively
stabilize some organic compounds, such as volatile
organics, and the long-term effectiveness of
... immobilization of organics is under evaluation.
Immobilization can achieve average reductions in
nobility of 93% for volatile metals, with reductions in
mobility often exceeding 90% for non-volatile metals.
The attachment contains a more detailed summary of the data
which is extracted from the "Summary of Treatment Technology
Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil."
Technology Limitations to be Considered
The data available suggest that treatment of soil and debris
with organic contamination by technologies other than thermal
-------
destruction will not be able to consistently achieve BOAT
standards. Therefore, other technologies should be used for
those wastes, only if approved under a treat ability variance.
The residual concentrations in contaminated soil treated by
technologies other than thermal destruction is highly dependent
upon the concentrations in the untreated soil. Therefore, when
evaluating technologies other than thermal destruction, the
ability of those technologies to treat high concentrations of
organics should be considered.
The Regions need to carefully review the site conditions and
characteristics in designing and operating materials handling,
pretreatment, and treatment requirements. High variability in
contaminant concentrations of untreated soil may have an adverse
effect on the ability to achieve treatment levels at higher
concentrations using technologies other than thermal destruction.
Consideration should be given to the need for blending wastes.
In selecting technologies for contaminated soils and
sludges, the number and types of contaminants must be carefully
screened, and, in some cases, different technologies may be
necessary for soils and sludges.
Implementation
The data indicate potential limitations of treatment
technologies to meet BOAT standards for Superfund wastes.
Superfund LDR Guide 6A outlines the treatability variance process
for Superfund soil and debris and identifies alternate treatment
levels. Guide 6A should be followed, when appropriate, until
OSWER completes a regulation with treatment standards for
contaminated soil and debris. The limitations on technologies
identified in this memorandum should be taken into account when
evaluating, selecting, designing, and implementing Superfund
response actions.
Attachment
Sylvia* Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Bruce Diamond, Director
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Directors, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Directors, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI
-------
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
-------
11/29/89
Attachment
TECHNOLOGY CONCLUSIONS ON SOIL TREATMENT
Extracted from "Summary of Treatment Technology
Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil" EPA /540/2-89/053
For each treatability group, the effectiveness of various technologies was
evaluated and is summarized in Figure 1. The following ratings were used:.
o Demonstrated Effectiveness: A significant percentage of the data,
202, are from pilot or full scale operations, the average removal
efficiency for all of the data exceeds 901, and there are at least
ten data pairs.
o Potential Effectiveness: The average removal efficiency for all of
the data exceeds 70Z.
o No Expected Effectiveness: The average removal efficiency for all
of the data is less than 70X and no interference is expected to this
process as a result of this group.
No Expected Effectiveness: Potential adverse effects to the
environment or the treatment process may occur. For example, high
concentrations of metals may interfere with biological treatment.
In some C*M«, a different rating vas selected when additional qualitative
inforaajl&ft and engineering judgment warranted.
Two i]i;aj|jTjr*ere used if the compounds within a treatability group were so
variafrfPtnar a range of conclusions could be drawn for a particular
technology.
cw2004
-------
11/29/89
TECHNOLOGY CONCLUSIONS ON SOIL TREATMWT
Extracted from "Summary of Treatment Technology
Effectiveness for Contaminated Soil" EPA /540/2-89/053
Thermal Destruction (See Figure 2)
Principle of Operation
o Thermal destruction uses high temperatures to incinerate and destroy
( hazardous wastes, usually by converting the contaminants to carbon
dioxide, vater, and other combustion products in the presence of
oxygen.
Effectiveness on Organics
o This technology has been proven effective on all organic compounds,
usually accomplishing veil over 99* removal.
o Thermal destruction technologies are equally effective on halogenated,
non-halogenated, nitrated, aliphatic, aromatic, and polynuclear
compounds.
o Incineration of nitrated compounds such as trinitrotoluene (TNT) may
generate large quantities of nitrous oxides.
Effectiveness on Inorganics
o Thermal destruction is not an effective technology for treating soils
contaminated with high concentrations of some metals.
o High concentrations of volatile metal compounds (lead) present a
significant emissions problem, which cannot be effectively contained
by conventional scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators due to the
small particle size of metal-containing particulates.
o Non-volatile metals (copper) tend to remain in the soil when exposed
to thermal destruction; however, they may slag and foul the equipment.
Dechlorination (See Figure 3)
Principle of Operation
o Dechlorination is a destruction process that uses a chemical reaction
to replace chlorine atoms in the chlorinated aromatic molecules with
an ether or hydroxyl group. This reaction converts the more toxic
compounds into less toxic, more water-soluble products. The
transformation of contaminants within the soil produces compounds that
are more readily removed from the soil. An evaluation of the end
products is necessary to determine whether further treatment is
required.
Effectiv«M*« on Organics
o l^te* dioxins, furans, and other aromatic compounds (such as
ggptitchlorophenol) have been dechlorinated to approximately SOX
removal, vith more recent data indicating that removal efficiencies
may approach 99.9*.
o Other limited laboratory data suggest potential applicability to other
halogenated compounds Including straight-chain aliphatics (such as
1,2-dichloroethane). The removal indicated by the data may be due in
part to volatilization.
o Although no data were available for halogenated cyclic aliphatics
(such as dieldrln), it is expected that dechlorination will be
effective on these compounds as well.
o When non-halogenated compounds are subjected to this process,
volatilization may occur.
cw2004
-------
Effectiveness on Inorganics
o Dechlorination is not effective on metals, and high concentrations of
reactive metals (such as aluminum), under very alkaline conditions,
hinder the dechlorination process.
Bioremwdiation (See Figure 4)
• •
Principle of Operation
o Bioremediation is a destruction process that uses soil microorganisms
including bacteria, fungi, and yeasts to chemically degrade organic
contaminants.
Effectiveness on Organ ics
o Bioremediation appears to successfully treat many halogenated
aliphatic compounds (1,1-dichloroethane), non-halogenated aroma tics
(benzene), heterocyclics (pyridine), and other polar compounds
(phenol) vith removal efficiencies in excess of 99Xj however, the high
removal implied by the available data may be a result of
volatilization in addition to bioremediation.
o More complex halogenated (4-4 'DDT), nitrated (triazine), and
polynuclear aromatic (phenanthrene) compounds exhibited lover removal
efficiencies, ranging from approximately SOX to 872.
o Poly-halogenated compounds may be toxic to many microorganisms.
Effectiveness on Inorganics
o Bioremediation is not effective on metals.
o Metal salts may be inhibitory or toxic to many microorganisms.
Lov Temperature Thermal Desorptlon (See Figure 5)
Principle of Operation
o Lov temperature thermal desorptlon is a physical transfer process th
uses air, heat, and/or mechanical agitation to volatilize contaminan
into a gas stream, where the contaminants are then subjected to
further treatment. The degree of volatility of the compound rather
than the type of substituted group is the limiting factor in this
process.
Effectiveness on Organics
o Removal efficiencies have been demonstrated by these units at bench,
pilot, and full scales, ranging from approximately 65X for polynuclear
aromatics (naphthalene), to 822 for other polar organics (acetone) and
99X for non-polar halogenated aromatics (chlorobenzene).
Effectiveness on Inorganics
o Lov temperature thermal desorption is not effective on metals.
o J9olj mercury has the potential to be volatilized at the operating
f IgiBaratures of this technology.
Che«ic«£ ft tract ion and Soil Washing (See Figure 6)
Principle of Operation
o Chemical extraction and soil vashing are physical transfer processes
in vhich contaminants are disassociated from the soil, becoming
dissolved or suspended in a liquid solvent. This liquid vaste stream
then undergoes subsequent treatment to remove the contaminants and the
solvent is recycled, if possible.
cv2004
-------
o Soil washing uses water as the solvent to separate the clay particles,
which contain the majority of the contaminants, fro* the sand
fraction.
o Chemical extraction processes use a solvent which separates the
contaminants from the soil particles and dissolves the contaminant in
the solvent.
Effectiveness on Organics
o The majority of the available soil washing data on organic compounds
indicates removal efficiencies of approximately 90X for polar
non-halogenated organics (phenol) to 99X for halogenated aromatics
,. (chlorobenzene), with lower values of approximately 71X for PCBs to
822 for polynuclear aromatics (anthracene).
o The reported effectiveness for these compounds could be due in part to
volatilization for compounds with higher vapor pressures (such as
acetone).
o This process is least effective for some of the less volatile and less
water soluble aromatic compounds.
Effectiveness on Inorganics
o The chemical extraction process, with optimized solvent selection, has
demonstrated removal efficiencies of 851 to 892 for volatile metals
(lead) and non-volatile metals (copper), respectively.
Immobilization (See Figure 7)
Principle of Operation
o Immobilization processes reduce the mobility of contaminants by
stabilizing them within the soil matrix, without causing significant
contaminant destruction or transfer to another medium.
o Volatile organics will often volatilize during treatment, therefore an
effort should be made to drive off these compounds in conjunction with
an emission control system.
Effectiveness on Organics
o Reductions in mobility for organics range from 61X for halogenated
phenols (pentachlorophenol) to 99X for polynuclear aromatic compounds
(anthracene).
o Immobilization is also effective (84X reduction) on halogenated
aliphatics (1,2-dichloroethane).
o Some organic mobility reductions of more volatile compounds may
actually be removals as a direct result of volatilization during the
exothermic mixing process and throughout the curing period.
o The immobilization of organics is currently under investigation,
including an evaluation of the applicability of analytical protocols
I, TCLP, total analysis) for predicting long-term effectiveness of
ibilization of organics. The preliminary available data indicate
significant bonding takes place between some organic contaminants
•certain organophilic species in the binding matrix; however,
>bilization may not effectively stabilize some organic compounds,
such as volatile organics.
Effectiveness on Inorganics
o Immobilization can accomplish reductions in mobility of SIX for
non-volatile metals (nickel) to 93X for volatile metals (lead).
cv2004
-------
FIGURE 1: PREDICTED TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
FOR CONTAMINATED SOIL
^"•^N^riCHiiauMJir
riVATAMUTYOMOU^^
NHM m All HJU mFMAlEfl
AfKMATC*
<"•'» •*£
PCItfcHAlOaEMAI^ii
OOXN9. FUMAN& MW
TMEW PVIECUNHMP^-;
l««l
HALOOENATEO PHENOL*.
CAESOtS. MIMES. TMKJL*.
AND OTHER POLM
AROMATIC* (WH|
HAIOOENATEO
Al»>HATC COMPOUMM
•nwHomnem
tesl
nwy rwv* IbnlMl «pp«utMkly lo high tov*k d oro*nici
-------
FIGURE 2: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION
TRCATAaWTVOROUP
MOWOLAN
HALOOEMATEO
AROMATCS
(Ml)
PCS*
HALOOENATEO
DIOKMS.FUAANS.
AND THEM
PREOUBOM
HALOQENATEO
PHENOLS. CRESOLS.
AMMES. THUS.
AND OTHER POLAR
AROMATCS
(W09)
HALOOENATEO
COMPOUNDS
HALOOBMTCDCVCLC '
ALPHATCS. ETHERS.
ESTERS. AND
KCTONIS
{WBS)
NITRATED
COMPOUNDS
(WO*)
MUMBUI AND SCALE
OFAVAftASilOATA
l«rui
111 PAHS
>«SENCH
•3 «PSjOT
•«B «
imiCNT_0«i
AVERAOE AVERAGE
OONCENTRATCNS REMOVAL
S«M| EFFCCNCV
•JfLUEMT . t.'OO >00 «.
KFtUEMT POM
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
fen*) EFFCCNCV
MFLUENT MO M %
AVERAGE AVERAGE
OONOENTRAnONS REMOVAL
*p^ EFFCCNCV
•JRUENT 1L >» %
ftnirtn O.OIt
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTHATCfM REMOVAL
*•«« EFFCCNCV
MTUCNT TV W «
EFFLUENT JZ.
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATKM8 REMOVAL
&*H EFFCKNCV
MFLUENT *».0°0 2i »
Ef FLUENT ___222.
OCNERAL OeSCRVATIONS
*
j This Ischrulagy vMMfcs very wsi at optimum operasrig oondrlons on a variety of MM conosnkasons.
• Bromlnated compounds wUI Inhibit lame propagation.
• High levels of add gases produced In tie presence ol oxygen wW attack fta latnctaiy wafs and
exposed metal surfaces.
MH> t^*mmj*jyj wwini vwy win m iywiR»ii u|)eisw>j vmnn»mi» on a vansiy oi •nisi oonosrajasuns.
* myfii wvws w auu gaMw IMUVKMT^U mi uw presence oi oxygen HM •itaoi Sie levaciory wsas and
exposed metal surfaces.
frOffl QM •flMMOflft.
• Hvfjrh cuncvMattisiitNis of odd Qmt praduosd hi *tit praMnost ol ojcyjoo wfl tttuJk MM fcfittdory wMafs
and •ttpOMd m»Ml surteMt.
* TWsi MKtvioloQy wonift WM d opvisum op*M0awy tWHbJHiwbsi on tn WMty of InNul ooiMMnfeflaiont.
oKectve.
a 1-ssVaH iBBftfatlsl fsl aV4ll fsaMaMt naTw4 BTaWl Ilk tfrlsl iBTsMsMiral flf A WAaWl ssstt slMaafil atsal • Bal •aTJTIfM ttnafa aWl
oxposed metal surfaces.
• This technology works wed at optimum operating conditloris on a variety ol Mttal concentations.
• High amounts ol nitrous gases may be released into the atmosphere H not oontroesd by a nitrous
oxide burner.
-------
FIGURE 2: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
THERMAL DESTRUCTION (CONT.)
IMATAaajTVONOUP
HE1EROCVCLICS
ANO84MPIE
NONHALOOCMATEO
AROMATtca
POLVMJCLEAR
AROMATtca
OIICR POLAR
NON HALOOCMAf EO
OROAMC
COMPOUNDS
(VMM)
NONVOLATILE
MCTALS
|WIS|
VOLATILE
METALS
(MM I)
Of AVMLpJBU •AM
$&§JinS$
~^zi^
• * «FUU
* PAIRS
**» BENCH
• HFULL
34 PAIRS
39 « BENCH
OKFU.L
OPAMB
0« BENCH
OKPH.OT
• PAIRS
*» BENCH
°XPHOT
AVCRAQC CONCENTRATIONS (PFM
ANO«RlMOVALe
AVERAGE AVERAOE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
*pn4 EFFICIENCV
INFLUENT 7«P >•» *
EFFLUENT, ?977
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
top** EFFICIENCV
BM.UENT '.000 >M %
EFFLUENT . 0 32
AVERAGE AVERAGF
CONCENTRATIONB REMOVAI
^fm EFFICIENCY
INFLUENT <*> 99 »
EFFLUENT 0 »
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
frpn* EFFICIENCV
MFLUENT 0 0»
EFFLUENT ?.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
(pffli) EFFICIENCV
INFLUENT . 0 0 »
EFFLUENT 0
OS-RAiO-™™*.
• This technology works very wei at opilmum operating condMons on a variety olMUal
• Low lemperature thermal desorotlon may be more coat effective.
• This technology woifcs very wef at optimum operating condWons on a variety of InMlal
concentrations.
• This technology works we! at optimum operating condUona on • variety ol biMal
concentrations.
• The physical and/or chemical chwacted^lcsoflheconstllueritsoflhtoi^salabMy
gFPtf> (nrflc^la Mi^ Ihb lechnology wnukl QQ| be effective.
posskly reduce the mobWy ol these metats by blndbig lha matala Into ttta soHd residue.
• Pyrolysls and Inlrared thermal destruction may reduce the mobWry ol these metals by bbtolng the
metals Into the solid residue.
0 •
-------
FIGURE 3: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
DECHLORINATION
TREATABMOTOROUP
NON-POLAR
HALOGE MATED
AROMATIC*
(WOI)
pea*.
HALOGE MATED
DOKMS. FURANB.
AND THEM
PRECURSOR*
(WOO)
HA1OOE MATED
PHENOLS. CRESois.
AMMES. TMOLS.
ANDOTMERPOLAR
AROMATC*
CAW*
AirHATC
COMPOUND*
HALOQENATED CYCLIC '
ALVHAT1CS. ETHERS.
ESTER*. AND
K£ TONES
(WOU
NITRATED
COMPOUNDS
(WOil
NUMBER AND SC All
Of AVAKABLE DATA
O.UFLU
_UPAM*
3% PLOT
0« FULL
? PAIRS
100 U BENCH
?»Pi.OT
If PAN*
IQO U BENCH
0 HPLOT
0 *FUU
0 PAIRS
0» BENCH
0«PIOT
OKFULL
OP AIRS
..OUBENCH
0 it PIOT
0 xFUIl
AVCRAOC COMCCNTRA1MNB tap«|
AMP « REMOVALS
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
tapir* EFFCCMCV
ariLCNT i«o S2. »
ttttirm t *
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATDNS REMOVAL
ftp* EFFCCNCV
BtflUENT »*0 81 %
EFFLUENT <•«.
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATK1NS REMOVAL
(MM« EFFCCNCV
•FLUENT *» 8« »
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION* REMOVAL
fen* EFFCCNCV
tVLUENT 330 9* «
EFFLUENT 044
AVERAOC AVERAGE
CONCENTRATCMS REMOVAL
topm) EFFCCNCV
•FLUENT 0 0 «
EFFLUENT 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATKMS REMOVA1
tvn4 EFFCIENCV
INFLUENT P Ox
H(IU£NI 0
OENERAL oaSMVATION*
•Data were for chtorobenzene only. These data suggest that M* lechnotogy I* potmfMjy effective
In certain situations.
• This technology Is potentially effective, especially for sandy soils.
• Data on sludges show better removal due to more uniform distribution of contaminants and better
reagent contact
• Lower Initial concentrations give lower removal efldende*.
• Moisture content over 4 to 7% deactivates the NaPEG reagent.
• Particle size and soil matix affect reagent penetration and process effectiveness.
• Recent data Indicate that greater than 00% of PCBs and furans can be destroyed
(des Hosiers. 1068).
• Data were for pentachlorophenol only. These data suggest that IN* technology is potentially
effective In certain situations.
• Recent data Indicate that greater than 00% of contaminants can be destroyed
(des Hosiers. 1068).
• Some haJogenated alphatics react with fie APEO reagents to form explosive compounds.
•spedaly in fie presence of heavy metals. The potential for fit* to occur should be evaluated
In the laboratory before dechtorlnation treatment to selected.
• The high removal efficiency may be the result of votatiUzation or the APEQ process acting a* a
soH washing process.
physical and chemical characteristics suggest that tNs technology Is potentially effective
In certain situations. TreatabWiy studies wiU be needed to conftrm the technology's
effectiveness.
• Data were not available available for this treatability group.
• The physical and/or chemical characteristics of the constituents of this trealabUily
group Indicate thai tiiis technology would QQ| be effective
-------
FIGURE 3: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
DECHLORINATION (CONT.)
t HEAIAMJTV OHOUP
HETENOGVCUC8
AMDUW1E
NON-HAlOQflMlEO
AROMATIC*
(MM7|
POLVMUCIEAR
AAOMATICa
AVM)
OIHER POLAR
MOM44ALOOEMATEO
ONOAMC
COMPOUND!
|WM|
NONVOLATILE
METAL*
(wia>
VOLATILE
METMA
(Wll)
OFAVAJUpUMfA
• »a*or
• UFUU.
|MM§
J??»«WCH
a«MLOT
°_*FUU.
_LS««
_!^*«NCH
fupnoT
?*FUU
OMMS
**ie»*CH
?*Hior
• *«**.
?PAHW
?«MNCH
?»«ior
°XfUl
AVIIUOI coNCEMnuriam i***
*MD«MMOVALa
AVERAOE AVEMAOE
OONCCMIfUriONS REMOVAL
^•4 EFFIOiNCV
MFLUEMT 8.300 8* K
EfFtUENT 23
AVEMAOE AtCHAOC
OONCfMnMriONB MUOVAL
^^4 EFftCICNCV
MF1UEMI . 3,*>0 91 n
EFFIUEMT f*P
AVCRAOE AVERAOE
CONCEMnMTKMi REMOVAL
^«t EFHCKNCV
MFLUEMT '."*> •• %
EFFLUENT *>
AVEHAOE AVERAOE
OOMCENnUTIOM REMOVAL
tW«| EFFICIEMCV
MFIUEMT 0 0 «
EFFLUENT *
AVERAOE AVERAQE
CONCENTRATIONB REMOVAL
(yfni) EfFICKMCV
MFLUENT * 0 »
EFFIUEMI , 0
OENUUL OMUWATIOIM)
'JtoptysW*^otctw^ch»irt»riafootfocon&i™t»ol1Hkti9**aty
aroup «i00««l that Ihto laehnotooy would ug b* •Itodlv*.
• TIM> high rMTWval aMdwicy may U» lh« r««ik ol voUlUU^Ion or Ih* APEO proc*M
•ctlny M • «oN wadtlng proc«a».
• Th« phyalMl and/or chwnlcal characteristic* ol lha consMuwiU ol IMa IraatabWy
group auggMt thai Ihte lachootooy w»u»d og| ba affactfva.
• TIM high ramoval •Mctoncy may b* lh» ra«uft ol volattHzatton or tM APEQ procaaa
adlng a* a soil washing procaaa.
• Th« physical amVor chanted charactorlstfca of ttw conattuanteolthlalfMlabNty
group auggaat thai Ihla lachnology would not ba attocthra.
• Tha high ramoval aMdancy may ba Iha ratul of volalltaalloo or tha APEO procau
acting aa a aol washing prooaaa.
• Thaphv^caJamVorchan^calcharadarMlcaollhaconatkuaiteolthtotnutab^
group Miggaai thai Ihla lachnology would noj ba adacaVa.
• Tha physical and/tor chamlcal characteristic* ol tha conalluanla of tfila IraaiaMMy
group auggaol (hat ihta lachnology would not ba alfactiva.
-------
FIGURE 4: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
BIOREMEDIATION
TREAT Aaomoaoup
HA1OOENATEO
AROMArC*
PC*B.
HALOOENATED
DOCM9. FUMAN*.
AND THEM
PNECURSON*
OMB)
MM COt MATED
PMMCXS.CNESOL*.
AMMES. THO.S.
ANDOTHERPOUM
AMOMAIC*
» «
CFFtUENT PM7
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION* REMOVAL
*fM« EFFCCNCV
MFIUENT 0 0_ «
EFFLUENT 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCCNIHATONS WMOVAl
MM* EFFCKNCV
INFLUTNT «3.000 82 x
OENENAL OMUWA1WM*
• This technology 1* not effective lor aN contaminants In IN* dan; however. ti*r*hnmansa1lm
sWfaVthAMlaiatl •VaT ITHM btltffal r sTalM sX atlH ll 1 1 n • •aaT*lS haTsiSaw rtaii ulnnraiai iat
t«alm«nl of app.ica.bto waslM.
• Th94yfM.v.inM«olthf«t.Kitf.^^
• The tone data pair Is PCBs.
• Ongoing research suggest* that Ms technology may be potcntiatty aftocsVa tor tt* group.
• This technology Is potentialy effective tor tow InMa) ooncanftatlon*.
• Toxic compound* such as cyanides, arsenic, heavy metal*, and some organic* adversely affect tfie
traatmant.
• BtoramadiaVon 1* a stow process.
• Btoremedkaton ha* tow costs relative to other technologies.
• TW* technology 1* poientialy effectrve tor tow toMel ooncankatton*.
• Toxic compounds such *to cyWsM^t, «VMnlc, hMvy nMtals, and somo ornwilcs fttvaWi0*y (UFvct »tw
frMtnMnt.
• Removal may aduaMy represent volatJlza*on during preprocessing and treatment.
and chemical oharactert*«ce suggest that «Ws leo)«iotogy niay be poterillaty atlectlve to certain
situation* with tow InMat concentration*.
• This technology Is poientialy effective on tiese oontominanls. espedaJry at tow concentrations.
• Some ol ihe available data lor Biis lnwlubikty gim<> w**# based on very high Initial concentrations,
concentrations.
• Bioremediation requires unilormly mixed media with small particle sixes.
• Toxic compounds such as cyanides, arsenic, heavy metals, and some organlcs adversely affect tie
treatment.
• Preprocessing includes mixing and nuklent and organism addition.
• Bkxremediaban is a stow process.
-------
FIGURE 4: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
BIOREMEDIATION (CONT.)
TNt ATAaaJTV OJWUP
HTTEMOCVCUCS
ANDOMPLE
NON44ALOOENATED
AAOUATICa
** *
CFHUENT __££?*
AVCMAOE AVCRAOE
OONCEMTRATIOM REUOVAL
H0H EFFICISMCV
MR.UEMT t>0 •' K
EFFtUCMT 3<
AVCRAOE AVERAOC
CONCENTRATION* RCUOVAl
*PM| EFflOENCV
MF11CMT 04 >9Q «
EFHUENT >»
AVERAOE AVERAOE
CONCENTHATKMS REUOVAL
IH*i EFFKIENCV
MHUENT 0 0 «
EFRUEMT 0
AVERAOE AVERAOE
CONCENTRATIONB REUOVAL
(ff«ty •Nad Irwilnwnl.
• PraprocaMlng Include* mlxtng and nutitarri aod organlMn addMon.
• BlorwiwdMlon to • clow procau.
• Bior*m0dUlk>n ha> low coels rvtallv* lo olh*r Iccttnologto*.
• Removal may actuaty raprataol volallHzallon during praproo»Mlng and traatnwnl.
• Thto lachnology to potantlaMy aftodlv* lor low InMal oonoanlraNoM.
• BlorarrMOlatlon r*qulra> unlbrmly mlxod madhi wMh arnal parMcto sizaa.
• Toxic compounds «uch aa cyanld**. arsenic, haavy malato. and Mm* organic compound*
advarsaly aHact Iraalnwnl.
• Preprocessing Includes mining and nutrient and organism addMon.
• BJoremedlatlon to a slow process.
• Bloremedlallon has tow costs relative to other lachnotogtoa.
• Thto technology to potentlalry ertoctlve lor tow Initial MiwantraNona.
• Btotamedtollon rao)jlres uniformly mixed medU wMi amaM parllde sbea.
adversely aHad Ireatmenl.
• Bloremediatlon to a slow process.
• Bloremedlallon has tow costo retatlve lo other lachnologtoa.
• Removal may aoluaty represent volatMzatlon during praprooaaalng and treatment
• Tha physical and/or chemical characteristics of tfia consttuenteot into IreatafaMy group
suggest NisJ the lachnology would ool be eltocHva.
• High concentrations ol heavy rmtato may adversely artoct particular organisms.
• The physical and/or chemical charactertottca ol the constituents ol this treatabiUy group
suggest thai the tochr^ logy would AO! be ertoctlve.
-------
FIGURE 5: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION
TMAT ASM/TV ONOUr
NOMPOLAR
HALOOENATEO
AROMATCa
T
O.UFUU.
'00% BENCH
2»PS,OT
0%FULL
_13?PA«S
23 UFULL
QPAMS
OUKNCH
B%PS.OT
ft* FULL
0 PAIRS
0% BENCH
_ o*p»or
0 »»uil
AVCJUOC CONCENniAIIONS topa*
AMD » REMOVAL*
AVERAOE AVERAGE
OOMCENTRATUNS REMOVAL
fepfflt EFFCCNCV
•*U«NT '*> S* *
EFFLUENT OO7
AVERAOE AVERAGE
OONCENTRATION8 REMOVAL
ftp* EFFCCNCV
MFLUENT fi. fi. »
EFFLUENT 0
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATOMS REMOVAL
MM« EFFCCNCV
MFLUENT MO 2. »
EFRUENT «1
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATKMS REMOVAL
ftp* EFFCCNCV
alamdffff SflO 04 «•
EFFUCNT If,
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATOa REMOVAL
fep"4 EFFCCNCV
MFLUENT i 0 %
EFFLUENT *
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATORS REMOVAL
&m EFFCKNCV
MFLUENI 0 9. *
EFFlUENT ?_
OENENAL oeecnvAnoNe
• Although this technology was not expected to perform wet on Ms treatabtrty group, to data htm
— "" *-1-*- "^tT-r* hrg*iTT fTfTrntlnj imrriratitris imrt Innjir nillsnns anias Imlrata tial many
of the compounds In this group may be Veatad by this technology wit) potential aflatHvemis.
• This technology Is not recommended lor to freatnent of waste mixtures which contain high
concert! atioos of metallic anoVor organic kxms of mercury, unless emissions are condoled.
• This technology has demonsVated effectiveness on some of the more volatile contaminants In this
group, and it is potentially effective on to remaining contaminants.
• No data were available.
• The physical anoVor chemical characteristics ol the constituents of Ms keatabtUty group
ouggest tot this technology would not be effective.
• This technology is not recommended lor to taaknent of wast* mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are oontoaad.
• Although the data suggest that Ms technology to not as effective with Ms Ireatabiity group, to
lochnology. II operated at higher temperatures and residence times, may suooessluly treat
many of tie compounds in this group.
concentrations of metallic anoVor organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are oontroMad.
• Tfw itcnnoiogy wonts WMI on mis • Muuwjvy group.
oonosniratkMwc4melallfc«vlAxarajaniclon^
• No data were available lor this treatabiUry group.
• The physical anoVor chemical characteristics of to constituents of Ms Ireatabllrty group
suggest tot this technology would noj be effective.
• This technology Is not recommended lor to teaknant ol waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic anoVor organic forms of mercury, unless emissions are controlled.
• No data were available for this fraatabiUty group.
• This technology Is not recommended lor tie treatment ol waste mixtures which contain high
concentrations of metallic and/or organic forms ol mercury, unless emissions are contorted.
-------
RGURE 5: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION (CONT.)
TMi AI AftUVV OMOUP
HE1EROCVCLIC8
AND SIMPLE
NONJiALOOtMAI EO
AROMATIC*
(MM7)
POLVNUCLCAR
AROMATIC*
(WM)
OTHER POLAR
MON HALOOENAIED
OROAMC
COMPOUNDS
(WOS)
MOM- WHAT**
METALS
|WIS)
VOLATK.E
METALS
(Wll|
a*Mr«MMj|a«iA
Jll^jpP*
JSLMwoV'
_H.»«u*r
_**_»fuu
f2pAMS
__?£»«EMCM
M* PILOT
13 % FULL
* PAIRS
82 » BENCH
*»P*OT
_!£»fUU
OPAMS
0« BENCH
g«PM>T
9«FULL
o. PAHS
0 % JEMCM
0*P*01
0 »fu«l
AMNAOC OOMCCMnUnOM* t«^
AMOWMEWOVAL*
AVEHAOE AVERAOC
CONCENTIUnONB REMOVAL
lff*l EFFWIENCr
MHUiNT MO S« »
fmUCNI __L1
AW1HAOC AVCRAOE
^4 EFFICCNCV
INFLUENT M
-------
FIGURE 6: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING
TRCATASttmOROUP
NOHPOLAR
HALOGENATEO
AROMATCS
90 «.
EFFLLKNT 032
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATOM REMOVAL
kpn| EFFCCNCV
MFLUENT P_ 0 «
EFFLUENT Z.
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
9pn* EFFCCNCV
MFLUENT 6.9OO >99 X
OCM1RAI. OSaCRVAnONB
* MJiM-cwira may manm to mv SON «na rwjuov KM pvrmMDMiy.
• Postlbto volatt* wnlsslon lottat may oocur during tr«atm«ni.
* i ras Mcnrtoiugy n poieniiaHy anacnva on mesa comarninanis wnri runner asvawpmsnl.
• Some ol tha avalable data tor mis treatabttity group wara based on vary high hWal oonoanlratons;
however consideration should be given to the abWty of tia technology to treat Ngh InWal
oonoentations.
• Tha presence ol ol In lie matrix enhances removal.
• Tha removal efficiency decreases as tie percent ol days and dayay sits Increases.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and raduca sol permeabity.
• Data ware from penlachlorophanol only.
• TNs technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants, aspadafly lor treating sandy soils.
• Surfactants may adhere lo the soil and raduca sol permeabilty.
• TMsleohrtotogy to poientalyarlecsVa on thasa cental
• This technology may be more anpaoahte to sandy sols.
• Surfactants may adhere to tha soH and raduca sol permeabity.
• Data ware not avalable lor Ms »eatabMty group. Data tor compounds wfth similar
certain situations.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce sol permeabilty.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants. However, data are limited and
lasting was conduded at bench scale.
-------
FIGURE 6: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION AND SOIL WASHING (CONT.)
TREAT AajUTVOROUP
ANOSMPLE
MONHAlOGENAIED
AROMAICS
(WOT)
POLVNUCIEAR
ANOMATCS
09 »
C^T^Il
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAI
Mpn« EFFCCNCV
•FLUENT 1.600 £ %
EFFLUENT __MO
AVERAOE AVERAOE
CONCENTRATKMS REMOVAL
t«M« EFFCCNCV
ttnufui 18.000
AVERAOE AVERAOE
CONCENTRAnONS REMOVAL .
ta|M« EFFCCNCV
•TLUENT 21 ?». »
EFFLUENT Li
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL .
fern* EFFCKNCV
MFLUENT 71 65 »
FFFI1IOII ,10
_____
GENERAL OBSCMVA1MNS
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants but nearly aN data arc from bench
• Volatile emissions may occur during treatment.
• Surfactants may adhere to the soil and reduce soH permeability.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants wttt furfier development.
• Some of the available dnta for this treatabHity group were based on very high InMal ooncenVatloni
however, consideration should be given to tie abttty of the technology to treat high Meal
concentrations.
• Surfactants may adhere to the sol and reduce soH permeabllty.
• irws lecnnoiogy is potentially enecuve on inese contaminants.
• oome 01 me avaHarjie oau nr mis neataDiuiy group were Deiea on very ragn mnai concenwaoons,
however, consideration should be given to «ie abttty of ttw technology to treat high WtW
concentrations.
• Treatment eff ecflveness should be evaluated on a case-by-oase basis.
• Surfactants may adhere to the sol and reduce sol parmeatiBtly.
• Votalle emissions may occur during freatnent.
• W*ler ••IH}SO4 alapHdl I.0^ide3.l nwler i*lto ol EOTA at a pH ol 12.0 tan
• Iron (1 -2%) may cause solvent regeneration problems.
• This technology Is potentially effective on these contaminants, espedaly tor sandy soHs.
• Silty and clayey soils are not as effectively Seated.
• Arsenic may be difficult to extract due to bw sdubHIty.
Ftoducftm ki Motttry
-------
FIGURE 7: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
IMMOBILIZATION
nK«f«MUTV« WOT
?_*M/U.
?PAJ«
?» BENCH
?*F»OT
°»FUU
°PAMa
°» BENCH
f * PHOT
°«.FOtl
AVUUOI OOMCf NTNATIONi fcf-4
AMO«IKMOVAL«*
AVEMAOE AVI IMOE
CONCEMTIMIIONB MMOVAI
(9^4 EFflCIENCv'
4B*HJEMT 31 63 %
cmajCMT «•«
AMMAOC AVEMAOE
OONCCMTIUTIONB REUOVA1
^f«t EFFICIfMCV*
MHUEMT •. * «
EFRUEMT P
AVCRAOE AVERAGE
CONCCNIfUTIOMB REMOVAl
(f^H EFFKIENC/
INFLUENT ?•> *f «
EFRUENT ___U.
CONCENTflAnaNi WEMOVAt
W«4 imCKNCr
INFLUENT «l •• »
QH.UBIT 0-X
AVEMAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONi REMOVAl .
t**4 EFFICIEMCV
MFIUENT £. £ »
EFFIUENT . 9
AVERAGE AVERAOE
CONCCMIRAIIOMI RCUOVAI ,
(^n^ EfflCltNCV
MFIUCNT • £ »
EFFLUENT •
OCMMAL OMMVATION*
• Data Mwr* lor cMorotent «iw only.
• Th«M cUla •ogoad thai Ihto lacriootogy to pofwifety •Meet** In oartaln OuMona,
pwttailanV wriw* tti* hilM conowitrallon to low.
• Th« lr«alnwn< m»ch«ntwn lor Irw mon votalte compound* may b* volal»Xatlon M oppoxd to
Immobttratfon. Ak polutlon control ayrtarm may bo naoMtary to mlnlmfra croa* rmdhi
Impact* from lh*»a votollto •mtoatona.
t M IA n^il rA/vwtwi^wwiAH Ih^ Ilife tartinf^fi/vu h* AAWr4A«l H tlifa !• IkA nnk/ lrA^^iHhf rviMMi fW^aAnt
« Incomptola ouanHUUvo data war* avadabto to avaluat* Iraalmanl aN»c4lv*n*M. Tbaa*
quanttatlva data and addWonal qualHallva IntormathMt •ugo**t thai Into technology to
potantlaiy artecttva In cartaln rtuallona. partlculanV ortara tha InJUat canoanlrallon to tow.
• N to not raoornmandad that Into technology ba aatortad M Ihto to lha only Iraatabflry group praaanl
•N«ctfv« In certain vftuattons, p*ticutorty whar« tfw InAkl ooncantmllofi b low.
• That *JfcartkM«laMal nf thl« tArflfW^TWlW All itlalalA •*AfftfaMdltBinAtt ffllanr ha* HIHaWaWlt HlAft Itltt fiatfal
Imply, dua to Hmtatlon* In lha laal condklons.
• (I to not racommandad that tfito technology ba aatoctad H Ihto to lha only UaatabMy group prMani
• Though ttiaaa data auggnat thai Ihto lachnotogy to potonltoly affactfv* In cartaki t4lM*fot^
partfcutorty whara lha Inlllal concentration to low.
• Tha imsiuHinnt ki nw^JHhi mav ha iti* to wnl^Mr^hn ni tha vtrf^lfai iv>*~~»"^^*« fftirinn triatffl'ft
. N to not racommandad Ihot *tto technology ba aatocted N Into to tha onVlraaUMrygrotf>praaarii
•Data war* not avaNabto lor Ihto IraatabWy group. O*a tor compound* wMi aWtaf phyakal
and chamlcal charadartetlca auggaat that Ihto lachnotogy to potanttoly aNac*M> In cartaki
•feuatlona. particularly whara lha InWal concontraHon to low.
• N to not racommandad that thto technology ba Mtoctad U Ihto to lha only Iraatafatty group praaMii
4
• Oala wara not avaNabto for Ihto traatabltty group. Data tor compounds w«h afcnlar prqralcal
and chamlcal characlartctlca »ugga«« that thl* lachnotogy to potonllaly attecUva In cartaln
etuatlona. particularly whara lha InWal ooncanlrattona ara low.
-------
FIGURE 7: FINAL CONCLUSIONS BY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
IMMOBILIZATION (CONT.)
IM ATAamjW OMOUP
HETEROCVCiea
AMDSMME
NON HALOOENAIEO
AROMATIC*
(WO»J
POtVNUCLEAft
AROMATIC*
(MNM|
OTHER POLAR
NON HA100EMAIEO
OROAMC
COMPOUNDS
(MM*)
MONVOLATtf
METALS
*««•)
VOUWLE
METALS
0*1 1)
OFAVAa-MUMIA
^1$
_j»w^.j^f
•
AVEMAOE AVEMAOE
OONCCMTfMtlOMB REMOVAL
tfta^ EFFICttMCV*
IMFLLKMT 30 M «.
EFFLUENT , 0 03
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIONS REMOVAL
tf~t EFFICIENCV*
EFFLLCMT *••
AVERAOC AVERAGE
CONCENTRATIOMi REMOVAL
fcW* EFFICIENCV*
INFLUENT ?• Si *
gfFLUEMT 03*
AVERAOE AVERAGE
CONCENIRAnONS REMOVAL
{ft** EFFICIENCV*
MF1UENT WO A3 u
EFFLUENT ___!_£
OCNCMAL OMHWATIOtMl
• Though HMS* data Miggast thai this technology to potantUlK/ •llMttv* In oMUJn rturtons.
partlcuUuty *•>«• In* InMlal concwtballon b tow. th* TSducUons In mobiMy imy te due lo Nw
voblMzallon ol votaMte organic compound* during Iraalmanl.
•mtMlons.
• N la not racomnwndMi thai thb l*chnology te Mtected N into to MM only UMtabMy grot? (vacant
• Thaaa Hmtad data wgoact that Into lachnology Is potanttaly allacUv* In certain aluatfons. pMtHcutarV
w^tafa Iha biUal concanttatlon b low.
• inaaa uniiaa oaia •uggvn inai ITM lacnnoiogy • poianoaiy anacuva M canam Muaoont, panKMany
wham Iha Initial concanUailon la low.
• Tha Iraaimanl machanlcm lor Iha moca volatte compound* may ba volatMzaionaaoppotadlo
IrrvnohMiatton Ah poftrtkm control syslama may ba nacaaaary to mlnlmlia cn>aa marfla fcupartt
• N to not mconvnMMlMl thai Mill t*chnoloay b* MlMltd N this Is •%• only IrvalabMy O^^UP pfMsnt.
• High tovah ol ol and graaaa may Marten wUi Iha procaaa.
• SdubN) sails ol Ug. Sb. 2h. Co. and Pb may Martara wkh tha poxzolan raacHon.
• High tovata ol auNataa may Marlara wtti Iha prooaaa.
• PraUeatmant may ba raojulrad to Incraaaa pH.
• Basad on Via pHot acaw data WHS laclmotogy woms was on VMM contammantt. aama oanm scaw _
data, was not raprasanlaltva ol optimum coridttlons.
• High lavato ol ol and graasa may Marlara wMt tha procaas.
• Solubla saNs ol Mg. Sb. Zn. Co. and Pb may (ntartara wlh Iha pouolan raacion.
• High tovals ol sullalaa may Marlara with Iha procaas.
• Pratraatmant may ba raqubad to Incraasa pH.
------- |